Hello and Welcome to this live blog! Here we will keep you informed of the parliamentary debate about the riots in The Hague last Saturday.
That was the second term of the Chamber. The debate is now stopping until 4:45 PM so that the ministers can assess the submitted motions.
Timmermans: ‘In his second term, Timmermans:’ have a bigger problem than Toon of the debate also takes time to speak out against Van der Plas’ motion. “If we deal with the democratic legal order, we have a much bigger problem than the tone of the debate,” says the GL-PvdA leader. In addition, he also refers to the motion adopted in the Chamber to label Antifa as a terrorist organization and the fact that BBB resident of Mona Keijzer ignores a very critical advice from the Council of State.
A furious dike wonders how Van der Plas “gets it in her head to make a proposal in this debate instead of talking about extreme right -wing fascists in our streets”. “This is more than populism. This is like being a magnet for all those people who are angry with electoral gain. Now you really go too far!” Dijk can find that, says Van der Plas. “I have given enough interpretation”.
Bontenbal against Van der Plas: ‘Very populist what you do’ The motion of Van der Plas also causes indignation at other opposition parties. Volt foreman Laurens Dassen sees it “as a reward of the people who have been pulled through the streets”.
Bontenbal says it has difficulty with what Van der Plas does. “It is incredibly populist what you are doing and you know that too.” He accuses Van der Plas of throwing “pieces of red meat” at the end of the debate in the room.
Bikker points out Van der Plas that the cabinet “has all the possibilities to come up with solutions” for the stalled asylum reception. “Don’t pretend that the state -based law is needed!” The CU leader speaks of a “greetings on the supporters motion”, and points out, among other things, because it turned out that this could not be done.
Van der Plas wants to make again an attempt for asylum law BBB’er van der Plas just serves a motion with which she wants to ask the cabinet to investigate “whether the state -based law can be introduced and can lead to a temporary asylum stop through an emergency law”.
The debate is about the riots in The Hague last Saturday, but they arose during a demonstration against Dutch asylum policy. This also means that Van der Plas sees a reason to put the problems in the asylum shelter and to come up with this motion. Asylum is also an important theme in the election campaign for BBB.
It is striking that State Nood Law did not get off the ground last year. With state emergency law, the government can bypass the parliament and quickly take measures in an emergency situation. At the time, there was a lot of discussion whether a structural problem in the asylum chain would fall under such an emergency situation. A “load -bearing reasons” to be allowed to take such a step legally has never been found. Eventually the plan was put off the table after pressure from NSC.
The fact that Van der Plas now suggests that disputed emergency rights causes surprise to, among others, D66 and NSC. “I really don’t know what I hear,” says NSC’er Eddy van Hijum.
DENK submits a motion of no confidence: ‘A lot of hypocrisy’ van Baarle has, as he already announced, has submitted a motion of no confidence against Minister Van Oosten. The DENKvoorman says that it also testifies “a lot of hypocrisy” that the cabinet did not immediately judge the motives of the rioters, while last year after the Maccabi riots were immediately spoken of anti-Semitic violence. Prime Minister Dick Schoof then also spoke of “an integration problem.”
PvdD will also support the motion of no confidence, says the party.
Minister Rijkaart: “Poring political debate with each other” inland minister Frank Rijkaart, who, incidentally, has his first debate in the plenary room since he became a minister at the beginning of this month, also calls on the political debate “with respect”. “We are also there ourselves. As members of the cabinet and the House of Representatives, our statements work directly into society. Let us prevent us from giving oxygen to this movement”, which also refers to the “right-wing extremist violence” last Saturday.
Van Oosten sees salvation in the police reading in chat groups for some time has been working on a bill that gives the police more authority to look into chat groups. Bontenbal wonders whether it could have helped in this case if the police already had those powers.
That is also guessing for Van Oosten, he says. But he cannot rule out that there were incurred calls in the run -up to Saturday. “You want to have information about that, a local triangle (municipality, police and the public prosecutor, ed.) Also help enormously with the preparations”. He sets the legislation that has been set in motion “on”.
