The Netherlands cannot handle the current influx of asylum seekers. Last night, the reception in Ter Apel reached more than the agreed 2,000 people again. As a result, the COA has to pay expensive penalties again, and the government has to resort to emergency measures such as expensive hotel rooms and cruise ships. While the treaties, which were concluded shortly after World War II, were never intended to give everyone the right to receive shelter in a European country of their choice.
In a democracy, the ultimate power, the authority over how we organize our country, should lie with the people in the country. They are represented by parliament. This is currently insufficient because the interpretation of an agency weighs more than what politicians intend. It is time to restore that balance and bring political responsibility back to where it belongs. It is time to take action and fundamentally change the asylum system. The VVD wants the caretaker cabinet to be given the full opportunity to get to work on this in Europe now.
‘Are we living in a legal country or in a real country? In a country of legal reality or in a country of actual reality?’ That is the question raised by Bart de Wever, the Prime Minister of Belgium, about the current asylum system in his HJ Schoo lecture on September 4. The interpretation of European treaties by judges makes it almost impossible to gain control over asylum migration. Anyone who comes from anywhere in the world and claims asylum here has the right to shelter and endless procedures. With all the consequences that entails. We must therefore regain control ourselves. Belgium is trying to do this by excluding single male asylum seekers from reception. Against the rules. The result: the bailiff entered a ministry and took away a refrigerator and a coffee maker.
But unlike Belgium, the Netherlands has a provisional arrangement for asylum seekers. If we refuse someone shelter, that can be undone in a reasonable time through the courts. The consequence for the Netherlands is that single male asylum seekers cannot currently be deported to Belgium, because Article 3 of the ECHR, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, would then be violated.
The VVD has long wanted international treaties to be interpreted differently and modernized to align with contemporary reality. The ECHR was signed by the Netherlands in 1950. The idea behind a European protection mechanism is primarily to prevent atrocities that occurred during World War II. Additionally, the ECHR served as a defensive line against communism. While Stalin and his allies were primarily concerned with the collective, the ECHR was supposed to ensure that individual freedoms, such as the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression, could not simply be restricted by the government.
Both priorities are still relevant in 2025, and it is good that the ECHR is used for these purposes. Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen that the treaty is also being interpreted in such a way that democratically established asylum policy is being undone retroactively. This leads to problems.
First of all, we see that asylum seekers who do not have the right to a residence permit can often remain on the basis of Article 8 ECHR. This article regulates the right to family and private life. Minor asylum seekers often invoke this article to bring family members to the Netherlands. In 2024, there were 16,000 applications for this. Cynically enough, it pays off to send minors ahead and then apply for asylum for the whole family. This maintains a business model of human smuggling and very dangerous situations in the Mediterranean.
The influence of the ECHR on asylum policy goes even further. Due to judges rulings, there must increasingly be assessments against the ECHR even if an asylum seeker does not invoke it at all. This is complex and time-consuming, resulting in extra staffing and high penalties for the state. It also means that places in reception remain occupied by people awaiting their procedure, so that real refugees cannot be adequately accommodated.
The current interpretation of the ECHR also limits the possibilities of deporting criminal asylum seekers from the Netherlands. A criminal conviction must always be weighed against the right to family and private life of the asylum seeker in question. As a result, it often happens that criminal asylum seekers are allowed to remain in the Netherlands. Victims must helplessly watch as criminals seem to receive better protection than they do.
Interpretations of the ECHR are based on the so-called living instrument doctrine. This means that the treaty is not interpreted based on the intentions that the signatories had in 1950, but based on contemporary views. But the question is: the views of whom? One would expect that the concerns of the Dutch people about the high influx of asylum seekers, represented by politicians, would also resonate in the interpretation of the ECHR. However, little of this is noticeable in the judiciary.
For a long time, there has been talk of adjusting the ECHR, and if that does not work, exiting the ECHR. But both processes take a long time and are very intrusive. During the HJ Schoo lecture, Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever stated that he is working on proposals to limit the influence of international treaties, including the ECHR, on asylum policy, among other things through a so-called interpretation protocol. He wants to collaborate with other European countries that are concerned about the high influx of asylum seekers.
De Wever expressed that he regrets that the Netherlands has so far seemed hesitant in this regard. He referred to an earlier letter he signed with 8 other European countries to the Council of Europe. The Netherlands did not join this because at the time not all ministers in the cabinet agreed that politicians should have a say in judges rulings. De Wever also indicated that he expects that as long as the Dutch cabinet is caretaker, there will be reluctance to join initiatives that restore control over asylum.
And that is a missed opportunity. Of course, politicians should never sit in the judges chair, and the separation of powers is a great good. But if treaties that politicians have concluded no longer work as societies intended, it is also up to politicians to ensure adjustments.
The migration problem is so serious that we cannot wait until we have a mission cabinet again. As far as the VVD is concerned, we must act together now. The initiative from De Wever is an opportunity that the cabinet must seize. I also want the Netherlands to join Belgiums initiative and actively support our southern neighbors in drafting the interpretation protocol. Only through a combination of national, European, and international measures can we actually regain control over migration. I propose that we as the House of Representatives give the cabinet, caretaker or not, a mandate to be mission-oriented in Europe on asylum. To do everything possible to regain control over migration. It is now or never!
