Entire FVD group suspended by House of Representatives

On 19 December, the entire Forum for Democracy parliamentary group was suspended. Never before in parliamentary history has such a sanction been imposed on a party. VVD, NSC, D66, GroenLinks-PvdA, CDA, CU, SGP, SP, PvdD, Volt and the new parliamentary speaker Martin Bosma (PVV) voted in favour of the Presidium's proposal to deprive Thierry Baudet, Frederik Jansen and Gideon van Meijeren of their right to speak for a week.

A complaint from the D66 corner

Since 1 April 2021, the so-called Board of Inquiry and Integrity has been established, which handles complaints "about violations of the Code of Conduct by members of parliament". Any Dutch citizen who believes that a member of parliament is violating this code of conduct can file a complaint about it. In the case of Baudet, Jansen and Van Meijeren, this is Piet Lekkerkerk, a prominent member of D66 who spends a lot of time vetting FVD members in the hope of discovering something shocking. For now, the results of Lekkerkerk's investigations consist of facts that are common knowledge, but he invariably presents them as revelations. For instance, one of his groundbreaking findings is that Van Meijeren is also a member of the municipal council in The Hague in addition to being a member of parliament. He believes that FVD MPs should declare these kinds of 'sideline activities' in the records of the Lower House. If they fail to do so, they are threatened with sanctions.

A Question of principle

The reason FVD MPs do not obey the orders of other political parties and their cronies (like Piet Lekkerkerk) is a matter of principle: MPs do not have to answer to other MPs and certainly do not belong to be controlled by each other. An elected representative of the people must control the government and is accountable only to the voter - emphatically not to other political forces. For this reason, the MP's individual freedom is firmly anchored in the Dutch Constitution. It should never be the case that a majority of the Chamber will control and restrict a democratic minority. Yet that is exactly what is happening now.

Misunderstanding about ancillary income

But what about the income resulting from the sideline activities of FVD MPs? Isn't that being rigged? To that question, the answer is a resounding 'no'.

Contrary to what many people think, MPs do not receive a salary, but a so-called compensation payment. The fact that MPs have other incomes (additional income) in addition to the compensation is by no means exceptional, nor is it undesirable by definition. By being socially involved, doing their own business and experiencing the consequences of policy, MPs keep in touch with society.

Every MP is therefore free to engage in other activities besides being an MP. In the case of the suspended FVD MPs, these activities are fully in line with the ideas they propagate in their role as MPs. Fair Food is an initiative that wants to offer Dutch farmers a fair price for their products and shorten the chain from farmer to consumer.

So, when we talk about FVD, there is no 'conflict of interest' at all. Moreover, the FVD MPs in question - unlike many other politicians - are extremely transparent about their sideline activities, publicly highlighting them and actively communicating them to their supporters. No register can beat that. Secrecy is the last thing FVD can be accused of.

Discounting compensation not via unconstitutional registers but via Tax Office

Once a MP's ancillary income exceeds 14 per cent of the compensation, half of the excess will be discounted from the compensation - up to a maximum of 35 per cent of the compensation.

It is important to note that this rebate is through the Tax Office and not through the unconstitutional register created by the incumbent parties. All FVD MPs have always neatly reported their ancillary income through the Tax Office and, where applicable, have had their compensation reduced accordingly.