FVD Member of Parliament Peter van Duijvenvoorde has submitted written questions to the Minister of Justice and Security following reports and video footage indicating that the police have been involved in iftar gatherings at various locations. In some cases, these events appear to have been organised in or near police stations. Videos circulating on social media show, among other things, the Islamic call to prayer (azan) being recited during such a gathering while police officers in uniform are present. Van Duijvenvoorde is asking the minister to clarify the nature and scale of these gatherings and the role played by the police. He wants to know, among other things, whether such iftar events are organised by or with the cooperation of the police, where they take place, and whether police capacity or other public resources are being used. He also asks whether there are guidelines within the police regarding the organisation or facilitation of religious activities in police buildings.How do such activities relate to the principle that government institutions, and the police in particular, should maintain a neutral position with regard to religion? Is there actually support within the police organisation for these kinds of events, and how are officers who choose not to participate in religious activities treated? The minister is requested to inform Parliament further on these matters.Written questions from the member Van Duijvenvoorde (Forum for Democracy) to the Minister of Justice and Security regarding iftar gatherings organised by the police:<ul><li>Have you taken note of reports and videos circulating on social media indicating that iftar gatherings have been organised or facilitated by the police at various locations, including in or near police stations, where the Islamic call to prayer (azan) was also heard?</li><li>Is it correct that iftar gatherings have taken place at or near multiple police stations organised or facilitated by or with the cooperation of the police? If so, which locations, dates and occasions were involved?</li><li>Is it correct that in the case shown in the video an iftar gathering took place where the azan was recited in the presence of police officers in uniform? If so, who was responsible for organising it and on what grounds was the decision made to hold this gathering?</li><li>Do you consider it appropriate for explicit religious expressions or rituals belonging to a specific faith to take place in or near police stations, given that the police are expected to be a neutral representative of the rule of law?</li><li>Are there guidelines or protocols within the police for organising or facilitating religious gatherings, such as iftar meals, prayer moments or other religious activities, in police buildings or during police-related events? If so, can you share these with Parliament?</li><li>Are police capacity, working hours, facilities or other public resources used for such gatherings? If so, can you provide insight into the nature and scale of this use?</li><li>Are there also examples of other religious traditions—such as Christian, Jewish or other religious gatherings or rituals—being organised or facilitated in a comparable manner by or with the cooperation of the police in police buildings?</li><li>How does facilitating explicitly religious activities align, in your view, with the required neutrality of the police as a government institution?</li><li>Do you share the concern that facilitating explicitly religious activities by the police may create the impression that the police identify with a specific religion, potentially undermining public trust in their neutrality and impartiality? Please explain your answer.</li><li>Do you consider it desirable for police officers in uniform to be present at or participate in religious rituals or calls, such as the recitation of the azan, in the context of an event organised by or with the cooperation of the police?</li><li>Are you willing to consider whether additional guidelines are needed to ensure that police buildings and police activities retain a neutral, non-religious character?</li><li>Is it known to what extent there is support among police officers for organising or facilitating religious gatherings, such as iftar events, in or near police stations? If so, what are the findings?</li><li>How does the police organisation deal with officers who wish to remain neutral in matters of belief and therefore do not want to participate in religious gatherings or rituals, such as iftar events or attending religious calls? Is refusal to participate fully accepted both formally and informally?</li><li>Are there known signals, reports or complaints within the police from officers who have felt pressured, uncomfortable or troubled by the organisation of religious gatherings in or near police stations?</li><li>Are there internal discussions, tensions, frustrations or forms of resistance among police staff regarding the organisation or facilitation of religious gatherings, such as iftar events, by or with the cooperation of the police?</li></ul>

large_01KKXVZ7ZQ45MR2T9QS7PMVHP4.webp

medium_01KKXVZ7ZQ45MR2T9QS7PMVHP4.webp

small_01KKXVZ7ZQ45MR2T9QS7PMVHP4.webp

thumbnail_01KKXVZ7ZQ45MR2T9QS7PMVHP4.webp

Police iftars raise concerns about officer neutrality. Peter van Duijvenvoorde MP submits parliamentary questions

