Proposition 50K0667

Projet de loi visant à réduire de moitié l'effet dévolutif des votes exprimés en case de tête et à supprimer la distinction entre candidats titulaires et candidats suppléants pour l'élection des Chambres législatives fédérales et du Conseil de la Communauté germanophone.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

May 23, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

regionalisation national election organisation of elections election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

LE N-VA FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Danny Pieters (N-VA) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Els Van Weert (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

June 28, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to inform you that the Committee on Internal Affairs today bowed over the Government’s Amendment No. 7. This amendment will only give rise to procedural debate. It should also be noted that there was no further debate on the subject of the case. Amendment 7 was adopted with 10 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstinence. The entire text was also adopted with 10 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will be brief. It follows that a community senator, which is a person appointed by the communities to seat in the Senate, cannot be entrusted with a municipal mandate because at that time, in the constitutional revision, it was assumed that this would involve too much work for the person concerned. After approximately five years of practice, it turned out that this actually constitutes a discrimination against the senators and that the activity of a municipal council member does not actually affect the fact that one exercises a mandate as a senator, also and above all in this way can lead to a discrimination against the senators. After all, some would be allowed to exercise the office of mayor, while others should not even be a member of the municipal council. Hence my proposal – which was accepted by the committee – to amend that part of the law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not eternalize and refer to what I said last week during the discussion of a similar bill concerning municipal and provincial elections. I would like to make one or the other comment. First of all, I am a little surprised at the urge to present the current bill, since it might have been better to wait until the municipal and provincial elections have passed. This would have allowed us to make a first assessment of the new law and to see if there were no gaps to fill. Indeed, last week, different speakers of the majority were of the opinion that one should, in the long run, arrive at a complete removal of the devolving effect of the head box. The PSC supports this idea. This is also the reason I had, with Mrs. Milquet and Mr. Poncelet, submitted a bill in this direction. For the PSC, the complete removal of the devolving effect of the head box allows to give a real weight to the vote of the citizen. It offers equal opportunities to all candidates and will undoubtedly have a dynamic and motivating effect on them in the elections. It diminishes the role of political parties in the selection of future elected members. And finally, it strengthens democracy by making it more transparent, more understandable and closer to the citizen. This is what I have stated, with Mr. Detremmerie, various amendments aimed at the complete elimination of the devolving effect. Mr. Speaker, I will no longer intervene in the discussion of the articles and amendments; I will therefore allow myself to defend them here. With regard to our last amendment, I refer to the statements made by the Minister himself during the general discussion, and taken back into the report. The Minister questioned whether it would be appropriate to anticipate an increase in the number of candidates in the election, and this due to the size of some electoral districts. For example, in the electoral district of Huy-Waremme, there are only two seats of deputies to be provided. Therefore, there could be lists comprising only two candidates. It could be perfectly imagined that this list wins both mandates. There would then no longer be a substitute, with all the difficulties that this entails in the event that one of the elected should, for one reason or another, abandon his mandate or lose it. The minister was tempted to provide for the possibility of completing certain lists of a certain number of candidates, with, for example, a maximum of 30%. But this percentage also posed a number of problems, especially in the same case where there were only two candidates. My amendment aimed to provide for a minimum of five candidates with the possibility of increasing to an additional 30% in some constituencies. Unfortunately, the Commission did not approve this amendment. I hope that the colleagues, probably few, who will feel affected by this difficulty will support me in the plenary session. I believe that a party that submits a list has the duty to ensure continuity and to avoid being in a ridiculous situation in the event that there would be a shortage of candidates. The most important thing was said last Thursday. I will therefore stick to this observation.

Mr. Coveliers’ proposal and his reasoning are very interesting. This affects a sensitive area, in particular the cumulation of all kinds of political mandates. There is still a discrimination between, on the one hand, senators and chamber members who are not allowed to cumulate any political mandate, not even to be a municipal council member or OCMW council member, and, on the other hand, senators and chamber members who are undoubtedly allowed to cumulate and even observe the increasingly important post of mayor. Given the new view on this matter and the serene debate on the cumulation of political mandates, Mr. Coveliers’ proposal seems to be situated between the two extreme positions taken on this subject, where either everything or nothing is permitted. Per ⁇ everyone sees a good intermediate solution in that proposal. We are willing to support this proposal, but then one must also be consistent and stretch the line. Per ⁇ it was a coincidence, but during the same committee meeting the proposal of Mrs. Van Weert was addressed, also concerning the cumulation of political mandates, in which the same reasoning is actually followed, but then passed on to the other members of parliament. Now, with surprise and disappointment, I found that those who supported Mr. Coveliers’ proposal did not take the same attitude towards Mrs. Van Weert’s proposal, although they logically should have done so. Since one bill was approved, but the other not, we are considering our voting behavior tomorrow. Basically, we agree with Mr. Coveliers’ proposal, but we believe that Mrs. Van Weert’s bill should also be approved in order to eliminate all discrimination in this regard.

Everyone knows the great institutional subtlety of our country. This led the government, on the basis of the recommendations of the State Council, to present the same draft for all the assemblies, but in different forms. Therefore, I will not repeat here the arguments I developed on the occasion of the examination of the previous project. The same arguments must find the same answers. In addition, there was no reason to delay because it is the same project for the different assemblies. On the particular issue mentioned by Mr. It was clearly raised in the committee. Parliamentarians have spoken in perfect knowledge of cause and you know how respectful I am for parliamentary choices.