Speech given to the Dutch Parliament by Thierry Baudet, 12 June 2025Chairman,&nbsp;I am beginning to understand better and better why Geert Wilders ran away from his responsibility last week with his tail between his legs: because today is accountability day, the day on which we evaluate the cabinet's policy over the past year, and boy, oh boy: what incredibly disappointing results the PVV has shown over the past year.To be clear: I do believe that the other coalition partners, the VVD and the NSC, are difficult partners.&nbsp; But the extremely disappointing results on infrastructure, immigration, healthcare, mobility, and so on – they really are the PVV's own fault.They were PVV ministries. They were PVV ministers.First of all, immigration. As many as 314,000 immigrants entered our country in 2024.That's a city the size of Utrecht.The Spreading Act has still not been repealed even though the Immigration Minister, Marjolein Faber, from the PVV, could have just done it.I will say it again, Chairman: this coalition has made a lot of choices with which Forum for Democracy disagrees, and the PVV has been thwarted both in front of and undoubtedly behind the scenes by coalition partners, but there was indeed an opportunity to reduce mass immigration, at least in parts. It is deeply regrettable that the PVV missed that opportunity. Our motion to develop the ten-point plan for a stricter asylum policy into concrete proposals was supported by VVD, BBB and NSC - but was blocked by the PVV itself!So next year we can count on even more asylum seekers - and therefore even higher costs, even more crime, even more pressure on social services, even more housing shortage. The latter rose further last year - thanks to the growing population as a result of mass immigration - to a shortage of 400,000 homes.Then there is nitrogen policy. There, too, the government failed miserably last year. According to minister Wiersma - of the Farmers’ Civic Movement, note! - the absurd, stupid nitrogen standards are (and I quote) ‘not scientifically questionable’. What a travesty. These standards are based on models that demonstrably bear no relation to reality. We are being held hostage to a modelling reality that could have been ended by removing Critical Deposition Values from the law and licensing.It could have been done by Wiersma on day 1 of her term of office.Instead, this cabinet has reduced air traffic at Schiphol Airport, a new speed limit of 130 km on the motorway has turned out to be a farce (because it applies only on three stretches of motorway) and farmers are being bought out or subjected to quasi-forced closures at breakneck speed.And then there is the financial picture. In recent years, the term “subsistence security” has become the focus of political attention, and not without reason. The Dutch are rapidly becoming impoverished due to rising living costs - inflation - and a failing tax and benefit system. As in previous years, the collective tax burden was as high as 38 per cent. People can no longer buy a house, they don't have a penny left over for anything extra and they can no longer pay energy bills, healthcare costs, petrol, and so on.What strikes me is that this Chamber, especially the cabinet parties, are constantly talking about the hard-working Dutchman but they mainly want to give presents to people on low wages: increasing rent allowance, energy allowances, whether or not to freeze social rent, while the vast majority of Dutch people, the middle class, don't benefit at all. The average hard-working Dutchman gets no care allowance at all but pays a higher care premium. The average Dutchman does not live in social housing, but does face higher housing costs because housing construction is locked up and our population (thanks to open borders) keeps growing. Foreign students now even get scholarships, while our loan students face ever higher interest rates after taking out the loan.Chairman,To get this country back on track, we need to do the following things:- Cut mass immigration;- Radically scrap the absurd nitrogen and climate policy;- Reopen the Groningen gas field, there is 1,000 billion euros’ worth of gas in the ground there;- And as DOGE cut government spending, regulation, radically simplify the tax system, increase the tax-free base for all working Dutchmen and all pensioners.You will see that our country will then recover at a rapid pace, people will have money left over and start to feel at home in this country again.&nbsp; In short, the sun will start shining again as the cabinet promised but absolutely failed to achieve.

geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

large_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

medium_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

small_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

thumbnail_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

How the government led by Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has failed

