The IND (Immigration and Naturalisation Service) pays out millions of euros each year to asylum seekers in penalty payments because asylum procedures take too long. In 2024, this amounted to no less than €36.8 million in total, up to as much as €37,500 per asylum seeker.This arrangement is intended as an administrative incentive for the government to handle procedures promptly, but in practice it creates a perverse incentive for asylum seekers: failing to cooperate and causing delays can result in financial gain. This is the world turned upside down.Party leader De Vos is putting down parliamentary questions and proposing that penalty payments should no longer be paid to asylum seekers but instead be used for the benefit of Dutch citizens through tax reductions. Below are the parliamentary questions from Lidewij de Vos.<hr>Questions from the Member De Vos to the Ministers for Asylum and Migration regarding the millions of euros in penalty payments being paid to asylum seekers<ol><li>Have you taken note of the NOS article of 14 January this year, which states that in 2024 the IND paid out a total of €36.8 million in penalty payments to asylum seekers? (1)</li><li>How do you assess the fact that millions of euros in penalty payments are being paid to asylum seekers and that these payments can amount to as much as €37,000 per case?</li><li>How much has the IND paid out in penalty payments in 2025, and what was the maximum amount per case?</li><li>Do you share the opinion of the submitting member that it is undesirable for asylum seekers to be able to receive tens of thousands of euros through penalty payments? Please explain your answer.</li><li>Do you share the view of both the COA and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State that the penalty payment scheme is intended as an administrative incentive for timely decision-making and not as financial compensation or a source of income for asylum seekers? Please explain your answer.</li><li>Do you agree with the submitting member that the current penalty payment scheme may create a perverse incentive, whereby it becomes attractive for asylum seekers to obstruct their procedure as much as possible? If not, why not? If so, do you consider this desirable?</li><li>Are you prepared to investigate the possibilities of abolishing penalty payments to asylum seekers or, at the very least, reducing them? Please explain your answer.</li><li>Are you prepared to investigate the possibilities of no longer paying penalty payments to asylum seekers, but instead allocating them to working Dutch citizens in the form of an annual tax credit? Please explain your answer.</li><li>Can you answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from one another?</li></ol>(1)<a href="https://nos.nl/artikel/2598154-asielzoekers-die-vermogen-hebben-door-wachtgeld-moeten-meebetalen-aan-hun-opvang">&nbsp;https://nos.nl/artikel/2598154-asielzoekers-die-vermogen-hebben-door-wachtgeld-moeten-meebetalen-aan-hun-opvang</a>

large_01KHPCZ5J6JE0QSE32VBW4GBED (1).webp

medium_01KHPCZ5J6JE0QSE32VBW4GBED (1).webp

small_01KHPCZ5J6JE0QSE32VBW4GBED (1).webp

thumbnail_01KHPCZ5J6JE0QSE32VBW4GBED (1).webp

De Vos puts down parliamentary questions about penalty payments paid to asylum seekers

