Mark Rutte had his first encounter with Barack Obama at the White House today, and economics was top of the agenda – specifically, Rutte and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs played along with Obama’s current No. 1 concern and emphasised the number of jobs Dutch business concerns provide in the United States. 625,000, to be precise, according to a report assembled by the Dutch Embassy in Washington DC, a total which combines jobs linked to US exports to the Netherlands and jobs secured through Dutch investments in the US.

The packaging of the Rutte visit in this economic context is of course choosing a topic that will get the President’s ear, but it is also a smart move to focus on the economics of the Dutch-US relationship. While the importance of the Netherlands has declined in American eyes, the stats on trade and investment remain remarkable.

The Netherlands still holds on to the No. 3 position in terms of foreign direct investment in the US with $217bn. Beyond this is the fact that the US invests more in the Netherlands than any other state – $521bn. As the Dutch Ambassador Renee Jones-Bos puts it, “It is the result of our shared entrepreneurial spirit,” which is nice, but kind of glosses over the impact that extremely favourable Dutch tax and company registration policies have in making the Netherlands such an attractive destination for US funds. Most of the 1500+ US companies registered in the Netherlands are after all holding companies – shells profiting from a foothold in the Single Market. I also like the way the Netherlands is promoted as “a reliable trade and investment partner to the U.S,” a semi-swipe at those other nations that are perhaps not so trustworthy with their holdings of billions of US government bonds…..

But ok, the figures to an extent certainly speak for themselves. Its also fun to see a country exploiting the fact that it runs a major trade deficit with the US as an item of pride, not concern – ‘Hey, we buy loads of your stuff, we’re on your side!’ Rutte has rammed this pitch home by floating the idea of a US-EU free trade zone to further boost jobs, trade, investment – and who better to do this than the Dutch, pushing the merits of free trade from within the centre of the European integration process since day one (unlike the Brits, who may talk free trade but don’t walk the EU). “Dutch business leaders look forward to an intensive dialogue with American authorities” on this issue, according to Rutte in a ‘leaked’ press release. And why not? The transatlantic economy may be fading slightly in terms of trade (the US now trades more with Asia as a whole), but in terms of investment it is way ahead of anything crossing the Pacific. As the American Chamber of Commerce in Rotterdam put it, “mutual investment in the North Atlantic space is very large, dwarfs trade, and has become essential to U.S. and European jobs and prosperity.” And the Dutch are pretty well integrated into American socio-economic life, down to the Little Amsterdam Coffeeshop in Saratoga, California, that sells a good ……. pea soup.

But perhaps the nicest part of the whole (brief) Rutte-Obama show is the Dutch Embassy’s report on the US-Dutch economic relationship. Having had a dig in the last post below at the downward direction of the Dutch brand, the interactive maps of the Economic Ties report are great. Just shows, even economic chauvinism can sometimes look really good.

 [Thanks to Healthview for image]

There is a growing academic research and consultancy industry on the issue of nation-branding, specifically: how a nation-state can improve its impact in the world by building a credible, recognisable brand-name for itself. Classic examples are Spain leaving Franco behind and re-creating itself as an idyllic, culturally-rich Mediterranean hotspot, and Norway earning a reputation as a quiet but effective behind-the-scenes conflict-resolver (otherwise known as ‘niche diplomacy’). But brands, as with anything in the marketplace, are not permanent and need to be constantly nurtured, otherwise the credibility soon dissolves. Spain has run into trouble as its hotspot image hits the financial buffers, but Barcelona remains ultra-cool. Norway has entered a period of major soul-searching now that Anton Breivik has shattered the domestic peace, but it remains an effective diplomatic force.

While there are plenty of recorded success stories, it is more interesting to watch the complete fragmentation of a national brand up close, in real time. Welcome to the Netherlands in late 2011.

