“Good law is not created in silence, but through criticism, analysis, and balance.” With this powerful message, Andy Lee, member of the Council of State in the Netherlands, set the tone during his meeting with parliamentarian Eduard Pieters of the PPA faction. The meeting was not superficial, but profound, with a clear central theme: the impact of the Rijkswet HOFA on Aruba’s autonomy and the balance within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Council of State: More Than Advice, a Pillar of Governance
During the conversation, Andy Lee emphasized the essential role of the Council of State as an independent institution that evaluates all legislative proposals—both Kingdom laws and national laws—before they reach a final decision.
He explained that this role is not ceremonial, but fundamental to:
- analyzing the content and process of legislation;
- asking critical questions about legitimacy and impact;
- and providing advice to improve the quality of governance.
The Council of State does not make political decisions, but it influences them through deep and independent advice, something that, according to Pieters, serves as an essential safeguard to prevent weak or unbalanced laws from passing without scrutiny.
“This shows that within the Kingdom there is a Council of State to conduct thorough analysis,” Pieters stated.
A Process That Still Has Open Questions
Andy Lee clearly acknowledged that the legislative process is not yet complete. The final text has not yet reached the Dutch House of Representatives, and the formal advice of the Council of State has not yet been published.
According to Lee, only when all information—including the final legislative text, the process followed, and the legal advice—is available can a definitive opinion be formed.
However, the most important point he expressed was that the discussion surrounding HOFA has been ongoing for several years and still has not produced a clear solution. For Pieters, this is a very concerning signal.
HOFA: A Law Leaving Fundamental Questions Unanswered
According to Pieters, the fact that a law of such impact continues to circulate with so much uncertainty is precisely the reason Aruba must stand firm. The central questions remain:
- Is this law truly urgent or necessary?
- Does it protect or weaken the autonomy of Aruba’s Parliament?
- Does it strengthen the Kingdom or create an imbalance of power?
“A law without clarity should not be imposed with speed,” Pieters emphasized.
Without Real Consensus, There Is No Legitimacy
Another key point that emerged during the meeting was the importance of the democratic process. Andy Lee highlighted that within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the role of parliaments—both in the Netherlands and in Aruba—is essential for the legitimacy of legislation.
Pieters connected this directly to the current situation:
“If the Parliament of Aruba has not given its approval, how can one speak of a ‘consensus Kingdom law’?”
For the PPA, this is not merely a lack of formality, but a lack of respect for democracy.
Aruba Must Speak Now, Not Later
With the law not yet submitted to the Dutch House of Representatives, Pieters emphasized that this is the moment for Aruba to show leadership.
“The final decision has not yet been made, but the direction is being shaped now. If we do not speak, others will do so for us,” he said.
The mission of the PPA in The Hague was specifically to place Aruba’s real context on the table, clarify the implications of HOFA, and influence the debate before it becomes final.
A Strong Kingdom Is Built on Respect, Not Control
The meeting with Andy Lee confirmed a fundamental truth: the Kingdom of the Netherlands cannot function without balance among its countries. Lee emphasized the importance of understanding the context of each country—something that, according to Pieters, is often lacking in decision-making in The Hague.
“We are not against the Kingdom,” Pieters concluded, “we are against a direction that weakens our right over Aruba’s budget.”
The final message from The Hague is clearer than ever: good law is born from criticism, not from silence. Democracy requires real participation, and autonomy must be protected, not negotiated away.
“If we do not question today, we will pay the price tomorrow,” Pieters concluded firmly.