Henk Vermeer (BBB) vs. Bob de Wit – zit Nederland democratisch muurvast?

Because after the resignation of election winners pvv and since Friday, the Netherlands is left with a tenuous cabinet of only 31 seats, supported by VVD and BBB.

32 flag. 32 seats, I hear here. Yes, the question tonight. We're talking about seats, right? Yes. The question tonight is are we still talking about a healthy democracy or are we stuck in a political deadlock where even the October elections won't offer any prospects? Lets look at a reconstruction of NEC's resignation last Friday they felt we were practically done, but ultimately it was the Ministry of Foreign affairs judgment that he couldn't afford it.

Do you know that money is possible?

I think it's quite decent in the current situation. That's perhaps putting it mildly and irresponsible of the NC faction. I don't have enough confidence that I can act as I see fit in the coming weeks, months or year, if you will, as Minister of Foreign Affairs. If I'm so limited in my scope to implement my own policy and chart the course I need to follow. Hey. We've decided tonight, as ministers of nec, to resign from our portfolios and in doing so to follow the example of our minister, Caspar Veldkan. In short, we're actually done with it. A caretaker cabinet with an election looming, with a term where we don't know how things will continue after the elections. That's a unique political setting. You'd expect something more to try to work things out together, to realize that you're already in office. And I've concluded that it hasn't worked. Do you still have confidence in a future for ns? Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's precisely why we're so tough now and fighting back. And we have to stand up for it and give that certainty to the people. So we have to stand up and pull ourselves together. Yes, we have to pull ourselves together. They currently have zero seats in the nsc, so there's a lot of work to be done. Henk resigned because of the migration issue, which we just touched on a bit. NEC on Gaza. The fact is, 455 seats is actually offside. Now, should we conclude that democracy is simply failing or am I being too prescriptive with my question? Yes, that's quite suggestive. It's a suggestive question. You could also say democracy in the Netherlands works because Parliament simply keeps running and it doesn't depend on one or two parties whether they walk out or not. But it is a worrying situation, of course. Yes, yes. Something I find absurd, of course, is that a minister who actually sends a Letter to Parliament without consulting his fellow cabinet members about it, who's already being spoken to, without first discussing it in the Cabinet, and then resigns because, well, maybe to put it bluntly, he doesn't get his way. They're just human, aren't they? Yes, but I'm human too. But in this role you still have to act responsibly and professionally. And they know the rules of the game. And especially when you've been judging everyone on good governance for a year and a half, you simply can't do this. Was that a chaotic weekend for you too, when you heard or heard this? Yes, yes, but it is a chaotic one. Yes. I have to be honest, since I came to the Hague with Caroline on March 18, 2021, and shortly after that the April Fools debate, which is still fresh in our memories, I don't think it's ever really been normal again. Or let me put it another way, for me, this is normal. But that's not good. Yes, but what are you actually doing during such a dissenting period? Are you still really thinking? I. I'm motivated. Or are you thinking ahead?

Of course, of course. Because there are all sorts of problems to solve, and it's not something that can be solved in a few weeks because, uh, the elections aren't until October 29, then the formation still has to take place. So, you know, this cabinet, everything that.

All the officials are trying to achieve now might soon be reversed. No, no, I refuse to believe that. We've seen how tough it is when you're in office as a new team. The time it takes to change something is one consolation. The next team will also take a long time to change anything. So even what we're doing now will have a long lasting impact. So we're very motivated to tackle as many things as possible and see them through to the end. But we do need Parliament, the Senate and the House of Representatives to forge majorities for plans.

But aren't you afraid we'll end up in a situation where we'll be forming a government for 13 months, for example?

Yes, that's possible. So you have to take that into account. So that's why you just have to keep going now and scale up the team again, because then we'll be two years further along, right? Yes. No, we've already been under a miserable investment for 15 years. Yes, yes, because that's my question. That must be an enormous workload for a. Well, I see some have three departments. Nezel. Yes. No, but that's not possible. That's not possible. That replacement scheme is only intended for incidents like this or if a profit making employee suddenly falls ill or whatever. Yes. So we just expect that tomorrow we can just say, well, that party will do those positions and that we as parties can then put forward the people who will do so as soon as they pass the screening. So as far as I'm concerned, the new entrants should simply be installed next week.

Do you think there's a fundamental problem with the current system of politics as it's being conducted? Or do you say no, this was simply an awkward marriage?

