Tom Russcher MP (FVD) puts down Parliamentary QuestionsMunicipalities across the Netherlands will have to create tens of thousands of additional reception places, according to projections published by the new Minister for Asylum and Migration, Bart Van den Brink (CDA). In less than a year and a half, Van den Brink states that 38,000 new reception places will need to be built. These figures appear to contradict the broadly supported ambition to limit asylum inflow. The cabinet’s anti-migration rhetoric therefore seems little more than empty words.FVD Member of Parliament Tom Russcher has submitted parliamentary questions to obtain clarification about the new cabinet plans and to push for a significantly stricter asylum policy.Written questions from Tom Russcher MP (FVD) to the Minister for Asylum and Migration regarding the projection of tens of thousands of additional asylum reception places.<ul><li>Are you aware of the report stating that nearly 38,000 additional reception places for asylum seekers must be created before mid-2027?</li><li>How does this enormous expansion of asylum reception align with the new cabinet’s promise to limit asylum inflow?</li><li>Why are municipalities being compelled to create reception places when many are already facing a severe housing shortage for their own residents?</li><li>Is the minister prepared to repeal the dispersal law, now that it appears this law is leading to further pressure on municipalities and society?</li><li>Does the minister agree that the Netherlands should close its borders as long as there is no solution to the current reception crisis?</li><li>How does the minister explain that his predecessor, Mona Keijzer (BBB), refused to publish these projections?</li><li>How many of the current 77,500 reception places are occupied by people whose asylum applications have been rejected?</li><li>How will the minister ensure that individuals whose asylum applications have been rejected are removed from the Netherlands as soon as possible?</li><li>Does the minister agree with Forum for Democracy that the dispersal law is an undemocratic instrument that obliges municipalities and their residents to do something they did not ask for?</li><li>Does the minister agree with Forum for Democracy that the Netherlands should prioritize its own citizens, particularly the homeless, people on waiting lists for social housing, urgent cases due to divorce and young people buying or renting for the first time, over asylum seekers?</li><li>Is the minister prepared to revise Dutch asylum policy completely and bring it into line with the wishes of the majority of the Dutch population, which according to several polls favors a stricter asylum policy?</li></ul>

large_01KJQM1DP4F705P2PYFJFVDDBY (1).webp

medium_01KJQM1DP4F705P2PYFJFVDDBY (1).webp

small_01KJQM1DP4F705P2PYFJFVDDBY (1).webp

thumbnail_01KJQM1DP4F705P2PYFJFVDDBY (1).webp

Tens of Thousands of Additional Asylum Places Before Mid-2027?

