Questions from Member Van Meijeren (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the EU sanctions regime (submitted 12 January 2026)Question 1 Are you aware of the&nbsp;<a href="https://deanderekrant.nl/eu-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij/">article</a> in the newspaper ‘De Andere Krant’ of 9 January 2006, “EU declares critics fair game”?¹Question 2 Are you aware of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 of 8 October 2024 concerning “restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities”? Can you confirm that this decision provides for sanctions against natural persons, including EU citizens and residents, and not exclusively against states or foreign entities? How does this relate to the scope of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which forms the legal basis for the decision and, as indicated by its inclusion in Title V of the TEU, concerns the Union’s external action and the Common Foreign and Security Policy?Question 3 How do you assess the fact that recital 8 of this decision describes Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) as a “mostly non-illegal pattern of behaviour”, and that inclusion on the sanctions list therefore does not require a criminal offence or otherwise illegal conduct? Can you confirm that EU residents who do not engage in any illegal activity may, under this decision, be subjected to far-reaching sanctions such as travel restrictions (Article 1 of the decision) and the freezing of funds and economic resources (Article 2 of the decision)?Question 4 How do you assess the fact that the decision does not provide for rule-of-law safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence, prior hearing of the person concerned, and substantive review by an independent court?Question 5 Do you acknowledge that, if a natural person brings an action under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) against a sanctions decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) generally confines itself to reviewing procedural requirements and conducts only a marginal substantive review? How do you assess this lack of adequate legal protection for those affected?Question 6 Are you aware of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2572 of 15 December 2025, by which, on the basis of the aforementioned decision, twelve natural persons and two entities were added to the sanctions list?Question 7 How do you assess the fact that among the persons sanctioned under this implementing decision are journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, such as Jacques Baud, Xavier Moreau, Fyodor Lukyanov and Ivan Timofeev?Question 8 How do you assess the fact that the “Statement of Reasons” for these persons largely consists of characterisations such as “acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda”, “promotes Kremlin narratives” and “justifies Russian actions”, without there being any demonstrable criminal offences or even any (financial) ties to the Kremlin? Do you acknowledge that, as a result, natural persons can be subjected to far-reaching sanctions purely and solely for expressing an unwelcome opinion that is not a criminal opinion? Do you share the view that this effectively shifts the scope of the sanctions regime from combating an external threat to disciplining expressions and viewpoints? How do you assess this in the light of freedom of expression?Question 9 Are you willing to advocate within the Council for limiting the application of this sanctions regime to persons who are guilty of criminal or demonstrably violent acts? Are you also willing to argue that sanctions imposed on journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, in particular EU residents, who do not make criminal statements, should be lifted or avoided? If not, why not?Question 10 Can you answer these questions separately and within the prescribed time limit?

large_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

medium_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

small_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

thumbnail_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

Questions from Member Van Meijeren (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the EU sanctions regime

