The VVD‘s ECHR Stance: A Fourteen-Year Silence
For years, the VVD (people’s Party for Freedom adn Democracy) has voiced concerns about the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing its current interpretation leads to undesirable outcomes and diminishing public support. As far back as 2011, figures like Stef Blok and Klaas Dijkhoff called for a significant overhaul of the ECHR, advocating for the Netherlands to seek European allies and “shake up” the Committee of Ministers to bring the court into the third millennium and secure its future legitimacy.
Despite consistently being part of governing coalitions – both center-left and center-right – since then,the VVD has failed to enact any meaningful change. No action was taken to push for reform or challenge the status quo.
Recently, an opportunity arose when Denmark and Italy initiated an open letter, signed by leaders from Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, calling for a dialogue on the ECHR’s interpretation, specifically regarding the deportation of convicted criminal immigrants. The letter argued that current interpretations sometimes obstruct the deportation of such individuals.
However, the Dutch government, under Prime Minister Dick Schoof, declined to sign the letter. Schoof stated the Netherlands did not want to be perceived as “sitting in the judge’s chair.” While acknowledging the content of the letter, the government indicated it would pursue alternative avenues to address the issue of deporting convicted foreign nationals, describing these efforts as “blababla” by the author. Notably, the VVD remained silent on this growth.
The VVD’s 2025 election programme includes a statement suggesting the Refugee Convention and ECHR should be “kept up to date,” a phrasing the author deems substantially weaker than the earlier, more assertive call to “shake [the ECHR] awake.” The author argues the VVD avoids strong rhetoric on the ECHR to avoid alienating potential coalition partners like GroenLinks/PvdA and D66, prioritizing discussion of issues like mortgage interest rates instead. concluding that the party’s inaction, given its long-held position, constitutes cowardice.
