Following the Dutch general election, MP Lidewij de Vos (FVD) warns that Parliament is failing to act on the clear mandates given by voters. Although the election results reveal substantial policy majorities, the House of Representatives is already shifting decision-making to negotiators and backroom talks. This undermines democratic accountability.The recent elections in the Netherlands produced clear majorities on several major policy issues. When comparing the different party manifestos, it becomes evident what direction voters want the country to take. This is precisely the moment for the 150 newly elected MPs to honour that result. They should vote on these issues directly, rather than sidelining themselves for months of coalition bargaining, and then instruct the new government to turn these majorities into concrete policy.<h3>Migration: a majority on paper, but no political courage</h3>One of the most pressing topics is migration. Parties such as the VVD, CDA, GroenLinks-PvdA and ChristenUnie all campaigned on the idea of limiting annual net migration to around 60,000 people. FVD argues for a negative migration balance, but even this proposed limit would mark a significant improvement compared with the numbers of the past decade. With support from migration-critical parties, a solid majority should be within reach.Yet the opposite occurred. Many parties that campaigned on this issue voted against De Vos’s motion. The gap between campaign promises and parliamentary behaviour becomes immediately visible once the formation process begins.<img src="/uploads/image_e60cb867a2.png"><h3>Mortgage interest relief: promises abandoned after polling day</h3>A similar pattern emerged on the question of mortgage interest relief. The VVD openly campaigned in favour of maintaining it but still voted against the motion intended to secure this position. This is a prime example of what is going wrong: the post-election debate is no longer about the choices of the electorate but about political manoeuvring behind closed doors.<img src="/uploads/image_bd9ff68b74.png"><h3>Nuclear energy, healthcare costs and tax relief: clear majorities ignored</h3>On issues such as the expansion of nuclear energy, maintaining the current level of the healthcare deductible, and providing tax relief, there are also clear majorities based on party manifestos. Nevertheless, all of De Vos’s motions on these subjects were rejected last Thursday.This shows, she argues, that Parliament hands over control almost immediately after the election. Instead of acting on the voters’ mandate, decisions are deferred to negotiators and informants. According to De Vos, this represents a serious democratic deficiency.<img src="/uploads/Health_charge_275839c374.png"><h3>Restoring democratic leadership</h3>At the heart of democracy lies a simple principle: elected representatives should make decisions on behalf of the electorate, based on substance and accountability. If Parliament stops deciding and transfers authority to a formation process shielded from public view, the core of that democratic promise is weakened.Lidewij de Vos therefore calls for a political culture in which the House itself takes responsibility - directly, transparently and in line with the election outcome. Only then can the gap between voters and politics truly be bridged.<img src="/uploads/image_51acb376f9.png">

large_Motion nucl.png

medium_Motion nucl.png

small_Motion nucl.png

thumbnail_Motion nucl.png

The Election Outcome Deserves Immediate Substantive Action, Not Months Of Coalition Bargaining

