A new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warns the Netherlands of slowing economic growth, significant uncertainty regarding economic prospects and structural problems that are putting pressure on investment and competitiveness.According to the IMF, the Netherlands is grappling with serious bottlenecks in areas including grid congestion, nitrogen restrictions, housing shortages and high labour costs. At the same time, the Fund warns of rising climate-related expenditure and an increasingly difficult investment climate.Forum for Democracy sees this as confirmation of what the party has been arguing for years: the Netherlands is destroying itself economically with ideological policies, sky-high costs and stifling regulation.FVD MP Milan Schenk therefore tabled parliamentary questions to the Ministers of Finance, Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, and Social Affairs and Employment the day after he was sworn in as a new Member of Parliament. In his questions, he addresses, among other things, stagnating economic growth, the consequences of grid congestion and nitrogen policy for investment and industry, the role of immigration in the housing shortage, the rising tax burden on labour, and the consequences of climate policy for Dutch competitiveness.The IMF report confirms that the Netherlands is becoming increasingly bogged down by misguided political choices regarding climate, nitrogen, immigration and taxation. Whilst economies outside Europe are investing in growth, industry and affordable energy, the Netherlands and the European Union are increasingly opting for additional regulations, higher burdens and restrictions that hamper economic development. As far as Schenk is concerned, this must change as soon as possible, in the interests of Dutch citizens, entrepreneurs and businesses.Written questions from Member Schenk (FVD) to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy and the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment regarding the stagnation of the Dutch economy according to the IMF<ol><li>Are you familiar with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) report on the Dutch economy dated 13 May 2026?</li><li>How does the government assess the IMF’s conclusion that economic growth in the Netherlands is stagnating at around 1 per cent and that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the economic outlook?</li><li>Does the government acknowledge that the Netherlands is increasingly facing structural problems which are putting pressure on investment, economic growth and competitiveness?</li><li>If the answer to question 3 is no, why not?</li><li>How does the government assess the IMF’s observation that grid congestion, a direct consequence of the energy transition, constitutes a ‘binding constraint’ on investment and economic development in the Netherlands?</li><li>What is the estimated annual economic damage caused by grid congestion, resulting in postponed connections and delayed investments?</li><li>Does the answer to question 6 give the government cause to scale back its climate ambitions and suspend the energy transition for the time being?</li><li>If the answer to question 7 is no, why not?</li><li>How does the government assess the IMF’s observation that nitrogen-related restrictions constitute a major obstacle to investment and economic development in the Netherlands?</li><li>Does the government acknowledge that the current nitrogen policy is leading to serious delays in housing construction, infrastructure projects, industrial expansion and economic development?</li><li>If the answer to question 10 is no, why not?</li><li>If the answer to question 10 is in the affirmative, what concrete steps will the government take to put a stop to these harmful developments?</li><li>How does the government assess the IMF’s conclusion that the housing shortage requires ambitious reforms?</li><li>What role does the government believe population growth resulting from immigration plays in the ongoing pressure on the housing market, infrastructure and amenities?</li><li>Can the Government set out how many additional homes are needed, according to current forecasts, as a result of the expected population growth due to immigration now and over the next ten years?</li><li>Does the Government share the submitter’s analysis that immigration, a major cause of the housing shortage, is holding back the Dutch economy?</li><li>If the answer to question 16 is in the negative, why not?</li><li>Does the Government share the IMF’s analysis that the current coalition plans increase the tax burden on labour, reduce labour participation and raise wage costs?</li><li>If the answer to question 18 is no, why not?</li><li>If the answer to question 18 is yes, what concrete steps will the Government take to change this?</li><li>Why has the government chosen to impose heavier taxes on labour (including through the ‘freedom contribution’) when the IMF specifically warns that higher labour costs lead to fewer hours worked and lower labour participation?</li><li>How does this, in the government’s view, relate to the principle that work must pay?</li><li>Are you aware of the recent statement by Professor of Labour and Macroeconomics Pieter Gautier that approximately a quarter of gross domestic product goes towards benefits and that this makes the tax system unnecessarily complex?</li><li>If the answer to question 23 is in the affirmative, how does the government assess this reality?</li><li>Does the government agree with the analysis that the current tax and benefits system leads to perverse incentives, high administrative costs and reduced transparency for Dutch citizens and businesses?</li><li>What concrete steps will the government take to simplify the tax and benefits system fundamentally?</li><li>How high does the government expect total climate-related expenditure to be by 2030 and 2050, particularly given that the IMF describes rising climate-related expenditure as a risk to the sustainability of public finances?</li><li>How does the government assess the tension between, on the one hand, ever-increasing climate-related costs and, on the other hand, maintaining competitiveness, industry and economic growth?</li><li>Does the government acknowledge that high energy prices and climate-related costs are contributing to a deterioration in the Dutch business and investment climate?</li><li>If the answer to question 29 is no, why not?</li><li>If the answer to question 29 is yes, what specific measures will the government take to improve the Dutch business and investment climate?</li><li>How does the Government assess signals from industry that companies and investments are leaving the Netherlands due to high energy costs, regulatory burdens, uncertain policy and increasing climate obligations?</li><li>Does the Government believe that current economic policy improves the Netherlands’ competitive position relative to countries such as the United States and China?</li><li>If the answer to question 33 is in the negative, what specific measures will the government take to improve the Netherlands’ competitive position?</li><li>What specific measures will the government take to counteract further stagnation of the Dutch economy, declining investment and loss of competitiveness?</li><li>Does the Government share the questioner’s conclusion that the IMF’s findings show that Dutch policy on climate (high costs and investment), nitrogen (stagnation in housing and industrial expansion), immigration (cause of the housing shortage) and taxation (no incentive to work) contributes significantly to the stagnation of the economy?</li><li>If the answer to question 36 is in the negative, why not?</li><li>If the answer to question 36 is in the affirmative, what specific measures will the government take regarding policy on climate, nitrogen, immigration and taxation to improve the Netherlands’ position?</li><li>In general terms, how does the government deal with reports, recommendations and findings from the IMF?</li><li>Could you please answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from one another?</li></ol>