At least since Schiller’s essay&nbsp;‘The Theatre considered as a Moral Institution’ (1784) there has been a tendency to claim that art can improve humanity.&nbsp; This link between art and civilisation took a severe knock in the 20th century – Hitler loved Wagner but also used the operas as a political vehicle.&nbsp; In the post-war period, the same politicisation of art has continued, but in the opposite direction, as a vehicle for political correctness.&nbsp; Today culture is perhaps more politicised than ever.&nbsp; According to Peter van Duijvenvoorde MP, art has ceased to mean civilisation and has become instead a bearer of ideology.&nbsp; But art, education and science cannot resolve all social issues: to burden them with an impossible task is to distort them fatally and to render them unfree.&nbsp; Peter asked the minister of education and culture what he thought about these weighty civilisational issues.&nbsp; Is it unfair to assume that the poor minister had never even thought about it? Only FVD asks the questions.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRsjxIzo_DI">Watch Peter’s speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_93bfacc3a8.png">It’s official – the EU has become totalitarian.&nbsp; When two European citizens were placed under EU sanctions – they were forbidden to travel and their assets were frozen, making it impossible for them to access their own money in their bank accounts – Gideon van Meijeren MP put down questions to the Dutch government about this manifest injustice.&nbsp; How can you sanction someone – punish them – if there has not been a trial and no right of defence?&nbsp; In his answers, the Dutch Foreign Minister confirmed that the basic elements of the rule of law are being abandoned in Europe: he accepts that sanctions are imposed for acts which are not illegal; that the presumption of innocence does not prevent persons from being sanctioned; and that the Council has ‘a wide margin of discretion’ in deciding whom to sanction.&nbsp; The minister even has the gall to reference, in support of this last argument, a case last year where a sanctioned individual’s appeal was rejected!&nbsp; And when asked whether he was prepared to argue that sanctions should not be applied to journalists or political commentators, the minister replied, ‘No.&nbsp; Sanctions are administrative measures aimed at behavioural change.’&nbsp; This is incidentally also what the spokesman of the German Foreign Ministry also recently told a recalcitrant journalist: stop asking difficult questions or you’re next.&nbsp; You have been warned.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/parliamentary-questions-by-gideon-van-meijeren-fvd-on-eu-sanctions-responses">Read Gideon’s questions and the minister’s answers here</a><img src="/uploads/image_9e89400e1b.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, was a guest on Pascal Lottaz’ ‘Neutrality Studies’ podcast this week.&nbsp; Pascal is a young lecturer at the University of Kyoto, originally from Switzerland, whence his interest in neutrality.&nbsp; His podcast is superb.&nbsp; John and the other guest, Peter Lavelle, discussed the Sovietisation of the EU and the intellectual trajectory which had led them to be sceptical – critical, even – of NATO, the EU and the collective West in general.&nbsp; John emphasised that the root of the problem is the burgeoning power of the security services which currently wield a stranglehold over European governments – just like in the old Sovietsky Soyuz.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATULbUxrxSM&amp;list=PLgfli1PY64h3bpPsycG1E1PquoujN9wII&amp;index=5">Watch John’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_c952b04d5c.png">John also spoke at a big gathering of sovereignist parties in Paris last week, organised by the economist Philippe Murer.&nbsp; There are several pro-Frexit groupings in France and most of them attended the event, including their respective leaders.&nbsp; Philippe is convinced they need to work together – not always an easy task.&nbsp; The subject of the discussion was Brexit and John was joined on the panel by a brilliant expert on the subject, Jean-Michel Salmon.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUyrv_2JFU">Watch John’s panel discussion here (in French, with automatic subtitles)</a><img src="/uploads/image_a5c629261b.png">Mark Sleboda and Steven Jermy were our guests on The Forum this week, to discuss the changing nature of war.&nbsp; From nuclear weapons, which Mark and Steve think could soon be used, to drones, which have dramatically changed how land warfare is waged, they ranged over the different issues.&nbsp; For Mark, the looming attack on Iran is the litmus test of whether or not the West will retain its hegemony.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aFKepGdup4">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 20 February.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 20 February.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 20 February.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 20 February.png

