Proposition 51K0583

Projet de loi spéciale modifiant diverses lois spéciales.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 15, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Qualified

Subjects

regionalisation organisation of elections regional election election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo N-VA FN

Abstained from voting

LE VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) 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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 21, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will present the report on all four draft laws and special laws amending electoral legislation on behalf of Mr. Speaker. Dirk Claes and myself.

The committee worked for many hours on an extremely important topic. From the beginning, the Minister re-determined the objectives pursued by these projects.

First: to re-establish the alternate candidates for the elections of the three regional councils, as well as for the direct election of six Brussels members of the Flemish Council. The number of such candidates shall be equal to that of the actual candidates, with a maximum of sixteen and a minimum of four for the election of the three Regional Councils, and a maximum of six and a minimum of four for the direct election of the Brussels members of the Flemish Council.

Second: introduce a 5% electoral threshold for the election of the three Regional Councils, the Council of the German-speaking Community and the Brussels members of the Flemish Council.

Third: to reduce to eighteen the age required to be elected as a member of a regional or community council, as well as the age required to become a member of a regional or community government. Finally, fourth: to incorporate in the special laws of institutional reform the rules aimed at ensuring equal presence of men and women on the lists of candidates in the elections for the three Regional Councils, rules which are currently the subject of an autonomous special law of 18 July 2002.

With regard to the general discussion, the groups spoke. First, CD&V estimates that less than six months before the elections, Parliament is working in precipitation. It recalls that the system of substitute candidates for the legislative elections was abolished in 2001, under the pretext of strengthening the citizen’s influence on the composition of the federal legislative assemblies, and that it was re-established at the end of 2002, without ever being confronted with the reality of the field. The CD&V does not understand why, within the framework of the projects under consideration, no prior consultation was organised with the democratic opposition. The government does not hesitate to suspend the application of laws and the Constitution, to make ad hoc changes to the law, and to mock certain institutions if it serves its electoral goals.

The CD&V also disputes the fact that the government once again asks the Parliament to restore the double nominations, which were canceled at the time by the Arbitration Court for the House of Representatives and the Senate, due to their unconstitutionality.

Due to this fact, the House is currently constituted for one-third of substitutes, which misleads the voter and undermines parliamentary representation as to whether the Federal Parliament is competent to establish provincial districts, in the event that the Flemish Parliament did not. CD&V refers to the opinion of experts heard on this subject in the Flemish Parliament. The choice of over-sized electoral districts favors mediatisation and damages the content of political discourse.

The CD&V also emphasizes that the projects under review are important, especially because of what they do not plan. They do not end the system of double candidacy and do not require candidates to exercise the mandate for which they are elected. They dispute the fact that people who apply on two lists will have additional resources compared to others and that there is an unequal treatment.

Finally, as regards the election of the Council of the Brussels-Capital Region, he notes that there are 72 candidates holding the French-speaking side, against 17 on the Dutch-speaking side. There is a huge difference between a list of 72 candidates and a list of 17 candidates. In the first case, this list may, for example, consist of many municipal representatives, while in the second, the number of candidates is significantly more limited, which constitutes a violation of the principle of equality.

Another violation of the principle of equality lies in the fact that small parties presenting themselves in Wallonia can still benefit from the benefits of the system of similarity for the election of regional councils, which is not possible in Flanders. Regarding the intervention of N-VA, he joined the arguments of CD&V regarding the violation of the principle of equality and concluded that this issue will ⁇ be the subject of an appeal before the Arbitration Court. He believes that in this reform of the electoral law affecting an essential point of democracy, citizens are not taken into account because of the complexity of the electoral system and their incomprehension. The consequences will be that voters will turn even more away from politics.

In addition, the difficulties also come from the vote of Belgians residing abroad, who have the possibility to choose their electoral district. We see in Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde a significant number of French speakers voting from abroad, which contributes to the franchising of the Flemish Brabant. The N-VA is surprised that the Flemish majority parties find this reasonable.

The N-VA recalls that the reform initiated five months before the federal elections already harmed the interests of Flanders by introducing parity in the Senate, decreasing the competence of the federated states in matters of treaty law, introducing the principle of subsidiarity of the federated states in relation to the Senate, recognizing Brussels as a full-fledged Region and affirming that the Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde district would not be split.

The N-VA addresses the problem of simultaneous presentation of candidates that, for the House and the Senate, was cancelled by the Arbitration Court. This is also likely to be repeated for simultaneous presentation at the level of the parliaments of the federal states and the European Parliament. These elections should take place at separate times.

With regard to the introduction of a 5% electoral threshold, the N-VA believes that the goal is clear: to put aside the N-VA and Green. He disputes that an electoral threshold is also introduced when the constituency is limited to the district. A threshold has no reason to be when it is higher than the natural threshold necessary for obtaining a seat.

The speaker of the N-VA specifies that once the law is adopted, he will appeal this law before the Arbitration Court.

Finally, it notes that the withdrawal of the appearance at the federal level had been canceled by the Arbitration Court and that nothing was done to take into account this judgment.

The Vlaams Blok, on the other hand, considers that as long as the French-speaking parties of Brussels can present themselves in the Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde constituency, they have an interest in obtaining the highest possible number of votes in that constituency in order to strengthen their position for the House elections. He observes, in practice, a considerable difference between the results obtained in federal elections for which the constituency is not split and in regional elections for which the constituency is split.

The Vlaams Blok believes that the split of the Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde electoral district will have the effect of putting a brake on the pressure emanating from Brussels and showing the French speakers of Hal-Vilvorde that they could also vote for Flemish lists.

Hal-Vilvorde is a unilingual region composed of unilingual municipalities that belong entirely to the Flemish province of Brabant but are, nonetheless, confronted with an electoral district of another Region. This is a unique and unconstitutional situation. Many councillors have voted in favour of a split.

Again in this regard, the Vlaams Blok refutes the claims of the president of the Flemish government that the division of the electoral district of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde would already be accomplished by the electoral reform of 2002. This reform still allows French-speaking parties to file lists of candidates in Flemish territory.

Another aspect appeared in the federal elections of 18 May 2003. I want to talk about the problem of the votes of Belgians residing abroad.

The Vlaams Blok is, in principle, not opposed to the participation of Belgians who reside abroad, and who still have certain links with Belgium, in federal and even regional elections, provided that this is subject to good organization in practice and the establishment of objective criteria such as the place of last residence.

Finally, the Ecolo group considers that changing electoral rules less than 5 months before the elections is antidemocratic. Nevertheless, it highlights a positive point in the projects: the restoration of replacement members, which allows political parties that carry ideas to better organize themselves.

Ecolo does not support the other aspects of the reform under review. Indeed, the latter would be mainly dictated by the desire of majority parties to remove Groen from regional parliaments, which is serious in terms of democracy if one considers that this strategy only serves to strengthen, they say, the Vlaams Blok.

Finally, in addition to the electoral threshold, there is another block that penalizes small parties, namely the condition of quorum which, at the regional level, amounts to 66% of the electoral divisor and, at the federal level, amounts to only 33%.

This is in terms of the synthesized interventions of the various political groups that expressed themselves in the general discussion.

Let me summarize the Minister’s response. The minister says that the argument that it is too late, just before the elections, to make radical changes must be invoked precisely to quickly close the current debate.

Regarding the rules provided for substitutes, the Minister acknowledges that there are for and against in the proposed regime. However, what is fundamental is that the government considers that the elections to the Flemish Parliament and the European Parliament should be organized in compliance with the same fundamental rules as the elections to the Federal Parliament. The Minister clarifies that this is only a first phase; further adjustments are needed and will follow.

The objections made by the Arbitration Court with respect to the electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvorde are relevant, but the Court has granted until the next 2007 federal elections the government to make the necessary adjustments.

Regarding the double candidacy, the State Council did not make any substantive observations.

Finally, the minister said, the existence of a electoral threshold is a principle that one adopts or not. The fixed percentage cannot fluctuate depending on the size of the electoral district. The electoral threshold shall not infringe the principle of proportionality.

I would like to come to the discussion of the articles and the votes. First, as regards the draft special law concerning various amendments to electoral legislation, the N-VA submitted an amendment to extend the constitutive autonomy of the federated entities to all aspects related to the election, composition and functioning of their respective councils.

The CD&V has submitted an amendment aimed at aligning the regulation fixing the number of supporters with that applicable to the federal and European elections.

Ecolo, the cdH and the N-VA submitted each of the amendments aimed at avoiding the removal of the appearance.

Ecolo, CD&V and N-VA submitted an amendment to remove the introduction of an electoral threshold.

The CD&V has submitted an amendment providing that essential elements of the elections to the Flemish Parliament and the Walloon Parliament cannot be changed less than twelve months before the elections.

Finally, the N-VA submitted an amendment aiming to keep the eligibility age at 21 years.

All the amendments were rejected. The bill was adopted by 11 votes against 2 and 3 abstentions.

Regarding the following bill, Ecolo submitted an amendment aimed at removing the introduction of an electoral threshold for the elections to the Council of the German-speaking Community.

The N-VA and the Vlaams Blok each submitted an amendment aimed at splitting the electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvorde. The Vlaams Blok submitted an amendment to establish a Dutch electoral district and a French electoral district.

All amendments were rejected, with the exception of a technical amendment filed by the majority parties. The bill was adopted by 10 votes against 5 and 2 abstentions. As regards the draft special law amending various special laws, the draft is adopted by 13 votes and 3 abstentions.

The last bill amending the law of 22 March 2002 was adopted by 11 votes and 5 abstentions.

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.

I would like to continue briefly by clarifying the position of the Socialist Group with regard to the projects submitted to us.

Dear colleagues, since the beginning, that is, since 1999, the Socialist Party has always been favorable and attentive to the work of the Commission for Political Renewal whose task, sometimes arduous, was to revitalize our electoral system.

At the end of this work, a first reform was carried out for the legislative elections of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the election of the European Parliament. With these reforms, the government and the majority parties pursued a double objective: to ⁇ greater transparency in the decision-making process, on the one hand, and to ⁇ a certain rapprochement between the citizen and the politicians, on the other.

This desire to adapt the institutions to the federal structure of the state benefited from a favorable current in which voters are increasingly demanding clarity and commitment from their representatives. Thus, in the interest of logic and harmonization, a similar reform was necessary for our regional and community institutions.

It is obvious that the PS is in favor of the provisions aimed at the reintroduction of a system of substitute candidates. Indeed, it allows to expand the choice of the voter during the vote, as well as the choice of political parties at the time of the formation of the lists. It is, in our opinion, the guarantor of a better representation of young people and candidates from rural districts, and ensures a democratic representation of the greatest number.

This measure also meets our desire for a more just balance between the star and militantism, which we still believe in. It is essentially the ideas and programs of the parties that must prevail over the popularity of one or the other candidate. Our activists do not give their voices to “superstars”, but support values they adhere to and believe in.

Furthermore, this system avoids the risk of extraordinary elections that would be made necessary by the fact that a vacancy for a term of office could not be filled due to the absence of substitutes.

Moreover, and contrary to popular ideas, the introduction of an electoral threshold is not antidemocratic. In fact, nothing prevents a party, even if it does not reach this threshold, from presenting itself in elections, from spreading its program and from bringing voters together around its values in order to cross this electoral threshold. I remain convinced that the influence of a political party does not depend on the electoral system in which it develops. Moreover, this measure helps to avoid too much fragmentation within our assemblies and a fragmentation of the political landscape.

As for the eligibility age, this reduction to 18 years is perfectly in line with the right line of our party, which has always been a fierce advocate of a perfect match between the right to vote and eligibility.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the Socialist Group will support these bills and use them to recall its main demands in electoral matters, namely the right to vote for all in the 2006 municipal elections.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that you give me the word immediately. I assume you are doing this because you have not yet received the letter from Mr. De Coene. According to Mr De Coene, the opposition should be measured twice the speaking time of the majority. Zero twice two is still zero. In principle, we have no right to speech time. Mr. Speaker, in spite of this new outlook, I am very grateful to you for giving me the opportunity, as, in my opinion, a parliament should, to clarify a few positions on the present bill.

I will repeat as little as possible. The most fundamental criticism I really have, especially with regard to timing, relates to the impeccability of changing the electoral law less than five months before the elections. By the moment that the Senate will have spoken and the texts will be published in the Belgian Official Gazette, we will have just reached the deadline, the start of the campaign. The rules of the game are changed just before the match begins.

This is a form of improper administration. I know your argument on this. You may have agreed that history should not repeat itself and that the Court of Arbitration should under no circumstances be given the opportunity to review and possibly destroy this amendment or parts of the reformed electoral law. The texts should not appear too quickly in the Belgian Staatsblad. You have some experience in this regard. The previous government and your Predecessor on Internal Affairs have counted so long with the publication of the amendment to the law also approved in a hurry until the moment when the Arbitration Court no longer had the possibility to exercise its right of destruction. You have clearly drawn conclusions from this. You ensure that your law is passed at a time when the Arbitration Court can no longer play its role. I would add that the risk in this matter is as real as the last time. Without any reservation, the same arguments and legal grounds may be cited that were invoked in the past when dealing with the amendment of the electoral law in anticipation of the latest parliamentary elections at the federal level.

Mr. Minister, colleagues of the majority, you know that the Council of Europe has made it clear that changes to electoral legislation are not tolerable after the year preceding the elections has entered.

I know that the so-called code that applies in this context is primarily intended for Eastern bloc countries to whom it is necessary to clarify what democratic rules they should be subject to if they want to become members of the European institutions. It is hard to conclude that, despite our country’s participation in the cradle of the Council of Europe and a large part of our European institutions, we now find that the requirements we impose on the new Member States do not apply to ourselves. This is, in my opinion, a ⁇ embarrassing finding, especially in a country whose some leaders believe they are eligible for European positions, in other words: have European ambitions.

Not only Dehaene, Mr. Minister! If you speak... I know why people have a mouth and two ears. So I try to use them too. It may be a useful tool, even in the opposition.

Mr. Minister, I think we should agree that one can at least expect a country that fosters European ambitions, or whose leaders foster European ambitions, to respect the rules of the game it imposes on new member states.

