Proposition 51K0689

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord entre le Royaume de Belgique et le Royaume des Pays-Bas relatif à l'arbitrage concernant la réactivation et la modernisation du Rhin de fer, conclu à La Haye par échange de notes datées du 22 juillet 2003 et du 23 juillet 2003.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Nov. 25, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Netherlands international arbitration international agreement rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

LE

Abstained from voting

Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Pieter De Crem (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• André Frédéric (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (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.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 5, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

I will be brief. First of all, I would like to remind you that the project we are discussing today is included in the government agreement concluded in July 2003. It is for this reason that he will not suffer from a negative vote emanating from my political formation, although I will allow myself, as a person, to abstain.

I would like to recall that the adoption of this agreement would have no meaning if, in return, investments from which the wallon dorsal and the entire railway infrastructure in the south of the country should benefit were not effectively realised. by

Indeed, certain guarantees exist so that the reactivation of the “Rhin d’acier” is organized in addition to the modernization of the Wallon axis of the rail freight transport. To this end, commitments were made in the negotiation of the SNCB’s ten-year plan to reserve the necessary resources for the modernization of lines 24 and 39. This is the case as the works on the renovation of the Moresnet viaduct are underway for EUR 25 million and as the studies for the electrification of the existing line between Montzen and Germany are on track. This is an important commitment that we will of course remain vigilant about. by

The agreement on which I allow myself to intervene today is not without consequences. In fact, this implies new expenses for our railway society. The prospect of reactivation of the historic track of the "Rhin of Steel" requires, among other things, the construction of a new line in the Dutch nature reserve of Meinweg.

According to the draft agreement on which we vote today, it is planned that the Netherlands will request the SNCB to finance some costly work, including the construction of a tunnel under the said natural reserve. The cost would be 500 million euros.

It is strong to bet, however, that this financing will not be able to be assured by our railway company, which eventually presupposes, after arbitration of the file, a classification without succession of the latter. If that was not the case, I can only ask myself about the possible funds that will be made available to this project and especially who will be the debtor.

Is Belgium really ready to finance this new railway route while the Walloon dorsal, which currently provides the transit of goods between the Ruhr Basin and the port of Antwerp, is far from saturated? Long before resulting in a transfer of market shares to rail, the higher number of trains supposed to take the reactivated steel Rhine will have as the first consequence a near-equivalent decrease in frequency on line 24. Knowing that at present, despite increasing traffic, this line is only used at about 50% of its capacity, it is right to ask what economic justification is based on the costly reactivation of the IJzeren Rijn while a much less heavy investment in comparison would allow the line 24 to remain perfectly performing for a long time.

Let me be well understood, far from me the idea of spending in the community. However, I feel that far beyond economic justifications, the reopening of the historic route of the IJzeren Rijn has for many years been a "must" for our colleagues in the north of the country who demand a faster connection between the Ruhr basin and the port of Antwerp. In the long run, with this new route, all traffic to the north of Germany, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic and Scandinavia would avoid the line 24 currently in service for this purpose, while according to some forecasts, the freight traffic between Antwerp and Germany is expected to triple by 2020. by

I therefore dare to hope that efficient and sustainable freight transport will be ⁇ ined in Wallonia from the German border, especially since the activity of several stations also depends on it. I think here, among other things, of Montzen and Kinkenpois. In addition, the IJzeren Rijn is a priority in the framework of the growth initiatives promoted by the European Union, as well as the project "EUROCAP-RAIL", which is more focused on the Walloon backbone.

In any case, any prerequisite for the financing of this part of the railway network is in the decision that will emanate from the arbitration settlement committee between the Netherlands and Belgium. To this end, I would further emphasize that any agreement towards the reactivation of the IJzeren Rijn requires the maintenance of certain investments at the Walloon scale because it is obvious that this project must in no way pose a threat to investments in the south of the country. We will be ⁇ attentive to this.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak, because I just heard Mr. Frédéric. It was a declaration of war on Flanders. I don’t know if the colleagues realized it and whether they understood what was told. I wonder how Mr. Van Campenhout will tell that in the port of Antwerp.

