Proposition 51K1386

Proposition de résolution relative au soutien, par des équipes de liaison, de la prise en charge des enfants cancéreux séjournant à domicile.

General information ¶

Authors

Vooruit Magda De Meyer, Karin Jiroflée, Annelies Storms, Greet Van Gool

Submission date

Oct. 14, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

cancer child resolution of parliament public health illness

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 ¶

March 10, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, on behalf of the Committee on Public Health, Environment and Social Renewal, I will report on the proposal for a resolution on supporting care by liaison teams for children with cancer staying at home. It was discussed at the meetings of 1 and 15 February 2005.

In her introductory presentation, the initiator, Ms. Karin Jiroflée of sp.a, said that annually in Belgium 300 to 400 children are affected by cancer.

Most are treated in specialized childhood cancer centers. The psychosocial balance of the child and the family members is therefore severely disturbed. However, thanks to the improved scientific and medical technology, cancer patients can be treated at home more and more often. It is primarily the primary care providers such as family doctors, nurses and home caregivers who ask for this. This proposal for a resolution aims to fill the missing link between the hospital, on the one hand, and the home care, on the other, without taking over the task of those primary care providers. Specialized and high-quality support is needed. Now this happens only in experimental projects such as in Leuven and Gent.

The discussion will discuss the question of holding a general debate about children in the hospital and also whether there should be no more consultation between the liaison teams and the palliative networks. All groups support home care for cancer patients. Mrs Jiroflée and the VLD are asking questions to the Minister regarding the financing of the projects currently underway. In the university hospitals of Gent and Leuven, the projects are mainly financed from the Flemish League against Cancer. The Gent team works both curative and palliative, the Leuven team mainly palliative. The Minister explains that the financing of the Eclaircie project in Wallonia involving three university hospitals comes from the hospital budget, namely the B4 section. There is a financing for two years with an annual amount of 62,166 euros per institution, thus a total of 186,500 euros for the project Eclaircie. The liaisone teams should prepare a report, which the Minister will then evaluate.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 are adopted unanimously. These are about the safeguards to care for cancer patients as much as possible and as optimally as possible at home.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 are adopted by 8 votes in favor and 3 abstentions. They deal with the recognition, structural support and financing of a liaison team in at least every hospital with a childhood cancer center and this in cooperation with community governments and regions. This funding is made through conventions between hospitals and primary care providers, without taking over the tasks of the latter. Their

An amendment is submitted by CD&V by monde of Mr. Goutry. It calls for an equivalent beto laying for all existing palliative home care teams based on the number of treated children with cancer. This amendment is rejected by 6 votes against 4 with 1 abstinence. I hope that the Minister will be able to ⁇ a good structural integration with responsible financing, making the best use of the structures already existing at the level of the Communities, in order to ⁇ a good synergy. Their

Until then my report. If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will give a few comments from my group, the VLD. Their

Indeed, children with cancer deserve the maximum attention of the government during their treatment. The VLD also advocates home care for the well-known reasons of psychological, social and also financial nature: children need to stay in the hospital for less time and thus make room for other sick people. Specialized and high-quality support is needed. The VLD asks the Minister, when drawing up a final framework and structural financing, to evaluate these initiatives on their effectiveness, on their approach and on the mode of financing. Their

The projects have come to the request of the first-line health workers, especially the general physicians, nurses and kinesiologists. They are, by the way, the main pioneers in the projects. However, VLD insists that they should not be imposed on them an excessive, administrative burden.

Furthermore, we advocate for the support of the liaisone teams, both in the curative and in the eventual palliative phase. VLD is also in favor of limiting the liaison teams to those hospitals that have a childhood cancer center. It is important to pay attention to the quality.

Finally, we point out that the structures already existing in Flanders, such as the cooperation initiatives and the palliative networks, should also be considered.

With your explanation after your report, Mrs Dierickx, you introduced the general discussion. The ladies Jiroflée and Tilmans are also registered as speakers.

Mr. Dierickx said that between 300 and 400 new cases of cancer in children are recorded in Belgium each year. In many cases, these young patients can be treated successfully. Nevertheless, in Western Europe, tumors remain the leading cause of death among children between 5 and 14 years of age.

Children with cancer are frequently hospitalized in specialized centres. These hospitalizations significantly disrupt the psychosocial balance of child and family. Children are separated from their parents at a time when intense contact is of course very important. Therefore, it is better for these children, on which all specialists agree, to leave as much as possible at home with their parents, brothers, sisters and family. Among other things, due to the progressive scientific developments, treatment at home is also increasingly within the medical possibilities. However, home care for cancer patients requires a global and continuous effort that is complex and difficult and requires specialized support, which is actually an extension of hospital care.