The Weekly Forum - 20 February 2026

Questions from Member of Parliament Van Meijeren (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the EU sanctions regime (submitted 12 January 2026)Answer from Minister Van Weel (Foreign Affairs) (received 27 January 2026)<hr><h3>Question 1</h3>Are you familiar with the report “EU declares critics fair game”? (1)<h3>Answer 1</h3>Yes.<hr><h3>Question 2</h3>Are you familiar with Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 of 8 October 2024 concerning “restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities”? Can you confirm that this decision provides for sanctions against natural persons, including EU citizens and residents, and not exclusively against states or foreign entities? How does this relate to the scope of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which forms the legal basis for the decision and, by virtue of its inclusion in Title V of the TEU, concerns the Union’s external action and the Common Foreign and Security Policy?<h3>Answer 2</h3>Yes, I am familiar with Council Decision 2024/2643. This concerns the sanctions regime in response to Russian destabilising activities. The sanctions list attached to this decision includes persons involved in such activities, regardless of their nationality. The scope of Article 29 TEU is not limited to measures that affect only persons in third countries. What is decisive is whether the measures are necessary to achieve the objectives of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, as set out in Article 21 TEU. Subject to the applicable legal frameworks and safeguards, the Union may also impose sanctions on EU citizens and residents.<hr><h3>Question 3</h3>How do you assess the fact that, in recital 8 of this decision, Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) is described as a “mostly non-illegal pattern of behaviour”, and that placement on the sanctions list therefore does not require a criminal offence or otherwise unlawful conduct? Can you confirm that EU residents who do nothing illegal may, under this decision, be subjected to far-reaching sanctions such as travel restrictions (Article 1 of the decision) and the freezing of funds and economic resources (Article 2 of the decision)?<h3>Answer 3</h3>The recitals to the decision provide explanatory context and are not legally binding. The decision concerns actions or policy measures by Russia that undermine or threaten democracy, the rule of law, stability or security in the Union or in one or more of its Member States, in an international organisation or in a third country, or that undermine or threaten the sovereignty or independence of one or more Member States or of a third country. The Government is of the view that these activities undermine or threaten the fundamental values and the security, independence and integrity of the Union. The conduct of persons involved in such activities does not necessarily have to be criminal. Sanctions are imposed to bring about a change in the policy or activities of external actors, not to hold individuals accountable for committing criminal offences.<hr><h3>Question 4</h3>How do you assess the fact that the decision does not provide for rule-of-law safeguards such as the presumption of innocence, prior hearing of the person concerned, and substantive review by an independent court?<h3>Answer 4</h3>EU sanctions measures, such as Decision 2024/2643, do in fact comply with various legal requirements and rule-of-law safeguards. There is settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard. When a person is placed on an EU sanctions list, the Council must inform that person of the elements on which it bases its decision. Subsequently, the Council must give that person the opportunity to make his or her views on the reasons relied upon known in an appropriate manner (2). Listings are reviewed regularly (see Article 10 of the decision). If the Council takes new information into account in order to maintain a person on the list, that person must be heard in advance (3). Each time the Council adopts a decision concerning the person concerned—both the initial listing and decisions to maintain the listing—the person has the right to bring an action before the General Court of the European Union (Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Appeals against judgments of the General Court may be brought before the Court of Justice. For the avoidance of doubt, the presumption of innocence does not preclude the adoption of restrictive measures. These measures are preventive in nature and do not constitute criminal prosecution (4). In view of these safeguards, I am of the opinion that adequate legal protection is afforded to persons placed on EU sanctions lists.<hr><h3>Question 5</h3>Do you acknowledge that, when a natural person brings an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 263 TFEU against a sanctions decision, the Court generally limits itself to reviewing procedural requirements and applies only marginal substantive review? How do you assess this alleged lack of proper legal protection for those affected?<h3>Answer 5</h3>The General Court may review the legality of the decision to place a person on the list; this does not amount to merely marginal review. Judicial review includes, inter alia, an assessment of whether the decision is based on a sufficiently solid factual basis—that is, whether there is sufficient evidence in the file to substantiate the reasons put forward by the Council. At least one of the reasons must be adequately substantiated in order to serve as the basis for the decision (5). The General Court may also examine whether fundamental rights have been infringed, such as the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection. Case law recognises that, under the principle of proportionality, the Council enjoys a wide margin of discretion in areas involving political choices and complex assessments. Only where a decision is manifestly inappropriate in light of the objective pursued does it affect the lawfulness of the restrictive measure (6).<hr><h3>Question 6</h3>Are you familiar with Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2572 of 15 December 2025, by which, on the basis of the aforementioned decision, twelve natural persons and two entities were added to the sanctions list?<h3>Answer 6</h3>Yes.<hr><h3>Question 7</h3>How do you assess the fact that the persons sanctioned under this implementing decision include journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, such as Jacques Baud, Xavier Moreau, Fyodor Lukyanov and Ivan Timofeev?<h3>Answer 7</h3>For each individual, a body of evidence is compiled prior to sanctioning, demonstrating that the criteria set out in the sanctions regime are met. The occupation of the person concerned is not, in itself, a decisive criterion.<hr><h3>Question 8</h3>How do you assess the fact that the “Statement of Reasons” for these persons largely consists of characterisations such as “acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda”, “promotes Kremlin narratives” and “justifies Russian actions”, without any demonstrable criminal offences or even any (financial) links with the Kremlin? Do you acknowledge that, in this way, natural persons may be subjected to far-reaching sanctions purely on the basis of expressing an unwelcome opinion that is not a criminal opinion? Do you share the view that this effectively shifts the scope of the sanctions regime from combating external threats to disciplining expressions and viewpoints? How do you assess this in light of freedom of expression?<h3>Answer 8</h3>There is settled case law of the Court of Justice regarding the obligation on the Council to state reasons. The Council must give specific and concrete reasons why it considers that a measure should be adopted. However, it is not necessary for all relevant facts and circumstances to be specified. It is sufficient that the person concerned can understand the essence of the measure (7). The General Court may examine whether the obligation to state reasons has been fulfilled. The imposition of a sanction aims to bring about a change in the policy or activities of external actors and not to hold persons or entities accountable for committing criminal offences. Moreover, sanctions are not directed against the mere expression of an opinion by individuals, but against the destabilising actions or policy measures of Russia as described in the answer to Question 3. The Government acknowledges that the imposition of restrictive measures may limit freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, such limitations, laid down by law, may be justified under Article 51(1) of the Charter in view of the EU-recognised objective of general interest of promoting peace and the security of its peoples (see Article 3(5) TEU).<hr><h3>Question 9</h3>Are you prepared to argue within the Council for limiting the application of this sanctions regime to persons who are guilty of criminal or demonstrably violent acts? Are you also prepared to argue that sanctions imposed on journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, particularly EU residents, who do not make criminal statements should be lifted or avoided? If not, why not?<h3>Answer 9</h3>No, I am not prepared to do so. Sanctions are administrative measures aimed at behavioural change and are not imposed for the prosecution of criminal offences. It is therefore not decisive for the imposition of sanctions whether the activities concerned are criminal or not. What is decisive for this sanctions regime is whether persons are responsible for, implement, support or benefit from destabilising actions or policy measures of Russia.<hr><h3>Question 10</h3>Can you answer these questions separately and within the prescribed time limit?<h3>Answer 10</h3>Yes.Notes<ol><li>K. Beckman,&nbsp;EU declares critics fair game, De Andere Krant, 9 January 2026, available online via<a href="https://deanderekrant.nl/eu-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij/">&nbsp;https://deanderekrant.nl/eu-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij/</a></li><li>See the judgment of 18 July 2013,&nbsp;Commission and Others v Kadi, C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518, paragraphs 111 and 112.</li><li>See the judgment of 18 June 2015,&nbsp;Ipatau v Council, C-535/14 P, EU:C:2015:407, paragraph 26.</li><li>See the judgment of 16 October 2024,&nbsp;CRA v Council, T-201/23, EU:T:2024:697, paragraph 67.</li><li>See the judgment of 1 August 2025,&nbsp;Timchenko, C-702/23, EU:C:2025:605, paragraph 38.</li><li>See the judgment of 23 July 2025,&nbsp;OT v Council, T-1095/23, EU:T:2025:744, paragraphs 208 and 209.</li><li>See the judgment&nbsp;OT v Council, T-193/22, paragraph 64.</li></ol>&nbsp;