Quick pilot for extra weapons police, in addition to the call to standards, also about substantive proposals in the debate. For example, to what extent police units can be protected extra. “The hole between a baton and a firearm is too big,” says Van Oosten. “It is necessary that the police and mobile unit (ME) can act safely and effectively in the event of violent riots.”
Van Oosten is discussing any additional armament with the police. He first wants to practice with a test for this. “I want to start that pilot quickly,” said the minister. As far as he is concerned, that is at least before the end of this year.
Bikker: ‘Don’t deserve a beauty prize’ It does not deserve a beauty prize, says Bikker. “But the minster is just there for a week”. She is happy with the reflection of Van Oosten, but it still has to be her heart “that she has looked at the expressions of the Minister of Finance with discomfort.” Minister Heinen said on Sunday at that program that it is “intense and unnecessary” to “make things politically that have nothing to do with politics.”
That also means that Ouwehand had asked for this or had contact with his party members from the VVD last weekend, including Heinen. “The question is whether this is correct, whether it is his defense line”. Ouwehand is in any case less convinced than Bikker.
‘I had an hour for a hundred pages’ Van Oosten explains why he was so careful on Tuesday where the violence came from. Terror fighter NCTV had advised to explicitly state the extreme right. Yet the minister did not do that. “I was too star,” says Van Oosten.
Dassen (volt) finds that insufficient. He wants to know who the minister had advised to ignore the NCTV advice. Van Oosten’s answer is striking: “I didn’t read it,” he says. “I had an hour for a one -year file. I put the file aside in my preparation for question time and let myself be informed orally.”
Van Oosten is disappointed by his earlier rigidity of Baarle, the Justice Minister again points out to his first words. “The first necessity was that this minister had to stand up, and he did not do that. And not knowingly.” Van Oosten agrees with the think leader. “I put it on. To be honest I am disappointed,” he says. “I also wanted to put that right and clarify that.”
Earlier, Van Oosten already said “very well understood that I, as a minister, have the norm to set the norm and I mention that anti-Semitism is not a place, and if there is right-wing extremism that name”. Van Oosten also repeated the words he used on Tuesday evening: that his first reaction was too rigid.
JustitiMinister compliments action police The debate has started again. Outgoing Foort van Oosten (Justice and Security) starts his input and will answer the questions from the Chamber. In contrast to Tuesday, he now emphasizes that it is right-wing extremism.
Van Oosten expresses his appreciation for the pamphlet from the Chamber, in which the violence is jointly convicted by a number of parties. The police also get compliments to make the demonstration, what it was originally, possible.
According to Jetten, the Cabinet turned around: ‘This was the extreme right of violence’ D66 leader Rob Jetten is the last. He starts with a thank you to everyone who has expressed a “warm support statement in recent days”. Among other things, the D66 party office had to suffer on Saturday.
Jetten calls the events of Saturday “disgusting”. “You don’t have to wind it up: this was the extreme right of violence, aimed at the police, aimed at journalists, aimed at institutions of our democracy”. And yet the cabinet turned around, he thinks. “Why did the government refused to follow the NCTV’s advice? Why did you not explicitly label this violence as the extreme right?” He asks responsible Minister Van Oosten.
The debate is now suspended for lunch. From 2 p.m. the cabinet will answer the questions of Jetten and other politicians.
“Whoever stays in place, normalizes what should never be found normally,” says Timmermans of GL-PvdA in his contribution.
According to Bikker, the room can still agree against the extreme right-wing violence “matters” is a common sense today that also takes CU leader Mirjam Bikker. She points to several reports, including those of the NCTV. “When someone publicly calls on grandstands, it irrevocably leads to people placing themselves outside the legal order.” FvD member Pepijn van Houwelingen shouted in 2021 “Your time will come, because there are tribunals” to D66’er Sjoerd Sjoerdsma.
Ouwehand asks Bikker about her pamphlet that refused part of the room to sign. Does Bikker pull it in, now that Wilders refused to moderate his tone this morning? “Don’t participate in that normalization, because that has consequences for national security,” says Ouwehand, who did not sign because FvD is also on the pamphlet in addition to the PVV.