When Uri Rosenthal became Foreign Minister just over a year ago, there was a sense that his reputation as a heavy-weight domestic political fixer and trusted advisor to Mark Rutte would carry some momentum into foreign affairs. Together with State Secretary Ben Knapen (‘The Nonconformist’), it was a noticeable change of tack for the Ministry. But the writing was already on the wall in the Governing Agreement between VVD and CDA that identified Israel as the only land that the Dutch minority government would strengthen relations with.

Overall, the Agreement declared that the Netherlands would “pursue international stability and security, the supply of energy and raw materials, the promotion of international law, and the trade and economic interests of the Netherlands and Dutch companies.” One year down the line and it is clear that Israel and economic interests – very narrowly defined – dominate everything coming out of The Hague. The long tradition of the Netherlands being on the side of a just, balanced international system, with development aid and peace-keeping as central parts of this, is being left behind for a petty nationalism lacking any vision except for immediate selfish gain. The Dutch brand is in free-fall.

Rosenthal has been repeatedly criticised for his ham-fisted determination to push national interests abroad. A discreet survey by the NRC, published yesterday, of Dutch diplomats and civil servants has produced a highly negative insight into the diplomatic apparatus. The pro-Israeli standpoint had led to the isolation of the Netherlands in the EU and the loss of one of the central planks of the Dutch brand, the support of human rights. The minimal Dutch contribution to NATO’s Operation Unified Protector – compared even to Denmark, or Belgium, which still doesn’t even have a government – and the hardly-worth-bothering-about ‘police training mission’ in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz has reduced The Hague from a worthwhile trustworthy ally of Washington to a small insignificant inward-looking country that the Americans don’t care about any more. G20 participation is long, long gone. The blinkered focus on economic interests has reduced the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to little more than an appendage to the Ministry of Economic Affairs under Maxime Verhagen.

In short, the current leadership of foreign policy is dismantling the Dutch brand, piece by piece, norm by norm, value by value. This is not totally down to Geert Wilders either – Rosenthal has long been an Israel supporter and does not need heat from the PVV to follow that line. This is simply his style. Typical is his reaction to the NRC‘s expose on Binnenhof today, disliking the fact that civil servants had spoken to the paper anonymously and dismissing them as the no-hopers most afraid of their jobs with the coming 75m Euro cuts at the Ministry. Not a response that suggests much self-reflection, or a willingness to accept criticism. He reacted equally negatively at the end of October after interviews with various ambassadors in the NRC sketched the Netherlands as an increasingly provincial land where small issues dominate the political scene.

As Juurd Eijsvoogel reminded everyone a week ago, the Dutch ‘Alleingang’ is a costly business. The promotion of economic interests relies on maintaining positive relations with your partners. Demanding results for oneself while ignoring the standpoints of others is a rapid way to de-friend yourself. As the Belgian ambassador put it – the Dutch could start by listening to others more (listening is not a Dutch strong point). Having spent the past decade nurturing a brand of international repute, the Dutch Foreign Ministry is now reducing everything to simplistic chauvinism.

Last Sunday and Monday Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal visited Tripoli, making some positive noises about releasing $2bn of frozen Libyan funds (earlier declarations of releasing $3.5bn have so far produced nothing). Dutch involvement in Operation Unified Protector was limited to enforcing the no-fly zone, leaving the serious stuff to others. But last week the most intriguing event in the whole Libyan escapade – the failed Sirte evacuation mission of Sunday 27 February – once more saw the light of day.

A short recap. A representative (who we know as ‘NN’) of infrastructure/engineering giant Royal Haskoning needed to be evacuated. The frigate Hr.Ms.Tromp, stationed just off the coast, sent a helicopter to rescue him. The location chosen was, remarkably, Sirte - home town of Gaddafi himself. The helicopter, which entered Libyan airspace without authorisation, and its three crew were held by pro-Gaddafi forces soon after landing. After plenty of behind-the-scenes negotiations, the crew were released after a week and a half.