13 November 2025The centuries-old Brabant village of Moerdijk - a community of more than 1,100 residents – is in danger of disappearing to make way for new energy infrastructure. The municipal council of Moerdijk has decided that demolishing the village is “the only option” to create space for high-voltage stations, pipelines, and other components deemed necessary to continue the energy transition. Forum for Democracy finds this completely unacceptable.Villages and communities are not bargaining chips for climate madness or abstract transition plans, according to FVD MPs Peter van Duijvenvoorde and Pepijn van Houwelingen, who were sworn in to parliament today. The idea that residents should give up their homes, history and social ties for an ideological green dream defies all moral and political sense.Immediately after their inauguration in the House of Representatives, Van Duijvenvoorde and Van Houwelingen submitted written questions to the Minister for Climate and Green Growth. They are demanding clarification regarding this absurd proposal and want to know how it is even possible that the government is considering wiping a village off the map for climate plans.Forum for Democracy will continue to oppose the destruction of our living environment, our history, and our communities, both in Moerdijk and across the Netherlands.You can read the questions from MPs Van Duijvenvoorde and Van Houwelingen below.<hr><h3>Written questions from MPs Van Duijvenvoorde (FVD) and Van Houwelingen (FVD) to the Minister for Climate and Green Growth about destroying the village of Moerdijk for the benefit of the energy transition</h3><ol><li>Is the minister aware of the NOS article about demolishing the village of Moerdijk? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister share the concerns of, among others, residents that demolishing this centuries-old village would be an exceptionally drastic measure? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister consider it desirable that centuries-old villages in the Netherlands disappear to make room for the energy transition? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 3 is affirmative, can the minister indicate how often this is expected to occur in the future? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 3 is negative, what steps is the minister taking to prevent this supposed precedent from being followed in the future? &nbsp;</li><li>How does demolishing a village align with the current government policy focused on liveable residential environments, the preservation of communities, resolving the housing crisis, and safeguarding heritage? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister agree with the questioners that demolishing a village is a violation of property rights? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 7 is negative, why does the minister believe that demolishing a village is not a violation of property rights? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister believe that the energy transition may go so far as to allow villages to be destroyed? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister acknowledge that in practice, residents have no means to prevent such a decision, even though it concerns the loss of their place of residence and community? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister believe it is democratically undesirable that a municipal council - working together with the province and the national government - can make such decisions without binding public participation, such as a referendum among residents? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister consider it to be in the public interest to destroy centuries-old villages? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 12 is affirmative, why is this in the public interest? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 12 is negative, does the minister agree with the questioners that it is in the public interest to protect history, culture, and heritage, and therefore to ensure the preservation of a centuries-old village? &nbsp;</li><li>What criteria were used by the municipal council in cooperation with the national government to determine that destroying the village of Moerdijk is necessary? &nbsp;</li><li>To what extent has systematic research been conducted comparing alternative locations for new energy infrastructure? &nbsp;</li><li>To what extent and in what manner have residents of the village of Moerdijk been involved in this decision? &nbsp;</li><li>What legal basis exists for destroying the village, and what would this look like in practice? &nbsp;</li><li>If the village is to be destroyed, how will the 1,100 residents be compensated in concrete terms, and will (im)material damage caused by displacement be taken into account, such as psychological burden, loss of community, loss of services, and effects on commuting? &nbsp;</li><li>How will new, suitable housing be provided for 1,100 residents, particularly during a housing crisis? &nbsp;</li><li>Are there plans to destroy other residential areas in the future for the benefit of the energy transition? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 21 is affirmative, can the minister indicate which plans these concern? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to investigate whether - together with the province of North Brabant and the municipality of Moerdijk - alternatives can be developed that ensure the preservation of the village of Moerdijk?</li></ol>Can the minister answer these questions as soon as possible and individually?

luchtfoto-van-het-dorp-moerdijk-met-bovenin-het-hollands-diep.avif

FVD Submits Parliamentary Questions about the Plan to Destroy the Village of Moerdijk in the Name of Energy Transition

They never give up, do they? The EU leadership, at both national and EU level, has racked up 10 trillion euros of debt since the euro was created a quarter of a century ago. This inexorable rise is in spite of the fact that the rules of the Maastricht treaty were supposed to make the single currency a model of price stability and fiscal prudence. And so what does the EU propose to do now?&nbsp; Raise even more debt, of course! This time, though, they want the whole of the EU to raise it by a further trillion a year (Mario Draghi proposed ‘at least 750 billion € a year’) by means of fully mutualised debt. (The existing EU-level debt issuances are limited in time and by sector, but the principle is the same.) Only FVD sees the economic, political and constitutional dangers of this – the hardworking Northern European ants will, as usual, have to pay for the spendthrift Southern European cicadas. Mutualised debt is nothing but socialism on an international scale and is conjugated as follows: I overspend, you pay for my debts, we all suffer.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/eurobonds-the-rubicon-for-european-unification">Read Thierry’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_547dd2b828.png">And what is there to show for this colossal mortgaging of future generations? We are all familiar with the Blairite trick of calling government spending ‘investment’ but there has not been investment in anything. Money has gushed out on mass immigration, climate madness, overregulation and welfare dependency without there being anything to show for it. Where are the great infrastructure projects of the post-war decades? There aren’t any. Only FVD has the vision to propose real investment in really ambitious projects which will actually help, not impoverish, future generations. FVD’s parliamentary chairman, Lidewij de Vos, laid out some of these in a letter to the parliamentarian tasked with putting out feelers to all parties with a view to forming a government. As Lidewij writes, there have been 35 years of extreme political stability in the Netherlands – only 5 prime ministers since 1982, as opposed to 11 in Britain and 22 in France – and this has just led to Brezhnevian drift. Time for a real change.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/lidewij-de-vos-in-conversation-with-wouter-koolmees-about-government-formation">Read Lidewij’s open letter here</a><img src="/uploads/image_054fb13294.png">Maybe this special vision of FVD is due to the fact that it sees beyond politics. Hans van de Breevaart, a researcher at FVD’s Renaissance Institute, is a devout Christian, as are many FVDers. So why is he associated with FVD instead of with the overtly Christian parties in the Netherlands, of which there are at least three? Hans explains that FVD’s world view, shared by believers and non-believers, Christians and non-Christians, is closer to true Christian humility than anything proposed by the officially Christian parties.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/why-i-as-a-christian-support-forum-for-democracy">Read Hans van de Breevaart’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1b2eb87505.png">We took a break from politics this week on The Forum to discuss food. Zoe Harcombe has been fighting the ‘anti-fat’ narrative for years now: she does so as a PhD in nutritional science and as a statistician. Guess what? It’s just like climate ‘science’ – the official anti-meat and anti-fat narrative is hogwash cooked up to serve a pre-prepared pre-processed narrative. Yeuch!&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYfp4BOhpn0">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