The opposition is not alone with its criticism. I referred to Professor Wilfried Dewachter in the committee who is an expert in this matter. No one will question that. He made a series of remarks on the occasion of his farewell college. I will not repeat those comments here, but refer to a recent interview with him in Knack, in which he says, I quote, "To strengthen the partition, the current government does not even hesitate to manipulate the elections." End of quote. A clearer condemnation of your majority is actually unthinkable. The same reasoning can be found in Professor Crombez who, in a recent opinion contribution fourteen days ago in The Standard, comes to the conclusion, I quote: "Whether the motives are substantial or opportunistic, the existence of doubt undermines the credibility of the political institution and therefore the democracy itself." End of quote. So you do, Mr. Minister, with your majority. Who gets richer and better by sleeping, I think, is clear in the meantime.

I discussed in the committee the federal electoral contest reform, for the sake of analogy. I will do so here too, because these reforms – which the minister himself, by the way, claims – are in the extension of what was then adjusted in view of the federal elections. I think that in the meantime for everyone is clear that in these things it is not at all about giving the voter more influence. The intention is only the electoral self-service and the re-calculation of the political landscape, like the purple headpieces that have in mind.

We do not say that alone. No one less than Elio Di Rupo, who for some is a good acquaintance, made the same comment. Mr. Di Rupo is, let us confess, at that point, in my opinion, the interpreter of a large part of the members of Parliament, including of the majority, who, when you encounter them in the walkways, their doubts or even their disgust over those designs do not lay under their chairs or banks. However, they do not speak when it should be spoken. If that is indeed the new concept that some dream of for the functioning of our democracy, then I should congratulate them. It is nice that Parliament is the place where the voice of the people can be heard through the member of Parliament, but then they must have the courage to speak. We did not see this in the committee. No member of the majority has spoken on this subject. No matter how you turn it or turn it, after making the plea to revitalize democracy through all sorts of means, I find it suspicious.

I will call man and horse. After I spoke in the committee, we had to hear from Mr. De Coene that it is not appropriate to hold such a long presentation on that matter. You are my witness. Every bird sings as it is baked, but I have been talking about the modification of the electoral legislation, without interruption. A member of the majority thought that we should be silent. Well, first of all, someone must have the courage to look at the texts and eventually formulate criticism. Second, it is even less appropriate that some give lessons to others, apparently with the intention of avoiding criticism. That is too much.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you shake “no.” I would have preferred to see it differently, but that is not the case.

We talked about this issue at the Conference of Presidents this afternoon.

If I were in the place of the young colleagues, I would feel personally hurt by the tone in which older, so-called very experienced MPs, talk about “there is the phenomenon again”. At each new legislature there are a number of “young guests” as they are described, who think they know how to organize the work. I know at least one such colleague. He is just entering. He is Philippe De Coene. I talked about it with him when he came to tell me what his problems are.

I would like to ask the older, more experienced colleagues that they also want to make an effort, listen to those young colleagues and have the flexibility to evaluate, even with some sense of criticism, the way in which this House is working. You are free to choose how to do it. I do not want to take that from you.

If there are colleagues who think that a discussion that lasts twelve hours — there have been only three colleagues speaking — is the way to organize a debate in this Parliament and that this is positive for the image that we hang on the political class, that this hangs a positive picture of the functioning of our Parliament in the outside world, then these colleagues are mistaken in my opinion, no matter how experienced they may be. Thus, neither the young colleagues nor I have said that we do not want to be debated. Colleague, I have heard a piece of your presentation on this subject in the committee and I do not aim at you. However, there have been colleagues who read newspaper articles, who come with points drawn with the hair to the topic we are discussing. If you really think that you are doing a service to politics and the Parliament, then I stand on the side of the young colleagues. We are willing to debate anything and anything if we are in the majority and you are in the opposition. If we feel that one comes there for hours to debit a lot of things that actually have little or nothing to do with the debate, sorry, then you have a silent majority for you. You may be reassured about that.

Mrs D'Hondt, as a young colleague, you have the word.

I think my colleague was first.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Mr. Van der Maelen that we would like to give our opinion on such an important issue as the whole reform of the electoral system, on which the largest opposition party has not been consulted in advance. That is all I want to say about it. I think it is fundamental that we can do this in a long and extensive way if we have never been given the opportunity before. I find it scandalous what Mr. Van der Maelen is doing here now.

Mr. Van der Maelen, it must be of heart to me that I am beginning to have more and more difficulties with the manner of work that would be imposed on Parliament by certain people. I explain myself more closely. Now it is about designs that would be filibustered. If there are too many questions or interpellations on the agenda in the committee, then there will be a rise of suckers from here to Paris. One then asks what we are doing and says that this is occupational therapy. Mr. Van der Maelen, that’s happening and if you say it’s not true, I want to have a quiet talk about it.

Have you heard me say that now?

and no. I just want to say that, when you talk about the functioning of the Parliament, you have to talk about everything.

I didn’t talk about the fact that you regularly ask questions to the point to the minister. I’m talking about debates that take hours and hours without bringing new elements into the debate.

Mr. Van der Maelen, it’s not about me. I just want to say that what I can witness is that committee meetings start with the question, “How long will it last here?” That is what happens. It’s not about seven-hour meetings, it’s about how long it will last.

Mrs. D’Hondt, have you heard me say that?

Mr. Van der Maelen, no, old rotten or young rackers, it is no matter how they are called, I just want to tell you that it is about the seriousness of parliamentary work and here one begins to suck as soon as it becomes five o’clock. That is true.

I am not going to discuss the Rules of Procedure here.

Mr. Speaker, it is the current majority that has learned the tactics of lengthening. I refer to the 2,500 amendments of colleague Daems, which were subsequently made notebooks so that the members of the Chamber could take a number of notes. Mr. Van der Maelen, I checked it for a while because Mr. De Coene thinks he should let a European wind blow here. I refer to the discussions in 1976 following the mergers of municipalities with which your party colleagues have been engaged in Parliament for months. I refer to the Heizeldrama in 1985 in which the mayor of the former Leuven, now Tobbacktown, occupied the Parliament for months. I refer you to your own committee on political renewal — I don’t know if you have already pushed it out — which has been unspoken for weeks and months and which has stirred discussions for a long time.

Mr. Van der Maelen, the difference is that through the speeches of Mr. Tant and other colleagues, we have managed to make poor legislative work, on which the Council of State was devastating, even a little more blatant. Mr. Van der Maelen, it may be that you want to transfer certain habits of the sp.a-spirit party office in this Parliament, but I tell you that you do not have any control over the Rules of the Chamber. Their

Mr. Van der Maelen — I also say it to you, Mr. Speaker — you must not rely on us to somehow change the work and the Rules of Procedure of this Chamber. This Regulation is written on the body of the majority. Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of the tax amnesty, you gave a very bad example, because you interpreted the Rules of Procedure in favor of the majority. If you do, then we will do everything we can to bring all the arguments here in this Parliament from needle to thread and to bone and, Mr. Van der Maelen, you and your group will not stand in our way.

This is not a discussion of the Rules of Procedure. I want you to respond. The debate is now about the draft legislation. I assume you want to react, which is normal, but after all, the Rules are guaranteed by the man who sits here on this chair.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I understand that around such a delicate point intention processes are made in the shortest time. I understand that. Moreover, I can understand that the opposition considers that as some way of making the opposition mouth-dead. I can only answer it in the hope that you want to accept the true intention.

Mr. De Crem, colleagues, the true intention is that our assembly very recently — and the Senate a little longer ago — has undergone a number of things of which I am humbly convinced that it is neither in the service of the profession of politician, nor of the institution, nor of politics as a business.

The [...]

Can I speak for a moment?

No new debate about regulations, please!

Can I speak for a moment? Therefore, I was looking for some people with whom we could do something. That 'something' will happen very carefully, because we at least know our own limits and we accept that we may have a little too little parliamentary experience to throw regulations, which have undoubtedly survived the tooth of time and have come into being after very expert knotwork, just overboard, be sure of that. Therefore, before we begin to do our homework, we have taken a look at what is happening in other assemblies of similar parliamentary democracies. We have found that, as long as it is no longer about the essence of the debate — about the theme itself — that there are always smooth democratic possibilities to separate the non-questions from the issues. That’s where it begins, Mr. De Crem, and that’s where it ends.

Mr. De Coene, this is not about the current debate. You give me a good hint.

Mr. De Crem — Mr. President, if I can wait a moment? I am happy to be able to hear the timbre of my voice today. I say one thing; I will never let myself, even when it comes to things that do not suit me, be seduced to personal attacks. Moreover, yesterday I did not agree with the way an opposition party was conducting the debate on party financing in the Committee on Home Affairs, but I did have the respect to be present until the last moment and more specifically...

Yes, it will be, I was one of those members who listened all the time. I can tell you that I have a particular respect for people who provide useful work in committees, as I tried to do at the time in the European Parliament, although I absolutely have no nostalgia for timings of European parliaments who know their own legalities. It would be good if we would focus on the essential political work, including, Mrs D'Hondt, the work of the opposition, which should be given all opportunities to set the flames on the majority and to control the executive power. But we must distinguish between the noble parliamentary work, on the one hand, and the number of shows we have experienced here, on the other hand, in which newspaper articles or ⁇ other pieces are read which have nothing to do with the essence of our work and which, in addition, does not blame us, literally and figuratively very much cost.

Mr Bex, a short word...No, what Mr De Coene has said has nothing to do with the current debate. Mr. Bex has the word and then Mr. Tant. We will not engage in the debate. No, Mr. De Crem, you had three speakers. Now the speech is ready for Mr. Bex and now we are essentially going to the draft laws. You have your life... The Bible says, “He who has never sinned, let him throw the first stone.” You can say something biblical later.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I can reassure Mr. De Crem that we do not have sp.a-spirit party agencies, because we are two independent parties. Nevertheless, I can ⁇ agree with what Mr. De Coene has said here and I would like to point out the importance of a serene debate on the procedure. It is not our intention with this initiative to impose oekazes on Parliament as young guests — both from sp.a, spirit, VLD, CD&V and the French-speaking parties. We realize that it is not our place to do that and we would rather want to conduct the discussion together with some old rotten, if I can call you so, Mr. Tant. We want to see together how we can improve some things here. I don’t think it’s because good work is done here that we should be so proud to think that nothing can be improved in our work. Let us have a serene debate today.

Mr. De Crem, I hope that the young dogs in your group will also have the opportunity to continue to fully engage in this discussion. The ladies Lanjri and Van der Auwera fully support that debate and I hope that you will not impose on them oekazes to continue that debate together.

Let us not engage in the debate. We are now working on the draft laws and one of the duties of the President is to ensure that the debate is about what is on the agenda.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have been constantly encouraged to give a brief response on some issues. To Mr. Bex I would like to say that he is very lucky that I am of the male sex. If I were a woman, I would be fundamentally frustrated by the words he says about me. To be called old, especially with my appearance, Mr. Bex! I don’t want to suffer it anymore, but now I’m going to suffer it with a smile.

Second, Mr. De Coene and Mr. Bex, I hope that you will also use this debate to say that there is always a discussion alongside the issue. I talked about the progress of the discussion in the committee. I have made a brief comment on this and I have the impression that some people want to rehabilitate. Well, do that ! Keep the debate, but let me also make my contribution. I am fully prepared and I would like to ask Mr Van der Maelen to listen to the young colleagues. Mr. Van der Maelen, I am impatient, but I have not heard them, that is the problem. I invite them to be heard from now on. Mr. De Coene, you shake your head incomprehensively? I was not able to attend the meeting of the committee.

Mr. Tant was a member of a delegation to the Congo and was validly apologized.

Mr. Speaker, I can imagine that you felt my absence.

My colleagues, I would like to add the following. I never intended to kill someone, and I hope we don’t do that to each other. I think everyone should do their utmost to talk about the topics that are being discussed.

If one can no longer develop his full argumentation in a committee, then it can no longer go anywhere.

The very last thing I have to say. I see from the responses that one agrees that the debate is an essential part. Let us then carry it. You will understand that, to the extent that there is a real dialogue in the committee, it becomes less monotonous to always have to listen to the same speaker. That is so. That is the power of the debate, Mr. De Coene. I had just thrown a hook and immediately caught a lot of fish. This alone shows how useful it is to organize the debate. You must allow me from time to time to share my personal opinions.

I come to my last consideration.

The [...]

I have to put the thread up again, Mr. Minister. I will not repeat myself at that point, no matter how valuable the initial presentation was.

A comedy has been performed in very many companies both for the federal election contest reform and for this reform. This should allow the public and therefore the voter to be misled with a number of false arguments. I have read and heard that the opposition, according to the minister, does not have to worry too much about the delay of the electoral law amendment. According to him, it would be nothing more than the transposition of old rules of the game that were already applicable at the previous federal elections of 18 May 2003.

If it was so simple that it was just the conversion of some achievements into other electoral laws, then I don’t know why it took so long before you came up with those texts. In October 2003, you said, I quote you as literally as possible, “that the government would not submit draft amendments to the electoral law.” In September 2003, you expressly stated that there must be an agreement on the electoral climate reform by September at the latest and that otherwise everything should be postponed to a later date.

Why did it take so long? Could you explain this, Mr. Minister? If it was so easy to translate one electoral law into another, why did it take so long? The answer – hopefully – everyone knows. The answer is purely political. The majority parties should be given the opportunity to weaken their opponents. The use of this debate is therefore essentially the electoral threshold and the provincial electoral circles.

With the electoral threshold, the majority wanted to hit the Greens and with the provincial electoral circles, they wanted to hit CD&V. It’s sporty to admit that, but I don’t know if you really understand what this is about. After all, you falsify the rules of the game at the time the match should start. Mr. Tommelein, if that is your high ideals, congratulations. After Mr. Tommelein’s concession, it really doesn’t have to, but from various reactions and public statements of personalities of both red and blue, one can very accurately deduce that it was purely and only to put the whole reform into its own hands.

When sp.a. chairman Stevaert in mid-August 2003 pleaded for provincial electoral circles and a separate list of successors for the Flemish Parliament he received a response from chairman De Gucht. De Gucht said that he was not reluctant to such a reform, but that for him everything depended on the compromise that could be made in it. In other words, Mr. De Gucht had to first look at what benefits were associated with him. Therefore, it was not about improving our institution. It was very simple to organize your own electoral gain.

