Proposition 51K0129

Projet de loi spéciale modifiant la loi spéciale du 8 août 1980 de réformes institutionnelles.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 22, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Qualified

Subjects

regionalisation arms trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR FN

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA VB

Abstained from voting

Ecolo

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 ¶

July 30, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Dear Colleagues, Your Committee for the Revision of the Constitution and the Reform of the Institutions was informed of this special bill at its session on 28 July last and adopted this bill at its meeting on 29 July.

In its introduction, the Deputy Prime Minister recalled, referring to his presentation in the Senate Committee, that the Government has decided to file this bill to entrust the Regions with competence in the issue of import, export and transit licenses for weapons, ammunition and equipment for special military and order maintenance use, as well as related technology and, finally, for dual-use products. This transfer is justified by the existence of competences already exercised at regional level in economic, outlet and export policy matters. The transferred powers cover all the powers relating to the import, export and transit of the goods referred to in the Royal Decree of 8 March 1993 as amended.

By import, export and transit, the bill aims at the cross-border trade of goods and technologies from and to the Kingdom of Belgium. An exception is provided for the overall transfer of these powers to the Regions, namely import and export licences relating to equipment imported or exported by the Belgian army and police, which cannot, by definition, be regionalized.

The transfer of competence involves the transfer of legislation in force at the federal level, namely mainly the new Export Act, incorporating the criteria of the Code of Conduct entered into force on 17 July 2003, as well as the royal decrees establishing the list of materials to be inspected and simplified procedures.

Furthermore, the competence in this matter is the subject of international regulations which it will be up to the regions to respect in the exercise of their competence. Finally, the European Code of Conduct for Arms Export will be imposed on the regions, as is the case in the Member States, with regard to the criteria that Member States undertake to take into account when considering an application for the export of the material concerned.

Furthermore, also at the European level, since the Council adopted on 13 June 2000 the common list of military equipment covered by the Code of Conduct, it is also politically imposed on the Member States and consequently on the regions. The statement of the Council expressly states that all Member States undertake the political commitment to ensure that their national legislation allows them to control the export of all goods listed. Regarding dual-use products and technologies, the matter is governed by Regulation 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000, which establishes in particular the list of goods subject to this control. by

From committee-to-committee debates, the concern of representatives of the Flemish opposition parties is more ⁇ evident, as to why the government submits this bill without waiting for the conclusions or, at least, the discussions of the forum to be created by the government to know about possible state reforms. The spokesman of the CDH group, our colleague Mr. Wathelet, recalled the triple concern of his group: addressing an ethical concern encountered by the amendment deposited by his group in the Senate, ending the recurring disagreements between regions on this issue, and ensuring the coherence of Belgian foreign policy. On this latter point, its group submitted two amendments: the first gives a power of invocation to the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, in order to possibly know the decisions taken by a regional authority; the second amendment subsequently submitted aims at least to impose on the regions the obligation to request a report from the federal authority on the situation prevailing in the country concerned by the license application. by

Several members of the Flemish opposition parties also recalled that this bill was aimed at satisfying as a priority one of the regions of the country.

Borginon noted that concerns about the lack of policy coordination resulting from regionalization had already been expressed at each transfer of skills, but that reality has shown, however, that these transfers of competences were accompanied by the establishment of effective instruments to avoid the development of too heterogeneous policies.

Mr Moriau stressed that the Belgian legislation on arms trade is already the strictest, as widely confirmed by the representatives of the various environments heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations during the preparatory work of the law of 26 March 2003.

In his response to the various speakers, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs responded in particular negatively to our colleague, Mr. Verherstraeten, who was concerned about whether he had already been informed of a particular application for an export license or an extension of an export license for Nepal. I repeat that he replied with the negative.

The Deputy Prime Minister also recalled the text adjustments that were made following the State Council opinion, especially emphasizing two aspects. First, the competence to grant guarantees against the risks of export, import and investment is not altered by this project. The jurisdiction remains federal. Secondly, the question of guarantees against insurance of risks of arms exports cannot be raised in the special law in terms different from other exports. Thus, the special law of 13 July 2001 explicitly entrusted the federal authority with the competence to ensure, without exception, the risks of export, whether the subjects are regional or federal. The competence of the Ducroire to ensure the risk of export is not challenged by this project.

As regards the multilateral trade policy, no modification of the principles governing the matter is made, the federal jurisdiction is exercised without prejudice to the implementation of the cooperation agreement referred to in Article 92a of the Special Act of 8 August 1980.

This is my report, Mr. Speaker. If you allow me to do so, I will speak briefly as part of the general discussion. The head of the group will be mainly involved. by

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the transfer of the competence of the export license of weapons, ammunition and related equipment meets the expectations of the three Regions. The Deputy Prime Minister did not fail to raise it and say that there was an agreement within the government that this was not a debate to be communitarianized. This debate responds to the expectations of the three Regions because, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, there is currently not one minister in the Federal Government to exercise this competence, but two. If it makes sense to ensure policy coherence in this regard, it is to entrust the regional authorities with the care to assess in the future whether or not export licenses should be granted. by

I refuse to say that this project aims to satisfy a single Region, or even a company of a single Region. Practice will also demonstrate that the debate will probably be more vivid in the north of the country, when the competent regional authorities will be called to know more about this matter than was the case so far. Too often, ⁇ , we have wanted to hide some debates in the north of the country by bringing the responsibility for this affair to a single company or region, especially Wallonia. We will probably see in the coming months, when it comes to satisfying the demand of one or another company – and we know that there are ⁇ successful companies in Flanders in the development of highly sophisticated weapons – the debate takes in this region a more vivid turn than before, when one sought to hide it by the sole guilt of Wallonia.

Furthermore, there is no reason to place the Regions under the supervision of the federal government as suggested by an opposition amendment. There is no reason to think that the Regions could be below the ethical requirement already imposed by the current Arms Export License Act. There is no reason to prosecute the Regions for not being able to apply and comply with the Code of Conduct established by the European authorities. Furthermore, this Code of Conduct, due to the amendment admitted to the Senate at the initiative of the CDH group, has the value of a rule distributing competences and it will be up to the Arbitration Court, if necessary, to know of the censorship of any decretal provision taken by one of the Regions that would violate the European Code of Conduct.

There will therefore be capacity for the courts, the Arbitration Court if the contested measure is a decretal provision or the Council of State if it is the administrative decision of the export licence itself that does not comply with the European Code of Conduct. I would gladly say that this regionalization has in no way weakened the scope of the European Code of Conduct through the amendment submitted to the Senate. This Code of Conduct finds to emerge from reinforced effects in our internal legal order.

On the other hand, as to whether or not to grant licenses, there is nothing to predict that the Regions would behave with fewer requirements than the current federal government. There is no reason to fear that the Regions may violate ethical principles that so far also apply to federal authorities. The Deputy Prime Minister was right to say that if the regional authorities were replaced under the federal tutelage, a community and inevitably conflicting dimension would be restored to a debate that should, for a long time, have gone beyond this stage. This was also stated by my colleague Philippe Monfils in commission.

As I said, I am convinced that the debate on values and political issues will take another turn after the regionalization of this matter.

For my part, I therefore refuse to judge the Regions as to their capacity to evaluate, on a political level, compliance with international obligations and ethical principles as contained in the European Code of Conduct.

Furthermore, there are currently procedures in our legal arsenal to allow the Regions to consult with the Federal Government before any decision regarding the foreign policy situation in the country to which weapons will be exported. I was able to say in a committee — to answer very clearly to a concrete question — that if, tomorrow, weapons are to be exported to a country that is not recognized by the Belgian State or to a country with which diplomatic relations are suspended, the Regions will not be allowed as much as yesterday the federal government was to decide on the export of weapons to such countries.

Indeed, the Regions have an obligation of federal loyalty and must, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Arbitration Court and the State Council, comply with a criterion of proportionality which requires that the Regions do not exercise their competence in such a way as to prejudice the exercise of competences of another level of power, in this case the federal state. The consultation within the Interministerial Conference on Foreign Policy will prevent this type of conflict. Therefore, there is no need to make here preventive rules other than those already provided by our legal arsenal.

Finally, I was able to clarify — and the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed it — that the criterion of territorial affiliation in order to know the regional authority competent to assess the application for an export or import licence should be assessed in a practical manner. The Council of State suggests this in its opinion. This means that the operators, and in particular the final operator — the importer or the exporter — should be taken into account, depending on whether the main headquarters of its activities is located in one or the other region. To prevent any conflict of territorial jurisdiction between the Regions, I believe that this pragmatic criterion will prevail in administrative practice. That is why, Mr. President, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Dear colleagues, the MR Group, not only for these reasons but for other related to the economic development of a region that is dear to us, will make sure to provide its support for this special bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, we are discussing this draft in extended session because this purple majority is of the opinion that this draft is very urgent and should become legislation before the recess.

When looking for the reasons for that high urgency, the memory of explanation does not make us much wiser. The discussions in the committee also did not remove the uncertainty. The minister replied that there was consensus within the government. Why should the project be postponed? It was better to catch the cow at the horns. If a consensus within the majority is an argument to invoke the high urgency, I do not understand why today we do not treat as high urgency all points on which there is consensus within the government and in the government agreement, or do I have to conclude from this that if this draft is explained there is no consensus on all the other parafrases and parts of the government agreement? Why should the rest be postponed?

The real reason is, of course, in the license for Nepal. She brought Verhofstadt I into shame. She brought the cartel into sp.a and spirit in embarrassment. We all know that on 23 July last year the original permits — the permits Verhofstadt I — expired. The minister himself said in Parliament that at the moment only 2,500 of the 5,500 Minimi have been delivered to Nepal. They had a term of 3 years. This means that permits had to be renewed. However, this could no longer be done at the federal level.

Mr. Minister, you correctly, correctly and honestly answered my question in the committee whether you were aware of an application by FN for a renewal of the permit. You answered that you had no knowledge of it. This was correct. The next day we could hear in the press that the FN spokesman stated to wait with the application because he chose to submit the application at the policy level where it should be done.

That urgency leads so far, colleagues, that this government even contradicts its own government statement. In the notorious forum, bills would actually be drafted; there would be ensured greater coherence in powers between the federal government and the Regions and the Communities. Some examples were exemplified, including the issue of export licences for weapons. Where is the forum? If it has already been established, it has indeed worked very quickly and efficiently. Why do you get rid of it now when you have agreed to do this in the forum?

