Proposition 51K0578

Projet de loi visant à octroyer le droit de vote aux élections communales à des étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 3, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national local election organisation of elections right to vote election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Open Vld N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Greta D'hondt (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Nahima Lanjri (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Jo Vandeurzen (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Feb. 19, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

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, 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,

During its meeting on 3 February 2004, your committee decided, by 15 votes against 2, not to postpone the examination of this bill. By 13 votes against 2, she rejected the request for the appointment of Mr. Filip De Man as rapporteur; I was then appointed to carry out this task by 12 votes against 2 and 3 abstentions. by Mr. Dirk Claes was nominated as co-rapporteur by 6 votes against 9 abstentions.

At the request of Mr. Filip De Man, his bill organising a popular consultation on granting the right to vote in municipal elections to foreigners who are not citizens of the European Union, was disjoined from the consideration of this bill. With 10 votes against 2, your committee rejected the request to consider the consideration of this bill as a priority.

The agenda of the meeting of 10 February 2004 was the subject of an exchange of views within the committee concerning the drafting, by the Minister of the Interior, of a circular charged with clarifying the possible cases of exclusion of the voting right of non-European foreigners.

The Minister of Economy, Energy, Foreign Trade and Scientific Policy confirmed that there was indeed a principle agreement within the government regarding the taking of a circular concerning the granting of the right to vote to a non-European foreign citizen in municipal elections. This will be similar to that of 25 May 1999 concerning the registration as voters of foreign nationals citizens of the European Union for the renewal of municipal councils.

The new circular, which is not yet drawn up, will apply to non-EU foreign citizens who may be suspended from their right to vote if they have been sentenced to a prison sentence of 4 months or more. For the Minister, this provision is entirely analogous to the one that exists for the other voters. The circulary will also specify that the municipalities will be able to address the competent department of the Chamber to know if, in the context of a request for naturalization, the candidate has been the subject of a conviction. This statement has been the subject of protests from the Vlaams Blok and CD&V groups, for which I refer to my written report.

Please note also that, at its meeting of 11 February 2004, your committee rejected by 13 votes against 4 the request for consultation of the Legislation section of the State Council regarding Amendment No. 141 of MM. De Gucht, Cortois and Anthuenis on which Mr. Dirk Claes, Co-rapporteur for the report.

Fientje Moerman, Minister of Economy, Energy, Foreign Trade and Scientific Policy, stated that the right to vote and the right to be elected was granted for the first time to citizens of the Member States of the European Union in the municipal elections of October 2000.

The Minister recalls that it is read in the government agreement that it will invite Parliament to decide on the granting of the right to vote and eligibility for foreigners at the municipal level. After long debates on this issue, the Senate Committee on Interior and Administrative Affairs approved, on 25 November 2003, the bill aimed at granting the right to vote in municipal elections to foreigners. The Senate Plenary Assembly did the same on 11 December 2003.

This bill aims to grant the right to vote to foreign non-European nationals in municipal elections. The Minister recalls that only the municipal level is targeted by this bill because the municipality is the political institution closest to the citizen, the institution by which he can feel the most quickly and easily concerned. Although provincial and municipal elections are held simultaneously, the right to vote is not applicable to provincial elections. The Council of State has also refused to advise him for constitutional reasons. In addition, only the right to vote is established and not the right to be elected.

According to the bill under consideration, non-EU citizens who have resided in our country in an uninterrupted manner for at least five years can vote in municipal elections. To this end, they must submit a written request in accordance with the model set by a royal decree deliberated in Council of Ministers to the municipality in which they have established their main residence, and sign a declaration in which they undertake to respect the Constitution, the laws of the Belgian people and the Convention for the safeguarding of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

A foreigner who wishes to exercise the right to vote must make this declaration only once. A new declaration is not required in the event of a change of his place of residence in our country. He receives an attestation of his initial declaration. In case of subsequent request for entry on the list of voters of another municipality, he produces this attestation.

The Minister adds that the provisions of the Municipal Electoral Law relating to the establishment of the list of voters are also applicable to the foreign nationals referred to herein. Thus, they must meet the general conditions to be a voter, i.e. be 18 years old, be registered in the population registers of a municipality and not be in one of the cases of suspension or exclusion of the right to vote. Furthermore, the procedure for processing their application for entry on the electoral list is entirely identical to that provided for the citizen of the Member States of the European Union.

Following are the introductory presentations of the various authors of proposals included on the agenda of the committee. Ms. Karine Lalieux of the PS specifies that her bill aims to grant the right to vote and eligibility, both in municipal and provincial elections, to nationals of non-Community countries registered for five years in the population register of their municipality.

This bill goes thus further than the bill aimed at granting the right to vote in municipal elections to foreigners.

by Mr. Philippe Monfils (MR) traces, for his part, the history of the problem of the right to vote of foreigners. The speaker recalls that the hearings of many Belgian and foreign experts have allowed to deepen the subject. He is then surprised by the turmoil that this matter causes: at most 120,000 people are affected. These voters, due to their age and their long stay in the municipality, have as much knowledge as an ordinary voter, says the speaker. They are therefore perfectly capable of issuing an informed vote. As a result, the speaker specifies that his group will support the granting of voting rights to non-European foreigners, as it was framed in the bill under consideration.

Marie Nagy (ECOLO) specifies that the bill on extending the right to vote and eligibility in municipal elections to non-European nationals residing in Belgium was rejected by the Senate on 28 March 2002. This rejection came after an in-depth discussion within the Senate Committee on Interior and Administrative Affairs. The interviewer, however, recalls the arguments advocating for the introduction of such a voting right, but states that the proposed text does not remove the inequality that exists between the populations described above in terms of eligibility.

Finally, Willy Cortois (VLD) points out that with the right to vote at the municipal level, one touches a cornerstone of democracy, namely the municipal council. Since the granting of this right to vote to non-European nationals seems to go too far, the speaker proposes to organise a public consultation on this subject before making a final decision.

During the general discussion, Mr. Pieter De Crem (CD&V) points out that his group is supportive of linking citizenship with the right to vote in general and the right to vote in municipal elections in particular. For the interviewer, the person who holds or acquires the Belgian nationality possesses or acquires thus also the right to vote and the right to be elected. He then develops a number of arguments related to the problem of integration. for Mr. From Crem, given the ease of obtaining Belgian citizenship, on the one hand, and the possibilities it creates, on the other hand, one can really doubt the real will for integration of foreigners who refuse to acquire it. The right to vote granted to European citizens in local elections is based on the principle of reciprocity. For the speaker, this is not the case in the framework of the bill under consideration.

by Mr. Karel De Gucht (VLD) says he doesn’t understand why supporters of foreigners’ right to vote in municipal elections consider it so desirable. He recalls that, all parties confused, a very large majority of Flamands is opposed to it, some for principled reasons, others for reasons of emotional order. by Mr. De Gucht points out that in major immigration countries, such as Canada, Australia and the United States of America, there is no question of granting the right to vote to non-citizens.

The interviewer then rejects, on the one hand, the thesis that the bonding of nationality would be outdated because the end of the nation-state would be in sight and, on the other hand, the thesis that the granting of universal suffrage would be an important factor of integration. by Mr. De Gucht says he fears that the will to integrate will weaken when, in addition to the easing of the legislation on the acquisition of citizenship, the acquisition of the right to vote will also be eased.

by Mr. Filip De Man (Vlaams Blok) says to subscribe to almost every argument developed by Mr. De Man. by Gucht. It then develops a number of considerations regarding the policy of other political parties, for which I refer to my written report.

Ms Els Van Weert (sp.a-spirit) believes in the first place that the essence of the bill under consideration lies in the local participation of a total of up to 125,000 non-European foreigners. In Flanders, the speaker said, this number will rise to a maximum of 50,000 people. The speaker then develops her argument around five criteria on the basis of which she calls on members of the committee to demonstrate political courage so that they are oriented towards an intercultural society rather than spreading a sense of fear.

by Mr. Geert Bourgeois (N-VA) draws the attention of the members on the fact that the present debate should be conducted in the Flemish Parliament after a regionalization in the matter. In the background, the speaker pledges for a citizenship made of rights and duties, announces that he will not vote on this bill and reminds that rapid naturalization must be modified. The right to vote in local elections must be linked to citizenship and integration. Finally, the presence of the Flamands in the colleges of the Brussels municipalities must be guaranteed.

Ms. Marie Nagy (ECOLO) states that the expansion of political rights is a step forward for democracy. It declares that it has not received any objections regarding the substance of the bill. Ms Nagy then develops an argument in support of this position, for which I refer you to my written report.

by Mr. Philippe De Coene (sp.a-spirit) points out that some immigrant groups do not want to hear about integration. It is, for him, in this context that the pessimism regarding the consequences of granting the right to vote to immigrants must be situated. The speaker, however, specifies that the participation of foreigners in the local social life is the main argument in favour of granting the right to vote in municipal elections to foreigners. for Mr. In the context of social elections, foreigners already enjoy, within companies, both the right to vote and the right of eligibility, which, for the interviewer, has undoubtedly strengthened the integration in the workplace. Finally, the speaker emphasizes that the granting of the vote to foreigners in the municipal elections does not empty the naturalization of its substance. The added value of the latter lies in the fact that anyone who acquires Belgian citizenship can elect all the assemblies, including the European Parliament.

The Vlaams Blok group subsequently affirmed its opposition to the text by the voices of Francis Van den Eynde and Bart Laeremans, who made considerations for which I refer to my written report.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the interventions of the co-rapporteur, Mr. Dirk Claes (CD&V) who will succeed me, in a moment, at this tribune as well as those of Mrs. Lalieux (PS).

by Mr. Claes questioned the timing of the discussion. He said he did not understand why this bill was not addressed after the elections of 13 June 2004. The speaker also draws attention to certain dangers that this project involves, in particular with regard to the low legal guarantees that would offer, according to him, the settlement of cases of exclusion by ministerial circular and not by law. by Mr. Claes reminds finally that his party supports above all the link between the right to vote and nationality.

Ms. Karine Lalieux emphasizes, however, that the link invoked between nationality and the right to vote has no reason to be. For the intervener, it is primarily the economic participation that must be taken into account. She recalls that, in her opinion, the right to vote is a factor of integration among others and that it is not good to maintain a division between nationals of the Member States of the European Union and other foreigners.

Finally, the speaker considers that the problem of integration must be addressed from an open perspective and therefore regrets that the bill does not provide for the possibility of eligibility of foreigners.

I thank you and leave the place to the co-rapporter, Mr. by Claes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank first and foremost the members of the Committee on Internal Affairs, Mr. Arens of CDH, and especially the colleagues of the VLD, who have ensured that I can act as a rapporteur.

During the further discussions of the draft, several members of the Flemish Block Group develop their arguments against the approval of the present draft. Almost all speakers of the Flemish Bloc point out the need to link the right to vote with the acquisition of nationality. In this case, they disagree with the easing that was carried out by the purple-green government in the previous legislature. In the second instance, the Flemish Blok opposes the enforcement of the migrant voting right by the French-speaking parties in spite of a Flemish majority opposed to the voting right for migrants. According to several Flemish Blok speakers, this is mainly motivated by the specific situation in Brussels where the majority of the new voters would vote for French-speaking parties.

Mr. Monfils rejects the idea that the right to vote is only a French-language requirement. Belgium is a federal state, not a confederate state. Furthermore, Mr Monfils sees a respectable whole, in particular because there is no automatic grant of the right to vote, but a number of conditions such as the declaration in Article 1ter.

Mr. Arens disagrees with the electoral voting around the present draft. He points out that the then PSC had already submitted a proposal in the 1970s, which was then deterred by the French-speaking liberals. Furthermore, he argues that the draft is not alien to any hypocrisy of the applicants, who thus only wish to grant a second-rate voting right.

Mr De Gucht argues regarding the amendment he has submitted that only the usual procedure of parliamentary debate is carried out, where there is no majority and opposition, and where each group recovers its freedom. According to Mr. De Gucht, the track of the circulation letter is rather questionable, as the possible extension or limitation of political rights can hardly be done through another instrument than a law. Further examination of the naturalization procedure teaches us that a number of reasons qualify for the rejection of the naturalization file.

First, involvement in drug trafficking, human trafficking, pedophilia, serious crimes and organized crime.

Second, the membership of an integrist, terrorist movement opposed to integration and against Western society.

Third, a sect that is dangerous and harmful to its members and to third parties.

Fourth, people who are allowed to stay in our country for a limited period of time.

Fifth, a double marriage.

Sixth, a false marriage.

Seventh, those whose application was repeatedly challenged without any improvement being found.

Mr De Gucht then draws on several examples of dossiers in which naturalization was refused. None of these cases would fall within the scope of the circular letter, for which a four-month sentence is the criterion. The proposed amendment would correct this. Also the argument of the supporters of the voting right for migrants, as if the draft amendment should be returned for consideration to the Senate when the amendment is adopted, according to Mr De Gucht, does not cut wood and is part of the normal parliamentary course of a legislative initiative.

Mr De Man submitted a sub-amendment to supplement the, in his opinion, incompleteness of the amendment. Not everyone requests naturalization. According to Mr. De Man, there is even a greater danger in this, because this can indicate a certain aversion to our society since they do not even want to become Belgian. Also the persons who have made the choice of nationality and the declaration of nationality do not fall within the scope of the application of amendment no. and 141.

