Chairman,
The shameful political situation in our country was painfully illustrated in last Fridays broadcast of Nieuwsuur. First, we saw a report on developments in German politics. Christian Democrat and prospective Chancellor Friedrich Merz, together with the Social Democrats, is taking significant steps to get German defense in order. Both are stepping over their shadows and understand that this time calls for leadership.
Merz speaks clearly:
“This package is a clear message to our partners,” he said. “There is no lack of financial resources to defend freedom and peace on our continent. Germany is back. Germany is making a significant contribution to defending freedom and peace in Europe.”
And then came the next item, about the political situation in the Netherlands. About how a motion from the one-man faction Eerdmans was supported by 3 of the 4 coalition parties. A motion asking the government not to let the Netherlands participate in ReArm Europe. A motion passed while Prime Minister Schoof was already in Brussels. Germany and the Netherlands: the contrast could not be greater. Determination versus muddling through. Decisiveness versus a narrow-minded bookkeeper mentality. Unity versus division.
Chairman, I find it difficult to watch this political amateurism. “Govern or get out!”, opposition leader Mark Rutte once said. The letter in which the cabinet describes how they implement the Eerdmans motion is not clear, but obfuscating. The letter states that the European Commissions proposal involves joint debt issuance and not eurobonds. But the motion does not speak at all about eurobonds, but precisely about joint debt issuance. The three coalition parties that voted for this motion have therefore voted against joint debt issuance, and the cabinet is ignoring it. The motion also asks not to participate in ReArm Europe. The cabinet ignores that as well.
Chairman, the motion is therefore not partially implemented; the motion is not implemented at all, and that is just as well. Because this is indeed the only right thing to do now: participate in ReArm Europe. I would like a response from the Prime Minister.
Chairman, in Europe, the discussion at this moment is not whether member states are for or against ReArm Europe. The discussion is already a phase further. Member states are now doing their utmost to get their own defense industry as well as possible in the conditions of the package. But the Netherlands is busy in Brussels limiting the damage in its own coalition and fighting a rear-guard action over the financial conditions.
What conditions does the cabinet want to attach to the ReArm Europe package? What is the cabinet doing now concretely to ensure that the package also strengthens the defense industry in the Netherlands? How do we ensure that not all investments end up in France? Let me give a concrete example. In Twente, there is the company TenCate, which produces, among other things, uniforms for the army. The Dutch army does not wear them because they are too expensive. The American army chooses the best equipment and therefore wears TenCate uniforms. Behold the Dutch shopkeeper mentality.
The Netherlands hosts a number of important large defense companies, such as Thales, Damen, Fokker, and Airbus, but also many smaller companies that produce vehicles, robots, radars, and ammunition. How do we ensure that the Dutch defense industry also benefits?
Will there be an inventory of defense equipment that we as Europe do not want to buy outside the EU in the short or long term, but want to produce ourselves? How do we ensure that the hundreds of billions we invest in defense are spent as much as possible in Europe? The agenda also includes the new EU budget for 2028 to 2034. The letter states that there is no room to increase the national contribution to the EU budget, in line with the Coalition Agreement. However, the cabinet wanted to cut the contribution to the EU budget by 1.6 billion euros from 2028. Is this ambition now silently abandoned?
Finally, chairman.
In Serbia and Bosnia, things are currently going quickly in the wrong direction. Is this the next headache dossier for Europe? I would like a response from the cabinet on how they see these developments and what Europes commitment is.