User:Dajasj/sandbox/Schmelzer

Norbert Schmelzer aan het woord op 11 oktober 1966.

Schmelzer's night was a debate in the House of the Representatives in the Netherlands on the night of 13 to 14 October 1966. The night was the last day of the general debate on the 1967 budget, which had started on 11 October. At the end of the debate, the parliamentary group leader of the Catholic People's Party (KVP), Norbert Schmelzer, filed a motion against the Cals cabinet, of which his party was part together with the Labour Party (PvdA) en de Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP). The motion was interpreted by the cabinet as a motion of no confidence by the cabinet, but nevertheless passed. The cabinet resigned on 15 October.

Schmelzer's Night catalyzed ongoing developments in Dutch politics. Within the Labour Party, increased distrust of the KVP led to the polarisation strategy and the growth of New Left within the party. The Night strengthed the electoral decline of the KVP that has started with the depillarisation. The christian radicals, who favoured governing with the PvdA, split off in 1966 and formed the Political Party of Radicals. On the other side, the Night contributed to KVP, CHU and ARP forming the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA). Parties which opposed the establishment such as the Farmers' Party and the Democrats 66, founded on 14 October 1966, increased in popularity in the 1967 general election.

Background

Government table during the debate on 13 October 1966.

Initially, after the 1963 general election, the Marijnen cabinet took office, consisting of KVP, VVD, CHU and ARP. This cabinet fell in early 1965 after a cabinet crisis over the broadcasting system, in which the KVP and ARP in particular were opposed to the VVD. An attempt to patch things up under the leadership of KVP faction leader and informateur Norbert Schmelzer was unsuccessful during the formation that year. Member of Parliament and formateur Jo Cals, belonging to the left wing of the KVP, then formed the Cals cabinet, consisting of KVP, PvdA and ARP.

The cabinet could count on little enthusiasm. Within the KVP, a majority was in favor of a cabinet with the VVD. A small group, to which Cals belonged, was in favor of Roman Catholic-red cooperation. In this, a personal rivalry between the ambitious and capable Cals and Schmelzer played a role within the party. Within the ARP, there were also two wings - the traditional and the radical evangelical -, rivalry between party leader Bauke Roolvink and deputy prime minister Barend Biesheuvel. The PvdA supporters showed little understanding for the partner swap that had taken place in 1965. Within the PvdA, there was fear that the KVP was only working with the PvdA to solve the broadcasting issue, after which they would continue with the VVD.

The cabinet took office in an unfavourable economy, in which a wage-price spiral had led to overspending by the government since 1964. During the formation, the PvdA had already stipulated, to the dissatisfaction of right-wing KVP members, that it would be allowed to deviate from the Romme norm, which stated that government expenditure could not grow faster than national income. This was immediately used for the national budget for 1966. Its handling during the general debates of 1965 was difficult. The KVP and ARP were annoyed by the unwillingness to compromise of the Minister of Finance Anne Vondeling (PvdA) and Cals. Schmelzer had to threaten to resign internally to prevent his faction from turning against the budget.

In the March 1966 provincial elections and the June 1966 municipal council elections, the government parties, and in particular the PvdA, lost. The three parties continued to support participation in government, but adopted a more critical stance in view of the February 1967 Dutch general election. None of the parties ruled out a cabinet crisis.

National budget 1967

The direct cause was the coverage of the 1967 national budget. The cabinet wanted to fill gaps in the budget by, among other things, collecting income tax more quickly. Vondeling stated during the deliberations that after all measures to be taken, there was only a deficit of 26 million guilders left in the budget, something that he believed was within the margin of error of budgeting and that further intervention was therefore not necessary. The KVP faction believed that the deficit was much larger.

Debate

11 and 12 October

VVD parliamentary group leader Edzo Toxopeus speaking during the general debate on 11 October 1966.

On 11 and 12 October 1966, the general political debate started. Both Edzo Toxopeus and Henk Beernink, party leaders of the VVD and CHU respectively, criticised the financial policy of the cabinet and felt that the cabinet had to go. PvdA party leader Gerard Nederhorst predicted an improvement in economic circumstances based on the budget, but the party still had a number of questions. Roolvink was critical of the financial policy on behalf of the ARP, but did not want to express an opinion yet.

Schmelzer began his term with a positive-critical reflection, but ended his contribution with his criticism of the national budget. He found the cabinet's forecast too optimistic and that there was insufficient coverage. He came up with a number of suggestions for austerity options and was prepared to think along about additional coverage measures. Schmelzer stated that the cabinet had to regain confidence with "clear and convincing answers to our pressing questions".

13 and 14 October

Minister of Finance Anne Vondeling speaking during Schmelzer's Night.

From eleven o'clock in the morning on 13 October, mainly Cals and Vondeling responded on behalf of the cabinet. Both stated that the cabinet had been cautious and that the budget was better than in previous years. Cals indicated that the debate should show whether the cabinet enjoyed sufficient confidence from the House.

Johan Witteveen, financial specialist within the VVD parliamentary group, interrupts Minister of Finance Anne Vondeling during the debate on 13 October 1966.

After a break from a quarter past four to eight o'clock in the evening, the floor was again given to the Lower House factions. After the cabinet's response, the VVD was not convinced that the budget contributed to restoring equilibrium. Toxopeus, Witteveen and three fellow faction members submitted a motion stating that "the expenditure and tax policy must be revised in such a way that these objections are removed". Beernink also maintained his objections to the cabinet.

Schmelzer indicated that he had not yet received an adequate answer to the central question "to what extent this national budget with its consequences for 1968 and subsequent years adequately addresses our current problems". He posed three "urgent" questions to which the cabinet "had to provide confidence-inspiring answers". These were "the correctness of the proposed level of expenditure", "that heavy new burdens are not unavoidable with great probability for 1968" and concrete measures that contributed to responsible wage development.