large_2880x2160a.jpg

medium_2880x2160a.jpg

small_2880x2160a.jpg

thumbnail_2880x2160a.jpg

Parliamentary Questions by Gideon van Meijeren on EU Sanctions - Minister Van Weel’s Responses

wew-13-51-baudet-1553770076-scaled-3-1024x683.jpg

large_wew-13-51-baudet-1553770076-scaled-3-1024x683.jpg

medium_wew-13-51-baudet-1553770076-scaled-3-1024x683.jpg

small_wew-13-51-baudet-1553770076-scaled-3-1024x683.jpg

thumbnail_wew-13-51-baudet-1553770076-scaled-3-1024x683.jpg

“There's a proper reawakening across Europe going on”

Following its stunning electoral success last October – from 3 seats in Parliament to 7 – FVD now stands at 13 or 14 seats in the opinion polls. With this astonishing momentum, FVD is putting up candidates in 104 municipalities for the local elections in March. The politico-media establishment has pressed the panic button, alleging, obsessively, with the aid of grotesque dehumanising cartoons, and on the basis of WhatsApp messages gleaned God knows how from nearly 10 years ago, that the party is full of Nazis. Nothing new about that – the trick was tried in 2021 and caused a split in the party back then. The only surprising thing is that the same establishment has been turning a blind eye to real Nazis in Ukraine for four years now. Parliamentary party leader Lidewij de Vos addressed these attacks in a superb to-camera speech, which we have translated with AI. She really is formidable.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hduZsqopULY">Watch Lidewij’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_9d1888e0c7.png">FVD International’s Director, John Laughland, was again interviewed on the Australian TV channel The World Today last week. He addressed the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s report on censorship in the EU. As John knows because he used to lecture in Paris on ‘democracy and the media’ (until the lectures were stopped because the students protested that he was criticising NATO!) a huge censorship-industrial complex was built up on the initiative of the USA following the first Trump election in 2016 and the Brexit vote of that year. ‘The Revolt of the Elites’ (Christopher Lasch foresaw it all in 1995) ensued and billions were spent policing anti-establishment speech. It is no doubt good that the US Congress is getting its teeth into the matter and would be even better if European parliaments would do the same – and if the US Congress also examined what has been done in the US itself.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_XqlYOFUyY">Watch John’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_348436ae3b.png">John was also interviewed by the French politician François Asselineau on the official channel of his Union Populaire Républicaine party. Asselineau is the only French politician to have consistently called for France to leave the EU, the euro and NATO, for the last 18 years and more. Their conversation ranged over a wide range of issues, from the Epstein files, the rise of Reform UK and the Sovietisation of Europe to the war in Ukraine.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu_tMyC20tE">Watch John’s interview here (in French)</a><img src="/uploads/image_7c8780da9c.png">In November last year, Thierry Baudet, Peter van Duijvenvoorde and John Laughland were honoured to be invited to an international meeting in Vienna and in Schloss Artstetten in Lower Austria. Artstetten is the seat of the Hohenberg dynasty, created when the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, married Countess Sophie Chotek. The couple were famously assassinated in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, triggering the First World War. Their great-grandson, Prince Leo von Hohenberg, welcomed the guests and delivered a magnificent speech on the dangers of globalism. The assassination is one of the greatest illustrations that history is never inevitable – it might not have happened and it might have not succeeded. Globalism, by contrast, is a solidly established series of policy choices which unfortunately owe nothing to chance and which must be decisively destroyed.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuVqjtmUEMw">Watch Prince Leo von Hohenberg’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_41a5226fed.png">Tarik Cyril Amar from Koç University in Istanbul and Stevan Gajic from the Institute of European Studies in Belgrade were our guests on The Forum this week, discussing EU censorship (a big subject). If you missed it, watch back here.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avTFwkh7msg">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 12 February 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 12 February 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 12 February 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 12 February 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 12 February 2026