There are other examples, but I have already formulated them in the committee. So I leave it there. However, one thing needs to be removed from my heart about the additional fact that happened last week. You remember the marchandise with the N-VA which was promised public funding on the condition that it submitted a special decree in the Flemish Parliament on the provincial electoral circles, which the N-VA also promptly did, although in 2002 they voted against the provincial electoral circles. It is also useful to know. Logic can be sought far away. On the federal level, one opposes the introduction of an electoral threshold and in particular against the provincial electoral districts to take the initiative in the Flemish Parliament after the elections to introduce the Flemish electoral circles.

On Friday, the committee had to meet quickly. In the meantime, the vote of the decree had taken place in the Flemish Parliament. You, ladies and gentlemen of the majority, who say that the debate counts and the seriousness with which it is carried out, do not even hesitate to urgently, on an unusual day and hour, summon a commission because the debts had to be paid, because the promises made to the N-VA, the part of the cake of the N-VA, had to be redeemed.

This could not better illustrate the cow trade between N-VA and purple. I am referring to Mr. Bourgeois. I assume it is not easy for him to be present everywhere, but he will have the chance to be informed of this in another way. Mr. Bourgeois has always boasted that his party is unbounded. Well, in this file, he has chained himself to purple, to parties that during the previous legislature have continuously subordinated the Flemish interests to the interests of the French-speaking parties. And Poppy will do it again. The question arises where the respect of Mr. Bourgeois has remained.

Colleagues, I would like to make a bold reasoning under the N-VA. If the upcoming Flemish elections were to continue under the same legal conditions as the previous time, with district districts and association, the N-VA would obtain two seats based on the outcome of 18 May 2003. If the elections continue with provincial electoral districts and with a 5% electoral threshold, the N-VA will obtain one seat. I don’t know if it penetrates you. That is to say that N-VA has chosen the financial means and has not chosen the best electoral starting position, but immediately — the timing speaks for itself — has chosen eggs for his money. I find this unfortunate, for of course this does not serve the credibility of Mr. Bourgeois, nor of the majority.

There was also the marchandise with the preliminary draft on the distribution of seats for the European elections. That was and is the means to force CDH to kneel and thus obtain the required majority. When I discussed this in the committee, the minister in all his voices denied that this draft was the pass currency for cdH. It was therefore especially painful for him to hear our courageous colleague Arens of CDH declare that there were indeed silent agreements and that the adjustment of this design was the price for it. The question is, therefore, what the word of a minister is still worth when he himself says verbally that there is no agreement, while the other party is so honest that he is riding to admit. From this one must draw the conclusions that one must draw.

This does not end the story. I myself was not present in the committee because I was staying abroad, when the final point was voted on the European seat distribution.

Mr. Minister, on this point, I am a rot in the field. I prefer not to use the word “old”.

by Patrick Dewael: (...)

I have already heard about this, Mr. Minister.

This draft was the first on the committee’s agenda and normally it had to be voted first. However, the draft was approved as a final point. Why did this have to happen in this way? The CdH had to first approve the other points and present the required majority before they were satisfied with what was held to be their root before their nose. Furthermore, and without reopening this discussion, I add that it was not a real but a virtual root. You have written this text only to force or at least encourage cdH to make any concessions. This is a shameful display, also for the CDH, which may have found a renewed belief in the VAT reduction for school building. These were the silver coins that were held in their nose at the time when they provided the required majority for the Lambermont agreements. I regret that they did not draw the necessary conclusions earlier. Everyone will gradually agree with me that this is not a decent story.

Patrick Dewael: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene on this point because this point in the global replica would not come to its right.

The amendment proposed by the Chairman of the Commission in the order of the various drafts is solely the result of the statements of the MEPs who acted on the electoral threshold and the successors rather than on the European elections which were scheduled as the first point. The President decided that these arguments before the report should be grouped together. Since the committee de facto reversed the order of discussion, the Chairman proposed to vote in the same order. That and nothing but that is the reason for the change in order.

On this point, I speak verbally against you. You were present in the committee when I called for a general debate, as is currently organised by the Chairman. There is no desire to get involved in this. The colleagues who were present in the committee will not contradict this.

You now declare that the will to conduct a debate on the whole before the Chairman was the argument to determine the order of the votes. We cannot look into his heart. The question is what we would all see! However, it is clear that your explanation was not the president’s perspective, but that he was your faithful soldier. He had to make sure that one was not rewarded earlier than the moment when one had fulfilled the agreement.

Patrick Dewael: Mr. President, Mr. Tant was not present. He was apologized for his foreign mission. Mr. Tant talks about work in a committee he has not attended.

The amendment in the order of voting was proposed by the Chairman and was unanimously accepted by the members of the committee. If the president had bad intentions, I can imagine that the opposition, ⁇ CD&V, would have protested. Quod not.

The CD&V opposition has understood this very well. Tell me, however, what would have been the reason for us to ask something else. It is not about me. I mean that you had created a scenario, in which agreements were concluded on the basis of marchandise. In addition, you trust your partner to the extent that you first unwaveringly force him to execute the agreement, to then get what was agreed.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the drafts are not only important because of what is in them. They are also important to what is not capable. They aim to harmonise the federal electoral legislation as much as possible. However, if we look at the designs thoroughly, the question is what one harmonizes. First and foremost, the Minister will refer to the reintroduction of the separate list of successors and the fact that this list was also introduced before the federal elections. That is true, Mr. Minister, but you must not forget to mention that the same government first abolished the list of successors and then, a year later, will reintroduce it on the same grounds.

Second, Mr. Minister, if I could speak on your behalf, I would add that the modalities for the separate list of successors for the district streets are different for the Chamber, Senate and European Parliament. You say that you want the harmonisation of the legislation with regard to the successors. Look at the number of successors. There is a difference depending on the election in question. What is the reason for its existence?

Third, Mr. Minister, you might say that harmonisation also requires the cancellation of the association and the introduction of the voting threshold. Colleagues, for the Wall Street, it is already clear that the election in this regard is organized in district electoral circles. What is the logic of this? You use the argument that, for the sake of the unambiguity of the scheme, we must ensure that the curse-time apparentation disappears. You, however, let them exist — there is nothing left in the text — for Wallonia, for the election of the Wallonian Council. Can you explain that?

Mr. Tante, your presentation is interesting. On the other hand, I have heard colleagues from your party in the Flemish Parliament — rightly — declare that they did not want to be arranged in the federal Parliament that could be decided at the Flemish level.

Therefore, I think that it is effective for the sake of constitutional autonomy that each region itself decides how the elections for their regional streets will be organized. I have no trouble with this. In Flanders, we have chosen to set up a similar system. I am a supporter of it. Let it happen as well. I think it is a good arrangement.

Colleague, the Government uses in the motivation of its bill for that point the idea of harmonisation and equalization. That is an argument that in this matter does not cut wood, because the arrangement will be different depending on the Wall Street, the federal level or the Flemish level. So stop using harmony as an argument. That is all I want to say, regardless of the autonomy that can exist in this matter.

Don’t talk about harmonization, as the minister has done. This was one of his arguments to defend the text.

Mr. Minister, I should be a bit technical now, but I will not do that and limit myself to the global conclusion. In fact, there has been a lot to do, including in the media, about the apparenting and the combination thereof with electoral thresholds. Colleagues, the discussion about whether or not the required voting quorum of 66% to participate in the affiliation at the provincial level, combined with the provincial voting threshold, is as meaningless as it is large. We talked about this in the committee. In fact, the electoral quorum is higher than 5%. Therefore, it makes no sense to have a debate on this.

That party-political calculations are the basis of that electoral legislation is also shown by the fact that violin does not want to hit the double candidacy. For me this is a very important element, Mr. Minister. Not only CD&V, but also constitutional experts are of the opinion that the double nomination should be abolished. Professors Van Orshoven and Veny spoke unambiguously during the hearing in the Flemish Parliament. They say, based on the decision of the Arbitration Court of 26 May, that in the double nomination for the Regions and the European Parliament, as well as for the Chamber and the Senate, the voter is misled and the candidates are treated unequally. Because everyone would understand what I’m talking about, I’ll give an example. For example, if you are a candidate for the Flemish Parliament and the European Parliament at the same time, you have a much larger budget than someone who is only on the list for the Flemish Parliament. This is the inequality that the Court of Arbitration is talking about.

Mr. Minister, the Arbitration Court is ⁇ clear in its motivation: the double candidacy can not, because the voter can never know what will happen with his vote. Through votes cast on candidate A, other candidates on the list may be elected for which the voter in question had never wanted to vote. That is why the Court of Arbitration says that this cannot be done. Ladies and gentlemen, without unnecessarily standing still, you should imagine the following. This government is facing a ruling from the highest jurisdiction in this country, the Arbitration Court, which says very clearly and in a well-motivated way that the double candidacy is not allowed.

And then there is a—purple—government that puts this joke aside, that does nothing to execute the judgment of the Court of Arbitration because one wants to re-show those same purple chapters, again want to give the opportunity to extract electoral gain from all this rule. I think that it can be correctly noted that the government simply washes the floor with the rulings of the highest jurisdiction, solely for the sake of profit and electoral advantage.

I see some colleagues react visually. I want to stop here for a moment. You realize the following. If people talk to you about problems with their retirement rights because some years that form the basis for calculating their retirement can not be sufficiently proven. It may have happened to you that you must say to these people, “I’m sorry, the law is hard, but it is the law. Dura lex sed lex.” People should be pleased with this. Not so when it comes to politics. For example, when N-VA no longer meets the conditions to be funded by the government — and that is a problem that I am susceptible to — we amend the law because it is about politicians. This is the image that reaches people. In particular, politicians make the law, but should not apply it themselves. That image brings you out. You will apply the law if it suits you. Even if there is a ruling from one of the highest judicial bodies, which says that in no case double candidates are acceptable, you say that it is about the political business and then people must understand that electoral opportunism weighs heavily.

Mr. Van der Maelen, there is no other explanation. Stop making yourself wise. The truth is that you are bringing forward the picture of a political caste that stands above everything. This is not our style, it has never been and will never be, as far as I am concerned. You fall very deeply. Believe me, I’m not saying this more theatrical than necessary. You are not able to give an adequate answer here. You leave in the electoral legislation things that cannot be taught by a right-wing Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond for a moment to Mr. Tant’s complaint that the electoral reform is supported by a number of parties with the intention of improving the starting position of those parties for the next elections.

Can I refer you to the proposal of your own party, the CD&V, which was submitted in the recently mentioned Committee for Political Renewal? The CD&V had a proposal to amend the electoral reform, which resulted that we would come to very small electoral descriptions, according to the British system "the first past to post".

This does nothing about it.

Can I finish my presentation?

Please speak to Mr. Van der Maelen.

According to the simulation we made in the Committee for Political Renewal of that system, it would have meant that, with the same result of 1999, the CD&V would go to 62 seats in the Chamber. You had an effective 24. This is the system that the CD&V proposes.

Collega Tant, I invite you to look at the simulations of the new system with the provincial electoral descriptions. You will agree with me that the shifts are minimal. If you come to read us the lesson that we change the electoral systems so that our starting position suddenly changes, then I find that you are more sick than we are in that bed.

The last proposal I have heard from the CD&V is the small electoral descriptions, tripling the number of seats for the CD&V. You should not come to read the lesson!

But that does not matter, Mr. Van der Maelen.

Mr. Tante, I give the word to Mr. De Crem and I ask you to finish your presentation afterwards because you have already exceeded the thirty-minute speaking time.

Mr. Van der Maelen has enormous psychological problems with his seriously behaved mental child, the Committee for Political Renewal.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you manipulate, in the best tradition, the numbers thereof. You give the figures of the experts. Well, those experts who were invited by you were ⁇ disappointed because nothing happened with their work. They had calculated all the scenarios of all parties regarding a reform. Our proposal was a balance between the majority system and the proportional system, namely 50 seats in the proportional system and 100 seats in the majority system. If there were 100 seats in the majority system, they came in 100 districts. It was “proportional to the French” and not “the first past to post”. The numbers you give are not correct at all.

Mr. Van der Maelen, when you come up with numbers — I know that it is sometimes a little difficult for socialists to give the correct numbers — then the people and the Parliament have the right to a correct interpretation of them.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you will receive another word of replication, but then Mr. Tant will finish his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I refer colleague De Crem to the simulation, created by Professor Pascal Delwit, a very renowned political scientist of the ULB. He made a simulation based on the proposal submitted by the CD&V. I challenge you to refute the numbers I give.

Mr. De Crem, I have to let Mr. Tante decide.

Mr. President, I challenge Mr. Van der Maelen.

Well, challenge yourself and read the reports.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I challenge you to go now by rail to your office or to the archive of the Chamber to find one CD&V proposal with which we want to reform the electoral system into a purely majority system, based on the narrow system. That is absolute nonsense.

The only thing that happened was the submission of a proposal together with the VLD. The VLD was the real advocate of this. Remember the Burger Manifesto Part II, under the title "The electoral description closest to the voter" The VLD made that proposal. You entered into our proposal after you no longer knew which wood to make arrows and then it was decided to make a simulation based on the results of 1995 according to a new drawing. That has happened.

Mr. Tante will now end. We are already over half an hour. You know the rules from your head. Now you really have to decide.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot be blamed for this, but Mr. Van der Maelen is giving rise to a debate that is not at all relevant. Why not ? Colleagues, you just said that proposals were submitted in the Political Renewal Committee. There were – if I am not deceiving myself – all parties in it. The intention was to exchange ideas and see to what extent a compromise could be reached. Will we agree? Yes is ?

If you wish, I will give you the presence of the various members, including the delegates of what was then called CVP in that committee. There was a possibility for a conversation and there the CVP systematically helped to block the functioning of that committee. I can give you the data.

No, Mr. De Crem, that is another debate. Mr. Tante has to decide now. There are three or four debates at the same time. Du passé, faisons table race.

I understand that Mr. Van der Maelen does not feel easy in this, but there is an essential difference with the discussion in the Committee on Political Renewal — I repeat it, there were all political parties present — where it was intended to exchange ideas with each other. Here we are confronted with a text, based solely on the majority, which one wants to impose on the opposition, which has not been consulted against all the plots of many decades. That is the essential difference. Secondly, an essential difference is the fact that it concerns whether or not to apply a judgment of the Supreme Court. That puts you deadly by your side. It could break you acid. I tell you why.