On 1 November the Advisory Committee for the Intelligence and Security Services (CTIVD) made public its report on the role of the MIVD and AIVD in the evacuation mission. The results were not very startling. Coordination between the two intelligence services was lacking. The MIVD only informed the AIVD of the situation on 3 March. The AIVD then approached foreign intelligence services without informing the Foreign Ministry. Back in March the big joke had been that Military Intelligence didn’t work on Sunday and so failed to respond to the Tromp’s request for information that afternoon – an accusation that drew a furious response from the MIVD’s supporters. The CTIVD now largely exonerates the MIVD from any failure to respond.

But the CTIVD’s mandate for this report was very narrow – only look at the intelligence services. The decision to go ahead with the mission came from the very top - the Ministerial Core Group for Special Operations (MKSO), consisting of the Minister-President (Mark Rutte), Vice Minister-President (Maxime Verhagen), Minister of Defence (Hans Hillen), and Minister of Foreign Affairs (Uri Rosenthal). Under the MKSO’s responsibility lay “the evacuation of citizens from life-threatening situations.” As former MIVD boss Joop van Reijn said, the service had been unable to respond properly at the time because it had been deliberately excluded from the planning of the operation.

For the whole month of March both media and opposition MPs went after Defence Minister Hans Hillen and the MIVD. 124 parliamentary questions were tabled. Hillen survived, but many remained unconvinced.

Inevitably, the more interesting rumours circulated for a while in the outer reaches of the Dutch blogcloud. The origin seems to have been Klokkenluider.nl, who posted a remarkable alternate version of events already on 5 March. Other sites picked it up, but the mainstream media, as far as I am aware, never went near it apart from one or two passing references. Which is a pity – and in itself also says a lot.

It goes something like this. The official story is that the helicopter was sent to pick up a Dutch engineer and a woman with a Swedish passport who had somehow heard about the evacuation. Even though this ’Swedish woman’ was actually interviewed by the Dutch media in late March, this was a put-up job. The woman in Libya was in fact Princess Mabel of Oranje Nassau, Mabel Wisse Smit, wife of Prince Friso, who was in Libya to arrange a mutually acceptable solution for Gaddafi’s economic interests in the Netherlands. Gaddafi held a substantial stake in Fortis-ABN and this needed to be taken care of. The helicopter was not on a rescue mission but a hostage mission – the crew were to remain in Libya until the transaction was secure and Wisse Smit was out of the country – official reports state that the two ‘evacuees’ left the country on 2 March. Why Wisse Smit? A long-time executive in George Soros’s Open Society Institute and closely involved in Balkans affairs, she knew prominent son Saif Gaddafi through the World Economic Forum’s Global Young Leaders network, and was well-connected with both financial and governmental leaders on both sides. The Gaddafi assets were apparently transferred to Ageas, a successor enterprise to Fortis. Gaddafi’s economic interests in the Netherlands went far beyond the $3.5bn of frozen financial assets. There was plenty of private equity interest in the substantial funds available from the Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund. Tamoil, the Libyan national oil company, has a base in Riddekerk from where it runs around 160 filling stations in the Netherlands. Verenex Energy, the Libyan oil and gas prospector, is based in the same location. From GeenNieuws came the nice extra detail: Wisse Smit’s Twitter timeline stopped on 24 February and restarted on 2 March, when she claimed to be in Ethiopia.

Elite / Conspiracy nonsense? Or simply a cover-up for a business transaction that almost cost the Defence Minister his job? Nothing more has come out on this that I know of. But the bottom line is that its just about believable. And its a great story.

By Robin Doeswijk

In ‘Thoughts on Rutte I’ I wrote about the eroding status of the national parliament and the contrast between the chagrin of sidelined MPs and the cheerful confidence of the prime minister. Ironically, the one member of parliament who at times manages to dispel the smile from Mark Rutte’s face is perhaps the one with the least reason to worry about losing influence. Geert Wilders has the ear of the prime minister as well as of the media whenever he speaks. Rutte does not have the luxury of ignoring Wilders, whose support keeps the minority VVD-CDA cabinet afloat. Whenever Wilders’s Freedom Party (PVV) is unwilling to back up the government, as with any attempt to bail out the Greeks, Rutte is forced to seek the support of opposition parties.