According to Mr. Eerdekens, it is excluded that bandits and convicted persons could enjoy the right to vote, whether they are Belgian, from within the EU or from outside the EU. Of course, there can be no discrimination between Belgians and non-Belgians regarding the declaration of expiry of political rights, but Mr. Eerdekens emphasizes that already the courts and courts can deprive a person of his civil and political rights due to serious facts. This goes far beyond just the right to vote. The criticism made by Mr Eerdekens on amendment no. 141 out, is that it gives a wrong answer to a very real problem. It is not about denying someone the right to vote only because his ideas do not conform to the social norm. Only a judicial sentence can lead to this.

Mr Monfils considers the debate on the desirability of amendment no. 141 is unnecessary. This is evident only from the conclusion that this amendment is not legally valid. After all, it is unthinkable to make the granting of voting rights dependent on a mere impression. This is what Mr. De Gucht proposes with this amendment.

The right to vote would be denied to someone, not because he has suffered a conviction, but simply because the House of Representatives has taken an unfavorable decision. That decision does not even need to be motivated. According to Mr. Monfils, this opens the door to arbitrariness.

Mr. Pieter De Crem is pleased that Mr. De Gucht seems to support the VLD position on this subject. However, he notes that neither the position of the VLD nor the reasoning of Mr De Gucht shows any coherence. According to Mr. De Crem, the VLD has never taken a clear position in this debate. Between the views defended by Mr. Verhofstadt and Mr. De Gucht, there is a heavenly difference. The solution that was invented to work with a circular letter with the intention of pairing the opponents of the right to vote is by no means conclusive. In fact, the circular letter to which it is referred adds nothing in comparison with the provisions of the Electoral Code and is therefore superfluous. Mr. De Crem further argues that at the moment more than 80% of naturalizations do not pass through the Chamber and that some naturalizations are granted despite the House’s refusal. The speaker gives the example of some cases in which the Chamber has refused naturalization and in which the persons concerned have obtained Belgian nationality too often and despite all effortlessly on the basis of Article 12bis of the Code of Belgian Nationality. That article makes it possible to do this without the decision of the Chamber. Given this fact, Mr De Gucht’s amendment will be virtually ineffective. Their

Mr. De Crem reiterates his party’s principled position on the integration of migrants and points out that the flexibility of the nationality legislation should be compensated by the rigour of the legislation on voting rights or vice versa. Easing both legislations at the same time can only lead to chaos.

Ms Nagy rejects the VLD’s position on the right to vote. She argues that the present draft law concerns only the municipal council elections and that therefore relatively little is at stake. Furthermore, it aims to grant voting rights only to foreigners permanently residing in Belgium and does not deviate from the rules concerning the degradation of civil and political rights.

Finally, Mr Annemans repeats the arguments of his party. He also argues that despite the promise to revise the Fast-Belg Act and the VLD’s promise that the migrant voting right would not be there, not many of these promises are fulfilled. Mr. Annemans states that one tries to avoid the debate in which one does not discourage to falsify the perception. The whole system in which the voters commit themselves to the voters in order to defend a certain position is, according to him, placed on loose screws. This results, according to the speaker, in the fact that the voter will reward the Flemish Bloc, the party that is beaten by the other parties in the damn corner.

Finally, as regards the votes, the amendments of Mr Féret and De Man, Mrs Nagy and Mr De Gucht are rejected. The proposal of CD&V on the amendmentThe Gucht to obtain the opinion at the Council of State is also rejected. The draft was eventually adopted with 10 votes for and 7 against.

I would like to thank Mr Claes for his report.

The De Crem, Arens, De Man and Di Rupo were the first speakers registered in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, four years of purple-green and almost one year of purple have made clear that for the VLD of Guy Verhofstadt perception is more important than reality. For them, politics is only perception and nothing but perception. If reality looks ⁇ bad, then everything is done to influence the reporting in such a way that people get the impression that it still looks good and that black is white and that white is black. Their

This does not prevent manipulation, not only manipulation of the public opinion, but also manipulation of this Parliament. We — I mean the members of this Chamber who have experienced the previous legislature — still remember very well what the prime minister has best done here on the resignation of Mr. Heinzmann as delegate-director of the NMBS or on the criminal statistics. The gentlemen Van Parys and Ansoms will remember this too well. Two performances in which the lie reigned with the sole purpose of deceiving the Parliament and the public opinion.

In the migrant voting rights file, Guy Verhofstadt’s VLD wanted to win the perception once again. The VLD wanted to make the appearance that it has done everything in its power to curb the immigrant voting right. The VLD will do everything in its power to curb the right to vote for migrants. She wanted to give the impression that she has fought to the last snake, but that she has been snatched on the field of honor. She wanted to make that impression because the VLD knows that the political majority in Flanders and the public opinion in Flanders are opposed to the municipal voting right for foreigners from outside the European Union. Their

Colleagues, the reality is the opposite of what the VLD wants to make believe. Again, the immigrant voting right comes thanks to the VLD and it does not come despite the VLD.

In an attempt to make perception triumph, the VLD of Verhofstadt has overtaken its hand. In the file on the migrant voting right, the VLD has been broken at the limits of the feasibility of public opinion. She has taken great care of it herself. Despite the shrinking of politics, despite the spider doctors, honesty still lasts the longest. We see this not only here, we see it in other countries as well.

Colleagues of the VLD, the way you have dealt with the file of the municipal voting right for migrants has reminded me and our colleagues and many Flamingen of the way you have dealt with the file of the fast-Belg-law. Mr. Daems and other colleagues, we remember too well the pirouettes that the tenors of the VLD then turned to speak this law well to its members and voters in the hope of limiting the loss of the face, but where those tenors at each new pirouette have brought themselves more out of balance to eventually turn down to the ground and your beautiful pirouette became a grand écart.

The municipal immigrant voting right was and is inadequate for the VLD for a very simple reason. That simple reason was fixed in the formation of this government. During the summer months, you agreed that the issue of immigrant voting rights would become a matter of Parliament. Thus, the VLD of Verhofstadt agreed that the immigrant voting right would come in and that it would not let the government fall on this. I would like to say again, colleagues of the VLD, that you willingly and knowingly admitted during the government negotiations. You knew that in Parliament the purple majority of Flemish and Wallish socialists and French-speaking liberals would not grant you this.

Communication experts say that in such circumstances one can actually do only one thing: say what it says. Apparently Slangen must have been on vacation at that time, or he was too busy engaging in the purple government’s assignments because the VLD has just done the opposite. Just like in the discussion about the rapid-Belgwet, statements were made that should give the impression that one is against it and that one is doing everything to stop it. That happens, however, in such a stuntly way that I can hardly describe the spectacle that has been performed all that time as a kind of bad doll cabinet.

The VLD, colleagues, made a first major concession in the government negotiations in 1999. Then she agreed to substantially ease the nationality legislation despite the fact that in the election campaign she had just stated the opposite. Who still remembers Marc Verwilghen with his V-plan, his Security Plan, who proclaimed that the Belgian citizenship was confused? That quick-Belgwet came only a few months later, with the agreement of the VLD, to so-called promote the integration of foreigners, but in fact because before the 2000 municipal council elections, according to the Constitution, no law could be adopted to allow the local voting right for citizens from outside the European Union. The Rapid-Belggesetz was thus another way to enable the immigrant voting right.

The concessions of the VLD in the government negotiations in 1999 were followed by a second concession last year. The VLD then voted that Parliament would decide on the voting right of migrants. The VLD knew very well that there would be a majority in Parliament for immigrant voting rights. She knew that the PS, sp.a-spirit, MR, ECOLO and CDH would vote for immigrant voting rights. Nevertheless, Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, you stated at the program congress of the VLD on 30 March 2003, one and a half months before the elections: "Read my lips, read my lips, with this VLD, with Patrick Dewael and Guy Verhofstadt and Karel De Gucht there will be no immigrant voting right. Read my lips."You said this at your VLD election congress. At the VLD congress that was to speak out about the government agreement, the same story was repeated:

"There is no immigrant voting right with us in the government." We are today six months further, 19 February 2004, and the immigrant voting right is a fact. Read my lips, Mr. Minister of the Interior! Read my lips; no immigrant voting rights! So the VLD summit has deceived not only your militants, your members, but also the voters. Their

In fact, you even made a double concession with the VLD in the government negotiations last year. You deceived your voters and your members by enabling the migrant voting right and by not demanding an adjustment of the Fast-Belg Act, although you in your electoral program — read our lips and read our texts — had said that “this dragon of a law” — the own words of the VLD program text — should be revised, as also the sp.a. had said that the Fast-Belg Act should be revised. Their

It is a strange logic, colleagues of the VLD, which you apply. If you believe that the immigrant voting right does not promote the integration of immigrants and if you determine that there is no majority in the Flemish public opinion and among the Flemish political parties, then the VLD should have made clear in the government negotiations that there should be no immigrant voting right. The VLD did not do that. Ladies and gentlemen, you did not do that. We will continue to repeat that you did not. So you should not now come crocodile trains to complain that the immigrant voting right will come anyway. You might think of the VLD congress, but not the people in the city and in Dorpsstraat. Their

I brought a very interesting newspaper, namely the Civil Gazette. The Burgerkrant titled last week, even before the execution of its chairman Karel De Gucht: "Honour to be liberal". We are all proud to be liberal. We are proud to be liberal because you record the following on your congress: twice votes with 99% of the votes. proud to be a liberal. 99% of the votes for approval: the congress of the VLD members remains intact to its previous position against the voting right for non-European foreigners. Second vote, approved with 99% of the votes: the congress of the VLD members calls for a public consultation on the right to vote for non-European foreigners. Well, colleagues of the VLD, tell me now: what’s going on with that VLD? You went to use all the means at your congress, even before the tears flowed and the milk overkook, you went back to your rebellious congress with the message: "We will use all the means to ensure that the migrant voting right does not come." I challenge you: reintroduce today the amendment of Karel De Gucht and then you may have a little more credibility. Their

If you do not, you lose all your credibility. We will not give you that. The amendment De Gucht must be submitted again by you, colleague Rik Daems.

Colleagues, the VLD of Verhofstadt — it is ⁇ painful; I would not like to sit on the VLD banks this afternoon — has decided that there should be no government issue of the immigrant voting right. We knew this after the negotiations that had taken place in the Lambermont and Wetstraat 16. What we didn’t know until last week was that Guy Verhofstadt, in order to enable immigrant voting rights, was even willing to liquidate his own chairman. This is unpublished in Belgian politics. That happened only to please one of the following speakers — Elio Di Rupo —, someone who is not present here — Steve Stevaert —, and someone who may be abroad — Louis Michel. Thus, Guy Verhofstadt has provided the best proof of the VLD that for him only power counts and that, in order to remain in power, he was willing to sacrifice even his own party chairman. At the same time, he brought the best proof that the immigrant voting right is a matter of the government and not of the Parliament. The VLD is completely put in the pocket.

Dear colleagues of the VLD, why otherwise all that headache on the amendment De Gucht? If immigrant voting rights were a matter of Parliament, then that amendment should not have created any problem? We have seen the body language of colleague parliamentary member Karel De Gucht, today absent, who as a driven parliamentary member had to desperately ask the question: "But I can, as my congress has requested, exhaust all parliamentary resources to defend my position?" For every member of parliament has the possibility to submit an amendment, yes, even the chairman of a majority party. If there is a majority for an amendment, that amendment is adopted. If this is not the case, it is rejected. If that is not civil democracy, then I do not understand it.

The fact that the VLD chairman submitted his amendment, however, is, in my opinion, not so much due to his so-called stubbornness and the logic of the government agreement he followed — in between: former VLD chairman De Gucht followed the logic of the VLD congress — but rather to the fact that he felt deceived. Former VLD chairman Karel De Gucht is a cheated man. He was deceived, he was deceived, and he will forever be deceived by his Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and by the majority parties. Whoever reconstructs the chronology of that famous amendment cannot come to another conclusion.

Colleagues, when the now deposited Karel De Gucht announced in The Seventh Day that he would submit an amendment, the sp.a and the MR reacted not rejecting at all. Mr. Van der Maelen could even agree with this. He thought it was a good track. Karel De Gucht was willing that same Sunday not to submit an amendment if he could harden his question also through a circular letter. At the meeting of the Party Bureau, the next day, Guy Verhofstadt defended the circular letter. He would have even declared — ⁇ with the necessary applause — that it went beyond what his party chairman had intended.

However, Karel De Gucht and other VLDs doubted the prime minister’s sincerity, because they knew him, but Guy Verhofstadt once again wanted the perception to triumph. Then comes the perfide, because in the media the impression was created that the circular letter fully responded to the question of Karel De Gucht. Nothing was less true. After all, when the members of the committee met in the committee on Tuesday morning, a completely different logic took place when Minister Moerman stated that there could no longer be any doubt that the circular letter would remain limited to a summary of the existing rules on the exclusion and suspension of the right to vote. Their

Nothing for Karel De Gucht and nothing for the VLD. Everything remains with the old. The circular letter is limited to a summary of existing rules. This is the invention of hot water. In other words, the circular letter was not the egg of Columbus, but it was an empty box, as we, by the way, showed in the committee.

On Tuesday afternoon, the Prime Minister tried to convince Mr. De Gucht that everything was arranged with a circular letter. Some were telephoned back and forth, but Karel De Gucht does not believe Prime Minister Verhofstadt anymore and rightly — as he, by the way, himself declared — because it is a perfidious story. He then said in the committee that the opposition is right when it says that the circular letter is an empty box and that he will therefore submit his amendment. That is the moment when Guy Verhofstadt takes the liquidation of his party chairman, especially after Elio Di Rupo and the other majority parties made clear to Prime Minister Verhofstadt that Karel De Gucht can no longer remain for them. Their

What choice did Guy Verhofstadt make then? He chose for his government and for his own position and he put Karel De Gucht under pressure to resign as party chairman. On Thursday, he came out with the so-called progressive and innovative solution that he took over the political leadership of the VLD from Karel De Gucht. Even that was only perception, because afterwards it turned out that Prime Minister Verhofstadt had to resign and that Dirk Sterckx had to succeed him. Their

Two of the locals who made this story possible were in TerZake last week Thursday night. The first part of the conversation was about the content of the circular letter.