Forum for Democracy had spectacular success at the local elections held in the Netherlands on 18 March. FVD won some 300 seats in local councils, up from 54 after the last elections in 2022. It won seats in every single one of the 104 municipalities where it put up candidates (out of 342 municipalities in the whole country). This is an increase of nearly 250 seats with respect to the previous elections, which makes FVD by far the biggest winner: the second best result was that of the liberal-centrist establishment People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which increased its score by only 65 seats. It is true that this VVD, like the other establishment parties Democrats 66, Christian Democrat Appeal (CDA) and the Green-Labour party (GL-PvdA), have about a thousand council seats each across the country but this result makes FVD the fourth largest national party at municipal level, way ahead of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party which now has only 100 or so local councillors.<img src="/uploads/image_7f4999ef57.png">It is mystifying that people continue to vote for parties like the VVD. They have been in power without interruption for over a decade and a half, yet during those years the country has gone to the dogs. They win by tricking people. Every time, they say they want lower immigration and fewer asylum seekers. Yet millions of migrants have settled in the Netherlands under their watch since 2010. Worse, they claim to be against immigration but in fact water down anti-immigration legislation at EU level whenever they can. Naturally, only FVD notices this and calls them out.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/vvd-campaigns-for-a-stricter-migration-policy-but-refuses-stricter-return-laws-in-the-eu">Read Tom Russcher’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_45b91dce5c.png">Tom has been on the trail of an influential Islamic NGO in the Netherlands which, it turns out, is under the heavy influence of the Turkish government via the religious attaché at the Turkish embassy in The Hague. The diplomat is often at the NGO’s offices and accompanies it on trips. He appears to be its de facto leader. Yet the NGO, which also receives subsidies from the Dutch government, says it is independent. Turkey is a secular state but it has a government department, the famous Diyanet, which essentially controls Islam in the country. In other words, the link to a foreign power is very real and direct. One wonders how widespread this influence is across Europe – in an EU which only ever complains about Russian interference, real or imagined, but which never mentions the American, Israeli or, in this case, Turkish role in national politics.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/">Read Tom’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_a13cc2b411.png">FVD is sponsoring a pan-European cultural-political initiative organised by a German friend and under the patronage of Leo Hohenberg, the great-grandson of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination triggered the First World War. Apart from his historic lineage, Prince Leo is a lucid analyst of the ills which beset our world. Stefan Korte, the organiser of the initiative, is convinced that Europe’s ills must be attacked at their cultural and civilisational root - which is more or less exactly what FVD’s leader, Thierry Baudet, has been saying for years. The initiative’s first conference will take place in Vienna in April. If you want to attend, sign up&nbsp;<a href="https://uturnforeurope.com/index_en.html">here</a>.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/european-cultural-initiative-founded-under-habsburg-patronage">Read about the initiative here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 21 March 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 21 March 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 21 March 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 21 March 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 21 March 2026