Every week hundreds of illegal migrants cross the English channel in inflatable dinghies. Even though they are breaking the law and are transported by criminal gangs, when they arrive they are politely escorted by police, lodged in hotels and given allowances until their asylum applications are processed. This scandal has been going on for decades – at least since the creation of the border-free Schengen zone in the mid-1990s. But when the Dutch political influencer, Eva Vlaadingerbroek, wanted to travel to the UK this week, she was refused entry. She had recently published an X-post critical of the UK prime minister, so she appears to be a victim of the same totalitarian mentality which has imprisoned British citizens for inappropriate tweets and sanctioned European citizens in the EU. But this is not the first time Britain has refused entry to a Dutch conservative: in 2009, the prominent national politician Geert Wilders was turned back at Heathrow airport,&nbsp; even though he had been invited by members of the House of Lords to give a private showing of a film he made about Islam. FVD parliamentary party chair, Lidewij de Vos, has put down questions to the Dutch government about the implications for free speech of such treatment of Dutch nationals by one of its most important neighbours.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/lidewij-de-vos-questions-minister-on-uk-entry-refusal-of-eva-vlaardingerbroek-and-broader-free-speech-concerns">Read about Lidewij’s questions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_04f05835ec.png">The decision about Eva was taken in the name of the (undefined) ‘public good’ and it cannot be appealed. This is an example of the ever greater retreat of the rule of law, as the sanctions against Jacques Baud and Xavier Moreau have also shown. (These sanctions, which we discussed this week on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFG1zQCxeA&amp;t=3s">The Forum &amp; Friends</a>, include travel bans, just as against Eva). But the same is happening at the international level too.&nbsp; Power politics has returned with a vengeance under Donald Trump, with the spectacular Venezuela operation to seize Nicolas Maduro and the demands on Greenland. But was it not ever thus? We have known since the Peloponnesian war that the strong will do what they can while the weak will suffer what they must. Ralf Dekker described international law – on which the EU and NATO have staked their entire reputation for decades – as little but a ‘castle in the air’. As the so-called ‘international order’ (did it ever exist?) is exposed as an illusion, we are reminded of Prospero’s speech in ‘The Tempest’: ‘like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind.’<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/international-law-is-a-castle-in-the-sky">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech in parliament here</a><img src="/uploads/image_7c308462b7.png">Thierry Baudet has&nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/thierry-baudet-temporarily-steps-down-to-lead-fvds-municipal-expansion">announced</a> that he is temporarily leaving Parliament and that he will be replaced by Tom Russcher. Thierry has been an MP since 2017, the year after FVD was founded. Shortly before announcing his decision, Thierry republished a long post from 2024 in which he expresses his utter amazement at the conformism of political and intellectual life in Europe today. ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ was published in 1987 but we can safely say that the European mind has closed very severely, especially in the last decade. It is absolutely essential to break out of this ever tightening straitjacket or else we will have no collective mind left to open.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/what-are-they-thinking-are-they-thinking">Read Thierry’s post here</a><img src="/uploads/image_91a2404370.png">The most obvious illustration of this closing is the attack on free speech, of which the sanctions against European citizens for wrongthink is the latest terrifying example. We discussed this on The Forum this week with Roger Köppel, former Swiss member of parliament and now owner of a major media outlet,&nbsp;<a href="https://weltwoche.ch/">Weltwoche</a>.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFG1zQCxeA&amp;t=2s">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

