De Wever threatens to open the door to Vlaams Belang: “A federal government without a Flemish majority? Then people in Flanders could no longer rely on me.” 2024 elections

“A knife in the back once, not a second time,” De Wever said Tuesday during the Knack and Trends-Kanaal Z president debate, about 100 days before the June 9 election. De Wever wanted to hear from his fellow party leaders whether they would be willing to join a new federal government without a majority on the Flemish side. “In the last 16 years, we have had a federal government without a Flemish majority 12 times,” De Wever said. “Respect for Flemish democracy must be a top priority,” the N-VA president said.

De Wever has only received the support of Vlaams Belang Chairman Tom Van Grieken. Vivaldi's current party bosses have either played the ball or bounced the ball back. For example, according to Open Vld president Tom Ongina, it is “preferable” to have a majority on the Flemish side, but the main question is what this majority will do. “Are we going to spend another 500 days in the castle negotiating the division of the country? Then I say no. If the intention is to quickly put a government together and then reform at the social, economic and financial level, then I am an ally.”

Sami Mahdi also wants an “ideal” Flemish majority, but not “strongly strengthen” or “reduce” healthcare.

According to Voorwit board chair Melissa Depreter, no one is concerned about De Wever asking “who is going to run it with whom.” She also points to the Flemish level to prove that a Flemish majority does not guarantee good policy. According to Gruen chairman Jeremy Vaneckhout, De Wever's question is essentially a lightning rod and a way to avoid controversy over the failed policy at the Flemish level.

De Wever described the reactions to his statement as “amazing.” According to him, “democracy has become conditional.” “If a Flemish majority is not possible, it is not necessary,” I hear here, sighed the N-VA president. “I see the dwarf parties stumbling here to sit in Vivaldi’s government again.”

Open Vld, Groen and CD&V, among others, also demanded clarification from De Wever on his position on possible cooperation with Vlaams Belang. “I answer very clearly regarding Vlaams Belang: I demand a Flemish majority in the federal government and I link the formation of a Flemish government to this. “Then my Flemish colleagues could no longer rely on me,” De Wever said.

The debate erupted between the president several times, including during discussions about wages or labor migration and asylum. When Ongina, head of Open Vld, launched a proposal to cut gross wages and increase net wages, De Wever charged that gross wages had just risen under Vivaldi, while the purchasing power of many people had fallen.

Voorwit's president, Melissa Depreiter, objected to the statement that workers' purchasing power had deteriorated, but De Wever stood her ground, referring to an expert panel that examined purchasing power figures. “You have failed your target audience of low-income workers. PS's target audience is being served, which is essentially a passive audience.”

In the asylum and immigration debate, in which Tom van Greken defended the Australian model with disapproval, Gruen's co-chair Vanneckhout accused the other chairs (except Raoul Hidebo of the PVDA) of following Van Greken too much. According to him, the other parties want to “outdo Van Greeken”, which automatically makes Van Greeken the “winner of the debate”.

“You're rolling over each other to show how tough you are, but you can't outrun Van Greecken. We will never be ashamed that we decided to never lock up children. You're hiding for fear that Vlaams Belang will win the election. Anyone who wants to outdo Van Greecken will “Fails.”

Van Grecken himself was disturbed by Vanneckhout's “moral finger”. “The voter is going to poke that finger in your eye,” he said.