European Cultural Initiative Founded under Habsburg Patronage Dresden, 7 March 2026Under the patronage of Prince Leo von Hohenberg, great-grandson of the Austrian heir apparent Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este, founders from six European countries have established the "Support Association for the U-Turn for Europe Foundation" in Dresden. The association is currently undergoing registration proceedings with the Register of Associations and is intended to form the long-term foundation for a European cultural foundation.Europe in a Crisis of Orientation – Culture as the AnswerBehind the founding stands a clear diagnosis: Europe finds itself not only in a political or economic crisis but above all in a cultural and intellectual crisis of orientation. The U-Turn for Europe initiative aims to counteract this, through the promotion of European culture, cultural education, and the preservation of the continent's historical and intellectual heritage."Political debates frequently remain superficial. Without awareness of Europe's cultural and moral foundations, any responsible shaping of our continent lacks the necessary depth," says Stefan Korte, initiator and association chairman.Prominent Founders, European FoundationThat a project concerning Europe's cultural future must also rest on a genuine European foundation was a central concern for Korte from the outset. The seven founding members come from six different European countries – a deliberate signal.Prince Leo von Hohenberg assumes not only the patronage but also the chairmanship of the Board of Trustees, which is to accompany the cultural and strategic orientation of the initiative. His willingness to participate lends the project a historical dimension: the House of Habsburg is historically closely linked to the political and cultural history of Central Europe.General (ret.) Valdas Tutkus, former Commander-in-Chief of the Lithuanian Armed Forces and one of the defining military figures of modern Lithuania, was elected deputy association chairman. Tutkus brings extensive international experience in security and strategic policy matters."Europe is more than a political or economic project. It is a historically evolved cultural space and we must engage with its intellectual foundations if we wish to speak seriously about its future," states Korte.Cultural Re-rooting of EuropeIn terms of content, U-Turn for Europe advocates for a cultural re-rooting of Europe. Central to this is the heritage of Christian Western civilisation, which has shaped fundamental European values such as human dignity, freedom, responsibility, and civic spirit over centuries and, in the initiators' conviction, must be brought back more strongly into public consciousness.In addition to concrete cultural projects and educational initiatives, the initiative plans to establish a European think tank that will develop analyses, studies, and public debates on questions of European culture, identity, and geopolitical developments in the long term.First Conference in Vienna in AprilThe initiative will set its first public signal on 11 and 12 April 2026: the first U-Turn for Europe Values Conference will take place in Vienna, to which prominent figures from culture, academia, and public life from across Europe are expected.The association expressly understands itself as a non-partisan and charitable initiative with the aim of building a European network and initiating cultural projects and intellectual debates on Europe's future in the long term.Further information:<a href="http://www.uturnforeurope.com/">&nbsp;www.uturnforeurope.com</a> Press contact: Stefan Korte +49 176 620 903 07 contact@uturnforeurope.com<img src="/uploads/image_ffd8d83d74.png"> &nbsp;

large_leo2.jpeg

medium_leo2.jpeg

small_leo2.jpeg

thumbnail_leo2.jpeg

European Cultural Initiative Founded under Habsburg Patronage

The influence of foreign powers on organisations in the Netherlands has long been a cause for concern. This is particularly the case when institutions present themselves as independent, while at the same time appearing to maintain close ties with foreign governments. Recent reporting has once again raised questions about such influence, this time concerning the Islamic Foundation Netherlands (ISN).According to an article by GeenStijl, a Turkish diplomat, religious attaché Ömer Özgül of the Turkish embassy, is said to play a prominent role within ISN. This is remarkable because the foundation previously told the House of Representatives that it operates independently and that Turkish diplomatic influence would be kept out of the organisation.At the same time, it appears that the Dutch government, through the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, has cooperated with ISN and provided subsidies for activities and research. This raises questions about the independence of those projects, but also about the diligence with which the government entered into this cooperation.For Forum for Democracy, one principle is central: organisations that are under the influence of foreign states should play no role in policy-making, research, or subsidy schemes of the Dutch government.For that reason, Member of Parliament Russcher has submitted written questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He seeks clarity about the role of the Turkish diplomat within ISN, the earlier commitments to reduce Turkish influence, and the subsidies which the Dutch government has granted to this foundation. He also asks whether an investigation should be launched into the role of the Turkish Diyanet (the Presidency of Religious Affairs) and whether the diplomatic status of the attaché should be reconsidered.Questions from the member Russcher (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning the central role of a Turkish diplomat within the supposedly independent Islamic Foundation Netherlands, and the subsidies the ministry has granted to this foundation.<ol><li>Are you familiar with the reporting by GeenStijl showing that the Turkish diplomat Ömer Özgül plays a central role within the Islamic Foundation Netherlands (ISN), while ISN claims to be an autonomous and independent organisation?</li><li>Can you confirm that Mr Özgül, as the official religious attaché of the Turkish embassy, is regularly present at ISN’s premises and also travels abroad with ISN delegations, including to Ankara?</li><li>How does the presence of a Turkish diplomat as a de facto leader within ISN relate to the promise ISN made to the House of Representatives in 2020 to exclude Turkish diplomatic influence from the organisation?</li><li>Why has the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, through the Knowledge Platform Inclusive Society (Kennisplatform Inclusief Samenleven), cooperated with and granted subsidies to a foundation that appears to be so closely connected to the Turkish state?</li><li>Does the minister agree that funding research through a foundation that is under the influence of a foreign power seriously undermines the objectivity and reliability of that research?</li><li>What due diligence did the ministry carry out before cooperating with ISN, and why was the known history of Turkish interference not taken into account?</li><li>Is the minister willing to suspend all subsidy relationships with ISN and the ISN Academy with immediate effect until full clarity exists regarding the extent of Turkish state influence within this organisation?</li><li>Is the minister willing to ask the AIVD to draw up an updated threat assessment regarding the role of the Turkish Diyanet and affiliated organisations in the Netherlands, and to inform the House about this?</li><li>Are you prepared to reassess the diplomatic status of Mr Özgül in light of his activities outside the embassy, and, if necessary, take steps towards the Turkish embassy?</li></ol>