medium_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

small_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

thumbnail_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

The Weekly Forum - 16 January 2026

The geopolitical situation is no longer merely confusing. It is openly contradictory and increasingly irrational. With Donald Trump’s statements on Greenland, a line has been crossed which had until now been regarded as untouchable, even in periods of the most severe transatlantic tensions. The threat to bring Greenland under American control, if necessary by force, is neither a diplomatic slip nor a failed negotiating style. It is a taboo breach. This approach exposes the true logic of Trump’s foreign policy and, by extension, the real interests of his administration. It exposes less “the West” than the United States itself.The political context is particularly perfidious. While Europe has for years been urged to defend a “rules-based order”, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, Washington has now effectively declared that these rules apply only so long as they do not obstruct American interests. For Europe, this is a political confession of bankruptcy. Anyone who, after Greenland, still speaks of “values”, “partnership on equal terms” or “shared security” makes a fool of himself.Even more serious is the strategic dimension. NATO is not a loose alliance of convenience, but is formally based on collective defence and mutual loyalty. If one member state openly considers territorial violence against another member state, then NATO as a community of values and security is, in effect, dead. What remains is an alliance that functions only so long as it serves the interests of the strongest. This is precisely the image Russia has always ascribed to NATO. With the Greenland threat, Washington now delivers the proof on a silver platter.It is obvious: rules apply to the United States only so long as they do not conflict with its own interests. That European states reject this approach has been expressed unambiguously in the recent reactions from Copenhagen and Nuuk. Greenland “chooses Denmark”; a takeover by the United States will be accepted “under no circumstances”. At least here, after all the contentious issues of recent years, there is a rare clarity in Europe.For Europe, this episode marks a historical turning point. By now at the latest, it should be clear that the transatlantic partnership no longer represents a security guarantee, but a relationship of dependency with built-in blackmail potential. Yesterday Scotland, today Greenland, tomorrow security-policy dictates and “protection rackets”, all always under the guise of “shared interests” that in truth are exclusively American interests.This raises a central question: what do the interests of the United States officially look like, and what does Trump’s deal-making foreign policy mean in practice? Officially, a possible incorporation of Greenland is justified in the name of “national security” in the Arctic. This is not strategically fabricated. Greenland lies on a key axis between North America and Eurasia, is relevant for early-warning and defence systems, for surveillance, maritime control, and is gaining further importance through new Arctic routes and resource issues. This is openly acknowledged in Western analyses.Trump’s operational logic, however, is different. It is transactional, resource-oriented and designed for maximum leverage. In this logic, foreign territory is not viewed as a partner space from a geopolitical perspective, but as bargaining material. The pattern is clear: build pressure, erect a threat backdrop, declare resources and strategic positions as a “deal”, and then offer security as a counter-service. That Trump simultaneously speaks openly about control over land and oil reserves in Venezuela is not a side note in this context, but a vivid example of this mindset.From this methodology arises a politically explosive question that must at least be examined as a hypothesis: has the United States already held discussions with Russia on the Greenland issue, or sounded out which positions Moscow would accept? There is no public evidence for this, and one should not make a factual claim out of it. As an analytical assumption, however, it is plausible that Washington would probe expectations, red lines and possible concessions in an Arctic matter. That Denmark and Greenland were forced at all into so-called “crunch talks” in order to de-escalate shows how serious the situation already is.From this follows another supposition: Washington’s unusually accommodating course on Ukraine could serve the purpose of softening Russia elsewhere, for instance in the Arctic. That would be classic package diplomacy. One buys room for manoeuvre by offsetting pressure and concessions across different dossiers. This logic fits Trump’s transactional policy. For Europe, such an approach would be strategically disastrous, as it would definitively become an object whose security and prosperity are negotiated in American package deals without its having any say in the matter.This leads to yet another unavoidable conclusion. It is delusional to assume that Russia could accept an annexation of Greenland by the United States. For Moscow, Greenland would not be just any old territory but a massive gain in American forward control in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, with direct effects on reconnaissance, early warning, freedom of movement and deterrence logic. Even if Russia pursues hard interests in Ukraine, such a precedent would represent an unmistakable risk. Precisely for this reason, Trump’s threat is geopolitically explosive. It generates not only outrage but also structural insecurity.Here the moral imbalance lies plainly on the table. In the Ukraine conflict, Russia invokes security arguments, NATO eastward expansion and years of deficient strategic communication. These points have been documented areas of dispute for a long time, without deriving from them a free pass for war. In Greenland, by contrast, the issue is a claim to foreign sovereignty against the declared will of those concerned. Reports which are critical of Trump refer to self-determination and the lack of any basis for his threat narrative. It is therefore analytically understandable to say that what Russia puts forward in terms of security-policy demands appears, in comparison with the Greenland logic, more legitimate in the sense of classic security dilemmas, while Trump’s Greenland approach directly attacks the core of sovereignty.Anyone who believes Europe can rely on Washington to use power only against adversaries ignores the empirical evidence. Trade coercion has long been a reality. Trump’s meeting with Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland resulted in a trade framework that made asymmetric pressure the norm and was perceived in Europe as capitulation. Venezuela shows the next variant of this policy. Resources first, sovereignty second.At this point, an inevitably wry but necessary question arises: who, in fact, is the actor with the God complex here, Donald Trump or the United States itself? The answer is uncomfortable but clear. Trump’s behaviour is not the cause of this thinking, but its uninhibited manifestation. The assumption that rules are to be accepted only when they do not conflict with one’s own interests, the self-ascription of a global ordering power beyond international law, and the notion that foreign sovereignty becomes negotiable as soon as it is strategically or economically relevant are not the personal quirk of one president. They are a structural component of American, and particularly neoconservative, power politics. Trump merely dispenses with the usual rhetorical disguise. Where previous US administrations spoke of “responsibility”, “leadership” or “values”, he speaks openly of control, ownership and deals. The supposed God complex is therefore not individual misconduct, but the expression of a hegemonic self-conception that regards itself as an exception to the rules it imposes on others. It is precisely in this that the real danger lies: not that an unpredictable president undermines the order, but that a power openly declares itself above that order.The conclusion is uncomfortable but unavoidable. The United States will pursue its interests, if necessary, even against Europe. Greenland is the litmus test. If a NATO state threatens another NATO state with violence, this is not a strategy, but the renunciation of any self-restraint on which Europe’s security has rested for decades. It calls the North Atlantic Alliance into question as a model approaching obsolescence.Europe must now take a clear position. An unequivocal rejection of any threat of violence, legal and political consolidation of the Danish-Greenlandic order, expansion of its own Arctic capabilities, and above all a clear statement that European territories are not negotiable in any American package deal. Otherwise, the exception will become the method. It is time for the United States to adhere again to its own doctrine and to keep out of European affairs accordingly.Those who ignore this development engage in political self-disempowerment. Those who relativise it make themselves complicit. And those who morally justify it bid farewell once and for all to any credible criticism of imperial, monopolistic power behaviour worldwide.The threat against Greenland is not a slip-up. It is a symptom -&nbsp; a symptom of the erosion of Western self-restraint, of the transition from a rules-based order to open power politics, and of Europe’s dramatic inability to respond to it sovereignly. If a NATO state threatens another NATO state with violence and Europe remains silent, then it is not only the alliance logic that is damaged. Then the entire Western narrative of law, order and partnership is definitively obsolete.