Bikker thinks it is “ultimate powerful” that the room speaks together. “Then a debate can follow here at this location about what those words are worth.” As far as she is concerned, it is still possible that the Chamber speaks together, but the parties who did not participate this morning do not seem to think about it.
Yesilgöz angry with language use Dijk: ‘This is really so bad’ SP’er Jimmy Dijk takes the floor and assesses the police action of Minister Eelco Heinen (Finance, VVD) at WNL on Sunday . “We see Minister Heinen on Sunday at Wakker Nederland trivializing fascist violence and trying to depoliticize.”
Heinen said on Sunday at that program, among other things, that violence should be rejected, “but to make it politically political and unnecessary. You are going to make things politically that have nothing to do with politics.”
The words of Dijk provide anger at Yesilgöz. “You can’t put ministers away here as if they were going to normalize or nuance fascism. This is so bad that I am really looking for words.” Dijk then calls it “extremely bad” to name “Het Bestje by the name” in such a TV program.
Jetten: ‘You can draw a line yourself as leader of the VVD’ D66 leader Jetten holds Yesilgöz (VVD) for that not polarization, but normalization of right-wing extremism is the problem. The NCTV writes that. According to Jetten, it is also up to politics to speak out. “Not a word about all the hatred that Wilders stands out of stalls. Where is the role of the VVD in contrasting right-wing extremism in politics that stirs up hatred and division?” Wilders has already got out of the coalition with the VVD, Jetten tells Yesilgöz. “You don’t have to be afraid of him. You can draw a line yourself as the VVD leader.”
Yesilgöz replies that she does not share “the obsession with Wilders” with Jetten. “I am working on the police who have to keep us safe.” The VVD member says he is all the violence. “Today it is about right-wing extremism. But that also applies to the UvA riots whereby millions of euros in damage are caused, with the Maccabirellen and with the farmers who entered a provincial government.” She comes with measures that the police must give more resources.
Jetten calls it “very weak” from Yesilgöz that she does not want to stand up, but only argues for extra resources.
‘Connecting tone’ by Yesilgöz arouses irritation The “connecting tone” of VVD leader Yesilgöz arouses irritation at Ouwehand (PvdD). Because the VVD initially did not want to link the riots to the extreme right and did not want to make it political. “If you don’t get up against the extreme right, but facilitates it, then you put agents in danger,” says Ouwehand. She refers to the government participation with the PVV with facilitating. Dassen from Volt also wants Yesilgöz to make more work on “standards”. That also advises terror fighter NCTV.
Yesilgöz does not accept it, although that does not happen automatically. “I find that difficult,” she says. But the “you baking” in the room only distracts in her eyes. “But then it’s not about the safety of our agents.”
Think leader of Baarle thinks Yesilgöz is hypocritical. Because, according to him, the VVD was at the forefront of condemning the riots with the Maccabi supporters. Then there was an “integration problem” of Dutch people with a non-Western background.
VVD does not want to ‘throw muddy’, but measures VVD member Dilan Yesilgöz finds the debate so far “intensely embarrassing”. She wants measures instead of “mud throwing” and immediately announces seven measures that must be introduced according to the VVD.
For example, the party wants to be hurled with adjustments to the current demonstration law and the ban on face -covering clothing in demonstrations.
The VVD also wants minimum penalties for this type of violence. Moreover, according to the Doxing party, the online sharing of personal data with the aim of intimidating someone must become punishable. Agents have to deal with that: even after the riots of Saturday, according to police association, NPB photos of agents are distributed.
Parties want to reflect Wilders, who does not give PVV member a recurring pattern in the room: party leaders Timmermans (GL-PvdA), Jetten (D66), Bontenbal (CDA), Bikker (CU) and Dassen (Volt) ask whether PVV leader Wilders can moderate his tone. Because hard statements by politicians can contribute to the radicalization of young people in particular. That can result in right -wing extremist violence, warns terror fighter NCTV. The party leaders then point Wilders when he takes to the arrival of AZCs or when he talks about “fighting back” in last week’s debate.