To demonstrate once again, colleagues, that for the Verhofstadt VLD the perception, the appearance is more important than the reality and the truth, I have literally noted the statements of the VLD Group Chairman Hendrik Daems and of the Chairman of the Chamber, Herman De Croo. I don’t want to remember them either. One of Phara de Aguirre’s first questions was as follows: “But what is really wrong with the amendment of Karel De Gucht, purely inherent?”Hendrik Daems answers this: “We had an agreement with the majority parties that we would exclude criminals from the migrant voting right with a circular letter, as we have done in the past with European citizens.” Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Chamber adds: "In the VLD it is a little like in an aquarium. In any aquarium, fish swim from various plumages. I do not know what we should propose, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that your party has drowned in the bowl of the right to vote.

Phara de Aguirre says: “Is the circular letter” — with her familiar, intrusive look — “an empty box?” Daems replies: “An empty box is that, in other words, not at all, because if you do not make that circular letter, then the law simply does not apply. That is the reality.” In other words, Daems therefore admits that under this government the laws are not applied. That is not the perception, but the reality of purple.

Phara de Aguirre: “Is it about people who have been sentenced to more than four months?” Hendrik Daems replies: “Yes, and elements that may be attached to it. If you have an amendment that could jeopardize that circular letter, then it is not instrumental to submit an amendment.” In Flanders they say “and you now.” What kind of prietprate is that? This is what the gentlemen Daems and De Croo are coming to tell.

The Chairman of the Chamber, Herman De Croo, who in the meantime had already made a little effort to become also the political leader of the VLD — but that has been skillfully blocked — takes the floor without being asked. This is not unusual for the President of the House. But more important is what he says. I therefore quote him literally: "The fact is that that law comes from the Senate and it did not provide that. The law thus opened the right to vote for non-European foreigners, but en blanc, in one piece, there was no nuance to it. That nuance had to come. The fact was to be known: it comes with an amendment or with a circular. I’d rather have one circular in my hand than ten amendments in the air.” Hendrik Daems interrupts De Croo and says: "Our Minister of Interior will give content to the circular." The Croo continues: “The fact that the amendment has come there will give the consistency to the circular.”

On which Phara de Aguirre asks the question that strikes on all Flemish lips: "Why?" De Croo gives the following answer: "The fact that the amendment has been rejected will still make you think about some weaknesses in the law." What does Flanders say? “And you now.”

VLD colleagues and colleagues Daems and De Croo in particular, when I heard these statements I was of my milk! My milk even boiled over. Together with our group members, I was able to contain the tears. I asked the question: "Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the biggest liar of the country, Daems or De Croo"? The answer is very simple: both. After it had long become clear that the circular letter is the application of the existing rules on the exclusion and suspension of the voting right, and after your party chairman had cheerfully admitted that in our presence in the committee for domestic affairs, you wanted to make the people you actually hold a little bit of foolish still believe that the circular letter goes on. For CD&V this is no shame!

Colleague De Croo, colleagues of the VLD and in particular colleague Daems, I challenge you. What will be in the circular letter that is not in the draft and not in the current electoral legislation? Now I ask you for a clear answer! What would be in there? Or you speak the truth and stop lying. Or you continue to make things wise with people. I would like to hear from you what will be stated in the circular letter that is not currently in the municipal election law and the draft! That answer, colleague Daems, you must give us today. We will continue to repeat the question until you have given the answer. Do not forget to say that the Minister of Home Affairs will prepare the circular letter and you do not have to answer this question. You made it clear and clear last week that there will be more in the circulation letter than what is currently in the law and draft! Tell us what will be more, tell us now, and then keep silent forever!

The municipal immigrant voting right comes because in this debate – as in many others – a French-speaking majority tries to impose a regulation that a Flemish majority is against. The opposite would immediately lead to a massive resistance because of the French speakers. After the establishment of purple, work was first done of screwing back the Franchorchamps Act — colleagues of the sp.a-spirit, inhale again deeply — and of the regionalization of the arms trade — colleagues of the sp.a-spirit, close your eyes again. Now the French-speaking people are imposing the municipal immigrant voting right. When also the former and dismissed VLD chairman gets enough of it, the French-speaking dominance in the government is more than tired, wants to amend the draft on municipal voting rights for migrants and in addition threatens with the splitting of the electoral district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde, the chairman of the PS will call at Verhofstadt with the question to liquidate De Gucht. Verhofstadt does this without any problems!

What does Di Rupo say? "Ton VLD et ton De Gucht, j'en ai marre" In Flemish: “It hangs out of my throat.” This is how it happened, neither more nor less. Di Rupo has said that De Gucht pulled out his throat and had to get out. Verhofstadt replied that he would defeat De Gucht. That is the truth.

A prime minister, a VLD prime minister, a liberal, a bourgeois democrat, the leader of the guild country, the chairman of the model state that is prepared for so much, is just a playball and a toy in the hands of the PS chairman. Colleagues of the VLD, that has the voters more than through. If they have not done it yet, we will repeat it continuously. PS Chairman Di Rupo knows and will make it clear several times in the coming months that he is de facto the prime minister of this country and not Guy Verhofstadt. I would like to congratulate the progressives of VLD with this.

We also take note that the friends of the comrades cartel of sp.a, who also proclaim themselves members of the progressive cartel — it is actually becoming more a communist convent, the coco, if we see what all happens with the redistribution —, enter against a majority of the Flamingos. To this end, we wish additional congratulations to the progressives of sp.a and spirit. In particular, we congratulate spirit, who supports the French-speaking parties to go against a majority in Flanders.

When Steve Stevaert, who was elected but not present, was asked why he had placed all his ministers in advance — Stevaert had placed his ministers in advance and the prime minister placed his chairman in advance —, he replied that he left the voter to speak. He said he always listened to the voters. Now when Stevaert is told that there is no majority in Flanders for immigrant voting rights, his answer is that you should not always listen to the people. Sometimes you have to dare to oppose it. This is the message of sp.a-spirit. That is the message of the communist cartel, of the comrades cartel: always listen to the voter, but not to the people. That would be another good slogan to go to the elections. (The applause)

For the past six months we have been raised with the following proverb: if it is good for the people, it must be socialist. Well, the immigrant voting right is bad for the people, but it is socialist. We will also help to remember.

I would also like to address the few colleagues of Mr.

Monsieur Bacquelaine et chers collègues du MR, vous commettez une bestie politique gigantesque et accordant ce droit de vote aux immigrés non européens. À Bruxelles, vous allez certainement perdre bon nombre de vos électeurs et ce qui est bizarre, c'est que vous allez et fournir à ceux que vous déteste. Le résultat sera que tous ceux qui sont dégoûtés par les prises de positions que les socialistes et Louis Michel - qui ne pouvait plus refuser - vous ont forcés à avaler fourniront des voix au Vlaams Blok à Bruxelles. You are responsible for the imminent success of the Vlaams Blok and it is impardonnable. Colleagues, the CD&V group will vote against this draft because we have always been in favour of ⁇ ining the link between nationality and voting rights, also at the local level. Those who have Belgian nationality have the right to vote. Those who acquire Belgian citizenship also acquire the right to vote. The basis of our vision remains that Belgian nationality is the best and most complete path to the right to vote. Since the proposal to grant the migrant voting right disconnects local voting rights from nationality, we are against this proposal. In our vision, encouraging political participation is an important aspect of a coherent integration policy. The possibility of political participation should be open to anyone who demonstrates integration readiness, which is not the case in this proposal on the right to vote for migrants.

Our starting point is and remains – in this we differ fundamentally from some opponents of this design – that foreigners who reside permanently in our country should be invited to integrate into society. They should be encouraged to make an effort to do so. For its part, the government has the obligation to create a sufficiently supported offer for integration.

Our choice to encourage the political participation of migrants in our society and to choose the path of a wider access to Belgian nationality is a historic choice made by the Christian Democrats and the Socialists in Parliament more than 10 years ago. This choice was made with changes to the nationality legislation in 1991, 1993, 1995 and 1999. This choice was made at the moment we were convinced — this is still our belief — that playing with politics is important. At those different times, a coalition of socialists and Christian Democrats adapted the legislation in the conviction that this was a good method to promote the participation of foreigners. We still stand behind this choice today. We also know that the participation of many migrants remains a problem. Like disadvantaged Belgians, many migrants are in a situation of unequal opportunities. Although there are also immigrants who have successfully integrated into our society, the majority of them take a weak position on the labour market. They are often socially and culturally disadvantaged and they are also often the victim of discrimination. Despite various efforts by governments and civil society to remedy this, the participation of many immigrants in the cultural, social, economic and political standard of living is still inadequate. However, this is not only for the government. The highly diversified migrant community does not always play a sufficient role in the opportunities offered.

For us, a good nationality legislation is a lever to integration. Migrants who want nationality, we must encourage them to integrate into our society. We therefore believe that migrants who want to obtain our nationality should be given all opportunities, but they should get more legal certainty than with the current fast-Belg-Law.

Colleagues, it is often stated that in a globalized world, nationality becomes important and that we are all on the way to become global citizens. We have heard this in the poorly substantiated speech of Mrs. Van Weert. I then asked her how many times she has proclaimed in Diksmuide "People become standing". Since being a member of another cartel, she has swallowed these words and now speaks about universal world citizenship.

On the contrary, we are confronted with the paradoxical conclusion that people need identity and that in this globalized world identity choice is more important than ever. Nationality is also a home harbor, because it provides the guarantee of non-removability. Nationality protects against expulsion from the country of which you are a national. Only those who are in the privileged position of holders of the nationality of a prosperous, democratic rule of law can ponder that nationality would be an unnecessary notion in a globalizing world.

For many, therefore, citizenship of such a country remains sustainable and important. However, the importance and significance of the protection that nationality can offer must not be confused with the belief, which is fairly quite common, that discrimination on the basis of nationality is increasingly difficult to justify.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we have ten good reasons to maintain the link between nationality and the right to vote.

Mr. De Crem, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that everyone should try to finish their message in about half an hour.

Mr. Speaker, I will give you ten good reasons why your party should definitely vote against this draft for migrants’ voting rights and maybe even submit another amendment to make it stronger. First, by acquiring citizenship, non-European nationals are granted the same rights and duties as the Belgians and, consequently, the right to vote and the duty to vote for all policy levels. In addition, they can be a candidate for all elections.

Second, in the past 15 years, the granting and acquisition of Belgian citizenship and its acquisition by naturalization have been significantly eased, even so that the legislator and the legislation associated with it no longer constitute a high threshold for the acquisition of nationality. This is evidenced by the large group of foreigners who have acquired Belgian nationality over the past decade. We share responsibility for this and we are happy to do so.

Third, the Belgian nationality legislation does not provide for the automatic loss of foreign nationality in the acquisition of Belgian nationality.

Fourth, due to the low threshold for becoming Belgian, the political participation of Belgians of foreign origin has increased.

Fifth, the acquisition of nationality is the primary proof of the willingness and willingness of foreigners to enter into the social order of the country in which they reside. One does not get it translated that one can say that one is integrated, but does not want to acquire the Belgian nationality. This is not a sustainable matter.

Sixth, the traditional interpretation that the exercise of the right to choose and to be elected is limited only to the Belgian nationals cannot, in our opinion, be compromised.

Seventh, public opinion is divided over the granting of local voting rights to migrants.

Especially in municipalities with a high concentration of migrants, this will result in a polarization between Belgians and migrants, and we want to avoid that.

Eighth, the debate on migrant voting rights as we have held here goes beyond the core of the migrant issue and that of the intercultural society. For CD&V, the debate should be about the problems that migrants are really awake to. How do they find a job? How do they find adapted housing? How can immigrant children get equal opportunities in school? In short, how can they be fully part of this society.

Ninth, the municipal electoral right for EU nationals is based on the principle of reciprocity. This proposal does not apply the principle of reciprocity.

Tenth, there are no examples in the European Union of countries with flexible nationality laws and migrant voting rights.

For all these reasons, we will vote against this draft.

Mr. Speaker, the beautiful blue of your tie begins to become very pale.

It is not the tie that matters, but the one behind it.

Mr. President, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I was going to say, Mr. Presidents, but where is Karel? Where is Karel De Gucht?

The discussions in the Ardennes, which gave rise to the bill that is submitted to us, marked the beginning of an earthquake within the partners of the majority, which is at the height of the gap that separates the members of this coalition. I will tell colleague Di Rupo that it is not by changing the furniture that the quality of the building is improved. Sometimes I keep wondering how you can manage this country with a party that, as my colleague Melchior Wathelet says, has surpassed the extreme right by the right.

We have therefore been entitled in the Committee of the Interior to tense, sometimes bullish, debates made possible by the tribune that was offered by your government to the most extreme theses. But ⁇ this was necessary in order to allow some of the members of the majority to lift the veil and finally reveal the real choices of the government in place and its directions, some of which have nothing to envy neither to the discourses nor to the slogans of the most extreme.

The amendment submitted by Mr. De Gucht and his friends is not the exact reflection of the agreements made within your government and the reproduction of what will be the content of this famous circular of which you have negotiated the terms. For, if the circular is not the reflection of the amendment, your family, dear colleague Eerdekens, should have filed a second amendment in order to reveal to us the content of the democratic circular. But since this circular is the result of a government agreement, it is therefore good that all the current partners of the majority subscribe to the latter and the measures that are advocated therein.