That both sides are not always happy with their political alliance was on full display during budget deliberations in the Tweede Kamer last September, which saw Wilders and Rutte shouting “doe eens normaal man!” at each other after the latter distanced himself from the qualification of Turkish government leader Erdogan as an “islamic ape” by a member of Wilders’s party. More than the literal meaning of the reproach (“just behave normally for a change!”), it was the sharp tone used by both Wilders and Rutte that set off a wave of indignation and embarrassed reactions from political friends and foes alike.

Since the notorious shouting match there are signs that both sides are growing increasingly uncomfortable with their political dependency on each other. Wilders has already said that he expects more obstacles on the road for next year, hinting that there is a limit to his patience with ministers casting doubt on policy targets agreed upon between his party and the government. Rutte has carefully avoided voicing doubts about his cooperation with the PVV and he prevented a conflict between Wilders and immigration minister Leers from escalating, forcing the latter to swallow remarks that implicated a departure from a targeted reduction of immigration numbers, a core cabinet promise to the PVV. Still, by shooting back at Wilders in the September debate – “behave normally yourself!”, condemned by many as disgraceful and unworthy of a prime minister – he has shown that he is not willing to hold onto his pact with the populists at any cost.

The most obvious obstacle to continued cooperation between the CDA-VVD government and their parliamentary partner is Europe. Wilders has warned repeatedly that he will drop his support if the government continues to “throw money at Greece” and transfer more powers to Europe. The liberals and christian-democrats however have embarked, for mostly pragmatical reasons, on an increasingly pro-European course. With the deepening debt crisis screaming for a European solution, a retreat away from Europe seems impossible for the government parties, which does not bode well for the partnership’s chances of survival in 2012.

Prime minister Rutte, who has said that Wilders’s foreign policy does not reach beyond Flanders and Israel, has no illusions about the PVV’s Europe-mindedness. As he seeks, and finds, support from opposition parties for his dealings with Europe, he knows that the moment approaches when the concessions exacted by the opposition will clash with those promised to Wilders. In a year set to be dominated by domestic budget cuts and bail-outs of eurozone partners, a year also that is likely to see spreading social protests and rising political tensions, that moment could arrive sooner rather than later. In between the smiles, expect a shouting match or two.

By Robin Doeswijk

[Thanks to 3DN for the image]

It’s not easy being a Member of Parliament these days. You call the prime minister to your venerable Chamber – on a Saturday, no less! – to grill him on his negotiation positions ahead of crucial crisis talks with other European government leaders, and all he tells you is that he can’t tell you anything lest he compromise his strategy for the summit. A little stunned, you threaten not to approve whatever deal he takes home from the summit, but the PM laughs at the suggestion – knowing that you will think twice before saying ‘no’ to a hard-fought European decision eagerly awaited by a whole continent plus the rest of the world. You put on your angriest face, yet the PM remains cheerful, responding to your chagrin with a broad and humiliating smile.

With minimal support and an overloaded portfolio, you work hard, very hard, but who pays attention?

You think up all these catchy oneliners, yet the media refuse to quote them (that is, if your name is not Wilders). Watching the evening news, you notice to your annoyance that the Brussels correspondent gets more primetime minutes than his colleagues in The Hague – I ask you! Here you are, taking seriously your role as supervisor of the executive branch, yet everyone seems to be ignoring you or laughing at you. A parliament is supposed to hold government to account. But what if there is increasing competition on the accountability market? If the government is accountable to fellow EU government leaders, occasionally to the European Commission, and increasingly often even to the European Parliament – that wannabe assembly you and your MP friends used to poke fun at, also known as refuge for less talented party colleagues who had trouble making it in The Hague – where does that leave you, as a dedicated national parliamentarian in an increasingly supranational world?