Regular first-line care does not always have the necessary knowledge, nor the technique that is present in a hospital. Furthermore, these healthcare providers usually focus primarily on adults and more specifically on the elderly. Proper care of children requires specific knowledge and skills that pediatricians, pediatric anesthesiologists, pediatric pineologists and pediatric nurses have.

Belgian pediatric oncology centers of hospitals, for Flanders in Leuven and Gent, have set up specialized projects to support that home care. These projects aim to form a connection team between the hospital and home.

Both in the curative and palliative phase, they provide specialized support for first-line care providers, such as the general physician and the home nurse. In fact, these liaisonequipes export the methodologies and knowledge of the hospital to the home of the cancer patient.

With this form of support, children do not have to stay in the hospital longer than strictly necessary. The hospital stay can be limited to very short interviews. In addition, the child may remain at home until recovery or, if applicable, death.

At present, however, there is no structural support for these teams. They work with the support of associations such as the Flemish League Against Cancer and the Children’s Cancer Fund.

However, these liaisone teams can work without large costs. In addition, if more children with cancer can be cared for at home, beds will be released and costs in the hospital can be pressed. The released funds can be used for the financial support of the liaisone teams.

This, of course, requires the conclusion of agreements by the government with the hospitals that have such a specialized childhood cancer center.

For the reasons I have just outlined, we therefore ask the government to ensure that children with cancer can be cared for at home as much as possible and as optimally as possible. We call for the stimulation of liaisone teams, which form a link between the hospital and the home situation. We ask for recognition and, above all, for funding for those liaisone teams, consisting of a multidisciplinary team. During the committee meeting it appears that Minister Demotte is also interested in these projects. This is of course very pleasing to us. We therefore hope that the plenary session will want to follow us in this matter of such importance for children.

The problem of child cancer deserves our full attention. It is important to optimize the context of the treatment of this type of pathology, without forgetting that other serious chronic pathologies also justify the same interest.

In the situation of the cancer child, the improvement of his environment, whether psychological or family, is determining for a positive course of the disease.

The resolution proposal voted today aims to provide support in the care of children with cancer who remain at home. This support would be provided by liaison teams, thus avoiding psychological trauma due to hospitalization. These linking teams enable an invaluable improvement in the quality of treatment and patient follow-up at home. Consequently, the draft resolution calls on our government to provide structural financial support to these teams.

In a very objective spirit, we support this resolution.

It is in the same spirit and with the same objective that we had submitted, on 27 October 2003, a proposal for a resolution concerning the coverage, by the social security, of the costs inherent in the treatment of the child with a serious disease.

This resolution proposal has a broader scope than that of children with cancer.

Our resolution proposal aims to ensure the exercise of federal solidarity towards all children with severe disease. We emphasized the necessary improvement of the conditions of hospital stay, both for the child and for his parents. We also want to ensure free stays in hospitals, rehabilitation centers and medical psychiatric centers.

We also want to support the financing of the necessary teams and services for children with a serious pathology. We insist on improving the specific nomenclature. We also want free dental and paramedical medical services as well as medicines, as well as taking care of the necessary care equipment for these children. There is still the equal reimbursement of hospital care at home.

But that is not all. We also want, and we find it necessary, to take care of travel – there will be teams, parents and the child – and the costs inherent in the care of the child at home. This is also the purpose of our resolution. Mr. Speaker, we believe that beyond the progress allowed by this resolution, the problem of the child with cancer and/or severe chronic illness justifies a comprehensive approach and solution, which our health insurance scheme could only boast.

The discussion is close. The discussion is closed.

No amendments have been submitted or re-submitted. There will be no amendments ingediend of heringediend. The vote on the draft resolution will take place at a later date. Voting over the resolution will take place later.

This proposal to amend the Constitution has been the subject of several discussions during several meetings.

Mr. Hasquin’s proposal was actually inspired by Mr. Daems’s bill in connection with the organization of the popular consultation. There were parties who had expressed constitutional objections to the draft law of colleague Daems. For this reason, colleague Hasquin suggested a bill to revise or amend Article 167, §2 of the Constitution so that a public consultation was possible within the framework of the procedure for approval of international treaties. This could then pave the way for a popular consultation to be organised for the adoption of the EU Constitution. This proposal also entails that the legislature should organize further rules for this popular consultation.

With regard to this bill, the FOD Internal Affairs was heard, which suggested that this public consultation should be organised either on 17 or 24 April. Members suggested that it was not appropriate to continue the ratification process before this popular consultation had taken place. Objections were expressed, namely that in the pre-constituent law the public consultation at the federal level was excluded on the basis of the fact that a bill in this regard had been withdrawn in that sense. Also observations were made because of the fact that this constitutional article is actually subject to revision in order to change the Senate and there is a practice in the two chambers not to amend a constitutional article twice in the same legislature.

