Dutch government collapses as far-right leader pulls party out of coalition
The Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders has pulled his party out of the country's four-party ruling coalition in a row over immigration and asylum policy, signalling the imminent end of the Netherlands' 11-month-old government.
Wilders, whose anti-Islam Freedom party (PVV) finished first in parliamentary elections in late 2023, said on Tuesday he had informed the prime minister, Dick Schoof, that all PVV ministers would leave the government.
The far-right leader had earlier announced on social media after a brief meeting of the four party leaders in the alliance – sworn in only last July – that since there had been 'no sign-off on our asylum plans' the PVV was 'leaving the coalition'.
Wilders said the partners refused to adopt his 10-point plan for halting immigration for the purpose of seeking asylum, as he had demanded last week. Legal experts have said several of the proposals are in breach of European human rights laws or the UN refugee convention, to which the Netherlands is a signatory.
Dilan Yeşilgöz, the leader of the liberal-conservative VVD party, a coalition member, said Schoof had urged the leaders to act responsibly before Tuesday's meeting.
'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,' Yeşilgöz said.
She said she was 'shocked' by Wilders's decision, which she described as 'super-irresponsible'. Yeşilgöz added of the far-right leader: 'We had a rightwing majority, and he lets it all go for his ego. He's just doing what he wants.' Another coalition party leader, Caroline van der Plas of the populist Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), said she was very angry, and also called Wilders 'irresponsible'. Nicolien van Vroonhoven of the New Social Contract (NSC) said it was 'incomprehensible'.
Wilders's plan includes enlisting the army to secure and patrol the borders, closing refugee accommodation facilities, sending all Syrian refugees home, suspending EU asylum quotas and banning family members joining refugees already in the country.
Frustrated by the lack of progress, he warned at a press conference last week that if immigration policy was not toughened up by implementing the points on his list, the PVV – the largest party in parliament with 37 seats – would be 'out of the cabinet'.
Schoof is expected to hand his resignation to King Willem-Alexander later on Tuesday, less than a month before the Netherlands is due to host a summit of Nato leaders in The Hague.
Read More
41644033/readmore]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
21 minutes ago
- Irish Independent
Trinity College Dublin to divest from links with Israeli universities and firms
The board of the prestigious Dublin university, home to over 20,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students, made the decision to divest from Israeli links on Wednesday. Pro-Palestinian activists have called on other Irish universities to follow suit. Last May, students formed an encampment at Trinity in protest against a 214,285 euro fine imposed on the students' union after a series of demonstrations about fees and rent, and the university's ties to Israel. Following engagement with the protesters, the college dropped the fine and said it would complete a divestment from Israeli companies that have activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and appear on the UN blacklist. The students dismantled the camp after Trinity said it would 'endeavour' to divest in other Israeli companies, noting that its supplier list contains just one Israeli company which remained in place until March this year for contractual reasons. On Wednesday, Trinity's board received a report from a taskforce set up last October to examine academic and institutional links, including with Israel. Although the report is to return to the board later this year for its final consideration, based on 'the strength of the evidence shared', the board accepted the report's recommendations in relation to links with Israel. This included recommendations that the college enter into no Erasmus, collaborative research or supply agreements with Israeli universities, institutions or firms. The college has two current Erasmus+ exchange agreements, on an inbound basis only since September 2023, with Israeli universities: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which ends in July 2025, and Bar Ilan University, which ends in July 2026. The taskforce also found that the college is engaged in a number of EU-funded research consortia which include Israeli partners, and – although none of these were found to be breaching international humanitarian law or human rights – the taskforce said Trinity should not seek to participate in any new institutional research agreements involving Israeli participation. ADVERTISEMENT It also said that Trinity should look to 'align itself' with like-minded universities and bodies in an effort to influence EU policy concerning Israel's participation in such collaborations. The taskforce noted that Trinity had divested from Israeli companies on the UN blacklist and has no current supply contracts with Israeli companies. We need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review your details and accept them to load the content But it recommended that the college should fully divest from all companies headquartered in Israel and that it should not enter into any future supply contracts with Israeli firms. The taskforce accepted that the college's existing intellectual property-related contracts are acceptable as they are not collaborative, but said no new commercial relationships with Israeli entities should be set up. Chairwoman of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) Zoe Lawlor said the decision by Trinity was a 'landmark step in academic rejection of apartheid Israel's regime'. She called on more Irish universities to do the same and paid tribute to students, academics and staff who campaigned for this outcome. 