These debates have already been conducted with Wilders, always with the same outcome. Wilders contradicts that his words have anything to do with last weekend’s violence. He wants democratic resistance and therefore quotes the first sentence from his election program: “The PVV is in democratic resistance”.
He does not intend to moderate his words. “I keep speaking as I speak until the problems are solved,” says the PVV player. He ignores the warnings of the NCTV.
Jetten against Wilders: “You have to take responsibility” Jetten notes that the NCTV says that “the words of politicians matter,” he tells Wilders. “Let’s take a look at those words. Mr. Wilders calls journalists rigid of the Richel, judge politically biased and the House of Representatives a fake parliament. Ministers are sworn in who proudly wore a prince flag.”
Former PVV minister Reinette Klever (Foreign Trade) also once carried a pin of the Prinsenvlag when she was still a member of parliament. She later said that it had a family sign for her, given the role of her family in the Eighty Years’ War. But the prince flag is now mainly associated with a symbol of the NSB.
According to Jetten, Wilders also calls on to fight. He refers to last week’s general political considerations. Wilders then said: “Do we choose to sink further into the swamp with left-liberal multiculturalism, or are we finally fighting back?”
Just like Timmermans, Jetten draws attention to the words that Wilders used for protests against AZCs. For example, Wilders said in Helmond that the protesters there “should not accept” the decision of the mayor. “You will have to take responsibility,” says Jetten. Wilders points out that he naturally rejects violence. But according to him, extremism is best tackled “by not taking turns against Mr Wilders and showing your own inability”.
Wilders: ‘Go away with your NCTV’ CDA leader Bontenbal calls the debate style of PVV leader Wilders polarizing. “We want to depoles.” Bontenbal quotes a report from the NCTV, whereby the terror fighter warns of the extreme right -wing violence. “Most incidents seem to be repeatedly traced back to the political and social fuss that exists in the Netherlands about the arrival and reception of asylum seekers,” writes the service in a report last June.
Bontenbal wants to know Van Wilders if he feels responsible. That is asking about the well -known path of the CDA. Because Wilders is not known to reflect or to put on the fine rug for fierce statements. “Go away with your NCTV,” says Wilders. “The people on the street have nothing to do with an NCTV.” Wilders’ responsibility is something to do about immigration, he says. “The Netherlands is crazy.”
Wilders lashes out to D66 and GL-PvdA Wilders is the second floor and after having briefly taken away from the riots, he lashes out to D66 and GL-PvdA. According to him, they would “want to hit a political salad” from the events. He mentions a number of incidents where, according to him, the parties were “silent”, such as the Pro-Palestinian demonstrations at universities, but that is not true. The parties did respond to this at the time.
This also ensures that Jetten and Timmermans rush to the interruption microphone to put that right. Wilders continues to repeat that they were not there, and starts a reasoning with: “Before Mr Timmermans starts to blow again”. Those words are reason for Chamber President Martin Bosma to intervene.
DENK leader Van Baarle already announces a motion of no confidence against outgoing minister Foort van Oosten (Justice and Security).
Ouwehand: ‘Van der Plas participates in the suspension by lying’ BBB leader Van der Plas speaks out against the violence, but immediately says the concerns of people about the lack of homes and the number of asylum seekers who come to the Netherlands.
According to Ouwehand (PvdD), Van der Plas has to look at himself. Her party “lied” against the farmers about the nitrogen problem. “Not surprising that they get angry.” Van der Plas is indignant. “I’m not going to participate anymore, but I’m going to answer this,” she says. “Someone chooses to grab a stone and set fire to a police car. Those are individual choices.”
Ouwehand quotes Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi: “It happened and it can happen again.” She adds: “People can be excited and walk behind Charlatans. Van der Plas participates in the suspension by lying.”
Van der Plas strongly denies that she is also responsible for the violence. She calls that accusation “link”.
NSC and DENK cannot find each other in debate about polarization NSC leader Eddy van Hijum comes to the fore to ask Van Baarle for reflection. It is a broader question “how we deal with each other”, says Van Hijum, who asks the think leader to reflect on it himself. For example when it comes to his statement to the former NSC-Buitenlandminister Caspar Veldkamp. But also in the debate that is being conducted, the dichotomy in the room becomes clear again.