If, as the minister correctly pointed out, there was already a consensus in the government and in the majority, then I ask the sp.a. spirit negotiators following the formation of the government why this agreement should not be included immediately in the government agreement expressly verbis? Why should this be silenced? Why was it necessary to refer to the forum on this subject in order, while the ink of the governmental agreement is not yet dry, yet already to submit here a draft law — which is actually opposed to it? Their

The government’s argument regarding the coherent powers packages may be a valid criterion, but then I wonder why no other powers are included in this draft. Let’s take out employment. Employment is the priority of Verhofstadt II. Is it this government that will create 200,000 additional jobs? This has nothing to do with the fact that the overthrow of employment may be more sensitive on the Flemish side than on the Wallish side, while with the overthrow of the weapons legislation the opposite is the case.

This has nothing to do with treating the respective communities. This has to do with better governance. In this regard, I refer to the analysis of the European Investment Bank. He said that the reduction of employment in Wallonia would lead to 80,000 additional jobs. Does this seem irrelevant in the context of the priority of Verhofstadt II and was it not very urgent? 80,000 jobs in Wallonia alone compared to 1,500 jobs at FN Herstal and about 1,500 indirectly. 80,000 versus 3,000: what is urgent here?

We can ask the question of the usefulness of the regionalization of this legislation. The Verhofstadt II government says it wants more efficiency. The real reason, colleagues, is the primacy of economics over ethics. The Wallish Region, as a majority shareholder of FN, is listening to the balance sheets of FN. The balances of the FN, the balances of the intercommunal Francorchamps, which determine the community agenda and not the forum. You can play as a judge and a party. It has an advantage: Verhofstadt II, violet II, is free from annoying discussions. Sp.a-spirit can look to the left, while right permits are delivered to Nepal. I remember that spirit in October distributed 10,000 cardboard males, with their heads stuck in a flower pot, in the Flemish land to protest against Nepal’s deliveries.

Well, after the approval of this design you will not get any flowers but you will get those ten thousand flower pots back, and if the cardboard males are no longer in it, you can yourself put your head in the sand of that flower pot.

The facts demonstrate that, by the way. The majority undermined the dossier during the government negotiations. As if that was not enough, a PS figure had to be appointed as head of the Delcreder Service, although he was not placed as the best in the assessment, a PS man who also played a crucial role in the arms deliveries under Verhofstadt I to Nepal. The facts show it once again: pressure had to be put on the French-speaking opposition, on our colleagues from CDH. This pressure was successful. History is repeated. We have not forgotten Lambermont. Of course, we can understand economic interests in this country and in the various regions. Every retained job is a job won, whether it is in the north or south of the country. But the history of state reform in this country has taught us that we evolve step by step and that the various Communities as partners, with mutual respect, make mutual concessions. That is a good tradition. Where do we find that mutual character of that respect now? The French-speaking take their strikes in: Francorchamps, the weapons legislation, and the rest disappears to the community refrigerator, to the forum.

One should respect Wallonian sensitivities, French-speaking sensitivities. But is it too much asked, Flemish government negotiators, members of the Flemish majority, to have a little understanding and attention to Flemish sensitivities? I quote Senator Van Krunkelsven — these are not my words: "If the French speakers were still a requesting party for a regionalization, there would have been a package of Flemish questions." In fact, Van Krunkelsven says that this agreement is still a bit cheap. In his speech in the Senate, he said, however, that he hoped that this would create goodwill for the forum. That goodwill, colleagues of the Flemish majority, you do not have to count on that. We have noticed this during the previous legislature, for example, following the agreement on French-speaking education and its financing. We know what it has brought, later in the Costa. If we hear the statements of Prime Minister Van Cauwenberghe on possible concessions regarding the Kyoto standard, we see that of that created goodwill nothing will come back.

I wonder, my colleagues, who in this case will make the decisions in the regions. At the federal level, that was clear: it happened through stairs that brought about some caution and some restraint in granting permits. The Service Contingents, Economic Affairs and Foreign Affairs, the official committee, the advice of the Belgian embassies, such types of bodies we do not find at the moment among the regions.

If this becomes law tomorrow, who will advise? Who will then carry out the thorough preparatory work, so that the necessary caution can be displayed? In the French-speaking region, there is already a rumor about whether the power should go to the Minister of Economy or to the Prime Minister. It would have been better to provide for greater clarity in advance and to carry out preparatory work, so that one knew what was going on. Tomorrow, the United Nations will take its file out of the closet. She will not wait long anymore.

The question also arises how a regional arms export policy will relate to the federal foreign policy. You are responsible for conflict prevention. The question is how you will do that in relation to countries for which the Regions have issued export permits. There are indeed international agreements. The question is only whether those international agreements were respected in, for example, the deliveries to Nepal.

I think that when governments and regions put different emphasis and want to make different choices, regionalization can and should indeed be in place. When I look at the 2002 Annual Report, I find that Wallonia accounts for the lion’s share of export licenses, 60%, while it is responsible for half of export refusals in Flanders. In Flanders there is numerically less arms exports. If we respect different accents, there must also be respect for the differences in other policy areas and not just for the choice to deliver or not deliver weapons.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Government-Verhofstadt II has two priorities. First, it must raise taxes to clean up the budget deficit that did not exist before the elections and secondly, it must comply with French-speaking requirements.

This government, this country are in fact led and dominated by the French speakers. In that sense, this purple is a re-release of purple green. It is not purple I, it is Verhofstadt II. Their

We could have looked forward to the voting behavior and attitude of spirit within the cartel with the Sp.A. and to the voting behavior of the spirit mandators. According to the press, they can live with it and this is a step towards regionalization. Nevertheless, they once spoke differently and in that connection I quote the chairman of spirit in October 2002: "If spirit was in the position of the sp.a, thus within the womb of the majority, we would have acted differently with regard to the implementation of Nepal. So much is clear. Spirit will not be silent about Nepal during the campaign." After the campaign. Their

The chairman added: “I do not intend to shut my mouth about the arms deliveries.” “Spirit is also disappointed with the attitude of the socialists and will use its position, once the cartel between sp.a and spirit is a fact, to make clear agreements about arms trade if the cartel would assume government responsibility.” I quote further: “A sp.a with spirit would not give FN the necessary licenses to deliver to Nepal.” Well, the difference is that a sp.a with spirit in the government will ensure a second delivery to Nepal! Read your party program and your statements. It could be there, said Bredero. Their

It is clear that this law is the lubricant to put Verhofstadt II in the seat and that the members of the French-speaking opposition also understand this. This is a community imbalance and it is contrary to the federal model. We cannot approve this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

The first was the end of the use of this file of granting or refusing license for community purposes, the second was the ethical concern and the third, the concern of ⁇ ining some consistency at the level of Foreign Affairs.

With regard to the end of this possibility of using or not using the granting of weapons licenses in one Region or another, for community or regional purposes, in order to incite conflicts and passionate discussions, we consider that this system, with a regionalization on the principle, is good, because we will no longer be able to use this passionate dossier to make it community and regional issues. We are only translating what is already a reality given that at present, in the federal government, it is a Wallonian minister who grants licenses for Wallonian companies and a Flemish minister who grants licenses for Flemish companies.

In terms of ethics, I am pleased, and Mr. Maingain recalled that under the influence of the CDH, the Code of Conduct was inserted in this regionalization of the granting of weapons licenses. I think this is a warning, not that we were afraid that the Regions would be less loyal or less ethical, but we think that in order to avoid any disruption, the insertion of this Code of Conduct was appropriate and timely. This Code of Conduct will apply not only when the Regions will accept or refuse the granting of weapons licenses, but also if the Regions later decide to legislate in these matters.

With regard to the consistency at the level of Foreign Affairs, if this competence is exercised by the Regions and no longer by Foreign Affairs, there is a risk, ⁇ theoretical, that there are differences between the Regions and Foreign Affairs. Not like Mr. Maingain said earlier that the Regions are less ethical or loyal, but the latter do not necessarily have all the information or the same information as Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs remains Belgium’s preferred interlocutor abroad and they are, at some times, in possession of information resulting from negotiations, which may be unknown to the Regions. That is why we had proposed a mandatory mechanism of information of the Regions to the privileged interlocutor of the international bodies, Foreign Affairs, so that the Regions cannot pretend not to be aware of being able or not to grant the license.

However, we believe that the Incorporated Code of Conduct will involve minimal consistency, given that everyone will rely on the same criteria that are included in it. The Deputy Prime Minister assured us that the exchange of information that was already taking place will continue and that he will be at all times available to the Regions to provide them with the information necessary for them to take the appropriate steps in the context of granting or refusing licenses. We therefore hope that this consistency can be ⁇ ined between the Regions and Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, today we are supposed to discuss the draft special law on the regionalization of conscience. Mr. Speaker, I have known for a while the foldings of this house, but every time again a series of small details makes clear how this Belgian construction works.

When I arrived in the Committee on the Revision of the Constitution on Monday, it was immediately clear that a topic was on the agenda that was undoubtedly very important for the French-speaking colleagues. A French-speaking Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Louis Michel, not ⁇ known as the man who has excessive respect for Parliament, was indeed prematurely dismissed into the committee. The presence of almost all French-speaking colleagues immediately made it clear how the fork was in the stake. Just like when discussing the financial part of the Lambermont agreement, the French-speaking colleagues were determined to forcefully defend their policy of the Wallish “own people first.”

Who would I be to give them wrong in this? Moreover, I would like to use my right of speech on this floor to expressly congratulate them. As Flaming, I can only dream of Dutch-speaking politicians who, once they participate in power, consistently defend the interests of their Community.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, who had thought that the Federal Government Declaration could serve as a guide to assess our government team, at the first test already has the trouble. In the section on the further expansion of the federal state we read: "The forum will also explore solutions and develop bills for various issues, in order to contribute to a greater structural coherence of the federal, regional and/or community powers. In this context, the forum will cover, among other things, road safety and the issuance of export licences for weapons.”