'Trinity will now stand on the right side of history, as it did with South African apartheid in the past, but it is nevertheless disappointing that it took so long to get to this position,' she said. 'We echo the view of TCD Students' Union that it remains disappointing that Trinity has not withdrawn from ongoing projects involving Israeli partners who provide military technology and training that will run until 2029. 'Nonetheless, we celebrate each and every step towards de-normalising relations with the genocidal, apartheid state of Israel. We call on the Irish Government and the EU to pay heed to the changing climate, and to act to bring an end to all Irish state complicity with the apartheid regime.' The taskforce, chaired by former president of the High Court Mary Irvine, met on 14 occasions and received 77 submissions in total.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Bitter pill: EU exploits Trump anti-science climate to forge deal on medicines
The EU's sweeping new rules on the regulation of medicines has been one of the most bitterly contested pieces of legislation in recent times, with fierce lobbying by the pharma sector - particularly in Ireland - and member states divided on which to prioritise: cheaper medicines for patients, or a regulatory environment that supports indigenous European manufacturers in the face of US dominance. After two years of deadlock, 26 member states have agreed on a compromise proposal, with only Malta - which has its own small-market medicines challenge - abstaining. Ironically, it was the Trump administration's hostility to science and medicine regulators that convinced EU member states that the moment to finally agree on a new set of rules was at hand. "In the US you have a chaotic situation," says one source familiar with negotiations, "between [Health Secretary] Robert Kennedy Jr, who doesn't believe in science or vaccines, and the Trump administration, which has sacked three and a half thousand people from the Food and Drugs Administration. "There was a sense in Europe that we should try to get this proposal settled so that we have a stable system in Europe when there's instability elsewhere." The legislation will now go to the European Parliament, where negotiations between MEPs, the member states and the European Commission, begin on 17 June. There are hopes that the entire package could be adopted by the end of the year. The European Commission first proposed overhauling the EU's medicines regime in April 2023, as Europe was emerging from the Covid pandemic. The EU was reeling from the strain the emergency put on health systems and on the availability of certain kinds of medicines, with a deepening awareness that Europe was overly dependent on China and India for drugs such as antibiotics. At the same time, digitalisation and the availability of clinical data were opening up new possibilities in how medicines are developed and used. Despite that, innovative therapies were not reaching patients across Europe at the same speed while in some member states patients did not have access to medicines they needed due to shortages. The instinct to reduce health spending further has been given fresh impetus by the expected surge in EU defence expenditure following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Overall, the pharma package sought to boost the competitiveness of the sector, reduce the administrative burden - and the over-reliance on India and China - and to tackle the environmental impact of drug manufacture and use. The central, most divisive issue was around the protection that big European pharma countries would have in holding on to clinical data before generic manufacturers - who could produce cheaper drugs - could access it. It became a straightforward contest between the competing interests of big pharma, which argued that companies needed the protection in order to invest more in life-saving domestic European research and innovation, and those countries which were more interested in lowering the cost of medicines and making those medicines more accessible to patients. The legislation was always going to face a stormy passage. "The difficulty was that the countries that didn't have pharmaceutical industries were very much opposing the regulatory data protection (RDP) element because all they were interested in was making medicines available to citizens," says Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher, a substitute member of the European Parliament health committee. "Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and others would have been very, very reluctant to support the strong protection of regulatory data, while it was the old West, countries like Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands that have big manufacturing and pharma centres, a lot of research and development, who were pushing for it." The new rules would attempt to reconcile the issue of regulatory data protection, which theoretically encourages pharmaceutical companies to invest more in life-saving medicines, with the need to make drugs more affordable. Under existing EU rules, pharma companies were entitled to keep clinical data for eight years - the so-called regulatory data protection (RDP) before they were obliged to make it accessible. After the eight years was up, generic producers could file an application to use the data, at which point the patent holder enjoyed a further two - and sometimes three - extra years of protection. Under the commission's 2023 proposal, there would be a two-year reduction in the baseline RDP to six years, with