How well did the agricultural spokesmen perform?

The political parties in The Hague have already entered the Christmas recess for 2 weeks, but a look back to 2018 is still missing. How were agriculture-related topics voted, which agricultural spokespersons submitted the most motions and how successful were they? Boerenbusiness sort it out.

The last votes of the year took place on Thursday 20 December, when the vote on the motion on state support for the phosphate legislation turned out to be disappointing for Innovative from de Knel. The CDA voted against the motion, which meant that a majority was missing to have the interpretation of the state aid decision tested. It was a striking move of the CDA.

With his motion, Roelof Bisschop (SGP) requested the government to obtain independent, external advice from state aid experts as soon as possible and to inform the House of this before 1 February 2019. The background to the motion is that experts in state aid have doubts about the interpretation of the state aid decision by the ministry.

Just before the vote, Jaco Geurts (CDA) added: Boerenbusiness that his vote wouldn't make a difference. This turns out to be incorrect, because the support of the CDA had indeed made the difference; the motion was rejected by 60 votes to 90. The CDA's support had resulted in 79 votes in favor and 71 against. So a majority.

Often voted 'no'
However, if we look at the overall picture, it is noticeable that the coalition has often voted against. This is apparent from 77 examined votes on the submitted agricultural motions; the motions adopted are not included in this. The VVD is the biggest voter no; The VVD voted against no fewer than 61 times. In 3 cases, the VVD was even the only party to vote against a motion.

The VVD is closely followed by the ChristenUnie. That party voted against 60 times last year, followed by D66 (59 votes) and the CDA (58 votes). Most of the motions were submitted by the opposition, which makes it logical that the coalition often votes against. Sometimes people vote 'no' because they disagree with the motion, but sometimes there is more to it: in the case of the 'state aid motion', Geurts felt that the motion expressed little confidence in the minister. He wanted to give her that confidence and therefore did not support the motion.

The fewest votes against a motion came from DENK: they disagreed with a motion 18 times. The SP said no 20 times, GroenLinks 21 times and the Party for the Animals was against it 23 times. It goes without saying that the motions they voted for were often aimed at reducing livestock or stricter rules. An expansion of the space for animal manure cannot count on support from this party (not even if this is at the expense of fertilizers and thus generates environmental benefits). The party is afraid that expansion will open the door to more animals.

The submitters
Of the 77 motions, 28 are from the Party for the Animals. This puts the party at the top when it comes to the most submitted motions. The Freedom Party submitted 18 motions, which are divided between Barry Madlener and Dion Graus. Graus' motions are mainly aimed at animal welfare. He sought the cooperation of Frank Wassenberg (Party for the Animals) on 4 occasions.

Of the government parties, D66 is the most active in submitting motions: agricultural spokesman Tjeerd de Groot submitted a motion 7 times during the consultations examined.

Not so successful
They deal in submitted motions, but achieve relatively little: Esther Ouwehand and Frank Wassenberg (Party for the Animals) together account for 26 motions. However, they only got 2 through the votes. Of the 18 motions submitted by the PVV, not 1 received an agreement from the House of Representatives.

The 4 motions that Wassenberg and Graus submitted together also did not receive a majority. Wassenberg and Ouwehand submitted a motion twice in which only their own party voted in favor of the motion.

Best of luck to Tjeerd de Groot
The most successful applicant is De Groot (D66). His motions (5 pieces), and the ones he submitted with others (2 pieces), were all passed. Geurts (CDA) and Helma Lodders (VVD) are the most successful as a duo: they submitted 2 motions together and both were passed.

Geurts himself submitted 4 motions, 3 of which were passed. Lodders submitted only 1 motion, requesting the government to take into account the ongoing objection and appeal procedures regarding the enforcement of phosphate legislation. This was passed unanimously in the House of Representatives. That doesn't happen very often!

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.