The permanent committee for Kingdom Relations of the Tweede Kamer (House of Representatives) has presented a report (verslag) questioning the lack of information regarding the positions of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten in the proposal for the “Kingdom Act on delegation bases” (Rijkswet delegatiegrondslagen). Several political factions are raising alarms because, even though the law aims to reduce the “democratic deficit,” the current document does not explain whether there was actual consensus among the countries.
The law in question (36 910 / R2218) aims to create the necessary legal basis for certain “Kingdom Orders in Council” (Algemene Maatregel van Rijksbestuur / AMvRB) that must remain in force based on Article 38 of the Statute. Although the law itself does not propose substantive changes to existing rules, the process of arriving at it has raised many questions among parliamentary factions in the Netherlands.
Questions Regarding the Participation of Caribbean Countries
Several factions expressed that they do not have sufficient information on how the Caribbean countries were involved:
- VVD Faction: Has formally requested the Dutch Government to explain to what extent Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten were involved in drafting this law and what their concrete reactions were.
- GroenLinks-PvdA Faction: Criticized the fact that official documents make no mention of how the other three countries view this law. For this faction, this is fundamental since the law stems from a change in the Statute that aimed precisely to reduce the “democratic deficit.”
- Demands for Transparency: GroenLinks-PvdA emphasized that the essence of the democratic deficit is that Caribbean countries often do not have enough influence over Kingdom laws. Therefore, they demand to know if there is genuine consensus among the countries regarding the so-called “consensus-AMvRB” mentioned in the law.
Other Positions in the House
Meanwhile, other factions such as the CDA and ChristenUnie indicated that they have noted the proposal with interest and, in their case, have no further substantive questions, seeing that the creation of these legal bases is necessary.
Lastly, the VVD faction requested more clarity on the “amendment and termination” part of the law, specifically whether this relates to the “Shipping Decree 2004” (Schepenbesluit 2004), a technical point that still needs to be clarified by the corresponding Minister.
The committee concluded that the public handling of this law may proceed, but under the strict condition that the Government must first answer all these questions satisfactorily. This opens the door for a debate where the representatives of Aruba (the Minister Plenipotentiary) could play a role in bringing our island’s perspective forward.