Colleagues, after reading this, it is appropriate to express our amazement at the fact that this draft of special law must now be dealt with in cases of high urgency. And what does the Deputy Prime Minister answer to the question of why road safety should be addressed less quickly than the weapons issue? He says literally: “There is already a broad consensus in the government and in the Parliament on the matter in question. This will also enable the forum to make faster progress in other subjects.”

Colleagues, I must admit that I have never seen the Deputy Prime Minister be so funny in a committee meeting. This man possesses a very special form of humor. The approach chosen by the government also contradicts another paragraph of the government statement, in particular in the chapter on active peace policy. Colleagues, we also read there: "...the strict application of the new law on arms deliveries, including the provisions on information to Parliament".

Mr. Speaker, can I, in this speech, give a cynical expression of my indignation over the fact that here simply the life work of our sp.a. colleague Van der Maelen — present here — is wiped out of the table with one penny? Was it not colleague Van der Maelen who at the beginning of this year tried to make each of us wise or even tried to convince us that the new law on arms exports, which was passed after the Nepal crisis, had become more stringent? What happens now at the first test, colleague Van der Maelen? Your new weapons law is coming back. I have to congratulate you today on your infinitely large collection capacity. With each new government formation, you feel called to become a minister, secretary of state, or chairman of a committee for political renewal. Your whole career, colleague Van der Maelen, is built on moving from jaw to jaw. Even a government newspaper such as The Standard had come up with it this week. Your collection capacity is indeed unlimited.

The recent report on the arms trade sent to Parliament clearly shows that Wallonia accounts for at least 60% of Belgian arms exports. This naked figure explains much better than any argument why we should quickly transfer the delivery of weapons export licenses to the regions. The interests of the FN and therefore of the Wallish Region had to be safeguarded, and then every ethical consideration must rest in politics. Amen and out.

President, colleagues, the Deputy Prime Minister, Louis Michel, was roughly constantly traveling during the previous legislature as he had to bring the world around the peace message. Is it permissible, Mr. Chairman, to ask loudly whether at the same time he was not simply engaged in weapons of the FN? The official figures show that despite all peace rhetoric, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Belgium never exported more weapons than in the previous legislature. Was it really just a stupid coincidence that largely that same Louis Michel was the one who had to sign all weapons export licenses for Wallonia? Am I really the only one who makes logical distractions?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to accuse this political hypocrisy, which is being raised here these days. Let us simply call things by their names and say to the people that Louis Michel was just a fairly well-paid trade traveler of the Waal FN during the last legislature. This is somewhat more accurately formulated than the great peace-bearer of the MR.

Mr. Minister, I understand your response.

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly admit, on the part of someone from that party, the gross and insulting allusions I have just heard. I have, neither far nor near, nothing to do with the UN! Nothing is! I just defend the principles and the interests of my country. Nothing more !

No, not the guns. No to No! You will hardly find a single example of license based on a file that would not be perfectly defensive and perfectly honorable! You know that countries...

I continue to defend the Nepal case on the bottom if you want to know everything! I have absolutely no inconvenience in defending this ethically!

The Venezuelan? Venezuela is an elected parliamentary democracy. (Brouhaha on the banks of the Vlaams Blok)

Chávez is elected. I know that...

... ...

I know well, Mr. Annemans, that in the regimes you defend, you do not know very well what democracy is. This is known! (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, I will even make the effort to courteously briefly replicate what the Deputy Prime Minister says.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, just your reaction to my argument proves that it hurts and that it actually closely matches the reality. Who signed the weapons licenses for your crazy democracy in Nepal? Was it you? Where is your ethics? Let us laugh. You are not the great peace-bearer anywhere in the world. You are just the sheriff of weapons. Let us call things by their names.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I myself come from the West Corner, which still bears deep scars of the meaninglessness of wars. As a representative of the radical Flemish nationalism, I also consider ourselves the ideological heir of the radical front movement that emerged on the Iron Front in 1914-1918. From this well-understood pacifism and from respect for the never-more-war-thought, I would like to address my spirit-colleagues in particular today. I would like to remind them of their so-called pacifist conscience.

Colleagues of spirit, at the IJzerbedevaart on 25 August 2002, Chairman Lionel Vandenberghe of the IJzerbedevaart Committee stated the following. “We have always opposed weapons trade, weapons export and weapons production. It is a shame that Belgium will sell another 5,000 murder weapons to a country in civil war. We call on all members of parliament to oppose this. This is definitely worth a government crisis.” What does that same Lionel Vandenberghe say not a year later from the red plush of the reflection chamber? I quote: “As a regionalist I can’t oppose it, as a pacifist I have some problems with it.” Colleagues of spirit, where is your government crisis now? Have the murder weapons of a year ago now become suddenly, in one smooth movement, innocent arrows and bows? Put it out. Simply tell the voters that it was you only to do the poon and to mandate through the successor places.

Spirit colleagues, during the Nepal debate in this House on August 29, 2002, colleague Els Van Weert stated, and I quote: "The Arms Act of 1991 prohibits, as you too well know, arms exports to countries where a delivery of arms will contribute to manifest violations of human rights. The risk that these thousands of Belgian weapons contribute to even greater human rights violations is at least extremely high. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Michel, and with him the blue, red and green government partners, however, minimize the matter: nothing wrong, head in the sand.” I quote you further, colleague Van Weert: "I am now specifically addressing my colleagues from the green and red majority parties here. Minister Michel is a masterful strategist. The important delivery for FN-Herstal had to and would continue, but given the above, he also knew that there was a smell in the file.” What does Els Van Weert explain barely a year later? I quote: “Licensing was de facto already regionalized because the minister deciding about it belonged to the same language role as the company wishing to export. This hypocritical situation has been helped out of the world.”

Colleagues, in less than a year time, that “mastery strategist”—these are your words, Mrs. Van Weert, about your new friend Louis Michel—has become the friendly problem solver who puts an end to a hypocritical situation. It really depends on how you look at it.

What should we do when we see so much political hypocrisy? Could I possibly suggest you – in the positive spirit with which we must all, according to the Prime Minister, cast a new look at the future – to hold a large therapeutic session this afternoon, where we would all together, in a real Bert Anciaux style, shake a tear to help our spirit colleagues to get rid of an immense problem of conscience?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, if it were not the enormous political hypocrisy with which this regionalization is accompanied, then we might still be able to respond positively in a good mood to that very small step forward in the further dismantling of the Belgian State.

But everyone who knows a little about the political business — colleague Lambert, you will indeed have to learn the steel a little more, but I will give you a little lesson — knows that the French speakers are not a party asking for a further state reform. Thus, the forum simply becomes a large deep freezer. Therefore, the allocation of social security to both states does not come into play. There is no real tax autonomy. Therefore, a de-federalization of employment policy, Justice and NMBS is nothing in the house. Let us make no mistakes.

Colleagues, with the forthcoming regionalization of conscience, it is made more clear than ever that any ethics in politics ends where the Wallish interests begin. Today our French-speaking colleagues take their trophies in. The Francorchamps cigarette and the FN ammunition were rescued. Flanders thus effectively gives away their last negotiating trouble.

Colleagues of Spirit, didn’t one of your great illustrations these days suggest that the Flemish should refuse to join a Belgian government without Flemish demands being accepted? That is a statement of the so-called Lionel Vandenberghe in his life as a volunteer, not as a well-paid senator.

Today we find that the Flemish negotiators of this majority, as it suits small children, are already soul-happy when they stand with empty hands.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Flemish Bloc refuses to participate in that political show where conscience is regionalized. For the Flemish population, it is more than clear that Louis Michel today has his blanco cheque in his pocket to thus uninterrupted, quietly continue to play his role as a trade traveler for the Waals FN.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, we will conclude the parliamentary session by debating the issue of licenses and the granting of licenses for arms exports. In fact, we end this session a little like we started it, on the same theme in any case. You will remember that we were reminded, at the end of August last year, of a problem of political exploitation of a license by some members of this Assembly who use more insult and insinuation than political argument. We then recalled some principles that are of course still relevant and that remain valid today.

It should be remembered that the very notion of manufacture of weapons refers to an activity not only legitimate but also sometimes necessary. I do not share the utopia of those who believe in a world without weapons. This world would be delivered to the best organized gangs, it would be a world where the rules of democracy would be very difficult to assert. This is a pessimistic statement about human nature, but I think we must agree on it. A world without weapons is obviously not possible and, on the contrary, weapons are sometimes needed to ensure internal and external security, to ensure the strength of democracy, two concepts that may seem antinomial, but which are nevertheless necessary.

The manufacture of weapons is legitimate and sometimes necessary, but we must frame their use. I look forward to the fact that our regions, whether Flanders with the components involved in the manufacture of military equipment or Wallonia with the arms industry, have successful industries in this area, which enjoy an international reputation. Why should we be upset about it? On the contrary, we can be proud of the technical performance of our companies in this area.

This regionalization has several justifications, some of which have been recalled. In particular, I think of the need to harmonize competencies. Foreign trade and the economy are regionalized. It seems to me logical that an important economic activity such as the arms activity can also enter into the framework of the activity of our Regions.

Another reason is the clarification. Olivier Maingain recently recalled that there was already an intra-federal or intra-governmental regionalization, in the sense that licenses are granted by a French- or Dutch-speaking minister depending on the language in which the license application was submitted. This intra-federal or intra-governmental regionalization that already exists in fact is only a prelude to this regionalization that we are going to vote on.

The third justification relates to the regional interest that cannot be affected by the political exploitation as it has sometimes been known to date in the field of export licences. Our country as such, beyond its regions, has no interest in suffering from political-type debates such as those that took place at the time of granting the license for the sale of weapons to Nepal.

I would like to remind you that, in this context, it was about taking political responsibility. We can make all the laws we want in terms of licensing, it will always remain that it is primarily a political responsibility, and not the application of a simple mechanism. This political responsibility does not only concern the granting of a license, it also concerns the possible refusal of a license. When we refuse, for example, to grant a license to a company that exports weapons in a regime that tends to defend its democracy, we take political responsibility. This political responsibility is to support a contrario those who endanger or endanger the rise of a democracy. by

Political responsibility exists, whether or not we grant an export license. Refusing it implies that we accept the choices of the moment. by

There are still a few questions that were rightly raised by a responsible opposition. The questions concerning, in particular, the concept of transit were legitimate. The problem has been solved: there is no intranational transit; there is no intra-federal transit. It is the customs legislation that applies in this matter, and the State Council goes in the same direction as the government. The question seems resolved. by

The fundamental question of ethics remains. The amendment introduced in this regard was timely: we will effectively benefit from the integration of the European Code of Good Conduct at the regional level, as was the case at the federal level. For four years, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has always applied the European Code of Good Conduct, even when it was not in our legislation. He has also repeatedly asked at the European level that this code be an integral part of all the legislations of our fifteen European Union countries. This is not new. This should be fully incorporated into our current legislation.

