First Chamber of the States General

Eerste Kamer of the Staten-Generaal
First Chamber of the States General

coat of arms	Part of the building of the First Chamber
Basic data
Seat:	Binnenhof , The Hague
Legislative period :	4 years
First session:	1815
MPs:	75
Current legislative period
Last choice:	May 27, 2019
Chair:	Jan Anthonie Bruijn ( VVD )
Distribution of seats:	Government (32) VVD 12 CDA 9 D66 7 CU 4 Opposition (43) FVD 10 GL 8 PvdA 6 PVV 5 SP 4 PvdD 3 GO R&D 2 50PLUS 2 SGP 2 OSF 1
Website
www.eerstekamer.nl

The First Chamber of the States General ( Dutch Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal ) is the first chamber of the Dutch Parliament, the States General . It is based in the Binnenhof in The Hague . Often they are called Senaat and their members are senators . If the term Kamer is used alone, then the politically more important Second Chamber is usually meant.

Both chambers were created with the constitution of the Netherlands in 1815, with the wealthy citizens choosing the second chamber, while the king appointed the (noble) members of the first. Since the great state reform of 1848/1849, the provincial parliaments have elected the First Chamber. Electoral restrictions such as showing a high tax burden were finally abolished around 1918. Since then, the constitution has required that both chambers be elected by proportional representation .

There have been 75 senators since 1956 and their term has been four years since 1983. They are elected on the same day by the provincial parliaments according to uniform lists across the empire. The provincial parliaments themselves are elected by the people about two months beforehand, also all on one day.

In principle, every law requires the approval of both chambers. However, only the Second Chamber can add additions to a draft; the Senate can only accept or reject it. In addition to the indirect election, in practice this has meant that the actual legislative work takes place in the Second Chamber and that the government also de facto depends on trust in the Second Chamber.

The Senate with its part-time politicians is traditionally regarded as a chambre de réflection , in which bills are finally checked again for technical quality and feasibility. Rejections of a draft are rare. Since the Senate was in existence, its abolition has been discussed, especially by the political left.

history

→ Main article : History of the First Chamber of the States General

Gijsbert Karel van Hogendorp from Rotterdam is considered a spring liberal and the father of the kingdom's first constitution

In the Burgundian (Habsburg) Netherlands, the Staten-Generaal , the general estates , first met in 1464 . These were delegates from the estates in the individual provinces. During the French occupation there was a Dutch state with little power also for the members of parliament. After William of Orange arrived in the Netherlands in 1813, the lawyer Gijsbert Karel van Hogendorp drew up a new constitution . As in other monarchies, there was a parliament with two chambers in the Netherlands. One of them was supposed to represent the nobility , so that the power of the king was not restricted unilaterally by the people.

In the first years after 1815, the King appointed the members of the First Chamber. It seldom met and worked mainly by blocking legislative initiatives (of the Second Chamber). For fear of a revolution like the one in Germany, the king advocated reform in the spring of 1848. Both chambers have been elected since 1849, but the first one indirectly. The members of the provincial parliaments served as electoral colleges for the election of the senators for nine years (since 1923: six). A candidate for the First Chamber had to be a wealthy taxpayer, even richer than in the direct election of the Second Chamber.

The First Chamber continued to support the king, even if over time the majority became a liberal. The meetings became public. The First Chamber survived several attempts to abolish it or at least to have it voted directly. After all, it was democratized in the course of the constitutional reforms of 1917 ( Pacificatie , a denominational-liberal compromise originally on the educational issue) until 1922. The senators no longer differed particularly in their social background from the other chamber members. The direct election was rejected, also with the argument that it would then be an undesirable revenant of the second. The majority ratios were almost the same in both chambers (from 1923 to the 2010s), so that the Senate was able to appear cautious. From 1940 to 1946 the work of parliament was interrupted by the German occupation.

After approaches in the first post-war decades, there was a broad discussion in the 1970s, which in 1983 led to a constitutional reform. Since then, the provincial parliamentarians of the First Chamber elect on the same day, no longer half every three years. Elections take place every four years, comparable to the Second Chamber. Apart from that, the position of the First Chamber remained little changed, despite attempts by the left parties, from the left liberals to the left socialists, to abolish it entirely. Since 1995 the Senate no longer has to be dissolved to amend the Basic Law, only the Second Chamber.

