Dutch prime minister will lead caretaker administration until new elections
Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof announcing handing the resignation of the PVV ministers in The Hague, Netherlands, Tuesday, June 3, 2025, after far-right leader Geert Wilders pulled his party out of the ruling four-party coalition in dispute over a crackdown on migration. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said Tuesday his coalition government will become a caretaker administration after far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders pulled his ministers out of the cabinet in a dispute about a migration crackdown.
The announcement completed a day of political turmoil in The Hague sparked by Wilders' decision to turn his back on the ruling coalition.
Schoof said he would offer the resignation of ministers from Wilders' Party for Freedom to the Dutch king. He and the other ministers will remain in office in a caretaker capacity, he told reporters.
The decision means the Netherlands will have a caretaker government when it hosts a summit of NATO leaders in three weeks.
No date for a new election has been set, but it is unlikely before the fall.
Schoof, a career civil servant who was handpicked by Wilders a year ago to lead the government, said he had repeatedly to coalition leaders in recent days that bringing down the government would be 'unnecessary and irresponsible.'
'We are facing major challenges nationally and internationally and, more than ever, decisiveness is required for the safety of our resilience and the economy in a rapidly changing world,' Schoof said.
Far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders talks to the media after pulling his party out of the four-party Dutch coalition in The Hague, Netherlands, Tuesday, June 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
Far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders talks to the media after pulling his party out of the four-party Dutch coalition in The Hague, Netherlands, Tuesday, June 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
Wilders announced his decision early Tuesday in a message on X after a brief meeting in parliament of leaders of the four parties that make up the fractious administration.
Wilders blames inaction on migration.
Wilders told reporters that he was withdrawing his support for the coalition and pulling his ministers out of the cabinet over its failure to act on his desire for a clampdown on migration.
'I signed up for the toughest asylum policy and not the downfall of the Netherlands,' said Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is still riding high in Dutch opinion polls, though the gap with the centre-left opposition is negligible.
Coalition partners rejected that argument, saying they all support cracking down on migration.
Prime minister appealed for leaders to act responsibly.
Dilan Yesilgoz, leader of the right-wing People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, said before the meeting that Schoof urged the leaders to act responsibly.
'The prime minister who appealed to us this morning said that we are facing enormous international challenges, we have a war on our continent, an economic crisis may be coming our way,' Yesilgoz told reporters in parliament.
But just minutes later, the meeting was over and so was Wilders' involvement in the government.
'I'm shocked,' Yesilgoz said, calling Wilders' decision 'super-irresponsible.'
After years in opposition, Wilders' party won the last election on pledges to slash migration. He has grown increasingly frustrated at what he sees as the slow pace of the coalition's efforts to implement his plans.
Last week, Wilders demanded coalition partners sign on to a 10-point plan that aims to radically slash migration, including using the army to guard land borders and turning away all asylum-seekers. He said at the time that if immigration policy is not toughened up, his party 'is out of the cabinet.'
He made good on that pledge Tuesday.
Wilders' decision comes days after conservative Karol Nawrocki was announced the winner of Poland's weekend presidential runoff election, a victory that suggests that Poland will likely take a more populist and nationalist path under its new president, who was backed by U.S. President Donald Trump.
It is not the first time Wilders has turned his back on power. He pledged his support to a minority government led by former Prime Minister Mark Rutte in 2010, but walked away less than two years later after a dispute about government austerity measures.
'You know that if you work with Wilders in a coalition ... it won't go well,' Rob Jetten, leader of the opposition D66 party, told Dutch broadcaster NOS.
Other coalition leaders look to uncertain political future.
Caroline van der Plas, leader of the pro-agriculture populist Farmers Citizens Movement that is part of the coalition, said she was angry at Wilders' decision.
'He is not putting the Netherlands first, he is putting Geert Wilders first,' she told Dutch broadcaster NOS.
Nicolien van Vroonhoven, leader of the New Social Contract party that has taken a battering in polls since joining the coalition and the departure of its talismanic leader Pieter Omtzigt, said the government could continue without Wilders, saying a minority Cabinet 'is definitely an option.' Schoof's statement appeared to put an end to such a course of events.
Opposition welcomes Wilders' departure.
Frans Timmermans, the former European Commission climate chief who now leads the main opposition bloc in parliament, welcomed Wilders' decision. He said he would not support a minority government and called for fresh elections as soon as possible.
'Well, I think it's an opportunity for all democratic parties to rid ourselves of the extremes because it's clear that with the extremes you can't govern. When things get difficult, they run away,' he told The Associated Press.
By Mike Corder
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
Fires in Squamish ‘could take weeks' to extinguish
Jeremy Valeriote, the MLA for West Vancouver-Sea to Sky, says the greatest concern from the fires in Squamish is the proximity to homes.