This is a renewed opportunity for your government to take back with one hand what you do, but to grant by your effects of announcement and handshake, by your inclination to behave as a great lord – that you are not – but the concession is never but a mirage. The hope is always disappointed to see a real exercise of democracy emerge. You claim to be in favor of the right to vote. Of course, the legislative arrangement is on our table. There is still a need for the circular to be published someday, which I doubt. What type of voting right is this?

Already in commission, I have mentioned this hypocrisy that is served to us as a pasture in all its splendor.

The voting right offered is only a second zone right. It is hardly thrown on the paper that you already complete it with a declaration of allegiance that it is unworthy to demand in a society that boasts of being democratic and defending the most fundamental rights of the human being. Furthermore, the approach is even more hypocritical, because you claim, in an impulse of democratic generosity, to want to grant the right to vote to the greatest number, while rushing to multiply the obstacles and traps on the road to the exercise of this right. Do you have to recall how much the administrative procedures imposed on them have recently discouraged EU citizens from exercising the right to vote granted to them? But the lesson obviously did not serve, since you are putting back the cover!

Hypocrisy will soon be at its peak when this circular future is issued. It will empty from its object the legislative device that is submitted to us, removing the quality of municipal voter abroad who has been denied naturalization because of his involvement in drug trafficking, human trafficking, acts of pedophilia, serious crimes, organized crime or because of his belonging to an integrist and/or terrorist movement hostile to integration and to Western society, or to a sect dangerous and harmful to its members and to third parties; or even because of a double marriage or a fictional marriage; or finally if his application has been postponed several times without any improvement being observed.

Hypocrisy is a double face. Would you have forgotten that the legislation currently in force in our country allows to condemn a sentence of deprivation of political rights in such hypotheses? Do you really have no confidence in this country’s democratic forces? Are you animated with such a thirst for power that you hear you boast about skills that come back to other institutions?

Since you came to power, you have continuously mocked the control organs of our democracy. The judiciary is misguided; the State Council is despised in its opinions. And what else to say about your tendency, recently made public, to not fulfill the obligations towards the state, while the country needs to feed its public finances, in the interest of all. I think about taxes.

Another example of this drift that we have denounced for a long time: you are proposing to give yourself the right, by way of circular, to deprive a citizen of his political rights.

But let us go back to the genesis of the bill under consideration. Why so much agitation? Why are there so many words and even lies? It is obviously not the political will to grant the right to vote to foreigners that motivates you. Since the 1970s, the PSC first, the CDH then submitted moult bills aimed at granting the right to vote to foreign nationals. The members of your majority have systematically opposed it, the French-speaking liberals at the forefront.

It seems that this meeting is without a chairman. We are on a fair field! Sorry, but that is the reality. This is the general delicescence in this parliament and you are one of the main responsible.

Mr. Arens, we are not in primary school!

We are not in a primary school but in the homeschool that should be the most respected in this country.

Do you know how to keep them silent?

I ask you to preside.

Mr Arens, please continue.

When he was president, there was a president.

Were you there?

Yes, Mr the President.

You have a short memory. Go there, Mr Arens.

I wonder who has a short memory.

Today, from the confession of everyone, this question is no more than a marginal problem, given the changes that have been made to the code of citizenship and that have allowed a large number of foreigners to access a participation in the management of the society to which they belong.

So your goal was elsewhere. It was only about scoring points in an already well-started electoral campaign, advancing its pioneers on the electoral field, or even — and the hypocrisy is then terrible — preparing the ground for a new community debate and thus starting a new step towards institutional change. Such behavior demonstrates an incredible lightness on the part of the leaders of a country, a lightness that has led you, for purely electoral reasons, to carry on the public road a debate that has opened all doors to the most extreme, most racist and most anti-democratic positions that we have been forced to suffer.

Unfortunately for you, the goal is far from being achieved, regardless of the angle of view in which you are placed. The impact on the political level is counterproductive. The right to vote is a right under conditions. What a waste! I can only repeat to you the terms of my intervention in the Interior Committee: If this is your conception of the exercise of democracy, it is not mine, it is not ours. If only the effects of advertising and mediation are your main concerns but that the actions, the actions do not follow, I cannot subscribe to your conception of the exercise of power, a power that our fellow citizens have entrusted to you in the hope that it serves the interests of the greater number. If your only engine is to seat a all-power you aspire to, I cannot subscribe to it. If you think of guaranteeing in this way the perpetuity of democratic principles, be careful that your way of managing the public thing does not further dig the bed of those extremisms which you claim to want to fight elsewhere.

My final question is: Are you still defending democracy?

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it may surprise you, but I will shoot my first arrows at the Christian Democrats.

I would like to remind you that the right to vote for foreigners was already included in the government declaration of Wilfried Martens at the end of the 1980s. In 1998, under Prime Minister Dehaene, it was made constitutionally possible. Jean-Luc Dehaene made the murder of the Moroccan girl Ben Aïssa a shameless abuse to put the right to vote back on the political agenda.

Loubna Ben Aïssa, of course, was not murdered because there was no voting right for foreigners. Loubna Benaïssa was murdered because of a lax approach of the criminals and because of the guilty negligence of the political caste. The Dehaene government released her murderer Derochette, despite his previous crimes.

CD&V is against immigrant voting rights because they are in the opposition. You will learn that, Mr. Claes. However, I never believe that CD&V would be against if they were in government with the PS. They would not dare to say no.

Members of the Christian Democrats, you have, in any case, made this matter constitutionally possible. We warned about this open constitutional amendment at the time, but the Christian Democrats did not want to listen. So you are responsible.

This in the form of an introduction.

What is the state of affairs now? The French-speaking parties are all in favour, in particular because this has beneficial consequences for them in Brussels. It is well known that the overwhelming majority of foreigners choose the French-speaking language role and therefore also the French-speaking parties. It is the same stramien, Flemish colleagues, as with the naturalizations. I quote the leader of the PS group in Le Matin: "Our commission makes more for the Frenchization of Brussels than all that the Flemish authorities will never do for their opponent."

The liberals — including Mr. Cortois, who made a little protest — protested against it, but they let it happen.

I have said that all French-speaking parties are for, but that is not the same as that all French-speaking voters are for. As you know, there are polls showing that also in Wallonia a majority of the population is against the foreign voting right. I know that you can let statistics say what you want. However, I remember a debate at the end of last year on RTL-TVI. Of the 5,000 French-speaking viewers — which is a serious poll — as many as 93% were against. As you know, the French-speaking politicians do not care about this. They have no right-wing opposition, no nationalist opposition like the Flemish Bloc in Flanders and in Brussels. I will return to Brussels later. It remains strange in any case that half of the Whales and at least half of the Brusselsers are against, but that all their representatives will vote in favour. A gap with the citizen. In Brussels, of course, we will not lay wind eggs and for one time I can say, “Merci Laurette, merci Louis.”

In addition, there is a heavy community anger to this law. Flanders must once again engulf in a ⁇ rough manner what is being decided in Wallonia. The Wallonian parties know very well that the Flamingos do not like this and yet they push their will through. If there is already a light point in this case, then it is as follows: the Flammers see that the PS and MR once again strike them something through the throat and that the so-called federal loyalty only works in one direction.

As for the parties on the Flemish side, I can be brief about the sp.a. They have lost a few hundred thousand votes to the Flemish Bloc over the past few years, and that must, of course, be compensated by giving more and more foreigners the right to vote. The ⁇ cunning Stevaert pretends and complains that his party loses votes as a result of this debate. At the same time, however, he knows very well that his party will run with the lion’s share of foreign votes—both of the hundreds of thousands of new Belgians and of the non-European foreigners. The hypocritical paterke also says that it is only about one hundred and fifty thousand foreigners and that we should not give too much weight to it. However, Mr. Stevaert knows very well that those voices are concentrated. He knows that they are worth two seats in Antwerp, for example, and that they can keep the socialists in the seat in 2006. That is Stevaert’s cunning calculation, which, of course, does not disappear by the ridiculous example with which Mr. De Coene tried to suspense us when he said that in Aalter only nine foreigners are allowed to vote.

Of course, it is not about that. It is about Antwerp and Brussels. In the 19 Brussels municipalities it is about 65,000 potential voters. I give you a brief reading of the euphoric message today in La Libre Belgique. La Libre Belgique says that between 20% and 35% of voters will be exactly those non-European foreigners. In Sint-Joost it is about 35% of the voters, in Schaarbeek it is about 21% of the voters, in Molenbeek it is about 20% of the voters and in Brussels-Stad with its 140,000 inhabitants it is about 16% of the voters. This is what awaits us in Brussels.

This was not understood by Mr. De Coene. He tries to squeeze us with the truly ridiculous example of Kortrijk and Aalter where, fortunately but, much less non-European, non-voting foreigners will soon be allowed to vote. You have to be honest with the socialists. Mr. De Coene, you should try to be honest and admit, for example, that it does not stop with those 140,000 or those 160,000 non-European foreigners. Every year, Mr. De Coene, tens of thousands of non-European foreigners join through the asylum procedure. They are regulated, they are entitled to family reunification; there are hypocritical marriages and even thousands of other work permits are issued. Mr. De Coene, say this to your voters and add that the aforementioned group should also be given voting rights in the future.

I now come to the VLD. The Liberals are officially opposed to immigrant voting rights. Mr. De Gucht would try to convince his coalition partners with an intellectual analysis — as it is called in his midst. Mr De Gucht would make a substantiated argument, supported by logical arguments. Well, colleagues, we have seen what sort of departure has become personal for De Gucht. This is also understandable, because who would convince De Gucht: the PS, the MR, sp.a-spirit? They did not even listen. Moreover, even the sad argument of Els Van Weert apparently weighed for Verhofstadt more than the logic of Karel De Gucht.

Colleagues, the so far liquidated chairman De Gucht could not win that plea. He was not even able to convince his own colleagues. In the Senate, left-wing VLD senators voted for the right to vote, while Coveliers, Dedecker and Leduc were given their thunder. The spiritist Van de Casteele and the blue Agalev’er Vankrunkelsven lapped the party’s position on their lips, but no one said anything about the VLD.

Soon, Mr. Daems, Mrs. Neyts, here in the Chamber, will not follow the position of your party. However, no one speaks to her. For lightweight Sven Gatz idem dito: no one says what. For the dark blue liberals, however, Mr. Daems, something is different. The party leader in the Senate was defenestrated. The guilt itself had to go out. In fact, Verhofstadt’s career is much more important than the party’s position.

Colleagues, that is the genesis of the Heizeldrama and of the whole VLDdrama of the past years. The result is the liquidation of people like Anke Vandermeersch, Ward Beysen, Hugo Coveliers, Claudine De Schepper and now even of De Gucht en personne. Because of the premiere of Verhofstadt, VLD is absorbing its program again and again. For the sake of Verhofstadt you have passed the Fast-Belg Act, a quarter of a million foreigners were new Belgium, 50,000 illegals were regulated, soon the mosques in this country are subsidized, allow fundamentalists to be appointed in the Executive and must now also all non-European foreigners have the opportunity to participate in the policy determination in our cities and municipalities.

Colleagues, such a battery of measures does not exist in any country. Nowhere in the world can you find such a combination of privileges for foreigners. Nothing anywhere.

The law of today can be compared to the edict of Caracalla of the year 212. Caracalla was the decadent Roman Emperor — there were others, he was one of them — who gave everyone — I say everyone — in the Roman Empire the Roman citizenship. This is, therefore, the same as the current and also the previous government-Verhofstadt, which regularizes, naturalizes hundreds of thousands of foreigners and, even if they do not want to become Belgians, still gives them the right to vote. I quote from my book, if I can: "The edict of Caracalla led not to a romanization of the aliens, but to a far-reaching alienation of the indigenous Romans." Your boundless indulgence and Mr. Verhofstadt’s reckless ambition will contribute to this.

VLD colleagues, your supporters are thoroughly tired of that. The evidence was presented again yesterday. Dozens of VLD mandators have signed Ward Beysen’s petition against the foreign voting right, yet knowing well that a VLD member of parliament had just been expelled. In my view, that says more than enough. You will lose a bunch of voters. After all, you should not believe that you will also get 83% of the trust from them, as at your congress.

You can’t compare your voters with your board members! I even dare to make a prediction. According to your own poll last week, 25%, Mr. Tommelein, of the VLD voters prefer a government crisis over foreign voting rights. That says your own survey. I tell you, on June 13, you will lose that. On June 13, a quarter of your voters will be disappointed. That is the disaster that awaits you. You may not realize it yet, but your voters are much less likely to swallow that humiliation than your cadres, than the people who were at your congress. Or do you think that those many obligations that were on the Heizel, that those hundreds of cabinetards on the Heizel are comparable to the average VLD elector? If you think so, you will still look strange.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have another question. I think your voters are asking the same question. What is the position of the VLD? You actually put the former CVP to the crown of hypocrisy. The VLD has ensured that in the last five years, as I said, a quarter of a million foreigners have received Belgian citizenship. The VLD should therefore not say that it is against the municipal voting right for foreigners: the VLD already gave them voting rights for Chamber and Senate. If you dare to go to the voters with the message that you have done your best to curb the right to vote, you will be heard every time in every local debate, in every TV broadcast that you are turning a wheel in front of the Flamings. Through the fast-Belgic law, VLD, you have already realized the right to vote for foreigners for a large part.

There are questions from your voters. Not only do you let the left-wing newspapers à la Vankrunkelsven vote impunely against your own program, but the party’s top itself jumps from one leg to the other. It may be a little unfortunate to say that now with Mr. Dewael here for us. In the past, leaders of the VLD spoke in favour of the foreign voting right, now they are supposedly opposed. They are against, but then not enough to make it a government affair.