large_01KKHGETMXS3KY8NXWPA7YESS2.webp

medium_01KKHGETMXS3KY8NXWPA7YESS2.webp

small_01KKHGETMXS3KY8NXWPA7YESS2.webp

thumbnail_01KKHGETMXS3KY8NXWPA7YESS2.webp

Turkish diplomat heavily involved in the 'independent' Islamic Foundation Netherlands.

12 March 2026For years, often during election season, the same slogans have been heard from the liberal-centrist VVD People’s Party: asylum inflow must decrease, rejected asylum seekers must leave, the Netherlands must regain control, and so on. But last week in Strasbourg it once again became clear how hollow those phrases are. When the European Parliament voted on the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0048_EN.html">return regulation</a>, a law that would expand deportation policies for asylum seekers without the right to stay, the VVD abstained from voting. Worse still, in the months beforehand the party had actively tried to weaken that very law.The VVD has consistently used migration as a political crowbar. In 2017, Mark Rutte declared that people unwilling to adapt to Dutch norms were not welcome here, in an&nbsp;<a href="https://wnl.tv/2017/01/23/mark-rutte-normaal-ga-weg">open letter</a> widely circulated as an election pamphlet. In 2023, Dilan Yeşilgöz, then party leader, said that “<a href="https://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/politiek/10526220/dilan-yesilgoz-migratie-overkomt-ons">the inflow of migrants is overwhelming us</a>,” as if migration were an inexplicable and uncontrollable natural phenomenon, like gravity. In its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.vvd.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Verkiezingsprogramma-TK-VVD2025.pdf">2025 election programme</a> the VVD went further: spontaneous asylum applications would no longer be processed at all, only resettlement through selection would remain. Meanwhile, party leader Ruben Brekelmans stated during the debate on the government declaration on 25 February that the VVD “naturally wants to reduce the number of migrants entering our country. We always advocate that and we always work toward it. Asylum inflow must go down.”<h3>From rhetoric to policy</h3>The irony is striking: the VVD has been in power since 2010 and during this period&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/dashboard-bevolking/bevolkingsgroei/immigratie">millions of migrants</a> have come to the Netherlands. This is not surprising. Despite all the tough words, the VVD has in fact facilitated migration.For example, in December 2018 the United Nations Migration Pact of Marrakech was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eerstekamer.nl/verslag/20181218/verslag">approved</a> by the Dutch government (Rutte III), after being defended by VVD State Secretary Mark Harbers. This pact calls on countries to expand legal migration routes and grants migrants access to various services.Eric van der Burg, VVD State Secretary for Asylum and Migration in the Rutte IV cabinet,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/eric-van-der-burg-haalt-alles-uit-de-kast-voor-zijn-spreidingswet-en-wint-ik-slijm-me-te-barsten-vandaag~b4a7e03e/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ffvd.nl%2F">shaped</a> the so-called “Distribution Act” (Spreidingswet). This law obliges municipalities to receive a certain number of asylum seekers based on population size, thereby embedding the reception of asylum seekers as a permanent municipal responsibility. The Tweede Kamer approved the proposal in October 2023.<h3>European migration approach</h3>At the European level as well, little remains of the VVD’s tough rhetoric.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdfs/news/expert/2023/10/story/20230704STO02012/20230704STO02012_nl.pdf">Currently, four out of five rejected asylum seekers remain illegally in the EU.</a> The European Commission proposed in March 2025 a binding return regulation intended to make it easier for member states to deport these individuals.Malik Azmani, the VVD’s leader in the European Parliament and appointed as rapporteur on behalf of the Parliament, then drafted his own proposal.His&nbsp;<a href="https://ecre.org/european-parliament-draft-report-on-return-regulation/">version</a> was noticeably weaker than the Commission’s proposal: he made voluntary return a mandatory first step before forced measures could be used. This lengthens the procedure and makes swift return more difficult in practice. Additionally, detention for migration purposes, the mechanism that allows authorities to hold individuals who may abscond until deportation, was framed strictly as a last resort. Azmani therefore proposed a maximum detention period of 12 months, compared with the 24 months in the original proposal.Right-wing parties in the European Parliament subsequently submitted a&nbsp;<a href="https://brusselsenieuwe.nl/strengere-terugkeerwet-uitgeprocedeerde-asielzoekers-haalt-meerderheid-met-steun-van-radicaal-rechts/">stricter counterproposal</a>: no automatic suspension during appeals, children no longer excluded from return hubs, and a maximum detention period of 24 months. That proposal passed on 6 March by 396 votes to 226. Notably, Azmani abstained from the vote.<h3>The ‘right-wing’ coalition partner</h3>Moreover,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kabinetsformatie2025.nl/documenten/2026/01/30/aan-de-slag---coalitieakkoord-2026-2030">the coalition agreement</a>, drafted partly with the VVD, contains no structural solutions to the migration issue. Some proposals even facilitate migration. For instance, the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum-seekers (COA) is enabled to create sufficient structural and flexible reception capacity, while the Distribution Act remains in place.However, the agreement does not mention remigration or a potential withdrawal from the European Union, meaning that migration will likely remain one of the major challenges in the long term, once again under VVD policy.One could say the VVD does not follow through on its bold campaign statements. That last part, failing to follow through, is correct. But are the VVD’s statements even that bold? After all, they merely call for limiting immigration, while remigration is what the Netherlands truly needs. According to this view, that is the only way to ensure that Dutch citizens do not eventually become a minority in their own country.This, proponents argue, is what Forum voor Democratie (FVD) consistently advocates: not only reducing inflow, but actively promoting remigration of those who do not belong here.The VVD speaks of control but lets go. It speaks of return but facilitates residence. It presents itself as critical of migration, yet signs the Marrakech Migration Pact, created the Distribution Act, and fails in the EU to push through genuinely stricter migration policies. This is the VVD’s election mask: just before elections, win votes with strong language that resonates with the public, and then, over 15 years, allow more than three million migrants to enter the country.Fortunately, more and more people are beginning to distinguish between these two faces of the VVD. The mask is starting to fall. And this week, Dutch voters will have the opportunity to respond at the municipal elections on 18 March.