The question remains the coherence of foreign policy. Some have wondered how to ensure the harmonisation of Belgium’s foreign policy following this new transfer of competence. We have heard claims to impose veto possibilities, or guardianship possibilities in favour of the federal authority. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the existing legal arsenal and the procedures of consultation between federal authorities already largely enable this goal to be achieved. We live in a federal state where the principle of cooperation is guaranteed, a principle that presupposes real autonomy of the federated communities and cooperation between the different governments. The mechanisms of cooperation are known; they have demonstrated themselves. I will recall Article 31bis of the Ordinary Law of 9 August 1980 on Institutional Reform, which provides for the establishment of the Interministerial Conference on Foreign Policy, the CIPE. During this conference, the federal government regularly informs the regional and community governments about foreign policy, either at the instigation of the federal government or at the request of federal entities who wish to receive information regarding the development of our country’s foreign policy, in so far as it may affect all of our regions.

In the future, this interministerial conference may be requested by one of the Regions in the event of doubts regarding the implementation of the licensing powers, and in the event of risk of disagreement in terms of foreign policy. For us, this interministerial conference must remain an intergovernmental forum of discussion between levels of power for the whole of foreign policy. If we had introduced veto mechanisms or custody codes on the Regions, we would have sowed germs of political and institutional instability. Such a system would risk leading to real blocking situations and would again generate turbulence that our country must be able to avoid.

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that certain principles derived from the case-law of the Court of Arbitration will have to guide the action of regional authorities, Olivier Maingain spoke out at the time. These are the principles of federal loyalty and proportionality. The principle of federal loyalty is obviously essentially political, I agree with it, but it applies, while the principle of proportionality allows the Arbitration Court to remind that a government order cannot, by the exercise of its powers, make impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of these powers by another level of power.

Before concluding, I would like to emphasize this paradox. I am a little surprised to hear the most confederalist of us pretending, with some form of condescendance, or I would even say contempt, that the Region could not take care of a system in which ethics would intervene. Can the Region only deal with plumbing, piping, pure and simple mechanisms? This is the thesis, I think, of the most confederalist of us. This surprises me because I tend to believe that our Regions are proud of what they do, have a capacity for action, have an autonomy that they use wisely and which makes them quite capable of exercising these skills, while preserving ethics.

For some, it seems, Region and ethics are incompatible. I’m sorry, but if that’s how they look at things, in this case, I think there is no need to regionalize anything at all! If really our Regions are incapable of the slightest ethics, then let’s not regionalize anything! Here, on the contrary, we consider that our Regions are able to make decisions within the framework of a code of good conduct, within the framework of ethics, as the federal state has previously proven. This paradox has to be addressed.

Finally, I will conclude by saying that, for me, whatever the law, whether it is regionalized, whether it is federal, whatever the legislative mechanisms, it is above all a problem of political responsibility. This will continue, regardless of the law. At some point, a decision on granting a license will need to be made. Whether it happens at the federal level, whether it happens at the regional level in consultation with the federal, whether it happens at the regional level alone, the decision-maker will engage his political responsibility. That is what I think is essential. This will be judged by the voter. That is the case, that is democracy.

In my opinion, the regionalization of this law on licensing will allow to leave the sphere of purely community and political agitation to focus on the very object of its political responsibility which is the grant or refusal of granting an export license.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice Prime Minister, I must say that in this debate today, with an incredibly rising misunderstanding and even unbelief, I have heard the discourse of some colleagues present in this Chamber, people who, according to the party program, call themselves separatists or confederals. Mr. Bogaert, you were the chairman of your CD&V congresses when you called yourself a confederalist. Today I hear nothing but an incredibly unitaristic discourse, in which even colleague Bultinck is almost on the same line as colleague Wathelet’s discourse when he talks about a coherent foreign policy. Their

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, we will approve this bill with spirit, because we are firmly convinced that this bill is indeed a step forward in, once again, a state reform that characterizes our country, which strives to and achieves that one actually gets more homogeneous powers packages. (Protest because of the opposition)

I think it is wonderful! I have no problem in being interrupted in this way. One must realize that today with this law we are indeed making a step forward in order to be able to conduct a correct discussion later, a step forward because in this discussion we come to homogeneous powers packages. I find it incredibly bizarre to argue today that we should not approve this law, because we fear that the Whales would sometimes act much less ethically, because we fear that they will carry out everything. Their

Can I extend this reasoning to a topic that is also very much loved by us? Let me extend this reasoning that, therefore, we should not talk about any form of federalization of social security in the future, because we might sometimes fear that it would be done on the other side. Mr. Van den Eynde, in the government statement it is agreed that we will create a forum in which we will not reduce everything and in which we will not realize everything, Mr. Tant — I have no lessons from you in that area. I am very well aware of this. A state reform, the realization of a new form of state, is a process of years, is a process of centuries, is a process that will never be completed. It will be a process in which one realizes step by step, to eventually reach a better governance. Their

Mr. Speaker, it shows that between those who call themselves confederalists and those like us, who indeed have already reformed our state, there is a different view. If we have succeeded in reforming the state over the last decades, we have always done so in the perspective of getting to a better governance. We have never done this from a loop-grave setting. We have not sought the defederalization of Education from the reasoning that Wallon teachers were profiteers, but rather from the reasoning — à la Van den Brande — that indeed in Flanders we could realize certain things ourselves with our own powers. We received a de-federalization of Public Works, not because we felt that the Waal contractors would be shufflers, but because we were convinced that in Flanders we could realize affairs ourselves with our own powers. In the same perspective, we will soon deal with road safety. In the same perspective, colleagues, we are addressing that weapons legislation today.

When in this hemisphere we talked about arms deliveries, the discussion went over and over between Flamingen and Walen, as if some were better than others. Through the defederalization of export licenses, we will finally be able to conduct a discussion in the regional parliaments that goes to the heart of the debate and deals with what we want with our weapons industry. Their

Let us not talk about defederalizing conscience. Mr. De Crem, in my maiden speech during the investment debate, I have already pointed out that your party in the 1990s developed the arrangement as it exists today. In the committee, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out the very hypocritical reasoning that one French-speaking minister was competent for export licences on the Wall side and one Dutch-speaking minister was competent for export licences on the Flemish side. Moreover, your metaphor of the amusement park where this government has led the population to, I could count with saying that in the amusement park that your party has realized and where you stood at the box office, you answered to the people who came to ask where the shooting stand was, that there was no shooting stand, but a lunapark where you can also play combat games. For the shooting stand, you said, you can go to my Wallish colleague, behind, which we also earn a penny. That was the logic you had drawn up in the arrangement that was drawn up at the time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lambert, it is correct that the federal government has worked with two competent ministers on licenses for a while. However, I would like to point out the actual reality. Take the actual reality in the Nepal dossier. If your claim is correct that this matter was already regionalized, not de jure but de facto, in fact, I do not understand why the Nepal-I file should be approved by the Federal Council of Ministers. If your claim was true, then Minister Michel could have signed it by his own hand. The actual situation was different. Moreover, a government is one and indivisible!

Mr. Verherstraeten, I invite you to later in the Flemish Parliament with your CD&V colleagues – this is also an invitation of spirit to the Flemish Parliament – to draft an equally stringent weapons legislation. We have already pointed out that the weapons report of last week showed the situation in Flanders. I invite you and will carefully follow the attitude of the co-regionals - I am a West-Flaming - regarding the Barco situation. Their

With the regionalization of export licenses we have the opportunity to work on an active peace policy. The de-federalization of conscience — your expression — is, in my opinion, still better than the law that your party had drafted at the time and in which "preferably not know" was held federal!

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are no Agalev colleagues present in this hemisphere. From this floor, I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the attitude of Agalev in the Senate. It is incomprehensible that from the same logic one cannot trust Ecolominists who — as far as I know — are still part of the Western government. There is also a very active peace movement in Wallonia. I am confident that it will examine more than rigorously whether the improvement made by an amendment aimed at ensuring strict compliance with the European Code of Conduct is effective.

Spirit will vote on this law with a pure conscience, a pure conscience both on the ethical level and on the Flemish level. I will see if the great pacifists of today, later when we will conduct the same debate in the Flemish Parliament, will take the same stance.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the government promised a thorough reflection on the problem of the regionalization of arms sales. Today, the opposite is happening. Both assemblies passed a special law that allows the majority to get rid of spinal problems that could weaken it as soon as parliamentary entrance. The agenda of this last week of July is primarily dictated by the government’s internal strategy and not by the concern to define a clear line in this ethically sensitive matter. by

The first observation that I would like to make on the background of the case is shared by very many observers: by this regionalization, Belgium positions itself against the general trend of entrusting the decisions concerning weapons to the most global level of power and, if possible, to the European level.

In the proposed project, the three regions will become competent. It is therefore a fragmentation of the decision in a matter where the international dimension should remain predominant. Furthermore, there is no space for concertation or coordination. There is a high risk of having, in the short term, three Belgian foreign policies based on files and contracts. Weapons are obviously not goods like others and contradictions will necessarily emerge between federated entities. by

Is the intellectual comfort of the government more important than the consistency of the policy carried out? In any case, we can ask the question.

