State Secretary Raymond Knops (right) addresses the Second Chamber during the plenary handling of the Kingdom Law proposal to establish a Dispute Regulation. Seated close to him are Ministers Plenipotentiary Guillfred Besaril of Aruba (left), Raymond Begina of Curaçao (in the back) and Jorien Wuite of St. Maarten (second from left). Story on page .
THE HAGUE–The plenary handling of the Kingdom Law proposal to establish a Dispute Regulation for the Kingdom in the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament was not concluded on Tuesday, in anticipation of a compromise that the parliaments hope to reach within two days.
At the end of the first term of the plenary handling in the presence of special delegates of the Parliaments of Aruba and Curaçao, Ministers Plenipotentiary Guillfred Besaril of Aruba, Raymond Begina of Curaçao and Jorien Wuite of St. Maarten, as well as State Secretary of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Raymond Knops and Member of the Second Chamber André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party asked for postponement in order to give parties a chance to reach a compromise.
Supported by the other parties, Chairperson of the Second Chamber Khadija Arib agreed to continue the second term this Thursday, the last day of meetings before the Second Chamber goes on summer recess. Parties, including the representatives of the Dutch Caribbean countries, were hopeful that a compromise could be reached regarding the Dispute Regulation.
The hot potato in the discussions to arrive at a joint Dispute Regulation is the binding element of the advice rendered by the third, independent party, in this case the Council of State. The Dutch Caribbean countries and a number of parties in the Second Chamber want this advice to be binding, meaning that the Kingdom Government has to stick to it.
However, the Dutch government, supported by the VVD party and the Christian Democratic Party CDA in the Second Chamber, don’t want a binding ruling. The Kingdom Council of Ministers in principle adheres to the advice of the Council of State and can only deviate under extreme circumstances, Knops emphasised.
State Secretary Knops mentioned the need for “safety valves” multiple times during Tuesday’s plenary meeting. He said these safety valves were necessary in highly exceptional cases where the interest and wellbeing of the people was severely at stake.
“It would be unwise not to have safety valves in the Dispute Regulation,” he said, referring to the amendment submitted by Member of the Aruba Parliament Ady Thijsen of the MEP party and Members of the Second Chamber Attje Kuiken of the Labour Party PvdA and Antje Diertens of the Democratic Party D66.
Knops said that in case of regular disputes the Dispute Regulation law as proposed by the Dutch government should work as it is supposed to: a third, independent party renders an advice from which the Kingdom government in principle will not deviate.
The State Secretary called it his responsibility to present a law proposal since the Dispute Regulation has been on the books for nine years. He said that the evaluation clause in the law proposal would make it possible to adapt the Dispute Regulation along the way. He called on the parliaments to give it a chance.
Minister Plenipotentiary Wuite addressed the Second Chamber on behalf of St. Maarten. She called the debate probably the most important one after the new constitutional relations went into effect in 2010. She complimented the four parliaments for working together on the need to establish a Dispute Regulation. She said unfortunately the cooperation on a government level was less, and reconfirmed that St. Maarten was against the current law proposal.
Wuite said the Dutch government need not fear that the Ministers Plenipotentiary will invoke the Dispute Regulation for every small misunderstanding. “Dispute resolving goes hand in hand with dispute prevention.”
The Minister Plenipotentiary called on the parties to arrive at a compromise and to stick to the 2015 agreement of the four parliaments to implement a Dispute Regulation with three basics: an independent body, a binding character and strictly legal disputes. “I am optimistic that this line will be followed.”
Member of the Second Chamber Ronald van Raak of the Socialist Party (SP) said that the current law proposal didn’t make anyone really happy. “Not Curaçao, not Aruba, not St. Maarten and not me either. I hope we can arrive at a Dispute Regulation that makes us all happy. A Dispute Regulation can only work if we all back it. A Dispute Regulation backed by only some countries and parties doesn’t work,” said Van Raak, who expressed support for the amendment of Thijsen, Kuiken and Diertens.
Member of the Curaçao Parliament Ana-Maria Pauletta of the PAR party called for a “clear and just” Dispute Regulation. “A law that doesn’t promote arbitrariness in the Kingdom. Our people deserve this. Poor or rich, small or big, 160,000 or 17 million: regulations should apply to everyone, equally.”
Thijsen of Aruba asked the Second Chamber not to have politics divide the Kingdom, but to bring everyone together. “I have the fullest confidence in my Dutch colleagues who, on this historic moment will not only vote on behalf of the Dutch people, but also on behalf of the people of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten. Living together, working together, deciding together and taking responsibility together as one Kingdom.”
Source: The Daily Herald https://www.thedailyherald.sx/islands/88821-attempt-to-find-compromise-in-dispute-regulation-stance
View comments
Hide comments