Is freedom a right or a social good? FVD believes it is the latter (and no doubt the former too). Freedom is a social good because if people are free to do and think as they please, then society will generally benefit from the ‘open market’ in ideas and activities. Unfortunately, today’s European states are structurally hostile to such diversity. Instead, as Thierry Baudet explained recently in parliament, they are governed by cartels. It is unfortunately a natural human phenomenon, in politics as much as in economics, to want to ‘control the market’ – by appointing your friends to high places, by stifling dissent, by creating narratives which sustain the power structure. This is not only unjust, it is also bad policy because it means that new ideas and fresh modes of thought are sidelined or silenced. Society suffers as a result. Democracy is supposed to create a system which breaks such cartels but currently it does not function at all in the West. Listen to Thierry’s magisterial presentation and you will understand why.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuz7Irp9XEI&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch Thierry’s speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeLxCVswu5u7Z4H0As5OUv2v4QWiebAON9LUQsndh7v5Jp_xiwVsWGAvZbo8Omw7fIfAnM6MdYJO0KTa-UxlR0Pu88RyPePKxCXLo2LqBvp6-Y2n7tNgpB0hmezpnCcm0pKmCQT?key=LIhTsCZNgghbO8zdCxc5cg">To put it bluntly, the system is rigged. Gideon van Meijeren MP had the sad confirmation of this recently in the committee of enquiry into Covid. This is a group of MPs looking into the way the pandemic was handled five years ago.&nbsp; But it turns out that what they can look into is controlled by the civil servants working for the committee. MPs do not have their own right of access to documentation or witnesses. When Gideon realised this, he asked for a meeting with the committee chair. He and the committee members refused to accept any change to this bizarre arrangement which means that the MPs are but front men for a rigged enquiry. So Gideon decided to resign. The self-perpetuating system has won - and democracy and transparency have lost. Society suffers.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/fvd-leaves-covidcommittee-gideon-van-meijeren-explains-why">Read Gideon’s statement here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfm1xU8ze7HsVBuheI4nFVJZBTg91Pd4VsRjuTvnwO7MmheTRUelS3U4aa-wIn9M0pzxvOSMAPnd6eRNSAzpUUGaJZPUItUqapvBHABW-jQt18Td5OcvjvxmC7W4vWGlTnmpPaWyg?key=LIhTsCZNgghbO8zdCxc5cg">None of this is new.&nbsp; As Thierry said, you can find it all in Plato. Former FVD senator Paul Cliteur also discussed freedom at FVD’s Springtime School, held on Ascension Weekend in a beautiful 17th century château in Gelderland.&nbsp; Cliteur proposed a reading of Schopenhauer to the students and told the well-known story of Galileo and his run-in with the Holy Inquisition. If freedom of ideas is a general social good, it is all the more imperative to preserve it in universities, where ideas are the principal activity. Unfortunately academic freedom, like other freedoms, have evaporated in today’s West, as the Left seeks to stamp out all forms of divergence from its own line. Leftism is unfortunately now also supported in this by Islamism which similarly seeks to destroy dissent. Europe is abandoning centuries of liberal tradition in favour of an ever duller and more brutal authoritarianism.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/arthur-schopenhauer-and-academic-freedom">Read Paul Cliteur’s lecture here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXcruOqyXkdunlk0ogQsMxvgkHSo6aNu26c2pU2RXX8znKByeLSbhv7eSTKmOg33-1yqRu9FM7rvlkGg8JHAtIetBT7DLGOD5zbvW5Owbu5hunsoTymVb-p4y_quUUUAL-djFolH1g?key=LIhTsCZNgghbO8zdCxc5cg">As the war expands out in the Middle East, we were delighted to have Steven Jermy and Mark Sleboda as our guests on The Forum this week to discuss the military aspects of the Ukraine war in the light of the recent spectacular drone attacks on Russian air bases deep inside Russia.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuIucTRwa78&amp;t=20s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