medium_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

small_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

thumbnail_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

The Weekly Forum - 13 November 2025

Eurobonds are on the European Union’s agenda - the issuance of EU-wide debt securities and with it the collectivisation of national debts at the European level. For decades, this has been dreamed of as the next step in the ongoing process of European integration. No wonder Europhiles are so enthusiastic: once the EU gains the power to issue its own bonds, it effectively becomes “a state.” It could then – at least in principle – spend money independently, finance projects, build an army, and so on, no longer needing to ask the member states for permission. They would be sidelined for good, left to watch from the margins. Power would lie with Brussels.This transfer of sovereignty seems largely to escape the current debate on eurobonds. Instead, attention is focused on the economic risks and the budgetary rules which must accompany them. These are important and fair points — but they are not the fundamental issue. Take the interview given by the new president of De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), Olaf Sleijpen, to&nbsp;De Telegraaf last weekend. As successor to the outspoken Europhile Klaas Knot, Sleijpen offers a more nuanced view of his predecessor’s enthusiasm for eurobonds. He believes that, “We should not just agree to the issuance of European loans.” It must be prevented, he argues, “because otherwise the mountain of debt in Europe will only grow even larger as a result.”So, not “just” agree, unless we can secure certain “guarantees.” We’ve heard that before. For example, when the euro was introduced. That did not really work either, and back then too, the debate ignored the political dimension: that by giving up your own currency, you surrender a great deal of sovereignty.The&nbsp;De Telegraaf editorial of 10 November called Sleijpen’s warning “very welcome.” We must not ignore, the paper argued, “the risks for the Netherlands of the handouts to France and Italy.” According to&nbsp;De Telegraaf, it is good that the DNB president “sets the strict condition that financially unsound countries must make extra cuts if more eurobonds are introduced.” But, the editorial continued, “that is a good step, but not strict enough. The budgetary rules have been flouted for years. The Netherlands must take a hard-line stance: eurobonds are off the table for as long as countries like France and Italy have not put their house in order.”This commentary is emblematic of the financial-economic tunnel vision to which the eurobond debate has been reduced. “Putting their house in order” and “risks.” First of all, they are never going to put their house in order. You can’t turn Greeks into Germans. You can’t turn the French into the Dutch, no matter how many agreements you make, how many “watchdogs” and “control mechanisms” you build in. The economies of Southern Europe will remain weaker than those of Northern Europe for generations to come. As a result, they will always have to borrow at higher interest rates, and will therefore always cost the Northern countries money if we collectivise the debts.But secondly, the problem is more fundamental: it concerns the transfer of sovereignty. Once the European Union can issue its own debt, federalisation will accelerate rapidly. The remaining sovereignty will evaporate, because the EU will no longer need the member states’ approval for the projects it pursues.The EU would then become a superstate with its own army, its own government, and its own debts. Dutch politicians would look on and say that this was never the deal, that we never agreed to a European army, never agreed to paying higher interest rates; never agreed to a European superstate. And yet, it came to be! So no. Don’t do it. Eurobonds are both economically irresponsible and politically unacceptable.

