Proposition 51K0915

Projet de loi transposant la décision du Conseil de l'Union européenne du 28 février 2002 instituant Eurojust afin de renforcer la lutte contre les formes graves de criminalité.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

March 15, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Eurojust European Union crime judicial cooperation fight against crime judicial power criminal procedure

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 29, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Do you ask the word in connection with this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

to be. I would only like to point out that, when someone invokes an article of the Rules of Procedure and in the form required for this purpose, you must respect it. You know very well that when someone asks for the word at an ordemotie, a debate can be held on the subject, where the word can be taken on behalf of each group. You put this shit down beside you.

Mr. Aunt ...

No, Mr. Speaker, let me speak for a moment. You think you should take the place of the government by giving substantial answers. You are completely out of your role. I would like to ask you to take up your role again and ensure that the Rules of Procedure are also respected in this.

Should I read the third paragraph of Article 54 that you know and that I want to apply here? I can submit the proposal at the time determined by the Chairman and if the Chamber does not agree with it, it must be voted on. I thought it was a short question with a short answer and I closed the incident. Somebody ask-t-il the word? Does anyone ask for the word?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, of course, there can be no better and better time to have the privilege to discuss in this Parliament on 29 April, at 16:40, the draft number 915, relating to Eurojust — serious forms of crime, formes graves de criminalité. Their

Justice, of course, is not separate from what we commonly call security, police security, something that has evolved enormously in our society. We have experienced enormous changes and evolutions, of which the most elementary in the post-war period was, for example, the establishment of the State Security. Important changes followed, for example, the demilitarization of the National Guard at the end of the 1980s, in which Minister Tobback, mayor of Leuven, played a ⁇ important role; the major police reform with that new drawing of the unity police, in which in fact those three major structures, the judicial police, the local police and the National Guard had to meet each other — and that didn’t always happen without horts or stunts. Their

Simultaneously with a great movement towards centralization in our kingdom, there was the incredible blurring of borders and the inclusion in that vast space which is Europe; not only an economic space that has evolved much further than in 1957 and the Treaty of Rome, in the preamble of which it was included that one wanted a free movement of goods and persons, that one wanted to give agriculture a legitimate income and that one actually had to be self-sufficient in terms of food supply. However, progress has been made and police cooperation, as well as judicial cooperation, are among the results. In my opinion, cooperation in the field of justice was never what Alcide De Gasperi, Robert Schuman and so many other signatories of the European Union had in 1957 because the forms of crime were completely different at that time. Certain forms of crime were, for example, smuggling, blue or border crime. Meanwhile, we know of forms of cross-border crime that are undoubtedly much more important and have a greater impact, including on the relationship of trust that the European citizens now have with 15 and soon, from 1 May, with 25 members. Their

That is why we take advantage of the opportunity to actually go a little wider. I thought that we had the opportunity to do so following the oral questions, even though the Prime Minister actually chose the escape route. We had expected an entirely different data because our questioning was nothing but a prelude to the discussion of the Eurojust draft that foreshadows.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, to this discussion we would like to link the discussion that is now continuing, with the glory and the crack of 1 May, the date that will once more be a hinge in the European unification. We would definitely like to link this discussion to the issues of border surveillance and Schengen, to the protocols that need to be concluded, to the establishment of the status of asylum seekers, and to so much more.

There has been a lot of talk about asylum seekers. When we look at our family tree, we all end up being somewhat the descendants of people who have somehow left their home to have a better future. This is something that none of us is strange to. Many also have the privilege of knowing people who, as migrants, have taken the great risk of often seeking economic asylum over the big gap. When we are lucky enough to meet Americans of Belgian, Flemish and Wallish descent, they tell us that they know what it means to be an asylum seeker, because they have experienced it on the lookout.

The whole problem of the uncontrollable asylum flows has naturally been added, which has also brought serious forms of crime. The search for asylum, the asylum problem, cannot be separated from certain forms of crime, human trafficking, white board crime, extortion, prostitution. That is why we really want to know the position of the Belgian government. That position will have to be adopted around this time in Luxembourg.

We see ourselves as a guided country and as the founding father of Europe and not only Europe — I think, for example, of the Brussels Treaty — which was also at the cradle of so many important international meetings that created the international legal order. Then we must also be able to discuss the fundamental question here, namely, what is the status of the asylum seeker.

I would also like to hear from the Minister how she will deal with this. What is the position of the Belgian government? Will we join the new international legal order that will come into existence from 1 May, which will make the sole status of the asylum seeker, which must also ensure that the notion of safe countries is established and finally also enable a policy of human accompaniment to the country of origin?

These are a number of issues and comments that we would like to bring into discussion. Mrs. Minister, we expect you to answer a few very simple questions. First, what is the position of the Belgian government regarding the so-called Asylum Directive, which is currently being discussed in Luxembourg?

Second, what is the attitude of the Belgian political parties among themselves?

Third, will you block European decision-making and thus plunge Europe into a crisis because there is no consensus? Today, we are all right in the answers.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat shocked to find that, in a matter as important as Eurojust, which has not posed any problem in committee, rather than emphasizing its importance, one takes the floor to restore a question that has just been asked and to which I have given an answer!

The [...]

I was in the Senate.

Mr. De Crem, another short replica? Their

Mr. Leterme, your group leader has asked for the word, and he gets it, but he says nothing?

Monsieur le président, le poids des mots de Mme la ministre est inférieur au choc de son attitude ici. Look, Mrs. Minister, what do you come here to do? You come here to tell the story that you are shocked, but who should be shocked here? The whole parliament should be shocked this afternoon. You are the initiator of a blockade of the Kingdom of Belgium. You are blocking a Euroright on asylum seekers, which, first, breaks the consensus and, second, completely marginalizes our country. Following the discussion of this design, I find it no more than logical — which may bother you — that you give an answer to the question. You are blasting. Le poids de vos mots est inférieur au choc de votre attitude.

I think you should intervene now.

He does not dare. He may not.

Mr. Speaker, usually you are very good as an extension of the executive power to support the government here. I find it not really worthy of a Parliament that there are kindergarten activities displayed by Mrs. the Minister: a little blow and a little look away. I suggest that the Minister respond to our questions. If she does not do so now, we may be able to raise enough resources in the further course of the debates this afternoon to get an answer anyway. I think, for example, of the erudition, the skill, the titles and the merits of colleagues Van Parys, Van der Auwera and Verherstraeten, who will not fail to ask for the word at certain times, if it proves necessary.