In terms of ethical rules, environmentalists contributed significantly, last spring, to the improvement of the 1991 law, in particular by incorporating the European Code of Conduct on Weapons, which thus became binding. Other improvements have also been made: prohibition of selling to armies that use child soldiers, support for threatened democratic regimes, submission of a two-year report to parliament. by

Once the competence has been transferred to the Regions, it is obviously to these that will be the power to maintain, modify, ⁇ improve, these ethical rules. A priori, nothing suggests that the Regions will be less concerned about ethics and moral responsibility than it was, at its time, the federal government. We are confident on this point. by

In short, given the precipitation with which this project is dealt, given the absence of a mechanism that allows Belgium to safeguard the coherence of its foreign policy and given the potential conflicts of interest at the level of the Regions, the environmentalists will abstain from this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Dear colleagues, the VLD group will support the bill amending the special law on the issue of export licences. I will also explain why. Colleagues, I, by the way, notice that in the debate that has been conducted so far some previous speakers like to screen with symbols. They like to pursue symbolism. It seems to me dangerous to do that in this file. I would like to make an abstraction of the symbolism and look at the facts.

It shows from the facts that Flemish arms exports have increased by 40% in recent years. Wallonian arms exports increased by 18%. These are things that need to be said. The new arms export legislation, since it was adopted in 2002, also expressly mentions all dual-use applications. Dual-use applications are all manufactures for double use. We all know that they are mainly manufactured in Flanders, in the north of the country. They also fall under the federal arms export legislation as it applies today. These are two conclusions, which I would like to make with you.

Colleagues, why should we play political games in this federal Parliament and in this federal government right now? Today the citizen is awake from his job, from employment, from the economic downturn that strikes internationally everywhere. We all have this regression. The citizen then, in our opinion, does not want Flamings and Whales to play political games around a number of symbols, as is happening today. In these games, Flamingen calls the black beast of FN Herstal up again and again. The Whales, in turn, call out the black beast of the dual-use industry in West Flanders. I think, on the other hand, the citizen today wants his job to be retained. He wants more employment and that we first take care of it.

In this case, the Wals would be the winner and the Flamings the loser. Let me be clear about this. For several years, I myself in my group have been advocating that the file should be de-federalized. I do this for the simple reason that Flanders in the future will decide themselves to whom and in what way they will deliver their export licenses, without the Wallonian politicians being bothered.

This brings me to the problem of conscience, which is also said to be de-federalized. Of course, nothing is less true. The European Code of Conduct and the Arms Export Law remain in force. They will also remain in force for the western governments, as is the case today for the federal government. There is also the Interministerial Conference. As you know, it can always be caught by one of the western governments.

Finally, colleagues, every convinced federalist in this assembly and in this hemisphere should fully support this bill. As you know, today the regions are competent to issue building permits, environmental permits, economic permits. They are responsible for supporting the economy, for supporting research and development. They are also competent to support exports, with the exception of export licences. Colleagues, it was overwhelmed today. Today and that since 1991 is, as you know, a Flemish-speaking, federal minister competent for the delivery of Flemish licenses. A French-speaking federal minister is authorized to issue the Welsh licenses. In other words, we are on a few millimeters of a complete defederalization of this type of files. Let us take the step. Let us take the step. Let us complete this loop completely as it fits into a federal structure. For this reason, the VLD group will fully approve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, as we know for many years, the evolution of the case concerning the export, import and transit of weapons has spread over several legislatures.

Every time, he asks us about our register of values. The challenges of yesterday are still and always the ones of today. They concern in particular human rights and aim to reconcile these with ethical criteria, socio-economic and commercial issues.

This is ⁇ not a quick vote today because it has been discussed for months, for years. The transfer of competences in question is justified by the government’s desire to result in coherent and homogeneous competence packages, to be managed in the concertation absolutely necessary for any federal principle.

As a reminder, regional authorities already have competence in economic matters, as well as policy in terms of opportunities, exports and employment. By this measure, it is about dedicating a logic of the system, simply.

It should also be emphasized that this matter is the subject of an international regulation which, of course, will have to be respected by the Regions in the exercise of their competence, which means, of course, once again the applicability of the European Code of Conduct to them. Even if some, today, discover the moon, should I remind you that the European Code of Conduct is already applied in the facts here? I am, of course, with my group in favour of its adoption, which meets the proactive symbolic approach we want towards our other EU partners.

We had so far, in the field of import, export, transit of weapons, ammunition and equipment specifically for military use, the most restrictive law on a European and global scale. Obviously, the regionalization of this competence will not result in the modification or weakening of ethical constraints that some seem to fear, constraints that were already present when the federal state ⁇ all powers in this matter.

The new legal framework in which this competence is now incorporated will not prevent companies or regional authorities from subjecting themselves to the ethical criteria, but also to the large number of provisions provided by the European Code of Conduct, which is obviously a non-negligible element, especially when considering the implementation of Article 10 of this Code, which implies taking into account the social, economic, industrial and commercial interests of Belgium.

Furthermore, this transfer of competence concerns the whole country. There is no need to target criticism on one or another part of Belgium. Why the flow of criticism should—it will only hit the south of the country because there is defending employment as everywhere else, while we see a real increase in arms exports—Mr. Goris has just recalled it - and more ⁇ of the technology related to a production related to a military use, which remains an industrial specificity in the north of the country? In this regard, I refer you to the recent report on the subject addressed to Parliament, and to the economic and industrial history of our country.

This regionalization appears as the expression of a development adapted to our economic reality and to our social context. Furthermore, the transfer of competence to regional entities is a positive element that helps, among other things, to avoid the misunderstandings we have suffered so much and to dedicate a better distribution and a more coherent economic system.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, my dear colleagues, producers carry out an economic act, policies control exports, but export control must be and remain an eminently political act. Arms export is a very complicated matter because it depends on a whole series of international treaties, which are also very complicated. Regions should therefore be provided with the means and capabilities to follow and comply with international rules and objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a look at what Mr. Moriau says about the Flemish arms deliveries and also on what Mr. Lambert said.

I agree that it is not easy and it will be a challenge to develop a own ethical code in the Flemish territory. However, this is not actually the core of the case. The core of what is now predicted is how the negotiation went during the government formation. It seems to me that there is practically nothing that matters to Flanders. Hence my question, also to Minister Louis Michel, whether during the government negotiations a secret agreement has been reached in relation to the community. In other words, I find that there is nothing that is important to Flanders in this regard — in addition to road safety than, which is important but very little — that I wonder if there is sometimes a secret agreement at the community level that would have been concluded during government negotiations. I would like to get a clear answer from Louis Michel. A yes or a no in this area would be interesting.

Mr. Bogaert, this is not an interruption from Mr. Moriau, it is a question to the Minister. You can put them later. Mr. Moriau was just finishing his speech. I wanted you to explain what he said. M is I died a la parole. But this is not the time to question the Minister.

Thank you for reminding me of the “right man in the right place.”

I return to the issue of regionalization. Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, the legislator had already taken this into account, since 1991 — it must still be recalled! — different federal ministers signed the granting of licenses taking into account the regions of our country. This was also mentioned on this forum.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, to conclude — and again with the risk of repeating myself — I insist on the fact that this regionalization is more than justified, in its explanation of reasons, by a concern for coherence between arms exports and regional economic and employment skills. Everything else, you know, is merely a trial of intent — one has just heard an example — of allegations, of a priori, in fact, of excess! And you know, everything that is excessive becomes insignificant!

For, you see, listening to some of my opportunist pacifist colleagues, I think that it would be urgent to legislate on the export, import and transit of fireworks! Yes, because the use of fireworks causes dramas, it leads to incommensurable consequences! Let us be serious! The world is a reality that cannot be abstracted from, and in this view there is neither a winner nor a loser!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I therefore call on all my colleagues to support this initiative, in the mutual respect that will also allow, I am sure, a serene work on this matter which has often been a source of divergences and incomprehensions within the community. Thank you already for your serenity.

You can never predict the future in our country if you do not know the past.

On 11 July 2002, the seven hundredth anniversary of the Golden Track Battle, there was an important decision of the nuclear cabinet of the purple-green government of Verhofstadt I. Then the government gave permission to deliver Minimi’s to the regime in Nepal, a regime that has subsequently disguised itself in a prone democracy. We learned a lot about how purple-green acted and how the negotiations and discussions were conducted in purple-green. We also learned then that the core cabinet of purple-green was actually a duck valve. Sometimes they were there, but sometimes they were not. Mrs. Aelvoet walked once inside and once outside. At the time the decision was to be made, however, she was not there. However, she had a great importance. The Nepal crisis of July, August, September 2002 is the basis of the so-called legal work that we consider here today. What happened in the meantime? Ms. Aelvoet has resigned and the Greens have been driven back into the clouds of Belgian political history following the Nepal dossier — I am convinced of that. The Nepal dossier has ensured that they have never been able to clean up their already bloody credibility again.

The earthly silence of the sp.a at that time, and in particular of Fraktions Chairman Van der Maelen, still makes our drumming flies. That ear-drinking silence was, of course, also instrumented by our current colleague and then chairman Patrick Janssens who had commanded everyone, through a writing on the sp.a website, that no one but himself would communicate about the problem of arms deliveries to Nepal.

I remember even more — that we will never forget — Mrs. Van Weert’s rude interventions on the most deadly weapons made in the northern hemisphere. Her dome chairman, Mr. Stevaert, later talked about arrows and bows, a little in the tradition of the Guldensporenslag or the old Belgians. Mrs. Van Weert spoke about the tradition of the IJzer, never more war, the tradition of Flemish pacifism, the tradition of the broken gun and the slogan about the reconversion of the FN of Herstal. Colleagues, Ms. Van Weert held a rough presentation during the Nepal crisis on the problematic and murderousness of these weapons, but the syrup has disguised itself in jelly during the talks at the Lambermont. Then Mrs. Van Weert – she spoke a few more historical words last week – talked about the reconversion of the FN of Herstal. In other words, weapons were used to make squad squads, and that was done under the impulse of Mrs. Van Weert. Of course, all this did not happen. Mrs. Van Weert, this is a scandalous dossier for you.

Now, when it’s going hard, a lubricant always brings some soilage to the believers. It is difficult, but it feels a little more pleasant. The lubricant for the sp.a was the new weapons law, the adaptation of article 4 and the famous commission for the arms trade that would be established. I would like to say that with the pacifists of the sp.a in the government there have never been so many weapons exported since 1998. In the year 2000 — colleagues, keep it tight — weapons exports increased by 4 billion Belgian francs. Oases of fireplace and free: about 30% was delivered to the Middle East. When we count the weapons that were delivered to Indonesia, and to Northeast Asia — which is a description for Nepal — we get 40%.