Position and duties

Compared to the second chamber, the first is clearly the weaker one. There is no constitutional reason for this. The Senate can determine its own agenda and theoretically reject any law. The reluctance of the Senate is a matter of practice. Bills are first submitted to the Second Chamber, and the coalition agreements only bind the parliamentary groups there.

Even if the Senate rarely rejects a bill (less than once a year), there have been several spectacular cases in which important political reforms in the Senate have failed. For example, the corrective referendum was rejected on Van Wiegel Night in 1999 , and the mayor was directly elected on Van Thijn Night in 2005 . Both times it was about old demands of the social-liberal coalition partner D66. The cabinet crisis of 1999 was exacerbated by the fact that VVD Senator Hans Wiegel's party was also represented in the government at the time.

The Senate is also not afraid to reject a barely changed bill several times. It should be noted that the relationship between government and parliament is relatively little regulated in the Dutch constitution . Nowhere is it mentioned that the government would have to resign if there was a lack of confidence in parliament. Nevertheless, it has become common practice that a vote of no confidence in the Second Chamber or a breach of the coalition leads to the resignation of the government.

Since 1983 the constitution (Art. 51.1) has named the second before the First Chamber. However, the chairman of the First Chamber is also the chairman of the Verenigde Vergadering , the joint meeting of both chambers on Prinsjesdag or when a new king is sworn in.

Political control

Debate on the government statement in the First Chamber, 2013

When the foundations for the political system were re-established in 1848, the ministers were required to provide information to parliament. However, until 1887 this only applied to the second chamber. The Senate was given the right to ask questions in order to be able to do its examination better. Realistically, even then it was not assumed that the Senate would make frequent use of it. The Senate only has the right to ask questions in writing; While the Second Chamber asks several hundred questions a year, the First Chamber asks a few dozen.

In 1887 the Senate also received the right to set up a committee of inquiry. That never happened. In the early 1980s, the governing parties, which also had a majority in the Senate, believed that a committee of inquiry was not part of legislation, but part of government control. According to de Vries, active control of the government in the Senate would raise the undesirable question of how the relationship between the two should be assessed at all. Depending on how things went, a committee of inquiry or some other instrument could raise the issue of political confidence.

legislation

The Senate is to review draft laws according to legal and technical aspects, according to national and international law, according to coherence and according to social acceptance and manageability. However, he will only receive the drafts when the legislative process has already been completed in the material sense. According to Art. 81 and 85 of the Basic Law, the Senate can only accept or reject a draft, not, for example, request an amendment or even formally propose it. He has no right to initiate legislation, only the government or the second chamber.

From 1945 to 2001, only 47 drafts (0.3 percent of all) were rejected in the Senate, fewer than one per year. The motive for the rejection was usually not so much the defense of a legal norm, but the question of the practical manageability of new rules. Drafts that reach the Senate have months, if not years, of history in ministries and the Second Chamber and have often been changed in the interplay between the government and the Second Chamber. This work is not meant to be undone. In addition, the senators are party friends of the MPs in the Second Chamber, especially senators from the coalition parties are difficult to reject.

Nevertheless, the Senate can exercise some influence on the content of the law without specifically rejecting a draft. In this way, he can aanhouden (halt) a draft, i.e. implicitly threaten to reject it. One speaks of an amendment in the Netherlands when the government or the Second Chamber introduces a new law that takes into account the changes requested by the Senate. If this amendment comes to the Senate after the legislative process has passed, it accepts it together with the old draft. In a softer variant, the Senate has already given its approval to the old draft, but the amendment is awaiting entry into force . Another variant is toezegging , a commitment by a minister to take into account the wishes of the Senate in future legislation or in the handling of a law. This can be done, for example, through a letter from the Minister to the Senate.

This practice, which has existed since 1967, is very similar to an amendment law , even if the State Council rejects this view. Between 1983 and 2000, out of 4,439 bills that reached the First Chamber, twenty were amended . However, the main content of a draft was not changed.