There were also questions whether this bill did not imply an implicit amendment to Articles 36 and 42 of the Constitution, which actually contain representative democracy.

Colleague Daems believed that there are social changes ongoing and that we should be involved in doing so. There is a gap between law and social reality. The law must be aligned with that social reality. The constitutional objections are more of a political rather than legal nature and he believes that he can rely on the opinions of the legislative services.

Collega Maingain believed that there was no implicit revision of Article 42 of the Constitution and inspired the preparatory work. He also stated that in the past much has gone further with implied changes. He also argued that a constitutional amendment can take place more than once in one legislature. He was assisted by colleague Michel who, among other things, argued that it is not because direct democracy is not stated in the Constitution that it would be forbidden. With the acceptance of this bill, all constitutional objections would be addressed and there would be a support to approve the bill proposed by colleague Daems.

Colleague Tant asked questions about the usefulness of this popular consultation. According to the Eurobarometer, 70% of Belgians are in favour of this EU constitution. He also raised questions because parts of our national competence have been gradually transferred to supranational institutions that can exercise their power under law and treaty. If we approved this bill, the European directives would also be included here. Thus, it would be possible to organize public consultations on European directives, which would threaten to destroy our European institutions.

On the observation that Europe is too far from the citizen, colleague Tant noted that the changes in the electoral reform in the previous legislature have led to the gap between the citizen and the politics being widened.

The PS group argued that it is not at all an opponent of popular councils, but that bills to amend the Constitution involve improvisation and are merely to make possible the bill of colleague Daems. He raised technical and legal concerns.

The Flemish Interest asked questions about those who have expressed constitutional objections.

Now it also turns out, they argued, that those who are against the constitutional amendment because the constitutional article is for the Senate reform, are also against the Senate reform. Mr Laeremans pointed out that the Eurobarometer does not include a poll. He also pointed out that it should also be possible to discuss the accession of Turkey. He pointed out that opponents who fear this will be abused are not at the right end.

In the sp.a, it was stated that legal controversies had not yet been resolved, that the bill had not yet matured and that international treaties could cover both federal and regional matters. Therefore, all assemblies should be involved.

Collega Nagy pointed out that the countries around us where a consultation took place are still a good example, as there is at least a debate on the European Constitution.

Finally, colleague Wathelet stated that he is not at all opposed to the principle of popular consultation and that the bill for constitutional amendment contains an improvement, but that it is insufficient. In any case, he called for an important information campaign.

This constitutional amendment was rejected by 9 votes against 8. Until then, Mr. Speaker, the report.

I suspect that you wish to speak on behalf of your group?

and yes. Mr. De Crem, our group chairman, will also speak, Mr. Chairman.

That is good. I have subsequently also allowed this to Mrs. Dierickx and other colleagues.

President, colleagues, it is already said today that Parliament is becoming a false parliament and that there are only false debates here. In fact, we all have to agree to this in part. What we have identified in the last few weeks in the Committee on Home Affairs with its false debates and false meetings is a school example of this. Unfortunately, the proposal concerning the public consultation is no exception. In fact, the debates after a meeting and ⁇ after a very strange principle vote, with which you created parliamentary jurisprudence, Mr. Speaker - your grandchildren will undoubtedly still talk about it later when they are part of this house - were already exhausted. Subsequently, we received several repetitions. You know how it goes with repetitions, colleagues: the more everything repeats itself, the less people come in.

We saw it on the cameras and on the journalists. In the beginning there were many cameras and many journalists. At last there were no more.

Yes, even the president did not come at last. He let the mistake go.

I was once replaced by Mr. Giet because I had to be in another place. Then I came back.

Not only do you have to be in a different place. When at some point in the final phase there were still votes to be held, there were also members who were in other places.

Nevertheless, I admire many colleagues for the creativity they have demonstrated during the committee meetings in the death struggle of the bills — I also include Mr. Daems’ bill. Pirouettes were made in the square. Mr. Lambert, I will not look in your direction in this regard, because you were not the only one who made a pirouette. Others did that with you.

Actually it fits. After all, soon some colleagues will scream murder and fire because we do not involve the people in Europe, while in fact they themselves, at the moment it was supposed to happen, let the people go.

That’s why, Mr. Chairman of the group of spirit, if one enters a little later.

Mr. Reverend, you must not stop that.

Mr. Speaker, it does not stop me.

I would rather give my report to the colleagues of spirit and summarize when they went and when they came. Especially when there were votes, they went.

