'Caribbean dossiers' for the new House of Representatives

𝘈𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳: 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦 𝘋𝘶𝘪𝘫𝘧 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘵𝘴𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘢𝘵.𝘯𝘭

The parliamentary elections are on October 29. It is to be expected that the new and returning MPs will receive a number of interesting 'Caribbean dossiers' on their desks in the coming term. This concerns both files relating to the relations between the countries of the Kingdom (the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten) and files relating to the Caribbean public entities (Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba). The Caribbean public entities are also referred to as 'Caribbean Netherlands'.

Legislation for the Caribbean Netherlands

To start with the Caribbean Netherlands. In general, the principle of 'comply or explain' has been in force since 2019. This principle assumes that, in principle, all new laws and regulations and proposals for changes conceived from 'The Hague' also apply in the Caribbean Netherlands. This is only deviated from if there are 'substantiated reasons' for doing so. The question of whether and to what extent legislation or regulations will apply in the Caribbean Netherlands must therefore be faced again and again. It can be expected that the House of Representatives, as co-legislator, will also pay sufficient attention to this.

More specifically, the new House of Representatives is expected to consider the revision of the BES Public Entities Act (WolBes) and the BES Public Entities Finance Act (FinBES). The WolBES regulates the administrative structure of the public entities and the administrative relationship with the central government. The FinBES regulates the financial function of the public entities, gives the authority to levy taxes and regulates the financial relationship with the central government. The revision process has been running since 2019. The hot topic at the moment is the position of the Kingdom Representative, the administrative link between the public entities and The Hague. The Rutte IV Cabinet intended to let this position lapse, in accordance with a recommendation from the Advisory Division of the Council of State. At the time, the Council of State noted that the position of the Kingdom Representative is 'extremely complicated', partly because of the hybrid nature of the position (both coordinating and supervising). It would be better to abolish the position and to assign the supervisory tasks to the Island Governor and the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. At the beginning of this year, the (now outgoing) cabinet came back to this. According to the government, inter-administrative supervision could be designed more effectively and appropriately by the Kingdom Representative than by a minister in The Hague. This to the great dissatisfaction of the island governments.

The Kingdom: HOFA and Dispute Settlement Act

As far as the relations between the autonomous countries of the Kingdom are concerned, the first thing that stands out is the Kingdom Act on Sustainable Public Finances Aruba (HOFA). This Kingdom Bill went into internet consultation at the end of August and contains a framework for the financial supervision of Aruba's public finances by the Kingdom Council of Ministers. The Kingdom Council of Ministers consists of the Council of Ministers of the country of the Netherlands, supplemented by one Minister Plenipotentiary per Caribbean country. An earlier variant of this Kingdom Act did not make it to the finish line. The history is long and complex and is beyond the scope of this contribution. For now, it is sufficient to note that this is a 'consensus kingdom law'. Financial supervision is not regarded as a Kingdom matter in Article 3 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (hereinafter referred to as: the Statute). The HOFA Kingdom Act is therefore based on Article 38, paragraph 2 of the Statute. On this basis, the countries can determine ('give consensus') that autonomous matters (such as (supervision of) public finances) are regulated by Kingdom Act. However, this also means that these matters are largely taken 'out of the hands' of the national government and that the influence of the Kingdom bodies (in which the Netherlands has the upper hand) increases. That is a sensitive issue. Within Aruban politics, the debate about this has now erupted

But the icing on the Kingdom cake is the dispute settlement. Since the last major constitutional reform of the Kingdom in 2010, Article 12a of the Statute stipulates that a provision must be made for dealing with disputes between the Kingdom (de facto Netherlands) and the (Caribbean) countries. Since then, there has been discussion about who should settle the disputes, which cases are eligible for dispute resolution and whether the dispute resolution body can make a binding decision. Here too, there is a long and complex history and a previously failed proposal of Kingdom Law. Recently, a new chapter was added to the story. In September, the Minister Plenipotentiary of Aruba used his right of initiative and submitted a Kingdom Disputes Bill to the House of Representatives. Or rather, the Prime Minister of Aruba did this, in the absence of the Minister Plenipotentiary. Be that as it may, as far as the author has been able to ascertain, this is the first time that this right of initiative has been used.

