Sometimes facts happen in quick succession, but only afterwards do you realize their mutual significance. On Wednesday 25 August, FVD published a skeptical piece about vaccination against corona.
One of the – disputable – claims was that “the number of serious side effects and deaths from the vaccines (-) higher” [is] than we have seen so far with any classic vaccine.”
Five days earlier, Friday 20 August, an employee of the FVD Parliamentary faction, also a candidate in the parliamentary elections, ended up in an argument with a friend and her roommates.
He had used alcohol, cocaine and a designer drug for two days, wrote The Telegraph Wednesday: The man turned violent, and when the police arrived he spoke of “killing” according to a witness.
The judge sentenced him this week to community service for assault and threats.
It Reformatorisch Dagblad inquired with Thierry Baudet’s parliamentary group to the consequences. They turned out not to be there. This was “a matter between the employee and the police judge”, according to an FVD spokesperson, the community service was “sufficient penance”.
Insightful. FVD continuously warns against corona vaccination. But cocaine use (and violence) in your own circle: nothing to worry about, people.
And in view of the corona debate, which was given an impulse on Friday evening with new interventions – closure of catering and shops at 8 p.m.: a half down – it might make sense, I thought, to take a closer look at the style, language and intentions of opposition parties.
Because the opposition’s influence in The Hague is increasing in this debate. If this continues into next week, it would have major repercussions. Especially for the duration of the halfdown.
The opposition came into this position because corona has become an exercise in humility for Rutte III. Positions and principles always lose out from reality: the often late intervention by Hugo de Jonge, Mark Rutte with group immunity, Ferd Grapperhaus who sang about the end of the mouth cap, et cetera.
Even so, after his application for resignation, the outgoing cabinet retained the power to combat crisis. But when the formation ended in a comedy of errors, the collaboration on this in the coalition fell apart: in September Rutte had to formally acknowledge that the coalition on corona no longer exists.
And so we experience an experiment: this crisis is now being combated by a caretaker cabinet without a power base.
Although you can also look at that in a sunnier way: dualism!
Only: the most insightful parliamentary debate on this, 16 September, barely got through to the general public: that same day, Sigrid Kaag resigned as outgoing Minister of Foreign Affairs.
But fourteen (!) of the nineteen parliamentary groups – 68 of the 150 parliamentary seats – were already against the plan for a corona pass in the catering industry, events, sports and culture. And like that in this room goes: initiator of the motion that made this visible was PVV leader Geert Wilders.
Yet the language and motives of these fourteen factions were quite different. Seven sought verbal acuity. For example, Wilders believed that “the corona crisis is over”. He also supported civil disobedience of catering entrepreneurs who “don’t care about the illegal rules of Rutte and De Jonge.”
Eva van Esch (PvdD) called the corona pass “a horse remedy”. Baudet (FVD) saw “a nightmare”, “a horror film”; The Netherlands as an ‘apartheid state’. Wybren van Haga (ex-FVD) believed that “the entire society is being destroyed” for “a strong flu”. Chris Stoffer (SGP) complained “the fixation on vaccination”. For Caroline van der Plas (BBB) it was “inconceivable” that the cabinet continued “the dichotomy”. Tunahan Kuzu (Denk) perceived “a corona dictatorship”.
So much for the dualism of a quarter of the House (38 seats). Politicians like to say that words have consequences, but here MPs hurled one enormity after another into the world, as if ordering a drink in a hotel bar.
Most other opponents of the corona pass (a total of thirty seats) mainly had substantive objections. Nicki Pouw-Verweij (JA21) believed that the pass would bring “a minuscule increase” in vaccination coverage. Maarten Hijink (SP) thought the pass was “not a good approach” and “terribly” expensive. And important: Miriam Bikker (ChristenUnie) said „to have great difficulty with this form of [vaccinatie]urge”, for fear of a split and because the pass would put “vulnerable” under pressure.
For example, this debate, especially the last contribution, was also an indicator of what to expect next week. The CU was and will be a member of the coalition, and Friday’s plans go many times beyond the corona pass that the House ruled in mid-September.
Those plans are a two-stage rocket. Three weeks half down. And during that period, legislation – including the corona pass for the workplace and 2G (pass for only vaccinated and cured corona patients) – will be passed through the Houses so that the half-down can be withdrawn again.
But anyone who was aware of the September debate, and heard of the internal discussions the cabinet had on Thursday, knew in which vulnerable phase the crisis response has now reached. It is even questionable whether this legislation can be written so quickly. And the social resistance, from employers to the catering industry and the football association, was immediately involved on Friday.
The cabinet also started recommending its choices to parliamentary parties such as PvdA, GroenLinks and Volt. But even if that works, the proposals will also have to pass the senate, where the cabinet does not have a majority at all.
The argument is, of course, that if the required legislation does not pass the House, the country will be in ‘lockdown’ for much longer. As if there is no choice.
It reminded me of a column by Wouter Beekers, director of the Scientific Institute of the CU. “The engine oil of democracy is debate, even in times of crisis,” he wrote in March. “There is all the time choise.”
So, after decades of monism, this will also be a test for dualism: will that lead to an acceptable result in this crisis?
There’s something else going on. Wilders was convicted up to the Supreme Court for insulting groups. After his infamous statements in 2014 (“fewer Moroccans”), some political groups refused to support his motions.
How logical is it that the entire opposition (and sometimes coalition factions) has been on a leash in key debates since the election? Especially if you take into account his analyzes (“the corona crisis is over”, September 16).
You can ask a similar question about counting Baudet’s votes in opposition to the corona policy. He is constantly polluting the corona debate with falsified data, such as Maarten Keulemans of de Volkskrant last showed. On September 16, he spoke in the House about a cabinet that creates “QR slaves”, in which “the government determines at which moments they can continue to live”.
I know: in democracy, all votes count, no matter whose. But you think: do opposition parties that oppose the corona policy want to depend on politicians with… this positions?
Politicians are eager to say that words have consequences. But in this debate, perhaps someone should also ask whether those same politicians are willing to give practical meaning to this.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad of 13 November 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of November 13, 2021
#words #consequences #House #Representatives #trade