We get a piece over. That was the sp.a’s rendez-vous with history. With the Committee on Arms Trade, everything would be resolved and then the telegrams from Lambermont came: negotiations Lambermont — stop — Verhofstadt II in hills — stop — pacifist government agreement — stop — arrows and arches — stop — FN is handed over to the Whales — stop. Over and out. For the rest, we have heard nothing about it. This was the result of the presence of sp.a and spirit in government negotiations. Let us be honest: the divided conscience, which we have launched ourselves. I see that it is original because a number of people have taken it over, on the Flemish side but also on the French-speaking side. That divided conscience is an acceptable given. The conscience is now divided into a Flemish conscience and a Wallish, French-speaking conscience when it comes to approving those arms deliveries.

To say that weapons supplies should be federalized or that the Whales should be able to decide about their weapons because otherwise it would have led to political crises is, of course, completely wrong. If that is the case, everything in this country must be regionalized. Between purple and purple-green, under Verhofstadt and in the Lambermont negotiations, there has been a dispute about everything: about social security, about employment, about pensions, about night flights, about Kyoto... That there, as the minister had said, the reason for having to be regionalized is, of course, not correct. That is not a reason. That this dossier had to be implemented sooner because there was an agreement — and that it therefore did not have to go to the forum — is, of course, an absolute lie. The only reason, peacekeepers of sp.a and spirit, is that there is a new order for Minimi's, to be delivered to Nepal by the Fabrique Nationale of Herstal. That is why it needs to be regionalized. It has to do with purely commercial interest because the Fabrique Nationale van Herstal does not survive without delivering that new order of Minimi's, to Nepal. That is the only reason. All the rest is larie and apekool.

This regionalization makes it easy for the government. Mr. Minister, I admit it. It makes it ⁇ easy for your government. I would say that it becomes very especially easy for you. It becomes so easy because it is now that Flanders and the majority of Flanders can close their eyes before FN will open them again.

In addition, there are ethical concerns. I know that ethical politics was a driving force for you. It was the ethics that had to come back into our foreign policy. I think the people after all that happened have long known that the only ethics in this file is the ethics of the hard coins that the Fabrique Nationale in Herstal gets.

However, there are also practical objections. I would like to talk a little about the practical objections. It is not about the intellectual content of the gentlemen Van Cauwenberghe and Daerden. I would not dare to doubt that. I have seen Minister Daerden here often. It is not about the intellectual content of Mr. Foret or Mr. Detienne of Ecolo. The latter must decide on this in the Wallonian government. I am convinced that our Wallish colleagues are intellectually capable of judging in all independence on the substance, on the bienfondé of arms deliveries.

However, what is true is the fact that in most federal countries — let us take Germany as an example — arms deliveries are subject to a federal review. This is because arms deliveries are actually also an exponent of foreign policy. Weapons exports are not easy, Mr. Minister. We have seen that. There are treaties and regulations applicable to them. There are also special services. The first special service is located at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That service can talk about it, because it has a lot to do to hunt through that arms supply to Nepal and the arms supplies that are still coming. In fact, there are special services in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is also the Delcreder Service. Colleague Verherstraeten had already talked about this. The Delcreder Service should actually cover the regulations. That service does his job or is still trying to do his job.

Wallonia is not an island in the world. It cannot be otherwise, because we want to conduct an ethical policy. There are also international contacts. My question is who you are going to send. Who will send you to New York to start negotiations? Are you going to send a Waal? Are you going to send a Brussels? Are you going to send a flame? Even when it is regionalized, even when the Walloon Parliament decides about it, you will be able to do nothing there. So it will be the Whales who will defend their own boutique abroad.

Friends, the second reason why these arms deliveries absolutely needed to be regionalized is the following. Do you know who is the 100% shareholder of the Fabrique Nationale van Herstal? It is the Wallonian government. The Wallish Government is a 100% shareholder of the Fabrique Nationale van Herstal. Therefore, it has every interest in approving arms deliveries and in issuing export licenses. This means that she has more income in her stock. That is the essence. This is a purely monetary file. This is purely a dossier du pognon. This is about the money. This has nothing to do with great ethical principles. It is about the money to be allocated to the distressed Fabrique Nationale van Herstal.

In this, the government is not a shareholder, colleague Henry.

In the context of optimism, with some cynicism in the voice, I would like to say bravo to the Flammers who negotiated this. Bravo to the flames of purple-green and especially those of the sp.a and spirit.

I have here a quote from Bert's Diary of 22 May 2003. Bert writes in a letter posted at 15.56 am: "I am curious." I thought he was curious whether he could be present in the Chamber on July 29th, but it wasn’t. I read further: "So far I have only heard the VLD say that spirit will not play too hard, especially on the community level. They are mistaken, spirit will play it hard, not at the expense of the people but in the interest of the people." Bravo to Spirit! The Fabrique nationale of Herstal can carry out weapons without control, the Wallish government can participate without control, and you can whistle with your spirit negotiators to the legitimate portion that the Whales must participate in the Kyoto Fund. Your Minister of Mobility has managed to spread the night flights within the framework of the harsh community game across the Brussels Oostrand. I will not talk about the traffic regulations that you had thrown into the box of the regionalization of the arms trade.

I think there is a chance that the Minister of Mobility will play hard. He must play it hard, if he wants to confirm his diary of 22 May. Where are the weapons of the United Nations transported? They are transported via Zaventem.

Mr. Lambert, I would suggest you to call Mr. Anciaux in Center Parcs to ask him when the weapons are transported through Antwerp — to the nearest order in Flanders — when the weapons are flown away along Zaventem — to the nearest order in Flanders. Will he then enforce his full powers as Minister of Mobility? Will the Flemish nationalist awaken in him? Will he kill the lion? Will he say no to these supplies? Ancient people will say. You have received nothing for the regionalization of the Fabrique nationale de Herstal. We will always remember you.

Colleagues, in the context of optimism, I would once again pay tribute to the colleagues of the sp.a. Colleague Van der Maelen, it must be difficult times for you. I would not like to start my holiday with the eye of the acquaintance and explorer who was speaking yesterday in The Standard.

By the way, we were in between for nothing, believe me. Minister Michel always believes in a CD&V plot.I know that you suspect the Standard of it to be a CD&V newspaper and we suspect the Standard of it to be a purple newspaper. In this regard, we are cuddle. Colleague Van der Maelen, it hurts me to tell you this, you have no credibility in this file anymore. I can only recommend one thing – I see that you are on the speaker list – and that’s not to mention. We have already had Mr. Lambert in the speech. The only thing that sp.a and spirit can save in this file is silence in all languages. I would like to invite you to please be silent. Please instruct your webmaster of the sp.awebsite to delete you from the figures of the week. It is too painful. I say it with genuine compassion for you.

I would like to remind the colleagues of spirit of the reconversion of the Fabrique Nationale of Herstal. Do you remember that you said, Mrs. Van Weert? We talked about it yesterday: the blue wall,.be, flashing, hyperkinetic, press communiqués, the press center from the Lambermont.

"Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we will also make sure that the Fabrique Nationale of Herstal is reconverted." "So you are strong that no more weapons will be manufactured at FN Herstal?" "Indeed, Mr. the interrogator"

What do we see? That in the meantime the perfidious game continues and the Fabrique Nationale of Herstal without the slightest control and with aval, Mrs. Van Weert, of you.... You want to play the Angel of Peace, the Scooby Doo of purple, the Angel of Peace that flies around on wings and brings the good news everywhere. Scooby, Scooby Doo I love you, but in the meantime you are the most fantastic gangster of the Wallish weapons industry.

Do you know how your illustrious predecessors of the Flemish movement called it? I will not parafrase the words of Flor Grammens, for it began with cl, but in any case the Flaming knows what you are, namely, first-class Kazakhs. Finally, the spirit wing continues, because there is new news. The new news is that Ms. Van Weert has said: now we go much further, now we are going to cancel our bilateral treaties with the Americans. Now it is done. On and a marre, ça suffit, es suffügt, over is over, it is done. I, Els Van Weert, Scooby Doo, I love you, but not the Americans, so we will cancel all those treaties we have made with the Americans once again.

You have good examples. There is one here: the former and current Minister of Foreign Affairs. He did that too. No, three times. Flahaut said: Nnet. Then he said in The Standard that Flahaut was a donkey. I would like to know if you still have some plans in the future, because I want to tell you, Mrs. Van Weert, if you continue to do this way then we can forget it with our country. I do not know if you know — you must ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs — that these are mutual agreements. This requires mutual agreement and a lot of negotiations are required in advance.

I call on you to respect these treaties, because if there should be troop transports, not only from the Americans, but also from the Dutch and the English, then I think it would be bad – also for your teerbeminded Flanders – that they would pass through France, the Netherlands or Luxembourg and, since the regionalization, through Wallonia. I think this would be very bad for your teerbeminded Flanders.

We have experienced a lot at the end of these discussions. We had two days of discussion. We have had the shabby representation of the Genocide Act. Yesterday I experienced something I have never experienced before: a minister who did not know what to answer to the most fundamental objections there were.

We have experienced a program law in which tax increases to the population could be made as if they were tax cuts. No one believes that.

Today, in a few moments, we must vote on what we thought until recently impossible, in particular that the Flemish Nationalists themselves would make it possible for the Flemish people to have nothing more to say about a Wallish affair, which also fits in the militarist tradition that you have always rejected before the people. That was one of the reasons you went to the Socialists. I have nothing more to say to you about this. The public will judge on this. Michel once called Flahaut an ass. But I can tell you one thing: concerning the application of the Arms Law and the regionalization of the Arms Law you may have a bit of balloons; anyway you wear the biggest donkeys!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, colleagues, this is the third time in a period of one year that we discuss arms trade with each other. The first time was in August, over Nepal. At the beginning of this year, we talked about the new weapons law. This is the proposal for regionalization. I must say that I am actually disappointed with the viewpoint of the opposition in these three debates.

The [...]

I have not interrupted anyone since then and I would like to be able to finish my thoughts without joel. I promise you, if I have done I will remain standing and you can ask me what you want. I am not going away from this tribune.