Their time of coming, is

“We are going to hold an equal European referendum.” The Prime Minister, like all colleagues in this assembly, knew that this would raise constitutional objections. This was repeatedly stated by the State Council before. I still wonder what European efforts this prime minister has made to implement what is stated in his second government agreement. We have not noticed anything about it. Their

If, indeed, we know the bill of colleague Daems, which is a piece in the pre-born of the bill that we are now discussing, the proposal for amendment of the Constitution, then we must nevertheless find that ⁇ gradually the discussions colleague Daems engaged — which was very extensive — to even agree with the duty of appearance. We would have written history: a popular consultation with the obligation to rise in Europe. We expected amendments because they were announced. The housework was not done. In any case, I find that a referendum with compulsory appearance would be a bit in contradiction with majority statements that we hold too many elections and that we need to bring elections back together. Flemish and federal, for example. Their

However, that does not prevent us from organising a public consultation with the obligation of appearance.

What surprised us even more is that the subjects of the proposal that is today the subject of discussion here, in the House, namely the colleagues of the MR who suggest an amendment to the Constitution, were themselves the instigators to implement the government agreement of Paul I. They indeed submitted a proposal for a declaration of revision in the previous legislature. I will quote from the explanation. “The submitters of this proposal for a declaration on the revision of the Constitution, in particular colleague Bacquelaine, colleague Barzin and colleague Michel, advocate a revision of Title III to include an article on the referendum.” Well, by removing it! Speaking of a pirate!

It has been three or four times that the argument has been advanced. He is ready to smile. by Mr. Verherstraeten, who is an accustomed to political life, knows the mechanisms of functioning of governments. He knows that negotiations have taken place within governments to establish, for example, a draft declaration to revise the Constitution. by

In any case, you cannot blame the MR for being constant, for many years, on the simultaneous proposal of mechanisms of direct democracy, whether for popular consultation or for the referendum. It is indeed true that, for a long time, in our case, we consider the debate on the constitutionality of the referendum or the popular consultation to be a nuanced debate. It is, by the way, the professors of Dutch-speaking universities who advocate and argue that a popular consultation is compatible with the Constitution.

We admit that there is controversy, that there is a position of the State Council on this subject. Do not pretend to believe that there are doubts among us and do not be surprised: in a few moments, when we speak, we will demonstrate the various doubts that have animated each other, in recent years, on these different themes.

Did the statement you are talking about, Mr. Michel, come from the government or members of the parliament present here, including yourself? I know that mr. Maingain, Mrs. Barzin, absent, and Mr. Bacquelaine has signed. This did not come from the government. This was a proposal from the Parliament that you withdrew.

What do you draw as a conclusion?

Finish your reasoning.

Mr. Michel, I only state that one must give and take if one is part of the majority — that is also logical — and that one must also give. In my opinion, however, one should not admit if it is explicitly stated in the government agreement!

The question is whether a constitutional amendment is necessary. You have the proof that it is necessary, because you have submitted the proposal for revision yourself! You have signed it!

You have withdrawn! You come here to tell that some parties block referendums and popular consultations. You are the instigator for it to be stopped.

Mr. Verherstraeten, I sincerely wish you to have other arguments because, for now, it is not very convincing!

Mr. Verherstraeten, you have already spoken 14 minutes of the 30 minutes you were allowed.

I am being interrupted. This must be removed from my time.

I will not talk about the pirouettes of the PS and its chairman. I leave this to our group chairman. I will not talk about the demarrages of spirit. Mr. Lambert, we should not matriculate you. You have marshalled yourself by making pirouettes. Today you will be able to do great manoeuvres. You will say that you are in favor and that you will cooperate with the revision of the Constitution. Their

When the Daems proposal was discussed and the State Council’s opinion was known and a principle vote took place, you approved it. In other words, you said that with the advice of the State Council, there was no problem with constitutionality. At that time, there were no constitutional objections. Their

A long-term amendment was submitted by the Flemish Interest Group. They had already explicitly stated through the media that they would do a matter about Turkey’s accession. Nevertheless, you approved it in principle well. I do not need to waste any more words about it. The pirates are known. Their

Now today you will approve the amendment to the Constitution here, knowing that you have given yourself the reason that the Daems bill will not be approved. We also ensure that it is not approved, but we are not in favor and dare to say that too. I will come back to that later. Ladies and gentlemen, I am following your invitation from last week. Your proposal deserves it too. Their

Let us take a look at the draft law by the colleagues of Mr. The attempts are noble and may also be legally defensive. We will also hear the legal arguments pro from the colleagues of MR and colleague Daems. We have read the opinions of the legislative services of our Chamber. They can be interpreted on one side. They can also be interpreted on the other side. You know that we ab initio requested those advice because we have objections. I can find arguments in those texts of the Chamber. We will no longer be technically involved. It can be interpreted from two sides. Let’s be honest, the de facto question here today is whether we hold a popular consultation or not. Their

In fact, not legally, it is the proposal of colleague Daems. Colleague Daems, you know that we have constitutional objections in this regard. If there were to be a popular consultation, we would rather have seen it at the European level. We are afraid of abuse. You have stated that everyone here has confessed the love of the popular consultation, but that it will be stopped when it comes to it. Their

Mr. Daems, the honesty commands me to say that we are not opponents of a popular consultation. We have also made this legally possible at the local and provincial level. We want to make this possible at the regional level. However, we do not consider a public consultation to be beneficial. In a federal country with community breaking lines, it will always be extremely difficult to organize a popular consultation. We are not in favour of pressing something in the future where 50,1% of the population is in favor and 49,9% is against, and ⁇ not if the results among the different communities are different. We have seen examples of this in our country. We must be sensitive to the equilibrium.