4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

large_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

medium_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

small_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

thumbnail_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

USA Shows Its True Colours: Greenland And The Logic Of Power

On 14 January Lidewij de Vos submitted parliamentary questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding yet another violation of freedom of expression by our neighbouring country, the consequences for Dutch nationals in the United Kingdom, and the diplomatic actions to be taken.Questions from MP De Vos (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding reports that a Dutch opinion maker has been denied entry to the United Kingdom because of her views<ol><li>Are you aware of the report that Dutch opinion maker Eva Vlaardingerbroek has been denied entry to the United Kingdom because “her presence is not considered conducive to the public good”, just days after she posted a critical tweet about British Prime Minister Starmer? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you agree with the questioner that freedom of expression is a fundamental value, and that we also expect our neighbouring countries and allies, such as the United Kingdom, to uphold and protect this achievement? If not, why not? If so, do you acknowledge that denying a person entry to a country because of an expressed opinion, whether or not about the prime minister of that country, constitutes a flagrant violation of freedom of expression? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you consider it compatible with the principles of the rule of law that the person who was denied entry, in this case Ms Vlaardingerbroek, has no possibility to lodge an objection against the decision taken? Please explain your answer. &nbsp;</li><li>Have you already requested an explanation from the British government and/or the British ambassador regarding why Ms Vlaardingerbroek was denied entry to the United Kingdom? If so, what was their response? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 4 is negative, why have you not yet done so, and are you prepared to call the British government and/or ambassador to account on this matter? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you expect that this entry restriction will have consequences for other Dutch nationals who have expressed critical or non-positive views about the government of the United Kingdom on social media? If not, why not? If so, what action will you take? &nbsp;</li><li>Are you aware of recent reports that British police arrest many thousands of people each year, approximately thirty per day, for expressing their opinions in allegedly offensive statements on social media and other platforms? &nbsp;</li><li>What does the situation described in question 7 mean, in your view, for (the freedom of expression of) Dutch nationals who are staying in the United Kingdom, are there on holiday, or live there for reasons such as work? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you believe that the travel advice for the United Kingdom should be amended, now that we are seeing freedom of expression increasingly restricted and people even facing or receiving prison sentences for expressing their opinions? Please explain your answer. &nbsp;</li><li>Can you answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from one another?</li></ol>

large_newsreleasecover.png

medium_newsreleasecover.png

small_newsreleasecover.png

thumbnail_newsreleasecover.png

Lidewij de Vos Questions Minister on UK Entry Refusal of Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Broader Free Speech Concerns