Meeting on the eve of the EU debt crisis summits (23 and 26 October), the Tweede Kamer in The Hague was eager to claim its role in the unfolding political drama around Greece and the euro. Prime minister Rutte was not impressed with this parliamentary muscle-flexing, however, and kept his cards to his chest, unwilling to relinquish whatever small negotiating freedom he had in Brussels. MP Arie Slob of the opposition Christian Union, as quoted in Trouw, drew a bitter conclusion: “This is about billions of euros, but we are being dragged along. Parliament stands on the sidelines.” Trouw itself wondered: “Would this not create the impression that Parliament turns off the lights in The Hague, while in Brussels the sparks fly off the power cables?”.

No, times are not easy for MPs. Parliament used to be at the heart of decisionmaking in the national capital. While still located in the heart of the capital, it is no longer the place where it all happens. Nowadays most major decisions are made in Brussels, just a few hours’ drive from The Hague yet oh so far away. As Europe’s economies suffer and governments feel compelled to take a flight forward, handing over ever more power to Brussels, it seems inevitable that national parliaments will see their clout waning further. Not, of course, that you and your fellow MPs in The Hague, Berlin, Madrid or Budapest would publicly admit it.

In times like these, you crave for a vulnerable, colourless, stammering prime minister. And what do you get? An irritatingly good-humored, charismatic and eloquent head of government who seems to genuinely enjoy the most critical questions.

“A roadworker has a tougher job”, a relaxed prime minister Rutte said to reporters after his meeting with the Tweede Kamer, referring to his hectic schedule as he was about to rush back to Brussels for nightly deliberations with his European colleagues. His body language said that he meant it. His encounter with the parliamentarians had been jolly; a welcome break away from the politics on the main stage.

1. (C) Your July 14 meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Pieter Balkenende provides an opportunity for us to urge the Dutch to continue as part of NATO in Afghanistan and to enlist PM Balkenende in solving Guantanamo issues. For his part, Balkenende will seek to continue the Dutch role in the G20 and to find a common ground to work with us on climate change and the Middle East.

2. (C) Balkenende, in office through four coalitions since 2002, is a cunning politician who does not impose his vision on coalition partners, but maneuvers effectively to achieve the intended goal. At first, he was dismissed as a lightweight “Harry Potter” look-alike, but he has consistently and skillfully delivered Cabinet support for U.S. policy objectives while balancing fragile parliamentary majorities. Balkenende,s current center-left coalition government (“Balkenende IV”) is held together more by fear of early elections than any unity of vision. The financial crisis has plunged the Netherlands into a recession likely to last through 2010, and the Cabinet must continually defend its three relatively modest stimulus packages against calls to do more to spur recovery. Balkenende is also under pressure from a skeptical public to withdraw the Netherlands, 1,800 troops from Afghanistan in 2010. His main coalition partner, the Labor Party, is in decline, having fared poorly in the 2006 national election and the 2009 European Parliament election, and believes rejecting a continuing role in Afghanistan will please its base and may win back supporters.

3. (S) The Wilders Factor: Golden-pompadoured, maverick parliamentarian Geert Wilders, anti-Islam, nationalist Freedom Party remains a thorn in the coalition’s side, capitalizing on the social stresses resulting from the failure to fully integrate almost a million Dutch Muslims, mostly of Moroccan or Turkish descent. In existence only since 2006, the Freedom Party, tightly controlled by Wilders, has grown to be the Netherlands second largest, and fastest growing, party. Recent polls suggest it could even replace Balkenende,s Christian Democrats as the top party in 2011 parliamentary elections. Wilders is no friend of the U.S.: he opposes Dutch military involvement in Afghanistan; he believes development assistance is money wasted; he opposes NATO missions outside “allied” territory; he is against most EU initiatives; and, most troubling, he forments fear and hatred of immigrants.

4. (C) As a result of these currents, Balkenende,s coalition finds itself in a precarious position and could fall within a year (most likely after municipal elections in March 2010). The Prime Minister is aware we want him to deliver continued Dutch boots on the ground in Afghanistan after 2010 and help with Guantanamo detainees. He knows there are high risks/expectations involved in his meeting with you, but we understand he is coming to offer as much as he thinks he can deliver at this time.

