Interesting! Am curious to hear what the views are in Parliament on the new rules.

Hier is niet de rechter die tegen problemen aanloopt van slechte wetgeving, maar de rechter die de oorzaak is van slechte wetgeving....

Because neither the Commission or the Council is bound by the 3% and 60% indicators. The indicators are one way of starting the procedure. Any deficit can be found to be excessive. See section 3 of Article 126, authorizing the Commission to start the procedure in case of risk of excessive deficit.

maybe of interest for @onethuthree.bsky.social @annapeychev.bsky.social @jorismelman.bsky.social @jvtk.bsky.social @cwutscher.bsky.social @anabobic.bsky.social @adecabanes.bsky.social @menelaosmar.bsky.social @arribasellier.bsky.social @vjziesemer.bsky.social @jasperhvandijk.bsky.social

In other words, a bad reform of the SGP is immediately exploited by the Dutch gov, for purely national reasons.
I'm not a big fan of the SGP, so I don't think this is overall such a problem. But interesting to see the NL gov blow up their decade old 'moral high ground'

Sidenote2: under Dutch law, the government is obliged to conduct fiscal policy in line with "European norms". But they refer to the old norms of the SGP, which aren't relevant anymore.
The EU-rules which require these national budgetary rules, aren't updated by the SGP reform.

This move by the NL gov immediately puts the new SGP under stress: what is the use of these new plans and of the net expenditure path, if you don't have to stick to it? Or do the rules only apply to countries with high debt?
It will be a tricky path forward for the Commission.

Sidenote1: this political assessment of the NL gov about the corrective arm is probably correct, but in the Dutch plan it is grounded on a legal view which is clearly incorrect, namely that the Council can only take action if debt is higher than 60%. This is incorrect.

What will happen next is quite straightforward: the Dutch gov won't stick to the net expenditure path, as set by the Council. They'll take their chances under the corrective arm of SGP.
"As long as our debt is below 60% of GDP, the Council won't care", appears to be the Dutch assessment.

The Dutch plan also says that if the Comm+Council reject the Dutch numbers, they won't submit new ones. The Comm indeed rejects the Dutch net expenditure path, recommending to the Council to set a different path.

In October, the MS submitted their plans. Now the Commission assessment has been published, with the Dutch receiving the only 'negative' assessement.
The Dutch plan is explicit in diverging from Commission guidelines.

In april, the new SGP rules took effect. Most importantly, the 'preventive arm' has been replaced. MS submit a four year plan for their budgets, at the heart of which stands the net expenditure path. Diverging from this path leads to a start of the 'corrective arm'.

Aangezien een art 50 veu brief direct kan leiden tot opzegging (geen verdere actie vereist) lijkt me die gelijkstelling wel voor de hand liggen.

Is dat zo? Blijkt dat uit de Rijkswet Goedkeuring en bekendmaking verdragen? Art 14 heeft het over het voornemen tot opzegging, dus betwijfel of regering zonder goedkeuring een art 50 veu briefje mag sturen. Maar misschien zie ik iets over het hoofd.

Uitzonderingen zijn mogelijk voor 'bepaalde studies'. Dus geen totaalverbod, toch? Grote vraag is dan welke studies (en wie dat gaat bepalen).