The Court of Arbitration has made its decision. I would like to ask the colleagues of the majority to listen again very carefully. The Court of Arbitration has ruled, but this is not the end. We are soon ahead of elections and in their preparation, if one does not agree with certain candidates, the case can eventually be submitted for decision to the Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation to decide as the last instance. You can try whatever you want, but you must keep in mind that the ratio discendi — as it is so beautifully expressed — of the Court of Arbitration does not end there. Here is correctly written. Here, therefore, a legal basis has been developed that allows in advance of the elections, when disputes arise over candidates, an appeal can be made to the Court of Appeal. Then we will see. Do not say that I did not warn you.

The [...]

I can hardly stand up, Mr. Annemans. I only know that one in my party is willing not to suffer this without necessity. That is clear. In addition, I have to say...

Mr. Tante, you have to finish. You have so much to say, but you have to finish.

Dear colleagues, this is also worth it.

And to be heard. I have raised the same problem in the committee. Then the minister said, “Mr. Tante, don’t make any trouble about this. The State Council has spoken about our texts and has not commented on them.”

Now you have to imagine: this does not appear in the text of the designs. How could the State Council give an opinion on this? Furthermore, Mr. Minister, you gave the State Council hardly five days of time to quickly reach an opinion.

I would like to draw your attention to two other things. I also promised you a reference to the book that was recently quoted. I have to do that, which is useful to you.

Mr. Tante, you will still remain in the Chamber and you will still hold speeches. So try to keep the time.

Mr. Speaker, I must take this opportunity to remind for a moment what Prime Minister Verhofstadt said at the beginning of his first term. He has said that the results and the failure or failure of his policy can be derived from the reduction of the Flemish Bloc. That is a flagrant failure, at least with regard to the previous elections. In addition, we meanwhile note that the Flemish Bloc is taken under the arm by the current majority to approve the provincial electoral circles in the Flemish Parliament. It can be said that we also delivered procedural steps, where we, together with the Flemish Bloc, proved to be on the same side.

However, this will be the first time a law, more specifically a decree, has been made, not only with the support of the Flemish Bloc, but also against the will of another part of the democratic majority. In this sense, history is actually written here. I don’t know if you realize that. Here is the law, and even the special law, made with the support of the Flemish Bloc and against the will of a democratic party. It must be once the first time, but it is useful to know that.

You do not doubt that in this way you are also proving the Flemish Bloc an especially good service in electoral terms? I suppose you know that the power of the Block is not so much in the candidates — I will not say more about it — who put it on the lists, or in its message and its black-and-white positions, which are often based on programmed intolerance.

Mr. Tante, I ask you to explicitly end now.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude.

You were interrupted, I will deduct that injury time, but now is the time.

I have another obligation to you. As far as you are concerned, I would like to say quickly that the cock will soon crawl for the third time. This time it will not be for Peter, but for Herman De Croo. I mean by this that you said a week before the vote on the amendment of the electoral law for the federal elections that that double candidacy could not actually be. After all, this would have the effect that there would be so many successors in your Chamber — "my" Chamber, you expressed yourself — that it would become a Parliament of slaves. Two days later you approved this text correctly. Then the cock crawled for the first time.

After the elections of 18 May, the same President complained about the fact that his Chamber had been transformed into a replacement parliament by the 37 successors who sit in it. He found it not a good thing that the Arbitration Court had not eliminated the double nomination. A few weeks later, however, he announced that on 13 June 2004 he would attempt to strengthen the list for both the Flemish Parliament and the European Parliament. The chicken crawled for the second time.

I have no doubt that the Chairman of the Chamber will approve these drafts. I also have no doubt that Herman De Croo will declare after 13 June in one of his many interviews that the double candidacy for the European and Flemish Parliament was in fact not clean. The chicken will crawl for the third time. But then the votes are counted and that is enough for someone for whom opportunism is the greatest quality. Congratulations and thanks.

Thank you Mr. Tante. I must tell you that the one for whom the cock crashed three times has become the first leader of the Catholic Church. It was the Apostle Peter.

Mr. President, you have the word. I thought Mrs. Galant was her turn, but I see that she is not there yet. Madame Galant poses a question in commission. So I will give you the word. This is the normal course of the case.

Mr. Speaker, in advance, I would like to cut another point in the ordemotie. I spoke to you at the beginning of the session about a problem that is present in this House. You know that the social debate about the headscarves and the hijabs is furious. It also reaches to your House, Mr. President. This morning, one of our colleagues, Ms. Nahima Lanjri, in the committee for domestic affairs, wrapped himself in the head cloth. You don’t have to believe me, you can check out the images of VTM.

My question is whether this is possible in this Parliament. I remember that in the previous legislature you removed Vincent Decroly of Ecolo manu militari from this House, because he noted that he had a note bene. If a cap can’t, then a fortiori a head cloth can’t get in your eyes? If you allow this, Mr. President, then the fence of the dam. I therefore ask you to express your opinion on this matter ahead of this meeting.

I will consult Mr. Giet, who is not here, at the appropriate time. I contacted the secretariat of the committee. I have asked Mrs. Lanjri here, and I will question Mr. Giet, who, unfortunately, could not be present this afternoon, on this matter tomorrow morning. If necessary, I will submit this to the Committee for the Rules of Procedure in order to set a line in it if necessary. I promise you. I was told that there were no comments in the committee this morning.

Mr. Speaker, for no doubt: for us, the dressing obligation of this House is not an additional election condition. This cannot therefore.

Who are you talking about now?

It is about that the dressing habits that one adopts or does not adopt in the committee belong to the individual freedom.

However, there are restrictions.

This belongs to the individual freedoms.

It must be a correct dressing posture. That is all.

Mr. Speaker, as regards that order, if you do not want to formulate a position today, I will confront you again tomorrow at the beginning of the meeting. So I think it would be better that you now say strongly and concisely what is concerned.

It would be unwise for my part not to hear also the Chairman of the Commission, whom I will contact.

You have heard the secretary, you have heard Mrs. Lanjri, you have heard the minister. Mr. Dewael was there.

I want to know the circumstances in which this happened. Mr. De Man, it seems that you did not make any remarks when it happened, you are doing it now (...)

So what?

Mr. Speaker, I need to help you. You referred to me as an expert of the Rules. I know not only the letter of the Rules of Procedure, but also the foldings of the House. Mr. De Man, until now, it has only occurred when someone was too poorly dressed.

I will continue to do so if it would expand in the future.

I know that, but I expect to be excluded tomorrow. One could say that the mood maker of the Flemish Bloc is, that the headscarves hate the hijabs. In this Parliament clear wine must be donated. The question is whether one can participate in a debate in this Parliament clothed with a headscarf. Tomorrow at 14:15 am I hope you can answer this question. This, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable question.

Mr. Speaker, whatever you decide, my group will comply with your wisdom.

I understand the concern of spirit. It is perfectly conceivable that after fathers and priests, monastic sisters will soon also belong to this faction.

Some groups have more experience with this than others.

( ... ...

Does that have to do with the monasteries?

These are my neighbors, Mr. President.

of me too.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that we still have a few things in common.

I wish to warn you. In France, after the debate on the main cloth, the debate on the beard has also begun.

You want to worry me a little!

The incident is closed. The incident is closed.

We have a good debate behind us. The whole Kiezerreform has shaken the minds in the last few weeks, not so much of the population but of our little circle the more. However, I need to immediately apply a nuance. There was hardly any debate in Wallonia. "Côté francophone" was not much to hear. In Wallonia, people do not like to discuss such issues. In Wallonia it is done in a different way. The two major parties, the PS and the MR, buy the opposition party cdH. This is the Welsh style of "on ne cause pas, on achète". They make it short. Let me start with Bill No. 582 because in this way we immediately stand with "les pieds dans le plat".

In this innocent bill is hidden a whole history. What has happened? The majority is in this Chamber a few votes lacking to get approved its electoral reform à la carte. This is the chantage of CDH. The seat reserved for the German Commonwealth will expire — unfortunately for the CDH — and become a Wallish seat, de facto a purple seat. It may be understood that the CDH wants to save its European seat and therefore will approve the electoral threshold and the like. In the committee, Mr. Arens was heavily addressed on this subject by CD&V which, as is known, is one of the great victims of the liberals and socialists’ coweries. I have to admire the honesty of Mr. Arens. At the moment he was attacked over the party’s position in the committee, he wasn’t too upset to confirm that a deal had been made. Mr. Arens nodded openly "yes" when he was felt to the tooth by Mr. Tant about this.

That, of course, is not the main reason why the Flemish Block does not support this design. On the contrary, we grant the German Community its seat, and we grant even the honest Mr. Arens his seat, but this is something that absolutely cannot pass through the beugle.

As has been happening for decades, this time the Wallonian headpieces will campaign in the Flemish Halle-Vilvoorde. Almost every Flaming, almost every association and all Flemish parties are opposed. The Flemish Parliament is against and there is hardly anyone in Flanders who is not against it, but under Verhofstadt II the shame persists. Their

Together with my good colleague Laeremans, I have submitted a bill and a series of amendments to still divide Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, but they were – as you know – wiped off the table, also by the geographical Flamings of the VLD, of sp.a and even of those so-called Flemish-minded regionalists – we have a strong copy there – of spirit. This is not a problem for spirit. Their

Mr. Bourgeois has submitted exactly the same texts, but with them he has actually only proved his absolute superfluity, but this whole thing aside. Later, colleague Laeremans will further deepen the consequences of this shame in Halle-Vilvoorde.

I will come to the other four proposals, Mr. Minister. This is the same blind power wave. We all know how VLD and sp.a each picked up a piece of spirit last year. We all know that that party was threatened in its survival and sp.a had indeed greater hunger, literally and figuratively. We all know that VLD and sp.a each have acquired a piece. The spirit party or the little party Spirit was threatened in its survival by the electoral threshold for the federal Parliament. After the split of the People’s Union, it seemed strongly that both the N-VA and spirit would gain about half of the eight percent of the People’s Union, which is three or four percent. Thus, they looked against a death sentence below that threshold of five percent. Their

One can blame Anciaux a lot, but not that he has no survival instinct. A tear, a crying storm, a pot of poker, everything is good for Bert if he falls in the prizes. He has, as you know, sold himself to the most bidding, especially the socialists. Colleagues, there is a name for someone who acts like this in politics. I’m not going to say that here, but there’s a name for it. Bertje was therefore promised that he would become minister. The single left-wing boyfriends—they’re often highlighted in the media, but in fact they’re not so many—all got fluttering under their airborne, whether or not impressive ass.

The same scenario is happening again today, colleagues. In the Flemish Parliament there is a threshold of 5 percent. This time it is green! The N-VA will disappear from parliament. We know that clever Stevaert is eating up the vegetables, something they, by the way — very funny — owe first and foremost to themselves. After all, in their boundless arrogance, when they were allowed to sit at the table with the great gentlemen for a while, they actually voted for their own destruction about a year ago.

How pretentious one can be!

And the N-VA must also! Therefore, Mr. Bourgeois may get a few cents. I refer here to the amendments 9 and 11 to the bill-Eerderkens on party financing. Darmee receives Mr. Bourgeois party financing again, even retroactively.

The same scenario is now taking place. The N-VA must disappear, but the N-VA is still being used, colleagues, to shave the Vlaams Blok and CD&V for a while. What is going on? Last summer, the cartel talks between the N-VA and CD&V suddenly jumped off, to the surprise of many, and suddenly party financing appeared, note bene, as I said, retroactive. So Mr. Bourgeois will soon catch about six- to seven hundred thousand euros, a gift from the purple government. That he receives that money is stated — and it is also very striking — in two amendments submitted by Mr. Eerdekens, which demonstrates the complicity of Geert Bourgeois.

Moreover, last week Friday, the committee for domestic affairs held a special meeting in order to give the bourgeois his money quickly. We normally never meet on Friday and yet, this time it must have happened. I have never seen a proposal from the opposition — it was originally a bill from the bourgeois — become law so quickly. I have never seen, colleagues, that a PS’er, namely Mr. Frédéric, on a Wednesday proposes to organize a discussion and a vote on Friday, especially for the clean eyes of a Flemish nationalist, so that that brave gentleman would get his cents back.

The link — colleague Tastenhoye has just pointed to me again — continues until the bitter end. The financing of Mr. Bourgeois remains linked to the punishment of the Flemish Bloc. Both texts should be discussed together in the plenary session. Is it so, Frédéric? He strongly insists on this. So you must imagine what a shame that is for Geert Bourgeois, who, of course, continues to deny. A few weeks ago it appeared in the press. By the way, it was funny. He is like a child who, with his mouths full of choco, continues to claim that he has not touched the chocopot.

I therefore keep in mind that Mr. Bourgeois — he is not here, he may stand somewhere waiting for his cheque — is, firstly, ashamed, and, secondly, ⁇ somewhere waiting for that cheque, which he receives from purple. I don’t know where he’s going to get that, but I know it’s a check of 20 to 25 million francs. She gives him a gift to get as many votes as possible at the Flemish Blok and at CD&V. One knows very well what stands out here, and the stubborn Einzelgänger Bourgeois lends himself to this manoeuvre, because he is a stubborn man. He will therefore, on 13 June, still be able to keep a few tens of thousands of Flamings, one may fear, behind the banner of the N-VA.

Mr. Dewael, that is, of course, so many tens of thousands of votes that are completely harmless to purple. You looked at it incredibly well. They are absolutely harmless to purple and ⁇ to the sp.a, because they are always more clever than you three, De Gucht, Verhofstadt and Dewael. It will cost you a bit, especially in West Flanders. But well, the Socialists have recently distributed the sheets, and so it is normal that it goes like that. Their

Colleagues, I keep in mind that the responsibility of Mr. Bourgeois and the chance of stopping purple from the throne or not — imagine that purple could be struck from the throne in Flanders — is diminished because of the stubborn attitude of Mr. Bourgeois. Their

You all know that on May 18th, we have already handed out and, with the pleasure of our party chairman, announced that we were willing to water our wine. You also know that CD&V has reached a hand to the N-VA, but stubborn as he is, Mr. Bourgeois has taken on the role of the useful idiot. Moreover, he will get cents and we will even approve that. However, that is not the problem. He plays the role of useful idiot for purple and will ensure that the chances of purple to remain in power in the Flemish Parliament grow. Mr. Bourgeois thus sputters in the outstretched hand, first from the Flemish Bloc and then from CD&V. He thus plays the game of purple and thus deserves the prize of the most stubborn donkey of Flanders. Their

Colleagues, the result of all this will be that within one year, three small parties will disappear from the Democratic Forum. Spirit was virtually swallowed by the sp.a. They can still pretend that they mean something. and green! And the N-VA must also do so. All three were written to death. As a Democrat, this is really sad. Their

It may surprise you and make you smile, but even disable Green! is sad. Of course, in my eyes, they remain a kind of recycled communists who abused the ecological mindset. However, I continue to note that they also have the right to representation, even if it may be a small representation. Also their voters have the right to elect their representatives with some chance of success. However, this is no longer the case. Their

Colleagues, liberals and socialists always display themselves as super-democrats, but what they spoke out here actually goes straight against one of the cornerstones of our democracy, in particular proportional representation. Mr. Dewael, you are going to undermine the proportional representation. You will turn off the small thought streams as if. Their

Mr. Dewael, by the way, I would like to illustrate by the following example how the crash is going on in this country. The French-speaking parties now have more seats than the Flemish. If you calculate it relatively, then there is actually a significant difference. The most unlikely story is that a party like the Flemish Bloc with more votes — almost 770,000 votes — still has six seats less than the MR, which presents itself as a large and important state party. Imagine, Mr. Dewael, that we count six seats less even though we have more votes. It is unlikely, but it is Belgian. So that is what is happening.

