If Wilders becomes the next prime minister of the Netherlands:
I will resolve this to YES if all of the following things happen:
Wilders becomes the next prime minister of the Netherlands,
His cabinet takes some action A or the coalition passes some law L, and
I find a compelling argument, (co-)authored by an expert in constitutional law, that A or L respectively are in conflict with the Dutch constitution.
I will resolve this to NO if, once his government (Wilders 1) is out of power and a new government is formed, I fail to find an instance of the above.
I will resolve this within a few weeks of them going out of power.
If Wilders does not become the next prime minister of the Netherlands, I will resolve this to NA.
I don't see a reason to take action if new elections are called before a new government is chosen, though if people feel strongly about it I can commit to resolving this to NA in that case.
1,000
3.00@jesyspa You can find a compelling argument for almost anything. What is a reputable source? A newspaper can be a reputable source, but that does not really matter because the in the 'Opinion' section mostly anything goes.
@Bart5f6d I agree this is a difficult market to resolve, but I think the question is an important one. I think I've made the spirit of the question clear and I'm not interested in nitpicking the details. If you don't trust me to make a best effort resolution, or if you think events will play out in a way that will make the outcome ambiguous, you're free to not participate.
@jesyspa Understood.
It is not that I don't trust you, it's just that it is really hard for any non-expert to judge whether something is constitutional. And it's too easy to just point to an opinion article (by a non lawyer) that declares something is unconstitutional.
But take this as an example:
https://nos.nl/artikel/2477003-brandbrief-hoogleraren-aan-eerste-kamer-nieuwe-pensioenwet-ongrondwettelijk
Here three professors specialized in constitutional law declare something to be unconstitutional. But in this case, the Council of State (Raad van State) disagreed, which is packed with constitutional lawyers.
I think as the resolution criteria should be "X states that A or L is unconstitutional", where X is for example the Council of State.
@Bart5f6d Thank you for the example, I agree it's a complicated case. I also agree that naming a specific entity would give a more objective criterion. However, given that contesting the constitutionality of a law is (a) complicated by article 120 of the constitution and (b) is a process that has been updated very recently (and so conceivably could change again), I'm also not sure that won't exclude too much...
I do in any case think it is good idea to specify that the argument for unconstitutionality is given by a specialist in constitutional law, I've updated the question to reflect that.
It seems to me like the trade-off is between specifying one authority, making it easier to judge, but possibly missing cases that would be relevant, or allowing any expert opinion and extending the question to "arguably unconstitutional".
For me, the underlying question is: how reasonable are statements like "the PVV is a threat to the 'rechtstaat'"? I think that the latter, broader interpretation is a more accurate approximation of that, but I'll give it some more thought over the weekend.
It seems to me like the trade-off is between specifying one authority, making it easier to judge, but possibly missing cases that would be relevant, or allowing any expert opinion and extending the question to "arguably unconstitutional".
I've decided to go for the latter option here, since it seems closer to the spirit of the question.