Furthermore, the Senate can express its opinion through a motive , a motion or a resolution. A motie needs the support of at least four senators in the Senate. This instrument is also used very seldom, in the 1997/1998 session only three times with 37 sessions, and in the previous two decades a maximum of fourteen times per session. Erik Knippenberg sees a law-related motive as a means, especially for the opposition parties, to “ let off air” (an “ontluchtingsventiel”).

Budget law

Like laws, the draft of the Reich budget requires the approval of both chambers, and the first chamber can only accept or reject it. The First Chamber receives the draft late and does not have to vote formally. The report of a chamber committee is sufficient. As a control instrument of the Senate, budget law is almost meaningless, judges Knippenberg.

organization

Painted ceiling in the hall of the First Chamber

The senators usually meet for a plenary session on Tuesday at 1.30 p.m., if necessary rarely on Monday or Wednesday. A meeting can be requested by eight members, the quorum for meetings and voting is 38. The meetings are public, but visitors must register. There are thirty seats in the visitors' gallery.

The chairman of the first chamber, Eerste Kamervoorzitter , is elected by the chamber members for the four-year legislative period. Often it is the chairman of the largest political group; this is definitely deviated from if the same party already provides the chairman of the second chamber. Ankie Broekers-Knol ( VVD ) has been chairwoman since July 2, 2013 . The College of Seniors is a council of elders that sets the agenda.

The senators are grouped by faction; a political group can also consist of a single member. Larger political groups elect a group chairman, a vice-chairman and a group secretary. Deviations from parliamentary group discipline are more common than in the second chamber. There are no or only a few parliamentary group employees in the Senate.

The First Chamber works with around twenty committees, which often correspond to the subject area of ​​a ministry. When allocating committee seats, the chamber chairman ensures that each parliamentary group is represented on each committee. The meetings rarely involve detailed work, as the Senate can only accept or reject anyway. Many committee meetings even only take place in writing or during the tea break.

The internal organization of a Senate Griffier passed (a traditional word for secretary). For example, he prepares the meetings, is responsible for the reports of the committees, among other things, and advises the chairman of the chamber. The Griffier has three deputies. A secretariat reports to him.

Choice and composition

The first chamber has always been deliberately chosen differently from the second in order to distinguish the two chambers from one another and to give the first a right to exist. This argument came up in the constitutional debates against more far-reaching government drafts. After the king had initially appointed the senators, since 1849 the members of the provincial parliaments have elected the first chamber according to census suffrage. The democratization of 1917–1922 ensured that the composition of both chambers was based on universal suffrage for men and women. Furthermore, the electoral system for the First Chamber is an indirect one.

Election to the provincial parliaments on March 2, 2011: Election evening in the Gelderland provincial house in Arnhem

The first chamber is elected by the members of the provincial parliaments, who in turn are elected for four years by the Dutch who are at least 18 years old in the respective province. This means that the electoral population for the two chambers is slightly different, because the second chamber is also elected by those Dutch who live abroad. In 2011, the three special communities in the Caribbean were still excluded from voting, but there should be a regulation for them in the future.

With the constitutional reform of 1983, the simultaneous election of all 75 members of the First Chamber was introduced. At the same time, the constitution has since stipulated that the First Chamber takes place within three months of the election of the provincial parliaments, except in the event of the First Chamber being dissolved. Since 1987, the electoral term of the First Chamber has therefore been linked to the electoral term of the provincial parliaments. A candidate list for a particular province must be supported by at least one parliamentarian from the province. Although the parties in the individual provinces can submit different lists, in practice the parties always submit the same list for all provinces. In the year in which the provincial parliaments are newly elected (these elections take place on Wednesday in the period from March 15 to 21), the candidate lists are submitted on Tuesday between April 19 and 25 or within forty days after the resolution to dissolve. The election of the First Chamber will take place on the 34th day after the submission of the lists at 3 p.m., i.e. (except in the case of dissolution) on Monday in the period from 23 to 29 May.

As of 2015 there have been 570 provincial parliamentarians . They each have one vote that they cast for a candidate on one of the party lists. The votes cast for the candidates of a party all apply to that list.

