Proposition 50K1274

Logo (Chamber of representatives)

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 7 mai 2000 attribuant une dotation annuelle à Son Altesse Royale le Prince Philippe et une dotation annuelle à Son Altesse Royale la Princesse Astrid.

General information

Submitted by
Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ
Submission date
May 30, 2001
Official page
Visit
Status
Adopted
Requirement
Simple
Subjects
head of State

Voting

Voted to adopt
Groen LE PS | SP Open Vld MR
Voted to reject
CD&V N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents

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.







Bot check: Enter the name of any Belgian province in one of the three Belgian languages:

Discussion

July 4, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Rapporteur Eric van Weddingen ⚙

I refer to the written report.

Hagen Goyvaerts VB ⚙

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, with this purple-green government, there is no budget or budget adjustment going by, or money has to be encrypted into the royal house. The Cabinet Board’s decision on the donation to Prince Laurent had a rather dark or mysterious course and is not an example of open communication. With the bill, Prince Laurent will eventually be rewarded with a living wage, a kind of "win for life" of about 920,000 francs net per month or about 45,000 francs per working day. All this is done without any meaningful justification, except the fact that the Prime Minister wants to be good at the Court. Their

I dare even refer to the statement of Professor Van den Wyngaert, professor of recent history and dynasty expert and consequently an unmistakable source on the subject, who argued that the government with this dotation is taking a step too far and said "...that consequently the 11 million francs donation for Prince Laurent are unresponsible". Therefore, during the session, we submitted an amendment aiming at removing the donations to Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent. Given the comments of the last few weeks, this does not need further explanation.

I have always found it strange that for the needs of this useless — or must I say: meaningless — prince frees this government with one penny, 11 million francs, simply because his wing was in the palace and not in a People's House. How the socialist mandatarists explain or sell this decision to their militants in the People’s Houses is a mystery to me. Since the palace desert at the forefront, Willy Claes, proclaimed that "...the royalist formula is the only conceivable in this country", the ideological attitude of the socialist politicians has turned to that of the Belgian addicted politicians who cherish themselves in the Lakense sunshine. Nevertheless, in the past it was indeed the socialists — then the motivated socialists, not the salosocialists — who initially drew the republican card. When the delegates of the then unitary BSP arrived in Parliament as recognized republicans, almost every throne speech was disturbed by calls for, among other things, universal voting rights. Their

During the committee discussions I have already extended the historical framework of the dotations as well as the current financial situation or what one could call the "cash" of the members of the royal house. Their

Within the framework of this general discussion, I would like to speak about another arc and try to open up the debate on the monarchy that is currently closed. Given the firm statements and statements made by some members of the VLD group following the granting of this grant to Laurent, this must, however, be somewhat possible. In the hope that during this plenary debate in the hemisphere at least a number of VLDs will have the courage to defend their position on this matter, I would like to build on my argument as follows. The commentator of the VLD newspaper, the VLD-Pravda, was ⁇ sharp in his opinion article entitled “The Last Taboo Falls” on 20 June 2001. Luc Van der Kelen stated: “Not the fact that the royal family is paid for the work they do is the problem, but the fact that there must be a donation for each individual family member: now five, and later how much when the youngest generation of princess children grows up? Their

The case-Upgrimbie and the dotation of Prince Laurent have bled evil and an open debate about the function of the monarchy is still difficult or not to be avoided.” Consequently, in this Parliament the discussion on the limits of the royal power and the principle question on the acceptability of the constitutional model must be carried out.

There has been a time when the kingdom was a real thing. That time is slowly passing. It is precisely from the heredity of the king's function that the absolute insignificance is revealed. It does not matter who is king. The kingdom is the only social function of which it is constitutionally stipulated that everyone — even the most foolish of us — can assume it.

Disputing the power of the King seems to have become a taboo. It is our conviction that such an institution is no longer suitable in this time and that the phenomenon of hereditary throne succession does not testify to respect for its subjects. This nostalgic-based fairy tale no longer fits in these times of modernization of the nation and of internationalisation. The reasons for the existence of the royal house must be discussed as openly and unloadedly as on any current topic. The monarchy must urgently be judged in a sensible and critical way, independent of the emotional component.