If you receive money from the Dutch government, for instance a subsidy or a grant, the accounting oversight is so extensive that it costs you about 20% of the sum given. But where government spending is concerned, tens of millions can be wasted because of bureaucratic dysfunction. A bureaucratic mechanism was put in place to ensure that asylum applications are dealt with quickly: if they are not, a penalty is paid to the applicant. The goal was to incentivise government efficiency; the result is spectacular waste. It has been discovered that €36 million were paid out in 2024, €37,500 per asylum seeker. The more the procedure is delayed, the more money the asylum seeker gets – in some cases nearly a year’s salary. This is literally madness – or rather, a racket. It took FVD and its parliamentary leader, Lidewij de Vos, to find this out and to demand answers from the government.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/de-vos-puts-down-parliamentary-questions-about-penalty-payments-paid-to-asylum-seekers">Read Lidewij’s questions to the government here</a><img src="/uploads/image_fb26767f8f.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, was a guest again last week on Mike Ryan’s The Protagonists on The World Today based in Australia, this time to discuss the censorship mechanisms within the EU. As John explained, there are currently two major censorship mechanisms in place – the sanctions regime for ‘disinformation’, recently deployed against two European citizens, and the Digital Services Act which recently imposed a €120 million fine on X – and two more in the pipeline.The ‘European Democracy Shield’ (don’t laugh!) is being put into operation&nbsp;<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_459">even now</a>, while at national level several states (France and Spain, to start with) intend to restrict access to social networks to people over 15 – which means that everyone will have to prove their identity even to access them. This is surely the very definition of a police state.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukT5-9Kd8uc">Watch John Laughland on The World Today here</a><img src="/uploads/image_4f9310d30c.png">John also cranked out his rather rusty Italian to speak to Giacomo Gabellini on his podcast, Il Contesto. They discussed the increasing totalitarianism of the West, especially Europe, where control of the narrative has become the principal obsession of governments, which are increasingly dominated by ideology.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZDFzTsdU60">Watch John’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_a6702fabf5.png">We are delighted and honoured to republish a recent research piece by Cyan Quinn of the White Papers Institute. Cyan, who has been our guest on The Forum, and who is as charming as she is intelligent, argues that the truth about the Great Replacement is being hidden by faulty statistics. Some countries practise ‘colour blind’ censuses, France and Italy for instance, others include race and ethnicity in both censuses and police reports. How you define ‘an Italian’ or ‘a Dutchman’ varies from country to country according to legislation. Cyan is convinced that the overall effect of these various methods is to hide the extent to which the native populations of Europe are being replaced by immigrants.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/hiding-our-replacement-how-western-governments-obfuscate-demographic-data">Read Cyan Quinn’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_c9475d63da.png">Scott from China was our guest on The Forum this week, to discuss how de-centralised China is. Both in terms of state structures and of the economy, power is far more dispersed, to the provinces and to private individuals, than it is in the economically and politically centralised West. The Chinese state spends only a fraction at national level what the US and European states do: the rest is spent by the provinces and localities. The same goes for the economy, where the state is effectively absent – from AI, for instance, but also from infrastructure projects like railways! De-centralisation produces competition and prosperity: this is why China is steaming ahead while Europe languishes in stagnation.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kho5ZXWI8HI">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 26 February 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 26 February 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 26 February 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 26 February 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 26 February 2026