The Weekly Forum - 13 June

Gideon van Meijeren has decided to step down from the COVID committee. In the following statement, he explains his reasons for this decision:I have just had to make a difficult but necessary decision: I am resigning from the parliamentary committee of inquiry on Covid with immediate effect. In this video, I will explain my decision.My main reason for joining the parliamentary committee of inquiry was to conduct an in-depth investigation into Covid policy and to question those responsible for it. In other words: to find the truth.But that is precisely what is being made completely impossible for me in the committee. Last week, I found out that, as a member of the Covid committee, I will not have access to the more than 3 million documents and pieces of information which the committee has requested, and that I will not be allowed to ask the main responsible parties any questions, or hardly any.The majority of the other members of the committee have decided that only the civil servants on the staff will have access to the requested documents.&nbsp; Only they will draw up the questionnaires and decide which committee members may ask which questions to which guests. It has literally been decided that the staff will conduct the investigation and that the members of parliament will only have a guiding role.In practice, this means that, as a Member of Parliament, I have no insight into the information on which the investigation notes and questionnaires are based, I do not have the opportunity to ask the questions that I consider important, and in many cases I am not given the opportunity to question the key players myself.This makes it impossible for me to make a serious contribution to finding the truth — which should be the core purpose of this committee.When I found this out, I immediately objected. Last week, I discussed this with the chair of the committee, Daan de Kort. He indicated that he would continue to support the current working method, but that I was free to raise this point at the committee meeting. That meeting took place today.I was willing to cooperate and was not demanding. The only thing I asked for, in essence, was access to the information necessary to conduct research, and on that basis to be able to question 8 to 10 people under oath for half an hour to an hour: Rutte, De Jonge, Grapperhaus, Van Dissel, Koopmans, Gommers, Aalbersberg, Akerboom, Schoof and – depending on the results of the source investigation – a handful of others. This would only take 5 to 10 hours out of the hundreds of hours reserved for the hearings.After a heated discussion, it became clear that the committee was standing its ground. I did everything I could to convince the members of the need to change the working method, but to no avail.The chair proposed to continue the discussion at a later date, but changing the working method was expressly ruled out. In other words, they wanted to prolong the discussion, but the decision had already been made.This course of action is, of course, unacceptable. It undermines the essence of parliamentary control and thus touches on the core of our democracy. A parliamentary inquiry is the most powerful investigative tool at the disposal of the House of Representatives, with far-reaching powers. If even the members of an inquiry committee are denied access to the necessary information and are not given the opportunity to critically question those responsible, then there is no longer any question of finding the truth – on the contrary. Then there is control, manipulation and exclusion of critical voices and neutralisation of dissent. In short: then there is a cover-up.Of course, I cannot and will not lend any legitimacy to this. The party fully supports me in my decision. Forum for Democracy considers truth-finding to be the highest good, on which we cannot make any concessions. If truth-finding is made impossible within the committee, then it must be done outside it. We are therefore determined to continue with this until the truth has been revealed and justice has been done.&nbsp;

gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

large_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

medium_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

small_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

thumbnail_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

FVD Leaves COVID committee, Gideon van Meijeren Explains Why

small_Death_of_Vojvoda_Trifko.jpg

thumbnail_Death_of_Vojvoda_Trifko.jpg

The Herzegovina uprising and international law, 1874-1878

large_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

medium_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

small_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

thumbnail_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

Arthur Schopenhauer and Academic Freedom

FVD is not happy that Geert Wilders took his party out of the coalition this week, thereby causing the government to collapse. This has wasted a rare opportunity.&nbsp; For the first time, a more or less right-wing government could have started to tackle immigration. It did nothing. 130,000 immigrants settled in the Netherlands in 2024 alone. This is more than the population of the city of Maastricht.Thierry Baudet has deplored Geert Wilders’ decision – and also speculated in Parliament that the collapse of the government had nothing to do with immigration, but that instead it was because of Israel. Members of the coalition, the Foreign Minister in particular, have turned against Israel over Gaza and initiated an EU inquest into the war. Geert Wilders, by contrast, is known for his unconditional support not only for Israel in general but for Benjamin Netanyahu in particular.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thierry has claimed this because it is not credible to say that measures could not be taken against immigration: the whole coalition was in agreement on this matter, and yet nothing was done. Why not?Whatever happens, it now means that a ‘caretaker’ government will take major decisions about Ukraine at the NATO summit in The Hague in late June - just as a ‘caretaker’ government decided to give F-16 fighter planes to Ukraine back in August 2023.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/our-response-to-the-fall-of-the-dutch-cabinet">Read FVD’s statement here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXd8-hq8CjZ9plU8eMPRhKwXT6gx9p2KBeGYW4dd2DTQ6QV1JRh7B1dEpaC-eLBQVR2QUFmFsRtNXgy7-7HmsRAZPg1mrS92FSVitnhPLr3Q4uqTd6Bv8LCNZtIk9eSuwdhg0_Ri3A?key=H2XBqrLOu9Pb13sn78MZIA">Is NATO the secret government of the Netherlands and of its other member states, imposing obligations which parliaments and voters have not chosen, approved or even known about? Some time ago, Ralf Dekker MP put down questions on this. FVD has now received a formal response from the government. The answer is yes. We are publishing in full a translation of the government’s response to over 20 questions and the answers admit that there are secret binding obligations covering a whole range of issues including ones not obviously related to NATO, like health. The government specifically says that the obligations are laid out in a document which is ‘non-public’, i.e. secret.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/minister-agemas-shocking-answers-to-fvds-questions-about-secret-NATO-commitments">Read the government’s response here</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jk-_npHns&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch the Dutch parliament refuse the debate here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXc8zSby3dc6dj9Jix99EFZjof_MQLcJ5u7kexJlnzvMuPg6xo4z5KqXf3sDMebOgroSrrnHX7HUf14vgR9hggfnU5E_WWcU2B_sB2881WngWF8fU17hTQnl14YZUxIErWuMvNy9PQ?key=H2XBqrLOu9Pb13sn78MZIA">FVD International’s Marco van den Boomgaard attended the CPAC conference in Budapest last week. It is a huge jamboree attracting heads of government, political leaders and influencers. Viktor Orban runs it and his line is very pro-Trump. Marco kindly wrote two pieces for us about the event, one about Orban’s speech and one about Alice Weidel’s. Weidel is de facto leader of the German AfD which, interestingly, sits in a different parliamentary group in the European Parliament from Orban’s Fidesz party (the same group to which FVD is affiliated). Meanwhile, the Slovak prime minister, Robert Fico, is from the political Left but is a patriot who used his own speech to warn against the imminent collapse of the EU.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/prime-minister-viktor-orban-unveils-patriotic-vision-for-europe-at-cpac-hungary-2025">Read Marco’s article on Viktor Orban here</a><a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/alice-weidels-triumphant-atand-at-cpac-hungary-2025">Read Marco’s article on Alice Weidel here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfFxYFms38X4uU0yMRVYUubNNNLiE8WVXO4vZD1lmcNgDp0U1DIzAaCC2E_3u9uVXwmt9ETOK1XgYlp2dc-CXSUlmzt6AcWEDUOkcyE7FeOu5O9u5-9yaT4Qg5SI2lCrKfog327fw?key=H2XBqrLOu9Pb13sn78MZIA">We discussed CPAC, Trump and conservatism on The Forum this week with brilliant guests, Jim Ferguson from the UK and Lionel from New York. Marco van den Boomgaard and George Szamuely also joined, from The Hague and Budapest. If you missed it, listen back by clicking below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jk-_npHns&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