Eurobonds: the Rubicon for European Unification

Lidewij de Vos paid a visit to “informateur" (someone who explores the possibilities for a new government) Wouter Koolmees. In the run-up to the coalition talks, De Vos presented an alternative to the usual process of backroom politics, in which parties trade positions among themselves. According to the Forum for Democracy (FVD) parliamentary leader, government plans should be shaped on the basis of shifting majorities in Parliament. Through votes, the House of Representatives should outline the main directions for the next four years, the implementation of these directions should then be carried out by ministers.In a letter to the informer, De Vos explains how she envisions this process. The letter is reproduced below.<h3>Dear Mr Koolmees,</h3>The Netherlands was built by generations who dared to dream and had the courage to make those dreams come true. From the fight against the sea in the Golden Age to the reconstruction after 1945, from the Delta Works to the knowledge economy, time and again the Dutch have shown that the impossible becomes possible when we dare, cooperate and look ahead.Continuing that tradition is the fundamental task of every government. Not merely managing what exists, but building what is yet to come. Not passing today’s problems on to tomorrow, but solving them with vision and determination. Not keeping the Netherlands small out of fear, but making it great with ambition.With this letter, Forum for Democracy wishes to make a constructive contribution to the formation of a government that will enable the Netherlands to grow again, a government in which all Dutch people who wish to contribute are heard, and in which we work together to build a country we can be proud of.<h3>Problem analysis: thirty years of stagnation under “stable governance”</h3>Over the past 35 years, the Netherlands has enjoyed a level of political stability rarely seen. Lubbers for 12 years, Kok for 8, Balkenende for 8, Rutte for 14, all examples of the much-praised stability. Yet we must ask ourselves: what has all that stability brought us?The honest answer is painful: the Netherlands has not progressed, but regressed. Under the banner of stable governance, fundamental neglect has piled up.No major projects have been realised that structurally improve our country, no new Delta Works, no visionary infrastructure, no investments that help future generations. We have stopped building and started merely managing. There is no long-term plan for the development of the Netherlands over the next 25 to 50 years. Every government looks four years ahead, not a generation. We drift rather than set a course.Our once perfect energy system has been replaced by unreliable “wobbly energy”, while we halted our own natural gas extraction. We have made ourselves vulnerable and dependent, when we could have been energy-independent.Uncontrolled non-Western mass immigration now costs our country a net €25 billion per year, while integration fails and parallel societies emerge. Social cohesion has vanished, polarisation reigns, Dutch citizens no longer recognise their own streets and neighbourhoods.Education, healthcare and police services are struggling with shortages that were foreseen 15 years ago. There is a housing shortage of 400,000 homes, which we created ourselves by admitting millions of people while failing to build. The performance of our education system continues to decline in international rankings. The disposable income of an average household has fallen by about 40 per cent compared with 1995. People work harder yet do not move forward. The promise of prosperity has been broken.Stifling regulation, partly self-imposed, partly dictated by Brussels, has paralysed the country. Farmers can no longer farm, builders can no longer build, entrepreneurs drown in paperwork. The Netherlands has largely transferred its sovereignty to the EU. The impartiality of our legal system and the pluralism of our media are under pressure.This is the harsh truth: so-called “stable governance” has brought the Netherlands and its citizens very little good over the past 35 years. Stability can also mean stagnation, and stagnation is decline in a world that keeps moving.<h3>Short-term task: immediate relief for the Dutch people</h3>The new government must show, from day one, that politics makes a difference in people’s daily lives, not in four years, but within six months.An end to mass immigration as the first priority. A direct asylum stop, expansion of existing remigration legislation, and the restoration of Dutch control over our borders are crucial to restoring calm and cohesion in society. Labour migration should only be permitted where genuinely needed and with high quality standards.Restoring our prosperity. Dutch families must experience a tangible improvement in purchasing power. That means: drastic tax cuts for workers, lower energy costs, affordable groceries, financed from the tens of billions currently spent annually on migration and climate policies. Concretely, this means at least €400 net more per month for average households.Solving the housing shortage. By cutting through bureaucracy, promoting remigration and investing in rooftop extensions and property divisions, we must free up 100,000 housing spaces per year. Young people should again be able to live independently from the age of 22, and families should have room to grow.Restoring our energy independence. The Groningen gas fields should be reopened for Dutch use, we must invest in nuclear energy and stop the “wobbly energy” that makes us dependent and poorer. Groningen must be fully compensated and made earthquake-proof. This will immediately lead to lower energy bills and strategic security.And finally, deregulation. We will impose a maximum processing time of six months for all permits. We will halt the nitrogen policy that is destroying our world-class farmers based on dubious models. We will let entrepreneurs do business again.The billions saved will be invested in Dutch families, education and healthcare. These measures will give people breathing space, restore confidence, and demonstrate that the Netherlands can once again be a country where hard work is rewarded.