Why am I disappointed? I am disappointed that again and again, three times in a row, the opposition is seeking community hacking in this debate. To the ground of the case, the opposition will never go. What is the ground of the case? The bottom of the case is that in the last twenty years, according to UN figures, an average of between 500,000 and 700,000 people in the world each year die as a result of arms violence. That is the core of the case. Every ethically motivated politician must ask himself the question — the question that the opposition does not ask itself — how he can ensure that policy decisions for the political levels for which he is responsible the decisions concerning arms deliveries are taken with the greatest care. That is the crucial question, and that is, in my opinion, the commitment in this domain.

I have been here for 14 years since yesterday. I have to say that I am satisfied and even proud of the last four years. From 1991 to 1999, colleagues from CD&V, we have been jointly part of the Romanian-Red governments. We have not been able to improve our regulation. I said at the beginning of the previous legislature that I had two agenda points. A first point of the programme was that since the largest number of victims occurred as a result of illegally organized arms trade — that is, weapons that were also produced on Belgian territory or were brought from elsewhere with the complicity of Belgians to conflict areas — our first duty was to pass on regulation in this area.

Therefore, it was our first duty to move to regulation in this area. We succeeded in June 2002. Title III of the Act of 5 August 1991 concerns arms trade. I know you won’t believe of me that we have played a pioneering role in Europe. However, I ask you to read the latest report of the European Parliament. Every year, an overview of the efforts undertaken in the fifteen Member States in relation to arms trade is made. Belgium is encouraged to take this step. This is the first country in the EU to take this step.

I come to my second program. There was a need for a further refinement of our Belgian legislation. At the same time, we had to pay a lot of attention to European regulation. Of the European arms exports, Belgium accounts for between 4 and 5 percent. Since the opposition has repeatedly called the discussions on these issues a community hacking, and also because we already have one of the sharpest legislations in Belgium, there was not much room more to make progress in this area. This will also be challenged by the opposition, but I refer to the same report of the European Parliament. At the European level, 95% of exports, we could still make progress. That is why I suggested that at the beginning of the legislature our attention should be focused primarily on this.

To the colleagues who are in doubt, I would like to clarify the mechanisms on the basis of what happened to the environmental legislation. Thirty years ago, there was a debate about environmental legislation in this country. Whenever we proposed legislation, there was resistance, among other things, from the companies, because we would undermine their competitive position. We have only made progress with environmental legislation in this country and in our regions from the moment when environmental decisions were made at European level and all countries were obliged to proceed. Well, under that same mechanism, we will only make progress on European arms exports when we decide to take joint steps at European level, with fifteen and later with twenty-five and more. It is the goal of every ethically motivated politician to make careful decisions regarding arms deliveries. We will make the most progress if we make progress at European level.

When we discussed a revision of the Act of 5 August 1991, it was therefore my idea to incorporate the European criteria into Belgian legislation. I refer again to that report of the European Parliament: Belgium is also praised for this. This is the first EU country to incorporate European criteria in its legislation.

These are two achievements that Verhofstadt I has achieved and on which I am proud and remain.

Now we are in a new phase. We are moving towards regionalization. In fact, this is a continuation of what was decided in the law of 1991. This is a de facto regionalization. Now, as in many other domains in our country, we will translate that into the reality of the law.

I think it’s good — such debates are part of it — to clarify the scope of the decision we’re going to make. The question we must ask is: how is the jurisdiction now separated between the federal level and the level of the regions? Well, take the text of Article 2 of the present draft. Read the first three rules. I will not quote them now. There is word for word the text of Title II of the Act of 1991. The scope of these first three rules is, therefore, that everything contained in that Title II is in the future the competence of the Regions. This is about the issue of licensing. This is important: the issuance of permits. Remember that for a moment.

I go to my next step. It also states in the text: "...without prejudice to the federal competence on import and export in relation to the army and police." The federal level therefore retains a competence in the issue of permits. It is a mixed competence. Those who know our special legislation know that it is very important that the answer to the question of whether something is an exclusive or a mixed authority has significant implications for the involvement of the federal level.

At the committee meeting I asked a question to the Minister. The question was: what about the international powers outside? The Minister referred to Article 92a, § 4a. It clearly states that the preparation of international negotiations and decisions, as well as the monitoring of the activities of international and supranational organizations, are federal powers.

In simple terms, I can summarize what I have said so far as follows. The permits belong to the competence of the regions. International legal action is a competence of the federal level.

For me, the following was important, especially in the context of my second program point. The progress we want to ⁇ at the European and international level in the field of arms trade remains within the competence of the federal government and this Parliament.

We can continue to follow this subject. From the first part of the text, which is a literal representation of Title II of the Act of 1 August 1991, I derive a contrario that by Title III, which deals with illegal arms trafficking — characteristic of the absence of licenses for delivery and, therefore, the absence of jurisdiction of the regions — the federal level also remains competent for the fight against illegal arms trafficking. A preliminary summary. With regard to the fight against illegal arms trade – my first programme point – and with regard to the commitment to continue on the European and international stage with better treaties and better European agreements on arms trade, the federal level remains competent.

Then I come to the last piece of the text that, if I have read the Senate report properly, is an amendment of the colleagues of the CDH. I think this is an excellent amendment and I am very pleased that this is possible. It states: in compliance with the criteria set out in the Code of Conduct of the European Union. Colleagues, I have subsequently stated that I considered the entry into Belgian legislation of the criteria of the European Code of Conduct one of the most important achievements in this area of the previous legislature. I don’t know if all those who have read the text understand what the scope of this piece of text is. This is achieving more than I ever thought we could ⁇ . I will clarify this with an example. If we have a Belgian law — August 5, 1991 — which introduces the European criteria, it is a law approved by a simple majority by the purple-green government of the past. A next government – for example, one with a room colour on and which I do not trust, given the lack of interest in the substance of the problemology and focused only on the community hackketket – a possible blue-Roman government would therefore be able to amend that ordinary law with an ordinary majority. Foetsie, the guarantees and guarantees that Dirk Van der Maelen asked in the weapons legislation. Colleagues, what we have now achieved, what is here, goes much further. With a two-thirds majority – listen just as well – or even stronger, with the majority of a special law, that is to say that there must be a total of two-thirds and half plus one in each language group, we have now and we will later vote on the guarantee that everyone who in the future in Flanders, in Brussels or in Wallonia has to discuss permits, must test those decisions to the European criteria.

You understand that I am a more comfortable man now than I was fourteen days ago. After all, new majorities will need to have a special majority to reverse what we had achieved in the Verhofstadt I government.

I do not want to avoid the difficult problems. As regards regulatory authority on arms trade, my conclusion so far is that what we have acquired under pairs I is now accrued by a two-thirds majority.

I assume it is silent. Maybe you are tired. I admit that a regulatory power is not everything. You must also exercise and apply the authority. There will always be an appreciation power for the competent political authority.

I am a former fighter in the debate about arms trade decisions. I will give you my personal appreciation for the progress following the Act of 1991, especially during the last four years.

If there was already a file, the members of the opposition over the past four years — mainly and almost exclusively from the Flemish side — climb this tribune. The community drum was then lifted up. The effects on the two sides of the language border were as follows.

First, the Flemish arms trade was silently silenced, except by me. I have warned several times, and even recently, of the trend over the years. Flanders is taking Wallonia in the field of weapons production. Assume from Dirk Van der Maelen that it will not take more than ten years before Flanders will export more than Wallonia. The reason is simply that for weapons systems technology becomes more and more important. This means that the Flemish weapons industry will receive an increasing share. I have not heard a word about this during the three debates that we have had this year on the subject of those gentlemen, who come here only with the Flemish flag. That tells books about their motivation to come here. The 500,000 to 700,000 dead don’t care. By crying out loud, they want to focus the spotlight on the Waal weapons industry to keep the Flemish weapons industry out of the light. That is their intention.

Second, the effect on the Wallish side of arms trade discussions based on the 1991 Act is simple. Imagine why there is no or only a weak peace movement in Wallonia. I know the answer. For ten years I have spoken to people from the Wallish Peace Movement. They were beaten to death with the argument used in Wallonia that discussions about arms trade were only Flemish bullies from Wallonia. This is what people from the peace movement in Wallonia say to me! Ladies and gentlemen of the opposition, you have the opportunity to prove that I am wrong. With the new law and the removal of authority, we find ourselves in an entirely new situation. The political leaders of both the majority and the opposition are held accountable. If a decision is made in Wallonia on arms deliveries, I hope that will lead to a peace movement that will become even stronger, because I do not believe that there is no ethical sense in Wallonia. Then that peace movement will become stronger and stronger, because its arguments will no longer be undermined by the accusation that it is guilty of community games with the Flammers.

But ladies and gentlemen of CD&V and the Flemish Bloc, you too will be placed for your responsibility! I am waiting for the first interpellation of for example Luc Van den Brande about deliveries made by Alcatel-Antwerp. I am waiting for that. It is also possible that Mr. Dewinter will appeal. I am waiting for that. Alcatel is located in Antwerp. Do you know what is done in Antwerp? This proves that you know nothing about this file. Do you know what is done in Antwerp? I will tell you. In Antwerp, the guidance systems of the smart bombs with which the Americans bombed Baghdad are being created. This is done in Antwerp. There one will not hear the Flemish Blok or CD&V about interpellating. I look at the West Flemish colleagues of CD&V. I look forward to the first interpellation for a delivery of Barco discs. I also look at the eastern flames. When will a first comment come after a Delft Optronics weapons delivery from Oudenaarde? I am waiting for that.

We agreed not to interrupt the speakers. Mr. Van der Maelen, do you want to decide?

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. If we approve this later, we will guarantee better than before the achievements of the previous legislature. We remain responsible for international negotiations. We remain responsible for the illegal arms trade. Everything related to licenses is transferred. A two-thirds majority agreed that the permits should be tested according to the European criteria.

As regards the debates on the assessment powers of political authorities regarding concrete arms delivery files, we are in Wallonia in a situation that it will depend on the strength of the civil society in Wallonia to criticize that political government in that area if desired.

With regard to Flanders, colleagues of CD&V and the Flemish Bloc, you are made responsible and I will carefully follow your actions. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, I note that the applause on the French-speaking banks is very large. I would like to ask Mr Van der Maelen what is preventing the current Flemish government from controlling the supply of Alcatel. Furthermore, I look forward to the candidacy of Patrick Jansens for the Flemish Parliament, as he would then be the first to ask the question of checking the deliveries of Alcatel, which is based in Antwerp. Mr. Van der Maelen, so far you drive your reasoning. I wish you fantastic success.