More than a decade ago, NATO bigwigs adopted the concept of ‘hybrid warfare’, which sometimes they also call ‘the grey zone’ between war and peace. Groupthink has made these into buzz words which they all repeat. Yet they are extremely dangerous. If there is no longer any distinction between war and peace, it means we are at war all the time. This is the conceptual foundation of the security state – the subjection of all of politics and society to the demands of ‘security’, or rather to the dictates of the security services. In a recent committee hearing, Peter van Duyvenvoorde MP tackled the Foreign Minister about the implications of putting the armed forces in charge of cyberwarfare, especially considering the fact that ‘disinformation’ (i.e. an opinion you don’t like) has long been classified as a security threat. Moreover, taking IT wizz kids out of business and into the service of the state will place that sector under even greater stress than it is now. Only FVD asks the questions. Will we ever get answers?<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNcKfYBzqqQ">Watch Peter van Duijvenvoorde here</a><img src="/uploads/image_c0bbd68c66.png">‘You can have any colour so long as it is black.’ Henry Ford’s famous quip applies to today’s politics. You can vote however you like, the result will always be the same.&nbsp; This is what has happened in the Netherlands. If you add up all the votes which went to right-wing parties, they exceed those which went to the left and the centre. But because the left won by a whisker, they get to form the government. The new government has duly decided not to implement any of the policies for which the electorate voted, especially not on immigration which most people now admit must be brought under control. FVD’s parliamentary leader, Lidewij de Vos, deplored this stitch-up in a recent statement to Parliament. The only good news is that it is a minority government which means that it should be vulnerable to pressure from both inside and outside of Parliament. FVD intends to make full use of the possibilities this offers.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/forum-for-democracys-reaction-to-the-plans-of-the-new-governing-coalition">Read Lidewij’s statement here</a><img src="/uploads/image_e5f558eae5.png">Thierry Baudet, FVD party leader, having temporarily left Parliament, his place has been taken by Tom Russcher. Tom gave his maiden speech recently on the barbaric violence of which first responders are increasingly the victims. The cause of this is a collapse in civilised values, which in turn is the consequence of the destruction of social and national cohesion. Immigration is clearly a factor behind this, yet successive governments have done nothing to stem it. Instead, they try to manage the symptoms by placing ever more onerous regulations on the whole of society.&nbsp; But order cannot exist without a cultural foundation. It cannot be brought into existence by force and control alone. Only FVD homes in on the real threats to our civilisation and, even more importantly, on the origins of those threats.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTAJzl-uCgE">Watch Tom Russcher’s maiden speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_48a27945a6.png">The wonderful Pascal Lottaz and the formidable Mark Sleboda were our guests on The Forum this week to discuss Trump’s foreign policy, if there is one. If you want to find out, listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrAYp6MwdCA&amp;t=12s">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 5 February 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 5 February 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 5 February 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 5 February 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 5 February 2026

Unfortunately, our fears about the proposals of the three parties of the new governing coalition, D66, VVD and CDA, have been confirmed: in almost every area, these parties are heading in the wrong direction.There is no proposal to tackle mass immigration: no asylum freeze, no repeal of the Distribution Act, let alone withdrawal from European rules or any serious focus on returns to countries of origin. Instead, the parties propose more structural reception facilities, which will lead to increased inflow. These plans stand in stark contrast to the wish of the vast majority of the Dutch population to put an end once and for all to this heavy burden on our society.The three parties are proposing a new tax, euphemistically referred to as a&nbsp;Freedom contribution, which is expected to raise €5 billion per year from 2027 (almost €600 per household per year). This money would then be spent directly on wars that are not in our interest.In the fields of climate and nitrogen policy, the parties also want to allocate billions to measures which demonstrably have no positive impact on the climate or the environment, but which do have far-reaching consequences for our economy, which make our energy supply more unstable and which increase our dependence on foreign energy. New statutory emissions-reduction targets and a nitrogen fund are hanging over our agricultural sector like a sword of Damocles.Nevertheless, there is a positive note: Forum for Democracy wholeheartedly welcomes the annual abolition of 500 regulations for entrepreneurs. We also support the construction of nuclear power plants and the retention of mortgage interest relief, which strengthens the position of first-time buyers in the housing market.The good news is that these three parties do not have a majority in parliament. Forum for Democracy will make full use of the space this creates. Good proposals can count on our support; bad proposals will be opposed, and where possible we will negotiate. Naturally, we will also come forward with our own proposals to protect, preserve and restore everything our beautiful country has to offer.Lidewij de Vos&nbsp; Parliamentary group leader, Forum for Democracy