Provinces of the Netherlands . Since 1986 there have been twelve provinces with Flevoland reclaimed from the sea .

The votes cast by the parliamentarians of the individual provinces are weighted differently. This ensures the proportionality of the choice. Although the provincial parliaments have different numbers of representatives, graduated according to the population size of the province, the smaller provinces have a larger provincial parliament in relation to the population. To determine the voting weight of the province, the population is divided by 100 times the number of provincial parliamentarians and rounded to the nearest whole number. Flevoland, for example, had 401,503 residents and 41 provincial parliamentarians in 2015. This resulted in a voting weight of 98 per provincial parliamentarian in the senatorial election: 401,503 / (41 ∗ 100) = 97.92756 ..., rounded to 98. In the 2015 election, the voting weight fluctuated between 98 (Flevoland and Zealand) and 655 (South Holland)

For the allocation of seats, the votes are multiplied by the voting weight of the respective province. If, for example, 5 provincial parliamentarians from Flevoland choose a certain list, this will result in 505 votes (5 * 101) for this list. Lists from different provinces count as one list for the distribution of seats if they are either lists from the same party or the top candidate is the same. The votes of the parties in the individual provinces are thus added up nationwide; Lists not submitted by parties are practically non-existent. The total of the votes on all lists nationwide is divided by the number of seats to be allocated (i.e. 75). The resulting quotient is called kiesdeler (literally: “Wahlteiler”, corresponds to the hare rate ). Each list initially receives as many seats as the kiesdeler is fully included in the number of votes. For example, if there are 165,000 valid votes and List A receives 35,000 votes, then the kiesdeler is 2200 (165000/75) and List A initially receives 15 seats (35000/2200 = 15.9090 ..., rounded down to 15). If it is not possible to allocate all 75 seats in this way, the remaining seats are allocated one after the other to the list that would have the largest average number of votes per seat if an additional seat were allocated. As a result, this corresponds to a distribution of seats according to the D'Hondt method . A list connection ( called lijstencombinatie in the electoral law ) has no longer been possible for the election of the First Chamber since a change in the law that came into force on January 1, 2011.

Preferential votes

In the elections for the second and first chambers, there is the possibility of being elected despite a poor position on the list. The voter has a list in front of him with all the candidates on the list; he casts his vote by choosing a single candidate. This vote then applies to the total number of votes in this list. As a rule, most voters vote for the candidate who is at the top of the list.

A vote that a candidate has received is deemed to be the most pre- eminent in relation to him (preferred or preferential vote). A candidate with many preferential votes can use this to assess his popularity in comparison to list colleagues. If he has a particularly large number of preferential votes, he can be elected to parliament, even if his place on the list would otherwise not allow this.

In the case of the Second Chamber, a candidate needs as many preferential votes as they correspond to a quarter of the number of elections. When distributing the seats for a list, those candidates who reach the quarter come first, in the order of their preferred votes. Only then do other candidates get their chance according to their place on the list, if there are still seats left. A lot of candidates get the quarter per election, but only in two or three cases get candidates into the chamber who normally would not have made it.

It is similar in the First Chamber. It happens that a party leadership draws up a list that is not appreciated by the party's provincial parliamentarians. In 1969 someone was elected to the Senate with preferential votes for the first time: the leadership of the PSP had put their former leader at number one on the list, but the PSP provincial parliamentarians then elected someone else from the list with preferential votes. He was put under pressure by the leadership and renounced his mandate.

In 2007, five politicians from five different parties (D66, SP, GroenLinks, PvdA, CDA) made it into the First Chamber with preferential votes. Only the SP candidate Düzgün Yildirim , who was in 18th place and was elected as a provincial parliamentarian with his own vote , triggered a major conflict . He did not want to bow to the pressure of the party leadership, he was expelled from the party and became a senator in a one-man parliamentary group. At that time you only needed half the number of elections, after a change in the electoral law in 2010 you have to reach the whole number of elections in order to possibly get preferential votes in the Senate.