We are pleased to republish&nbsp;“Hiding Our Replacement: How Western Governments Obfuscate Demographic Data,” originally published by&nbsp;The&nbsp;White Papers Institute. You can read the original article&nbsp;<a href="https://whitepapersinstitute.substack.com/p/hiding-our-replacement-how-western">here</a>. Our purpose at White Papers is to protect Western Civilization by promoting the interests and survival of the people who created it. That people group is a global minority and continues to shrink. In 1950, people of European descent&nbsp;<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3987379/">made up 22%</a> of the world’s population. Today, that percentage has shrunk to around 12%. As with populations of endangered species like sea turtles or certain leopards, the best way to protect this people group is to preserve their habitat. The nation is the habitat of human civilization. Even within Western nations, our numbers are declining rapidly.We are not the first to come up with this parallel. In the UK, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DTqxlhECBIK/">red squirrel</a> serves as a mascot for those interested in defending the native British.<img src="/uploads/image_71715aaeeb.png">It was first used by the founders of the groundbreaking survey&nbsp;<a href="https://wewereneverasked.co.uk/home">We Were Never Asked</a> which shows undeniably that British citizens do not want to become a minority. (We show how these trends can be reversed&nbsp;<a href="https://whitepapersinstitute.substack.com/p/the-british-remigration-policy-platform-f0c">here</a>.)<img src="/uploads/image_22b01293f0.png"> &nbsp;This is our primary area of concern, and we collect and publish demographic data wherever possible. We believe that by presenting accurate data and illustrating the policy failures that led to our demographic decline in our own countries, we can show that there are also peaceful policy alternatives that can reverse it!However, Western governments appear to be obfuscating the data.Few Western governments collect quality demographic data in the first place, and the data they do collect is often lacking in the necessary details. Only in a couple Western countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom do the authorities work to collect decent data on race and ethnicity, but even they fall short of presenting a comprehensive understanding of the demographic reality. In Europe, the situation is worse, with governments often changing methodologies to hide the extent of demographic change. In some cases, governments have even made it illegal to collect statistics on race and ethnicity.France is the most famous and well-known example of a Western country that prohibits the collection of race and ethnicity-based data. In 1978 the French government implemented the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ssi.ens.fr/textes/a78-17-text.html#art30">Data Protection Act (Law No. 78-17)</a> which prohibits the&nbsp;<a href="https://vdare.com/articles/connerly-s-racial-privacy-initiative-the-unhappy-french-connection">collection of data on race or ethnicity</a> unless permission is given on an individual basis or a waiver is issued by the French state. This law also extends to government agencies, research, and other institutions such as universities. Furthermore, the law prohibits the digital storage of this data. These provisions have been upheld multiple times by the French courts, including as recently as December of 2007 when the Constitutional Council (the French version of a supreme court) upheld the strictest interpretation of the law.<img src="/uploads/image_7465d8a8c2.png">Another example can be found in Germany where both&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0027">Article 3 of the Basic Law (German constitution)</a> and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bdsg/englisch_bdsg.html#p0365">Federal Data Protection Act</a> prohibit the processing and storage of data that applies to the race and ethnicity of minority populations. This forces German government agencies and private institutions to use proxies such as “migrant background” to track the non-German population. But this methodology has its flaws. For example, ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe, Russia, and Kazakhstan that&nbsp;<a href="https://sah.org/2019/11/01/the-volksdeutsche-return/">have returned to Germany,</a> speak German, and practice Christianity are not considered German, but are instead people of a “migrant background.” Meanwhile, third-generation Turkish immigrants in the country are often classified as “German – without a migrant background” despite having no discernible German heritage.Similarly, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.freedominfo.org/documents/sweden%20personal%20data%20act-eng.pdf">Swedish Personal Data Act of 1998</a> prohibits the collection of race, ethnic origin, or religious belief statistics by public and private entities. So this also forced the Swedish government to collect statistics on the basis of “migrant background” resulting in the same statistical anomalies. So far, in Sweden, there are not enough third-generation immigrants to significantly obscure the data. But in ten years, this will change substantially. Many hundreds of thousands of people marked as “Swedish” without a migrant background will have no Swedish heritage.Iother cases, countries attempt to collect demographic data on ethnicity but fail to collect data of usable quality. For example, the Russian 2021 census was such a disaster that government claims of 99% participation are widely disbelieved by the academic community both in the country and abroad. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.levada.ru/en/">Levada Center</a> claims that only&nbsp;<a href="https://rtvi.com/news/po-itogam-perepisi-v-moskve-stalo-na-million-menshe-russkih-socziologi-i-demografy-govoryat-chto-etim-dannym-nelzya-doveryat/">42% of the Russian population was counted properly</a> and some 17.14 million people have no recorded ethnicity within the dataset. As a result, no one knows what the ethnic population of Russia actually is. We also have no way of knowing if the Russian population truly increased from 77.8% in 2010 to 81% in 2021 (as claimed by the government) or if the ethnic Russian population suffered a steep decline to 72% as the data estimates appear to show.New Zealand experiences similar issues with their 2023 census. Reports showed that members of the Maori and pacific immigrant communities were&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/census-turnout-low-despite-37m-blowout">opting out</a> at rates of roughly 40 percent while nationally, about a fifth of New Zealanders did not even return their census forums at all. Obviously, this severely muddled the results. Furthermore, New Zealand only counts people who are “normally resident” in the country and does not count hundreds of thousands of temporary immigrants who may live in the country for years at a time, effectively obfuscating the true scale of demographic change in the country. As a result of widespread criticism and even an election corruption scandal tied to the census, the government scrapped the model entirely, canceled the 2028 census (and all future ones) and will turn to a data sampling model starting in 2030. It goes without saying this model will not be particularly useful to anyone interested in exactly how New Zealanders are being replaced.Failing to competently collect demographic data is one issue, but there are also countries that change their methodologies which hides the scale of demographic change. One of the most recent examples of this phenomenon is the Netherlands which used to collect data that clearly showed the Western and non-Western populations of the country. When the Dutch collected this data, it was possible to determine what the White/European population of the country was – and to reasonably calculate the native Dutch share of the population. However, the Dutch government decided to abandon this model in 2022 and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/07/cbs-introducing-new-population-classification-by-origin">switch to data based upon continent of birth.</a><img src="/uploads/image_2305bf61a2.png">Because of this change, the native Dutch population appears to have increased from 75% in 2022 to 78% in 2025. This is clearly suspicious since immigration remains high, the youth is emigrating in large numbers, and Dutch fertility is stagnant. The Dutch government is, in effect, hiding the fact that the native Dutch population is closer to 71% of the total population and is falling quite rapidly. &nbsp;Then there are Western countries that classify anyone who holds a passport as a “native” of the country, regardless of heritage. Italy and Portugal are the worst offenders. The Italian government classifies anyone, regardless of place of birth or background, as “Italian” so long as they hold an Italian passport. This resulted in millions of immigrants and second-generation immigrants being classified as “Italian” which makes the country look homogeneous on paper when anyone with eyes can tell you it definitely is not. So, while official statistics declare that Italy is 91.3% Italian with a foreign population of 5.2 million people, the reality is that there are actually about 6.2 million people of foreign birth and 1.8 to 2 million of their children. In reality, native Italians are about 82-85% of their homeland’s population, and that percentage is shrinking fast due to a combination of aging and emigration. &nbsp;A similar state of affairs persists in Portugal where the g<a href="https://www.migpolgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/country-report-non-discrimination-DS0125059ENN.pdf">overnment</a> collects no ethnic data of any kind and classifies everyone with a Portuguese passport, regardless of place of origin, as “Portuguese.” So while&nbsp;<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/01/19/anti-mass-migration-leader-ventura-advances-to-second-round-of-portuguese-presidential-election/">Portuguese citizens</a> are about 84% of the country’s population, the reality is that 2 million immigrants (more than a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.portugalresident.com/interim-report-estimates-15-of-portuguese-population-are-foreigners/">million of whom arrived between 2020 and 2024)</a> constitute about 20% of the nation’s population. Second-generation immigrants, a group also classified as “Portuguese” despite lacking actual Portuguese heritage, number about 180,000-210,000. It is likely that the native Portuguese population of Portugal is no more than 78% and, much like Italy, is in rapid decline due to a combination of aging and emigration of the native youth to other parts of Europe where they expect to pursue better economic opportunities.Overall, Western countries are doing a very poor job producing quality demographic data, and we suspect they simply do not want to. We are reminded of the United States where the Department of Homeland Security claimed for more than 20 years that&nbsp;<a href="https://cmsny.org/publications/warren-11million/">the illegal alien population was only 11 million</a> before they just stopped producing any updates at all in 2022. (They notably have not produced new numbers even under the second Trump administration.)We suspect Western governments know that to tell the truth about demographic decline would cause people to reflect on their own uniqueness and the fact that the civilization we created is truly endangered and may be lost forever. Naturally, this would invite public outrage and electoral defeat of the progressive liberal class that put these policies in place. We’re here to show that this is not the end of Us. These trends can be reversed peacefully and with cooperation from non-Western countries through Remigration as long as we have the courage and the political will to do so.White Papers is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.comLinktree:&nbsp;<a href="https://linktr.ee/wppi">https://linktr.ee/wppi</a>Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

1a075ce8-a208-41d6-a861-9362b54c6771_1200x800.webp

large_1a075ce8-a208-41d6-a861-9362b54c6771_1200x800.webp

medium_1a075ce8-a208-41d6-a861-9362b54c6771_1200x800.webp

small_1a075ce8-a208-41d6-a861-9362b54c6771_1200x800.webp

thumbnail_1a075ce8-a208-41d6-a861-9362b54c6771_1200x800.webp

Hiding Our Replacement: How Western Governments Obfuscate Demographic Data

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

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The Islamisation of Britain and The Great Replacement with Simon Elmer

🏛 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

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