large_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

medium_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

small_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

thumbnail_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

Forum for Democracy’s Reaction to the Plans of the New Governing Coalition

Forum for Democracy has always taken a keen interest in foreign policy. After all, it was founded in 2016 to campaign against the EU association agreement with Ukraine. Since then, it has been not just euro- but also NATO-sceptic. Seldom, however, has there been such a magisterial presentation of the underlying philosophy of that policy as the one delivered this week by Ralf Dekker to Parliament. As Ralf magnificently explains, the bottom line is national interest, whereas Dutch and European foreign policy (and other policies) seem instead to be dictated by very destructive ideology, abolishing identity through immigration, ensuring geopolitical irrelevance through parasitism on NATO, and stifling freedom through bureaucratic tyranny.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/forum-for-democracy-lays-out-its-foreign-policy">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_6a153dbc51.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, was Ian Proud’s guest on his successful podcast, The Peacemonger, this week. Ian is an ex-Foreign Office diplomat who spent time in Moscow and who disagrees with the prevailing Western policy on Russia. John and Ian’s conversation ranged over a large number of issues, essentially concentrating on Europe and its structural decline. John insisted that the EU and its national governments are trapped in a downward spiral of decay, the bureaucratic doom loop meaning that the system pushes ever more mediocre people to the top, who in turn accelerate the collapse. Just like the old Soviet Union!<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti-r42TxYJc">Watch John’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_611286afbf.png">One of FVD’s MPs, Gideon van Meijeren, is the victim of a political trial. He was accused in 2023 of incitement to violence and the judicial procedure has been going on ever since. It is blatantly political. The appeal against his initial conviction was held this week. To cut a long story short, the Prosecution case is based on misrepresentations (otherwise known as lies) but above all on politics: Gideon is a suspect because he suspects the government of being dishonest. The Dutch security services argue, absurdly, that anyone who does not trust the government is seditious. The obsession with security which now dominates European politics should remind us that the old KGB was the Committee for State Security.<a href="https://solari.com/the-prosecution-of-dutch-mp-gideon-van-meijeren-where-media-political-and-legal-corruption-converge/">Read about Gideon’s political trial here</a><img src="/uploads/image_6b478ea3e3.png">We had a particularly charming and intelligent guest on The Forum this week, the prominent geopolitical commentator, Carl Zha, to discuss Mao Tse Tung and modern China’s perception of him. If you missed it, you missed out badly.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpowUpJrVEo&amp;t=1s">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_image.png