Yes, I think we've had discussions about this before, whether it's a structural problem or a cultural problem. I think it's a cultural problem. There's also a lot of complaining. Yes, there are too many small splinter parties, but those small splinter parties haven't caused this mess over the past 15 years. Those are the large existing parties that have been around for years. Yes, well, and now that's another record for a completely new party doing the same thing. So yes, yes, it's more a cultural problem of not being generous enough in politics, making a fuss about everything.

You still believe in the current, current parliamentary democracy as it functions.

Otherwise I wouldn't have been sitting here and then I would have been.

Yes, there's little alternative at the moment. But isn't it you? Yes. Then I'm asking a leading question again, but I'll do it anyway.

Are you good at it? Yes, I'm very good at it. But there's also an article in the FD by a man who also knows a lot about it, who will immediately shed some light on it. But David Van Rybrook also wrote a book about it, against elections. I have it here and. Well, it's a book that was written in, I think in 2016 and it basically boils down to this. He advocates for a one for one. Yes, A different kind of system actually. He advocates for an addition about alternative lottery selecting citizens by lot, like in ancient Athens, because that would result in a fairer and more representative form of citizen participation. He actually no longer believes in elections as they are now. Yes, I saw the Citizens Climate Council and those people were all carefully selected and vetted and everything. But then they're not going to make their report available because they want to wait until after the elections. So there was a certain group that was pre selected because they all considered the topic important because they believe certain things have a specific cause. So that wasn't a very representative sample. You know, I knew systems like those used in the past with the Greeks and so on. Yes, but then that wasn't all successful either, because they also needed a corrective mechanism through a dictator every now and then to get things back in order. Yes, but that dictator forgot to leave because of the corruption, and that was, of course, a disaster. So it's clear that it's not working now. Yes, it either works or it doesn't. You could also say the system is so balanced that the country doesn't immediately come to a standstill, because people just keep going. The power supply is still here. We can still do the broadcast. Perhaps that's the tragedy, that everything. Everything just keeps going. Yes. In Belgium there was even a period when they said, without a cabinet, things would be better with Landers, with. Yes. So. Yes, I find it difficult because you can't just say which system is best or which system will solve it. Is an electoral threshold a solution? Well, I don't think so at all.

Yes. You said through an MP nitrogen, an oil tanker that's difficult to turn slowly.

Yes. Results have been achieved. Yes, I think we've really made progress now. If you also look at what the current minister is doing, he's really implementing a system change. A lot of people aren't moving fast enough. We're not either. But we simply have a legal reality we live in. And within that, we're doing everything we can to turn those tanks. Yes. What's in it for a farmer now? What happened? Did it work? Well, their vest pile hasn't been halved, period. So sometimes it's also about what you've managed to prevent as a team. That's always step one. It's like a football team performing really poorly. Step one is to break the defense so you don't concede any more goals. Step two is to score another equalizer when you're behind. And step three is to score those desired points. So we wanted more time. We kept saying, time is our friend, only we weren't given that much time. But you have to use the time you have. I'm going to go to the man across the street because, Bob, you were on July 26, the historic date of the poster of abandonments in the Middle Ages. I don't know what year it was. You probably know, a long time ago, on that date, you were in the FD3, and I'm just reading the headline. Our political system is like a dead tree. It doesn't attract squirrels anymore either. Yes, I'll show it here in the image. This is the article in the ad newspaper where Bob walks through the green. You'll probably want to explain that. And. Well, I think that's a bit of a contradiction to what Henk just said, that he still believes in the system. Right. What's your take on it? I was very happy with the interview. A very good interview with Heiko about the future of democracy. And that has to do with, among other things, the many podcasts and presentations I've given, but especially the book I wrote, Democracy 4.0. Give it to me again. Yes. My reasoning is, you know my story. Right. I wrote the Book Society 4.0. We're in a transition from an industrial society to a digital society.

Yes. Democracy 4.0. Reinventing democracy.