large_01KKH09E1VP7KRRZ3A0MJWJ4PB.webp

medium_01KKH09E1VP7KRRZ3A0MJWJ4PB.webp

small_01KKH09E1VP7KRRZ3A0MJWJ4PB.webp

thumbnail_01KKH09E1VP7KRRZ3A0MJWJ4PB.webp

VVD campaigns for a stricter migration policy but refuses stricter return laws in the EU

Is politics about reality or just appearance? Is it about action or virtue-signalling? Do states prosper from good leadership by people who stand out from the crowd, or do our current democratic systems instead encourage the opposite - the herd mentality, with all the bestiality and oafishness that implies? Watching Lidewij de Vos being remorselessly berated for not distancing herself from this or that remark made by some FVD candidate in some group chat in the previous decade, on the one hand, and Pepijn van Houwelingen lay out, with magnificent clarity, the concrete effects of climate madness, immigration and warmongering on people’s daily lives – especially through new taxes which reach into people’s pockets to pay for this nonsense&nbsp; – makes one fear the answer to these questions. No less than €10 billion are being cut from health spending in the Netherlands to fund the climate and immigration scams and the (American) arms industry. The result? Dutch people get sicker so that these lobbies can cream off their money. It’s that simple, unfortunately, but only FVD sees it.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di-eZS6a4K4">Watch Pepijn’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1adb7e5e6b.png">Gideon van Meijeren MP was acquitted on appeal last week on charges of incitement to violence. The charges were blatantly political and Gideon was subjected to a blatantly political trial. The very fact that the Prosecution service of a state has attacked an opposition politician demonstrates the totalitarian tendencies of today’s Europe. Gideon is not the only European to face lawfare or sanctions for what he has said, but his case is particularly symbolic because his prosecution was undertaken within the context of a 2023&nbsp;<a href="https://english.aivd.nl/documents/2023/11/7/publicatie-anti-institutional-extremism-in-the-netherlands">report</a> by the Dutch security services saying that people who criticise the governmental system (‘anti-institutional extremism’) are a threat to national security. This is part of a wider decade-old trend in Europe, which considers free speech issues – ‘disinformation’ – from a security, not a communication, viewpoint. The security state is upon us.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2nynCHAPfQ">Watch Gideon’s statement here</a><img src="/uploads/image_a820192556.png">The fact that immigrants continue to pour into Europe after years and even decades of protest against it is terrifying. The EU is about to implement its Migration Pact which does precisely what George Soros wants – it transforms illegal migration into legal. It will not reduce flows and specifically will not change asylum policy, which has been an open door to abuse for years, at huge cost to the receiving countries. As Tom Russcher MP pointed out in a recent speech to Parliament, there is no way to stop immigration other than to close the borders – i.e. abandon Schengen – and leave the EU’s various legal mechanisms which encourage immigration – i.e. leave the EU. Anything else is just make-believe – the one thing our current governments are good at.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/the-european-migration-pact-is-nothing-but-an-eu-distribution-law">Read Tom Russcher’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_c92a3f9305.png">We were honoured and humbled to welcome Dr Setareh Sadeqi from the University of Tehran on The Forum this week – humbled because she joined us from what must be a terrifying war zone. It is almost impossible to believe that the US administration has so recklessly plunged the world into such chaos – and impossible to understand why European leaders continue to give their unconditional support to America, the single greatest threat to world peace.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tYKri3TDt0">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 13 March 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 13 March 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 13 March 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 13 March 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 13 March 2026