<h3>Long-term focus: the Netherlands of 2050</h3>But a government that only extinguishes fires does not build a future. The Netherlands needs an ambitious long-term vision to once again make our country a world leader. We must start building grand projects as our forefathers did.Schiphol at sea: an artificial island off the coast of IJmuiden capable of handling 100 million passengers and freeing up 2,700 hectares in the Randstad for housing and nature. A&nbsp;hyperloop network connecting all of the Netherlands within 15 minutes, linking regions and cities efficiently. New Maasvlakte extensions for our port and energy projects.These are not fantasies but achievable projects that create employment, prosperity and pride. We must invest in sectors where we are global leaders: ASML and the semiconductor industry, agri-tech and precision farming, maritime innovation, and cybersecurity.We must also build a strong, specialised defence industry by allocating part of the defence budget for that purpose. We must reform our education system so that we once again train top talent in the fields that make the Netherlands strong: technology, the sciences, healthcare, and education itself.Focus on excellence and practical ability. We must restore the soul of the Netherlands: respect for those who work and create, care for one another in communities, pride in our identity and achievements, and freedom to speak one’s mind. Not through preaching but through action, by granting freedom, restoring trust, and building a society people want to belong to. This Netherlands, prosperous, safe, free, innovative, proud, is within reach within 25 years.<h3>New cabinet: broad support and true representation</h3>These great tasks, immediate relief and long-term vision, require a government that represents the Netherlands, not just The Hague. That means all parts of society must see themselves reflected in the cabinet: working people, entrepreneurs, farmers, healthcare workers, technicians, students and teachers. Not only administrators and political professionals, but people with practical experience who know how the Netherlands really works.It also means that citizens must be able to have their say on major policies through binding referendums. Direct democracy strengthens the bond between citizens and government.Our preference is for an approach in which the House of Representatives first votes freely on various themes, after which specialist ministers are appointed to implement those decisions. Topics on which majorities already exist, such as restricting immigration, introducing a binding referendum, and starting the construction of new nuclear power stations, can thus finally be acted upon. In this way, we break the deadlock of a sealed coalition agreement and promote dynamic, democratic decision-making that reflects the will of the people.Concretely, this would mean starting with a series of general votes in the House to determine on which issues majorities currently exist. For example, on the “right”: restricting asylum and migration law, investing in nuclear energy, reducing regulatory burdens, maintaining mortgage interest relief. But also, on the “left”: democratic reform, improving education, introducing binding referendums, phasing the healthcare deductible.The House could then elect a Prime Minister from among its own members, similar to how the Speaker of the House is currently chosen. This Prime Minister could appoint ministers in consultation with the parties that, depending on the portfolio, belong to the “majority” that emerged during the votes.A Minister of Finance, directly accountable to the Prime Minister, would act as coordinator. Meanwhile, the House could exercise control over policy, adjust where necessary, and, if needed, call a referendum.Only with such a broadly supported cabinet will social cohesion return. Only then can we overcome polarisation and build together. Only then will we regain the trust necessary for great change.<h3>Conclusion</h3>Forum for Democracy wishes to make a constructive contribution to this process. We are prepared to take on government responsibility, not out of self-interest, but because the Netherlands needs this change of course.We bring concrete, achievable plans. We bring connection with millions of Dutch citizens who feel unheard. And we have the courage to take bold decisions. The Netherlands does not need another four years of drift, but a government that builds and looks ahead, that dares, that leads. A government that continues the legacy of generations of Dutch who made the impossible possible.Let us build together a Netherlands where everyone who wants to contribute, counts. A Netherlands that grows again. A Netherlands we can be proud of. A Netherlands for our children.With kind regards and a willingness for constructive dialogue,Lidewij de Vos Parliamentary Leader, Forum for Democracy Member of the House of Representatives of the States General