So you are adding another piece. The little ones should come from between to multiple honor and glory of purple. The purple parties thus eliminate three parties in a period of one year and are now also committed to making a fourth mouth death.

Of course, you can no longer use the electoral legislation to destroy the Flemish Bloc. This is no longer possible. Prutsen to the electoral legislation to catch us, for that you come a little too late. But no need, says the purple. They will change the law on party financing. That is what you plan. The four government parties therefore want to amend the law in such a way that they, as right-wing prosecutors, Mr. the former lawyer, can initiate a criminal procedure to allow the State Council to reduce the dotation of the Flemish Bloc. For this purpose, the State Council is reformed into a kind of criminal court. For all safety, even a fundamental principle is thrown overboard, in the sense that we are not even entitled to appeal. The Cassation — which was originally in the law — also expires. Of course, this is all very democratic and for the good purpose, right?

In this case, which we now have to undergo in the Committee on Internal Affairs, you only prioritize the drying of the Flemish Bloc. They hate the fact that we still reach the population through our propaganda and that we still have the opportunity to persuade voters, even though we are very fooled by the media. That can no longer be for purple, for those great Democrats of the VLD and the sp.a. That can’t be done anymore, one has to cut off the Flemish Block’s cents and then it’s done with that propaganda. In addition, this is still quite good too. Imagine that we have to let this last!

And if that doesn’t help, colleagues, there is, of course, also the monster process that begins on March 1 in Gent. This is the second way to silence an opposition party and to hit it financially. After all, one must not forget that the ugly Father Blessed demanded 50 million Belgian Francs to the court because he felt heavily offended. Our representatives may also lose their political rights. If we are condemned in Ghent, one can, in the long run, eliminate our political mandators one by one by simply declaring their political rights deprived. As you know, some legislative work has been done for this. They even amended the Constitution in order to take the Flemish Block.

I now come to the rest of what CD&V rightly calls the self-service techniques. Mr. Tant has already said it, and so I should not go too long about it. For example, there is a double candidacy. I predict a new hit on the BRT soon — I deliberately say BRT: "Freya here, Freya there, Freya everywhere." That is of course the intention. Their stars must be addressed. The rest is not given too much attention. There is also the reintroduction of the successors. What will we experience? Mr. Verhofstadt — the prime minister holds a position that is not insignificant in this country — will be elected for the European Parliament.

Mr. Verhofstadt will be elected to the European Parliament and then say he does not want to go there. Patrick Dewael, federal minister, will not miss the Limburg appeal. He is, as previously suspected, at the bottom. I assume that he is not on the top of the list because he would be flung back in Limburg. This is a vivid example of how people are deceived. You are a Belgian minister and you are elected as a Flemish parliamentary member. The purple gang — after all that they spoke out, it is hard to describe them otherwise — controls most media — fortunately not all. The purple stars must all be assigned. The show must go on, says Mr. Slangen. Recently I can say the glorious Mr. Slangen, not to say the condemned Mr. Slangen. Or is that too much said in this super-democracy? The purple boys and girls should be well cared for on the tube and in the media in general. You may be able to buy some vegetables here and there. Stevaert is very busy with this left and right—probably left and extreme left, the link with the Greens is pretty stupid. They will also raise Bourgeoiske a number of times, which must ensure that CD&V and the Flemish Bloc miss some votes. The job is done, the electoral law has been changed and purple is back in power for five years. This is indroevable.

I would like to conclude with one positive point. For the first time, in Flanders and Wallonia, voting is different. We can only welcome this as Flemish nationalists. What we cannot welcome, Mr. Dewael, is the timing of this whole matter. It is vengeant that, at the moment that the electoral reform is voted in the Senate, one will stand a little four months before the elections. If we were to carry out such a reform à la carte four months before the election — just before the election campaign begins — we would scream murder and fire, we would be blamed for anti-democrats, murderers of democracy, and so on. Now that the liberals and socialists are doing it, everyone is silent—almost—all. It is mortjammer. We do not support this case, of course.

Thank you, Mr The Man. Mr. Cortois had asked for patience, in the Chamber at least, until 5 p.m. Mr. Bourgeois has not yet arrived. Mr De Crem is also registered. Ms. Caslo is registered, as are Mr. Laeremans and Mrs. Nagy.

Mrs. Caslo, please come here. If the others are not there, Mr. Minister, please give me a suggestion. Some members have informed me that they are in a committee meeting.

Mr. Filip De Man has already provided a magnificent presentation on the current electoral reforms. Nevertheless, I would like to briefly express my dissatisfaction with the little self-service party that plays purple.

The 2004 election year has finally officially started. Only five months before the Flemish elections we finally know what rules of the game will be used. However, the fact that the electoral law is encrypted a few months before the elections is disturbing. It is incompatible with a good, democratic governance.

These are not just my words. Even former Flemish Prime Minister Patrick Dewael said after the May 2003 elections that plans for a change in the electoral legislation for the Flemish Parliament could be better safeguarded if no agreement could be reached in September 2003. The Council of Europe, as well as the new European Constitution, also disagree that countries use the electoral system less than a year before the elections.

The Code of Good Practice literally states that "the actual electoral system and electoral circles cannot be changed less than one year before an election". We are now close to February 2004 and purple, including the VLD prime minister with European ambitions, puts everything — including what Europe thinks — aside when it doesn’t fit in its womb.

What worries me even more is the motive behind the reforms, namely purely self-service of purple. The career planning of the purple headpieces is the only starting point of this reform. It is not a matter of substantive motives, but only of flat-floor opportunism, which leads to even more distrust in the political institutions of the country and thus of our democracy itself.

Contrary to what Verhofstadt presents to us, it is not his intention at all to bring politics closer to the citizen. On the contrary, provincial electoral descriptions take politics further than ever from the citizen. Elections are merely a matter of media heads.

Nevertheless, outside of its own headlines, VLD has thought of one man, namely Mr. Noël Slangen. This Mr. will mark the VLD election campaign for 2004. Colleagues, that will be done by a scammer, a scammer. Be honest now. That is the only possible conclusion that we can draw after the severe condemnation of Noël Slangen and the statement of Karel De Gucht, who stated that he did not want to bread the Slang.

What worries me is that a lot of precious time has been wasted. We talked about reforms for months, while the real problems facing our citizens on a daily basis remain. I think here, for example, of the increasing violent crimes, the bankruptcies and the dismissals associated with them. I think we will close the current legislature with 20,000 fewer workers than with the promised 200,000 additional jobs.

Of course, one tries to conceal all this by investing soon in a so-called megaministery council. In my eyes — even the media had that impression — the government with this stunt only wanted to hide that it is not getting started and there is no solid, purple vision of the future. They also wanted to hide that there is disagreement between the different coalition partners.

That at the side.

The Flemish Bloc has indeed approved the provincial electoral circles in the Flemish Parliament. However, our party did not do so out of opportunism, not for additional seats. Additional seats are also obtained without electoral laws tailored, thanks to a solid program that is carried by more and more citizens. Thanks to the Flemish Bloc, the Flemish Parliament was spared the shame that the federal level, including the Walloon parties with the PS at the head, would decide how the Flemish Parliament should be elected in 2004.

However, the current electoral self-service of purple is a bis number of what we were proposed before May 18. Even then, the electoral reform was inappropriately promoted by Parliament. Moreover, the government ignored the warnings of the Council of State and deliberately crossed the boundaries of the Constitution, with the aim of repairing the Flemish political landscape, as the then purple-green headlines had in mind.

In addition, the voters on 18 May did not get what they were supposed to. The electoral reform would give voters more influence. By halving the weight of the list vote and enlarging the electoral circles, more candidates would be elected on the basis of their preferred votes. In reality, however, voters voted on May 18 more than ever before for candidates. However, their influence on the appointment of the elected did not increase much. Due to the double nomination and the numerous false mandates, many elected voters did not take up their mandate, so that after the elections an unprecedented chair dance began. Even House Speaker Herman De Croo regretted that his Parliament had been transformed into a replacement parliament by the numerous successors.

The fact that party-political calculations — thus purple self-service — are the basis of the electoral legislation for the district streets is shown by the fact that purple does not want to hit that double candidate position again. Constitutional experts believe that double candidacy in simultaneous elections misleads the voter and that candidates who do not do so are disadvantaged. However, Paars wants to be able to invest his headpieces at any price for both elections. Pink is a symbol of voter fraud. An elected candidate can only sit in one parliamentary semiconductor and must be replaced in the other by his successor, for which the voter has not voted.

Paars was able to wrinkle in many curves to get his taste. The NVA was worked out. That party would receive its public funding back on the condition that the cartel talks with CD&V were discontinued. The VLD wanted to remain the largest party in Flanders. The N-VA also had to submit a decree for the introduction of provincial electoral circles. Then the CDH was blackmailed. In exchange for the preservation of the German-speaking electorate for the European elections, the French-speaking Christian Democrats declared their readiness to deliver the necessary votes for the required majority. Furthermore, the remains of AGALEV were covered with Green!, the remains of AGALEV. Especially the VLD swung with the possible weakening of the electoral threshold. As a green! This may happen at the expense of the sp.a-spirit cartel and the VLD remains the largest.

Is there at least a positive turn in the case Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde?

No, even here, Paars missed a unique opportunity to put an end to the unconstitutional electoral district Brussels-HalleVilvoorde for Europe. They deliberately abandoned this opportunity despite the express and unanimous request of the Flemish mayors of Halle-Vilvoorde and of the Flemish Parliament. The fate of the flamingos living there clearly does not belong to the list of priorities of purple.

I will take a moment together. The interests of the majority parties and the purple top politicians weighed heavier than the interests of the voters. The double candidacy and the introduction of provincial electoral circles were the best examples of this. They were tailor-made cut from the sp.a-teletubbies and the VLDhead pieces. In a full-fledged democracy, it is unacceptable to change the electoral rules less than a year before the elections. Such interventions give the impression that they have more to do with party policy calculations and the career planning of some politicians, more than with the concern of having a fair and transparent electoral system. The electoral self-service of violin continues. The electoral legislation is here adjusted in view of the majority that is in power. This is, of course, a bad evolution.

Mrs. Caslo, it was your maiden speech, I congratulate you.

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a debate that seems to have an impact especially on the Dutch-speaking side. During the committee debates, I observed with astonishment that the changes to the electoral law that will intervene seem so little to concern our French-speaking colleagues of the majority or the opposition, while what is happening is quite worrying, regardless of the linguistic role of each because, anyway, we will be in any way confronted with a rise of extremism.

Mr. Minister, the Council of Europe has adopted a framework decision recommending, in particular, new member states not to change the electoral law in the year preceding the elections. Thus, these countries, whose democracy is considered to be less advanced than our own, are asked not to change electoral laws in the year preceding an election and are imposed upon them when they return to the Union. But we, belonging to an advanced democracy, consider that these principles we give to others are not applicable to us and thus witness significant changes to important electoral laws, which are not anodine from the point of view of the majorities who put them in place.

I lived in the Interior Committee where this project was discussed, in direct connection with what happened on the part of the Vlaams Parliament, with a two-thirds vote obtained with the support of the Vlaams Blok. Whatever you think and say, this is a major political event worrying for democracy in Belgium.

I would like to highlight a number of provisions that are found in the special law. We have — and I know that the debate will take place later — approved the law on the representation of the German-speaking community in the European Parliament. I think it is a law that was requested by all the political forces represented in the Council of the German-speaking Community and that is what will be voted. It is this project that deserves the support of the CDH which, by its abstention, will allow the vote of the special law introducing the threshold of 5%.

It is quite surprising to see a party that opposed the introduction of a monetary electoral threshold thus voting, in exchange for a MEP. There is also the reintroduction of substitutes, hence a change of point of view. At the beginning of the previous legislature, the rainbow government had removed its supporters. And then, reflection made, everyone can change their mind, Mr. Dewael, including you.

If this proposal had been voted in the Vlaams Parliament, then the Vlaams Blok votes would have been meaningless. In addition, during the previous legislature, you supported the reform for the federal elections. Now you have changed your mind and I understand your reasons, but it is you who changed your mind, not us.

But you will recognize, Mr.

Wat Minister, that you have also changed your mind on the question of substitutes since substitutes have been removed since the first bill proposed by the rainbow government, as part of a reform that turned out to not correspond to the objectives it had set itself. As we can see with this law, it is not entirely incongruous to find that a reform introduced gives results contrary to those expected.

Mr. Minister, I think it is rather because you are in a coalition putting you in competition with your friends of the sp.a who engage with you in a fairly fierce struggle for market shares, but you know well that the introduction of the 5% threshold has had as its primary consequence the strengthening of the Vlaams Blok. Through this threshold of 5%, they got two additional elected members. This is a visible fact when you analyze the election results and it is likely to repeat in the next regional elections as you introduce this 5% threshold. If making mistakes, making mistakes can be human, persisting in mistakes and strengthening the far-right party is diabolical.

It is surprising to see the configurations that vote the laws on the Dutch-speaking side and to see how the CDH supports such a proposal, for reasons of distribution of market shares at the regional level.

