Proposition 50K0946

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord entre le gouvernement du Royaume de Belgique et le Conseil fédéral suisse pour la coopération dans l'utilisation pacifique de l'énergie nucléaire et à l'Echange de lettres, signés à Berne le 3 juillet 1992.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 13, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Switzerland international agreement nuclear energy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

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.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 14, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to ask for the provisional non-approval of the bill concerning the agreement with the Swiss Federal Council. It is not that we disagree with its content, we want to give a signal to Switzerland because there have been problems there for a long time in connection with the involvement of European citizens in road accidents. They do not have a good justice system. So far, satisfactory answers have emerged. Therefore, we would like to give a signal by not ratifying this treaty for the time being.

Document 946/1 concerning the approval of an exchange on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to join the request of Mrs. Moerman. Among other things, on the insistence of our colleague Staes in the European Parliament, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already made several attempts to reach an agreement with Switzerland, so far without result. We therefore agree with the question of putting some pressure and temporarily postponing the ratification of this treaty.

Mr. Speaker, for information, I would like to ask Ms. Moerman to repeat for a moment why she does not want this convention to be approved. Second, I would like to hear the Government’s position on this issue.

Mr. Van Peel, I have already drawn the attention of the Minister on this. After all, in relation to this type of draft laws, we don’t often see such an attitude.

Mr. Van Peel, there is a problem for non-Swiss nationals who become victims of an accident in Switzerland to receive an appropriate benefit under the same conditions as the Swiss. One of the problems is that one demands a guarantee and that one therefore has to make a lot of expenses in order to be able to proceed with a view to compensation. Ms. Van Weert has already said that Mr. Staes has already asked questions about this, including to our Minister of Foreign Affairs. On 3 March, he wrote a letter to the Foreign Minister of the Confédération Helvétique to complain about this situation. This was also discussed in the Parliamentary Committee between Switzerland and the European Union. Members of the European Parliament addressed this issue last year. Until now, only after long insistence has been found a solution for a single individual case. However, this has taken years and there is still no structural solution. We now ask for a signal to Switzerland that this situation cannot continue and that they must change their rules in this regard.

I note that this agreement was signed on 3 July 1992. Of course, it still needs to be approved by both Chambers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the views of my colleagues and I would like to add that following the steps taken by Minister Michel with regard to Switzerland to resolve the problem, the Swiss press and insurance associations have launched a campaign of denigration against the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in order to challenge the existing bilateral agreements between the two countries. I think we are facing a very scandalous situation here. It would therefore be appropriate to remind Switzerland that it must make justice accessible to all and that victims of accidents are entitled to compensation within a reasonable time.

Mr. Speaker, in hearing the comments of the members of this assembly, I confirm the fact that the text is the subject of a quite normal procedure and that the Minister of Foreign Affairs proposed the simple ratification of this agreement, signed in 1992 in Bern. However, if this subject should cause any hesitation, I do not see any inconvenience to postpone this dossier, in order to be able to carry out an exchange of views within the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Would anyone agree to bring the matter back to the committee?

Mr. Speaker, I ask myself a question: Should the majority also suggest to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to prevent our citizens from skiing in Switzerland? Because the problem seems to be of crucial importance to her...

The procedure seems a little strange. However, if the referral to the committee is requested, I will of course not object to it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow in this the wise advice of Minister Reynders. However, it is strange. This is a formal approval, a ratification, of foreign treaties. I hope that one is well aware of the fact that one connects two topics that have nothing to do with each other. This is a policy of blackmail, not against a banana republic, but against Switzerland. I do not undermine the seriousness of the problems that are outlined. It’s not about that, but linking this to non-approval of a treaty is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent. However, if the government, in all its wisdom, considers it necessary to say that there is no precedent, it is so, but I point out the improper use of approving international treaties. After all, there are many countries with which we approve international treaties concluded by the government, countries with which we have all sorts of disputes. If we always use this to not ratify, that is a ⁇ dangerous precedent.

Mr. Van Peel, I take note of your statement with interest.

At the moment, it is not about not approving. It is only about the question of sending the matter to the committee, which is actually common with any draft, but which, rightly, is not done with treaties approved without a report. We want to follow the normal procedure here.

There is a proposal to send this to the committee.

Mr. Van Peel, I find myself in good company with regard to the connection with international treaties, because prof. dr. Erik Suy, former chairman of the VTB-VAB, also addressed the problem to the European Commission and the competent authorities.

We are talking about two different things here.

Mrs. Moerman, I have made it clear that I agree with you on the basis of the problem. If Professor Suy, as chairman of an automotive association and as a party involved, says that this must stop, then I can agree with it. I am only concerned with the principle of linking to a formal procedure. I want to warn the government, but also ourselves, that we will enter a very sloping path if we do this every time.

I do not have to say such constructive things, from my political position, of course, but the state-management is sometimes too powerful for me, Mr. Tavernier. Sometimes I can’t control myself and then I suddenly get back constructive.

You are asking for removal to the committee.

Mr. Van Peel, we are not asking for a link, only a discussion in the committee. That is all.

The project is returned to the commission and I appreciate the information I have received from several sides.