In Dutch government and politics, it is a rare occasion indeed when the reigning monarch makes a clear political pronouncement. He only can do that with full political backing by the prime minister and his Cabinet, and that implies that the pronouncement reflects a very broad national consensus. Usually, speeches by the Dutch monarch contain diplomatic and political platitudes; when it gets more specific the Dutch nation sits up and takes notice.
The Dutch constitution contains an article: “The King is immune; the government is responsible”; there have been occasions where cabinet- or prime ministers threatened stepping down if a stubborn king (19th century king William III) or queen (Juliana) wanted to insert a personal point in an official speech. Those ministers got their way; the monarch scrapped the specifics.
That constitutional and political-historical context should tell you the importance of what king Willem Alexander of the Netherlands just today said in a Dutch EU presidency speech in the European Parliament. According to Dutch news reports, he said:
The European Bouquet isn’t complete without the Spanish carnation; (..) the Croatian iris, the Dutch tulip. And not without the English rose.
He also mentioned the serious worries the EU causes average EU citizens, and counseled the EU institutions, and the European parliamentarians themselves, to practice critical introspection, and to remain open to criticism from outside Brussel. The EU should make policymaking in areas like the banking- and the migrants crisis more decisive: “anticipating isn’t a EU strong suit”. To get an efficient EU, better co-operation between Brussels and EU Member states is necessary, the king said.
If a pronouncement of Dutch political sentiment is done by our king, it doesn’t get any stronger than that.
This reinforces the argument that if the UK leaves in a fanfare of Trumpish, co-operation disrupting rhetoric (or bombast), the Dutch will feel sorely betrayed by their old (Marlborough, RAF, sober EU budgeting, see my previous postings) allies. And hell hath no fury like a woman scorn’d.
* Dr. Bernard Aris is a historian, a D66 parliamentary researcher and a LibDem supporting member.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
David Raw
Jenny Barnes
Tom Bailey
Gill Travers
Alison Howarth
7 Comments
Bernard knows of my affection for the Netherlands. Nevertheless, I’m afraid that even though I will vote to remain and even though I’m sure Willem is a nice chap, I suffer from democratic deafness when I receive advice from an hereditary monarch.
I don’t know whether it’s true that “the Dutch nation sits up and takes notice” when the man who inherited the big chair speaks (though I suspect political bomfoggery). I’m damn sure there’s no good reason why we should pay any attention, though.
Is he from the House of Orange (Book)?
A constitution with a monarchy in it! I knew Spain had one, following the role of the previous King in democratisation after the Falange. Our current Queen is popular and tactful so now would be a good time to have such a constitution. There would inevitably be a demand for a referendum. We know what Churchill said about those.
How many people want another referendum after what we have had to endure these last few weeks ? Another avalanche of lies, half truths and misrepresentation ? Maybe that is why the Liberal Democrats are so unpopular ? They do not seem to get it, do they.
I thought in a democracy everyone has the right to speak their mind. Does that not include the King of the Netherlands ?
What is so strange about a Liberal, Montesquieu-based (and John Locke-inspired) Constitution limiting the power of the monarch? I thought that should be the essence of it being Liberal , Democratic and all the rest!
Many European continental states formulated written constitutions formalizing the positions of king, ministers and parliament during the Restauration period (1815-’48).
The Spanish liberal revolutionaries and the Belgian separatists formulated the first liberal constitutions (in 1822-’31), limiting the powers of monarchs and government and institutionalizing parliamentary controls (and ministerial political responsability).
In 1844-’48 the Dutch followed this trend (led by professor Thorbecke, first liberal prime minister); and the French Revolutions of 1830, ’48 and the Third Republic government (1871-) did as well. The Scandinavians did the same; there some monarchs have no political powers whatsoever; they are symbols of national unity, just als the Orange kings of the Netherlands (see our city streets turn orange at football Euro- and world championships, if we qualified for them that is…).
I fully accept that someone doesn’t pay attention to just any inherited head of state (unelected) saying something. But Willem Alexander has added qualifications:
*) being brought up in a familiy involved in government since 1814, and conscious of its constitutional role and history;
*) being partly educated at a British/European boarding school in Wales (Atlantic College; Llantwit Major, Wales); and at Thorbecke’s Leiden University (our OxBridge; in History & Constitutional Law; he graduated);
*) having served in government institutions like the Raad van State (like the Privy Council, but also judicial) from the age of 18; being schooled for his trade like an artisan;
*) having served in military units like British crown princes (licensed to fly passenger airplanes);
*) sharing a great attention to his governing duties, like his mother Queen Beatrix (and queen Elizabeth II); attending every function and meeting well briefed and open-minded;
so he has some pedigree of his own, and is worth listening to.