I will give a few examples of the views of leading VLD’s. Two years ago, Mr. Dewael, you will remember that you stated in the Vilvoorde Pact, which you should know ⁇ well, that every resident of Flanders must enjoy universal voting right before 2010.

Silence is consent, so every resident of Flanders must be granted universal voting right before 2010. That is written black on white in the Vilvoorde pact two years ago, Mr. Dewael. This goes far beyond the text we are voting on today. You should not shake from no. The text is very clear. You have declared it. You seem to be pulling your tail in.

Maybe Mr. Tommelein will do that too. That was a little less long ago. Mr. Tommelein told me clearly eight days ago: the right to vote for everyone and the abolition of the voting obligation. Or is that not true? Mr. Tommelein does not know what he said. Mr. Dewael does not know. They are silent as murdered. It costs votes. That is sad. Political courage is a beautiful virtue, Mr. Tommelein, Mr. Dewael.

...The debate in the House will be conducted in a democratic way by the VLD – quite different from the Senate – by Mr. De Gucht. Now that Mr. De Gucht is not there, the VLD no longer debates. That is the logic.

Colleague Annemans, Mr. De Gucht blows also warm and cold. Now Mr. De Gucht is opposed. One and a half years ago, however, he said in the Gazet of Antwerp, I quote: "For me they can vote personally, but I only establish that many Flamings have a problem with that." Those who don’t believe me, will immediately get the knife.

VLD colleagues, if so many Flamings have a problem with it and if almost your entire party framework is against it, then you must have the courage of your conviction and threaten the PS and MR hard.

Why should they always threaten us? Why do they always succeed with this tactic? Because unfortunately the Flemish politicians of the battle of Mr. Dewael do not have a backbone. So it is one for twelve, Mr. Tommelein. So you have the choice. Either you take the courage to turn it into a government affair now and join your backbone again. Or you will go down in a few months as a water carrier of the PS and the cunning Stevaert.

What is the opinion of the Flemish Bloc? We are square against foreign voting rights, just as we are square against the mass naturalizations of recent years. We are not against the principle of naturalization. People who want to assimilate, who bind their fate to our society, who have a certain merit, who demonstrate their loyalty, who people can qualify. Voting, Mr. Daems, is the closing point of a successful integration.

However, as it is now regulated, all of that is not the case. One should not be integrated, one should not work here, one should not even speak our language here. Nothing is required to become Belgian. In Brussels, Antwerp and other cities on June 13, there will be foreigners who can not even read what is on their ballot note, can not even read for whom they should vote.

Of course, the PS and Minister Onkelinx hope that the foreigners get their guidelines from the imams. In Brussels, the imams must make sure that the new election beast of Mrs. Onkelinx votes for the PS, that they vote correctly. I find that, frankly, unbelievable and unacceptable. Sometimes—not always—there are people who have no affinity with our values and norms. However, they can decide which policy is being carried out. Soon there will be foreigners in the voting box who cannot even read the ballots, but they will vote for the left. Mr. De Coen, you are happy. What you will lose on 13 June at the Flemish Bloc, you can reimburse with the voices of the foreigners. Certainly for the PS, a little less for sp.a, that is the intention.

It is known that the PS consists of good traders. It is "donnant donnant": the foreigners take care of the votes and the PS appoints the imams into the Executive. If these are fundamentalist imams, then it is. Early in the afternoon we could still hear today that Minister Onkelinx said that there is nothing wrong. Extremists, fundamentalists and integrists? There is no problem!

I find nothing. There is no socialist listening. Nevertheless, what the “nare father” literally wrote in his book is happening: those votes are bought in Brussels. No one in the government seems to be awake.

Note, I blame Onkelinx really nothing. She is left-handed and she comes from a multicultural family. He is righteous; he does what he should do. Mr. Dewael, we find this straightline less in you and in Mr. Verhofstadt.

In addition, I would like to point out that the Prime Minister is also in favour of Turkey’s accession to the European Union, which was not discussed in the debate at the committee meeting.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, there are not even ladies, they have almost all fled away. Only Mr. Marinower remains, a brave man. Here too, members of the VLD, you are bringing the opinion of the Flaming to your foreheads. The vast majority of firefighters do not want to know. But well, Verhofstadt has no message to that opinion. It comes to him, of course, in the international circles where he has been so happy lately. He is in favour of Turkey’s accession. That means that in theory 65 million Turks should get municipal and European voting rights from Mr. Verhofstadt. In the long run, therefore, they should all become Europeans and thus in all respects enjoy the municipal and European voting right. You will, of course, say that not all of them will come here. I have some fear, because of the demographic evolution in Turkey, where they will be 100 million in 20 years and where the standard of living is ⁇ low. Therefore, there is the risk that millions of them will indeed emigrate to Western Europe as soon as they become members of the European Union.

Colleagues, it all fits into the Lemingen mentality that characterizes many of our leaders, both Belgian and European leaders. If I can believe the recent statements of Louis Michel, even a number of countries from the Middle East and North Africa would have to join the EU. Therefore, one asks what inspires such people as Verhofstadt and Michel. Do they have anything else in mind besides the pure power wave? Their

Finally, I would like to express a word of gratitude to your former party chairman. Mr. Daems may want to pass it over to him. I send him a word of thanks for his amendment, the notorious amendment of Mr De Gucht. Thanks to that amendment, colleagues, the whole of Flanders now knows that by the law that is voted today, criminal foreigners will also be allowed to determine the policy in our cities and municipalities. Until recently, it was quite easy to exclude voters entitled to vote who were sentenced to at least four months in prison. It was about the Belgians. Regarding the right to vote for European citizens, it could reasonably be expected that a filter would also be built here through the good services of Foreign Affairs, Europol and the like. Today, however, one stands for the conclusion — Mr. De Gucht, Mr. Cortois and Mr. Anthuenis stood for the conclusion — that this is unattainable for non-European foreigners.

No one can guarantee that the 150,000 foreigners will be screened for serious crimes they might have committed in their country of origin or in other countries. It is now, by the way, well known that Foreign Affairs cannot even deal with that in terms of naturalizations. Among those hundreds of thousands of new Belgians there are also some suspicious figures. Mr. De Gucht spoke about integrists, people who may have connections with terrorists, human traffickers, drug smugglers and criminals of all kinds. Colleagues of the VLD, if that is what Mr. De Gucht wanted to address with his initiative, then he has miraculously succeeded.

Ladies and gentlemen, I go around. Of course, the Flemish Bloc will not approve this law for all the reasons mentioned. And even more, we will do our utmost to reverse this law. When you say that it is all against one, we always say that it is one against all.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill we are preparing to vote today has caused controversy and debate, both inside and outside this parliament.

I can understand that some political formations show themselves hesitant. I can also understand that some citizens oppose the right of non-Europeans to vote in local elections. This is their right. The spirit of competition of our time, the widespread fear of their future and the lack of pedagogy contribute to generating in them a sense of anti-foreignness. I understand all this! by

However, while respecting the others and other political formations, let me give you the position of the PS. For the PS, it is the responsibility of the representatives of the nation to show our fellow citizens where are the true causes of the insecurity of existence. These are obviously not to be sought in the presence of foreign nationals in our territory.

The causes of the unhappiness of many of our fellow citizens are, for example, unemployment, precariousness, insecurity, inadequate housing, ghetto neighborhoods.

Our main responsibility is to eliminate these difficulties. Our responsibility of the representatives of the nation is also to illuminate our citizens on the issues and the real scope of the law that we are taught to vote. Let us face the facts. A little less than 10% of our current population is made up of foreigners. The non-Europeans who are eligible to vote on the basis of their age – the people concerned here – in turn make up 2% of the adult population. If they get the right to vote in the municipal council elections, this will not fundamentally affect the election outcome.

Ladies and gentlemen, manage you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I repeat it. If those persons are granted the right to vote in the municipal council elections, this will not fundamentally affect the election result.

(Geroep) and (Brouhaha)

Colleagues please. Mr Laeremans, Mr Di Rupo has the word.

This has already been demonstrated in connection with the granting of voting rights to Belgians abroad. 215,000 Belgians living abroad had the opportunity to vote. This has not caused major political changes.

Mr Laeremans, you may have the word later. Everyone has the right to defend his position. Moreover, Mr Di Rupo does that in your and my language.

In total, 215,000 Belgians were able to participate in the elections abroad. Only 154,000 non-Europeans are involved in the right to vote at local level. In order to vote, they will also have to register in their municipality. It is therefore necessary, dear colleagues, to cease the spectre of a political turmoil and the case of accession of non-Europeans to the right to vote. Those who affirm this lie.

Is it necessary to recall that this right to vote will only apply to municipal elections? This is also a big difference with those who choose the Belgian nationality and who can also vote in regional and federal elections. But for the PS, the main thing is elsewhere. The granting of the right to vote to all in the municipal elections will put an end to an injustice that no longer justifies.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I do not need to tell you, my name is Elio Di Rupo. I am the President of the PS, I am a member of this honorable assembly. I was born to an Italian mother and an Italian father. I am also, like many, the fruit of this multicultural Belgium that our parents and grandparents built together. In our cities, in our communes, of course, Belgians of different origins live together, alongside European and non-European citizens. It is for us a great wealth, a strength, an asset.

“One man, one voice” is for us more than a slogan. Let us remember that it was necessary to fight against the census vote in order for workers to be recognized as full citizens. It was said at the time that they could neither read nor write and they wondered how they would vote. The "one man, one voice" principle was adopted in 1919, but women were excluded from the right to vote. Not all women because some of them could vote: the widows of soldiers killed in the 14-18 war or civilians killed by the Germans. Women voted instead of their husband or son, but to vote, they must have tragically lost a loved one. We will have to wait until 1948 to put an end to what, with time, appears to us as an aberration. Now, who would dare to question this right that has only been granted too late? What was true for women yesterday is true for non-Europeans today. Every time it takes a step towards greater equality between all, our society grows. There can no longer be citizens of the second zone.

Let us not forget that the affected persons are persons who are legally established with us. Despite the high unemployment rate, the vast majority of them, like the Belgians, work and contribute to us.

This year we celebrate the forty years of the presence among us of our fellow citizens of Turkish and Moroccan origin. Should we recall that this presence was, to a large extent, the result of a convention signed by Belgium with the countries of origin because we needed labour? These people, these workers have left their families, their countries, their friends to, with the wear of their lungs and the sweat of their foreheads, work in our mines, near our high furnaces or on construction sites. Many people left their lives there, a vast majority of them left their health there. Giving them today the right to elect their municipal representatives is also a duty of memory.

The recognition of the right to vote for all is, of course, largely symbolic. It is not less important and it will have, we are convinced, positive consequences for everyone.

Is it not normal for every inhabitant of a municipality, regardless of their nationality, to have a word on the state of the road, on the plane of traffic, on the cleanliness, on the safety around the schools? Is it not in the interest of all that harmony and security reign in the neighborhoods, in all the neighborhoods? Is it not in the interest of bringing vulnerable populations out of the ghetto of poverty? Is it not in the interest of all to intervene at several levels: rehabilitation of districts in difficulty, combating school leaving, improving vocational training, combating discrimination in employment?

Integration is not a failure. There are many examples of successful integration, but in order for the integration policy to be truly successful, we must address the causes of the unhappiness of many of our fellow citizens. In this context, granting democratic rights to all these citizens legally and permanently established in our country means accelerating this process of integration. Mijnheer de voorzitter, mijnheer de minister, beste colleagues, het problem over which we today debatteren staat al jaren ter discussie. Nu willen sommigen ons — in het bijzonder of CD&V — doen geloven dat het om de zoveelste community botsing tussen Vlamingen en Walen gaat. Men can not ernstig instemmen met a so little objective analysis. Let’s do things once on a ride.

The proposal we are discussing today should have already been approved by the purple-green government. At the last government negotiations, it was clearly decided that the right to vote for foreigners would be left to the freedom of parliamentarians. This, therefore, does not mean in any way that a single community imposes its position. There has never been a community dispute over this issue. L'accord de gouvernement ne prévoit-il d'ailleurs pas la mise en place d'un forum institutionnel au sein duquel plusieurs dossiers communautaires sont déjà à l'ordre du jour? Trying to believe that these questions are related to a prétendu vote of French speakers, relatif au droit de vote of non-Europeans is just not credible.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, since the beginning of the examination in Parliament of the bill, the PS has adopted a conciliatory attitude. No, we see no reason to treat voting rights and eligibility differently. No, we see no justification for the obligation that would be made for foreigners to swear to respect the Constitution and the laws of the Belgian people. Does that mean that foreigners who would not exercise the right to vote should not respect them? Does this mean that the Belgians and Europeans to whom this obligation is not imposed could break our laws? Do all Belgians respect the Constitution and our laws? No, we do not see any justification either, but nevertheless, the PS has accepted these conditions.

He accepted in order to gather a sufficient majority, without losing his cold-blood and always keeping his constructive attitude, his loyal attitude. The PS tried to understand the arguments of others. This attitude of the current PS reminds me of that of Emile Vandervelde and his wife, the great feminist of the time. As early as 1901, Emile Vandervelde had filed a bill in favour of women's right to vote in municipal elections. He wanted universal suffrage not only for men but also for women. The liberals of the time, although favoring the right to vote for all men, had made known that they would not support the socialists if they persisted in wanting it also for women. “Considering that the political equality of both sexes constitutes one of the essential principles of socialism, but considering that the immediate claim of this right for the female electorate threatens to compromise, for the time being, the unity of action of the supporters of the universal suffrage of men, I propose to temporarily suspend the movement, until the victory of the universal suffrage of men.” Our attitude, today, was the same: realistic and constructive.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as at the time of the establishment of universal suffrage, the abolition of the death penalty or the recognition of the right to voluntary interruption of pregnancy, we witness today, at least I hope, one of those moments when a society grows. She grows by overcoming her fears and choosing a supplement of humanity.