5. (S) Balkenende, a long-time champion of U.S.-Dutch relations, seeks to establish a strong relationship with you and capitalize on your popularity. The Dutch public overwhelmingly supported your election in November, and you remain hugely popular here as a beacon of change. Balkenende Qremain hugely popular here as a beacon of change. Balkenende will encourage you to view the long arc of the U.S.-Dutch relationship, not just current bumps in the road (e.g. the likely drawdown of Dutch forces in Afghanistan after 2010). He wants you to see the Netherlands as America,s friend and partner, with significant Dutch contributions to our shared foreign policy priorities: Dutch military presence in Afghanistan and support for NATO; support for U.S. intervention in Iraq; active participation in the EU, NATO, and other multilateral institutions; substantial and sustained foreign development assistance; and a long-standing commitment to promoting human rights, tolerance, and the rule of law. And, he will ask you for a seat at the G-20 table in Pittsburgh as well as for a meeting at the White House in September for the Crown Prince.

6. (C) Balkenende will use your private, one-on-one session to highlight your shared personal values and experiences. He believes social organizations are more effective in promoting change than government. His philosophy is that we must treat

THE HAGUE 00000395 002 OF 002

one another with dignity and respect as we live and work together. Your Father,s Day call for fathers to accept more responsibility in the rearing of their children resonated with him. Balkenende will also likely use the one-on-one session to pinpoint the political difficulties of the deliverables we are seeking. Rather than cover a laundry list of topics, the Dutch want the larger meeting to focus on 1) Afghanistan/Pakistan, 2) the future of the global economic system (including the role of the G20 and how to help developing countries), 3) the Middle East Peace Process/Iran, and 4) climate change. The Prime Minister is anticipating other key foreign policy issues (e.g. human rights, Russia, NATO, non-proliferation, energy security, 400th anniversary of Henry Hudson,s voyage to Manhattan – NY400) can be covered by staff or only briefly mentioned to stay focused on the major issues. Two cables will follow which will expand on these topics.

GALLAGHER

‘This is a celebration’ said Maxime Verhagen on Saturday, after 32% of CDA party members had voted against the proposed coalition with the VVD. Meanwhile a few hundred miles to the East, Geert Wilders was talking of Islam as a ‘dangerous ideology’ in Berlin. Two days later he was sitting in an Amsterdam courtroom facing charges of inciting hatred. A case which then almost fell apart on the first day due to a major procedural mistake by the chief judge.

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Fortunately, HB contributor Jovan Pronk is on hand to offer some welcome insights….

Power Play

by Jovan Pronk

So then, after all the huffing and puffing at the CDA conference in Arnhem last weekend – check out crown-prince-in-retirement Camiel Eurlings emotional contribution (in Dutch):

Brief translation: The CDA is strong enough to hold onto its principles and enter this coalition, and we will never be like the PVV. Maxime, we will follow you into the sea if necessary etc etc

A minority VVD-CDA government, supported by Geert Wilder’s anti-Islamic Freedom Party (PVV), is virtually a fact. All that remains is the divvying up of the ministerial posts and the traditional photo on the palace steps with Queen Beatrix.

On one level CDA leader Maxime Verhagen has pulled off a remarkable piece of political gamesmanship. His divided party, halved and humiliated in the last election, is about to re-enter government as joint-partners with the VVD with, one assumes, more ministers than in the last administration. Despite dealing with Wilders there was much talk in Arnhem of the CDA staying true to its ‘Christian Democratic principles and values’, but as journalists Kustaw Bessems and  Dirk Jan Nieuwboer in ‘De Pers’ pointed out, Christian Democratic ideology is:

“a bit like the Loch Ness monster. Everyone has heard of it, but does it actually exist? Sure, it has something to do with ‘justice, responsibility, solidarity, stewardship’, but what any of this actually means today, no one knows. “We must finish first again!”. Eurlings knew that at least.”