an extra two years of protection. However, pharma companies could claw back a further two years of protection - extending RDP to ten years. The ten-year protection period would be available if the patent holder won approval for significant new innovations (one extra year of protection), if the product addressed an "unmet medical need", ie, where there was product authorised in the EU for a particular disease, or where the disease was associated with a high death-rate (such a situation would merit an extra six months of market protection), or if the manufacturer conducted clinical trials or extended access to all member states (another six months). Essentially, the commission was attempting to balance the need to reward medicines that meet the greatest clinical need, while speeding up access to generic producers who will make drugs that are cheaper. However, the new rules were facing hostility from traditional pharma manufacturing countries such as Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands, who argued that a shorter clinical data protection period would stymie research. The Irish Times reported on a full scale lobbying effort by industry, including a claim in a letter to Tánaiste Simon Harris by the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA) that the proposal could lead to a 22% drop in new medicines being developed over the coming decade. It is understood there were tensions between the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, who shared the concerns of industry, and the Department of Health, which was more concerned with lowering the cost of medicines and making them more accessible. A number of sources have said that while member states with important pharma sectors went public two years ago, when the commission first proposed reducing clinical data protection from eight years to six, in demanding the status quo of eight years, Ireland remained on the fence, and did so right up until a key meeting of EU ambassadors on 21 May. On that date, Ireland joined a blocking majority of ten countries - including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany - to oppose the latest Polish proposal that would have essentially increased the RDP by one year to seven, but short of eight. As a result of that blocking minority, the Poles came back with another compromise text, which is - to all intents and purposes - a return to eight years, with various caveats and conditions designed to make medicines cheaper and more accessible (one part of the text aims to ensure that medicinal products are available in all member states and provides for regulatory action if the marketing authorisation holder does not comply). Officials say the text provides more reassurance for generic producers, and will cut timelines for authorised medicines to get to market. There are other measures, including making it easier to have multi-country and multilingual medicine packs, which should reduce production costs and make it easier to move medicines around Europe. At yesterday morning's meeting of EU ambassadors, the new text received overwhelming support. The IPHA are understood to be broadly satisfied with the compromise. In a statement, the organisation said it "believes the [member states] position represents a more balanced approach than had originally been proposed by the Commission. "As the legislative process enters the final phase, EU decision makers must continue to find solutions that will keep Europe competitive through a predictable and globally competitive environment for research, development and manufacturing, while ensuring fairer access to innovative medicines for patients across the EU." Support is not uniform. The chief executive of the Confederation of Danish Industry Lars Sandahl Sørensen accused member states of triggering a potential flight of European industry to Trump's America. "We are de facto making the EU's pharmaceutical industry less competitive and thus European society vulnerable," he said. The European pharma lobby group EFPIA described yesterday's position by member states as "a missed opportunity to position Europe's life sciences sector at the forefront of global competition". In a statement, EFPIA said: "The choice to reduce intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies makes Europe less attractive, discouraging investment and jeopardising the development of innovative treatments in Europe without addressing the underlying barriers and delays to patient access." There is some scepticism over the industry's seeming exploitation of Donald Trump's persistence in threatening tariffs on European pharmaceutical exports and reshoring manufacturing to the US. In April the industry wrote to commission president Ursula von der Leyen, suggesting that €50.6 billion in capital investment and €52.6bn in research and development expenditure were at risk if the EU continued to over-regulate the pharma sector. "Unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US," EFPIA warned. Officials suggest the upcoming Critical Medicines Act (CMA) will further boost access to cheaper medicines. Drugs such as those for diabetes or HRT have been susceptible to disruption and shortages in recent years because they are often generic and produced outside the EU. The CMA will aim to encourage more manufacturing of such drugs in Europe. The action now moves to the European Parliament, where so-called trilogues - three way negotiations between member states, the Commission and MEPs - will further shape the legislation. Last year the parliament adopted its own position, calling for an RDP of seven and a half years with the possibility of some extensions. The parliament has since moved to the right, following last year's elections, so it remains to be seen if further battles are expected.