Because we want a society based on the equality of men, a society where citizenship is shared, where democracy is accessible to all, and because we remember what our country owes to the contribution of our fellow citizens of foreign origin, the Socialist group supports the project that is now subject to our votes.

By voting this law, dear colleagues, it is all the Flemish who grow, it is all the Brussels who grow, it is all the Wallons who grow. In short, it is an entire country that honors itself.

Mr. Di Rupo, I would still like to insist on the fact that we have been together in a government. In this government, in 1998, we did remarkable work and, from time to time, less remarkable. What we did together was the change of Article 8 of the Constitution, which was openness. It was very interesting.

Do not come and tell stories here, as if you were the only generous, and that the CD&V and the Flamands were the selfish of the group. This is not the case. We have worked with you to extend Article 8 of the Constitution. This is very important. The truth has its rights.

Liberals were not against. At the time, the VLD was in the opposition. Within their own group, they were actually for, as liberals but, for obscure tactical reasons, they abstained.

This is not the PS office. Here, we do objective analyses. Objective analysis is just the numbers. I think you are reading French-speaking newspapers, such as "La Libre Belgique" this morning that says: "It is well in a majority of Brussels municipalities that the potential will be felt. The proportion of these new foreign voters, potential and estimated compared to the figures of the voters of the municipality in October 2000, would rise in decreasing order to 35% in Saint-Josse, this is important, to 21% in Schaerbeek, to 20% in Molenbeek, to 17% in Saint-Gilles, to 16% in Brussels-Ville, to 13% in Ixelles, to 11% in Koekelberg and Anderlecht, to 9% in Forest and Etterbeek.

These are the numbers. This is also the rejection of Mr. I have seen only a few applause on the MR banks because this is precisely the cause of the fact that the MR power bastions can also vacillate.

Finally, the right to vote for women. Who was against in 1948? Socialists were against. You mix everything and you come here to make a presentation as if you were “the generous.” Nevertheless, it was the socialists who blocked women’s voting rights: they had to wait for a homogeneous Christian Democratic government before it was finally granted.

By the way, this is what you did here: mix all the files, mix this with the abortion file. It was really moved. I even expected you to link it to the case of euthanasia. In our house, here in parliament, discussions are held at a certain level. I repeat that this is not the PS office here.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will draw some conclusions for my group from the debate in the Senate and in the House Committee. I think no one has the illusion that we will convince each other here in the hemisphere. Therefore, I think that we need to clarify a number of positions and explain in a substantial way why our group considers that the present bill, previously a bill, is not a good solution to the challenges in our society with regard to the migrant problem. I will link to this some conclusions of a previously political nature.

One of the elements inevitably involved is that the symbolic value of this file allowed us to conduct only a partial debate on the arguments. I think that is true. Anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn’t have it at the right end in my opinion. By the way, the percentage in the statements of the colleagues of Vlaams Blok and CD&V that was about other parties, more specifically my party, and not about the substance of the case, proves that. We are not here in a debate about the fund, but in a sort of political competition in which I want to play the ball back to CD&V and Vlaams Blok because the debate, even today, was not really substantial. Maybe this will come. (The protest)

What is it about? It is about the policy to be carried out with regard to persons who remain here — migrants and in this case non-Europeans — so that it is well lived for everyone in this country. Immigrant voting rights are a very small aspect of the whole problem. We are talking about integration, non-discrimination and whether or not migration. That is the broad debate of which in everything I have seen and heard in the Senate and Chamber, but a small part has been highlighted. I will give an example. The former Minister of Internal Affairs and the current have the asylum problem under control. That is the reality.

The part we are talking about here is that of integration. The VLD is for full, full integration of people who are here with us and who want to stay here.

The question is how to do that. One can make a first big distinction in this hemisphere between those who are for integration and those who — apologize for the expression — are for apartheid. There are factions in this hemisphere that defend the assertion that one must be culturally separate and — that is also the assertion that Mr. Jahjah defends — must retain for the full 100% its own cultural identity, with all related elements. That is the principle of one’s own people first, as Mr. Jahjah does and where apartheid is preached. We are completely against it. With the exception of one group that at least gives the impression of also defending that position — ⁇ they can refute that in the further debate — I think that all the other groups take the stance of wanting to complete integration. We agree on this.

Again, the question is how to do this and what tools will be used for this? This is not a community debate, in which I give Mr. Di Rupo the right, but the attitude and feelings regarding this problem are different in the two regions. It must also be dared to say.

If you look at the matter from a substantial point of view, together with the overwhelming majority that is in favor of the integration of persons who want to be here permanently, then the question arises how to work. By treating those who are not yet integrated separately or by attaching the phrase "everyone is equal before the law"? It is very simple. The VLD believes that the best way to reach integration is to make everyone equal before the law, but not to make separate rules, because it does not promote integration. On the contrary, this gives an additional reason not to take the step. Why should one integrate if one cannot remain integrated and, in addition, one still gets a number of benefits in this regard? In the Netherlands, this is called a pamper policy. That is somewhat disrespectful. However, if one understands the English term of it, then it is correct for a piece.

The disagreement in the parliamentary debate on this major theme — people who want to be here permanently, integration, non-discrimination, migration, asylum policy, migrants’ voting rights — therefore focuses, in my opinion, on the question: does what is here today help integration or not? My point is that it interferes with integration and that it counteracts integration. I explain myself more closely. How can one explain that, in my opinion rightly, someone can become Belgian after three years, but also defend the assertion that when one gets passive voting right after five years, this is an argument to integrate by becoming Belgian? With all respect, but that is, of course, larie.

It is the reverse. If you don’t become a Belgian by your own free will — I respect that — then it is very clear that this limits integration. However, after a period of time, when one has decided by free will — and this is accepted in our society — not to become a full member of this society, one receives privileges. At least it is understood so. In other words, as far as the immigration tone itself is concerned, it inhibits integration.

However, there is more. I come to the difference between the appreciation, the perception, the feeling, the sensation of the stomach, the reason — call it as you like — in the matter between Flanders and Wallonia. That exists . The Flaming is, like a Waal or a Brusselsman, in other words, like every Belgian, a hospitable, tolerant, generous, freelance person. We are such. However, our assessment of — so felt — rights and privileges is different. All-early people who, out of their own free will, do not want to become Belgians – for a reason they must know for themselves – give a privilege inhibits integration rather than promote it. Indigenous people — including those who have come here and become Belgians — are therefore resisted, because it is said that not everyone is equal before the law and that privileges are granted to a certain population group.

The integration — which must come from two sides and in which the Flaming must also accept the immigration tone in this case — is hindered by the fact that this law creates an image of privilege. In other words, both for immigrants and for indigenous people, this is an integration impediment. These are the main reasons why we think it is a bad law when you place them in the given that integration prevails as a policy, in the context of how we can make an orderly society. In other words, it is the coexistence that matters and not living separately.

The framework within which this must be done is, for me, a liberal state where certain fundamental principles must apply, namely freedom of expression and equality of men and women. Colleagues, according to our group, those basic values have priority over the cultural values of others who are opposed to them. That is a major difference between us and the others. I do not accept, therefore, that anyone in this country, for the sake of the cultural peculiarity, finds that a woman is less than a man. Those who oppose the right to vote for migrants on the basis of an idea of apartheid—each of its own separate culture—accept that kind of discrimination within that culture. We do not do it. If you want it, you will have every chance to refute this. It is not the apartheid philosophy that drives us into this, it is the integration of everyone into a full-fledged society that drives us. The proposal presented here encourages the integration of immigrants. And more importantly, in Flanders it works inhibitingly because of the feeling. It also works for the Flaming inhibiting integration. Therefore, we are making a division in society.

It is not by creating a division that one will create a good, harmonious society with respect for one’s culture. That is why we do not accept this bill, which has since become a bill.

The political conclusion is as follows. In the government negotiations, the VLD welcomed the fact that this requires a parliamentary debate and that this is not a government affair. We were and are still convinced that a full-fledged debate could have produced more than a ⁇ unchanged text. The debate was not fully conducted, not only because of the symbolic value, but also because of the pure party-political involvement of some Flemish colleague parties. We saw that here today. If one takes a chronometer and measures how long colleagues have talked about the other parties — nota bene also the VLD — compared with their explanation on the substance of the case, that is clear.

Mr. Daems, colleagues Van den Eynde and De Crem wish you to briefly interrupt.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to colleague Daems that the main responsible for what is happening here at this moment is the VLD and the VLD alone. After all, you capitulate in front of your own electoral program. You promised your voters that there would be no foreign voting right. You are capitulating completely, you are not raising the blue but the white flag, and now you are coming to say that we should not talk about it. The problem in Flanders is that there are parties like yours.

Mr. Daems, the bottom of the problem is that you have made this a problem because you have not been able to fulfill your election promise. We held a committee meeting where you were present. You have been there, right? You had the opportunity to express your views politically and substantially. I did not hear the timbre of your voice. I only saw that on the second day of the discussions, after Karel De Gucht had made his demarches, you chose the haze path and fled from the committee. Where you had to make the political balance to the ground, you remained absent. Please do not blame us that we would make the correct considerations.

Mr Annemans, you are registered. Your turn is yet to come. Now Mr. Daems has the word.

Mr. Speaker, a first political conclusion I would like to draw is that during the negotiations and subsequently the VLD agreed, and also its congress, that this social debate — which should have been wider, which should have been conducted more correctly, and whose translation to the public opinion through the media in our opinion was not always the correct representation, but that is part of the game — would be a parliamentary debate. The first rule in politics is to keep your word. We gave our word, not with pleasure, but we keep our word. We have attempted to conduct a parliamentary debate. We have in part succeeded in this, though it was only because today someone who is not in favour of immigrant voting rights would no longer — as six months ago — be de facto associal. That may be a small progress, but it is one.

I come to the second political conclusion that I have made with respect to my colleagues from the Flemish parties, who have rather been engaged in VLD-bashing. From the Flemish Bloc it is to be expected, because you are passionate about the apartheid thesis. From CD&V — with all respect, Mr. De Crem — I take that less. I take that less, because no one, Mr. Bogaert, believes that you would vote against the right to vote in the hemisphere if you were part of the government. No way . You would sell your soul for it. That is the reality. I would do it myself...

Mr. De Crem, let Mr. Daems finish his speech.

I would do it myself...

Let Mr. Daems finish his mind.

Mr. Speaker, I am 100% right to Mr. Speaker. He gives a very nice sketch. I would like to emphasize this with this intervention. He admits that the VLD has gone through the knees, but he claims that CD&V would also have gone through the knees. The left says that when the foreign voting right needs to be approved, it is approved. Who they rule with does not matter, because there will always be people who will go through their knees. That is what Mr. Daems says, and he is absolutely right.

The reality is that no one would forgive themselves that and the voter would not forgive us. I am convinced that if tomorrow — with all respect for the colleagues — CD&V could form a government and the price for that would be the approval of the voting right for migrants, they would do so. That is the truth. I will illustrate that.

I will give the floor to Mr De Crem.

Please illustrate my position first.

Well, then you have the word, Mr. De Crem.

I want to illustrate this very briefly. After all, the most popular politician today — however according to polls — of CD&V signature, Jean-Luc Dehaene, who must urgently be raised before the elections, is the same who in 1997 in tempore non suspecto in all clarity — what the man adorns — said: "For me, the migrants should be able to vote in 2006". So, with all respect, colleagues of CD&V, I accept all the arguments, but if you come here to claim that you would stop it and that the VLD passes it, then that is pure nonsense. It is pure nonsense. We agreed — and that is the essence of the story — that Parliament should debate it. We keep our word. We have not received a full debate, but what we do not want is the return to the time when the government agreement stated that nothing could happen if not all partners were there, making the Parliament just an empty box. That was your way of running!

Mr. President, I find Mr. Daems an exceptionally good speaker, because that phrase is no longer in the government agreement, but he is in any case not pressed through his will. I have to say that you have a very strange reasoning, Mr. Daems. I read in your Burgerkrant: "The VLD writes political history with the debate around the migrant voting right." Really true, in order to become a people’s party — because you also want to be a people’s party — you must know very well that the majority of the Flemish people are against immigrant voting rights. All you do is convene a congress that congresses with 99% vote against the immigrant voting right and then say: with those 99% we can actually do nothing about it, it will still be realized. Mr. Daems, according to what logic do you actually play here? I do not know what you have eaten or in what atmosphere you are walking around here, but you have built up a ⁇ peculiar logic here in which no one believes.

You refer to facts in the past. We held a congress in Korrijk. At that congress we said that the right to vote remains bound by nationality. We will not, like the VLD, go flat on the stomach and swallow our congressional decisions. So much is clear that is the difference between you and me.

We are having a prime today, colleagues. This is what I would like to communicate to this hemisphere and especially to the colleagues who will approve the draft, the former proposal, which is their right. It would be crazy if we did not accept that, when there is a majority in the hemisphere, that decision would continue, even though it does not feel us. And this does not mean us at all. What is true – and that is a primeur – is that we are going to experience something here where a fundamental fact, which strikes the Flamings, which is strongly felt by the public opinion – strong or not, it feels so – and that in any case it is about a democratic decision-making that is fundamental for democracy, will be approved with only a quarter of the Flemish votes in this hemisphere.