There are still agreements on the remaining votes, which means that the elections to the First Chamber are more than a mere formality. In addition, as in the elections to the Second Chamber, parties could enter into list connections with one another until 2010. This may have put them in a slightly better position in terms of the remaining votes.

Politician profile

2011 number one on the CDA list for the Senate: Elco Brinkman . He first became minister in 1982 and served as parliamentary group leader in the Second Chamber from 1989-1994. After that he held many social functions.

PvdA top candidate Marleen Barth was in the Second Chamber and a functionary in education and health care.

From the 1930s to the 1960s, a senator was usually a man over fifty with experience in politics, or a professor who represented particularist society . Up until 1956 he was primarily a generalist, when the specialists came to the First Chamber through the popular parties PvdA and KVP. Social Democrats and Communists naturally came from working-class households in the cities in the west, Catholics from the Catholic south and rural areas. VVD liberals came from the higher social classes. With the exception of the trade unionists, most of the senators were highly educated. The lawyers were in the majority; in the mid-1960s, more and more economists, social and political scientists came to the Senate. Since membership in the First Chamber is only a part-time job, the senators usually have a different profession. Until 1971 it was common to have another political office, such as mayor or provincial minister, or one was a union leader.

Since the 1960s, particularist society has slowly been overcome. New parties outside the old system became chamber parties. Trade unionists and mayors of larger cities disappeared, party officials were added, and PvdA and VVD senators from the south reduced the dominance of the western parts of the country. The proportion of women and younger people increased in the 1970s without leading to a breakthrough. In any case, the senators no longer came from a special tax class (such as the social class of the rulers).

In the period from 1983 to 1995, the trend continued that holders of further political or state offices stayed away. Typically, a senator could combine his chamber membership with a professional lawyer, architect or scientist; maybe he was a community official. Almost no one was under forty, women were well represented in left-wing parties and poorly represented in right-wing parties. The proportion of former ministers, state secretaries and members of the Second Chamber had increased. For them, the senatorship offered the opportunity to be politically active after their actual political career; some bridged the time between ministerial office and another job.

Because there are quite a few parties in the Dutch parliament, election campaigns focus heavily on the top candidates. Especially with smaller parties or parties not represented in the government, the public hardly knows any other politicians. In the provincial elections you can usually see the national party leaders (mostly parliamentary group chairmen in the Second Chamber) on the election posters and at most regional faces in the major parties. The top candidates for the First Chamber only play a subordinate role. Membership in the First Chamber hardly brings a politician to prominence; some of them only acquired this in their previous political life.

Distribution of seats

14 parliamentary groups have existed since 2019:

logo		fraction	Alignment	Seats
		Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD) People's Party for Freedom and Democracy	right-wing liberal	12
		Forum voor Democratie (FVD) Forum for Democracy	national conservative	10
		Christen Democratisch Appèl (CDA) Christian Democratic Appeal	Christian Democratic	9
		GroenLinks (GL) GreenLinks	green	8th
		Democrats 66 (D66) Democrats 66	social liberal	7th
		Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA) Labor Party	social democratic	6th
		Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) Party for Freedom	right-wing populist	5
		Socialist Partij (SP) Socialist Party	Left	4th
		ChristenUnie (CU) ChristenUnion	Christian Democratic	4th
		Partij voor de Dieren (PvdD) Party for the animals	Animal rights	3
		Fractie-Otten ( GO R&D ) (members resigned from FvD group)		2
		50PLUS	Seniors party	2
		Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP) Reformed Political Party	Calvinist fundamentalist	2
		Onafhankelijke Senaatsfractie (OSF) Independent Senate parliamentary group		1
	total			75

Allocation of seats since 1987

The results of the elections to the First Chamber since 1987:

Political party		1987	1991	1995	1999	2003	2007	2011	2005	2019
	Forum for Democracy (FVD)									12
	People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD)	12	12	23	19th	15th	14th	16	13	12
	Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA)	26th	27	19th	20th	23	21st	11	12	9
	Green left (GL)	3	4th	4th	8th	5	4th	5	4th	8th
	Democrats 66 (D66)	5	12	7th	4th	3	2	5	10	7th
	Labor Party (PvdA)	26th	16	14th	15th	19th	14th	14th	8th	6th
	Party for Freedom (PVV)							10	9	5
	Socialist Party (SP)			1	2	4th	12	8th	9	4th
	ChristenUnion (CU)	2	2	2	4th	2	4th	2	3	4th
	Party for the Animals (PvdD)						1	1	2	3
	50PLUS (50+)							1	2	2
	Reformed Political Party (SGP)	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2
	Independent Senate Group (OSF)			1	1	1	1	1	1	1
	List Pim Fortuyn (LPF)					1
	Algemeen Ouderen Verbond (AOV)			2
total		75	75	75	75	75	75	75	75	75

The Independent Senate Group (OSF) is supported by parties that are primarily active at the provincial level. The most important of these is the Fryske Nasjonale Partij . From 2011 to 2015 the mandate of the OSF was filled with a representative from 50PLUS .

resolution

The government can dissolve both the First and the Second Chamber. While the Second Chamber is dissolved quite often (1948, 1959, 1967, 1972, 1982, 1989, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2012), the Senate has not been dissolved since 1986. The dissolution of the Senate in 1904 was the only result of a conflict in which the government sought a new majority in the Senate. A dissolution for political reasons always raised the unresolved (and negated by the government) question of whether the government should depend on the trust of the Senate.

In general, the dissolution of the Senate hardly makes sense if the provincial parliaments remain unchanged. In the event of a new election of the Senate, the individual senators can at best be changed, but the balance of power remains the same without a new election of the provincial parliaments. This thought played a role in constitutional changes. Originally, both chambers had to be dissolved for a constitutional amendment so that the electorate could reassess the representation of the people. In practice, one waited for the regular elections to the Second Chamber and then dissolved the Senate. Problematically, this approach shortened the regular term of office of the senators, sometimes drastically. Since 1995 only the second chamber has to be dissolved. Minor postponements in the event of a dissolution are possible through tactical voting, through changes in faction of individual provincial parliamentarians in the meantime, or through individual deviating from the party line, be it intentionally or accidentally. In 1986 the VVD lost one seat to the PPR because two VVD politicians in the province of Drenthe did not appear in time for the election.

Criticism and current developments

The existence of the First Chamber had been questioned from the start. For example, in February 1831, the moderate-liberal Van Nes van Meerkerk from Utrecht demanded the abolition of the First Chamber. He linked this with the loss of the South, but also with the fact that the constitution abolished differences by birth and both chambers represented the entire people. In 1840 15 of 45 members of the Second Chamber were in favor of abolition. In August 1848 Thorbecke wrote about the First Chamber that it existed “without a reason and without a goal”. Around the second half of the 19th century, however, the (classical) liberals endorsed the conservative power of the Senate. Currently it is the Socialist Partij , GroenLinks , Democrats 66 , but also the right-wing populist Partij voor de Vrijheid who want to abolish the Senate.

With the reforms, the legislature has created a situation that de Vries believes leads to several problems:

• The States General are supposed to represent the people, but the decision-making process is twofold.
• The Senate is supposed to review laws, but can only choose between acceptance and rejection.
• The indirect choice was a political compromise and is not necessarily the most appropriate.
• The provincial parliaments are involved in the election, which does not fit in with a unitary state.
• There is no provision for resolving potential conflicts between the two chambers.

Van den Braak sums up that the discussions that have been going on since the beginning of the Kingdom have not significantly changed the position and tasks of the First Chamber. Despite the impression that the pressurized First Chamber had to be constantly defended, its position is not threatened. The four-year period has even strengthened them. "It should be added that even after 1983, whenever it really mattered, she got the short straw."

Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) in the First Chamber, May 2011

In the course of the election to the First Chamber in May 2011, the First Chamber and, above all, the electoral system came under fire. It offers the opportunity for strategic voting and thus for political haggling. Prime Minister Mark Rutte called the electoral system bizarre, but did not consider reform a priority.

The Cabinets Rutte I (2010–2012) and Rutte II (2012–2017) only had a majority or tolerance majority in the Second Chamber. The government therefore needed votes from the opposition for approval in the First. During the first Rutte cabinet these came from the SGP, during the second from various parties. For the 2014 budget, for example, the liberal-social-democratic government finally forged a compromise with D66, CU and SGP. Significantly, the government negotiated with the parliamentary groups in the Second Chamber, as the Senate itself wanted.