large_01KS5QKZD23PTHXFWWXY6CC37K.webp

medium_01KS5QKZD23PTHXFWWXY6CC37K.webp

small_01KS5QKZD23PTHXFWWXY6CC37K.webp

thumbnail_01KS5QKZD23PTHXFWWXY6CC37K.webp

Another blow for climate fanatics: IMF confirms economic stagnation due to climate and nitrogen policies

The Netherlands has a growing problem with youth crime. Not only on the streets, but also in the classroom, on social media and in statistics. Young people are increasingly suspected of weapons offences, schools are suspending more pupils over weapons, and the police are seizing knives and firearms from minors with increasing frequency. According to<a href="https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/artikel/5593434/jongeren-wapenbezit-hoogste-jaren">&nbsp;RTL Nieuws</a>, the number of minors suspected of weapons offences rose to a record high last year. The number of school suspensions over weapons also reached its highest level in years.At the same time, research into youth crime has for years revealed an uncomfortable reality: young people from migrant backgrounds are over-represented in crime statistics in virtually all European countries. This also applies to the Netherlands. The study ‘Youth Crime among Migrants’ by the<a href="https://www.kis.nl/publicatie/jeugdcriminaliteit-onder-migranten">&nbsp;Knowledge Platform</a> for Integration &amp; Society explicitly states that young people with a migrant background feature more frequently in statistics on youth crime. Furthermore, clear differences are visible between different ethnic groups.Young offenders and migrant backgroundsThe study shows that young migrants in Europe are more frequently involved in offences than young people without a migrant background. It is striking that this is not limited to minor offences. Young migrants score higher across various types of offences, ranging from vandalism to extortion, from street robberies to serious violence.Differences also exist within migrant groups. In the Netherlands, young people of Turkish origin appear to be more frequently involved in violent offences. Young people of Moroccan origin, on the other hand, are more frequently involved in property offences. Furthermore, the study identifies Moroccan-Dutch and Antillean-Dutch young people as groups that have long been overrepresented in crime statistics and in youth detention centres.Moreover, the figures are substantial. Within the international ISRD-2 study, in which over 68,000 young people from 30 countries took part, nearly one in four young people had a migrant background. In the Dutch study group, that proportion stood at 35 per cent, of whom more than three-quarters belonged to the second generation. More importantly, the study shows that first- and second-generation migrant youths are more likely to report offences themselves than youths without a migrant background. Among the first generation, 40 per cent stated they had ever committed an offence; among the second generation, this figure was 42 per cent, compared with 34 per cent among young people without a migrant background. This over-representation applied to both minor and more serious offences, and to both violent and property offences.These figures call for honesty. Anyone who wants to tackle youth crime seriously must dare to identify where the problems are concentrated. Looking the other way helps no one. Not the victims. Not the neighbourhoods. Not the schools. And not the young people themselves either.Migrant groups as a wholeMoreover, this over-representation is not limited to youth crime. We see similar patterns among adults too, including in relation to sexual offences.<a href="https://x.com/demo_demo_nl/status/1959204368110268663">&nbsp;Statistics Netherlands (CBS) data</a> shows that men from various non-Western migrant groups are suspected of sexual offences significantly more often than native Dutch men. Among men of Somali origin, the number of suspects in sexual offences was even more than twenty times (!) higher than among native Dutch men. The figures were also significantly higher among Afghan, Iraqi, Eritrean, Iranian and Syrian men.Furthermore, earlier<a href="https://x.com/demo_demo_nl/status/1959206301164257536">&nbsp;CBS figures</a> show that non-Western men aged between 12 and 45 are systematically more likely to be suspects in sexual offences than native Dutch men. For some groups, this over-representation was several times higher. Men with backgrounds from the former Netherlands Antilles, Morocco and Suriname featured particularly frequently in these figures. According to researcher Jan van de Beek, these differences are particularly relevant because many migrants eventually obtain Dutch nationality, meaning that figures based purely on nationality may ultimately give a distorted picture.Text continues below the image<img src="/uploads/image_19517e719e.png">Figures from Jan van de Beek show the significant over-representation of migrant groups in crimeThese figures show that the problem extends beyond youth crime alone. Among adults too, there are clear differences in crime rates between population groups. This calls for an honest