RTÉ News
4 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Dutch government collapses after far-right leader Wilders quits coalition
The Dutch government collapsed today, most likely ushering in a snap election, after anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders quit the right-wing coalition, accusing other parties of failing to back his tougher immigration policies. But Prime Minister Dick Schoof, an independent, accused the political maverick of irresponsibility, and the other coalition parties denied failing to support Mr Wilders, saying they had been awaiting proposals from his PVV party's own migration minister. PVV ministers will quit the cabinet, leaving the others to continue as a caretaker administration until an election unlikely to be held before October. Frustration with migration and the high cost of living is boosting the far right and widening divisions in Europe, just as it needs unity to deal effectively with a hostile Russia and an unpredictable and combative US president in the form of Donald Trump. "I have told party leaders repeatedly in recent days that the collapse of the cabinet would be unnecessary and irresponsible," Mr Schoof said after an emergency cabinet meeting triggered by Mr Wilders' decision. "We are facing major challenges both nationally and internationally that require decisiveness from us," he added, before handing his resignation to King Willem-Alexander. The prospect of a new election is likely to delay a decision on boosting defence spending and means the Netherlands will have only a caretaker government when it hosts a summit of the transatlantic NATO alliance this month. Election may be months away Mr Wilders said he had no option but to quit the coalition. "I proposed a plan to close the borders for asylum seekers, to send them away, to shut asylum shelters. I demanded coalition partners sign up to that, which they didn't. That left me no choice but to withdraw my support for this government," he told reporters. "I signed up for the strictest asylum policies, not for the demise of the Netherlands." He said he would lead the PVV into a new election and hoped to be the next prime minister. An election is now likely at the end of October or in November, said political scientist Joep van Lit at Radboud University in Nijmegen. Even then, the fractured political landscape means formation of a new government may take months. It remains to be seen whether right-wing voters will see the turn of events as Mr Wilders' failure to turn his proposals into reality, or rather decide that he needs a bigger mandate to get his way, Mr van Lit said. Simon Otjes, assistant professor in Dutch politics at Leiden University, said the PVV must have calculated that the next election would be seen as a referendum on immigration policy, "because they know they would win that". Amsterdam resident Michelle ten Berge hoped that "with the new election we will choose ... a government that's more moderate". But florist Ron van den Hoogenband, in The Hague, said he expected Mr Wilders to emerge the winner and take control of parliament "so he can do like Trump is doing and other European countries where the extreme right is taking over". Immigration a divisive issue Mr Wilders won the last election in November 2023 with an unexpectedly high 23% of the vote. Opinion polls put his party at around 20% now, roughly on a par with the Labour/Green combination that is currently the second-largest grouping in parliament. Mr Wilders had last week demanded immediate support for a 10-point plan that included closing the borders to asylum seekers, sending back refugees from Syria and shutting down asylum shelters. He also proposed expelling migrants convicted of serious crimes and boosting border controls. Migration has been a divisive issue in Dutch politics for years. The previous government, led by current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, also collapsed after failing to reach a deal on restricting immigration. Mr Wilders, a provocative politician who was convicted of discrimination against Moroccans in 2016, was not part of the latest government himself. He only managed to strike a coalition deal with three other conservative parties last year after agreeing not to become prime minister.