Whether this government will last any longer than the farcical coalition between the VVD, CDA and the late Pim Fortuyn’s party remains an open question. Whilst Geert Wilders himself appears in an Amsterdam courtroom for the second day, on charges of discrimination and fermenting hate, remarkably little attention has been given to the fact that one of his MPs, defense spokesman Marcial Hernandez, spent a night in police custody having reportedly head butted a civil servant in a barroom row. Another Freedom Party MP, Hero Brinkman, was previously banned from the press centre following an altercation with a barman. No charges were pressed, and Brinkman denied he had actually attacked the barman, but admitted to a ‘drinking problem’. Sharp-eyed political journalist  Peter Middendorp noted that in a short period of time MPs from the Freedom Party have already been responsible for more acts of violence in and around the parliament than in any time in Dutch parliamentary history.

Whilst much focus was given to whether two ‘dissenting’ CDA MPs would back the coalition- they concluded they would, sort-of -  the minority government will also be dependent on law makers in Wilder’s one-member-party, voting as told. Or at least keeping out of police cells.

Like most Western European countries the Netherlands faces a difficult period of balancing financial austerity and budget cuts without damaging fragile economic recovery. It is set to do so with a minority government dependent on the support of a populist, far-right party of cranks, thugs and islamophobes. Conservative VVD leader Mark Rutte is set to become the first nominally ‘liberal’ Dutch Prime Minister since  Pieter Cort van der Linden (1913-1918). Whether his government will remain long in office is another matter.

(De Pers, 18-1-2010) 

The parliamentary debate on the cabinet formation this week finally broke the ice on where the main parties really stand in relation to the PVV. Since it was the CDA that held the ‘keys’ to a right-wing majority cabinet, as Wilders put it, it was only fitting that it should be Maxime Verhagen who spelled it out, clear as day. The PVV is a threat to the democratic state. The party’s wish to ban the Koran, introduce a ‘hoofddoekjesbelasting’ and pursue an anti-Islamic foreign policy are dangerously controversial. In March this year Verhagen had already said that the PVV damaged the reputation of the Netherlands abroad. Now he has taken this line a step further.

Verhagen could have done us a favour by saying this more than two weeks ago, but credit to the CDA leader that he finally came out with a statement that puts the whole ‘PVV or no PVV’ deliberations into perspective. Calling these issues a threat to the democratic system also put them beyond discussion in cabinet negotiations. This is not policy, its democratic principle. In short, Verhagen basically named Wilders a pariah, outside of consideration. Having heard Verhagen draw the line, the other party leaders piled in to get an answer from GW. But he was not to be moved. You could almost hear his calculating mind weighing up whether it was worth it to launch an immediate counter-attack, but political prudence saw Wilders stay silent. For now.

Has Verhagen taken a fall for the sake of moving the cabinet formation along? His move was risky but could work out well for the CDA. Having broken the impasse and taken a stand, he may have set out the ground for a CDA revival by launching an appeal on principle to those doubting voters who left them at the polls on 9 June. In this sense he has nothing to lose. But in doing so he is closing out a right-wing cabinet and moving the CDA into the opposition, and that won’t be easy. The CDA is not used to that (since WW II it has only found itself in that position during the Wim Kok years of 1994-2002), and it will be sat next to an awkward, noisy PVV out to score points at any opportunity.

Verhagen’s move also effectively opened the path for the Paars-plus talks to get serious. With the CDA taking the brunt of the PVV, Mark Rutte was completely free to say he had no choice but to work with the Left, which of course he did. It was Wilders’ own fault, after all. GW’s silence was louder than any words. After weeks of dominating debate on the election hustings, he was finally put on the defensive. Verhagen’s move also fits with the court case against Wilders, set to continue this autumn, where he is accused of spreading hatred. A political and legal cordon sanitaire is coming into being, and its being led from the centre, not the left.