debate and policies that do not turn a blind eye to uncomfortable statistics.The streets are getting tougherConcerns are particularly high due to the rise in gun ownership among young people. According to RTL Nieuws, the figures on gun ownership and gun use are “alarming”. The police have seized a record number of illegal weapons from minors. These are mainly knives, but increasingly also firearms, including converted gas pistols. According to a police firearms expert, these weapons are traded via social media, among other channels, where young people can obtain them anonymously.Such violence is no longer confined to street brawls. Young people are increasingly being recruited into criminal networks and gangs. The situation is spiralling completely out of control, particularly in countries such as Sweden. There, authorities have been grappling for years with explosions, contract killings and young gang members. According to the Swedish government, increasingly younger boys are being recruited because they are easily influenced and, until now, could hardly be prosecutedThe Swedish approach<a href="https://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/knuffel-in-de-cel-hier-sluit-zweden-straks-13-jarige-bendeleden-op/151092936.html">Sweden</a> is therefore lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 13 this summer. A child found guilty of murder could soon face up to two years in prison, and a 14-year-old even up to four years.The country is now building special youth prisons to house underage gang members. In Rosersberg, north of Stockholm, entire wings are being fitted out for young offenders aged 13 and 14. According to the Swedish government, the situation has become so serious that tough action is necessary.The Swedish approach shows how quickly youth crime can escalate when the government has been too lenient for years. What begins with street terror and gun ownership ultimately ends in gang wars and child soldiers.Campaigns do not workThe Dutch government has been responding for years with campaigns, posters, weapon surrender schemes and well-intentioned slogans. But the results are shockingly poor. The 2020 ‘Weapons and Young People’ action plan aimed to reduce the number of weapon-related incidents by a quarter within two years. The opposite has happened: since 2019, figures for gun-related crimes have not fallen, but risen. The number of under-18 suspects in gun-related crimes increased by 20 per cent.Experts are harsh in their judgement. The policy has failed. According to Ferwerda, the target group laughs at adverts and posters.<a href="https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/artikel/5593434/jongeren-wapenbezit-hoogste-jaren">&nbsp;Researcher</a> Frank Weerman also warns that general public information campaigns and gun-in-exchange schemes have little effect and may even increase the sense of insecurity.Stop looking the other wayForum for Democracy believes that safety begins with acknowledging reality. If certain groups of young people are systematically over-represented in crime statistics, then politicians must address this. Only by facing the facts can we protect the safety of the Dutch people.That means taking a tough stance on youth gangs, weapons and repeat criminal behaviour. It also means that the police, the judiciary and local authorities must no longer pretend that general campaigns are sufficient. The figures show that this approach does not work.Dutch people have a right to safe streets, safe schools and safe neighbourhoods. Parents must be able to send their children to school without fear. Young people must be protected from criminal groups that normalise weapons. And offenders must realise that crime has consequences.FVD’s plans for a safer Netherlands:<ul><li>Always enough prison places:&nbsp;We will expand prisons so that there are always enough cells and sentences can be served in full. We will expand prisons so that there are always enough cells and sentences can be served in full.</li><li>Harsher sentences:&nbsp;Fewer community service orders, more prison sentences. Harsher sentences for serious violent and sexual offences, and locking up repeat offenders sooner, so that criminals know that crime really does have consequences.</li><li>Revocation of citizenship and deportation of criminals:&nbsp;We will revoke the citizenship of dual passport holders who commit serious crimes and immediately deport criminal asylum seekers, so that the Netherlands becomes safer.</li><li>Profiling in investigations:&nbsp;We will allow the police to profile on the basis of statistically relevant categories, so that investigations proceed more quickly and effectively.</li><li>Deporting the families of criminal asylum seekers:&nbsp;We will hold the parents of criminal asylum seekers liable for their children’s misconduct and, where appropriate, terminate their asylum procedures as well, so that they themselves take corrective action.</li></ul>Do you appreciate what we do? Then please consider making a donation to support our work! You can do so by clicking<a href="https://fvd.nl/wordlid">&nbsp;here</a>.