Globe and Mail
8 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Donald Trump and Gavin Newsom are complicated combatants
One is the quintessential New Yorker, the other, the archetypical Californian. One has yanked the Republicans rightward, the other is the personification of the leftward lurch of the Democrats. One was criticized for insensitivity after tossing paper towels to hurricane victims at a Puerto Rico relief centre, the other was pilloried for poor judgment for dining indoors at the swanky French Laundry restaurant in Napa Valley in defiance of his own COVID restrictions. To make this personal: One of them has hair the colour of Kraft French Salad Dressing, the other possesses hair that resembles salt and pepper spilling out of a Peppermill Tremblay dispenser. And one of them almost was the father-in-law of the television news personality Kimberly Guilfoyle, for a time engaged to Donald Trump Jr. The other is the ex-husband of Kimberly Guilfoyle, whom he divorced in 2006. President Donald Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom of California − entangled in a battle over migrants, civil liberties and crime − are a complicated set of combatants. Urback: Donald Trump campaigned on eroding democracy. Now, he's just fulfilling his promises Mr. Trump, the one with the populist identity, is a graduate of the Ivy League's University of Pennsylvania (with an endowment of US$22.3- billion and with a Nov. 15 football game against Harvard, which Mr. Trump is hoping to cripple financially). Mr. Newsom, the one with the elitist identity, is a graduate of Santa Clara University (with an endowment of US$1.5-billion and hasn't played America collegiate football since 1992). Mr. Trump has suggested that Mr. Newsom might be imprisoned, reprising and revising one of his favourite lines from the 2016 presidential election ('Lock him up'). In response, Mr. Newsom has channelled Clint Eastwood in Sudden Impact ('Go ahead. Make my day.') Mr. Trump is playing his role as it were in a reality television show (American Ninja Warrior). Mr. Newsom, governor of the state with countless sound stages and movie lots, seems caught in an episode of reality television himself (Survivor). 'These two are always on stage and aware of it,' said Martin Kaplan, a former studio executive who is director of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, which examines the interchange between entertainment, society and politics. 'These are people who do their best to make the spotlight follow them.' Now the two are in the spotlight in a dramatic dispute over both values and tactics. Mr. Trump argues that the violence in Los Angeles is an insurrection that threatens civil peace and that requires both the National Guard, a state-based military force, which Mr. Trump mobilized over the objection of the Governor, as well as the deployment of the Marines, who arrived in the city Tuesday. Mr. Newsom believes that Mr. Trump has exaggerated the dangers − 'fanned the flames,' is his characterization − and is using it as a blunt instrument to extend executive power in a situation that state and local personnel can handle. 'The L.A. Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, and 434 other police agencies in L.A. County are well-equipped to handle this peacefully and effectively without interference from the federal government,' said Robert Saltzman, a former member of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners. 'Things were calm before the federal government got involved. Since then, they've done nothing but create problems.' Mr. Newsom considers the President a tyrannical threat to democratic principles. Mr. Trump considers the Governor a blue-state progressive and − to resuscitate a phrase Richard Nixon once employed to describe Ramsey Clark, Lyndon B. Johnson's attorney-general − a conscientious objector in the war against crime. 'The very incompetent 'Governor,' Gavin Newscum, and 'Mayor,' Karen Bass, should be saying, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, YOU ARE SO WONDERFUL,' Mr. Trump said on his Truth Social platform. 'WE WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT YOU, SIR.' Democrats feel quite the opposite. 'Newsom is trying to calm the situation down and Trump is trying to stir things up and portraying all of L.A. in combat,' said Robert Shrum, a veteran Democratic political consultant. 'That's entirely false.' Opinion: For Trump, the L.A. protests are an opportunity to wield power and spread fear The conflict between them − which both believe is but the first front of a wider war over migrants and civil liberties − has immense political implications. Mr. Newsom knows the President is an effective foil in a state Mr. Trump lost three times in a row; Hillary Clinton defeated him in California by a two-to-one margin in 2016. Mr. Trump knows the Governor has presidential ambitions. Both know this episode is the political equivalent of a drama performance in New Haven, Conn., which over the years has provided trial runs for such Broadway shows as Oklahoma! and My Fair Lady. Speaking of the prospect of arresting Mr. Newsom, Mr. Trump said, 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity.' Mr. Newsom clearly is portraying himself not only at the centre of a storm but also as a national leader − an important moment for him and for a party that, after the 2024 defeat of then-vice-president Kamala Harris, herself a former California attorney-general, has been adrift. 'This is about all of us. This is about you,' Mr. Newsom said, addressing residents of other states. 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.' He said Mr. Trump 'wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetuating a unified assault on American tradition.' Their conflict is itself part of an American tradition. When Governor Orval Faubus mobilized the Arkansas National Guard to prevent integration of the Little Rock Central High School, President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division. John F. Kennedy federalized the National Guard in Mississippi and did so twice in Alabama to enforce school desegregation. But after the 1965 'Bloody Sunday' violence at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., Governor George Wallace told Mr. Johnson that the state 'is unable and refuses to provide for the safety and welfare' of civil-rights activists. In this occasion, the governor and president both deployed military forces. There is no such agreement today in California.