Speech given to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands’ States-General, 9 January 2026Chair,The direction of the United States in geopolitical flashpoints such as Ukraine, Gaza and Iran has so far been somewhat ambiguous and confusing. On the one hand, strong statements and financial and military involvement; on the other, good diplomatic contacts and cordial conversations.The National Security Strategy published a few weeks ago provided some direction, certainly with regard to the Western Hemisphere. But the question remained how this would be put into practice.The recent American action in Venezuela appears to demonstrate that the US is serious in its own backyard. President Maduro and his family were forcibly removed from their palace in Caracas by a special military unit and taken to the United States to stand trial for terrorism, drug trafficking and weapons offences. According to reports, dozens of people were killed during the operation, mainly among Maduro’s bodyguards.For the time being, the current Venezuelan vice-president has taken over leadership with the approval of the US, and the present government has largely remained in office.A remarkable formula. Much remains unclear. It is not an invasion, not even a genuine regime change, but a forced change of personnel. How this will develop is uncertain and highly risky.This spectacular American action is, of course, incompatible with international legal rules as laid down in the UN Charter and the associated body of international jurisprudence.Much can be said about the Maduro government, but Venezuela did not constitute a serious threat to the United States. The United Nations was not involved in this matter in advance. Although the UN Security Council did convene in an emergency session afterwards, this is of merely symbolic significance given the US veto.Chair, these events show that international law, or if you prefer “the rules-based international order”, is ultimately subordinate to international power politics, the law of the strongest. In words, this power politics is now being articulated quite openly by the Trump administration. In deeds, it has so far been limited to restrained military interventions.As the Netherlands, we have no significant influence on the geopolitical dynamics described. But for our country these events are nevertheless important for several reasons. First of all, Venezuela is our neighbour in the Caribbean, particularly with regard to Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao. Disruptions in Venezuela quickly affect the situation in the Caribbean Netherlands. In this context, it is wise for the Netherlands not to take a strong position immediately, but to await further developments, to advocate stability in the region, and, where possible, to remain on standby in various fields to support the local Dutch population.Secondly, these geopolitical events once again confront us with reality. Dutch authorities have traditionally been passionate advocates of international law and order. In recent years they have therefore presented themselves more than ever as ideological frontrunners within the EU and NATO.Now that the Trump administration is intervening in Venezuela and is also seriously considering annexing Greenland, it appears that the EU and NATO, along with their elevated moral and ideological framework, may well be castles in the air. It also becomes clear that developing our own strength and maintaining constructive foreign relations with all parties must ultimately form the basis of Dutch foreign policy.Realism, a sober focus on national interest and foresight are essential in foreign policy. These are matters to which we must once again give the attention they deserve.Thank you.

medium_Trump-CC.jpg

small_Trump-CC.jpg

thumbnail_Trump-CC.jpg

International Law Is A Castle In The Sky

16 April 2024, reposted 8 January 2026I keep asking myself this question, day after day, especially on days when I walk around the House of Representatives, like today. I am genuinely baffled, and genuinely curious to understand it. This is a long post, a cry from the heart.The question that occupies me - indeed, which simply will not let me go - is this: what on earth is going on in the minds of all those journalists, academics, researchers, museum curators, civil servants, cartel politicians, mayors, teachers, writers and so on, that they systematically and categorically, like a herd, hermetically exclude from their consciousness any sound which contradicts the government narrative, or even calls it into question, on any subject whatsoever?Whether it concerns nitrogen, Ukraine, Covid, vaccines, climate… you name it, it’s always the same.The hundreds, the thousands of (inter)national names, experts, critics and so on. who put forward dissenting ideas and facts are all, without exception, excluded - across the board.Their books are not reviewed in the “quality newspapers”. They are not invited onto the major NPO programmes. No radio or TV programme will mention them. No university organises a guest lecture. No debate centre allows such a person to take part.Do you think differently about the war in Ukraine? Blocked! Even if you have 30 years of experience in the army, speak fluent Russian and Ukrainian, know the region inside out and all your previous predictions turned out to be correct?Doesn’t matter. Shut up!You don’t see nitrogen as a problem? Blocked! Questions about the vaccines? Blocked! A world-famous infectious disease expert with a different view on corona? Blocked!And so on, and so on.We experience this weekly in Parliament. Round-table discussions (where “experts” are supposed to inform MPs) may, according to the cartel, include only people who already endorse the policy. Critical voices are not welcome. They do not want to hear them at all. One example: an “expert afternoon” on Ukraine with nothing but (often American arms-lobby-funded) pro-NATO types. Only those; not a single exception.And no one, absolutely no one, not a stray columnist, not a late-night radio show, not a debate centre, not an independent-minded scientist, not a civil servant with a troubled conscience, not a maverick museum director… absolutely NO ONE who says: how strange, we’d also like to hear the other side of the story.And this concerns human lives. It concerns our economy, world peace, the next generation.Nope. Nothing.Even when the dominant narrative later turns out to be completely wrong, afterwards there is also ZERO interest in the true course of events or in why things went wrong. As with Covid or with the “weapons of mass destruction”.&nbsp;Nothing.&nbsp; Absolutely nothing.Only obsessive attention to trivial scandals, playground squabbles around coalition talks, Little Pete being angry with Little John, “Russian money” (which everyone knows is nonsense), the so-called “serious threat” against Jesse Klaver, and so on. All blah blah blah. All nonsense.Completely unserious, completely ridiculous, in fact.The total brain-death of public debate and public decision-making.It continues to amaze me. I truly do not understand it. It is not necessarily IQ; it’s not that all those people are necessarily very “stupid”. In most cases they have perfectly respectable IQs, so they are smart and stupid at the same time. How is that possible?I keep thinking about it. I really don’t understand it.

large_ANP-525095336.webp

medium_ANP-525095336.webp

small_ANP-525095336.webp

thumbnail_ANP-525095336.webp

What are they thinking? Are they thinking?