You report that this is an opportunity issue because it affects Green! I have no trouble acknowledging this, Mr. Minister. Honesty is part of my way of thinking about politics. At some point, it is necessary to see the consequences of the decisions taken. At the limit, the distribution of electoral market shares is not the most important element. For me, the most important element in evaluating the vote of this law was the progress of the Vlaams Blok.

This is incredible: on the one hand, you spend your time trying to counter this party, trying to limit the financial resources that will be granted to it, and on the other hand, you give it the opportunity to strengthen yourself at the electoral level. I want to denounce this situation whose logic completely escapes me. I strongly oppose it, especially since it also applies to the Brussels regional elections, which will result in the blocking of the Brussels institutions.

In Brussels, the Vlaams Blok represents 38% of the Dutch-speaking electorate, making it the first Dutch-speaking party in Brussels. And you will give him a bonus with the introduction of the threshold. You will thus facilitate the blocking of the Brussels institutions in Brussels, which no Democrat in this country, regardless of their opinion about the Brussels institutions, wants.

This is the responsibility of the majority, but also of the CDH who believes to get rid of the CDF. This is not a very glorious motivation, given the result.

This situation is ⁇ worrying. Currently, even the National Front is hesitant to come to strengthen this hateful right that is developing in Brussels with the aim of institutionally blocking the Region. In my opinion, the consequences risk extending beyond the Brussels Region and creating what some have once called “the institutional atomic bomb.” The current majority and the CDH will bear a heavy responsibility in these upcoming elections.

I will again submit my amendment aiming at removing the 5% threshold envisaged in the government draft. Furthermore, I will continue to oppose this provision which objectively constitutes a weapon for a party that I want to fight because it favors democracy in no way.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, I would like to thank the Speaker for allowing me to go immediately to the speaker.

You came here specifically for this. I would like to thank you very much for this. I highly appreciate this.

Mr. Minister, as far as the major lines of the amendment of the electoral legislation are concerned, we from the VLD of course have no problem. We have also made this clear in the committee. There is now a uniformity created between federal and other elections. The citizen has a particular difficulty with the state structure that we have drawn up together — I will be cautious. If we can make things easier — Mr. Tant, you are in favour of that — I think this is a good thing in any case.

The electoral threshold was a second hot hanging iron. I must note that this exists in many democratic countries, for example in Germany. Is Germany a democratic country? The most extreme form, Mr. Vice Prime Minister, exists in Britain, where they adhere to the principle of "the winner takes all." When I occasionally, in the absence of better, look at the BBC late at night and see the debates in Parliament there, I often have the impression — unless I am mistaken — that it is a democracy that lives, where Parliament really lives, and the confrontation between majority and opposition is still very sharp.

Mr. Bourgeois, would you like to interrupt about the British Parliament?

On the British Parliament and also on our Parliament, Mr. Speaker.

I give colleague Cortois right for a time. I also sometimes look at the debates in the British Parliament with a little naïve and jealousy. This is indeed a democracy that we can sometimes suck a point at. You come like me from the debate about DHL. You have experienced again that the Prime Minister found it necessary to shake out, justify and refuse to answer the members of the Chamber who insisted and asked questions. We can indeed learn some lessons from Britain, but you overlook, Mr. Cortois — that is of course the essence — that there is a system of majority in Britain and that there is a system of proportionality here, from low to high, from municipal council to European Parliament. Nobody less than the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Dewael, has confirmed it again in the parliamentary preparation in the committee. There are two issues that such a reform must address. It must not conflict with the Constitution and the principle of equality and must respect proportionality. With that 5% threshold on the Flemish level, this is not the case. I will prove it again later.

This is the story of every one’s truth. In fact, the fundamental comment was that this is a damage to democracy. On the other hand, we must also establish — I assume that every day — that, whoever is in the majority or in the opposition, a multitude of political parties does not benefit the decision-making in democracy. Then one gets less pleasant phenomena such as an acidification of the electorate, which has expressed itself in recent years through the Flemish Bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go deeper into this, but the reference to the British Parliament is an interesting reference. All elements must be put on the table. In a two-party system, the voter’s voice goes much further in the direction of the policy he or she wants. Since there are only two parties, one chooses much more than us for a program, although that is, of course, a grand generalization. We have chosen a representative parliament. That is the proper characteristic and the reason for proportionality. So the reference to the English parliament is not entirely complete. That system has its value, in particular true proportionality and therefore representativity, but also the actual capacity of the voter’s vote. I think that goes further in the British system than in our own. After all, what is happening with us? After the elections, one looks at where one can find a majority and pairs the programs together so that the voter who would have been guided by program considerations may eventually feel deceived. This is the disadvantage of our system.

Like the liberal voters.

Mr. Tommelein, this may be the difference between you and me, but I try to compare the systems as such. I understand your youthful impatience and even more that I have to try to make it valid now. But you manage it and do not color it here in hell in more party politics than necessary. This will only enrich the debate.

I will not talk about control. I admit that there is probably a lot of truth hidden in Mr. Tant’s words. It is a debate that may be held in the future. Their

Furthermore, Mr. Tant, I admit that you can speak with a certain authority and a certain authority, since you have been allowed to experience forty years of participation in government. However, the other member did not, and in fact, he was wronged with this. I acknowledge that you can speak with a certain authority by having been able to experience the parliamentary work for forty years in close. We have a little less experience. I listened attentively to your concerns.

It is noted in the texts that you actually have a little less experience. Until now, however, it was denied to the country to let Paul Tant prove the services he had wanted to prove to the nation.

Yes to democracy!

Let the nation rest, and Mr. Tant as well.

The next point of discussion was the reintroduction of the successors. Successors or no successors, we have chosen the system by which ministers are replaced. I note today that most ministers have undergone elections before becoming ministers. This was not always the case in the past, because then it was about extra-parliamentary members and extra-kabinet members, people with great competence. It was also not very democratic. The system of successors was introduced. If one does not introduce the system of the successors, one remains with a problem. This is essentially a secondary matter. The Minister is replaced. How it is replaced seems to me less important.

In the committee for internal affairs, it has been stated that things go differently for municipal council elections. If I remember correctly, in the municipal council elections the effectiveness is first named and the list vote is again taken into account for the successors. Here, a priority is applied in order of the list.

Everyone agreed on the principle "the younger, the better". Having reached the age of 18 to be eligible is a logical consequence of the voting obligation from the age of 18. Everyone agreed on this.

As for the electoral descriptions, this is a matter of the regions. We have taken note of this. Since I have a particular respect for the autonomy of the provinces, it is obvious that I do not wish to make any statements on this subject. Otherwise you might suspect me of pursuing the party-political path, something that ⁇ is not the case and is not at all my intention. Their

Regarding the European seat distribution, I have made my position in the committee clear and clear. Mr. Laeremans, we have, in my opinion, rightly supported the amendment of Mr. Bourgeois that proposes the actual split of the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde following the European elections. Both yesterday and today I support this demand. Only for constitutional reasons should this division be carried out. I will submit an amendment. Mr De Crem, I have not yet been able to read your amendment because our agenda is overcrowded. If your amendment is in the same line, I will approve your amendment. More even, I will make another attempt to persuade some of my colleagues not to approve the present design in its current form.

This is new and important. Mr Cortois, regarding the approval of Mr Bourgeois’s amendment, you used the pluralis majestatis form “We have approved the amendments in the committee”. In the committee, you were the only member of the VLD who approved the amendment. Their

I would be ⁇ pleased if you — you have still been a group chairman — indeed speak on behalf of your VLD group. That would be an important new fact. I very much hope that the VLD group as a whole will approve the amendments. At that moment we are in a new situation. At the moment, only SPA has to be convinced. Here too, spirit can provide a little Flemish reflex. I look at Mr. Lambert who may have heard your statements. If spirit and Mrs. Detiège of sp.a finally burn the light and they listen to their party counterpart Leo Peeters, then we reach a majority and we are finally so far that at least before the European elections the split of the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde can be forced. This does not cost the French speakers a single seat. It costs the Frenchmen nothing.

Mr. Cortois, I hope that you hold your word and try to convince your whole group and that the SPA does the same so that finally the unitary electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is split. This is a ⁇ worthy judgment. I look forward to the voting behavior of the VLD.

Mr. Speaker, I was also surprised by the wording of our good colleague Cortois, who spoke of “we”: “We have approved.”

Mr Cortois, we can therefore assume that your voting behavior in the committee is on behalf of the whole group. Your party leader is absent. You take the word on behalf of the VLD. So it is very important to know now from you whether you will take care of the classic scam for the Flemish — horresco references — Liberals and Democrats, or whether you speak on behalf of the whole group.

The word “we” was probably a lapsus. It is not my habit to speak in the wisdom form. However, I add that I will try to persuade a number of people in the group to support the proposal.

Mr. Bourgeois, I have neither the authority nor the power to speak on behalf of the whole group. It is easy for you. You can say “we”, even if it’s just about you.

However, it is clear that I will continue to firmly defend my position. Where necessary, I will continue to say that the division of the electoral district must be realized. We have been waiting for 40 years now. For me, it is the highest time.

However, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the authority to declare that the whole VLD group will follow my position. However, I have the freedom to ultimately give the vote I wish to give.

Mr. Bourgeois, I do not want to give you false hope, but you have my sympathy. That is already something.

Mr. Cortois, if you were to be as ambitious as I am and let 100% of the members of your group vote “yes”?

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it here. I can only say that I will do my best to convince as many members of my group as possible.

Mr. Tante, I know that I can count on your moral support, which is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I will personally abstain tomorrow at the vote on the last draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, today we are discussing in the plenary session the consideration of an impressive series of bills amending regional electoral laws.

I think from a legal point of view, the case has something to scare even the most accustomed of this assembly. Nothing is simple in Belgium, it is often said, but it is true when we address institutional matters and especially the complex grid of electoral provisions of this component. Fortunately, this technical complexity is supported only by parliamentarians, possibly by the administration, but, in this case, it has the purpose and legitimation also to facilitate the life of citizens, to simplify their relations with the political world and, therefore, to give them their full capacity to decide the different political options that will be abundantly developed in the coming weeks. I heard in the Committee on the Interior the opposite discourse, namely that like the rainbow majority, socialists and liberals once again engaged in blurring the electoral cards, that the multitude of reforms deceived the citizen, that it is only about concrete positions acquired last May.

I think we have to be serious! Everyone who has been aware of the proposed amendments has realized that they fall within the right of amendments to the electoral legislation for the House and for the Senate. There is no surprise in this matter, I believe the voter will not be mistaken. He will see that regional elections follow the same logic as legislative elections. He will see substitutes on the lists as he saw in May last year, he will hear about an electoral threshold as it was when the results of the legislative elections were proclaimed. It will also see that there are more women on the list. The parity rules are identical, as well as those aimed at halving the devolving effect, rules that will apply for the first time on June 13 next.

He knows, and we will try to reaffirm it, that beyond uniformization, the whole of the proposed reforms tend to submit to him a simpler system that takes into account the current realities of society, a system that allows him to shape more directly the new political landscape. This is very important for the group.

You know that we have always been in favor of the establishment of more direct democracy as well as the establishment of an electoral system allowing to more effectively translate the major tendencies expressed by the electorate. And that is exactly what we are preparing to do today, by reproducing in the regional electoral laws the major innovations that appeared last year for the legislative elections.

What are they?

First is the electoral threshold. I do not go back on technical terms, except to say that we are talking about a threshold or a double threshold of 5%. This is an important correction to the proportional system. This is a small revolution in Belgium. I think the mechanism gave satisfaction in the last vote. In any case, it has our favour of principle. This threshold is for us a tool against the fragmentation of the political landscape and against extremist ideologies. Very clearly, it is a matter of counteracting the dysfunctions induced by the proportional system in its most absolute form and therefore of putting apart the groups or groupuscles whose political message has received only a very low echo in the public opinion.

I understand that this logic can be opposed. There are very strong democratic principles that support proportional logic, but there are others to legitimize the introduction of a dose of majority system in our Belgian model, the main being that these corrections allow the electoral body to more effectively influence the political management of its country. This was a long-standing demand of the reformers. We are pleased to see that it is included in the present draft laws.

In the same logic, we must not forget that the next election will be an opportunity to experiment for the first time, within the framework of regional elections, the new mode of devolution of the headquarters. The five projects do not change the system. Here too, what was presented to the voter on May 18 will be used on June 13 next. He knows that his role is being strengthened.

These preferential votes may change the order of the lists established by the major states of political parties. It was obvious, but you know how difficult it was to translate it into a political agreement. The devolving effect is reduced by only half. The MR group is in favor of progress on this issue.

At present, we are pleased to see for the first time this important reform be applied on the occasion of the elections of the Regional Councils.

On the other hand, we are not satisfied with the reform organising the removal of the substitute. However, it was voted at the same time and was mostly in the same logic. However, it is true that from the moment when the full powers are handed over to the voter, it is normal to fully assume the choices that have been made and to provide for the possible replacement of the elected in the order provided on the list.

Today, the government proposes to revert to this idea, as was the case for the May 18 election, advancing that there are other advantages favorable to the maintenance of supporters. I think of opening the lists to younger or less-known candidates as a priority.

In the current climate of "starification", it is not easy to make its place. Nevertheless, there are candidates, in every constituency and in every party, who must be able to have the chance to demonstrate what they are worth and their ability to translate the aspirations of citizens. This is not possible, in my opinion, without the mechanism of surcharges, given precisely the reduction by half of the devolving effect of the headbox. Therefore, we can see that two logics conflict. The MR group, after long thinking about the issue, will support the final arrangement.

It is also about opening up to new heads in the last two important points of the projects being discussed. I think first of all of the reduction to 18 years of eligibility age and the rules of parity between men and women. This last point is not properly a novelty, but it is mentioned formally. In addition, it will be used for the first time in the context of regional elections.

It is therefore understandable that this reform is fully in line with the logic of the new electoral system as imagined by the government. It is about getting in line with the realities of the voters. Therefore, what is more normal than electoral lists reflect the proportion of women in society! I know the arguments of the opponents of this kind of initiative. I myself endorse those who stigmatize quotas, but it is hard to see that the results are there. Parliament is feminized. It is a more accurate, more realistic emanation of Belgian society. It will now be the same for the various Federated Councils and that is a good thing.

I am more skeptical about the interest of lowering the eligibility age to eighteen. It is true, we vote from the age of eighteen, why not allow to be elected at the same age? Per ⁇ because at this age the individual has not yet benefited from any professional training, that his experience is by definition very limited, and that therefore the added value he will be able to offer to the assembly is quite low.