Mr. Speaker, just like in the committee, I am ⁇ surprised by the fear of the CD&V for a community breaking line. Like in the committee, I find that a significant part that these days – after its displacement from CVP to CD&V – makes an attempt to stand up Vlaamsgezind, adopts a very strong Belgicist and unitarist attitude and uses the fear of a different outcome in Flanders and Wallonia as an argument against a possible referendum. Mr. Verherstraeten, as far as I know, the third letter of your letterword stands for Flemish. Since when do you stand with Belgian arguments on this tribune?

This is not a Belgian argument. What would you say if in Flanders there is a minority and in Wallonia there is a majority and the aggregate is a majority? The result can also go in the opposite direction. Would we like to be “geminorized” in this regard? By the way, I do not want to say that it cannot. I only say that it is sensitive and it is also sensitive in other countries. In Ireland, for example, concerning the Treaty of Nice, where after a negative result a second popular consultation is organized to get a "yes". In Denmark there was a public consultation for accession to the EU. One votes against, one is stuck and one again organizes a popular consultation to get a yes vote. What will happen if the people vote no to the EU Constitution? Will we reject the EU Constitution? A second public consultation may be organised. This also creates problems at the local level. Think of the people’s council in Ghent on the parking under the Belfort; the supporters had to vote “no” and the opponents “yes”; however, the city administration did not call for voting. In the end, “yes” became “no”. That is the reality. I do not want to criticize a public consultation. We are not opponents of this. We only want to somewhat nuanced its blissfulness.

In the context of the discussions of this proposal, Mr. Daems, I have not been able to get rid of the impression that the gap between voters and politics is too large without a referendum and that it would give the impression that the voter is unspoken. Between the voter and politics there are families, families, socio-cultural associations, sports associations, democratic associations.

We can not only listen to them, but also engage in the debate, take into account their ideas and thus influence our decision-making to adjust and thus reach a balanced compromise. This is representative democracy for us. That’s something different than saying “yes” or “no”! This is much richer than a public consultation. Instead, this approach should be chosen.

However, this false debate has also learned a lot. It was symptomatic and interesting. It was interesting, because in the majority there were contradictions. It can and should be. We have become "blinded" because once in a government agreement there was a paragraph on ethical issues, as if in the previous purple majority on certain topics no discipline should prevail. I can list many examples.

I must conclude that the disagreement that now prevails within purple, the debate as it has taken place and the procedures according to which the debate has taken place, are symptomatic. This majority may disagree on some matters. The events of the last few weeks in connection with BrusselsHalle-Vilvoorde, the public consultation, the demand for merchants to be reimbursed in public works, the traffic legislation and the fines, the house dairy, the powers on the health law, the pension savings raise the question where this majority still agrees. She is talking about nothing anymore. She no longer controls. The discussion of this popular consultation and the way it has been a good example of how purple is doing now.

With a little injury time, you’ve spent 22 minutes out of the 30 assigned to your faction.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will focus on the essential, at least I will try to do so, to allow my colleagues to intervene in a complementary way. First, let me thank the CDH very solemnly for its vote on the procedure last week. Indeed, although among the French-speaking formations this party is hostile to the popular consultation, it has accepted that the debate may be held in a plenary session. I would like to greet this gesture in a formal way.

That being said, I would now like to focus on two elements that I think are at the heart of the discussion. On the one hand, there are issues related to legality. by Mr. Verherstraeten talked about legal issues. On the other hand, I will deliver a few elements on whether or not to organize a popular consultation on the European Constitution.

As far as legality is concerned, I will not have to argue long to explain what the question is. Is a public consultation compatible with our Constitution? There is controversy, let’s admit it. For many years, the Council of State has issued a reserved opinion, a very disputable opinion on the legal level, since all the reasoning of the Council of State is based on the idea that in fact, a popular consultation would be similar to a referendum insofar as, once the universal suffrage had been expressed, the Parliament would be bound. This argument is legally disputable, but let’s go!