Yes. For building a global, not a local, but a glocal civil society. In Society 4.0, we'll put the book link in the description. It's up to him, you know. Yes, yes. Well, look, I wrote that book in. This was published in 2023. I wrote it in 2021. That was after Society 4.0, where I said, we're moving towards a different society for the fourth time. People can't imagine it, but we lived in a feudal agrarian era for a very long time. We had a republic for a very long time there in the Netherlands that was a trading republic. And then we had the initial revolution. Then we entered the initial era, which we're now out of. Yes. And actually the entire system we have, including politics, including the government, including the tax system, actually all aspects belong to an initial society, and we're out of that. And then I wrote that, um, and I also designed the future society. And then there were people who said, yeah, you're saying democracy needs to be different. How? And that's how I started thinking about democracy 4.0. Yes. What kind of democracy? Right. What could a democracy look like in the digital age? Yes. Because this is an academic manifesto, but it could of course be very applicable to the current problems. Right. Do you deal with that in politics or are you just, with all due respect, focused on your day to day business? Because it's also important to see if your system is functioning right. Yes, well, I'm personally concerned with that. But the system isn't. No, yes, yes, it does say so. Right. That one was busy rewriting. Well, I have to take a quick look. What's it called? You said no, Social Contract. New Social Contract. Yes, the New Social Contract. But so, yes, paper is willing. Well, it's about what you do in practice. And what do you do to initiate that movement, like Torbekken, I want a Dimension. And yes, I also think that the whole tax system and all that really needs a hard reset. Yes, but is that ever possible? Countries that fall apart in one fell swoop and then have to build something new. Yes, you have to have that. Sometimes you just have a head start that ultimately hinders change. But you just said we might be forming a government for 13 months. Wouldn't it be better to spend those 13 months with a lot of bright minds and academics? Guys, how are we actually going to do things better? Stop that nonsense. It's not working. It's stuck. It's finished. Well, I think you'll end up with 13 months of bickering between academics and specialists instead of between politicians. So whether you're bitten by the dog or the cat, that doesn't matter. But you say we're at the end of time, so it's stuck anyway. Yes, well, look, what I see is, uh. And that's also a bit of a historical analysis. What I see is that, uh, the people in the system want to fix it. Yes. And they can't look from a distance and say, well, it doesn't work anymore. That's me. I am my science. I look from a distance. I say, it just doesn't work anymore. You can fix it all you want, but it just doesn't work anymore. And I made a completely new design. You know, that's basically what happened. And you have no interest in it, and I have no interest in it at all. Look, I can appreciate that too. Right? Because that's why I also say, uh, messing around with an electoral threshold or something, that's not the solution. No. And Ribrox too, I studied that too. I've already, I've read everything there was to read. And actually it's a lot of either looking at the Greeks or fixing things up a bit, and I completely distance myself. Did it all over again. And what has always been the case in history, that's no different now. Um, a society is going to change, right? From a feudal to a trading age, and from a trading to an industrial age. There are always people who see it quickly, there are people who see it more slowly. And then eventually everyone sees it. The last to see it are the existing rulers. That's how it has always been.

Imagine you find yourself in the unique position of being told, okay, Bob, blank canvas. We're going back to the drawing board. What will we do in 2026? How will we do it then?

