'Every problem can be solved. That is how I approach life,” Dilan Yesilgöz told journalists on Wednesday. She was asked about it because formation partner Geert Wilders had announced that morning that the forming parties had “a problem”. The VVD faction in the Senate had decided on Tuesday to vote in favor of the dispersal law, to the dismay of the PVV leader, who tweeted “MY HEAVEN” with a shocked emoji behind it.
The forming parties therefore had a problem because the VVD senators wanted to solve a problem. That was one of the reasons for voting for the law after two days of debate: that local administrators, including those from the VVD, called the dispersal law a solution for the unevenly distributed, often ad hoc and therefore unnecessarily expensive asylum reception.
Coincidentally, a report had been published that same Tuesday in which the State Commission on Demographic Developments attempted to formulate a solution for the impending scarcity if the population continues to grow so quickly. The government must slow down immigration, according to the committee: if the population exceeds 20 million, it would put too much pressure on healthcare, education, the housing market and social cohesion.
A gift for a new right-wing coalition, it sounded in analyses. Some involved, such as BBB MP Mona Keijzer, immediately embraced the report. But could the forming parties actually do much with the measures proposed by the committee?
NSC probably the most. Pieter Omtzigt called the report on The committee advocates a more selective policy: bringing people here to work in healthcare, but discouraging immigration for sectors that contribute less to broad prosperity, such as agriculture and the temporary employment sector.
It would mean a drastic change. If you really want fewer labor migrants, migration expert Hein de Haas said on Tuesday On 1, “then you will have to implement economic and labor market policies that are at odds with the liberalization policies of the past thirty years.” In his book How migration really works De Haas describes that it is mainly the economic elites who benefit from labor migration – say, the VVD voters.
Would Yesilgöz, who believes that every problem can be solved, also be open to this kind of solution? Or would the VVD opt for symbolic politics again (think of leaving Afghan interpreters out in the cold during the takeover by the Taliban) and continue to welcome migrant workers who do not come to live near their supporters?
And Caroline van der Plas? Would it be prepared to limit labor migration if this leads to shortages in greenhouses and slaughterhouses? The BBB program is quite silent on labor migration.
That leaves Geert Wilders. Would he now take his chance to really mean something to the people he says he is standing up for? Even if he has to do things that upset him, such as making new European asylum agreements, allowing asylum seekers to work faster and continuing to invest in developing countries? These are some ideas from the state commission to reduce asylum migration and/or make it smoother – a bit brief, but more feasible than anything Wilders ever proposed.
In short, do the forming parties dare to take measures that may work well, but which do not immediately make their supporters enthusiastic? I doubt it. Other things are usually just a bit more important. Appearing uncompromising and not being caught 'turning around', for example. Politicians talk about migration in a disingenuous way, Hein de Haas writes in his book. “This rhetorical sham distracts attention from the real issue and the real migration problems that exist and that urgently require action.” He called the state commission's report this week in the De Balie debate center “a step forward”.
Perhaps the report is not a gift for the forming parties. It can force them to admit that they have little affinity for solutions. Or like the satirical site The pin Dilan Yesilgöz said: “Solutions do not solve the problem.”
#Column #solutions