The Weekly Forum - 6 June

Reply from Minister Agema (Health, Welfare and Sport), also on behalf of the Prime Minister (received 2 June 2025)<hr>Question 1 Why can the briefings received by cabinet members about NATO obligations not be shared with Parliament “due to classification”?Answer 1 &nbsp;The classification level of these briefings means they could not be made public or shared with Parliament.<hr>Question 2 What classification level were these presentations given, and why?Answer 2 The classification level of the briefings was at least "Departmentally Confidential." The authors of the briefings (see answers 5 through 7) determine the classification, in accordance with the directive “Decree on Information Security Regulations for the Dutch Government – Special Information (VIRBI 2013).”<hr>Question 3 &nbsp;Who determines the classification? The government or NATO?Answer 3 The authors of the briefings (see answers 5 through 7) determine the classification.<hr>Question 4 Is the government able (or willing) to declassify the briefings at Parliament’s request? If not, why?Answer 4 At the request of Parliament, the government initiated a declassification process for these briefings. The briefings are available in Appendices 2 and 3. No presentation was used during the information security session; therefore, none can be shared.<hr>Question 5 Why were the briefings held at the Ministry of General Affairs? Is it correct that these briefings were given in the context of NATO obligations (Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Foreign Affairs) by the AIVD (Ministry of the Interior) and the NCTV (Ministry of Justice)?Question 6 Did the Ministry of General Affairs play a coordinating role? If so, why?Question 7 Were the briefings perhaps initiated by the Ministry of General Affairs? If so, why?Answers to Questions 5 through 7 The briefings were initiated by the Ministry of General Affairs as an introduction program for the new cabinet. They were therefore held, alongside cabinet meetings, at the Ministry of General Affairs. The briefings were prepared and given by the most relevant ministries.As stated previously, the following security-related briefings took place:<ul><li>An international-themed session (organized by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence) &nbsp;</li><li>A national crisis structure exercise (facilitated by the National Crisis Centre) &nbsp;</li><li>An information security session (organized by the AIVD). &nbsp;</li></ul>Various NATO obligations were discussed during parts of these briefings but were not the central theme.<hr>Question 8 Did the Prime Minister himself initiate these briefings? If so, why? Was this perhaps at the request of his predecessor, former Prime Minister Rutte?Answer 8 No.<hr>Question 9 How many briefings (related to NATO obligations) have the ministers received in total?Answer 9 The three briefings mentioned in the answers to questions 5, 6, and 7.<hr>Question 10 Can Parliament receive a complete overview of all NATO-related briefings ministers have received since taking office, including which ministers were present, where the briefings were held, which agencies (e.g., AIVD or NCTV) delivered them, and their classification?Answer 10 The briefings were initiated by the Ministry of General Affairs as part of the new cabinet's introduction program. They were held, alongside cabinet meetings, at the Ministry of General Affairs.<ul><li>On 9 July 2024, an information security session was held by the Director-General of the AIVD for ministers and state secretaries. &nbsp;</li><li>On 16 July 2024, an international-themed session was held by officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence. &nbsp;</li><li>On 16 July 2024, a national crisis structure exercise was conducted, facilitated by the head of the National Crisis Centre, attended by the Prime Minister, deputy prime ministers, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Interior and Kingdom Relations, Justice and Security, and Defence. These briefings were at least “Departmentally Confidential.”</li></ul><hr>Question 11 Do you recall your earlier statements, including during the plenary meeting on 24 October 2024, in which you repeatedly referred to “NATO obligations” to which we are “bound”? In an interview with Ongehoord Nederland, you also stated: “The former Prime Minister signed these agreements and we adhere to them.” However, in your written replies to Parliament, you state that these agreements are “not legally binding.” Isn’t that contradictory?&nbsp;Are these commitments binding or not?Answer 11 This cabinet has committed to the agreements made; they are therefore politically binding.