The answer to Mr. De Crem’s question is obvious. The Flemish political authorities have so far been able to hide behind the argument that they are not competent for the licenses. From now on, they will be competent. The majority parties and the opposition parties, the ministers in the Flemish government, the parliamentarians from the Flemish Parliament are placed for their responsibility. Dirk Van der Maelen will pay close attention to how they use this new power.

Mr. Van der Maelen, as always, I have listened with great attention to your presentations on arms export legislation. I know your views. I know that you are a ⁇ ethically engaged man in those matters, at least in theory. Unfortunately, I have heard very little about your position on the Nepal issue. Then the word in your party was to be silent about it. There had to be silence. You have let other people take the coal out of the fire. You were very stubbornly silent. I have now listened to your presentation with attention. I have tried to understand your statements. I don’t understand you when you say that now a better application of the law could be achieved.

Actually it comes down to this. You say we had a fairly good law in 1991. You claim that it has been strengthened. There is discussion about this. You also say: now we are emphasizing the application of the European Code. In the end, I don’t know if you agree with me, the problem is the application of the law. That was the problem in the case-Nepal. There was a law and the whole Flemish public opinion and the majority of the Flemish parties agreed that the law was in fact not applied. If I follow your reasoning now, you put all your hopes on an inexistent peace movement in Wallonia to get the law applied.

I would like to answer two things. First, it is a myth—which, of course, is gladly disseminated among others by the opposition—that I have silenced in the Nepalaffaire. There were two parliamentary debates. Once it was in the Brussels Hall and once here, I have been on the floor twice and I spoke there on behalf of my group. I do not know how it comes. Maybe the opposition wants to erase that in her memory, but I’ve talked about it. I gave television answers to difficult questions. These were difficult questions for me personally, I don’t want to hide that, but I gave an answer to them.

Second, colleague Bourgeois, the situation under the law of 1991 was, quite simply speaking, the following. Flemish arms deliveries are wiped under the table, we are not talking about it. We focus on Walloon supplies. Give me one interpellation from a CD&Vparlement member, here in Huis, about a Flemish arms delivery, one is enough. It can be a small question, it can even be a question.

I can easily answer you for the very simple reason that the export licenses received to the Flemish companies were simply in accordance with the law. Whenever there was one with Fabrique Nationale, it was not in accordance with the law. That is the key of the case.

I conclude my reasoning: the Flemish dossiers, we are not talking about that. We put all the spotlights on Walloon files, we know how it goes with community-sensitive files. The deliveries continued. Now we come into the new situation, where I expect the Wallonian government to face year after year more and more with a critical NGO world that will monitor the application of the law. If they succeed in creating a Wallish public opinion, then the pressure on the political government will increase. The profit, colleagues — you come here on the floor always hypocritically say that you find these very important files — however, there will be that with more critical attitude also the Flemish files will be followed.

Mr. Speaker, your appeal to civil society in Wallonia has today been answered by – which you probably have not realized yourself – the image of Minister Kubla, who appeared there behind you on the public tribune this afternoon. He has been shaking his hands in the coffee room for a whole afternoon and is embraced for the success he can experience here today. Soyez le bienvenu, Monsieur le ministre! Enjoy this victory!

The hope you put, colleagues on the left, on civil society in Wallonia is completely unbelievable. Mr. Van der Maelen, you have said yourself that you are a former fighter of the idea of peace and of disarmament and such things. I assume that you either mean that you, like me, an old fighter of the Flemish Movement who now asks for two minutes, are an old fighter of the peace idea, or you really mean that you are an old fighter, someone for whom the fight is over, for whom the fight is definitively over. That is the lesson. I also say this to Mr. Lambert. You see Mr. Michel and Mr. Kubla sitting here unanimously, not to stimulate the peace movement or the NGO world in Wallonia, but to stimulate the economy. The Minister of Economy of Wallonia is there. He came here specifically. You must both be well aware of this, you too, Mr. Lambert, also spirit. The core of our debate is not that you are regionalizing something. We do not blame you for regionalizing something. We accuse you that you are regionalizing à la carte. I ⁇ ’t even blame you if you had prepared the card yourself, but it is they who have prepared the card!

So we are not here to blame you for regionalizing. Bravo, the more it is regionalized, the better. But you are regionalizing on the command of the man who sits above you, namely the Minister of Economy of the Wallish Region. That is our accusation. That is the mourning of this old warrior — not of this old warrior because I continue — of the Flemish Movement: that I end the community moment here — because that is it all — by saying: yes, we have done a community hack, as you call it. We did not do this for economic interests, not even for peaceful reasons. Regarding the economic interests, I would like to hold a debate with Mr Janssens, who sits there next to you, in September on whether Alcatel will remain in Antwerp, for example. Because apparently Mr. Van der Maelen has a premiere here: Alcatel remains in Antwerp and we will further limit the production of Alcatel in Antwerp. This is good news for Alcatel. We will conduct this debate with Mr Janssens in Antwerp.

What we blame you is that you have regionalized à la carte while they continue here. They signed it, in a quiet way. These were their last demands at Lambermont. You did not fight, Mr. Lambert. We accuse Lambermont, as the Flemish Movement, that the last means was given out in exchange for the possibility of regionalization. There has been regionalized, but the fact that Wallonia was the requesting party at the time was wasted for an apple and an egg. The only thing that remained were two symbolic files for them, details as it were, which, however, have stirred up high passions in them, namely Francorchamps and the gun law. These two things, for which they sat on their knees. And what is happening now? Just before the summer — everyone wants to go on holiday, everyone is away, which fits the methodology of the VLD and of the others — the Flemish nationalism and the community heckbacks are deployed with the cooperation of the press. Even the last files with which we could have opened another community box are all gifts. In exchange for nothing more, simply because the government submits two more bills before the holiday. Then follows another tirade of the group leader of the SPA who interpels the opposition. And everything is over.

What we blame them is not that they are regionalizing, but that they have come into a complete infernal methodology with a legitimate power game between French speakers and Flamings. There is no taboo there. This is a legitimate power ratio, a matter of power. It is not an ethical issue, nor is it a crackdown, but a confrontation of interest defense. This confrontation of defence of interests is “getaboured” in Belgian politics. Their

Flanders have given free jobs here under the leadership of their government parties. The French speakers themselves are so wise and ludique — I must congratulate them — that they now even propose the regionalization of road safety as a major community demand of Flanders, while they themselves wanted to get rid of the gathering over the unmanned cameras. They did it just as they want to get rid of that shit about that arms trade and tobacco advertising. In my view, therefore, it is a French-language requirement to regionalize road safety. Their

Ironically, Stevaert, who heard that Di Rupo would like to be freed from the Flemish surveillance over the unmanned cameras, will try to propose the regionalization of the traffic dossier as a Flemish claim so that it also needs to be paid, while it is a French-speaking claim. Their

I would like to bring those methods to the surface in all tranquility and calm, but I got Van der Maelen on my roof with some sort of moral talk, while he must stand up against the physical presence of the Minister of Economy of the Wallish Region. As a member of the Flemish movement, which continues to fight, I want to emphasize these methods.

Mr. De Gucht, I must acknowledge that with the Flemish Movement we have reached an absolute low point. The speech tube of the Flemish Movement, Mr. Lionel Vandenberghe, has been transformed into a part of the most Belgicist party along the Flemish side, namely the sp.a. We have indeed reached a low point. With the VLD everyone sleeps and that political party is completely biologized by exercising power. We should not count on the sp.a and of course neither should we count on spirit. Their

I repeat that we reached a low point and that I want to emphasize, just before the holiday and before everything is over. There is only one hope, in particular that we will get weapons in our hands again and that the Flemish Movement will revive. I conclude with the words of Willem de Zwijger: "Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre ni de réussir pour persévérer.

They are issued by the federal authority after the opinion of an interministerial commission called the CANPAN, in execution of the law of 9 February 1981 concerning the conditions of export of nuclear materials and equipment as well as nuclear technological data.

I would like to further clarify, if necessary, that the law will enter into force ten days after its publication in the Moniteur belge. The files submitted at that time will be transmitted to the competent Region pursuant to Article 93 of the Special Law of 8 August 1980. A transfer of specialized personnel from the SPF Economy will eventually take place in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 88 of the Special Act and the Royal Decree of 25 July 1989. by

A few words to explain to avoid any misunderstanding. This has already been said, but it must be repeated with force: by transit, we mean the border trade of goods and technologies from and to the territory of the Kingdom. Import, export and transit means the definition given to these terms in customs legislation. This definition therefore does not apply to the examples given during the debate. There is no domestic customs in Belgium. A Region cannot veto the decision of another Region. A license granted by a Region shall have the same value as a license granted by the federal authority. Regarding the territorial effect of the division of powers, the Government refers to the case-law of the Arbitration Court cited by the State Council: a licence can only be granted by a Region to an enterprise belonging to that Region; a licence granted by a Region will have the same value as a license granted today by the federal authority. The only license granted by a Region must therefore allow import, export and transit across the entire territory. By import, export and transit, we mean cross-border trade from and to the territory of the Kingdom. The existence of the rules of the Economic Union and of the monetary unit implies first and foremost the free movement of goods between the components of the State. Measures taken autonomously by one of the components of the Union which obstruct the free movement are incompatible with the rules of the Economic Union. by

There was also a question about the role of the Ducroire. The competence to grant guarantees against the risks of import and export and investment is not modified by this draft and remains federal. It was explicitly confirmed in the adoption of the Special Law of 13 July 2001 relating to the transfer of various competences to the Regions and Communities. It is not the responsibility of the National Office of the Ducroire, a federal institution with an economic vocation, to verify the policy of a Region in relation to the legislation on import, export and transit. It is not the responsibility of a federal institution to evaluate the policy of the Regions. This concept contradicts the principles of autonomy and responsibility inherent in a federal system. by

The multilateral trade policy. Van der Maelen asked me about this, and I will finish with that. No changes are made to the principles governing the matter. Federal competence shall be exercised without prejudice to the implementation of the cooperation agreement referred to in Article 92bis, §4bis of the Special Law of 8 August.