large_01KS54H849NGDXV3CT3NC6M5DG.webp

medium_01KS54H849NGDXV3CT3NC6M5DG.webp

small_01KS54H849NGDXV3CT3NC6M5DG.webp

thumbnail_01KS54H849NGDXV3CT3NC6M5DG.webp

Youth crime and migrant backgrounds: figures The Hague would rather avoid

Immigration has been on the political agenda – even at the top of it – for decades. You only have to think of the lifelong careers of well-known anti-immigrant opposition politicians in Europe to realise this. Yet nothing is done about it.&nbsp; In the Netherlands, for instance, asylum seekers continue to arrive at the rate of 2,000 or 3,000 every month – 1,000 last week alone - in spite of decades in which governing politicians have promised to reduce or even stop immigration. In an impressive statement in committee, FVD MP Tom Russcher recently recalled these terrible facts. He emphasised that no country can get a handle on this population transfer without leaving the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU means open borders while the ECHR means judges who refuse to allow deportations. Only FVD identifies and goes to the root of the problem. The rest is just noise.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJmQ8Dh4t68">Watch Tom Russcher’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_26a8479fe4.png">In other words, the supranational institutions which are supposed to protect us and make us prosper are, in fact, destroying us. Yet our leaders, who have been moulded by them and cannot think out of the box, hold on to them for dear life.&nbsp; The same goes for Europe’s security architecture. The Americans under Trump have made clear their contempt for NATO and for the Europeans generally. European politicians respond with panic instead of doing what FVD does, which is to see this as an opportunity to exploit foreign policy options which are currently closed off. The Netherlands in particular could revive its old policy of neutrality, profiting from its hugely positive and unthreatening image in the world to carve out new relationships. Ralf Dekker MP laid all this out with admirable clarity in a recent speech to Parliament.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/the-us-national-security-strategy-and-its-implications-for-europe">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_5e0f4a6794.png">It’s a sort of Stockholm syndrome, really. Prisoners develop a dependency on those who hold them prisoner. The human mind confuses captivity with protection.&nbsp; Certainly, it is well known that some prisoners, once released, long to be back inside. The outside world can be frightening; prison routine is reassuring. This is what is happening in Britain right now. Ten years after Brexit, and without any public pressure for it, Keir Starmer is talking about aligning the UK more closely with the EU. For the time being, faced with a by-election which might put a future new Prime Minister into the House of Commons, the issue has been hushed up. But people at the top of the Labour Party are clearly plotting it. FVD International’s director, John Laughland, was Ian Proud’s guest on his podcast, The Peacemonger, this week to discuss this and other issues.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgkiIO-LgYo&amp;t=102s">Watch John Laughland’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_3dfdc309d8.png">Our guests on The Forum this week were Professor Edouard Husson, a specialist in German history, and Dr Tarik Cyril Amar, a German academic based in Turkey who specialises in the history of Russia and Ukraine. The subject: German rearmament. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_FKsaX5_Eg">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_52ec5323-15c6-4345-8ff4-1b106f572478.png

medium_52ec5323-15c6-4345-8ff4-1b106f572478.png

small_52ec5323-15c6-4345-8ff4-1b106f572478.png

thumbnail_52ec5323-15c6-4345-8ff4-1b106f572478.png

The Weekly Forum - 22 May 2026

20 May 2026Speech given in the Second Chamber of the States-General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Dutch Parliament)Chairman,The National Security Strategy document published by the US government at the end of last year caused quite a stir. The US was set to focus on the Western Hemisphere and the Asia-Pacific region, gradually withdrawing from Europe and the Middle East.&nbsp;The document expresses fundamental criticism of Europe, and particularly of the EU. European countries must stop squandering their greatness; they must take more responsibility for their own affairs; and they must resolve the Ukraine conflict.Today’s headlines – the war with Iran and the ongoing escalation in the conflict with Russia – almost make one forget the National Security Strategy.&nbsp;However, this does seem to be the new undercurrent in US foreign policy: spheres of influence for the major powers, a less prominent role for NATO and a somewhat less secure position for European countries.This is also evident from Trump’s latest conversation with Xi, which focused on sovereignty and spheres of influence.One might view this development as a threat. Who, then, will help Europe in the struggle against Russia?&nbsp;Mr Chairman, Forum for Democracy sees this precisely as an opportunity. The Netherlands can free itself somewhat from American dominance. It can choose its own path.What opportunities this presents for the Netherlands! A subtle Eastern policy towards Russia and China, playing an intelligent, moderating and mediating role whilst maintaining good relations with the US.&nbsp; We can seek new relationships with the warring factions in the Middle East, try to forge connections, find intermediary roles. We can boost trade. All these things we could do - and they are things we have traditionally been good at.But instead European countries, with the Netherlands at the forefront, are pressing ahead with all their might along old Cold War lines.&nbsp;They are taking a hard line where it is not necessary. They are cultivating hostilities, rearming Europe, channelling tens of billions a year into military spending, further escalating tensions with Russia and sidelining, as far as possible, those European countries that are actually seeking peaceful solutions. They are even frustrating peace talks between the US and Russia.&nbsp;At first, the Netherlands was still afraid to join in too conspicuously against the Russians. But these days, the Netherlands is proud of our drone factory in Hengelo, where, together with Ukraine, long-range drones are being built to strike Russia deep inside its own territory.&nbsp; We are doing this out in the open, shamelessly.&nbsp;For someone who lived through the Cold War, all this is incomprehensible. We in Europe and the Netherlands are now doing things that we would never have dreamed of back then. We are challenging the world’s greatest nuclear power – but also its greatest conventional power. Have we lost our minds? What are we actually trying to achieve?Let us be honest, Mr Chairman. The political establishment in the Netherlands and Europe does not want peace with Russia at all. It may want a temporary ceasefire but ultimately it wants to defeat Russia. It wants total capitulation. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, is very clear on that point.&nbsp;And then it wants to bring Putin and his people before a tribunal. The Netherlands is already making preparations for this.Mr Chairman, it would be comical if it were not so sad and dangerous. Although all those long-range attacks are largely pinpricks to the Russians, their patience may also run out. The Eastern Dutch region of Twente is just a push of a button away.It is time we charted a new course. The Netherlands can play an initiating and perhaps even a leading role in this. Within the EU and NATO but if necessary by speaking to the Russians directly. What exactly do they want? And why? What do we actually want? How can we achieve lasting peace?Politicians want to win wars, or at least bring them to an honourable conclusion, whatever the cost.Citizens want the violence and the waste of money to stop. They want people to work together again and act in a way that benefits everyone.Forum for Democracy stands on that side.Thank you very much.