The PvdA was satisfied with the cabinet's answers, although they acknowledged that the cabinet had not succeeded in all ambitions. Nederhorst asked the KVP and ARP to make their coalition preference clear before the elections, something that neither party responded to. The ARP's concerns that the coverage gap would be too large in 1968 had also not been allayed.

Shortly before midnight, the second term of the Chamber ended. Vondeling and Cals responded an hour later. Cals interpreted Toxopeus' motion as a motion of no confidence. Vondeling and Cals responded to the questions and Cals hoped to have provided "sufficient clarity" to the questions of his faction.

Motion-Schmelzer

The House,
Having heard the General Political and Financial Debate on the 1967 National Budget of the opinion that the proposed financial and economic policy should provide more guarantees for balanced growth and against further currency devaluation and unemployment,
expresses its conviction that, also in view of the possibilities for 1968, in addition to an improvement in the 1967 coverage, measures to prevent additional increases in expenditure are necessary,
invites the Government to submit proposals to this end,
And proceeds to the order of the day.

The motion-Schmelzer

The meeting was suspended for an hour at around a quarter past two at night at Schmelzer's request for consultation within the factions. During the faction consultation, the vast majority of the KVP faction appeared to support the Toxopeus motion. Because Schmelzer feared the break-up of the KVP, he decided to submit his own motion. Several ministers also knew about it, including ARP ministers. However, KVP MP Marga Klompé was kept in the dark about it. She expressed surprise and demanded consultation with Cals, a request that was voted down. Minister Joseph Luns visited the KVP faction and requested that it not come to a crisis.

After the parliamentary group meeting, Schmelzer informed Cals about the motion. They both realized that the motion was unacceptable to the cabinet. "Well Norbert, that's it," Cals is said to have said, according to Schmelzer. "I'm afraid so too," Schmelzer replied.

At five past three in the morning, Schmelzer was the first to speak in the third term. He indicated that his faction had not received a trustworthy answer to two questions. That is why he submitted his motion. He emphasized that it was not a motion of no confidence and that he did not want another coalition. He indicated that the motion would be supported by the vast majority of his faction. The meeting was then suspended until four o'clock at Cals' request. During the suspension, the ministers came to the conclusion that the motion was unacceptable and that the cabinet would resign.

Vote

Prime Minister Jo Cals speaking at the general debate in the House of Representatives on 13 October 1966.

The meeting resumed at ten past four. Cals stated that if the Lower House accepted the motion, it would lead to a cabinet crisis. He also disagreed with Schmelzer's explanation, which he considered to be in conflict with the content of the motion, and indicated that he considered it to be a lack of confidence in the government's financial and economic policy. "That's quite something," he said. His cabinet considered a tax increase unnecessary, and Cals therefore did not wish to cooperate. The motion was put to the vote at around half past four.

VVD, CHU, Political Reformed Party (SGP), Boerenpartij and Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond (GPV) supported the motion. ARP faction leader Roolvink had wanted to support the motion, but under pressure from MP Jaap Boersma, party leader Wiert Berghuis and Deputy Prime Minister Biesheuvel, he decided to close ranks and vote against the motion. On the left, the PvdA, Communist Party of the Netherlands (CPN) and Pacifist Socialist Party (PSP) voted against the motion. For the KVP, Annie Kessel, Tom Verdijk, Harry van Doorn and Dick Laan voted against, and the other 39 MPs present voted in favor. The dissenters stated in their explanation of vote that they voted against because the cabinet had indicated that it would offer its resignation if the motion were adopted, and explicitly expressed their support for government policy. The motion was adopted with 75 votes in favour and 62 votes against.

After the vote, Cals requested a suspension of the debate, which ended at twenty to five in the morning. At about six o'clock Cals left the House building. He received spontaneous applause from bystanders, to which he responded "It comes too late - only when you leave".

Aftermath

The Cals cabinet offered its resignation to Queen Juliana on 15 October. The direct result of the Night of Schmelzer was that after a formation the Zijlstra Cabinet took office. It was a rump cabinet of the KVP and ARP led by Jelle Zijlstra.

In the 1967 Second Chamber elections, both the KVP (eight seats) and the PvdA (six seats) lost.

Schmelzer's Night had a catalytic effect on the long-standing growing distrust between the PvdA and the religious parties, in particular the KVP. For the PvdA, the crisis contributed to the unity within the party. The party's renewal movement, Nieuw Links, founded in 1966, gained momentum as a result of the crisis. The party implemented the polarization strategy to emphasize the differences between the PvdA and the religious parties. In 1969, the party congress adopted an "anti-KVP motion" stating that no coalition should be formed with the KVP.

Schmelzer's Night also had a catalytic effect on the electoral decline of the KVP. Just as in the faction, there were members within the party who saw more in cooperation with the PvdA. In February 1968, a number of Christian radicals from the KVP left the party and soon after founded the Political Party Radicals (PPR) with radicals from the ARP. On the other hand, Schmelzer's Night contributed to the founding of the Group of Eighteen, with representatives from the KVP, ARP and CHU, which eventually led to the merger of the parties into the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) in 1980.

Sources

• Ammerlaan, Robbert (1973). Het verschijnsel Schmelzer. Uit het dagboek van een politieke teckel (in Dutch). Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff. ISBN 9021840235.
• Heiden, Peter van der; Kessel, Alexander van (2010). Rondom de Nacht van Schmelzer. De kabinetten-Marijnen, -Cals en -Zijlstra 1963-1967 (in Dutch). Boom. ISBN 9789461053626.
• Maas, P.F. (1982). Kabinetsformaties 1959-1973 (PDF) (in Dutch). Staatsuitgeverij. ISBN 9789012039987.