On 7 January, Forum for Democracy party leader Thierry Baudet announced that he is temporarily stepping down from the House of Representatives in order to focus on building the new party groups at municipal level. He made this announcement in the following tweet:Forum for Democracy has grown to more than 70,000 members, by far the largest political family in the Netherlands! On 18 March we will be contesting elections in more than 100 municipalities. To manage all of this properly and to support this growth in a controlled way, I will temporarily leave the House of Representatives. I will not receive any severance pay. I will work extremely hard until the summer, first to organise the campaign and then to help all new party groups to become firmly established. I will of course remain Party Chairman and have complete confidence in my temporary replacement, Tom Russcher.Tom Russcher will replace Thierry Baudet in the House of Representatives. Tom states:I am very much looking forward to starting next week as a temporary member of the House of Representatives. Among other things, I will focus on the policy areas of housing, sport and students. After the end of my replacement period, I too will of course make no use of the severance pay scheme.

large_Tom russcher plaatje.png

medium_Tom russcher plaatje.png

small_Tom russcher plaatje.png

thumbnail_Tom russcher plaatje.png

Thierry Baudet Temporarily Steps Down to Lead FVD’s Municipal Expansion

Success breeds success. Following the more than doubling of its number of seats in Parliament in last October’s general election, Forum for Democracy is now presenting candidates in over 100 Dutch municipalities for the local elections in March. This is twice the previous number. National polls now show the party much stronger even than its excellent result in October, so hopes are high.&nbsp; The media cordon sanitaire has been completely smashed: there are articles about FVD every day now in the national press, and Lidewij de Vos is often invited onto TV talk shows. What a contrast to the total media blackout of the last five years! At the Christmas dinner in December, party leader Thierry Baudet laid out his plans for wholesale social renewal including education, commercial, cultural and international projects. Buckle up for the ride!<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/forum-for-democracy-to-contest-at-least-100-municipalities-in-the-2026-local-elections">Read about the local elections here</a><img src="/uploads/image_8e6fce1324.png">The key to this success is not spin but quality. FVD is surely unparalleled among European political parties in its exceptionally high intellectual level. A vain boast? Listen to this recent intervention by Gideon van Meijeren MP, discussing a proposed amendment to a new asylum law. He argues that if the amendment&nbsp; is adopted, it will simply sabotage the main purpose of the law, which is to criminalise those who remain illegally in the country after their asylum claims have been rejected. When you listen to Gideon’s careful reasoning and clear presentation, grounded in excellent understanding and knowledge of the law, it is impossible not to conclude that the people FVD is fighting are malevolent and dishonest. They basically want open borders and will do anything to pursue their undeclared and indeed denied ‘Coudenhouve-Kalergi’ goal of engineering a great replacement. FVD stands for the most important political value of all, truth.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbFHe0RSWQ">Watch Gideon’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_3308c305f7.png">‘Sharp practice’ is perhaps a more diplomatic way of describing such shenanigans. If you have negotiated a contract for something, and the supplier then comes in with new expensive demands at the last minute, just when you thought everything had been agreed, this can be regarded as dishonest. But when the Dutch government announces 700 million euros for Ukraine in the last 48 hours of the Parliamentary session for the tax year 2025, this passes unremarked on by every party except FVD. Pepijn van Houwelingen MP tried to pin the minister down on this, and on the fact that money is shuffled around between ministries at the last minute, so that funds allocated by Parliament for one thing are in fact used for another. Recipients of government subsidies have to spend some 20% on accounting verifications, so that they do not misspend their money, but the same strict rules do not apply to governments themselves, it seems. 700 million euros, by the way, plus the smaller sums re-allocated because of underspending, comes to about 100 euros per household in the Netherlands. Would that not have been a nice Christmas present?<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOiRKDhVAk8">Watch Pepijn van Houwelingen’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_6f74e560b7.png">Michael Yon, war correspondent and political analyst, was our guest on The Forum this week, to discuss the causes of wars – routes, resources and ideology. If you missed it, click below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i149NvOvDb0">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here (from 4:25)</a>

medium_unnamed (10).jpg

small_unnamed (10).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (10).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 9 January 2026