In my opinion, one can analyze the royal house in two ways. First, through timeless arguments against the monarchy and consequently for the republic, from a psychological, social and state-legal point of view. Second, through the refutation of the most heard arguments for ⁇ ining the monarchy as a form of state.

In discussions about the royal house, I note that there must always be rebellion against undetermined fears, prejudices, and the fear of change. The supporters of the monarchy sit with the sentimental or emotional need for worship and admiration for those above us. This is periodically fuelled by praise prizes from high-quality dressers of different temperaments, and of course by the media.

A right-wing republican is repeatedly confronted with the fear that a republic implies the danger of French or American states, with a politically challenging head of state. Alternatively, however, one can also think of state forms such as those of Germany and Finland, where a gentleman or lady of unshakable house fulfils the symbolic function of the head of state, without any actual interference with the work of government.

There is also the prejudice that a prince’s house is a guarantee for the preservation of values and norms. In reality, however, we know very little about whether or not the sophisticated manners, opinions or morals of the head of state and the related family. After all, all actual data is carefully shielded by the protocol. Through this secrecy, a kind of gloss of the mystery arises.

Another element that strikes the chest is the fact that in our current system a sort of black box is installed, into which the control of the people’s representation cannot penetrate. In a decent state order, everyone who exercises power must be constantly controlled and critically looked at the fingers. However, the Constitution stipulates that the federal executive power rests with the King. At the same time, however, this power is uncontrollable due to the system of ministerial responsibility.

The Constitution is a document that sets out the basic rules of parliamentary democracy and the main lines of state organization, including with regard to the lower authorities. The position of the King is defined in Articles 37 and 88 of the Constitution.

Mainly in the formation of a new government, the King plays an important role, both in the choice of the persons in that process.

To put forward directly the main objection to the monarchy: it is incompatible with democracy. This is not just a formal argument. I explain myself more closely. Given the content of Article 88 which stipulates that the King is inviolable and that his ministers are responsible, it gives the impression that inviolability is based on the myth of the good King and his bad counselors. The king wants to do good for everyone, but his servants deceive him and destroy the land. In the heart of the state system is therefore deliberately admitted a player who is not directly under democratic control.

Another aspect of the undemocratic character of the kingdom is its elite character. However, it is undoubtedly a public function in public service. And yet this position is not open to citizens; one cannot, by way of speech, pass an exam for it, nor can one be elected for it. Citizens cannot be appointed on an equal footing in this position. However, Article 10 of the Constitution stipulates that all Belgians are equal before the law and can be appointed in a public service. Also, the fact that the kingdom is reserved for a limited number of members of a particular family reinforces its undemocratic character and undermines the principle of equality.

A very different side of the issue concerns the human factor, with the upcoming succession remaining a central issue in the debate. The Constitution does not speak of a right to succession to the throne; it is an imposed duty, not just a right or expectation. This implies that the successor to the throne, or rather the descendant of the King, who is his presumed successor, is predestined and must be formed and trained as such. This cannot be removed without a doubt. After all, the constitutional image is that the throne successor succeeds, without consideration on his part.

Another element that is invoked is the fact that the King is indispensable for the continuity of the state order. What would happen if the provisions on the King were removed from the Constitution? First and foremost, the Constitution must be adjusted in order not to create a void for a number of procedural provisions. These are mainly procedural rules that expire, such as a number of provisions on the legislative process and the notification of the decision ratifying, for example, a draft law. The King may be replaced by an elected President who is not at the same time the head of government and who is given the power over a number of representative duties. All this, in my opinion, can be realized without altering the parliamentary system, a turning point without bloodshed by modifying the statute, the Constitution and the law.

The boundaries of royal power versus the republican state form is and remains a taboo in this country. With this explanation I made an attempt to open the debate about the meaning or nonsense of the Royal House, with the insight to encourage a number of colleagues to a fundamental intellectual discussion.

One thing, however, is certain, in particular, that the throne is no longer so firmly anchored in the patriotic soil, as everyone previously assumed. This gives us hope for the future.

Eric van Weddingen MR ⚙

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish that it be acted that I consider the intervention we have just heard unworthy but that it would nevertheless be inopportune to react.

President Herman De Croo ⚙

Mr van Weddingen, freedom of speech reigns on this tribune. The responsibility for the statements belongs to the member who expresses them. Here everything can be said.

Eric van Weddingen MR ⚙

I want to express my feelings about what has been said.