R. POPPING
a certain law has been realized within three years. The advice
was to wait for three years and otherwise not to follow the mo-
tion. More generally, in principle the government agrees with
that what is asked for (is positive with respect to the considera-
tion part), but nevertheless at the moment she is negative as
some lacking knowledge must be filled in. This might mean
that something related to the content of the motion is studied
and one wants to wait for the results or that something (compa-
rable to or part of what is asked for) is tried out, the results
however are not known yet. It is also possible that a motion is
dissuaded, because what was asked for has already been real-
ized, or in reverse is unrealistic. According to the secretary mo-
tion 32500-vi, nr. 60 is unnecessary, as she already promised
what is asked for in the debate. Motion 32474, nr. 16 is not rea-
listic. The secretary is unable to give a guarantee that is asked
for.
Finally motions can have unwanted or unexpected conse-
quences. Motion 32123-xiv, nr. 103 asks for more air cleaners,
but these contribute to the pollution of the environment and the
secretary does not want this.
Coders have to be careful, it occurs that a negative advice is
given, but that the secretary adds that if some parts in the mo-
tion are changed he or she might become positive.
Arguments for not supporting a motion are the most inter-
esting ones. One is not only confronted with different political
positions. An argument often heard is that the motion is not ne-
cessary, because the secretary already promised to solve the
problem. Looking at the relation between government and re-
quest part concept node one runs into a difficult choice now:
the “not necessary” suggests a negative relation (and is coded
as such), but the promise tells that the government is positive.
In summary reasons for suggesting not accepting a motion are:
the issue is not in the field covered by the secretary;
the house is not permitted to decide on the issue;
the government is not permitted to decide on the issue;
the government cannot force others to do what is asked for;
the issue can be solved in another way than proposed;
the information in the motion is not clear or not correct;
unwanted consequences are possible;
not enough time available (as there is a final date).
Relating the Government to the Consideration Part
Concept Node
In his or her response the secretary most of all reflects on the
request part of the motion. Sometimes also a position is taken
with respect to the consideration part, but in most cases the
coder has to read this position from the context (how are things
said) or from what the secretary did say earlier in the debate,
even before it was clear that a motion will be proposed. This
implies that coding the government’s view on the consideration
part of the motion requires an interpretation. The coder some-
times only has the feeling the secretary is positive or negative.
The secretary’s view can be based on several aspects: a fact
(state of affairs) as presented might be incorrect or an opinion
might not be agreed upon. The coder has to be extra careful; the
secretary sometimes gives not only the position as taken by the
government, but also a personal opinion. These two might be
different. In connection with motion 32356, nr. 15, which is
about duties of a person who is over 18, the secretary brings up
to date that in her role as a mother the motion has her sympathy.
As a mother she would consider the person still as a child. She
even mentions that she probably would have supported the
motion if she were a member of the House. As a secretary how-
ever, responsible for the country’s policymaking, she has to
take another position. She has to look at the child as being a
grown person. It might also be that the secretary is limited by
law. Motion 32500-viii, nr. 110 asks for a decrease in VAT rate,
but given European rules, the secretary has no possibility to
make changes. The government agreed with these rules, there-
fore the government has to be positive.
The center that is referred to in the example motion has to be
independent. According to the proposer this can only be real-
ized by the government. The secretary starts her answer by
explaining that it has been a decision by the WHO to do it in
the way it is achieved now and that the government cannot
overrule this decision. This is coded as that the government is
positive with regard to the way the present situation is.
With respect to the second example motion on the prison
system the secretary answers that she already indicated in the
debate that she is focusing on re-socialization of prisoners and
that it is not her intention to reduce capacity. She emphasized
the importance of the fact that prisoners are in a detention cen-
ter close to their own place of living. Therefore the government
is positive with regard to the present situation.
Regarding many issues the government will indicate that she
has some concrete action or policy in mind, but that it is neces-
sary to wait for the right moment to show this. This often hap-
pens with regard to positions to be taken in negotiations within
the European government. This is read as that the government
is positive about what is stated in the consideration part. Often
other situations close to this one are found. In motion 27428, nr.
155 the government is invited to use as point of departure in a
proposal about allowing the growth of gene plants the position
that pollution across borders with genetically modified organ-
isms should be prevented. The secretary interprets this as sup-
port for the present policy; the government is positive with
regard to the consideration part.
As regards a number of motions the secretary states some-
thing like “… it is well known we are working on it. We have
had this debate before.” It might mean the debate was earlier in
the same meeting, but it can also be in a meeting before. It is
relevant to have the information on the debate. The “we are
working on it” can mean that the government is already taking
action, which implies she has already demonstrated to be posi-
tive. It might also mean that the government has the intention to
work on it, but also that the government does not want what is
asked for and that in her view a repetition has started. The
member did not get what was wanted in the debate, therefore he
or she tries it once more by means of the motion. In that case
the government is negative with respect to the consideration
part. Another interpretation however is also possible. The pro-
blem, the consideration part, is acknowledged, but the proposed
solution is not supported.
Sometimes the government is negative with respect to the
consideration part because of non-political arguments, what is
discussed is not part of the responsibility of the secretary or is
not part of the debate.
When all positions with regard to the example motions pre-
sented are combined, it becomes clear that the games going on
here are pure competition games. The proposer is negative with
regard to the coordination part and positive with regard to the
request part. For the government the reverse is found.
The first motion has two parts, a consideration and a request
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
20