large_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

medium_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

small_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

thumbnail_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

Lidewij de Vos in Conversation with Wouter Koolmees about Government Formation

Forum for Democracy does not present itself as a Christian party. So why would I, as a Christian, pass over parties such as the CDA, the Christian Union, and even the SGP, to give this party my vote and to be active within it? Below are a few fundamental considerations that, for me, have been decisive.<h3>1. Since the Enlightenment, God Has Been Declared Dead</h3>It is highly doubtful whether the spirit of the Enlightenment has truly passed the Church by. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I sometimes fear that with the passing of Cornelis Graafland, we also lost the last Reformed believer still earnestly searching for God.Today, the Church seems full of people who imagine they have God – reverently speaking – in their pocket, and who live from the prayer:&nbsp;“Thank you that I am not like those others…” From that mindset, they engage in politics – if necessary invoking the Old Testament (as in the SGP, where the prophets have been replaced by appeals to Romans 13) or the Gospels (as in the Christian Union, which places everything on the card of imitating Christ).In fact, there is only one party that ruthlessly exposes such well-intentioned yet shallow political theology, and that is Forum for Democracy.Too often, God is identified with the state. We ourselves are reduced to compliant citizens (as in the SGP and among CDA figures like Tijs van den Brink, who “want to be able to trust the government”). Others reduce God in Jesus to a kind of moral reformer whom we must simply emulate for the sake of harmony and social peace (as in the Christian Union and the CDA).Forum for Democracy alone, I believe, tears through this kind of sentimental political theology. My experience over recent years is that many within the party are again searching for the God behind Jesus – the God who cannot be identified with any state or supranational body: the God who was wrongly declared dead, the almighty and gracious Creator of heaven and earth.<h3>2. The Tension Between&nbsp;Already and&nbsp;Not Yet</h3>I called the political theology of much of today’s Christian politics shallow because it no longer seems able to sustain the essential Christian tension between the&nbsp;already and the&nbsp;not yet of redemption. Since God was declared dead, humanity has decided to take His creative work into its own hands, to perfect the world according to its own desires. Every supposed problem is immediately politicised, and responsibility for solving it is eagerly handed to supranational authorities.What is especially striking is that this kind of politics is now supported by Christians – with only faint protest from the SGP.<blockquote>We see Christians joining hands with secularists to bring about, once and for all, the Kingdom of God, or at least God’s realm of peace, here on earth.</blockquote>This aspiration surfaces in many areas. In health, through Pandemic Treaties and mRNA vaccines, we seek to make the human body so resilient that viruses can no longer touch it. In climate policy, through Green Deals and energy transitions, we strive to become masters of the processes of climate change.To preserve the sustainability of our welfare state, the UN now proposes, under the banner of&nbsp;Replacement Migration, policies that seem to undo the scattering of nations after the Tower of Babel. This is then facilitated here through the&nbsp;European Migration and Asylum Pact. And as if that were not enough, our politicians have also pledged themselves to the&nbsp;Sustainable Development Goals, promising to eradicate poverty and inequality once and for all.Forum for Democracy recognises here – often intuitively, sometimes very consciously – a form of politics that runs counter to the foundations of our Judeo-Christian civilisation: the conviction that this earthly life cannot be perfected through human effort. A politics that seeks to establish God’s peaceable kingdom on earth must, therefore, be rejected as heretical.Whether we speak of the heresy of Pelagianism (E.P. Meijering), Anabaptist radicalism (A.A. van Ruler), or Gnosticism (Eric Voegelin) makes little difference. All are driven by a pride that inevitably comes before the fall.<h3>3. On Pride and Naivety</h3>Is it really necessary to accuse today’s Christian politics of something as dreadful as pride? Personally, I always try to assume good intentions. Yet history has shown often enough that the road to hell is paved with them (F.A. Hayek).<blockquote>This raises the question of whether, during the recent pandemic, the power of our God-given immune system was not seriously underestimated.</blockquote>When, with the very best intentions, one is blind to the harmful side effects of one’s own policies, that is naivety. You can reproach secular people for that, but not believing Christians who still know their own tradition. And when such Christians dismiss prophetic voices that warn of these side effects as sinister populists, praying meanwhile,&nbsp;“Thank you that I am not like these…”, then that surely borders on pride.As Christians, we must not close our eyes to the negative side effects – long predicted by critics – of government measures during the coronavirus period, including the universal vaccination campaign. Again, it is worth asking whether the strength of our Creator-given immune system was not systematically underestimated.As a result of our climate policies, energy poverty has risen alarmingly.&nbsp; Grid congestion has compounded economic and social harm by limiting business activity and house-building. Meanwhile, scientists tell us that the effect of these measures on climate change is negligible, while we risk slowing the greening of our planet. A wiser course would be to combine our stewardship of creation with a deep awareness of our smallness before God and the natural forces He created, the forces we now group together under the word&nbsp;climate.Nor should we ignore the negative effects of current migration policy. The alienation many migrants feel, with all the risks of radicalisation among second and third generations, remains underestimated. Beyond the social disruption in local communities, public safety is also deteriorating, particularly for women and for sexual and ethnic minorities in large cities. The same applies to tolerance and to the mutual trust on which it depends.What I encounter within Forum for Democracy are people suffering from the emptiness that the “death of God” has left in our everyday lives.Even when it comes to the negative consequences of well-intentioned policy, Forum for Democracy is the party that most consistently identifies them and puts forward alternatives.<blockquote>What I see in Forum are people who feel the ache of that void – who are again searching for the God once recognised as the source of life and the guiding point of our civilisation.&nbsp;</blockquote>At the same time, they see a politics that seeks to fill this emptiness by claiming for itself the role once reserved for God before the Enlightenment. Where that leads, the European and world wars have already shown us all too clearly.Yet the allure of a politics that aims to establish God’s kingdom of peace on earth remains strong. Within Forum there is a deep mistrust of such politics. That mistrust leads the party, for now, to prefer a stance of principled opposition, continually questioning the worldview that underpins the present political order.It is tragic that parties which so often invoke the Bible and call for the imitation of Jesus no longer seem to have any sensitivity to this. More tragic still: they frequently display the same impulse to demonise as secular parties. But as with so much else,&nbsp;you only begin to see it once you realise it.That is why I can, with a clear conscience and full conviction, be active within Forum for Democracy.