medium_nat-sec.jpg

small_nat-sec.jpg

thumbnail_nat-sec.jpg

The US National Security Strategy and its implications for Europe

It seems like the ‘boiling planet’ (to&nbsp;<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_23_4426">quote</a> Ursula von der Leyen) is …, well, going off the boil. Years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the notorious ‘hockey stick’ graph, which was debunked at the time but which continues to mislead people into thinking there has been a sudden and unprecedented rise in world temperatures. Now,&nbsp; one of its sub-committees has published a new prediction for climate change which describes the high end of the earlier predictions as ‘implausible’. This means that the horror scenarios on which climate policy has been based have been abandoned. FVD has long campaigned against the climate madness which imposes huge costs on the economy in the name of a chimera. Now is the time to wake up from the nightmare! <a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/climate-alarmists-undermined-by-new-report-from-the-international-panel-on-climate-change">Read FVD’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_78802154aa.png">Lidewij de Vos, FVD’s parliamentary leader, has therefore immediately written to the Dutch government to ask what it is going to do about this downward revision of the global warming predictions. 80% of media coverage has been based on these worst-case scenarios now denounced as implausible. Moreover, government policy – and the public support for it, to the extent that this exists – also assumes the plausibility of these scenarios. Naturally, people want to avoid extreme weather events but if they are now ‘implausible’, the very assumptions from which all this flows are invalid. Will the government take note of this and change its policy? Don’t hold your breath.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/let-us-scrap-climate-policy-after">Read Lidewij de Vos’ questions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_b6fbbf7ed2.png">John Laughland was once again a guest on “The Protagonists”, a daily broadcast of News Talk’s “World Today”, to discuss “The European Union, a dying star”. The fellow guest was John’s old friend, Professor Richard Sakwa of the University of Kent. They discussed all the structural weaknesses not just of the EU but also of its member states, who seem exclusively preoccupied with narrative control but not with actual reality. Richard Sakwa emphasised the essential point, which is that the EU is itself part of a wider problem, the ‘Atlantic community’ created after the last world war, and it is precisely that larger grouping which is also in terminal decline.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRtzMTOFSDc">Watch John Laughland’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_f677753444.png">Two internet superstars were our guests on The Forum this week, Glenn Diesen, a Norwegian academic who runs the very successful Greater Eurasia Project&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/@GDiesen1">podcast</a>, and Ian Proud, a former UK diplomat who has recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/@IanProud">The Peacemonger</a>. They discussed the murmurings from inside the corridors of Brussels suggesting that now is the time to start talking to Russia. If you missed it, watch it by clicking below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJ3eXvdScI">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 15 May 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 15 May 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 15 May 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 15 May 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 15 May 2026

Lidewij De Vos MP submits parliamentary questions:&nbsp;Let us scrap climate policy after the UN climate panel withdraws its doomsday scenario.For years, people have been told that the Earth could warm by as much as 4 to 6 degrees by 2100. This extreme scenario (SSP5-8.5) from the IPCC formed the basis for drastic climate policy, sky-high climate subsidies, higher taxes, and alarming media coverage. Now, however, it turns out that the IPCC itself is distancing itself from this scenario.FVD parliamentary leader, Lidewij De Vos, wants to know from the government why the Netherlands is sticking to extremely expensive climate policy while the underlying 'doomsday scenario' has now been scrapped by the IPCC itself. She also draws attention to the consequences for previous climate lawsuits, including the Bonaire case, in which judges partly relied on the now-scrapped SSP5-8.5 scenario.It is unacceptable that people have to foot the bill for extremely expensive policies based on fact-free doomsday scenarios. The cabinet must therefore scrap the climate policy and reduce the burdens on citizens.Written questions from Lidewij De Vos MP (FVD) to the Minister of Climate and Green Growth concerning the scrapped 'doomsday scenario' of the IPCC1. Have you taken note of the report that the IPCC has scrapped its most extreme doomsday scenario (4 to 6 degrees of warming in 2100)?2. Have you taken note of the analysis that more than 80 per cent of media coverage has been based on this now outdated scenario?3. How do you assess the reporting referred to in questions 1 and 2?4. Do you believe that in recent years a distorted and overly alarmist picture of climate developments has been presented? If yes, why? If no, why not?5. To what extent is current Dutch climate policy based on assumptions and models from the IPCC which have since been adjusted by that same IPCC? Can you explain your answer?6. Do you consider it responsible to continue with policies that have a very major economic and societal impact, while the underlying assumptions and models from the IPCC on which that policy is based have since been adjusted by that same IPCC? If yes, why? If no, what changes are you prepared to make?7. Are you prepared to carry out a full review of Dutch climate policy? If no, why not? If yes, on what timeline?8. Are you prepared, in light of these developments, to take measures to reduce the burdens on citizens, for example by (partly) scrapping or even reversing the climate policy? Can you explain your answer?9. How will you ensure that policy in the future is not based on extreme and unrealistic scenarios?10. Have you taken note of the report that all climate lawsuits from recent years would refer to the now-scrapped doomsday scenario of the IPCC?11. How do you assess the reporting as mentioned in question 10?12. Do you acknowledge that, if the reporting mentioned in question 10 is correct, this has far-reaching consequences for the legal foundations on which judges have convicted the Dutch state and Dutch companies to far-reaching and costly climate policy? Can you explain your answer?13. Are you prepared to have it investigated to what extent the judgments in climate lawsuits directly or indirectly rely on the doomsday scenario of the IPCC that has since been scrapped by that same IPCC? Are you prepared to inform the House of the outcomes of this investigation? If yes, on what timeline? If no, why not?14. In the climate lawsuit concerning Bonaire (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1344), the judge assumes under point 4.21 a sea level rise of 27 cm in 2050 and 85 cm in 2100, based on the "doomsday scenario" SSP5-8.5 that has since been scrapped by the IPCC; how do you assess the fact that this court ruling with far-reaching consequences is partly based on scenarios from the IPCC that have since been scrapped by that same IPCC? Can you explain your answer?15. Are you prepared, in the appeal against the ruling concerning Bonaire, to explicitly take into account that the court of first instance partly based itself on the SSP5-8.5 scenario that has since been scrapped by the IPCC, and that the substantiation of the ruling has therefore been fundamentally changed? If yes, why? If no, why not?16. Can you answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from each other?