CBC
8 hours ago
- CBC
Survivors of Ireland's notorious homes for unwed mothers could lose benefits in the U.K.
Jane Libberton was shocked to learn that her elderly mother could lose her benefits if she finally receives compensation for having her toddler taken away from her seven decades ago. Libberton is the daughter of Philomena Lee, a 92-year-old Irish woman whose story of being forcibly separated from her son brought global attention to Ireland's dark history of mother and baby homes: Catholic institutions for unmarried mothers and their children. Ireland is now offering financial compensation to the survivors of those homes, which are notorious for their long history of abuse, neglect, unpaid labour and forced adoptions. But for the thousands of survivors who now reside in the United Kingdom — Lee included — accepting that money means they could lose out on much needed government benefits. "It kind of nullifies the point of the compensation," U.K. Labour MP Liam Conlon told As It Happens host Nil Köksal. Conlon has introduced a bill to prevent that from happening, called Philomena's Law. Libberton joined him on CBC Radio to support the proposed legislation named after her mother. "I think it is a great thing that he's trying to do for the Irish people here in this country," she said. What happened to Philomena Lee and other survivors? Between 1922 and 1998, tens of thousands of unmarried Irish mothers and pregnant women and girls were placed in the mostly nun-run institutions, often against their will. In 2021, Ireland published its final report from a public inquiry into the homes. It contained accounts from roughly 56,000 women and 57,000 children who were placed or born in the institutions, detailing horrific accounts of abuse, neglect, child deaths, forced labour and family separation. Of all the tragic tales to emerge from the scandal, Lee's is one of the best known. It was told in the 2009 book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by journalist Martin Sixsmith, then adapted into the 2013 film Philomena, starring Judi Dench. Pregnant at 18, Lee was sent to the Sean Ross Abbey in Roscrea, where she was forced to do unpaid labour. It continued until she was 22, when her three-year-old son Anthony was suddenly adopted by a family in the U.S. without her consent. "All I could see was his face peering out the back of the [car] window and that was the last I ever saw him," Lee recounted during a 2014 interview with then- As It Happens host Carol Off. "I have never forgotten that moment in my whole life and I don't suppose I ever will." Why survivors could lose benefits In the U.K., the government runs a system of social benefits for those in need, including pension credits, housing benefits and social care for people who are ill or disabled. Those benefits are means-tested, which means eligibility is contingent on a person's income and savings. So an influx of compensation from the Irish government — anywhere from €5,000 to €125,000 ($7,800 to $195,000) — would impact that formula, potentially putting some benefits out of survivors' reach. "She's getting older and frailer, so she's probably going to have to get carers at some point," Libberton said of her mother. "So the compensation money, she'd have to pay for carers out of that." WATCH | 2021 report finds thousands of infants died in mother and baby homes: 9,000 babies died in Ireland's mother and baby homes 4 years ago Duration 2:05 A disturbing report into Ireland's mother and baby homes, where unwed mothers were sent to give birth and forced to give their babies up for adoption, says along with other indignities, 9,000 babies died in the care of the 18 homes. The Irish Catholic Church, which ran the homes, has apologized and the prime minister is also expected to apologize this week. Conlon's bill would exempt the Irish compensation package from the means-tested benefits formula. And it has broad support. More than 100 MPs from all parties (out of the U.K. lower house's 650 MPs) have signed a letter of support endorsing the bill. "It shows that we're building a consensus," Conlon said. "This shouldn't be about party politics. This should be something that everyone can unite behind." Is the U.K. responsible for an Irish scandal? During a debate on the bill Tuesday, Labour's Andrew Western, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for work and pensions, said the government is already "carefully considering whether to legislate to disregard payment from Ireland's mother and baby institutions payment scheme" — though he could not provide a timeline. Western noted that similar exemptions for means-tested benefits have been carved out before for people who received compensation for, among other things, the U.K.'s tainted blood scandal, the Windrush generation immigrant scandal and the 2021 Grenfell Tower fires. Still, he said, this case could prove more complicated because the compensation comes from outside the country. "What all the examples I have given have in common is that the circumstances that gave rise to that compensation payment either occurred in this country or involved events for which the U.K. government have direct responsibility or liability," Western said. "We must not forget that income-related benefits are paid for through general taxation, so disregarding a compensation payment comes at a cost to the taxpayer." Conlon admits that carving out an exception for foreign money would, indeed, be "unprecedented." "Everything's unprecedented until it happens, and this needs to happen, and I'm going to keep campaigning until it does happen," he said. Libberton, meanwhile, says her mother is proud to support Conlon's efforts.