See also

• Political system of the Netherlands
• Constitution of the Netherlands

literature

• Gerhard AM Beekelaar, Hugo de Schepper: The First Chamber in the Netherlands 1815-1848. In: HW Blom, WP Blockmans, H. de Schepper (eds.): Bicameralisme. Tweekamerstelsel vroeger en nu. Handelingen van de Internationale Conferentie ter situated heid van het 175-year bestaan ​​van de Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal in de Nederlanden. Sdu Uitgeverij, Den Haag 1992, pp. 279-289
• Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, ISBN 90-12-08689-2 .
• Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, ISBN 90-5409-332-3 .
• Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, ISBN 90-271-5221-7 .

Web links

Commons : Eerste Kamer  - collection of pictures, videos and audio files

• Eerste Kamer (Dutch)

supporting documents

1. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 25/26.
2. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, Den Haag 1998, p. 13, pp. 34-36.
3. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, p. 81.
4. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 406.
5. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 406.
6. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 298, 301/302.
7. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 298, 311-313.
8. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, p. 157.
9. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 155/156.
10. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 164, 167/168.
11. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, p. 158.
12. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 161/162.
13. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 158/159.
14. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 161/162.
15. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 177/178.
16. ↑ Parlement.com: Plenaire vergadering Eerste Kamer , accessed on March 19, 2011.
17. ↑ Parlement.com: Eerste Kamervoorzitter , accessed on March 19, 2011.
18. ^ Parlement.com: College van Seniors , accessed March 19, 2011.
19. ↑ Parlement.com: Fracties , accessed March 19, 2011.
20. ^ Erik Knippenberg: De Senaat. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar het House of Lords, de Sénat, de Eerste Kamer en de Bundesrat. Diss. Maastricht, Sdu Uitgevers. The Hague 2002, pp. 165/166.
21. ^ Parlement.com: Interne organisatie Eerste Kamer , accessed on March 19, 2011.
22. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 298, 109.
23. ↑ Parlement.com: Getrapte verkiezingen , accessed on March 19, 2011.
24. ↑ Parlement.com: Procedure Eerste Kamerverkiezing , accessed on March 19, 2011.
25. ↑ Kiesraad: Stemwaarden Eerste Kamerverkiezing 2015 , accessed on May 30, 2015.
26. ↑ Parlement.com: Eerste Kamerleden met voorkeurstemmen gekozen , accessed on March 19, 2011.
27. ↑ Parlement.com: Eerste Kamerleden met voorkeurstemmen gekozen , Parlement.com: D. (Düzgün) Yildirim , accessed on March 19, 2011.
28. ↑ Parlement.com: Geschiedenis wijze van verkiezen Eerste Kamer , accessed on March 19, 2011.
29. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 376.
30. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, pp. 376/377.
31. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, pp. 377/378.
32. ^ First chamber: parliamentary groups
33. ↑ parlement.com: Eerste Kamerverkiezingen 1983-2019
34. ↑ CPN , PPR and PSP each have one seat
35. ↑ ^{a b c} Reformatorische Politieke Federatie (RPF) and Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond (GPV)
36. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 103/104.
37. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, pp. 105-107.
38. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, p. 51.
39. ^ Frank de Vries: De staatsrechtelijke positie van de Eerste Kamer . Diss. Groningen, Kluwer. Deventer 2000, p. 53.
40. ↑ Bert van den Braak: De Eerste Kamer. Geschiedenis, samenstelling en betekenis 1815–1995. Diss. Leiden, The Hague 1998, pp. 405/406.
41. ↑ Friesch Dagblad: Hervorm de senaat, maar schaf het niet af , accessed on May 26, 2011.
42. ↑ NOS: Veel kritiek op kiessysteem Senaat , accessed on May 26, 2011.
43. ↑ Trouw: Oppositie Senaat: Cabinet moet naar alternatieven Tweede Kamer luisteren , accessed on December 7, 2013.