Even before the new government arrived, it had already witnessed the first crisis

Schoof's cabinet was more likely to be in crisis mode than on the podium. After the candidate for Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Asylum and Migration, Geddy Markuszor, stumbled in the process of selecting ministers on Thursday evening, the formed parties entered into a debate over the alternative proposed by Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders: Marjolein Faber. “Not without controversy” Because of the previous statements, VVD leader Dylan Jesselgoz said bluntly on Friday morning, angering Wilders.

And so, at the weekend, the PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB came together for their first real crisis meeting with coordinator Richard van Zoll and prime minister candidate Dick Schoof. But all that faded away, and Faber remained a candidate.

At the beginning of this week, there was a brief analysis in The Hague that the Schoof government looked like a completely normal government. When the names of nominated ministers began to leak out, it was noticeable that the Party for Freedom, the Party for Freedom and Democracy, the NSC and the BBB mainly fielded party people with experience in The Hague: not very distinguished or 'outside parliament'.

Until it became clear that Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders had nominated a number of Radical Party members as ministers, such as MP Markuszor, and then Faber. She immediately explained what ruling with Wilders meant in practice: Hardcore Members of the Freedom Party are given powerful positions, and the continuing uproar and unrest around this may herald a new abnormality.

The Markoszor case raised questions about Wilders' judgment for the umpteenth time, after the deaths of scout Jom van Streen and prime ministerial candidate Ronald Plasterk earlier in the formation.

It remains unclear exactly why Wilders withdrew it after the examination by the AIVD and the tax authorities: he did not provide any explanation in X or to the press. This so-called “reference” may reveal financial vulnerabilities or, for example, risks to national security.

Wilders knows about Markuszor's controversial past. For example, the leader of the Freedom Party had already been warned by the AIVD in 2010 that Markoszor would have risky contacts with foreign intelligence services, after which he disappeared from the Freedom Party's list of candidates. The fact that Wilders has now dared to nominate him may indicate that this week's presentation provided new information that Wilders did not know.

Outgoing Housing and Spatial Planning Minister Hugo de Jonge did not want to comment on Markuszor's character on Friday, but said: “The system here has worked as it should work.”

Together at the table in Trêves' room

Markuszor's nomination raised eyebrows this week among coalition partners VVD and NSC. In recent years, a member of the Freedom Party has provoked the House of Representatives with inflammatory statements – calling African asylum seekers “animals” – and saying that his political opponents must answer to the courts for their asylum policy. There was unease about this in the VVD and the National Security Council, but those parties did not feel there was much room to try to block Wilders' appointment. In principle, the coalition agreed that the four parties would nominate their ministers.

There is already a big problem with this construction, says Mark Thiessen, a campaign strategist and member of the opposition Liberal Party against cooperation with the Freedom Party. “The party leadership has always said: We are not defined by who we work with. But look at Markuszor's lecture, and now Faber, these are the people you will soon be sitting with in the Tref Hall. The signal you then send to the outside world is that their statements and behavior are acceptable, from Calling the courts and using racist language is a process of normalization in the extreme.”

Markozhauer's replacement, former senator and current Member of Parliament Marjolein Faber, is also known for her provocative rhetoric. In 2015, she said of Islam: “We just have to get rid of that. To expand.” In a debate with Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) in 2020, Faber spoke of “repopulation,” after which Rutte said that “this term comes from Nazi literature.” The current VVD leader, Jeselgosz, expressed doubts on Friday about Whether Faber's “position and tone match those of” the minister.

Yesilgoz's criticism of Faber came after the Future Opposition accused the Freedom Party's coalition partners of remaining too quiet in recent days. Volt leader Laurence Dassin tweeted about the VVD and National Security Council's stance on Markuszor's candidacy: “They stand and watch. Even when it comes to safety risks. Whoever is silent agrees.”

Written by Rob Gitten (D66). All of them are certified by VVD & NSC. Say @DilanYesilgoz and PieterOmtzigt, stabilization and good governance never go smoothly, right?

At the beginning of its formation, Peter Umtzigt's New Social Contract in particular attached great importance to drawing the so-called “baseline” around the democratic constitutional state. For example, it states, “High integrity standards […] “It is important for politicians to gain and maintain trust,” and that ministers “perform an exemplary role by fully complying with standards of integrity.” With Wilders nominating Markusauer and Faber, this bottom line seems merely a paper fact.

Faber of “understanding”

The VVD and the NSC believed that by claiming certain portfolios (Justice for the VVD, Internal Affairs for the NSC) they could protect democracy and the rule of law in the Cabinet against the influence of the VVD. But this did not prevent Freedom Party members like Faber from taking up crucial positions such as asylum and immigration.

The fact that Yeselgoz publicly criticized Faber on Friday in a risky make-up was extraordinary, but she did not persevere. The outcome of the crisis meeting was that Faber could simply become minister, and coordinator Van Zoll even described her as a “suitable candidate.” Faber himself responded directly to X by saying that he “understood” the concerns of the VVD and NSC. She promised that as a member of the Schoof government she would “express herself within the lines of the Main Lines Agreement and the Declaration of the Rule of Law.”

VVD member critic Mark Thiessen views Faber's admission with dismay and hopes his party will come to its senses. He sees good examples abroad. In France, the head of the center-right Republicans party was immediately expelled this week when he opened the door to cooperation with Marine Le Pen's National Rally, and in Belgium, N-VA leader Bart de Wever entered into cooperation with Vlaams Belang ahead of the election. The election. “A minimum threshold has been drawn in those countries: centre-right parties must be the bulwark against extremism and populism. “If they don't do that, there will be nothing left.”

To participate




Email the editor