Moreover, a political career at eighteen does not hinder the continuation of studies? How do you get back to this age in the event of an election defeat? These questions also arise, and ⁇ more, for lowering the age of appointment to a ministry post. For this role, it is obvious that management skills are required, the level of responsibility is enormous! Can these skills be those of an 18-year-old?

It is ! I do not deny the current problem of divorce between young people and the political world. This needs to be addressed, and lowering the eligibility age can contribute to this. Here too, by the way, the portrait of the society will be more faithful. Certainly, assemblies will be fuelled by new themes that they currently tend to underestimate. The group will therefore support the measure.

I add that in the logic of uniformization, it would have seemed logical for me to lower the eligibility age for the European Parliament, even for the House and the Senate. If we adopt this measure, we must adopt it everywhere. It is true that for legislative elections, this requires a constitutional revision, and therefore a two-thirds majority. But that majority will in any case have to be acquired for some of the projects under review, and the article has been specifically opened for review. Therefore, I do not understand the reasons for this divergence, but the Minister may be able to clarify me on this point.

In conclusion, I think it should be emphasized that this bill tends to simplify the electoral system, to make it more understandable for the voter. We fully subscribe to the logic of uniformization, which smoothes the complexity of our federal construction. It is true that we vote often in Belgium: 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009! I think it’s always the same, and I’m not just talking about the election results.

The different projects reflect for the regional elections the main emphasis of the “political renewal” agreement of last year and, consequently, the choices made by the Parliament during the previous legislature. This continuity is good. It demonstrates in any case that the majority follows a direction and does not reform at all, for the simple pleasure of destabilizing the opposition.

Finally, a word about the European elections: little to say about the project as such. The proposed solution is logical. There were others, however, but I am more skeptical with regard to the amendment submitted by MM. Van der Maelen and his associates, aimed at easing the conditions required to appear on the Belgian lists at this election. There was a majority in the committee to support this amendment. I am not convinced that it will be of great interest to the overall economy of the system. It does not stop, freedom is increased, it is always a good thing.

I take advantage of this to say that we would not understand that the same logic of flexibility is not put in place with regard to the terms of voting of Belgians residing abroad. I believe that one cannot deregulate in one way for European citizens and continue to want to impose attachment criteria for Belgian expatriates. The matter is still in the Senate and it remains one of our major demands.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, to conclude, the MR group will support with optimism these different bills that strengthen the legibility and coherence of our electoral system, that is, in the end the tool available to the citizen to get represented in the parliamentary assemblies.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on their achievement in preparing a report in such a short time. The deadline was so short that I did not have time to comment. I wanted to make a few corrections, but I have not been able to do so. I find that regrettable.

I would like to use this plenary session to point out at least one matter that I would have liked to have changed. On page 27 I talk about the intentions of the electoral threshold that the majority wants to introduce. It says: "...these provisions are supposedly aimed at pushing the usurpator aside, but apparently this is not the case." I never spoke that phrase. I also do not know what this means. I know that I have quoted the official intention of the government, namely, “to counter the crumbling of politics.” However, the "usurpator sliding on the side" I have not said, and I have not read anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I had a few other things to note. This is, of course, due to the fact that everything had to go so quickly. Thus I come to the beginning of my criticism of this reform, which is being pressed in an extremely hasty way, in a way that does not allow decent work, in a way that is actually a staple of inappropriate and of poor administration.

This is an undemocratic reform. I do not hesitate to use the word. It is a form of gerrymandering, of self-service of this random majority. It is also a perfidious attempt to eliminate the smaller parties and ultimately it is an anti-Flemish reform.

Colleagues, those who argue that this is political politienne and that the citizen is not awake of it, are wrong with regard to the first and right with regard to the second. They are wrong with regard to the first, because such a electoral reform is at the heart of our democracy and because such a electoral reform is actually about the essence of democracy. It is not for nothing that the essential rules concerning this are also included in international treaties. Consider the ECHR and the BuPo Convention. Our Constitution sets out a number of rules in this regard, and the constitutional autonomy for the counties includes that they exercise it with a two-thirds majority.

Colleagues, this all points to the great importance attached in democracies to this kind of rules of play. Therefore, the Council of Europe recommends to refrain from doing so in the last year before elections. She advises that precisely because it is not judgable to do so, to create such uncertainty, and she advises this especially if, as in this, there is a appearance — and actually also a reality — of self-service, of favour of the majority.

Those who say this is political politicians are mistaken. It is about the essence of democracy. Of course they are right when they say that this is not of interest to the public. That is right. This does not interest the population. You are not in any danger that the population will react massively, come massively on the streets and that there will be a public reaction. In the era of mediatisation, of the ver-Berlusconi sering, of the Bertjes, the Freya’s, the Q’s and other infotainers, you are not at any risk that this becomes a theme in the media. You are right. We are in an era where journalists say: "Look this I don't get sold in my newspaper, this is too hard", "This I can't bring on the radio", "This can't be on TV, it's too hard", "It doesn't go into eight VTM words or TV1 words and so you can't bring it." So it is indeed a big problem for us to bring such serious matters to the attention of the public opinion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Colleagues, a electoral reform must be carried out with the utmost care and in full openness.It must be transparent and its objectives must be outlined at the beginning of a parliamentary period and it must be borne by a large majority. As for me, when it comes to essential rules, it must be carried out by a two-thirds majority, preferably as wide as possible, without a single appearance of favour of the majority and above all, it must be done with respect for the basic principles of our democracy and of our electoral system. It must be a electoral system — I said it later, Mr. Speaker — that from the lowest to the highest staircase in this country, from municipal council, provincial council, over the streets and the Federal Chamber to and with Europe, must be based on proportionality and proportionality.

Thus it is even inscribed in our Constitution, and I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for having once again emphasized during the discussion in the Committee on Interior Affairs that a electoral reform, first, must not conflict with the principle of equality – with Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution – and, secondly, that it must be a proportionate system. This reform does not respond to that, I will return to that later. As I said before, there is inappropriate and poor governance. This reform comes far too late and brings problems to the parties, as they have had to wait until today to know how the electoral processes will run and with which electoral circles, with or without successors, with or without affiliation. Their

All this creates legal uncertainty, because you can assume, Mr. Speaker, that we will go back to the Arbitration Court and that the risk is very high that the Arbitration Court will destroy a number of essential provisions of this reform in advance of the elections. I hope that too, because this government is hard-learner, she does not want to listen. You know that, for example, the State Council has developed a jurisprudence, in which it always suspends when it constitutes that a government persists in the anger, or when a government that has already been drawn on the fingers by the administrative jurisdiction, still persists. The State Council then proceeds to the suspension, as it draws from this a sufficient justification to invoke the high urgency. Let me give you an example, the Arbitration Court.

The State Council, you say?

Yes, the State Council, I hope the Arbitration Court applies the same rules.

Oh so so.

I would point out that the Court of Arbitration, to give just one example, has eliminated the double nomination regarding the Chamber and Senate with a very clear and clear reasoning. I will explain this a little further later. It is a reform that comes too late, it creates problems for the parties and it creates legal uncertainty. This electoral reform has taken place so swiftly. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have ever experienced that here, in this Chamber, a bill is presented for discussion, about which in the memorandum of explanation of another bill, namely that on the special law, it is stated that one of the bills expires upon approval of another. This provision is not even included in the law, it is simply in the memory of explanation. What will happen? All drafts have been discussed in the Chamber Committee, after which they are discussed in plenary session, followed by a vote. Subsequently, the draft will be presented to the Senate. They will have obtained the approval of the Chamber and the Senate, and afterwards this Government will afford to not grant the royal ratification to one of the drafts, for that draft has then, as you say in the Memory of Explanation, become pointless. I find that such a magnificent description; we are discussing here a draft whose government says that if the previous drafts are approved, it becomes pointless. This is undoubtedly a new constitutional term, colleague Tant, which you may have never heard of with your very rich experience in this hemisphere. A government submits a draft in which it says it becomes pointless when voting for another draft, with the result that we will be in a unique constitutional situation.

This reform is also a form of self-service. The successors would be abolished. That was one of the points of this government. In the government statement you found it nec plus ultra to finally give the voter the chance to appoint who would come into Parliament. It would have been done with the successors who, as slaves, sit on their seats, on their chairs, glued in the Parliament. The result is the reverse: you entered the successors federally again.

We see it: uncritical colleagues attached to their seats, who, unfortunately, help to bring down the quality of work in Parliament in a disturbing way. I sit in committees where the opposition is not even listened to, let alone an attempt is made to answer what the opposition is saying or to let the opposition speak. It is silence and votes. I have seen that majority members in committees act very differently. They had at least elementary reflexes as parliamentarians. They could not tolerate that bad designs passed. They had to be corrected. That difficult Coveliers, who was in the committee at the time, had at least this merit, colleagues of the VLD, that he did not let pass what now happens every day.

With us in the Justice Committee, and completely in the line of successors who sit attached to their seats and meanwhile are thinking with what nonsense they will soon get the cameras again, colleague Cortois, a reform is being carried out where everyone lags behind, namely the reduction of the eligibility age to 18 years. At the same time, you also exist to lower the age for becoming a minister to 18 years. Do you think that is really a good thing now, at the moment that in our Constitution it is stated that, in order to be elected to the Chamber and Senate, one must still be 21? It testifies a bit of the dedain that one has in relation to the states, their parliament and government. Will we soon have the niece of Freya, 18, as a minister in the Flemish Government? I have spoken about this especially with young people. I have never met anyone who would like someone to become a minister at age 18 and take responsibility for departments, despite a special intelligence and a lot of capabilities. (The protest)

Mr. Tommelein, you will undoubtedly become Minister. I know that you are ministerial to the Flemish government.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the fear and distrust that my good colleague here out about people 18 years of age. I can only conclude that 18-year-olds today have a much greater overall development than the people of 25,30 and 40 years old who also had seats in the Parliament. It is the same reasoning as, “How can a worker become a minister?” The times evolve. We are not yet back in the Middle Ages where one could become a king or queen at 12 years old. In essence, I do not think that we would give the right signal from Parliament by not allowing 18-year-olds to be ministers, because they would be too silly. If he becomes a minister, we and the voter in his wisdom will judge it.

You are giving a wrong signal, which, of course, is not your intention. Be careful, because some will explain it differently. We will not be that. In any case, you are not giving a good signal.

Mr. Cortois, first of all, a

Indeed, a number of people will explain it differently when they hear you, because you explain it differently. You are a perfect sofist. I have never said at any time that people who are now 18 years old have a broader development than people who are now 30 or 40 years old. I think this is a bit of a testimony to your disrespect for the colleagues who are now 40 or 45 years old.

Second, I have never said at any time that a worker, as you say, cannot be a good minister or mayor. I have only said that no matter how intelligent one is and whatever formation one has received, one must have a certain form of maturity for such responsible functions. I hope you agree with this. I know wonderful young people, for whom I have great respect and who have a fantastic future ahead. I wish them that, but I also wish them that they have a little chance to gain experience and mature before they assume such responsibilities. You are a business leader, look around you. When will people be able to take responsibility, facing all possible challenges? You just do. Of course, you can argue about age. I know that in the next phase you will reduce that to 16 years. Keep going, you’re going well.

However, this does not prevent all those successors from being pioneers on the chessboard of politics and party chairs. In the House and the Flemish Parliament, there are plenty of examples of people who are pioneers of power politics within the parties.

Mr. Bourgeois speaks of other politicians as being the helpers of purple, while he himself, more pronounced than many others, has become the helpers of purple. He has become the useful idiot of purple and will ensure that purple remains in power after June 13 in the Flemish Parliament. He will thus collect a few tens of thousands of votes behind his flag and thus increase the chances that the VLD and sp.a-spirit will remain in power. This is the role of Mr. Bourgeois. I wanted to say this in his face.

It brings the man. I have always had a huge admiration for his language use. He doesn’t say he’s an extreme right-wing type. He always uses words as a useful idiot. Mr. De Man, contrary to your rough language, I have not personally assaulted or attacked anyone. I’ve generally talked about successors and you really like to shake people in the face.

The [...]

It’s also typical for you that you don’t let people speak out. I have not at any time talked about peonies in the hands of purple. I have talked about peonies in the hands of party chairmen, as is the case in your little party.

The Party!

The president is in the hands of the people. This is the case in your party. There is no internal democracy. One comes into the party management only after coöptation of a small clan of people who hold the ropes in their hands. Your party gets big in a dirty and rough way.

The chairman of your party blames the inhabitants of Borgerhout for flying maki in front of the cameras in the Senate. Look at the television footage of the debate on immigrant voting rights, Mr. De Man. The chairman of your little party has succeeded in comparing to the cameras the inhabitants of Borgerhout with flying maki.

It decorates you, that is your use of words. Your way of doing politics is to blame people, to blame people for idiots. Go your course. You have already deceived many people in this way and you are the prototype of it. I try, Mr. De Man, still to speak here in general terms and to prevent me from offending people in the way you do. Congratulations, keep going, that way people see exactly what it is about in this social debate.

Mr. Bourgeois, I can hardly imagine that 18-year-olds here would hold a parliamentary shell party in the same way as it is now. I just want to say — I distanced myself there from your statement — that I am truly convinced that you can live from the care that some people can live with. We need to trust these young people. It will then be judged whether they are competent or not. In this Parliament, together with you, I often find, to my surprise, that young cabinet members of ministers come here, while those formerly were more — stately — ladies and gentlemen. Many of these young people often demonstrate very great knowledge. That is so much better. This is an evolution in society. This probably also has to do with the fact that we have a good education in Flanders and the people have the chance to go to university. Therefore, I ask you not to exaggerate. However, one should avoid going outside to say that in Parliament some people are concerned only because someone is only 18 years old and therefore gets the stamp of inexperienced and incompetent. We must avoid this. This is not a good signal. The President, by the way, also makes efforts to get young people here and become a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the words of my wise colleague Cortois. I find it even worse because this morning I actually read in various newspapers the statements of a certain cardinal.

It is not 18 years old.

He says that the voice and opinion of a 18-year-old is not the same as an older father of 7 children. Mr. Bourgeois, what you say actually comes down to the same. It testifies to a conservatism that I have rarely heard.

