General Political Reflections:
hopeless symbolic politics and a ‘Schoof’-handled opposition

Despite the progressive opposition parties coordinating to ensure that the first general political reflections of the Schoof cabinet would not be overshadowed by asylum challenges, this (again) became the dominant theme of the most important political debate of the year. Puck Blans and Wouter van Aggelen wrote a blog about the consequences for the image of the Schoof cabinet, trust in public administration, and the survival chances of the new cabinet.

A symbolic letter to Brussels
Even before the general political reflections in the House of Representatives had officially started yesterday, a remarkable letter from Minister Faber had already set the stage. Her letter to the European Commission, advocating for a Dutch opt-out from future European asylum legislation, was immediately sharply criticized by opposition parties in the House. The letter seemed primarily aimed at publicly marking her tough stance. However, the willingness of European institutions to even consider a Dutch opt-out will not increase with the minister’s amateurish approach. Not only because the necessary revision of the European Treaty is currently not on the agenda, but also because she incorrectly addressed her letter (to the European Commission instead of the European Council) and because correspondence with European Institutions should go through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom she bypassed. Both Minister Faber and the Prime Minister framed the letter in the context of the new cabinet's ambition to ‘look at what is possible’. A piece of symbolic politics that may look firm at first glance, but risks the government failing to meet expectations in the long run. This is a missed opportunity, as there could be European support for the stricter asylum approach the cabinet desires if the usual channels were followed. Another issue this creates: if the European Commission ignores Faber’s wish—and the initial reaction from their spokesperson was immediately dismissive—'Brussels' becomes the obvious scapegoat.

Does ‘extra-parliamentary’ now mean outside parliament?
The House, already overwhelmed by Faber’s opt-out letter, became even more agitated as the day progressed when the opposition, supported by NSC, asked Prime Minister Schoof to disclose the official advice regarding the proposed asylum crisis law. In response, the cabinet sent dozens of pages to the House, most of which were heavily redacted. However, from the visible passages, it was clear that the officials at the Ministry of the Interior (BZK) believe there is no emergency that justifies declaring an asylum crisis without parliamentary approval.

It also became clear that the Minister of the Interior (Uijtermark, NSC), from her “responsibility for safeguarding the Constitution and the rule of law in governance,” was advised not to agree to bypassing parliament. Notably, SGP leader Stoffer, who is generally supportive of the new coalition, pointed out that there are sufficient options to achieve a stricter asylum approach through an emergency law in a democratically legitimate and lawful process.

Does strict imagery outweigh good governance?
Since the coalition ultimately stuck to the chosen extra-parliamentary route, the impression remains that this cabinet currently prioritizes projecting strictness towards asylum seekers over ‘good governance’. That this approach does not help to address the acute asylum problem was highlighted in yesterday’s reporting by NRC. The newspaper reported that many municipalities are now hesitant to create additional shelter spaces for asylum seekers, as they are required to do under the Distribution Law. According to the spokesperson for the province of South Holland, “recent developments in The Hague do not contribute to a clear understanding of what is expected of municipalities.”

Will the cabinet weather these initial storms?
It remains true that the cabinet's course is appreciated by a significant portion of the electorate. Geert Wilders repeatedly referred to the increase in seats attributed to him in the polls yesterday. 

For the opposition parties, this presents a complicated dilemma. Even though their objections to the cabinet’s asylum approach are fundamentally and legally