Yes, well, I've made a design. You could do that. But what I think is important and that, yes, that would almost be a recommendation to bbb. By the way, you're not the first from BBB who. Uh, we've talked about this. Um, but my advice to WB would be don't play along because it's just a dead tree. This is beyond repair. Use this to say in the election manifesto, we're going to do things completely differently. We don't believe in it anymore. We have a design. You know, we're working with a number of people. I'd be happy to participate in that, to think about a completely new system. And then we'll have the same thing as what we call the House of Torbekan. The House of Torbekan was truly a brilliant man with a brilliant system. He simply said, we're going to do things differently now. Yes, well, he's actually serving the interests of the elite by reinstating the monarchy. But can you let politicians do that? With all due respect, because you obviously have a certain expertise. I can also imagine that you need a different type of thinker for that. No, you need different people so I can participate remotely to think about it. You don't even know how I think so. Uh, no, that's right. No, I. No, no, that's also true. But the moment you're in parliament and you have a party and the party, so to speak, indirect party democracy, that simply doesn't work anymore. It's just. It's a dead tree. The problem, of course, is that just like with many organizations, at times the organization itself starts to become more important than the purpose for which it was founded. We've seen that with cooperatives. Yes, we see that with certain political parties. And there you should always try, at least if you choose, to function within the system. We've also always said, for example, yes, that seat survey is great, but seats aren't a goal, but a result. As soon as it becomes a goal, you're out. Yes, and that's the worrying situation we're in. And it's partly causing the problem. So you have to look at something else. What you're saying is interesting, isn't it? You're essentially. Yes, it's just offering, isn't it? It's. Well, that's not how it actually works, but you have to participate one more time. But as a party, you could also say, well, listen, we don't believe in the system anymore. We're going to sit down with a number of thinkers and see if they can establish a new democratic system on behalf of the Dutch people. And we as a party are Going to propose that to get that implemented. Didn't you also sign that agreement to do that? Well, there were a few things in there about a new constituency, but that wouldn't change the essence of the system. Enforcing change and regional representation through law. Uh, yeah. You know what that is? Carolane was born in Kuak. Is she from Brabant or is she half Irish, because her mother is Irish, or is she from Deventer? What is she? And at the moment she also lives a lot in the Hague. She's suddenly someone from South Holland. So we also have a lot of people living in the west who still have their roots in the region and who can translate that. And we have people living in a region who can't even properly represent the region, the regional interests. So every template that's imposed on them creates new problems. But I'm always interested in new developments. I always think for years I've also been involved with all these kinds of system innovations instead of all those incremental adjustments like working with spiral dynamics and those kinds of systems. Great. I find that incredibly interesting. But at some point I decided to come down from the mountain and just start working at the place where things have to be run. Yes. And that's always a matter of. Of course, we can say things have to change, but in the meantime, the business here has to be run. Another factor that also plays a role is the civil service, because it's a huge group of people. I know. Do you have any idea how many civil servants we have? I don't really know the number, because, I mean, you can change things politically with 150 people, but the moment those civil servants just keep doing the same things and think, oh, it's all fine, this is what we want. And. And it does happen again, because those people, those people, what I just said about those organizations have become important in themselves instead of the purpose for which they were established. Have you had any problems with the bureaucracy? Well, it wasn't me myself, but I see that ministers do have an extra complicating factor, and I'm putting it mildly. And it varies per ministry and also differs per department within the ministries. In one place, it's very constructive. They simply say what your policy is, and then I'll work it out for you. And in another, they say, this is our policy and I think you should do it this way. Yes, that's a big difference. And we have to be able to. Of course, to those civil servants, I always say, you shouldn't ask a frog to fill in a ditch. So that change won't come from those ministries. No. Oh, that's absolutely true. And civil servants are an important factor. And what we shouldn't forget is that there are a lot of civil servants right now. Right. We're in the initial era. We've left, and again, we were a welfare state. Right. You have to imagine that didn't exist before. Right. Things like health and education and elderly care and poor care, that was done by citizens among themselves and by churches and other organizations that took responsibility. And at some point they said, well, everyone has to be able to drive to the factory. So you know what they're going to do? They're all going to work 40 hours. And actually all those public things like health care, poverty relief, and that's something the state has to take care of. Yes, and that's what has led to the government being so enormous now. It doesn't fit the digital age, by the way, because to throw a wrench in the works, the development of AI means that 70% of civil servants are no longer needed. Well, then 70% of civil servants are going to be working against it, because that shouldn't happen. Because they don't like risks, they don't like change. So that's a huge power factor, a huge factor that prevents change from happening. Come on. And I think that's also because our money is centralized. Because if you look closely in every village with a large church and such, if you had to build and pay for that now, yes, you could still do that on a bicycle and other places in the biblical image, but it's almost impossible to raise locally. Whereas in the past that was simply done. Yes, but that was also possible because all that money didn't have to go to the Hague. That's how it is. And it is. And it is now that it comes from Europe. Right? With the. They want to go one step further. Indeed, they still want to digitize, to gain even more control. What you also see as signals is that a lot of local currencies are coming back. Right, The Arnhem Deer, for example. So there are a number of examples where we see from society that, yes, this isn't right, we're going to do it a little differently. And those are the signs that you see. Things are going wrong. But the fact that you really have to fundamentally change is already difficult, because that has always been difficult in every period of history, a very difficult period to create a completely different society. But now, with such a civil service, where do we have most of it? That's almost impossible. Then you simply need a Crisis. It's unpleasant to say, but you really need a crisis. And yes, again, I think as bwb, I think we can reach a lot of agreement on that pretty quickly. You're in the system, you have to do it Right. But the system is just a dead tree. That's what it is. So let's build a new tree. Sander, you've been thinking all the time, isn't it also true that we've ultimately built a very large tree with a lot of rules and legislation so that you really couldn't move on that at a certain point you just had to say, okay, we really have to get going now, prune. Because otherwise. Yes, that's also the whole problem we stated right from the start of the party. The nitrogen problem isn't a nitrogen problem, but a nitrogen law problem. Yes, it's a regulation for that. And it is a regulation. And then we say, yes, but then we're talking about Brussels rules. Yes, but who is the eu, who arranged that? Yes, we arranged it ourselves. Yes. So we have to be very wary of not going any further with the euro bonds of paying for someone's lower retirement age in Spain. Yes, no way. As far as we're concerned. Yes, but administrative renewal ultimately means just looking at what rules are in place and which ones do we really not need, what can we really cut back on? Because ultimately what you're doing is imposing so many restrictions on yourself that you have no freedom of movement. Yes, but we've built such a complex system for that that if we do that, people immediately go to court. And that court says, yes, but that's not going to work, folks. Yes and no. Such a full sun, full of pants. Of course. So also fully legalized ourselves. Yes, and that puts us in a bind. And that's why we keep saying all kinds of objectives now. Please don't enshrine them in law. Provide the framework within which you operate in law, but never the goals and the dates, because you'll tie yourself up. Yes, yes, but Bob just said it, didn't he? In recent years, the number of civil servants has increased 31% more than 90,000 people. Right. That's not just half a city's worth of civil servants being added. And then at a time of staff shortages, what do those people do? I think it's an example of systemic strength where we're talking about this, all of us. Unfortunately, you're not talking about your booklet Region 4.0, because that's where I'd like to emphasize it. I'd almost call it region 4.0, because in the Netherlands we have well, roughly 80 to 120 regions. And they're from the old days. They're not left wing by the way, and not right wing either. So that's fine. No, they're just there, there, just there. You don't have to polarize. And normally in every village, or at least in every city, there used to be four or six banks that could have given me credit in situations like the ones I'm in now. Yes, but they don't exist anymore. So I guess I'll have to do more of those go funding things. But that's also part of a global soc.