Because what follows is that Van Baarle van Hijum points out that it was NSC who went into a cabinet with the PVV and the ministers criticized by DEND. “If there is one normalizer of the extreme right, then it is the NSC group!” Van Hijum repeats that all parties in the Chamber have to reflect, but according to Van Baarle, NSC has no right to point out polarization.
Think announces the motion of no confidence against Justice Minister Van Oosten DENK-Leader Van Baarle may be the first to speak to the debate. “After eighty years, fascists were opened through our streets again,” he begins. “They chanted ‘Sieg Heil’ and did the Hitler salute.”
Van Baarle focuses his dissatisfaction on Justice Minister Van Oosten. “He was not even willing to call a Nazi, a Nazi,” says Van Baarle. The VVD minister initially did not want to say this week which corner the violence of Saturday came to the Malieveld. He came back to that later. Terror fighter NCTV had just advised to state that it was the extreme right -wing violence.
Van Baarle knows enough despite the turn of Van Oosten. “Then you are unsuitable as Minister of Justice.” He already announces a motion of no confidence. The PVV of Wilders is also jointly responsible here according to the think leader. “The seeds are being planted. Here in the room. By Wilders.”
Pamphlet against violence not signed by left -wing parties parties disagree about a joint statement to condemn the extreme right -wing violence. Left -wing parties do not want to be with right -wing parties such as FVD and PVV under the pamphlet of the ChristenUnie.
“The violence on the Malieveld is unacceptable,” heads the pamphlet. “We convince the right-wing extremist violence,” is further down the text.
GroenLinks-PvdA, D66, SP, Party for the Animals and DENK call it unbelievable that FVD and PVV are also under the statement. Member of Parliament Jan Paternotte of D66 believes that in this way conspiracy theories of Gideon van Meijeren (FVD) that the extreme left antifa and the police would have provoked the violence, are laundered. Earlier statements from PVV leader Geert Wilders about not accepting democratic decisions are a reason not to sign.
GroenLinks-PvdA joins the words of Paternotte and calls it unbelievable. “After years of incorporating and setting up groups of people, it is not enough to condemn the extreme right -wing political violence. Then the distribution of ideas that lead to violence must be stopped.”
For PvdD trust in the air is the news that the minister did not initially follow the advice of the NCTV, causes annoyance to several parties.
“The question of trust is on the table,” said PvdD leader Esther Ouwehand yesterday on X. DENK-foreman Stephan van Baarle finds it “unsuitable and the position of Minister unworthy” if you “willingly and know about Nazis and extreme right rig”.
If a motion of no confidence follows, then the chance is still small that it will get a majority.
NCTV had advised riots immediately as ‘extreme right’ to label the initially cautious Minister of Oosten had received advice from the NCTV not only to “racer, rig or hooligans, without naming the underlying right-wing extremist ideas”.
Otherwise, no “complete picture of reality” would be sketched and right-wing extremist ideas would not be protected as a result, “but even further normalized”, it can be read in the advice published on Wednesday evening.
The Hague had massive riots with ‘extreme violence’ in demonstration not expected The municipality of The Hague did not expect that the demonstration against the asylum policy on the Malieveld would result in violence, riots and destructions on Saturday. There were, however, “soft signals” of malicious people, Mayor Jan van Zanen writes to the city council on Wednesday.
Furious reactions in politics, but also mutual annoyance politicians react with horror at the events in The Hague. Outgoing Prime Minister Dick Schoof called the riots “performs unacceptable” and similar sounds also came from other politicians. But D66 leader Rob Jetten and GL-PVDA leader Frans Timmermans also pointed out that they think that the politics that are incurred also has a role in this, and in particular their colleague Geert Wilders.
According to Jetten, the rioters used slogans from Wilders. “Then it is up to all democratic forces to say: we will not pick this,” says Jetten. He also spoke of “political violence”, partly due to the extreme right -wing expressions and Nazi symbolism that could be seen during the demonstration.