large_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

medium_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

small_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

thumbnail_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

Let us scrap climate policy after the UN climate panel withdraws its doomsday scenario

In a newly published report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), earlier predictions about future global warming have been drastically revised downward. The most extreme climate scenario (4 to 6 degrees of warming by 2100), which for years stood at the centre of predictions about catastrophic warming, large-scale flooding and societal collapse, has now been dropped. Yet this very scenario formed the basis for policy decisions, sweeping climate measures and alarmist media coverage over the past years. Now that even the IPCC itself is distancing itself from these predictions, the question arises to what extent current climate policy can still be justified on the basis of such extreme, and now outdated, assumptions.For years, public opinion has been subjected to alarmist doom scenarios in order to justify expensive and ineffective climate policies. Citizens have been forced to pay higher taxes, entrepreneurs burdened with increasingly strict regulations, and entire sectors placed under pressure because of predictions of catastrophic warming.Now it appears from a new proposal for the IPCC’s so-called “CMIP7 programme” that the most extreme climate scenario from previous reports can no longer be regarded as realistic. This concerns the scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise dramatically throughout this century (the so-called SSP5-8.5 scenario from CMIP6). The document states that these high emission levels and their credibility “have been questioned.” It also indicates that future high-emission scenarios are likely to be lower than this previous disaster scenario.<h3>Earlier Doubts About the IPCC</h3>That is remarkable. This precise scenario was used for years to spread visions of four to six degrees of warming, climate disasters, mass flooding and societal disruption. Media outlets, activist organisations and politicians consistently presented this extreme scenario as though it were a realistic picture of the future.Forum for Democracy pointed out years ago that this scenario was in no way realistic. In interviews, articles and parliamentary contributions, we consistently argued that the 8.5 scenario was based on absurd assumptions, such as an explosive growth in coal use.&nbsp; Yet it was continually used to justify alarmist predictions.<h3><img src="/uploads/image_2cb59a2bfb.png"></h3><h3>The Hockey Stick Graph</h3>The notorious “hockey stick graph” also played an important role in the climate debate for many years. This graph, presented by the IPCC in the late 1990s, was intended to show that temperatures on Earth had remained virtually stable for centuries before suddenly rising sharply in the past century. This created the impression that current warming is entirely unique in history.Forum for Democracy has also criticised this in the past. Data series were selectively used, truncated or supplemented with data from other periods, causing natural climate fluctuations largely to disappear from view. Yet climate change has existed throughout all of history. During the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings farmed in Greenland, while several centuries later, during the Little Ice Age, the Netherlands experienced long and severe winters. On even longer timescales, ice ages and warmer periods have alternated repeatedly, something often explained through the theory of Milankovitch cycles. Against that background, the firm claim that current warming is entirely exceptional and caused exclusively by human CO2 emissions is far from uncontested.<h3>The Implications for Climate Policy</h3>Now that even the IPCC is distancing itself from the most extreme scenario of 4 to 6 degrees of warming by 2100, the foundation beneath much of today’s climate policy is collapsing. Why should Dutch or any European citizens continue paying enormous sums for heat pumps, grid expansion, wind turbines, solar fields and expensive climate funds if the underlying disaster scenarios are now being toned down by the climate establishment itself?Meanwhile, ordinary citizens continue to bear the burden of soaring energy bills and ever-higher taxes, while the Netherlands has barely any influence on total global CO2 emissions. Climate policy is leading primarily to economic damage, loss of purchasing power and the erosion of energy security.The government should therefore fundamentally reconsider its entire climate agenda, or better yet, scrap it altogether. The billions currently disappearing into climate subsidies, climate funds and unworkable “transitions” could be used far more effectively to lower taxes, make energy affordable again and strengthen the Dutch economy.

large_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

medium_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

small_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

thumbnail_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

Climate Alarmists Undermined by New Report from the International Panel on Climate Change