Speech, 3 March 2026The implementation of the Asylum and Migration Pact is on the agenda of the Justice and Home Affairs EU Council (JBZ Council) on 5 and 6 March.For Forum for Democracy it is clear: the European Migration Pact will not fundamentally limit migration to the Netherlands. The right to apply for asylum will not change; every application will still be assessed individually, and a rejection can still be appealed before a court. That does not change with this Pact.Does the minister acknowledge that this pact does not legally restrict the inflow, but mainly concerns its organisation and redistribution?Then the Solidarity Mechanism - a nice term for what is essentially just a Distribution Law at the European level. Member states can either accept asylum seekers on their territory or pay about €20,000 per person in fines - and we know that not every country will cooperate with redistribution.Poland, for example, has already opposed this before. Hungary has refused to cooperate with European obligations for years.&nbsp; The Czech Republic and Slovakia have also spoken out against it. These countries dare to act in the interests of their own country.What does this mean for the Netherlands?If all countries prefer to pay rather than accept asylum seekers, the pressure will remain on the countries at the external borders of Europe, such as Italy and Greece. If reception facilities there fill up, asylum seekers will simply continue travelling. With open internal borders, they will eventually end up in the Netherlands anyway.So we may end up paying €20,000 per person not to take them in, while still receiving inflow through secondary migration.My question to the minister therefore is: what guarantees does he have that the Netherlands will not both pay and still face migration pressure?And if in practice redistribution does not work, and asylum seekers still come to the Netherlands in large numbers despite these payments, is he then willing to consider that the Netherlands should also stop cooperating with this mechanism?The cabinet calls return “the cornerstone of a functioning asylum policy.” But merely stating this is not enough, because migration also creates an economic incentive for countries of origin.According to recent estimates by the World Bank, migrants transferred around $669 billion worldwide to low- and middle-income countries in 2024. From the Netherlands alone, this amounts to more than €4 billion per year.In Eritrea, this is estimated to account for 30–40% of GDP, in Somalia 20–30%, in Afghanistan around 20%, and in Syria roughly 15–20%.This shows that countries of origin benefit from migration flows to Western countries. They will therefore not readily take their citizens back. Why would they, if it brings them so much money?My final question to the minister is therefore this: if return really is the cornerstone, is he willing to investigate whether money transfers to countries which structurally refuse to cooperate with readmission could be limited or regulated?As long as the Netherlands remains bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Refugee Convention, and European asylum law, the right to apply for asylum will remain in place, and returning people to their countries of origin will remain practically impossible.As long as those obligations continue to exist, this European Migration Pact will change nothing fundamental.If the Netherlands wants control over its borders, it must honestly address the question of whether we want to continue adhering to these treaties and European rules, or whether we want to withdraw from them in order to once again decide for ourselves who is allowed to enter our country.

