Ask a Dutchman!

[Agent327]

Ah, so the national government or some other higher political instance can not tell the local executive what to do. Can not tell its police what to do. Am I getting this right? Do you even have a national police force? What then is it used for?

No, you're not getting it right. And no, we don't have a national police force, although there are some halfbaked plans to create one. There are national authorities, provincial and local. While all are governed by the same law, they have different responsibilities, i.e. national, provincial and local. I don't think that's very special, nor is it typically Dutch. (Frankly I don't see what good a 'national police force' would do. Most crime and most lawbreaking incidents aren't national, they are local, provincial at best. And even if there were such a thing as a 'national police force', they would still have be acquainted with local situations, therefore heavily relying on local expertise and personnel. Since local police are already in place, there is the clear danger of competition between such a 'national' police force and local police. In practice however, the creation of a national police force would require expenses present - and future - governments aren't willing to make. Not to mention the amounts of manpower that would have to be trained and paid.)

The previous two posts treat the same subject quite profusely, by the way.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But doesn't essentially every European at this point?

Indeed. I think you need to go back to the 13 or 1400 when the number of ancestors exceeds the number of people who exist or have existed throughout time. (If you reason you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc all the way up to the 1300's it's somewhere in the region of 30 billion ancestors.

 

[Agent327]

Ummm... right. Nice summing up of the Charlemagne descendants myth.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Myth? Are you saying I don't have more ancestors than the number of people who have ever existed?

 

[Agent327]

I wouldn't dare...

 

[anandus]

COUNTER QUESTION TIME

What's it like not being able to choose your leader? And instead leaving it up to the party system/the Queen (or at least I gleamed this from the Wikipedia article, seems bizarre) and hoping they choose the right one?

Although de jure it is completely true what you say, people vote for parties and the parties form a coalition and choose a minister-president, in effect what people tend to do is they do tend to vote for a future minister-president and see it that way, even though they are voting for a party.
It's almost a sort of double vote. On one hand people want to vote for the future PM, on the other hand they want to vote for the party that's closest to their ideology.

And there's an interesting dynamic there. People tend to vote for the party in their 'political half' (left-wing or right-wing) that has the best chance of winning and thus delivering the PM.
You saw it in the last Dutch election a few weeks back, where it was a race between left-wing social-democrat Samsom and right-wing liberal Rutte, which the latter won with 42 seats to 41 seats (out of 150 seats).

But a minister-president hasn't nearly as much power or status as a president in the US has, it shouldn't be overrated too much.
In a constituational monarchy the actual power does lie with the PM, but the symbolic power lies with the monarch, who is technically still the head of state.
But neither the queen nor the prime-minister is really seen as 'a leader' like the president of the US is seen as a leader in the US.

And some people would rather have it that we could vote for a president, like in France or Germany, for instance. But that would mean that we'd have to change from a constituational monarchy to a republic and there's only a slight minority that's in favor of absolute republicanism.

And when you'd ask the people the'd rather have an option to vote for their preferred coalition than the preferred prime-minister, I'd think.
As the shape and form of the coalition has a lot more effect than who is prime-minister.

 

[Tahuti]

And some people would rather have it that we could vote for a president, like in France or Germany, for instance. But that would mean that we'd have to change from a constituational monarchy to a republic and there's only a slight minority that's in favor of absolute republicanism.

Note that the German president is very weak and is more or less comparable to the Dutch and British monarchs in terms of power and functions. Also, I do know D66 favors a directly elected PM, which wouldn't necessarily require abolishing the monarchy.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Although de jure it is completely true what you say, people vote for parties and the parties form a coalition and choose a minister-president, in effect what people tend to do is they do tend to vote for a future minister-president and see it that way, even though they are voting for a party.
It's almost a sort of double vote. On one hand people want to vote for the future PM, on the other hand they want to vote for the party that's closest to their ideology.

And there's an interesting dynamic there. People tend to vote for the party in their 'political half' (left-wing or right-wing) that has the best chance of winning and thus delivering the PM.
You saw it in the last Dutch election a few weeks back, where it was a race between left-wing social-democrat Samsom and right-wing liberal Rutte, which the latter won with 42 seats to 41 seats (out of 150 seats).

But a minister-president hasn't nearly as much power or status as a president in the US has, it shouldn't be overrated too much.
In a constituational monarchy the actual power does lie with the PM, but the symbolic power lies with the monarch, who is technically still the head of state.
But neither the queen nor the prime-minister is really seen as 'a leader' like the president of the US is seen as a leader in the US.

And some people would rather have it that we could vote for a president, like in France or Germany, for instance. But that would mean that we'd have to change from a constituational monarchy to a republic and there's only a slight minority that's in favor of absolute republicanism.

And when you'd ask the people the'd rather have an option to vote for their preferred coalition than the preferred prime-minister, I'd think.
As the shape and form of the coalition has a lot more effect than who is prime-minister.

