Dutch lawmakers will vote on Tuesday on a first step towards requiring King Willem-Alexander and his family to pay income tax, a plan that would require an amendment to the constitution. [...]
The initial motion, expected to be put to the vote on Tuesday, requires a simple majority to pass. It asks the government to propose a constitutional change, which would then ultimately need backing from two-thirds of both houses of parliament. (source)
Resolves YES if the vote on Tuesday passes.
Resolves NO if it fails.
This is not about the constitutional change but only about the request to the government.
Close date might change if the vote is shifted.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ81 | |
| 2 | Ṁ12 | |
| 3 | Ṁ11 | |
| 4 | Ṁ10 | |
| 5 | Ṁ7 |
People are also trading
So it's this motion: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/moties/detail?id=2024Z00651&did=2024D01507
Dutch news says the motion passed: https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6298833/kamer-wil-dat-koning-belasting-betaalt-maar-nog-veel-hobbels-te-nemen.html
But I can't find an official source confirming that yet, official minutes should come later today
@Fedor Firefox translation from the Dutch news:
The Constitution will take years to change. The amendment must first be adopted by a simple majority in the House and the Senate. With a normal law it is then ready, but it is different when it comes to the Constitution. Both rooms have to consider the plan again at a later time. This can only be done after elections have been held.
Do I understand that correctly: A change to the Dutch constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses, then an election, and then a 2/3 majority in both houses again? Since elections just happened, this takes at least until 2028.
@marktwse not quite, it's a simple majority (50%+1) the first time around, then a 2/3ds majority the second time. And elections could always come earlier if cabinet formation doesn't succeed, or it does but then the cabinet falls. Both would call for earlier elections.
@EvdZ Just to be clear: This is not a reason for NO. If the vote for a 'look into' motion passes, it resolves YES.