Some groups express concern and say that in the current state, they would feel uncomfortable if a provision in the Constitution was not adopted to move forward. The solution proposed by the MR is very simple: it goes through the reform of the procedure relating to the adoption of certain international treaties, those involving the transfer of sovereignty, to avoid the abuse of popular consultations, to precisely frame the ability to resort to the consultation of universal suffrage, with an indispensable decision of Parliament. Now that we are putting this proposal into the debate, we are reputed that it would not yet be mature enough, that it would be a bit weak legally — which we are less and less convinced of. In the essence, although I am attentive to the discussions that took place in the committee, although I read all the accounts rendered and all the minutes, I do not find a solid legal argument to oppose the revision of the Constitution.

Mr. Verherstraeten, very skillfully — and I acknowledge you well here — you pass on the argument by saying that we have talked a lot about it, that it is quite technical and that you are not fully convinced by the recourse to Article 167 of the Constitution, without hearing any solid and credible legal argument. Venous to the fact. The truth is that there is a bad will — and you have admitted it: you think that consulting is not a good thing.

Another word on the legal issue. A little pointed out argument while it seems to me to be based on common sense is the following: in this assembly, we admit every week only committees, which our parliament can consult with experts. This is the case in Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde. It is possible to consult associations.

It is admitted that the Parliament can consult whom it wishes. There is no discussion about whether this would challenge the representative regime. When one wishes to consult our mandants, those who have appointed us to represent them here, through universal suffrage, when one wishes to consult the Nation, there he hears screams of orphanage: what horror! This would not be compatible with the constitutional provision; the representative regime would be challenged. All powers emanate from the nation and consulting universal suffrage is an element that seems natural to us in a democracy.

Another word, especially addressed to my French-speaking colleagues, to say and repeat that Article 167 of the Constitution allows to frame the use of consultations on very specific topics: in short, international treaties. I say it with a smile, and it is almost a bump: it avoids the stupid questions of the style: should we wish yes or no that we maintain Belgium as an independent state? This kind of consultation, a bit stupid, would not be possible if the constitutional text was adopted. This had to be said.

On the opportunity, I would like to highlight three arguments, but there are many others. First element: we must be clear about the fact that today, our democratic model raises a number of questions. Let us not be blind. There is a sensation, very widely spread in the population, that the gap grows, widespread.

To dare to establish mechanisms of direct democracy on issues as essential as the future of our country, in a whole series of themes that concern us daily, for the next ten or fifteen years, to dare to ask the question of whether or not one should step forward in the European construction, is the answer to questions relating to concerns about a model of globalization that is fair, that takes into account the dimension of humanity, the dimension of ethics, that takes into account those elements.

That is why those who sincerely want more social Europe should wish for a broad popular debate that would necessarily take place in the context of such a popular consultation. The social Europe, you have understood, will remain at the word stage if we do not give the opportunity to translate the weight of this social dimension through the polls and not simply in a few debates after 21:00, in a slightly desert assembly.

The second important element is that which consists of saying: it would be too complicated, our fellow citizens would not have the ability, think you, to read such a complex text.

This will not surprise you: I consider this argument as an insult to all our fellow citizens. Would the Belgians be more stupid than the Spaniards, more stupid than the Austrians, more stupid than the Danes, more stupid than the French, more stupid than the British, etc.? Whenever one speaks at the time of an election deadline by putting a ballot in the urn, one must also take an attitude on complex issues: employment, the social dimension, the dimension of economic growth. All the issues posed through the elections are complex issues and yet, fortunately, it is admitted that pure universal suffrage remains the rule in our country.

The third element, in the context of political action, I consider that there should be a clear guideline. I would like to read an excerpt from a press release of 25 September 2003: "It is urgent to bring the debate on the future of Europe at the level of citizens, especially when it comes to making a decision on a text as fundamental as the future European Constitution. The organization of a public consultation on the future European Constitution can help bring Europe’s citizens closer together.” It is true that the text goes further by saying that for this it is necessary to adapt the Constitution. This is a press release of the CDH of 25 September 2003. This is obviously a rubber backbone: depending on the wind, the context, the position varies. I regret this situation. In conclusion, my dear friends, the moment we will live in a few hours will be historical. We may have the opportunity to change the course of things together and make sure that the vote that will take place is not the one everyone expects. I have no doubt that in all ranks, including those of the parties that have officially declared themselves against the European Constitution, fingers will flatter recently, and that some will be tempted to support this popular consultation to give the word to all our fellow citizens. Do not hesitate to be bold. Together, let’s go back to history. Let us give this consultation to our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, today is finally ending a soap that began on 16 September 2004. In this Parliament we have managed to keep six full months unending with the item European Constitution.