medium_image.png

small_image.png

thumbnail_image.png

The Weekly Forum - 30 January 2026

Speech by Ralf Dekker MP to the Dutch Parliament, 28 January 2026Chair,Over the past five years, our party’s contributions on foreign affairs have always had two central components. On the one hand, firm criticism of supranational structures, the EU and NATO, and their negative impact on our independence and on our ability to do what is necessary for the Netherlands and for the Dutch people. On the other hand, attention to the deeper, often unspoken, causes of conflicts.We wanted, and still want, to look beyond the reality that is so often presented to the public from a North Atlantic perspective through distorted and censored reporting. This is the imposed “preferred reality”, to use the words of Major-General Van Kappen.&nbsp; This sometimes results in positions which deviate from the mainstream and are not always immediately understood.But it is precisely through this independent and critical approach that we have also been able, on crucial dossiers, such as Nord Stream 2, to expose geopolitical power games.In a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, we as the Netherlands need our own approach and our own vision for the future. On behalf of Forum for Democracy, I would therefore like to propose that the Netherlands formulates a number of clear criteria against which our foreign policy should be tested.First: the interests of the Netherlands and of the Dutch people are central and are our absolute top priority. First and foremost, we are the Netherlands. Only secondarily are we part of overarching organisations. We must constantly assess whether our national interests are being sufficiently served.There should be no blind trust, no altruistic behaviour, no automatic adherence to old agreements, and no actions which run counter to our own interests.Second: strengthening our own economic power, without vulnerable dependencies, in the short and long term.Third: freedom, peace and security as the basis for our actions. Cooperation and trade are, in principle, not excluded with anyone.And finally: an open, critical and pluralistic outlook. Things are often not what they seem at first glance.These four criteria form the compass that guides us through the complex international relations of our time.Chair,Europe is in a deep, existential crisis. Not only economically, but also culturally, militarily and not least in the field of freedom of expression. The anchor on which Europe has always slavishly relied, the United States, has cut loose.The decline of Germany over the past ten years is emblematic of this enormous European decay. Economic growth has more or less come to a standstill; major industries such as BASF, Volkswagen and BMW are languishing. Investment plans do not progress beyond the planning phase. And the energy situation is hopeless. The long-term gas supply contracts of the Netherlands with Germany, at secret, highly favourable rates for Germany, currently constitute Germany’s only affordable energy supply.And now President Trump is laying all of this bare. In his first term, he proved to be completely right about defence and energy. Now, in his second term, the recent US National Security Strategy effectively defines the EU as a “dying patient” that can no longer look after itself. The criticism of Europe is devastating and amounts to:<ul><li>Loss of identity and distinctiveness &nbsp;</li><li>Parasitic behaviour in economic and military terms &nbsp;</li><li>Bureaucratic tyranny: Brussels dictates how we should feel, what we may say, and how we should live</li></ul>True political leadership would take this harsh American criticism as a wake-up call. But what do we see? Mainly anger. And laughter. The same conceited attitude we saw in 2017 and 2018 when Trump issued his first warning. The traditionally leading countries of Europe and their governments are behaving quite literally like those of Rome during its decline in the fifth century, and like those of the Netherlands in the eighteenth century. Ideology, mixed with arrogant moral self-glorification, is the recipe for the downfall of a society.The EU has become a kind of ideological fortress that undermines our prosperity, autonomy, security and future growth. A deeply bureaucratic and technocratic institution in which the following are zealously defended: that biological men can become pregnant; that mass non-Western immigration is a blessing; and that “green growth” exists.But what has the EU contributed to the improvement of the Netherlands over the past twenty years? In that period, we have paid at least €200 billion into it. No more than half of that has come back. The EU gives us the feeling that it has economic value, but in reality it seems mainly to cost us money.The same applies to NATO, but in the field of security. Certainly, NATO has played a positive role, but from the 1990s onwards its role and significance became unclear. The dominant role of the Soviet Union as the ideological and military enemy of the West, for which NATO was created, disappeared, even though the Ukraine conflict is framed in that way. In the meantime, NATO enriched the US arms industry and made Europe dependent.We should continuously ask ourselves two questions regarding our bilateral and multilateral partnerships: “What does this concretely deliver for Dutch people?” and “What is the concrete plan and intended outcome for the future of Dutch people?”Chair, we must be willing to understand that the geopolitical reality has completely changed, at least if we want our country to remain relevant at all.The new US security strategy focuses on “control” over a defined sphere of influence consisting of South and Central America, Canada, Greenland, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand.That is more than 50 per cent of global GDP and extremely rich in raw materials. The spheres of influence of Russia and China are just as clearly defined. Africa, the central and southern parts, will likely become a battleground for these three blocs, focused on scarce resources. Brazil and India will receive a special status.&nbsp; Ukraine could, in time, become the “Switzerland of Eastern Europe”.This new geopolitical model no longer revolves around ideology or human rights, which were in fact always selective rhetoric. It revolves around:<ul><li>Raw materials, food and water &nbsp;</li><li>Military power and technological leadership &nbsp;</li><li>Big Tech and artificial intelligence &nbsp;</li><li>Control of outer space, connectivity, navigation and satellites</li></ul>And here, and this is the critical point, North-Western and Central Europe fall outside this new balance and risk becoming the world’s “Orphan Area”, the abandoned region.This specific European bloc of twenty-five countries, with a combined GDP of approximately 20 trillion dollars, is in poor shape. In addition to enormous cultural and demographic problems, there are major other weaknesses: -Limited domestic raw materials: strong dependence on others. -Hardly any indigenous satellite navigation systems. -Energy weakness: no efficient and future-proof strategy. -Heavy dependence on China and America: economically, technologically, in AI, Big Tech and pharmaceuticals. -Industry under severe pressure: competitiveness is eroding rapidly. -Food production is being dismantled due to climate and nature extremism. -No vision for 2050 and beyond.Chair, effective foreign policy is not only about diplomacy.