<hr>Question 12 In response to question 9, you stated that the resilience objectives can be found in the “Vilnius Summit Communiqué.” Where exactly are these objectives stated in the communiqué? Can you provide them instead of a reference?Question 13 Is it true, as journalist Eric van der Beek claims (based on a response he received from NATO), that these resilience objectives are not actually described in the Vilnius Summit Communiqué because they are “classified,” according to NATO?Question 14 If not, why not, and why would NATO say so? Did NATO make a mistake?Question 15 If NATO’s statement is correct, why did you refer to the Vilnius Summit Communiqué when these objectives cannot be in there because they are classified?Answers to Questions 12 through 15 The fact that the Netherlands has committed to these objectives via NATO is reflected in the Vilnius Summit Communiqué.&nbsp;The NATO Resilience Objectives are laid out in a separate, non-public document.<hr>Question 16 Can you provide a definition of “resilience” and give a few concrete examples?Answer 16 In the parliamentary letter “Resilience against hybrid and military threats” sent on 6 December last year, resilience is defined as follows: a solid, resilient society can withstand shocks—regardless of what comes our way. It is a society in which government, public and private partners, civil society organizations, knowledge institutions, and citizens are as prepared as possible for societal disruption and have the ability to resist, absorb, and recover from it.<hr>Question 17 You state that the Netherlands has committed to NATO-wide Resilience Objectives. Has Parliament also approved this?Answer 17 &nbsp;At the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius, member states committed to implementing the Resilience Objectives. These are guidelines for member states, each of which is responsible for national implementation through domestic policy. The objectives were developed under coordination by the NCTV and further elaborated in the December parliamentary letter on resilience. The next step is the development of implementation plans. A second letter will follow later this year detailing the first concrete policies.<hr>Question 18 &nbsp;Why is the current government also committed to these resilience objectives? Why is it bound by a (non-legally binding) commitment made by a former prime minister who was voted out in the last election?Answer 18 International cooperation is essential to counter threats from, among others, Russia, China, and Iran. The highest priority is credible deterrence and collective defense within NATO. NATO is an international alliance in which agreements are made and then translated into national commitments.&nbsp;The Resilience Objectives, together with the national Security Strategy and EU initiatives, form the framework for a resilient Dutch society. “A resilient democratic rule of law” is one of the main objectives in the Kingdom of the Netherlands' Security Strategy, elaborated in twelve action lines.<hr>Question 19 You refer to “national goals” in this context. What are these national goals?Answer 19 The Resilience Objectives have been integrated into the national resilience efforts as defined in the 6 December parliamentary letter. These respond to NATO agreements, as stated in the Vilnius Communiqué, to develop national goals.<hr>Question 20 Will these goals be adjusted now that we seem to be moving, under Trump's leadership, toward peace with Russia? If not, why?Answer 20 The goals are not currently being adjusted.<hr>Question 21 You mention “implementation plans.” Can Parliament receive these plans?Answer 21 Member states are free to choose the format of their implementation plans. The Resilience Objectives are being incorporated into the broader resilience policy under the leadership of the Ministers of Justice and Defence. Parliament will be informed about this in a forthcoming letter later this year.<hr>Question 22 You state that the resilience policy spans various policy areas. Which are these? Can Parliament receive a list of all policy areas affected by the resilience policy?Answer 22 The resilience policy is a government-wide effort. The relevant policy areas are listed in the 6 December parliamentary letter. The Ministers of Justice and Defence jointly coordinate the government-wide resilience policy. All ministries contribute from within their own policy responsibilities.<hr>Question 23 Which ministers, besides yourself, are also bound by the NATO objectives?Answer 23 &nbsp;The Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice and Security (J&amp;V) indicate that, in addition to the Minister of Defence and the Minister of J&amp;V, the ministers of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure and Water Management, Justice and Security, Climate and Green Growth, Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature, and Health, Welfare and Sport are mainly involved in the NATO Resilience Objectives. The other departments are involved as necessary to achieve the objectives.<hr>Question 24 Could you please answer these questions (at least) separately and preferably within the usual period of three weeks?Answer 24 Where applicable, the questions have been answered separately. Due to similarities between some of the questions, the answers have been combined. My apologies that the response was not sent within the usual timeframe. The interdepartmental coordination took a significant amount of time.