medium_hans-van-de-breevaart_.jpg

small_hans-van-de-breevaart_.jpg

thumbnail_hans-van-de-breevaart_.jpg

Why I, as a Christian, Support Forum for Democracy

Lidewij de Vos was interviewed by Ongehoord Nederland (Unheard Netherlands) shortly after the result was announced in the recent Dutch national elections. She reiterated her desire to see a technical government with decisions taken by shifting majorities in the Second Chamber of the Dutch States-General (the parliament). Unfortunately, for the time being, it looks as if the usual suspects – the parties which have governed the country for at least the last decade – will get together in a huddle and eventually produce a coalition which continues all the failed policies already in place - especially the EU, climate policy and the war in Ukraine. Moreover, they will not implement FVD’s primary demand - the introduction of binding referenda into the Dutch constitution. In short, they will do everything to shut out popular and parliamentary involvement in government, in order remorselessly to pursue the globalist project. The system has a lot of life left in it.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0fXWkJqfGo">Watch Lidewij’s interview here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_56540f2bea.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, gave an interview about the Dutch elections to the French TV station, TV Libertés, which has given prominence to FVD on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ArYkdNVJjA#t=4m59s">several</a> occasions in the past. (Thierry Baudet was interviewed by the channel&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLDDckwAW0A">last year</a>.) John said that the election was above all a defeat for the PVV of Geert Wilders, which has governed the country for over a year. Just as many FVD voters voted for Wilders in 2023, so they have returned to FVD now. FVD is not just a more radical party than the PVV but also more structured. PVV campaigns on only one issue and has only one member (Wilders himself) whereas FVD covers a wide range of subjects and tries to solve problems at their root. As for the D66 party which formally won the elections, this is yet another iteration of the kind of political marketing stings we have seen repeatedly over recent decades, in particular with Barack Obama and Emmanuel Macron: youthfulness, change, hope, Europe, blah blah blah. Plus ça change…<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0hIi0Al9kM">Watch John’s interview here (in French)</a><img src="/uploads/image_a32527583f.png">One of the issues which distinguishes FVD from the PVV is remigration.&nbsp; FVD is for it, PVV is not. FVD International is delighted to republish an in-depth paper by our friend and Forum guest, Cyan Quinn. She argues that the Great Replacement of the American population is due to deliberate policy, in particular the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 which eliminated restrictions on the national origin of immigrants and instead imposed overall quotas, independent of ethnic origin. As Cyan puts it very pointedly, the authors of this Act, and those who have supported a colour-blind immigration policy since, have ‘sold the nation out for cheap labour for their corporate donors, cheap nannies for their career obsessed wives and cheap gardeners for their lavish suburban gardens.’ Strong stuff.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/The-once-and-future-america">Read Cyan Quinn’s paper here</a><img src="/uploads/image_245e9eafb3.png">We had an exceptional guest on The Forum this week, Diego Sequera, who joined us live from Caracas. Will Trump invade Venezuela or is this another example of TACO – Trump always chickens out? Either way, US foreign policy is a sh*t show.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBir9dDZKjw">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_unnamed (4).jpg