&nbsp; It is primarily about financial power, technological power and military power, linked to relative independence or strong countervailing power in essential products and services.A forsaken Europe faces crucial choices:Option 1: Continue on the current path of dismantling, and cultural and economic decline, and merge this into a federal European model. A disaster scenario.Option 2: Complete vassalage to America — in other words, the erasure of Europe.Option 3: Autonomous strength and independence, followed by effective cooperation.Option 3 is the desirable strategy, and it consists of ten essential steps:Step one: Immediately stop climate policy, green growth and mass non-Western immigration. Start remigration and stimulate autonomous population growth. Reduce central government apparatuses by approximately forty per cent. This will free up a great deal of money for reinvestment.Step two: Reduce the EU to economic cooperation only. No more ideological or regulatory coercion from Brussels.Step three: Energy independence through nuclear power and modern fusion energy, and the full restoration of fossil energy.Step four: Build a fully European satellite system and top-tier rocket technology. Significantly expand and modernise nuclear weapons. Anyone who thinks you have impact without countervailing power lives in a fantasy.Step five: Industrial and technological revival in every sovereign country. Focus on indigenous Big Tech and AI. We must revitalise our industry.Step six: Shape the best military industry in the world. In every country a fully capable defence with a “Platinum Dome” per country. Independent capacity to defend oneself and a domestic military industry.Step seven: Restructure every sovereign country with a focus on better educational outcomes, freedom of expression, pluralistic media, a drastic reduction of rules and regulations, a sound justice system, and the launch of major transformation projects.Step eight: Mitigate all dependencies. Focus on technological leadership and free trade based on our own and mutual interests.Step nine: Build superior logistics and food production systems. Food and water are the foundation of geopolitical power.Step ten: The 1+1=3 cooperation, genuine synergy based on strength, not on the dilution of weakness. Because a bowl of fresh fruit mixed with some rotten fruit quickly becomes entirely rotten.In other words: Europe, eighty years after the Second World War, once again needs reconstruction. The additional investments required are on the order of €2 trillion per year over the next twenty-five years. That sounds like a lot, but it is less than what we annually waste on bureaucracy, regulation and ideologically driven destruction of value.It is time for a review of our foreign policy in the broad sense through a “NBT, National Interest Test”.Foreign AffairsThe Netherlands Court of Audit emphasises that the Foreign Affairs budget contains relatively little policy expenditure, because the majority (90%) is a pass-through for EU-related payments.The Foreign Affairs budget of €16.65 billion is only a small part of government spending that is in fact connected to geopolitics and foreign policy.<ol><li>The Netherlands spends €61 billion per year on international obligations (12.6% of the national budget) and approximately €50 billion on domestic climate, nature, nitrogen and immigration policy. &nbsp;</li><li>Defence/NATO, at €35 billion, is the largest expenditure item (7.2% of the national budget, 2.8% of GDP). With implementation of the 5% norm, this doubles to €62–75 billion. &nbsp;</li><li>EU contributions: €15 billion and rising sharply. &nbsp;</li><li>Climate: structurally €8–10 billion. &nbsp;</li><li>Nitrogen policy: major destruction of value for agriculture and the economy. &nbsp;</li><li>Asylum: €35 billion. &nbsp;</li><li>Guarantees amounting to billions.</li></ol>Questions to the minister: - Does the minister also see that, in the national budget, roughly €110 billion is effectively connected to foreign policy?- And should that entire policy field not be involved in shaping foreign policy?- How does the minister reconcile the closure of diplomatic posts with the enormous geopolitical challenges facing our country?- What does the minister think of the idea of a ‘national interest test’ for foreign policy, the same formal check that we run for all other policy areas?Conclusion: FVD proposes a course of development based on our own strength and shared interests, not on coercion from Brussels, not on passively awaiting orders from Washington. That is the synergy of realistic sovereignty. Countries that are strong are independent. Countries that are independent can choose. And countries that can choose can cooperate on the basis of what truly matters: mutual interest and mutual respect. This should be the plan for the future.Forum for Democracy stands ready to shape this foreign policy. Out of love for the Netherlands and for the Dutch people.Thank you.

large_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

medium_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

small_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

thumbnail_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

Forum for Democracy Lays Out Its Foreign Policy

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Decentralised China with Scott in China

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The Changing Nature of War ⚔️ with Mark Sleboda and Steven Jermy

Should Politics Control Education, Culture &amp; Science? | Peter van Duijvenvoorde | FVD

Dutch MP Gideon van Meijeren Demands Probe Into Dutch Links to Epstein Network | FVD

Lidewij de Vos Responds to Controversy Surrounding Municipal Election Candidate Lists | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: EU Censorship with Stevan Gajic and Tarik Cyril Amar

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Trump's Foreign Policy with Pascal Lottaz and Mark Sleboda

Defence Wants More Personnel: What Does This Mean for the Labour Market? | Van Duijvenvoorde (FVD)

The Rise of Barbaric Behaviour in Society - Maiden Speech by FVD MP Tom Russcher

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Mao Tse Tung 🇨🇳 with Carl Zha

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