Thierry Baudet attended a Patriots Network event in Paris this weekend where Tommy Robinson was a speaker. Thierry&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/thierrybaudet/status/2050713944822583807">posted</a> a photo of himself with Tommy, expressing his enthusiasm for the event and the speech. This attracted some criticism from people who attacked Robinson for his energetic support of Israel. Thierry then replied to that criticism in a long post. Of course we disagree with Tommy Robinson on several issues, he said, especially Israel and Islam. But we agree on a very fundamental common cause, namely the preservation of our respective countries from literal extinction through mass immigration. If the Left can unite against us to push this through, why should the Right not unite, in spite of its differences on other issues, to prevent it?<a href="https://x.com/thierrybaudet/status/2051018493496066217">Read Thierry’s X-post here</a><img src="/uploads/image_378b6b3a08.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, and two young colleagues from FVD, visited Belgrade this week. They were invited by the Novi DSS party (New Democratic Party of Serbia) to attend the party’s ‘slava’, the feast day of its patron saint, St. George. The party’s president, Milos Jovanovic, then sat down with John Laughland to discuss Serbia, Europe and the world. Jovanovic is a remarkable man, very eloquent and intelligent (he is a former academic who studied in France) and personally extremely likeable.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMmhCYDGNV8&amp;t=237s">Watch Milos Jovanovic’s interview here (automatically generated subtitles from the original French)</a><img src="/uploads/image_ca362707bf.png">Renaissance Institute’s Hans van de Breevaart argues that Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are being rediscovered by the Left, having been previously invoked mainly by the Right. This should not surprise us since both men were clearly on the political Left. Modern leftists, however, have latched on to their writing for purely transient reasons – they don’t like Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Hans van de Breevaart says Huxley is better than Orwell - ‘Orwell saw the danger but trusted socialism too much. Huxley trusted no power and therefore saw further’ – but that both taught invaluable lessons.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/hard-and-soft-totalitarianism-orwell-huxley-and-the-blind-spot-of-the-left">Read Hans van de Breevaart’s article here&nbsp;</a><img src="/uploads/image_1c3252e46d.png">Stefan Korte, the founder and chairman of U-Turn for Europe, has written a short piece about the recent Vienna conference attended by Thierry Baudet, Ralf Dekker, Peter van Duijvenvoorde and John Laughland. Change cannot come from politics alone; on the contrary, it requires fundamental cultural change and not just party politics. It is music to our ears since Thierry Baudet and FVD have been saying this for some time.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/how-to-make-a-u-turn-for-europe">Read Stefan Korte’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1d5e9bca7e.png">The formidable Professor Seyed Mohammed Marandi was our guest on The Forum this week. Since his last appearance, he has become an internet superstar, getting the better of luminaries like Piers Morgan and engaging in fruitful discussion with The Duran. If you missed it, watch back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf1K3Q6UgT0&amp;t=0s">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026