Yeah, this is what I kind of assumed it was like. People vote for the party that would have the best chance of delivering a PM in a coalition.

And the PM isn't seen as the leader? Is anyone seen as the "leader" of the Netherlands? Or is it more like the majority of power is invested in Parliament, and the PM is just seen as leading the Parliament?

 

[anandus]

Yeah, this is what I kind of assumed it was like. People vote for the party that would have the best chance of delivering a PM in a coalition.

And the PM isn't seen as the leader? Is anyone seen as the "leader" of the Netherlands? Or is it more like the majority of power is invested in Parliament, and the PM is just seen as leading the Parliament?

The PM is seen as a leader of the government, but it doesn't have the same weight as a president has.

On one hand because the monarchy has the role of head of state and on the other hand due to the nature of a government of coalition a PM also needs to consider the other parties of the coalition in his/her actions and thus can't really profile his- or herself too much.
The PM is more seen as a manager that keeps the necessary parties onboard than a true spokeperson of the party he/she represented in the elections.

Still the leader of the country, but in status and regard a lot more watered down than a president.
At the moment in international terms, due to the euro crisis, I think a lot of people feel the country is represented more by the minister of finance than by the PM.

Ironically, as the most vocal parties in the parliament are the opposition parties the leader of the biggest opposition party is sometimes seen as the leader of parliament (which of course is not true).
Often there's a (completely incorrect) view that it's the parliament vs the government, which isn't true at all, but often members of the governmental parties are a lot more quiet, they just have to vote for the actions of government, and not cause too much ruckus. And it are the opposition parties which you'll hear mostly.

Fellow-Dutchies: Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, it's written from my personal view.

 

[dutchfire]

Also, the role of the PM is more a primus inter pares, he is just the most important minister, he doesn't stand above the ministers. I believe in the US the president chooses his cabinet and can send people away basically at his whim, here the cabinet including PM is chosen by parliament.

Also, our PM doesn't really have a Commander in Chief role, where it is unpatriotic to attack him.

edited for clarification

 

[strijder20]

How do you view the Belgians?

 

[anandus]

How do you view the Belgians?

It depends in what way.
Also there's, because of the language, a difference between how we look at the Flemish and the Walloon.
The Dutch tend to feel (a lot) closer to the Flemish than to the Walloon.

Especially with the Flemish, because of the language, there's a good bond and they're seen as a real 'brother-nation'. There's also a lot of cross-fertilization in the media.
With Wallonia it's a lot less. This is not only because of the language barrier, but also because of a (no offence meant) difference in culture and income level.

There are some Dutch people that would rather see 'the Greater Netherlands', of which there are some variations (the Netherlands plus Flanders, the Netherlands plus Belgium or the Netherlands plus Belgium and Luxembourg), but most (almost all) Dutch people wouldn't want that. And I'm quite certain the people in Belgium and Luxembourg wouldn't want that

 

[Takhisis]

How do you view the Belgians?

(&#8230 There's also a lot of cross-fertilization (&#8230

Stupid sexy Flanders.

 

[Agent327]

Apart from anandus response (which I reckon is pretty much accurate), two provinces are actually divided between Holland and Belgium: there's a Dutch and a Flemish province called Brabant and Limburg. (Plus the southernmost part of Zeeland is actually called Flanders, as it used to be part of that Belgian province.)

Also, the role of the PM is more a primus inter pares, he is just the most important minister, he doesn't stand above the ministers. I believe in the US the president chooses his cabinet and can send people away basically at his whim, here the cabinet including PM is chosen.

That is incorrect: the government is negotiated between selected parties (usually the largest from the last elections), no members of government are chosen.

 

[strijder20]

two provinces are actually divided between Holland and Belgium: there's a Dutch and a Flemish province called Brabant and Limburg.

Yup, I knew that, I'm Belgian (Flemish)

 

[christos200]

If Belgium collapses, do you think that the Flanders will unite with the Netherlands?

 

[anandus]

If Belgium collapses, do you think that the Flanders will unite with the Netherlands?

I don't think so. I'm quite confident the Flemish wouldn't want that that

 

[strijder20]

I don't think so. I'm quite confident the Flemish wouldn't want that that

Yes.
But I see Flanders and the Netherlands united as a better option than an independent Flanders (some people really are missing the current trend of global events over here).
The best situation in my opinion, however, is that Belgium just stays together.

 

[christos200]

The best situation in my opinion, however, is that Belgium just stays together.

I dont think that Belgium can survive. Sooner or later, it will collapse. In my opinion, it wont last another decade.

 

[Agent327]

Agree to disagree. Support for an independent Flanders doesn't have sufficient political clout, and it isn't in Wallony's interest to see Belgium disintegrate. IMHO, reports about an immiment Belgian collapse are hugely exaggerated; the country is more stable than one might think.