The Caribbean and the elections: what was it again?

The co-legislative task of the members of the House of Representatives extends to the Caribbean public entities. Where it concerns Kingdom laws that apply to the Caribbean countries, this task also extends to the Caribbean countries. All the more reason to see what the political parties have to say about the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. Below is an anthology, in which I limit myself to the parties that are now in the House of Representatives.

First a reminder: In Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba, of course, the same rules for eligibility apply as in the European Netherlands. Residents of the public entities are therefore entitled to vote if they are 18 years of age or older, have Dutch nationality and are not excluded from the right to vote.

Different rules apply to Dutch citizens in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. They are only allowed to vote if they have lived in the Netherlands for at least ten years or if they (or someone with whom they share a household) work in the Dutch public service in the Caribbean countries. And that is remarkable, since the House of Representatives decides on matters that concern the Kingdom and all its citizens. The Charter for the Kingdom provides that Caribbean representatives can participate in the deliberations in the House of Representatives, but they do not have the right to vote. This lack of representation is experienced as a democratic deficit.

Geopolitics and defense

What stands out when we take a look at the election programs? Several parties discuss the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom in the context of defense and geopolitics, topics that have become high on the political agenda anyway. It is not surprising that the Caribbean part of the Kingdom is explicitly discussed. After all, international relations and defense are Kingdom affairs. In addition, the distance between Aruba and Venezuela is approximately the same as that between Amsterdam and Alkmaar. Unrest in that country therefore has an effect on the leeward islands (Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire) in particular. Aruba and Curaçao are at the top of the list of countries with the most refugees in relation to the number of inhabitants (figures for 2013-2023). This mainly concerns Venezuelan refugees. The recently flared tensions between Venezuela and the United States are therefore being watched with suspicion on the islands.

Parties draw attention to the geopolitical tensions (ChristenUnie) and emphasize the importance of a strong military presence in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom (CDA, VVD). The BBB is the most outspoken. The Netherlands should recognize, the program states, "that, also in view of the geographical proximity of the Caribbean Netherlands to Venezuela, it has a special responsibility to contribute to the deterrence of the aggressive socialist dictatorship in that country and to promote stability and security in the region." JA21 devotes one sentence in its election program to the Caribbean part of the Kingdom and focuses on the defense of the territory: "The Netherlands must be able to guarantee the security of the Kingdom Islands in the Caribbean Sea independently." In this context, the Netherlands undoubtedly refers to the Kingdom.

Innovation of the Kingdom

In 2023, several parties proposed substantial changes to the Statute (which celebrated its 70th anniversary on December 15). The democratic deficit had to be addressed, balanced decision-making in the Kingdom Council of Ministers (RMR) had to be promoted and a dispute settlement system finally had to be introduced. Remarkably, several parties are taking a step back on this point. In 2023, D66 still wanted to 'give space to the proportional voice of the Caribbean countries in the House of Representatives' and committed to a dispute settlement. Neither of these proposals is reflected in the present election program. However, the party is still committed to scrapping the registration obligation that applies to Dutch citizens in the Caribbean countries in the elections for the European Parliament. In 2023, the BBB still advocated reducing the democratic deficit by having Kingdom laws discussed in the States (parliaments) of the various countries and achieving balanced decision-making in the RMR. No such proposals will be made in 2025. Whereas the SGP came up with a fairly detailed proposal for a dispute settlement in 2023, it is no longer discussed in the current program.

Nevertheless, there are still parties that see room for further development of the Kingdom structure. NSC argues for the first time for a dispute settlement. As in 2023, the ChristenUnie wants the Netherlands to consult with the Caribbean countries to solve the democratic deficit. Unlike 2023, the election program of GroenLinks-PvdA does not include the dispute settlement and the abolition of the registration requirement in European elections. However, the party does advocate that the Dutch in the Caribbean countries should have the right to vote for the House of Representatives. In doing so, the party follows the Advisory Division of the Council of State, which advocated the same in its advice in the context of 70 years of the Statute. GroenLinks-PvdA also proposes to let the Dutch in the Caribbean countries influence the composition of the Senate, although it remains unclear what that influence should look like.