This is a primeur. Why am I giving you that? I’m not doing this to blame, because that’s wrong. I do this to indicate that those who amended the Constitution in 1998 — on that point the previous speaker was right —, making it possible that a special law or at least a two-thirds majority or at least a majority in any language role could not find this democratically given its decision, bear a responsibility in them. It would decorate them if they would take them.

Anyway, it is a very bad thing for democracy. I say that in all courage to the French-speaking colleagues and to the part of the Flemish-speaking colleagues who will approve the draft, which — again — is their right. However, it is a bad prime. For the future, it will complicate a number of balances, which are needed in this hemisphere to govern a difficult country such as Belgium with its various territories. That’s not because we want to do so, but because this kind of prime does indeed introduce a new era in this regard. It would have been much better if anything in this file would have been approved with a majority in the two districts. That is the truth and a second reason why, apart from the fact that I have explained to you why, despite the fact that we are in favor of the integration of migrants, we consider that we should be against the proposal, I deeply regret the mistake consisting in allowing this kind of precedent and primeur. This is a responsibility that everyone should take on.

Mr. Speaker, I will decide. We referred to our congress. Mr. De Crem knows our congress from outside. He has our newspaper. I will see if he is also a member of our party, otherwise he has got the newspaper somewhere else. Our congress decided not so long ago — nobody has said it here — that the VLD is against voting rights for migrants. We are against the proposal because we are for the integration of migrants, because we are for cohabitation and against separation, because we are for integration and against apartheid, because we are against the fact that certain cultural values do not fall too far in a normal, modern, liberal society that we all want. Therefore, we also vote against the proposal, after a debate that has been unsuccessful.

Second, our Congress has said that we want a referendum. Here you all have the opportunity — the proposal is in place — to approve with us that a popular consultation will be held. The proposal is ready. I look forward to everyone’s vote. Colleagues, our congress has said as a second point that we want a popular consultation. The proposal is there. You, everyone, have the opportunity to agree with it.

At our congress, it was clearly stated that this problem is a very important data with which we cannot agree because it is wrong. However, the work of the government is too important to stop them for the sake of this theme. Their

I am not afraid to repeat this. For the VLD, the results already achieved in the government, which must be implemented in practice, and the decisions still to be made, which are urgently needed for society as a whole and for the business life in particular, are too important to be abandoned for the sake of a party policy given desired by an opposition of which nobody gets better and everyone gets worse. The VLD stands for a government policy that is vigorously continued and where the liberal stamp is greater. We will discuss the results of a Council of Ministers such as Gembloux. In the coming months, we will prove that those points are important to us, which can help us solve the problems of people and the problems of business. This will be done by the VLD in the government with full force.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the least we can say is that the debate on the right to vote of foreigners in the municipal elections did not go into the hole, whether in a committee or in a public session: understood and hateful statements sometimes, counterfeits and intoxication of public opinion then, and, finally, we know, victim sacrificed at the end of this tragic-comedy.

While it is fatal that at the beginning of discussions, the citizen privileges passion over reason, I am a bit upset that a similar attitude has reigned on the banks, in the Senate as well as in the House. Finally, one seeks in vain an ounce of truth in certain assertions solemnly pronounced in committee and which have yet to be repeated in plenary session. This is the case with the reproach that the Francophone would have imposed their will on the Flemish, which would never have occurred in the other direction and which should naturally bring an immediate response.

Dear colleagues, what kind of game are we playing? Are our colleagues in the north of the country affected by amnesia? In another file, that of the ban on tobacco advertising at Francorchamps, I recall that 80% of French speakers were in favor of lifting the ban on advertising with the VLD, while all the other Flamands voted against. What happened? We lost a year, a year and a half. We have taken risks for the economic development of our region. At that time, we did not shout at the community drama. We had the elections and settled our accounts with the French-speaking party that had not voted with us. Then we returned and convinced the Flemish of the correctness of our positions until we got a almost unanimous vote.

Even two days ago — this becomes a disease in this Parliament — the Flemish found that they were the only ones to vote on a resolution in the Health Committee. This is once again a community problem. Once again, the chairman of the committee wisely observed that we voted as free and responsible men and that there was no question of a community vote.

We are not in a confederate system. When, as is the case today or as was the case in the Francorchamps case, it is the parliament that decides without the intervention of the government, therefore of the majority, this type of decision can be taken in this way and can still be repeated in the future.

The threats, which I heard throughout the discussion in the committee style “you gave up, the addition after the regional elections will be salted at the time of community negotiations”, leave me totally cold. It would be necessary that Flanders cease to cultivate its complex of superiority over Wallons and Francophone, in which "one comes back as in butter" for a few tens of millions of euros destined to one or the other regional or community matter. That time has passed.

If there is negotiation, it will be between equal partners, any advance from the North will double the equivalent advantage to the South, if, however, the French speakers consider it useful to open the claims frames. In short, waiting for this possible future round, we will stay, on the French-speaking side, to resume the fashion expression among young people, "super mega cool".

Some groups also did not hesitate to stir up the public opinion by trying to make believing the inevitable storm of foreigners who would invade the communal majorities. The length of the debates and seriously ⁇ ined dramatization led to this impression that is still felt in the population.

What is it ultimately about? It was said, of 150,000 people, mostly elderly, present for a long time in our country, totally in symbiosis, living with the Belgian population without problems. We mentioned the Moroccans who entered Belgium many years ago, and the Turks too, who took vacant jobs at the time, who stayed because there was work and who, in the meantime, made the stake. There were also, forgotten, citizens of other nationalities. I recall that there are currently citizens of 170 countries in Liège, 150 in Charleroi, 200 in Brussels City, 190 in Antwerp, sometimes one or two people of the same nationality. There are, in total, approximately 7,800,000 voters and, all included, there would be 150,000 foreigners outside the European Union, or 1.5%.

by Mr. De Crem branded the article of "La Libre Belgique" by saying that they were in Molenbeek, in Schaerbeek, etc.

Mr. De Crem, when you brand this text, you should still read the whole because, if I have a good memory, the journalist adds that it is obviously 100%. If ever foreigners outside the European Union voted in the same way as foreigners from the European Union, at 17 or 20%, it would make exactly 26,000 foreigners outside the European Union who would vote in all municipalities. This is definitely not a flooding!

Mr. Speaker, the discourse of Mr. Monfils is still quite contradictory. He says first, from the point of view of the principle, that the right to vote must be granted to foreigners but he hopes, on the other hand, that no one will make use of it.

Mr. De Crem, I did not say that.

This is a political analysis. In principle, the right to vote is granted, but we hope that no one will take advantage of it.

First of all, you have not read the full article of "La Libre Belgique". You stopped by saying that we will see what will happen.

Then, what is this way of considering that all foreigners who are in Schaerbeek, Molenbeek or elsewhere will all vote, I don’t know for whom? Until proof of the contrary, we have not yet put a camera in the isolations and I do not know completely whether they will vote for the PS, for the MR, for the CDH — I hope they will vote for us, of course — or for any other party. This attitude aimed at saying that it will be a storm and that it will upset the municipal majorities, I really do not know where we will look for it.

I can predict today what your voters will do in Brussels. And this is not a prediction of "Madame Soleil," it is true. I can predict today what the voters will do in Brussels.

Mr. De Crem, if you care a little about your voters and not ours. I have observed for a number of months or quarters, even though the debate is ragged and you have wanted to dramatize it, that the MR is doing well. It increases by 0.2 from 0.3 or 0.4%. Things are going very well and, believe me, if the elections were to be held tomorrow, I would be happy that they are taking place on the basis of the polls that are currently our for several quarters. On this plane, as the other says, "Take care of your friends, my enemies, I'll take care." So, take care of your voters, I assure you that ours are doing very well. We come out of a difficult debate, where we did not have time to explain to the public the reasons why we approved this right of vote for foreigners outside the European Union for municipalities.

No worries, we will see. We will meet again at the regional elections in June and then we will see who is wrong and who is right. I remain extremely confident.

In addition, our voters knew well that we agreed on the right to vote. It was at the congress of Liège on 20 May 2000 that the decision to accept it was made, under conditions that are also found in the proposal that will be voted soon. This attitude of the MR was clearly recalled in all the meetings. If the first attempt to pass the right to vote turned short in March 2002, if I am not mistaken, it is because - we know - the VLD had made it a matter of government. This was not planned. We had no other option than to stop the discussion to maintain the government.

However, as soon as the debate ended, Deputy Prime Minister Louis Michel had clearly explained that the subject would again be included in the next government statement. This is what has been done. As there was no agreement in the government statement, this issue was referred back to Parliament asking it to decide on the granting of the right to vote and eligibility of foreigners at the municipal level. This is what is about to be completed. So there is no surprise: our voters have known for years that we are supporters of this right to vote. I simply see that over the years they have trusted us and that trust is now growing.

Another element: the hardship used to prevent the vote on this proposal leaves me perplexed. Because, in the end, it is the best integrated foreigners in Belgian society who are considered by you as genuine causers of trouble. There are, in this country as in those around us, disturbing phenomena: religious fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, denial of certain values which are the fundamental principles of our society, from which one cannot deviate. Obviously, we must fight these deviations and these aggression and show ourselves without mercy against those who do not practice tolerance or respect for each other, who do not recognize equality and denial of discrimination, who despise the rights of women, or who, by violence, insults, and screams, attack members of the Jewish community – it has been talked about again recently – referring to an era that was never thought to be seen again. But all these attitudes have strictly nothing to do with the right to vote granted to citizens who, because they have been there for a long time, make a judgment - like any other citizen - on the concrete policy of the city: in territorial planning, in security, in cleanliness, in circulation, in social protection of the most disadvantaged.

This is the amalgamation that we cannot accept. Those who live according to our laws must not be concerned or considered as second-tier citizens; those who deviate from them must, of course, suffer the rigors of the law.

We will naturally be told that instead of claiming the right to vote, foreigners would be better inspired to become Belgians. As such, they would obtain the benefits and obligations of any citizen of our country. The argument would, of course, have to be taken into account if the right to vote had been generalized to other levels of power, with the right of eligibility as a prime. Then, in fact, one could object: "How can we allow non-Belgians to assume the exercise of functions within the public power?" In this spirit, we also refuse to grant a foreigner outside the European Union the right to be a shevin, mayor, president of CPAS, regional or federal MP. If he wants to struggle with such a burden, let him become Belgian. The management of the organs of the State shall belong to the citizens of that State. The exception is due to the European directive that requires to grant the right of eligibility to Europeans, but only, of course, for local elections.

The project under discussion is limited in the number of beneficiaries of this right, in its scope also since it only targets the right to vote in municipal elections, in its final wording, since three conditions must be met: 1. A continuous, legal, uninterrupted presence for five years prior to the introduction of the application. 2 of 2. A request from the person. The right is not granted automatically. It is on request and from the moment the right is granted because it was requested, the foreigner obviously follows all the rules applicable to Belgians. If he does not vote, he can naturally be punished. 3 of 3. The applicant must sign a declaration by which he undertakes to respect the Constitution and the laws of the Belgian people and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Some colleagues have criticized this stipulation on the pretext that it would introduce discrimination against EU nationals who, they, are not subject to it.

Article 8 of the Constitution establishes a distinction between the right to vote of citizens of the European Union, which must be granted in accordance with Belgium’s international and supranational obligations, including the Directive of 94 which allows it, and the extension of the right to vote to non-member residents of the Union, which may be made under Article 8 of the Constitution under the conditions and modalities determined by law.

It is also obvious that the principle of equality requires equal treatment only to the extent that the situations are similar. In this case, we know, there is nothing. The European citizens share by definition the same democratic values. The countries whose nationals they are have joined the Council of Europe. Furthermore, future new states also must respect the acquis communautaire, which implies, beyond economic, social, fiscal, etc., the respect of the fundamental rules of democracy, which are also widely recalled in the future Constitution of the European Union, which reads largely the essential principles.

The citizen of the Union therefore shares these values, such as the principles of equality, non-discrimination, the rule of law, freedom of expression, freedom of political and religious convictions. What we want to verify is that foreigners to the Union commit to sharing them. If they make this statement, it is an important step towards integration. If they refuse to make this symbolic gesture of membership, they cannot be allowed to give their opinion on the management of a public body whose, by definition, they challenge the fundamental rules of functioning.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it was fatal that, especially a few months before an election deadline, this case has aroused lively controversy. This is obviously an euphemism. Would the storm have calmed down if the examination of the file had been postponed to autumn? I ignore it. Anyway, it is done, the project is there, it will probably be voted in the hours or days to come.

Furthermore, it seems to me that it is not good to hide from the citizen reaction that an election represents the problems that are pending but that one hoped ⁇ to hide in the pre-election forgetfulness. It is our responsibility to take an attitude here and now, clearly, before the public opinion and to explain to it the meaning of the approach and the reasons of satisfaction or dissatisfaction before this vote.

Some — this was again done ten minutes ago — proposed to resort to a referendum or popular consultation. I will make you notice that if we are supporters of such a system, never a majority has risen in favour of it. Proposals have been submitted for the referendum. I have not noticed that everyone was sitting around the table to draw up a bill in this regard.

But, like the Loch Ness monster that appears to rise to the surface at every major event, the referendum and popular consultation periodically come back to the surface, especially or even only when the politician is embarrassed and wants to refill the baby to the citizen.

We cannot organize referendums and popular consultations at the card, when it arranges some. Direct democracy is an interesting form of government, but it must be organized seriously, without falling into simplism, instinctive reactions, directed responses. If we want to introduce in Belgium the referendum at all levels of power – and we are supporters of it – we obviously need to develop a precise legislation beforehand, namely the matters subject to referendum, the type of questions to be asked, the text to be submitted to vote, the counting of votes by Community or by Region or across the whole country. In the current state of affairs, this is not the case. We therefore remain to a political debate that will find its epilogue in the hours or days to come.