Sometimes it is useful to carefully examine publications of this Chamber. Sometimes there are coincidences that explain a number of things. Today, like all my colleagues, I was given the explanation in the box at the entrance why we were allowed to have fun with the European Constitution for six months in the Committee on the Revision of the Constitution and in this plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, today, both with us and with our colleagues, you have distributed a kind of government communication that is packaged as a document of the House. What happens, dear colleague Daems? You have indeed succeeded — it was undoubtedly the direct reason for extending this debate for six months — as the only colleague in the Chamber to get such a large picture in a document of the Chamber. The photo is pieces larger than the photos we are just of the chamber chairman. For the first time, the president has been very modest. It is printed with a very tiny photo. He gave it to his VLD group chairman to get a very comprehensive picture. It can count, as a reference. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, if one walks around this hemisphere for several years, one becomes very cynical. Dear colleague Daems, it gives me the explanation why this debate had to be held for six months in the Committee for the Revision of the Constitution. Today we have seen the statement: your photo is printed in large in the document of the Chamber. Apparently, the printers could not be finished faster. The debate should not have been speeding up faster.

Colleagues, if it were not so painful, we could have saved a lot of time, in the context of efficient political companies. I have been permitted to read all the reports of the last few months carefully. If I look at the exhibition of our usually very quiet, but intelligent, colleague Giet of the PS, then we could already on September 16, 2004 know what time it would be and how this fable would end. What is stated in the report of the session of 16 September 2004 on Mr Giet? “The speaker is open to reflection, but at first glance he is of the opinion that a popular consultation is not an ideal method for a parliamentary democracy, such as Belgium.”

Colleague Daems, you could have saved yourself, as liberals, a lot of effort. After two consecutive purple rule periods, you should still know who distributes the leaves in the country. We could have brought a lot of efficiency into this business, by saving ourselves a lot of discussions that are without object.

Of course, I cannot remain alone with colleague Giet. The pirouettes made by the colleagues of the sp.a. can also be there. Our good colleague Dirk Van der Maelen, you undoubtedly still know everyone, the man who during the previous legislature perfectly succeeded in driving the Committee for Political Renewal expertly. That actually gave a very bad forecast at the time that colleague Van der Maelen had to come to interpret the sp.a. position on a possible people’s council consultation. This, in essence, already indicated that it had to end badly.

Colleague Van der Maelen left a lot of space in the beginning. What did Mr. Van der Maelen already say at the September 16 meeting? "On the public consultation, the opinions within the two communities differed. The Dutch-speaking experts considered a public consultation possible insofar as it is not binding on the political government. According to the French-speaking experts, a referendum is unconstitutional in all cases."More importantly, the speaker declares on behalf of his group that a referendum can only be held if participation is mandatory. This is the only way to ensure the legality of the result.

What happened? Colleague Van der Maelen was served on his tips. Without any problem, almost unanimity arose over a sp.a. amendment to indeed introduce the compulsory appearance as regards the referendum.

Collega Van der Maelen was in the meeting of 16 November, two months after the first notorious meeting, even more principled and even clearer. He said: "In this debate, the group" — of colleague Van der Maelen — "although in favour of a popular consultation, but on the condition that there is a compulsory appearance." Finally, he insists that the first public consultation since the King’s Question would receive maximum attention so that it would have a favorable precedent.

Colleague Van der Maelen, afterwards we were able to observe very many pirouettes, also in your group, in which eventually supporters became opponents and everyone had to take curves because a certain PS party member, Elio Di Rupo, had given an order; he stated that it had to be done with the games now.

Colleagues of CD&V, I will honestly acknowledge against our good opposition tradition and our good opposition understanding that we have not really well understood your reasoning in this. At the time when the first proposal was on the table, your position was very clear, in the sense that the proposal — the proposal of colleague Daems — would be unconstitutional. At the moment that the members of the MR group sympathize with you with a constitutional amendment and a proposal regarding it, you must eventually take all sorts of curves. Indeed, even a number of CD&Vcollega's cited that the Eurobarometer showed that before that there was a very broad majority within Flanders and that we eventually no longer had to consult the population because och arme had already provided clarity to an important poll of opinion.

Again, colleague Verherstraeten — I just interrupted you a moment before that — you have even, and this happened very often in the committee, expressed the fear that the results between the two major language communities in this country might differ.

As if that now from your corner should be an argument to advocate against such a popular consultation. I have to be honest, I cannot understand this correctly.

When colleague Verherstraeten then comes up with the argument how it was turned out in the past, he must know how it ended in the time of the King's Question. Where is the problem actually? Let us be clear: you of CD&V might have had five minutes of political courage, to say it with the words of your own Prime Minister-President of Flanders, to give that opportunity to the population instead of giving the population the signal: we find you too stupid to think about such a complicated problem as Europe and express your opinion. Give the people a chance to express their views on such an important issue as Europe.