large_maxresdefault (65).jpg

medium_maxresdefault (65).jpg

small_maxresdefault (65).jpg

thumbnail_maxresdefault (65).jpg

Minister Agema's Shocking Answers to FVD's Questions About Secret NATO Commitments

FVD is deeply disappointed by the fact that Geert Wilders has walked away from the coalition. His party was the last somewhat right-wing force within the already predominantly middle-of-the-road "herd coalition."&nbsp; The coalition seems now to be degenerating into an even more left-leaning government.Wilders could have taken action to improve the asylum and migration system. For the first time in decades, there was a party in the Dutch government which explicitly aimed to put a stop to mass immigration. Wilders has not made use of this unique opportunity. It is a crying shame, especially for all those Dutch citizens who placed their trust in him.Forum for Democracy is willing to take a constructive stance in forming a right-wing majority, in line with the wishes of the Dutch people as expressed in the 2023 parliamentary elections. We genuinely want to put an end to decades of mass immigration, disastrous climate and energy policies, the housing crisis, and much more.Should new elections be called nonetheless, FVD looks forward to them.

small_GsgVoqmXwAAjNmj.jpeg

thumbnail_GsgVoqmXwAAjNmj.jpeg

Our Response to the Fall of the Dutch Cabinet

Who governs? Philosophers have asked this question since Antiquity. One person&nbsp; (monarchy or tyranny)? Several people (aristocracy or oligarchy)? The people (the republic or democracy)? Today’s system is surely oligarchy pretending to be democracy but, unlike in previous ages, you are not even allowed to ask these questions. Or if you do, you do not get answers, as Pepijn van Houwelingen recently re-discovered to his dismay when he asked who governs the Netherlands. Is it those men and women who win elections – the great theatre of modern political life – or do those people, once elected, in fact obey secret orders from elsewhere? Last year, a Dutch minister said she could not implement certain manifesto promises on health because of ‘NATO commitments on resilience’ which had been announced to her and her fellow ministers by the National Coordinator for Security and Counter-terrorism (NCTV) – but only after the election. So who governs? The people or NATO? Only FVD asks the questions.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9pm4r2UCKI">Watch Pepijn van Houwelingen’s questions here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXezoIaFvUWITsJniDvGq6ROUyUTqlyURgWFxr1Czq5TOVLnmn-f-S6M6AfWiFA6jZLX63IrcezDbd7wLlS42KP1dQSZxclFdEL5B4dl2iK40I1khWq59AnpmXAlLQhGhEvpRmhlew?key=B1OzYDFLfveeKnV12bt2iw">The EU has been governing Europe for decades – not very well. It likes to hold meetings and produce reports. These cost a lot of money and are then forgotten about. So a report from 2000 about how Europe was going to become competitive by 2010 was replaced in 2010 by one saying it would be competitive by 2020. Then came the Draghi report last year putting forward yet another meaningless 10-year plan. A generation has been wasted. Here as ever, only FVD goes to the root of the problem. As Pepijn van Houwelingen said recently, Europe does not need such reports, it does not need a centralised strategy. Centralised strategy is killing Europe. Europe needs diversity – real political diversity, including sovereignty at national and even regional level. Europe’s periods of greatness have occurred when there was diversity and competition between states – Greek city states, Italian republics, the Dutch provinces, nation states. No one outside FVD has the historical breadth to understand the depth of our problems.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4E7DesM5Ak">Watch Pepijn van Houwelingen’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdeycHQUc2aGm9CfwWfEvOlNx05GZyA3M1gkkafq9X1G1Qk5aYno9OtPyVUxp3ty7OpO1vC-I_1ZoSdTp-Or5LSFj-wXWj9TVWqaw-PeUnZfvDQsnDezbZt_IdHDVTLzorkbn0hvw?key=B1OzYDFLfveeKnV12bt2iw">Perhaps the clearest sign that the people do not govern comes from the recent reversal of Brexit being adopted by sleight of hand in Britain. Without any public consultation, Britain has agreed to a new ‘common fisheries policy’ for 12 years; to align itself with EU food regulations, making trade deals with third countries more difficult; and to integrate its foreign and military policy very closely with that of the EU. It is EU membership in all but name, including a crucial political dimension. It is a textbook case of the establishment getting its revenge on the people – the people who voted not once but three times to leave the EU (in 2016 and in two national elections in 2019). Ewen Stewart of Global Britain nails the whole chicanery in a piece we are honoured to re-publish.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/quelle-surprise-eu-says-jump-and-starmer-says-how-high">Read Ewen Stewart’s article here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfcFHFXj8ooJCxk7Sm7Wu6pRx3E7MsI5JyiOzaoOiLrfZs6LPvTcdTZuZXsQ9WUHpEoL4xnpU9xIGgayHkCDggWdv34tRuM3Y9mt7Dxad2enm7i905mnffPH8G7SrXm5o5mae56mg?key=B1OzYDFLfveeKnV12bt2iw">Ulrike Reisner and Edouard Husson were our guests on The Forum this week, discussing their new book, ‘Decolonise Europe’.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jo7VoxKxZU&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 29 May.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 29 May.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 29 May.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 29 May.png

The Weekly Forum - 29 May

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

Citizens Never Agreed to the EU - Now It's Threatening Our Sovereignty! | Van Houwelingen | FVD

Thierry Baudet SHREDS Political Dogmas in NATO Clash | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Neutrality in Times of War with Pascal Lottaz

Dutch Politics or Political Theater? Thierry Baudet vs. the Party Cartel | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Ukraine: Who is Winning? With Steven Jermy, Ian Proud and Mark Sleboda

Dutch Parliament BLOCKS Debate on Secret NATO Commitments | FVD

🏛️ The Forum &amp; Friends: CPAC, Conservatism and Trump: Jim Ferguson, Marco van den Boomgaard, Lionel

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Decolonise Europe with Edouard Husson and Ulrike Reisner

Dutch MP Pepijn van Houwelingen Demands Answers on NATO's Secret Control | FVD

'Draghi Is Wrong: The EU DESTROYED Our Competitive Position' – Pepijn van Houwelingen | FVD

Forum for Democracy

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

Subscribe to our international newsletter