So.

Yes, yes, but that you're in your local and glocal society, right? I use both. Local. No, but I've already indicated how much of that spaghetti you have to untangle. Hmm, hmm. To create a new one. Because you can't just say no, that political system has to change. No, but then the entire legal system has to change and then the monetary system has to change. The whole system is changing. And yes, as soon as you start pressing here, someone's going to shout because everything is interconnected. So man, I'm just glancing at the clock because it's already interesting. It's. No, it's. It's super interesting. I've already been in consultation with my ministers for nine hours. Oh, and we're in a hurry too, uh, because we're making another, uh, old fashioned marathon broadcast. I'm a stickler for it. Uh, apologies for that, but fewer and fewer people are going to the polls. Um, at least that's what we're seeing. Ah, there's a reason for that.

If we could make an agreement, right. On October 29, people will probably vote again, at least part of the Netherlands. Um, what could you do to be able to say that we'll emerge more democratic as a country? One thing you're saying is. Well, that's what I want to agree.

On, what we as a party can do. Yes, well, that's how we actually started our conversation the moment I. Well, you only solve problems if you acknowledge them as problems. Yes. So our system has advantages, but we're also stuck in all sorts of areas. And if we don't acknowledge that, then we'll just keep turning the screws a little to the left and a little to the right. And this year for the first time, we're participating in the CPB calculations. And we simply see that if you change the entire system, those models aren't built for that because they're based on how things are now and they're by definition based on historical data. While you want something for the future, we're in an energy transition and we're doing that with calculation models and billing models for electricity that ensure that the electricity that currently flows from the North Sea to the Ruhr area, that the transport is paid for by you and me, while those other guys profit from it and that money disappears to Sweden or Norway. And that's because we're doing an energy transition, but we're not changing the other systems and allowing them to participate in that transition. And I think that's the most important thing you can expect from us, that we continue to look at things holistically, because that's truly the biggest shortcoming in the Hague. Personally, I think the lack of an integrated approach to problems and solutions is a bigger problem than the political system. Well, I don't. I think if you look at the voters right, why are people paying less and less attention to the voters? Because there's no trust in the system. The moment you as a party emphasize that the system is the problem, we are the problem, and we're going to create a whole new system based on the citizens interests, then you could still become the largest party. As long as you don't put yourself forward in that way and continue to work within the system, you're part of the problem, just like all those other parties. And you just have to acknowledge it, in my opinion. And I think you're going to become the largest party.

Yes. And that's where we'll end. Because. Yes, we've been talking for quite a while now and we're going to talk about Donald Trump. Yes.