Now, here is freedom of speech. He can tell that nonsense. But he said a few things that just don’t mean anything. I am actually shocked by such a statement. Is there any solidarity? That is a very own interpretation of "own people first": own industry first, everything first, own PS first. It is a shame!

Colleagues, the dossier of the Iron Rhine has been of interest to me since I entered Parliament. This is already 7 years ago. The dossier has been on the government tables since 1995 and despite all the promises and punitive rulings of the competent ministers — there have been so far four — we are not moving further on the ground.

In 2000, I proposed in the Infrastructure Committee to initiate a judicial procedure. Then it was laughed well. But a few months later, the Prime Minister came in person to this place, in response to a question from me and my good friend Van Campenhout, that there was news, that at the end of 2001 there would be trains going over the Iron Rhine. It’s been a few years ago and I haven’t seen a single train ride yet. I have tried several times through questions and interpellations to confront the prime minister with his own ruling, but he sent telkenmale his cat. In the previous legislature, this was Ms. Durant. This minister has done nothing in those four years. The voters also took that into account. He was sentenced, among other things, because of this case.

Thirteen months ago, Prime Minister Verhofstadt declared very triumphantly that there was a common agreement between the two countries to request arbitration.

Today, thirteen months later, we are going to officialize that — even with urgency. Speaking quickly and efficiently. If one had taken my suggestion in 2000 to walk the legal path, today we would have had trains on the Iron Rhine. Probably we will even this year have a decision in this arbitration process, but in the meantime in the Netherlands they have clearly understood that we are in trouble here in Belgium, especially on the financial level. We can only actually do something with the Iron Rhine in 2007. Minister Vande Lanotte opposes this, but in Vinck’s Plan Move it is very clear that it will not be able to be realized until 2007. The Dutch are aware of the developments in this case and last year, in June 2003, they asked several questions in the Second Chamber, in which it was suggested that on the Dutch side too everything should be stopped since it apparently was no longer a priority with the Belgian government, however a government of which the VLD is part. Their

The Iron Rhine, colleagues, has been recognized by Europe as a priority traffic axis. This is also an additional problem. I have already signaled that. Ms. de Palacio stated that Member States that do not provide adequate support for their own projects should not automatically rely on a European intervention. In other words, because of our tremor, we can lose another important fund. Their

That the Dutch are troubled in this file has nothing to do with birds or plants, Mr. Frédéric. You may believe it, but it has nothing to do with it. The Iron Rhine is there. Nothing more needs to be added. The infrastructure is completely there, it only needs to be adjusted a little. That would take about six months. The real reason is simply a commercial reason. The Iron Rhine is a very important element in the growth of the port of Antwerp. The IJzeren Rijn will be an additional argument in the competitive struggle between Antwerp and Rotterdam.

This bill was discussed in the Foreign Relations Committee. By reviewing the report, I could clearly see the threats of the PS. I heard these threats here again today. They were shot in the wrong throat. In the committee they were expressed by one of your colleagues, Mr. Frédéric, but you repeat them here now. The message has been well received by us and I hope that this is also the case with the government.

Indeed, when the Iron Rhine is activated, there is a problem for the Montzen line. That is only temporary. The Iron Rhine will bring additional traffic to Antwerp and from this we both get better. The NMBS will also be better. Where is the problem?

The report is the report. Today’s report will find its way. However, I became very concerned. The enemy of the Iron Rhine is clearly not in the Netherlands but on the banks of the PS. The port of Antwerp is a very important part of the Belgian economy. You yourself will get better too. You must realize that, however, you want to slaughter your own milk cow. The port of Antwerp also provides well-being in Wallonia.

