"Major problem": After hours of talks, Wilders and VVD still at odds over asylum law
The PVV remained dismayed about the VVD's entire Senate faction signalling their intent to vote in favor of a measure to more fairly distribute asylum seekers around the Netherlands, which will force many municipalities that do not want to shelter asylum seekers to take them in anyway. After a full day of talks, PVV leader Geert Wilders suggested on Wednesday evening that the rift between the two parties had not been bridged during discussions meant to set up Cabinet formation talks.
When the discussion concluded around 6:30 p.m., Wilders told reporters that the issue has not yet been resolved. "I hope we can work it out together," Wilders said. "Transparency does not help at this stage. We are still talking."
During the afternoon break, Wilders only told reporters, "We still have a big problem." The PVV leader essentially repeated what he had said hours earlier. Still, he said that the disagreement was not yet a reason to break off talks. “I'll continue to talk,” he told reporters. "But it must be resolved, because it is a serious problem for my party."
The PVV has always been opposed to the measure because it puts coercive pressure on municipalities to receive asylum seekers. Restricting immigration is a key political issue for the far-right party. At the same time, Wilders would find it almost impossible to form a Cabinet without the VVD, despite his party holding the most seats in the Tweede Kamer following the election in November.
VVD leader Dilan Yeşilgöz did not talk to reporters when the meeting wrapped up, but in the afternoon, she said, "Every problem can be solved." She tried to brush off Wilders' earlier statement when she spoke with the gathered journalists.
BBB leader Caroline van der Plas said the day was marked by “very good, very intensive conversations.” NSC leader Pieter Omtzigt chose not to comment in the morning or in the afternoon. The four parties previously agreed with Cabinet formation leader Ronald Plasterk to limit comments to the press during this phase.
The political leaders from the PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB will meet again on Thursday.
Wilders on Tuesday night had expressed shock by the VVD announcement in the Eerste Kamer, the Dutch Senate. With the VVD, the measure is guaranteed majority support when it is brought to a vote next week. The VVD had voted against the bill in the Tweede Kamer, the lower house of Parliament.
The parties were already scheduled to continue initial discussions to see if they can bridge several ideological differences to advance their conversation to a point where they debate the substance of a coalition agreement. The VVD has already said multiple times since the election they will not join a PVV Cabinet, but that they would support a minority center-right Cabinet in Parliament.
When Wilders passed reporters on his way into the meeting, one journalist asked him about the VVD's plans to vote for the controversial asylum distribution law. “We have a problem. We're going to talk about it soon." Then when pressed to be more specific, he repeated, “We’re going to talk about it soon.”
In the run-up to the parliamentary elections, the VVD pulled its support from the bill that would give the government the option to force municipalities to take in a fair share of asylum seekers. About a third of Dutch municipalities hasn’t sheltered a single asylum seeker in twelve years, RTV Noord recently discovered. The fact that the VVD politicians in the Senate decided to back the law by outgoing State Secretary Eric van der Burg (Security and Justice, VVD) came as a surprise.
The PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB had actually tried to put the law on hold at one point. VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz told reporters on Wednesday morning that she would have preferred to first implement measures to limit the number of asylum seekers and only then consider the asylum distribution law. “But the Senate has chosen to act the other way around, and that is their right,” she said. Asked about the VVD Senators choosing a different line than hers, she said: “I did not use my authority as leader to say: you should vote for or against it.”