medium_unnamed (4).jpg

small_unnamed (4).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (4).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 10 November 2025

Forum for Democracy had a fabulous result in the parliamentary elections held on 29 October – 7 seats, up from 3 in the previous parliament. This more than doubling of our score is a source of great joy and&nbsp; the trajectory is hugely encouraging, testimony (we hope) to the intellectual rigour of our party and to its exceptional&nbsp;esprit de corps.FVD is a radical party – from&nbsp;radix in Latin, the root. We try to go to the root of problems. Asked about a future government coalition, FVD lead candidate Lidewij de Vos came up with a radical proposal: let’s forget about the shady world of coalition building, in which party grandees horse-trade parts of their manifesto for months on end in order to get control of this or that ministry and then exclude the rest of the Members of Parliament as ‘the opposition’. Let us instead have neutral (technocratic) ministers with policy choices made by Parliament on a case by case basis. According to this plan, the government would implement decisions taken in Parliament or by referendum, instead of the current arrangement where a shaky coalition takes all the decisions until it collapses.Now, there’s a novel plan!<a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pVOzbUhzq48">Watch Lidewij’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_a0d0b485e5.png">Academic freedom, like free speech, is in need of permanent defence.&nbsp; Unfortunately the battle is currently not going well. The ‘liberal fascists’ (Jonah Goldberg) are waging a largely successful war against ‘disinformation’ – their favourite go-to phrase to condemn or ban any view with which they disagree. Emmanuel Macron in France is vowing to ‘take control’ of social media - an explicitly anti-democratic project. This is surely because generations have been educated to think this way. As Thomas Fazi has recently shown in a magnificent report for MCC Brussels, the EU spends tens of millions of euros supporting EU propaganda in universities through the Jean Monnet programme. As he shows, these so-called academics are in fact pushing an explicitly pro-EU agenda and therefore structuring the minds of young people to believe unquestioningly in the EU project.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/embedding-pro-eu-propaganda-in-the-classroom-the-jean-monnet-programme">Read Thomas Fazi’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_91c130d1a6.png">We conclude our mini-series of interviews conducted by Marco van den Boomgard on a recent trip to Croatia with a conversation with Stephen Bartulica MEP, a Croatian nationalist and Christian politician who shares many of FVD’s views on traditional values and the EU. Bartulica grew up in the USA and therefore promotes both social conservatism and limited government, his perfect English bringing a clear and unaccented breath of Central European values into the European Parliament, the very temple of their emphatic rejection.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKNNgJ9JsHI">Watch Marco’s interview with Stephen Bartulica here</a><img src="/uploads/image_f07423d738.png">It is very difficult to be objective and analytical about the Middle East, especially when you are from the region, but Ali Rizk achieves the remarkable feat of being both these and also astonishingly lucid. We were honoured to have him as our guest on The Forum this week. He was fascinating. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8VP59IeLw">Listen to The Forum here</a>

large_unnamed (3).jpg

medium_unnamed (3).jpg

small_unnamed (3).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (3).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 3 November 2025

929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

large_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

medium_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

small_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

thumbnail_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

The Once And Future America

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Who Lost America with Stephen Baskerville

De Vos To The House Of Representatives: Restore Your Vote And Honour Your Electorate! | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: The Truth about Diet with Dr Zoe Harcombe, PhD

FVD Nationalists Win Seats in the Netherlands - Exclusive Commentary from John Laughland | TVL (FR)

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Venezuela with Diego Sequera

Lidewij de Vos Reacts to FVD’s Big Election Win | FVD

Lidewij de Vos Reacts to Electoral Victory: &quot;Parliament Must Act Now&quot; | FVD #shorts

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Peace in Gaza with Ali Rizk

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: The Truth About China with Simon Elmer

My Message To The Netherlands | Lidewij de Vos (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