Politics

Coalition parties in The Hague continue budget negotiations

The coalition parties D66, VVD, and CDA are in talks in The Hague regarding next year's budget, but have once again missed their deadline.

31 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Coalition parties in The Hague continue budget negotiations — Archive photoPhoto: Minister-president · Flickr · BY

In The Hague, negotiators from the coalition parties D66, VVD, and CDA have gathered at the Ministry of Finance to work on next year’s budget. Discussions continued late into the evening on Friday, but the parties have yet to reach an agreement. Last week, it was announced that the budget must be drafted without a majority in the House of Representatives.

Prime Minister Jetten has indicated that separate budgets for ministries may require seeking majorities, complicating the negotiations. Tensions among the coalition parties have increased, particularly because D66 and CDA are at odds with VVD in their positions.

The budget council, originally scheduled for Monday at 11:00 AM, has now been moved to 6:00 PM. This is not the first time the parties have shifted their deadlines; this has contributed to the existing tension in the negotiations.

This morning, the three parties resumed negotiations after a short night. They spoke all day yesterday, but that has yet to lead to a resolution. The threat of missing a deadline puts additional pressure on the negotiators.

According to sources, discussions are focusing on the various proposals and priorities put forward by the coalition parties. The differences between the parties do not appear to be bridgeable in the current negotiations.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.