Proposition 51K0336

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Traité entre le Royaume de Belgique, le Royaume de Danemark, la République fédérale d'Allemagne, la République hellénique, le Royaume d'Espagne, la République française, l'Irlande, la République italienne, le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, le Royaume des Pays-Bas, la République d'Autriche, la République portugaise, la République de Finlande, le Royaume de Suède, le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord (Etats membres de l'Union européenne) et la République tchèque, la République d'Estonie, la République de Chypre, la République de Lettonie, la République de Lituanie, la République de Hongrie, la République de Malte, la République de Pologne, la République de Slovénie, la République slovaque relatif à l'adhésion de la République tchèque, de la République d'Estonie, de la République de Chypre, de la République de Lettonie, de la République de Lituanie, de la République de Hongrie, de la République de Malte, de la République de Pologne, de la République de Slovénie et de la République slovaque à l'Union européenne, et à l'Acte final, faits à Athènes le 16 avril 2003.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Aug. 21, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union international agreement accession to the European Union enlargement of the Union

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 4, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, can I first ask a question on a matter that we have agreed on at the Conference of Presidents? You went to circulate a draft agenda for next week.

I do it at the end, as always.

I’d like you to beg the agenda when you’re done printing it.

Secondly . I note that we are starting a ⁇ important discussion: the enlargement of the Union. I note that there is no member of the government who has some sort of competence in foreign affairs and who is present at this ⁇ important discussion. Their

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has apologized for staying abroad, I know. There are a few other people. The Prime Minister cannot be there. There is still a Secretary of State in this country, promoted to Secretary of State with the rank of Minister, Mr. Simonet. I cannot imagine that in any other parliament of the old countries of the Union or of the countries of accession this important discussion would continue without a member of the government who has even a far-reaching authority to experience this discussion. I would have liked to know your opinion on this, and also that of the group leaders of the majority.

I share your opinions and I share them so strongly that Mr. Michel will be here within a few minutes. He is at a NATO meeting in Evere and I am informed that he has just left this. The agenda went a bit faster than expected.

Mr. Michel will be here. Mr. Prime Minister is, as you know, in Finland. So I have here the Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs. Onkelinx. Deputy Prime Minister Louis Michel will also be present. As you know and according to good tradition, the government should not be present in reporting which is a parliamentary activity. I have been given a report by Herman Van Rompuy, but I agree with you: I will take care that Louis Michel is here when we start the debate.

Specifically on this

I suggest that we begin the discussion and even the reporting at the time the competent minister is here.

This is not new. I would also like to say, without confusing the case, that we had already yesterday, both in the Committee for European Affairs Advisory and in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, although on a different level, a first interesting discussion in the committee. You were the first speaker. I was personally pleased with what happened yesterday. Their

Now there are two possibilities. Or you say that you do not want Mr Van Rompuy to present his report as long as Mr Michel is not here. It is possible, as a parliamentary. This is not new. A report can be made by a reporter, even if the government is not present. I would like to address another topic in order to make things go as you wish. I have no problem with that. I only have to wait for the time when the Deputy Prime Minister can be here after his presence in Brussels at NATO. If you find that, I will address another topic and wait a little. I have no problem with that.

Given the importance of this issue, I would like to do so.

That is good. We will have to reverse the agenda a little.

I will not be too long.

The rule requires that amendments submitted in a public session are submitted during the debate and not during the discussion of amendments. I will use this debate to submit an amendment. I will comment at the appropriate time.

I am receiving an amendment signed by Mr. Arens, Langendries and Mrs. Gerkens.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, this proposal on federal mediators, or rather the identical initiative that preceded it, has experienced a parliamentary pathway at least chaotic. Modified several times by the Senate, it could not have achieved at the end of the fifth legislature.

I will not be delayed on the substance of the differences found between the two assemblies. It is known that the House wanted an open examination for all and that the Senate was more supportive of a system of assessment of mediators in place. We discussed these issues long, shortly before the last dissolution of the Chambers. Both theories have their merits and their shortcomings. A consensus was reached again on the room option. We support it, especially since the problem is urgent. In anticipation of our decision, the mandate of the two federal mediators has, in fact, been artificially extended. This has taken too long and now we need to resolve.

In terms of form, things have been a little complicated and this has not been arranged in this beginning of the legislature. We had agreed within a working group to take up the previous draft of expiration and vote on it as soon as possible, a vote that would have put a definitive end to the problem. For a reason that escapes us a little, it must be acknowledged, two majority parties have decided to further accelerate things by submitting a new bill that faithfully takes back the outstanding text. We voted this proposal in the committee, but we fear that it will be again evoked by the Senate.

In our opinion, the path of the initial project would have been the wisest. Certainly, it was appropriate to wait for the publication in the Belgian Moniteur of the law relating to this draft of expiration before starting our work, but we would have been certain that this was the last review in this matter. We will see what happens in the weeks to come.

I would like to add a last word on the exact procedure of the examination. This process remains to be imagined. It is not fixed in the law. We will ensure that it provides guarantees in terms of objectivity and transparency.