After a year of negotiations, the cabinet, unions and employers have hammered out an accord. It’s not good but it isn’t all bad, seems to be the consensus in the press.

In its editorial the Volkskrant hopes that ‘the unions will give their broad support to the accord although it doesn’t contain much that will bring a smile to workers’ faces’. It quotes the uncertainty over the amount pensioners will be actually left with and, as do most other papers, points out that the risk of a pension plunge resulting from a stock exchange wobble will be carried by the workers and not by employers. The paper points out that in the current pension system pension levels aren’t carved in stone either as the crisis has shown and exhorts the union diehards to go with the flow: ‘Working for longer is a European trend. Shooting down this accord would just mean a stay of execution.’
Trouw looks on the bright side and praises Social affairs minister Henk Kamp for not wading in and simply hiking up the retirement age. Kamp is also bringing gifts, the paper says, such as an allowance for elderly people on low incomes which would make it easier for those in physically demanding jobs to retire earlier. Trouw also asks why upping the retirement age to 66 and 67 from 2025 will not come into effect until 2020: ‘This is sparing people in their fifties more than necessary.’ The paper calls the accord ‘innovative’ and joins the Volkskrant in hoping that ‘the radical element’ will see the light and vote in favour.
NRC, in an analysis of the cutbacks the government has announced, writes that the accord is an example of ‘polder politics in optima forma’: ‘Careful manoeuvring around the electorally explosive issue of pension reform is being alternated by a rigorous slashing of subsidies for art and third worlds aid.’ It shows how complex Rutte’s decision making has become, dependent as he is on an ever-changing majority.