Mr. Speaker, I never expected that Mr. Tommelein would continue to play here the role he played in his life as the press spokesman of the current Deputy Prime Minister and that he would put words in my mouth that a Cardinal apparently spoke. I do not know those words. Their

Mr. Tommelein, I would like to point out that in this Parliament a bill has been submitted that goes in the direction of what the Cardinal wants, but this comes from the party that is there and not from my party. If you accuse me of conservatism. By the way, Mr. Cortois, I want to put the points on the i. I didn’t talk about incompetence. I was talking about experience. I have expressed my greatest appreciation for young people, but I have here, unfortunately, seen few cabinet employees of ministers who at 18 years had gone through the entire university as you apparently seem to imagine. You may have different opinions on this. I have tried to express my opinion in a decent manner without blaming, Mr. Cortois. I hope you’re right that 18-year-olds in the hemisphere ⁇ ’t go into shame, but I think I didn’t shuffle after that and if that could have happened then I would like to apologize to you, but I’m almost sure that this didn’t happen. It’s not my style either. I will not do that.

I come to the association, a second point of heavy criticism from a democratic point of view and of the inappropriacy of this legislation. Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, at this time it is true that the affiliation exists at the federal level as a result of the decision of the Arbitration Court. You say you want to harmonize the whole system. Well, at the federal level, the apparentation exists because the Arbitration Court has destroyed the arrangement you have drawn out.

The double candidacy is again admitted, although you have to confirm that it is impossible and even legally prohibited to sit in and in a state parliament and in the European Parliament. The combination of both is not possible. The Arbitration Court has ruled that a double nomination for the Chamber and Senate could not be and has abolished the provision with two very clear arguments. First, it involves a possible advantage of the double candidate, because he has more resources and a larger forum to lose his opinion. Second, the double candidacy is of the nature that it can mislead the voter, because he cannot estimate the effect of his vote. I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, that we will also go to the Arbitration Court regarding the point of the double nomination. I hope that the Court of Arbitration, like the Council of State, in such a case immediately suspends. The State Council facing a hard-learned government is suspended immediately. I hope that this will happen, whatever the consequences. You only need to ensure proper regulation and you only need to ensure that someone who has been elected for a mandate also takes it.

The reform is undemocratic. It introduces thresholds and removes the affiliation, which in combination with the provincial electoral circles may prevent smaller parties from being elected. In order to eliminate smaller parties, the whole reform is implemented. President: Paul Tant President: Paul Tant Green! Unfortunately, this has played a very important collaborative role. As a green! If we did not agree with the threshold then we did not have it now. I then, in thoughtful times, warned the Greens. I warned them then that they should be careful that that threshold would never come to their head. Now we see that green! The blue, the socialists and the spiritists are in their own rope. They had the keys in their hands after the May 18 election, they had the keys in their hands for this reform. Unfortunately, they did not make use of it, and they were encapsulated, with the result that voting thresholds were re-introduced with no other purpose — let’s be clear — than to try Green! To keep the N-VA out of parliament. Unfortunately for those who envy it, this will not succeed with regard to the N-VA.

We will have this threshold destroyed by the Arbitration Court and ensure that we get enough votes to show that we respond to a healthy flow within our democratic landscape that is sufficiently viable.

Your objectives, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, are not specified. The State Council has made it clear to you that you must explain, that you must motivate, and that you must be held accountable. You did not do it. We will also go to the Arbitration Court because the Arbitration Court, on the complaint of Vivant, did not destroy the electoral threshold at that time, but did not formulate a special motivation. The court did not destroy the electoral threshold for two reasons. After all, he had taken into account the enlargement of electoral circles and the low level of the electoral threshold at the federal level. Indeed, the electoral threshold on the federal level had in Flanders actually only effect in Antwerp and if one wants also in Eastern Flanders.

However, the electoral threshold you enter on the Flemish plane has a much greater effect. 5% is not 5%. Your natural threshold to get a seat is much lower in the Flemish Parliament of which 124 members are part, while in our hemisphere only 88 Flemish Chamber members have been elected. The natural threshold for these state elections is in Flemish-Brabant at 3.9%, in Eastern Flanders at 3.4%, in West Flanders at 3.8% and in Antwerp even only at 2.7%. In other words, you almost double the natural threshold in Antwerp. If I test this on the reasoning and argumentation of the Court of Arbitration, I think that we are taking a very good chance, on the basis of the principle of proportionality — you have confirmed it yourself in the committee, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, that proportionality is part of the basis of our rules of play — to destroy the undemocratic arrangement.

This leads to the abolition of the association and thus to the creation of inequality between Flanders and Wallonia. I am the biggest advocate of the autonomy of Flanders and Wallonia, but then Flanders must be able to decide for themselves and Wallonia must be able to decide for themselves. What you are now doing is ⁇ ining an affiliation in Wallonia where you will vote in district electoral circles. The apparentation remains there and between the various electoral circles therefore a sum of the so-called residual votes takes place, while you abolish the apparentation in Flanders. This means that in Flanders there is a chance that a huge number of votes will be lost. In this way, the abolition of apparentation in Flanders and the combination of that with the threshold, you violate the proportionality. It is evident, colleagues, that the hypothesis that a party gets 5% in a given province and in the case of association all the remaining votes from all other provinces may be combined would lead to a much greater proportionality. As this is now happening within the provinces, this would lead to the parties being much more proportionate, more proportionate in the Flemish Parliament. You want to prevent this against the basic rules of our electoral system. You do not argue this at all. You also do not argue why you come to a different arrangement, as a federal legislator, between Flanders and Wallonia: in Wallonia you let the association between the electoral circles exist, in Flanders you remove the association between the electoral circles. These are two clear violations of the basic principles, violations of the principle of equality with which we will appeal to the Court of Arbitration.

Colleague Cortois, I come to your point: our common struggle. Although though. I know that you are very charming and very kind and that you also mean what you say, but if I see that that struggle with regard to the VLD is limited to you and maybe a few lucky people who may occasionally show a so-called dissident behavior, then I still have the biggest questions with the VLD as a defender of the Flemish interest. I come to the nefaste anti-Flemish aspects of this reform. This reform, in the first place, does not imply a split of the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. We have jointly submitted a bill, drafted at the request of the mayors of Halle-Vilvoorde. Beyond party boundaries, the three traditional, classical parties have met and say together that this unconstitutionality must be put to an end. It is an unconstitutionality, because now you allow that soon at the European elections candidates from all over Wallonia can again be candidate with you in Halle-Vilvoorde, which belongs to the unitary, Dutch-speaking area. In Zaventem, Halle, Affligem and mention it, therefore, once again Wallonian candidates from all over Wallonia will be able to be candidates, just like for the Senate. This is unconstitutional. The Court of Arbitration has, by the way, equalised the poespas you made of it with the federal elections with the ground. It abolished that regulation.

Soon we will know the situation that thanks to the N-VA in the Flemish Parliament is voted in a province of Flemish-Brabant. There is a Vlaams-Brabant electoral circle with the reform we have carried out before the Flemish elections. We will have a situation, colleague Cortois, in which your reasoning fails. Guy Verhofstadt has always said that we need to harmonize, that we need to see that the arrangement is equal for the state elections, for the federal, for the European. Well, on the Flemish level there will be a provincial electoral district VlaamsBrabant. You do not implement them at the European level or at the federal level, but you must do so! You know that the Arbitration Court has abolished the arrangement and said that before the next election, by 2007, a new arrangement must come. Now in Flanders you have a situation for Chamber and Senate where there are provincial electoral circles for West Flanders, East Flanders, Antwerp and Limburg, but not for VlaamsBrabant.

The Court of Arbitration said that this should be settled by 2007. You now have the opportunity to do this, but you do not.

I come to the second point, colleagues, why this scheme is antiVlaams. You still allow — and will undoubtedly do so again later — that Belgians abroad may vote in the district of their choice. They should not be bound by this district. In Halle-Vilvoorde and Brussels there was an overconcentration of French-speaking votes. There was, by the way, a striking overconcentration in the choice for the Flemish canton Lennik, which leads to a shift. This too swallows you completely. You also accept this. Excessive concentration is not a problem for the VLD. I am not talking about voting rights for foreigners, which will be approved later and that will cause a third time to undermine the position of the Flamings in Brussels.

Mr. Bourgeois, I would like to interrupt you for a moment. You have just quoted something that is very interesting, namely the large influx of non-language voices in Lennik. We have indeed gone from 5% to more than 20% of French speakers. However, this has nothing to do with the large number of people who have voted for municipalities from Canton Lennik, but with the accidental situation in which a lot of votes were counted manually in Canton Lennik, causing the figures to be twisted. These people often chose their place of residence in Brussels.

Now I will be curious — the minister may be able to answer — what arrangement will be invented for the upcoming European elections. What will we do with all these foreign Belgians? Will they be again concentrated in a manual canton, hence a canton in Flemish-Brabant? How will you organize it now? This technical question has not yet been answered. How will the votes of foreign Belgians be grouped according to the legislation?

Mr. Minister of Internal Affairs, you have an important discretionary power in this regard. You can significantly determine where those votes end up. Will you choose Lennik again, or will you create your own canton where the voices of the foreign Belgians are concentrated?

Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister does not wish to answer the question, I will simply continue with my speech.

Patrick Dewael: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question later. Belgium abroad is not at issue at the moment. I would like to limit myself to this debate. The debate about the Belgians abroad is currently taking place in the Senate Committee on Home Affairs. We will still have plenty of time to conduct this debate in this Chamber.

I continue my speech. I again address the representatives of the Flemish majority parties in this hemisphere who again have the opportunity to press the split of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district and not with a symbolic voice of the "spiritists" or Mr. Bonte and Mr. Cortois. It would still be lacking that the co-contributors of the bill would also scare back on this point for their responsibility.

Mr. Cortois, I ask that every Flemish elected person bear his responsibility. The story with which you are trying to suspense us is for the forum, for after 13 June. Please do not go with it anymore! In the formation of the government, the French-speaking people received the regionalization of the arms exports without a blow or a blow. Without strike or blow, they obtained that the tobacco advertising ban for Franchorchamps was postponed. At the moment, they obtain without a blow or a blow from Minister Onkelinx that unilaterally the frameworks of the courts in Charleroi and for the Court of Appeal in Mons are extended while objectively speaking, based on workload measurements, the working pressure in Flanders is the highest. This allows the VLD to pass all. We can hardly imagine it! You will then declare that the rightful Flemish requirements that are in accordance with the Flemish Constitution are once again put in the refrigerator! We will wait for the results of the forum discussions. Mr. Cortois, Mr. Tommelein, you now have the opportunity to vote yes and to do what you should do!

Mr. Speaker, I will decide. In the current circumstances where you make so many concessions to the French speakers, I am very proud that the N-VA has submitted the proposal of decree to self-organize by Flanders of its electoral circles. After having fought for Flemish powers for so long, it would have been a shame, in my opinion, if the Flemish Parliament had once again been encouraged by this federal level. This was going to happen. Flanders have this power. Flanders had to exercise this power. The French should not decide on this. We have been able to determine, Mr. Tommelein, what concessions your party has had to make for the provincial electoral circles! For a community-neutral operation, you have to pay a paritary-composed Senate, shrink the treaty law of Flanders, make Brussels a full-fledged third region, and you have put on paper that Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde would not be split.

The N-VA wanted to have a Vlaams-Brabant constituency. In this way we followed the Prime Minister’s reasoning that all matters should be harmonised at the state level, at the federal level and at the European level. On the Flemish level we have a Vlaams-Brabant electoral circle. Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, if you are consistent, you must also approve a Vlaams-Brabant constituency at the federal level. This is the consequence of what is happening on the Flemish level. If you advocate for harmonisation, you must apply it also at this level.

A third reason why it is good that this reform will be approved is the end of the lottery of the apparentation in order to ⁇ a greater proportionality. Colleagues, I do not ignore that the N-VA was in a state of legal self-defense. The present draft includes a threshold of 5% in both hypotheses. If the district electoral circles continued to exist, we would also have a voting threshold of 5% but then on the provincial level. This was a much worse situation.

This was the worst situation. Then, of course, we were confronted with the false promises of Mr Stevaert. He has always told the Greens that they should not worry, that he would not bully them, and that he would never approve a 5% threshold for district electoral circles. This is stated in the special law. If there were no provincial electoral circles, then the provincial threshold was equal, but then applied to smaller electoral circles, district electoral circles. That is the perfidity of your reform. Despite all the promises of Mr Stevaert, the Greens were in the tang. In the Committee on Internal Affairs, we once again explicitly asked whether the majority was willing to amend. Well, it remained silent on that side. It was approved.

Mr. Cortois, you are shaking “no”. Read the texts: the threshold of 5% is inscribed in the special law. It applies both to the provincial electoral circles and to the district electoral circles. You have introduced that lock on democracy in every hypothesis. This is the last reason why we took this initiative in the Flemish Parliament.

You say the majority parties have served themselves. If I follow your reasoning, it is also motivated by self-interest. I think a voting threshold of 5%, so that democracy can work efficiently, is not a bad thing. What you make of it, an attack on democracy, seems to me exaggerated — and I remain polite. I think it is partly motivated by self-interest and probably by doubt.

My party has not changed its mind like the Greens. We have fulminated and reacted against that threshold last time, and we continue to do so. We are very consistent in this. What you are saying is an opinion. You do not give any arguments. You may not have listened at that time, but I have even read you what the 5% threshold means compared to the natural threshold. I have given you arguments to say that the 5% threshold on the Flemish level is much higher than the 5% threshold on the federal level. While it actually only has effect in Antwerp, it now has effect in all provinces, except in Limburg. It has a perfide effect. In Antwerp it is almost even a doubling of the natural threshold. These are arguments, not opinions. You can express an opinion, but I try to argue.

Colleagues of the VLD and of sp.a-spirit, you will soon have the opportunity to re-vote on the split of the electoral district Brussels-HalleVilvoorde. I have submitted everything again in the form of amendments. We will count the heads. We will see which party holds all the tough promises and all the tough language in the electoral debates and which party keeps its word. I am submitting amendments again to maintain the affiliation, including between the provincial electoral circles. I am proposing amendments to remove the threshold. I am submitting an amendment to eliminate the inequality in Brussels between Dutch and French speakers.

I conclude with the announcement that this whole electoral reform is undoubtedly evidence of poor governance. It undermines the political responsibility of these majority parties. Sooner or later, purple will have to bear the consequences of this bad governance and pay the price for it.