Few twentieth-century thinkers are often mentioned in the same breath as often as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Their work still serves as a point of reference in debates about power, freedom, and manipulation. During the COVID crisis, they were invoked by right-wing conservative voices as prophets of repressive state power and technocratic behavioural control, respectively. At the time, such references were dismissed as exaggerated or “extreme.”Now we are seeing the reverse. Left-progressive commentators have also rediscovered Orwell and Huxley, particularly to interpret the rise of figures such as Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They believe they can draw on Orwell to label them as fascists, and on Huxley to accuse them of technocratic totalitarianism. Meanwhile, they overlook how their own left-wing progressive ideals, “democratic socialism” and “repressive tolerance”, are themselves susceptible to totalitarian temptation.Here, I focus primarily on a reading of Orwell’s&nbsp;The Lion and the Unicorn and Huxley’s&nbsp;The Time of the Oligarchs, recently published in excellent Dutch translations with sympathetic left-wing introductions.<h3>Orwell’s correct analysis…</h3>In&nbsp;The Lion and the Unicorn, Orwell outlines two tension-filled forces, not only in pre–Second World War England but in every modern nation-state.The lion represents:<ul><li>the power of the state,</li><li>militarism and imperialism,</li><li>the established order, hierarchy, and tradition.</li></ul>Orwell sees both strength and moral decay here: the empire is powerful but hollowed out, lacking attention to the other side of a vital society. That side is symbolised by the unicorn, representing:<ul><li>the people and their moral ideals,</li><li>democracy, justice, and egalitarianism,</li><li>socialist aspirations toward equality and solidarity.</li></ul>Orwell argued that England could survive the struggle against Nazi Germany only if the lion and the unicorn joined forces. They need each other:<ul><li>power without justice leads to tyranny;</li><li>idealism without power is powerless.</li></ul><h3>…with an eye for the necessity of patriotism…</h3>What binds the lion and the unicorn? According to Orwell, it is a shared patriotism:<ul><li>attachment to a concrete place, culture, and way of life;</li><li>love for what is familiar and historically developed;</li><li>loyalty without the urge to dominate others.</li></ul>This patriotism aims to protect what is valuable, essential in the face of ideologies that use technocratic state power to impose radical change. Orwell saw this danger in both communism and fascism: ideologies that absolutise their own narratives, become immune to facts, are inherently imperialistic, and suppress internal dissent through censorship or violence.<h3>…and naïve optimism</h3>His plea for “democratic socialism” contains conservative elements worth noting, such as respect for tradition and organic development.At the same time, his vision is naïve. Orwell saw a fundamental opposition between democracy and totalitarianism. Works like&nbsp;Animal Farm and&nbsp;1984 fiercely criticised totalitarian tendencies in communism and fascism. Yet he failed to see that his own democratic socialism could harbour similar dynamics.His model includes nationaliing key industries, reducing inequality, and preserving democratic institutions. The aim is a community of equal citizens without exploitation. He assumed this would emerge organically and be embraced by patriots.In reality, achieving such a system requires a “long march through the institutions,” bureaucratic expansion, and coercion to enforce equality. This concentration of power creates a persistent temptation to suppress dissent “in the public interest.”What begins as morally motivated equality policy can evolve into soft coercion: social pressure, bureaucratic control, and normative conformity. Freedom is gradually eroded as more aspects of life become politicised. Orwell recognised the danger—but mainly in others.In short, democratic socialism presupposes:<ul><li>central planning,</li><li>normative equality,</li><li>expansion of state power,</li><li>limitation of individual choice.</li></ul>The difference from overt totalitarianism is one of degree, not principle: administrative coercion instead of terror, “responsible language” instead of censorship.<h3>Aldous Huxley: the danger of power without the club</h3>Unlike Orwell, Huxley distrusted all concentrations of power. His critique extended beyond politics to science, technology, and mass democracy.In&nbsp;The Time of the Oligarchs, he describes how democracies drift toward technocratic rule—not through violence, but through conditioning, consumption, and psychological influence. While Orwell warned of the club, Huxley warned of opium.The democratic individual, in Huxley’s view, is not oppressed but complacent, preferring comfort over freedom and affirmation over truth. We recognise this today in:<ul><li>citizens who accept policies for safety,</li><li>societies that stigmatise dissent,</li><li>cultures where moral coercion is framed as “care” and “solidarity.”</li></ul><h3>Media, algorithms, and loss of control</h3>Bas Heijne, in his introduction, warns about manipulation via algorithms and social media. Yet this concern appears selective. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter were long tolerated by progressives as long as they aligned with dominant views. Inspired by Herbert Marcuse’s concept of “repressive tolerance,” dissenting opinions were often suppressed.Only after Elon Musk took over Twitter and allowed more dissent did attitudes shift. Suddenly, Huxley became relevant again, and Musk was labelled an oligarch threatening democracy.The issue, then, is not technology itself, but loss of control over narratives and information.<h3>Rediscovery: irony…</h3>It is doubtful whether Orwell and Huxley would appreciate their current “rediscovery.” When critics of COVID policy invoked them, they were ignored. Now, as technocratic governance and media conformity face scrutiny, their warnings are suddenly embraced.We would do better to take their insights seriously:<ul><li>good intentions do not prevent abuse of power;</li><li>democratic procedures do not guarantee freedom;</li><li>claims of moral superiority are no safeguard.</li></ul>Does this mean we should be grateful to Musk for enabling counter-voices? In a sense, yes. Democracy depends on power and counterpower. Algorithms can help amplify dissent.<h3>…because power corrupts…</h3>Orwell teaches that power corrupts. Huxley teaches that it often does so subtly, without force. The greater danger may be soft domination rather than overt repression.The success of Trump lies partly in his resistance to mainstream narratives. Social media helped him reach large audiences when traditional media turned against him.<h3>…even Trump?</h3>Trump has used his mandate for policies many consider beneficial: tax cuts, economic growth, and a break from interventionist foreign policy. Yet recent developments raise questions about whether power has also affected him.Criticism of his actions, now amplified by the same platforms that once supported him, illustrates the importance of counterforces.<h3>Healthy distrust</h3>From a critical perspective, the lesson is clear:<ul><li>Freedom requires distrust of all power.</li><li>Totalitarianism can arise through force or bureaucracy.</li><li>The greatest danger is habituation—even to leaders who once opposed it.</li></ul>Orwell saw the danger but trusted socialism too much. Huxley trusted no power and therefore saw further. In an age of moral pressure and technocratic confidence, his warning seems especially relevant.Still, Orwell’s caution remains vital: even those who oppose totalitarianism can fall into it themselves.

Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

large_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

medium_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

small_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

thumbnail_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

Hard and Soft Totalitarianism: Orwell, Huxley and the Blind Spot of the Left

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

&quot;Population Replacement is Just What is Factually Taking Place&quot; - Lidewij de Vos | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Democracy in America? with Daniel McAdams and  Alex Krainer

‘The Netherlands Is FULL After Decades of Mass Immigration’ - Tom Russcher | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: German Rearmament with Edouard Husson and Tarik Cyril Amar

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Time to Talk to Russia? with Glenn Diesen and Ian Proud

Are We Heading to War With Russia? | Glenn Diesen #TheForumAndFriends #short #reels #edit #fyp

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Winning by not Losing with Professor Marandi

Milos Jovanovic, President of the Novi DSS Party, discusses Serbia, Europe and the World

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: American Military Collapse with Stanislav Krapivnik

What Does Highly Educated Really Mean? | Pepijn Van Houwelingen on Education | 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