The Kingdom paragraph of the VVD is causing some sensation. Not with the proposal to make the right of withdrawal of the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom explicit in the Statute and Constitution. That proposal for a Kingdom Act (brought by then VVD MP Bosman) has been gathering dust in the House of Representatives since 2019. In this case, what is missing in the Kingdom paragraph is particularly interesting. For decades, the VVD wanted to set requirements for the settlement of Caribbean Dutch in the Netherlands. Since the beginning of this century, this has been in every election program with a Kingdom paragraph (2002, 2012, 2017, 2021. In the 2010 election program, the short Kingdom paragraph was only about the imminent constitutional reform). This passage is missing from the present election program.

Caribbean Netherlands

Two years ago I wrote that the political parties have started to pay more attention to the Caribbean Netherlands over the years. The time when the Caribbean paragraph only consisted of the somewhat obligatory observation that Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba 'belong' is behind us. Although there are still parties that pay no attention to the public entities (PVV), or that only talk about the Kingdom in general, without distinguishing between the autonomous countries and the Caribbean Netherlands (Forum for Democracy, JA21). The other parties come up with fairly specific proposals. From the introduction of the BIBOB Act in the Caribbean Netherlands (VVD), to investigating the possibility of a direct, high-quality cable connection between the European and Caribbean Netherlands (BBB) and of building more social rental housing (ChristenUnie), to promoting the cultural sector (Volt).

The most important topics for the Caribbean Netherlands remain livelihood security and living conditions on the islands. Since the previous elections, a few things have changed in this area. Minimum wage, child benefit, social assistance and AOV (old-age pension) have been increased. But concerns remain. The cost of living is high (considerably higher than in the European Netherlands), which puts people in a bind. This problem is on the minds of NSC, GroenLinks-PvdA, PvdD, D66, SP, ChristenUnie, Volt, Denk and the SGP. They propose a variety of measures, some more concrete than others. Parties also want to work on the living conditions on the islands in other areas. D66 and CDA want to invest in the (physical) infrastructure. Attention is also paid to nature and the environment on the islands (D66, GroenLinks-PvdA, SGP, ChristenUnie, PvdD, Volt) and the vulnerability of the islands to climate change (NSC, GroenLinks-PvdA, PvdD, Denk, D66, Volt). The ChristenUnie and Volt are still asking for specific attention to the problem of waste processing on Bonaire. At the end of last year, the (acting) Kingdom Representative intervened in waste processing Selibon due to neglect of duties by the Executive Council. The judge found in February that the step had been taken too early. Since then, the Executive Council has been working on an improvement plan, but the problems have not yet been solved.

Volt comes up with the proposal to change the European legal status of the three islands. Currently, they belong to the 'Overseas Countries and Territories' (OCTs), where (in short) most of EU law does not apply. Volt would like to see the islands become part of the outermost regions (UPR), where EU law is in principle fully applicable. At first glance, this seems to fit in well with the integration of the three islands into the Dutch state system, although there are also snags to this. A middle ground could be the retention of the OCT status, whereby EU law is 'voluntarily adopted' where appropriate. Interestingly, Volt argues that the change of status to UPG would lead to 'full citizenship'. It is not clear what the party means by this. After all, residents of the OCTs are also recognised EU citizens.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

Overall, there seems to be less enthusiasm among the parties to focus on amending the Statute or 'renewing' Kingdom relations in some other way. Perhaps the proposal for a Kingdom Act on the settlement of disputes or the forthcoming joint response to the spontaneous advice of the Advisory Division in the context of 70 years of the Statute will give the debate about the Kingdom a new impulse (although the response to the advice of the Dutch government can be called cautious). As far as the Caribbean Netherlands is concerned, the political parties seem to have stepped up in recent years. At least, as far as the election programs are concerned. However, paper is patient. It comes down to real political attention for the specific challenges of the Caribbean Netherlands. A great resolution for the new House of Representatives and the new cabinet.

𝘈𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳: 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦 𝘋𝘶𝘪𝘫𝘧 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘸. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘵𝘴𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘢𝘵.𝘯𝘭

‍