Minister Eelco Heinen (Finance) said that the events should not be made politically as far as he is concerned. Responsible Minister Foort van Oosten (Justice) was also very cautious in the first instance, to the annoyance of the opposition parties in the Chamber. Later Van Oosten returned to his words: he found himself “too star” and still spoke of “extreme right -wing rioters”.
What happened in The Hague? On the Malieveld in The Hague, around 3,500 people came together on Saturday to protest against the asylum policy, an initiative of the 26-year-old ‘Els Right’. But soon after the start of the demonstration, the atmosphere turns: a group of about 1,500 people occupies the A12, after which it also gets out of hand on the Malieveld itself. The rioters attack the police and the press, and then put in the city center of The Hague to address destruction to, among others, the party office of D66 and is an attempt to enter the Binnenhof.
Dozens of people were arrested. As far as we know, four agents and seven journalists (slightly) were injured, as well as a catering employee who mediated between a customer and a Rioter.
Hello and Welcome to this Live Blog! Here we will keep you informed of the house debate on the riots in the Hague Last Saturday.
That was the second term of the house. The Debate is now adjourned Until 4:45 pm so that the ministers can assess the motions submitted.
Timmermans: ‘Have a bigger problem than the tone of the debate’ Timmermans also takes time in his second term to speak out against van der Plas’s motion. “If we treat the democratic rule of law like this, we have a much bigger problem than the tone of the debate,” the GL-Pvda Leader Believe. He also refers to the motion passed in the house last week to designate antifa as a terrorist organization and the fact that bbb housing minister Mona Keijzer is Ignoring Very Critical Advice from the Council of State.
An Angry Dijk Wonders How van der Plas “Dares to Make a Proposal Duration this Debate Instead of Talking About Far-Right Fascists in Our Streets.” “This is more than populism. This is like a magnet for all those people who are angry for electectoral gain. Now you are really going much too far!” Van der Plas Thinks Dijk is Allowed to Think That. “I have Given Enough Explanation.”
Bontenbal to van der Plas: ‘What You Are Doing is Incredible Populist’ Van der Plas’s Motion also Causes Outrage Among Other Opposition Parties. Volt Leader Laurens Dassen Sees It “As A Reward for the People who Rioted Through The Streets.”
Bontenbal Says he has trouble with what van der plas is Doing. “What You Are Doing is Incredible Populist And You Know It Too.” He batteries van der Plas of Throwing “Pieces of Red Meat” Into the Room at the End of the Debate.
Bikker Points Out to Van Der Plas That The Cabinet “Has Everyty Opportunity to Come Up With Solutions” For The Stalled Asylum Reception. “Don’t pretend that emergency asylum law is necessary!” The cu leader speaks of a “greetings to the supporters motion”, and points out, among other things, that it turned out earlier that could not be implemented.
Van der Plas Wants to Try Again for Emergency Asylum Law BBB Member Van der Plas Has Just Submitted A Motion Asking The Cabinet to Investigate “Whether the Emergency Asylum Law Can Be Introduced and Lead To A Temporary Asylum Stop via An Emergency Law.”
The Debate is about the riots in the Hague last Saturday, but they arose duration a demonstration against dutch Asylum policy. This also mean that van der plas sees an opportunity to address the problems in asylum reception and come with this motion. Asylum is also an important Theme for BBB in the Election Campaign.
It is striking that this emergency asylum law did not get off the ground last year. With Emergency Asylum Law, The Cabinet Can Bypass Parliament and Take Quick Measures in An Emergency Situation. At the time, there was much discussion about Whether a Structural Problem in The Asylum Chain would fall under such an emergency situation. A “supporting motivation” to take such a step legalless was never found. Ultimately, the plan was Shelved after pressure from NSC.
The fact that van der plas is now again proposing that controversial emergency law is causing surprise among D66 and NSC, Among Others. “I really don’t know what I’m Hearing,” Says NSC Member Eddy van Hijum.
Think submits a motion of no confidence: ‘an awful lot of hypocrisy’ of