Political debate reveals digital vulnerability and opportunities
In The Hague, seven parties clashed over data, AI, and infrastructure, but the call for decisive action was unanimous.
Published on October 13, 2025
Bart, co-founder of Media52 and Professor of Journalism oversees IO+, events, and Laio. A journalist at heart, he keeps writing as many stories as possible.
For a long time, digitization was a blind spot in The Hague. Today, at the National Archives, it became clear that this is now changing. During “the Digital Debate,” led by former D66 Member of Parliament Kees Verhoeven, seven candidate MPs crossed swords on data, artificial intelligence, energy, and the role of government. Their differences of opinion were sometimes sharp, but the common thread was clear: the Netherlands and Europe must invest faster, more robustly, and more intelligently in the digital future.
Organization of the debate
This debate on the major digital issues of today and tomorrow was organized by a broad coalition of trade associations from the digital industry: BTG, Cyberveilig Nederland, Dutch Cloud Community, Dutch Datacenter Association, DINL, Dutch Startup Association, Fiber Carrier Association, iPoort, NLconnect, and NLdigital. The debate was made possible in part by the Open Government Program (PROO).
Autonomy is not an illusion
The first discussion went straight to the heart of the matter: how sovereign is the Netherlands as long as virtually all data is stored in American clouds? Barbara Kathmann (GroenLinks/PvdA) did not hesitate for a moment: “Autonomy is about whether you set the rules yourself. As long as we continue to recklessly store everything in American clouds, we are not in the driver's seat.”
Hanneke van der Werf of D66 agreed and pointed to geopolitical risks: “If we allow ourselves to be hooked up to the Microsoft IV, we run the risk that one day the floodgates will no longer open. Then we won't even be able to collect taxes anymore.”
CDA member Hemin Hawezy also illustrated the point. He told how his niece found an apartment whose landlord kept a spare key: “She didn't trust it and withdrew. In exactly the same way, we as a government are leaving the key to our digital infrastructure with someone else.”
Volt candidate Bjorn Beijnon looked emphatically to Europe: “We must invest not only nationally, but also Europeanly. Open source and open standards are crucial to regaining control.”
VVD member Queeny-Aimee Rajkowski emphasized that fine words are not enough: “Everyone says that digital sovereignty is important. But money is also needed. That is why the VVD wants an investment fund of 42 billion euros, partly for a European cloud.”
The opportunities of AI – and the concerns
After the harsh words about dependence, the debate shifted to innovation. Here, the tension between optimism about opportunities and concerns about risks was palpable.
Party for the Animals candidate Cynthia Pallandt made it clear that, in her opinion, AI should not be merely an engine of growth: “Digitization must serve people, animals, nature, and democracy—not just profit and power.”
Rajkowski acknowledged the risks but warned against too much caution: “In the physical world, everything is tightly regulated, but online it was the Wild West for years. Fortunately, we now have rules such as the Digital Services Act. But we are in danger of going too far with AI. We need to find a middle ground.”
According to Kathmann, the problem runs deeper: “Because we in The Hague spend too little time on opportunities, we get stuck on identifying risks. Meanwhile, ministries act as if AI is a magic wand that will solve all healthcare problems. Without an investment climate, without regulatory sandboxes, you won't get anywhere.”
Van der Werf agreed: “As long as we sit back, we will import technology from the US and China that is not built on our standards and values. We have to develop it ourselves.”
Energy and talent: the Achilles heel
A third recurring theme was the shortage of energy and talent. SGP member Ruben van Heteren put it bluntly: “If we don't do anything now, soon we won't be able to charge our cars, and our European cloud system won't work either. Network congestion must be solved now.”
He also advocated a broader view of talent: “Don't just look at diplomas, but also at attic-room techies and vocational students. There is enormous power there.”
Hawezy (CDA) referred to the substantial investments his party is proposing: “We are allocating 12 billion for key technologies and another 12 billion for energy and climate. That is necessary to keep companies like ASML here.”
But Van der Werf pointed to another bottleneck: “Good schools and universities are just as important as energy. Sending international students away is disastrous. We desperately need them to realize our innovations.”
Infrastructure as a forgotten foundation
The debate revealed that infrastructure has been neglected for years. Rajkowski recalled how data centers were almost declared off-limits: “The image was very negative, even though data centers are essential. Fortunately, there is now an assessment framework, but we need to be smarter about space and agreements.”
Beijnon warned that the power of American tech giants is also visible here: “Many of our data centers are owned by American parties. If we want a Silicon Europe, we have to invest in cables, hubs, and data centers ourselves.”
Van der Werf put it in concrete terms: “On Prinsjesdag, I walked around wearing a submarine cable hat to draw attention to the issue. For the price of a few kilometers of highway, you can finance a submarine cable—the backbone of our digital economy. If we don't do that, we will lose our hub in the world.”
A Ministry of Digital Affairs?
Finally, the question arose as to how the government itself should be organized. Volt insisted on a separate ministry. Beijnon: “The buck-passing effect must stop. A Minister of Digital Affairs will be given the mandate and budget to really make decisions.”
Rajkowski thought that was too simplistic: “The point is that digitization should be incorporated everywhere, not just in one ministry. The government itself must also be digitally proficient.”
Kathmann saw it primarily as a matter of continuity: “We finally had a Digital Affairs Committee and a state secretary. But as long as the spokespersons change every two years, we will continue to lag behind.”
Final round: urgency over party politics
In their closing statements, the candidates emphasized urgency above all else. Pallandt warned: “Protect what is vulnerable. Only use digitization where it adds value, not to make large companies bigger.”
Van Heteren called for a level-headed approach: “Build an AI data center in Groningen, but say goodbye to the mega data centers of multinationals that contribute little.”
Hawezy focused on cooperation: “It's not just about government or the market. It's about society. Industry organizations, provinces, social coalitions, we need to bring them together.”
The audience in the room, largely from the digital sector, heard politicians question each other vigorously while also nodding in agreement regularly. Verhoeven summed it up aptly: “Digitization affects everything and changes everything. We have also made enormous strides in politics in recent years. It is no longer a technical issue; it is a geopolitical one. And finally, it is being discussed seriously in The Hague.”