large_tom-russcher.jpg

medium_tom-russcher.jpg

small_tom-russcher.jpg

thumbnail_tom-russcher.jpg

The European Migration Pact is Nothing But an EU Distribution Law. The High Rates of Immigration Will Simply Continue!

For the last fifty years, the Netherlands has been governed by essentially the same political parties. The various coalitions have included three or four political formations in different constellations. Following the interlude in which Geert Wilders' Freedom Party was in power, the old party cartel has now reasserted its grip. Rob Jetten’s government is composed of three parties who have been governing the country since the early 1970s – for half a century. It is hardly surprising that nothing ever changes after an election. This time is no different. The new government is committed to climate craziness, immigration, high tax and war. Only FVD is different: it wants lower and simpler taxes, growth, innovation, remigration and a foreign policy based on national interest. Political systems in Europe structurally breed mediocrity – no one exceptional could possibly survive in the stifling and brain-dead world of European politics - and mediocrity does one thing very well. It stamps out excellence. As Anatole France said of the Republic, it governs badly but defends itself very well. Lidewij de Vos, FVD’s parliamentary leader, laid this all out with wonderful clarity in her formal statement to Parliament following the swearing-in of the ‘new’ government.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTTxC56aeA4">Watch Lidewij’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_36b4efff59.png">A good illustration of how nothing will change is the recent revelation that the government is requiring 38,000 new homes to be built to house asylum seekers. This is in spite of the fact that the ‘new’ coalition has promised to crack down on immigration. The truth is that the asylum racket has been running for decades and there is no end in sight. Money for the asylum seekers, lots of jobs for life for the civil servants running asylum and immigration policy - everyone’s a winner except for the taxpayer, the people who find asylum seekers living next door to them, and those Dutch people who are in serious need of housing. Tom Russcher, FVD’s newest MP, put down a series of questions to the Immigration minister about this, of which the funniest is the last one: ‘Is the government prepared to revise Dutch asylum policy completely.’ Don’t hold your breath for the answer! <a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/tens-of-thousands-of-additional-asylum-places-before-mid-2027">Read Tom Russcher’s questions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_d1bb5f73db.png">John Laughland, FVD International’s director, was recently Stanislav Krapivnik’s guest on his podcast, ‘In the Eyes of Truth’. Stanislav is originally from Eastern Ukraine but grew up in the US and served in the US army; he now lives in Russia. They discussed the war in Ukraine, of course – although it was mainly John asking the questions at that point - but also the dire state of the European Union. What is the role of Germany in the EU? What is Britain’s role in Europe now after Brexit? And what can we expect from the war with Russia?<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=rt-D5eM2DMc">Watch John’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_132f9ba897.png">Simon Elmer was our guest on The Forum this week, to discuss his new&nbsp;<a href="https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2026/02/26/the-great-replacement-and-the-islamisation-of-britain/">book</a> ‘The Great Replacement and the Islamisation of Britain’. Simon is convinced that Britain is being targeted by Islam and that Muslims already wield a decisive influence over British political life.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbhAT3iX3Ek">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 5 March 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 5 March 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 5 March 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 5 March 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 5 March 2026

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?

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

23 Million People in the Netherlands? Tom Russcher MP Pushes Back on Immigration | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Repression in Germany Today with Ulrike Guérot

Massive FVD Win Across Dutch Municipalities: “What an Incredible Victory!” 🥳

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The War in Iran with Dr. Setareh Sadeqi

The Court Said I’m Not Guilty - But This Fight Isn't Over | Gideon van Meijeren | FVD

'No Money for Healthcare, but Billions for Ukraine?!' - Pepijn van Houwelingen | FVD

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

Same Political Parties, Same Destruction - Lidewij de Vos Speaks Out | FVD

🏛 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

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