The current bill comes quite late, but better late than never. If this bill symbolizes the quick and efficient way this government works, I really start to worry.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we vote today on a bill approving the agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning arbitration in connection with the reactivation and modernisation of the Iron Rhine.

It is the modernization of a connection that lies there. I must tell you that this is about the implementation of an agreement, the implementation of a historical treaty. This, Mr. Frédéric, is about the loyal implementation of agreements that have been concluded. Why is arbitration needed, colleagues? Because the Dutch have not shown themselves too loyal partner. There is the historical treaty, there is the memorandum of understanding in which it was indeed stipulated, colleague Sevenhans, that at the end of 2001 already trains had to travel over that connection. And rightly! It is the shortest connection, the most sustainable connection from an economic and ecological point of view between the port of Antwerp and the German hinterland. So there is actually no reasonable reason, no objective argument to stop the activation of this line that lies there. There are, of course, protectionist measures from the Dutch point of view, but fortunately in Belgium we are objective and we try to optimize our infrastructure from an economic and ecological point of view. We are confronted with the deloyal attitude of the Dutch.

I am therefore very surprised — I do not understand the excitement on your part, Mr. Frédéric — that you are excited about the reactivation of a line that lies there and which was in use until the eighties. You stick to an old tradition and continue it: you are already demanding compensation for investments. If the Dutch people show themselves deloyally not to implement agreements, then I tell you: it is the firm will of the government, also in the government agreement, also of the NMBS, to reactivate the Iron Rhine.

So I must say that I do not understand your excitement. Today you show Dutch tracks, Dutch tracks. The whales show themselves a bit Dutch. They do not comply with agreements that have been concluded. Now it happens more — and we regret that in Flanders — that the PS is pressing a number of things against what is the will in Flanders, against the economic and ecological importance in Flanders and Belgium, Mr. Frédéric. I must tell you that the Iron Rhine is important for the impact force — small — of the Antwerp and Flemish economies, but in particular of the Wallish economy. The Albert Canal is a brilliant example, a beautiful connection between Antwerp and Luik, colleagues, and guarantees prosperity in Antwerp, but also in Luik. So I must say that I do not understand your excitement. Finally we go to arbitration, finally we can do something about the deloyal behavior of the Dutch, finally we will be able to reactivate that line, from economic and ecological interest, also at the Belgian level. Fortunately, whatever the PS may claim or change, there is the protection of mathematics. It is the shipowners, the new operators who will decide in the future which line they will use, whether they take the line through Montzen or the Iron Rhine. The Iron Rhine is 50 kilometers shorter. Whatever you claim about it, whatever steps you take in the future, you will not be able to decide that mathematics is changing. One kilometer in Wallonia will be as long as one kilometer in Flanders. The Iron Rhine will remain 50 kilometers shorter and will therefore be used in the future. I am therefore very pleased with this agreement from the interests of Antwerp and Flemish, but also from the interests of Liège and all Wallonia.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief after the explanation of Mr. Van Campenhout. After all, he gave a very good overview of the dossier.

We are amazed at the objective alliances that have emerged between Wallonia and the Netherlands. I would also like to say that one of the biggest allies of the dossier was Karel Van Miert, as far as we know in the 1980s and 1990s, a very well-known socialist in Flanders and Belgium. He was the pioneer for the new exploitation of the Iron Rhine.

I do not understand why our colleagues south of the language boundary, such as Mr. Frédéric, come here with the trace of Montzen and Kelmis. We all know that trace. This is about efficiency, Mr. Frédéric. I was very pleased that colleague Van Campenhout compared the mathematics of Wallonia and Flanders. Whatever you can do, you can still not have your own mathematics in Wallonia, expressed in kilometers.

Therefore, I can only support the proposal for arbitration. It comes abundantly late, but the Iron Rhine is of vital importance for the port of Antwerp.

I also look forward to the position of the Flemish Socialists in the dossier. It is of vital importance. The port of Antwerp is vital not only for Flanders, but also for Belgium and not least for those living in the south of the country.