Of course, in a matter like this, everyone can have regrets. Such will estimate that we have not gone far enough, I have heard it; such other than the concessions made to foreigners outside the European Union are still too wide; others still would not have wanted to legislate.

As far as we are concerned, we would like in particular that the vote of the Belgians abroad be granted in parallel for the regional and European elections. This has not been possible and we wish to resume the debate on this subject soon so that finally – not for the June elections too close and for which we lack time – but for the following elections, this injustice is repaired.

We would also like to deepen certain elements related to integration, identify the values that constitute the basic principles of our European society and, where appropriate, take legislative initiatives when it appears that serious infringements are being made to the neutrality, impartiality of the state and public services, including education.

These will be debates that must be dealt with without any desire to stigmatize anyone, but in the interest of ensuring pluralism, respect for the convictions of the other and to fight against all forms of proselytism and intolerance.

This is another story. It has already begun and will continue tomorrow or in the months to come. Today it is about voting — and we will do it — for the right of foreigners outside the European Union to vote in local elections. As I said in the committee, nothing less of course, but also nothing more. I am confident that, the calm income, the population, the citizens will perfectly understand our point of view.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Representative of the Government, City Councillor, Members of this Assembly...

That is a happy coincidence.

You are looking for everything behind it. Before I take the word, you already start with an intention process. You absolutely show the true nature of your intentions.

What we notice in this debate — I am pleased that Mr. Daems has rejoined us in the meantime — is that on the one hand, in some, an incredible pessimism is displayed, a kind of dumb thinking, and in some other cases, a boundless naivety is confessed. The strange thing is that the right to vote for migrants already exists today, although few here seem to know that. Indeed, thousands of non-European foreigners will vote in companies and in companies in the coming weeks, following the social elections. In this regard, there is no distinction between persons who are brought together in a place. Whether you are a Belgian, a member of one of the Member States of the European Union or a non-EU foreigner, you can and can vote in social elections. We also have the passive right to vote. All-native citizens, foreigners from non-EU countries, can also stand as candidates in social elections. For example, in my region, in the textile sector in Kortrijk and in Waregem, foreigners from non-EU not only vote in those social elections, but also candidate themselves. Their

Since such a disastrous image is hanging on the immigrant voting right, I will refer to the situation in the textile companies in my region. One of those business leaders present in this hemisphere can, by the way, bear witness to this. Well, those who go to the polling station or who are eligible for social elections and who come from a non-EU country have never caused a problem. Rather, it is the most beautiful proof, the current proof, the living proof that people must be brought together and that people should not be set up against each other. Their

Therefore, Mr. Daems, we were very pleasantly surprised by your speech. We honestly think that. Now, after your speech, I have come to tell you that personally, but I want to do that on behalf of my group also on this speaker. First and foremost, because you at least made an attempt not to attack others and not to blame them for anything.

"Even if we know that this is not a miracle remedy for integration, then still, per balance in the Netherlands, this has proved its usefulness." He therefore recommends that we introduce it anyway, without expecting too much from it – which we as Flemish socialists do not do – because it is worth the effort. It is a small step towards integration, but it is a much more important step towards participation, towards participation.

In the end, what reasonable man can now object to the fact that someone who has been correctly registered here for five years and thus has been part of a local society for five years is called to register — he must therefore have already done an active act — on the electoral list? He must then sign a declaration of adherence to the Constitution and to the laws of this people, and make the effort to choose the local policy level every six years on the second Sunday of October. Is this not a sign of integration? That is certain. Someone who wants to do so proves that he wants to participate at the local level. Why should we be against it?

The argument of the VLD is about: we support the goal of integration and the goal of participation, only we are not sure that the right to vote is the most ideal means to ⁇ that. It is not because you are not convinced that this is the most ideal remedy, that you should be so against it.

I also feel that the tone in your speech today was completely different from your tone a few days ago.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I come to you for a moment, laughmaker. Your speech is another speech. Your speech is based on a different purpose. Your speech does not want integration. Your speech...

Mr. Van den Eynde, you do not want to interrupt me. I did not interrupt you either. I ask you to apply that basic respect as well.

I only say that, unlike Democrats who are against municipal voting rights for migrants, you are out of the box, the confrontation. You are out of demonization. This makes the difference between democratic opponents and non-democrats.

Mr. Van den Eynde, sit first, use your microphone and do it quietly. And now interrupt Mr. De Coene with my permission.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to Mr. De Coene on the method regulated by him and not only by him to demonize a party like mine.

Mr. De Coene, you claim that we say something and then you will break it down. In fact, you are realizing a dialogue between you and we are looking at it. We did not know that we were saying this, but thanks to you we know this and we are contradicted. Mr. De Coene, this is a very comfortable method to win in any debate. Debate with yourself, look in the mirror and you will always be right. Congratulations, it is easy, but not really courageous.

Mr Van den Eynde, just read the verbal report of what your group members said in the debate. If someone demonizes, then it is your group in this debate.

( ... ...

Mr Annemans, you will be speaking later.

By the way, you actually draw everything out of proportion. The figures, which are mentioned in the Senate report, teach us that in total it is about 150 to 160,000 people in this country, spread across about 600 cities and municipalities. That is an average of 250 people. Oh Lord and God, now the world will perish. On average, 250 people in a city or municipality are entitled to vote. What will happen to us now?

I know that, of course, it is too easy to say that we are going to take the average. I want to take three type communities at the Flemish level — one will not blame me for referring to the Flemish situation for a moment. A small municipality, Berlaar or Aalter. There are 19 and 18 people respectively. With 19 and 18 people, you don’t get five tables full of cards. Will this now be a threat to Aalter or Berlaar? I go to my town.

In Kortrijk, a small Flemish city centre, there are a total of 820 people. If all those people would register and if all those people would actually vote, it would be about about 1.6% of the electorate in Kortrijk. That 1.6% will not make the difference either.

Then I come to the Flemish example by excellence, Antwerp. In Antwerp it is about many more people and we are the first to admit that. In fact, we are happy that we can admit that, because it also points out the numerical importance in certain situations. In Antwerp, there are approximately 17,500 people. In Antwerp, one must get an average of 6,000 votes to get a seat. I know, I will simplify it here. With the Imperiali system, I know that this builds up differently. On average, however, a party in Antwerp needs to get 6,000 votes to get a seat. It is, therefore, a matter of persons who, on the one hand, are counted for the calculation of the number of seats — the 55 seats of Antwerp are calculated on the basis of the presence of those 17,500 persons — but who, on the other hand, do not count when it comes to the composition of that council whose numerical strength is calculated on their presence. One time they count, the other time they don’t.

Moreover, I have looked at it for a moment, the programs for which the city of Antwerp submits — federal action programmes, Flemish action programmes, security contracts, the former SIF contracts, prevention contracts and let us mention, the grants you receive, both at the regional level and at the federal level — are all determined by the presence of people whom you do not want them to speak out. On the one hand, their presence is useful for receiving funds from the Flemish or the federal level; on the other hand, if the use of those funds is to be decided at the local level, they must not let their voice be heard. So we have a different opinion. We do not find it scandalous — as you think — that people who are here for a while, who want to make their future here, and who are fully active in such a society, are allowed to make decisions at the local level.

It has been said that there is no reason anymore to become Belgian. Well, there is also a walk with the truth. Whoever becomes Belgian, who will vote on 13 June for the Flemish Parliament, for the European Parliament and later for the Chamber and Senate. He has a lot more rights.

We advocate that those who live in the municipality for five years get the right to vote at the local level, the closest level of policy to the people.

Then again the demonization. What had we suddenly discovered and what had we to repair through an amendment? Criminals vote for the city council. Imagine that well. Their

First, we found it not a good amendment because we were not legally convinced. I also explained this in the debate in the committee. The argument has actually already been given in the reading of the report by our rapporteurs. Applying for granting or not granting naturalization, including by this assembly, is a favor. If you give people the right to vote, they have a right. One cannot withdraw a right on the basis of whether or not granting a favor. In a democratic rule of law, this can only be done on the basis of a conviction, and that is the only reason why such amendments should not be approved.

Secondly, let us bring back the rationality. At one point in the committee we got examples of Chinese human traffickers and — I hardly dare to say — Albanian mafia leaders who were going to vote. Let us be reasonable. Which Chinese human trafficker will have the trouble of voting once every six years, on the second Sunday of October, to decide who will become the ships of the garbage car? That Chinese human trafficker who will absolutely have no need to come out in public and give his voice, waiting in the long row. That danger does not exist, and that is demonization.

That is demonizing, and you benefit from it! It is a matter of bringing this back to its actual proportions and that you know very well.

Mr. Daems, I will address you for a moment. I think you are right on one point. We should not expect too much from it. It is definitely not a miracle remedy for integration. If we say that, we should also say something else about obtaining the Belgian citizenship. Grotesque figures were cited. The figures of Home Affairs—the honourable representative of the federal government can testify to this—are somewhat more modest than they wish to present to us here. Their

Will the Belgians get more chances than others? and no. Therefore, we cannot say that it is either one or the other. No, it is and and.

Today we could read in the newspaper that the VDAB — a service that knows what is happening in the labour market — and I quote: “Among the young people, the percentage of Moroccans with a Belgian passport rises to almost 70%, and yet even for these newly graduated new Belgians it is ⁇ difficult to get a job. Moreover, whether or not having the Belgian nationality makes little difference. They do not find a job. The first selection that takes place in the recruitment is not based on the integration of diplomas, not based on the integration of work experience, but simply based on their name and first name.

Is this the kind of society we want? These are the figures of the VDAB. Mr. Lano, I see you look a little hesitant. I am willing to provide you with the article.

Colleagues, what should we do? We should not want to replace the one with the other. Instead of seeking a three-fourth majority in the Flemish Parliament to create a conflict of interests, we must seek out more social programs in the Flemish Parliament, to be able to take language courses by increasing the supply, to provide more opportunities in housing, training, education and employment. That would be much more useful work than showing a few weeks ago with the sole intention of setting up one population group against another.

I repeat my confession I made in the committee. I am addressing the democratic opponents of immigrant voting rights. Unfortunately, no one is present from CD&V. Maybe they are listening in the “cantine”. What are the reasons for approving or not approving this bill? In the 1990s, the then SP was also criticized for this right to vote. We thought we could express our attitude with a number of intellectual and social arguments. Just like your arguments today, these arguments were often correct. However, we forgot to say that we were a little scared. We were guided by some form of scorn, even of fear, because we realized that this matter is ⁇ sensitive to the public opinion. Therefore, at some point, we have chosen to propose other means of integration.

It didn’t stop us from facing the difficult years of the nineties. Now, at least, we have made that clarity for us, for the public opinion and for those who are going to vote. In the run-up to the federal parliamentary elections, we have stated unwaveringly, clearly and clearly that we were and are in favour of the immigrant voting right.

We are now being blamed for doing something that goes against the opinion of the majority of the Flamingos. I find that strange. We have made this clear to the Firefighters in advance. Moreover, since this has become a matter of Parliament, every group in Parliament still has the right to defend its program and to implement what it says in its program and what it says to the voter. The opposite should be more surprising.

So we are going to do this because we are convinced that we are taking a modest step towards integration and, much more, a step towards political participation. If Mr. De Crem had been here, I would have said, “You should not always look for the misery of another, for you are only exporting your own misery.” (Mr. De Crem is entering the hemisphere) Mr. De Crem, I have heard nothing new from you in the last few weeks, but I was very surprised then. When you reacted to Mr Di Rupo’s speech, you received a lot of applause from one group. You should vote for reflection.

Speaking of diabolization.

Mr. De Crem, it is not easy for anyone. Just as it is delicate for us, it is also delicate for them and for you.

I listened very carefully to your speech. You spoke for about 40 minutes and criticized everyone else for 35 minutes. In 5 minutes you have to try to make your point out of the canvases. Of course, this is not accidental, because you have difficulties with your point of view. If I would present your position — what you have said here in the last few weeks — to those brave people of the ACW and the KWB, who call to give that municipal voting right here and now, then I think you will have difficulty.

You refer, by the way, to your congress of Kortrijk. It was coincidentally in my city and I followed that congress a little bit. I have seen that it was indeed not easy at that time and that a large and very significant minority in your congress was in favor of voting rights for migrants.

They did not allow themselves to be guided by the temperature in a particular society. They did not let themselves be guided by a certain fear. They were guided by a social image that involves as many people as possible in a society and excludes as few people as possible in a society.

Mr. De Coene, I think you are not just the speaker of one of your factions. You are doing really well in your role as a People’s Commissioner. I have rarely seen so many outstanding movements here.

It was indeed my congress in Kortrijk. I personally turned the congress. I didn’t do it for pleasure or rancor. I did that simply because I know that a lot of our voters and the vast majority of the Flemish people are against that immigrant voting right. We have said that one thing remains ahead of us. He who is Belgian has not only municipal voting rights, he has the right to vote and, in addition, he can be a candidate in all elections. This may be a message that — with all your gestructuring — still squeezes a little in your empty people’s houses. In any case, you should not get into the market of Kortrijk.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to finish. I actually have little to add to this. I am glad that you gave that response. Mr. De Crem, I suggest that you later explain it to the people of the Christian workers’ movement in the distant Kortrijk. You will then see that you will get a little wind. We will approve this design in our campaign and in our program as we have said. We will not do this in naivety. We will ⁇ not participate in the deliberation. You can say that to our voters. We will tell our voters. We are enough men to say that. That is the difference between you and us. We look people in the eyes and say that.

Mr. Daems, finally, I have a word of respect for you, for the ⁇ correct way you conducted the debate. I want to thank you for this.