30 December 2025Forum for Democracy will take part in the municipal elections of 18 March 2026 in at least 100 Dutch municipalities. With this, the party takes an unprecedented step in its local expansion and confirms its position as a broad movement embedded both at national and local level.Forum for Democracy deliberately chooses local politics as the foundation for achieving much-needed change. It is precisely at the municipal level that decisions are made which directly affect the daily lives of residents. Locally as well, Forum for Democracy stands for a clear programme: stopping mass immigration, scrapping unaffordable climate policy, lowering taxes, and returning power to residents, including through referendums.Participation in at least 100 municipalities is confirmed. At the same time, Forum for Democracy will explore additional municipalities in the coming period. As a result, the number of municipalities in which Forum for Democracy will be on the ballot is expected to increase further in January.In the coming weeks, Forum for Democracy will make the final preparations. In January, the party will announce the lead candidate and candidate list for each municipality. Forum for Democracy looks ahead with confidence to an energetic and combative campaign and to strong election results across municipalities throughout the Netherlands on 18 March 2026.Read here all municipalities where Forum for Democracy will appear on the ballot in 2026:Achtkarspelen Alkmaar Almelo Almere Alphen aan den Rijn Altena Amersfoort Amstelveen Amsterdam Apeldoorn Arnhem Assen Beverwijk Boxtel Breda De Fryske Marren Delft The Hague Den Helder Dijk en Waard Doetinchem Dordrecht Edam-Volendam Ede Eindhoven Emmen Enschede Epe Groningen Haarlem Haarlemmermeer Halderberge Heemskerk Heerenveen Heerlen Helmond Hengelo Hof van Twente Hollands Kroon Hoogeveen Hoorn Huizen Koggenland Krimpenerwaard Land van Cuijk Leeuwarden Leiden Lelystad Lingewaard Maashorst Maastricht Medemblik Meierijstad Midden-Drenthe Midden-Groningen Moerdijk Nieuwegein Nijkerk Nijmegen Nissewaard Noord-Beveland Noordoostpolder Noordwijk Oss Pijnacker-Nootdorp Purmerend Rijssen-Holten Rijswijk Rotterdam Rucphen ’s-Hertogenbosch Schagen Scherpenzeel Schiedam Sittard-Geleen Sluis Soest Staphorst Steenwijkerland Súdwest-Fryslân Teylingen Tholen Tiel Tilburg Urk Utrecht Valkenswaard Velsen Venlo Vlissingen Voorne aan Zee Voorschoten Wassenaar Westland Weststellingwerf Zaanstad Zevenaar Zuidplas Zutphen Zwolle

Forum voor Democratie FVD shutterstock_2698703079.jpg

medium_Forum voor Democratie FVD shutterstock_2698703079.jpg

small_Forum voor Democratie FVD shutterstock_2698703079.jpg

thumbnail_Forum voor Democratie FVD shutterstock_2698703079.jpg

Forum for Democracy to contest at least 100 municipalities in the 2026 local elections

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

'Time for Reflection and Renewal Without Taboos' - Ralf Dekker MP on Rising Global Tensions | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The EUSSR with Slobodan Despot

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Free Speech in Europe with Roger Köppel

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The Causes of Wars with Michael Yon

'This Has Never Happened Before' - Gideon van Meijeren on Asylum Law Controversy | FVD

Government Spending Without Parliamentary Approval? Pepijn van Houwelingen Raises Questions | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The USA’s New Security Strategy with Larry Johnson 🛡️

€700 Million for Ukraine, At the Expense of Healthcare? | Van Houwelingen (FVD) VS Coenradie (JA21)

Trump’s National Security Strategy: A Wake-Up Call for Europe | Freek Jansen | FVD

&quot;The EU Is Ruled By Anti-Democratic Bureaucrats&quot; | John Laughland Reacts To Elon Musk | FVD

Forum for Democracy

FVD is a anti-globalist political party in the Netherlands founded and led by Thierry Baudet. John Laughland (right) is director of FVD International.

Subscribe to our international newsletter