My Differences of Appreciation with D66

My Differences of Appreciation with D66

✍️ Author’s note

This reflection is not written in anger, nor as a political statement meant to persuade. It is a personal clarification — an attempt to explain why, after careful consideration, I have decided to end my membership of D66 while remaining true to my convictions.

There comes a moment when one must acknowledge that a door has quietly closed. Not in anger, and not out of disappointment alone, but out of clarity. This is such a moment for me with D66.

My convictions have not changed. My vote will, in all likelihood, remain the same. But party membership implies more than electoral preference. It implies a shared framework of thinking. Over time, my differences with D66 have become fundamental rather than incidental.

I joined D66 as a European liberal: fiscally conservative, institutionally minded, and wary of political simplification. I was never a full progressive, nor did I see politics primarily as a vehicle for moral signalling. Europe, the rule of law, and long-term responsibility were always my first priorities.

On refugee policy, I was disappointed by D66’s approach to the Refugee Convention. The language of “modernising” or selectively bypassing existing obligations, often framed in populist terms, marked a shift I did not recognise. In this area, D66 moved not to the left, but to the right — and in doing so lost my confidence.

On Ukraine, my support for European solidarity has always been accompanied by realism. My reservations about EU enlargement and its consequences are well known. What may be emotionally satisfying can still be strategically and financially unsound. The long-term implications for Europe’s balance of power, institutional cohesion, and fiscal sustainability remain insufficiently examined.

On defence and security, necessary shifts have been made, but the broader tone increasingly feels like strategic sleepwalking. The emotional noise surrounding deterrence, the confiscation of Russian assets, and the scale of future reconstruction commitments troubles me. I do not welcome confrontation, nor do I believe Europe should drift into it unexamined.

On housing, nitrogen policy, and spatial planning, the diagnosis is often correct, but decisive prioritisation remains difficult. On economic growth, energy security, and fiscal policy, ambition is present, yet discipline, competitiveness, and long-term restraint deserve greater emphasis.

Most importantly, D66 has moved closer to a progressive-social alignment that was never central to my political outlook. My liberalism is grounded in restraint, institutions, and realism — not in populism of anger, but not in populism of virtue either.

These are not accusations. They are differences of appreciation.

I continue to respect many within D66 and its role in defending the rule of law and Europe’s place in the world. But I can no longer say that we reason from the same premises. When that happens, membership becomes symbolic rather than honest.

Leaving a party does not mean abandoning one’s convictions. Sometimes it is simply a way of remaining true to them.

Clarity, at least, remains a door worth keeping open.”

William J J Houtzager, Aka WJJH, December 2025

📌Blog description

A personal reflection on parting ways with D66. Not in anger, but out of clarity — and fidelity to liberal, European convictions shaped by restraint, realism, and institutional responsibility.