The asylum plans of PVV leader Geert Wilders are not further elaborated by the outgoing cabinet. PVV, among others, voted on Tuesday against a motion that called for this. Wilders’ former coalitionmates did vote for it and thereby gave a political signal.
VVD, NSC and BBB were unanimous last Monday after a meeting with PVV. They too want stricter asylum measures, but Wilders must first further elaborate and submit his ten -point plan to the Chamber. But it didn’t get that far: Wilders left the coalition with his PVV, after which the cabinet fell.
The former coalition partners added that message on Tuesday extra strength by agreeing with a motion by Joost Eerdmans (Ja21). The government is calling on that motion to further develop the ten -point plan of Wilders and to implement “where possible”. The call did not receive a majority in the Chamber, despite the support of the VVD, NSC and BBB.
There was already small chance that that motion will lead to new and stricter asylum measures. Many of Wilders’ plans, including an asylum stop, a temporary stop at family reunification and the use of the army on the border, are legally unstable or uneniously left without left.
The former coalition parties themselves know that too. After Wilders’ presentation of those plans, NSC leader Nicolien van Vroonhoven said that for that reason she had already “turned” much of the PVV wishes during the formation.
Not only PVV for stricter asylum rules
Their voice for the motion is therefore primarily a signal to the PVV. The former coalitionmates of Wilders were furious last week for the “unnecessary” fall of the cabinet. They were willing to let Wilders work out his plans further, now it appears. But the parties mainly show that the outside world is that not only PVV is for stricter asylum rules.
Wilders voted “with conviction”, as he already indicated during the debate about the fall of the cabinet last week. The plan should not be worked out, but implemented, was then his reasoning. “Working out means that in six months we will receive a note from the Minister of the Interior in which it is said that it is not possible. So if it does not say” execute “but” work out “, it does not represent a ball.”
The Asylum Plans of PVV Leader Geert Wilders Will Not Be Further Developed by the Caretaker Cabinet. Among Others, PVV Voted Against a Motion Calling for this on Tuesday. Wilders’ Former Coalition Partners Did Vote in Favor, Mainly Sending a Political Signal.
VVD, NSC, and BBB Were Unanimous Last Monday after a meeting with PVV. They also because Stricter Asylum Measures, But Wilders must first Further Develop His Ten-Point Plan and Submit It To The House. But it didnn’t get that far: Wilders Stepped out of the coalition with his PVV, after which the cabinet fell.
The Former Coalition Partners Reinforced That Message on Tuesday By Agreeing to a Motion by Joost Eerdmans (Ja21). That motion calls on the cabinet to further Develop Wilders’ Ten-Point Plan and Implement IT “Where Possible.” The call did not get a majority in the house, despite the support of the vvd, nsc, and bbb.
The Chance was Already Small that the motion would lead to new and Stricter Asylum Measures. Many of Wilders’ Plans, Including An Asylum Stop, A Temporary Stop on Family Reunification, and the Deployment of the Army At The Border, Are Legally Shaky or Even Unfeasible Withdrawing from International Treations.
The Former Coalition Parties Themselves also know this. NSC Leader Nicolien van Vroonhoven Said After Wilders’ Presentation of Those Plans That She had “Rejected” Many of the PVV Wishes Duration the Formation for That Reason.
Not only PVV for Stricter Asylum Rules
Their Vote for the motion is Therefore Mainly a Signal to the PVV. Wilders’ Former Coalition Partners Were Furious Last Week About the “Unnecessary” Fall of the Cabinet, Accordination to Them. They were indeed willing to let Wilders Further Develop His Plans, AS Now Appears. But the Parties Mainly Show the Outside World That Not Only PVV is in favor of Stricter Asylum Rules.
Wilders Voted Against “With Conviction,” as he already indicated last week. The plan should not be developed, but implemented, was his reasoning at the time. “Developing mean that in Six Months We Will Receive a Note from the Minister of the Interior Saying That It is not Possible. So if it Doesn’t Say” Implement “But” Develop “, it’s not WORTH A DAMN.”