My colleagues, I can’t get around. Certainly now that colleague Verherstraeten has been so sympathetic to save our colleagues of spirit, I have to turn the knife in the wound for a moment. Colleagues of spirit, you have taken in this not ⁇ a courageous attitude. You have – I will repeat what I said in the committee without much freedom – taken note of Stevaert’s statements in January, when he stated in P-Magazine that holding a referendum involved the risk that the PS would see it as bullying, and that it was therefore not opportune. I must congratulate you for so much lack of principled attitude, at the same time I must congratulate you with so much tactical insight, with so much insight to secure your own portfolios and your own room seats. You know very well that your room seats are not proportionate to your electoral weight in the population. You know very well that if you had some courage, you should have been able to make the difference in the debate here. But you have chosen for the security of the parliamentary mandate, because you know that those beautiful songs can sometimes end. Indeed, the truly socialist colleagues can say: it has now been waves with those "spiritual" colleagues; it brings us no more electoral importance; it has been long enough; let us send those colleagues to where they belong, to some dark back cafe where they can smoke a joint and where they can entertain themselves in a pseudo-intellectual way.

Liberal colleagues, you too will not escape. I have to refer to your great guru, the man who these days probably resides in a bunker in Wetstraat 16, officially though, while everyone these days wonderes whether that man is still alive and physically present in the country. Where is the time when Verhofstadt made a plea and stated very clearly in connection with the European elections: there must and there will definitely be a referendum on the European Constitution? Then it was already clear. Then the great opponent was the eternal CD&V’er Jean-Luc Dehaene, who said in that notorious debate: no, there will be no referendum, as far as CD&V is concerned. But Verhofstadt still had the idea that he could get something done.

Where is, colleagues liberals, your courage, your sense of honor, to say here: the measure is full, it has been waves for us, we do not swallow it anymore; for us the measure is full, we do not pick it anymore. Also with regard to this dossier, colleagues liberals, colleague Daems — let it be said again — I can understand that you as liberals are willing to continue to live that post in Wetstraat 16, which bunker, and have very much for it, but honestly, in your case I would now crawl away under my bench.

I don’t know where your sense of honour is. Your great Manitoe of the time held a courageous plea for referendums and ⁇ in this context of the EU Constitution. Colleagues-liberals, you must now again establish that you also need to get backzeil in this file, as in all previous files. It must be painful. If in your place I still had some sense of honor, I would silently escape from this Room and dare not show myself here anymore.

Colleagues, the attitude of my group has been very clear in this always and from the very beginning. We have always very clearly stated that we are in principle in favour of direct democracy and of referendums and popular consultations, whether it is about the EU Constitution or about other items. We are ready to consult the public. We are not afraid of the outcome of elections or referenda. We dare to confront the ordinary man and woman in the street.

From a number of angles, the excuse was taken up as if the Flemish Interest Turkey and the possible accession of that country as a topic in the debate. We have always said this very clearly. We played open cards. I challenge everyone to prove the opposite. We played open cards and said that this would be included in the debate. Who would stop us from engaging in a debate on this topic? As if there was no direct link between the EU Constitution and Turkey’s accession to Europe. Let this be clear.

We have always fought with open sight. Therefore, we do not understand properly that you cite this as a last excuse and say that you are afraid that the Flemish Interest could sometimes introduce a difficult item and that you must thus turn your cossack.

Colleagues of spirit, I had expected a little more spiritual courage to engage in the debate with the population. If you pretend to be so-called direct democrats, you should not be afraid of any referendum on any topic. If you say that a referendum can be held on this subject but not on another subject, you say to the population that they are too stupid for a number of themes to decide. This has nothing to do with so-called democracy. Let us no longer fool each other. I return to the conclusion I just made. You have chosen your portfolios and that is your good right. Your spiritual portfolios went ahead of the spiritual ideas and spiritual principles. You have not served the people and democracy.

This problem will eventually be solved through the voters. We have confidence in voters in all areas. I can understand that you have a little less confidence in the voter, which has always been given its reason and its evidence.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues and colleagues, I am going around. I would like to meet some French-speaking colleagues. I look again at colleague Giet, who will remember very well that his own party chairman at the PS party congress of 26 February 2005 proposed to hold a popular consultation on the survival of Belgium. I can imagine vividly that he has already complained a little about that proposal. We then, by the mouth of our own party chairman Frank Vanhecke, handed out to our PS colleagues. We have said we are ready to submit a parliamentary document together. We also have no fear of holding a popular consultation or a referendum on this subject.

You are apparently not willing to work with. However, I would still like to offer you the parliamentary document.

We have today in this House, Chairman, colleagues, submitted a bill organising a public consultation on the community problems. I challenge and I invite all Flemish and French-speaking colleagues who have the courage to engage in that confrontation with the ideas of the population to conduct this debate. If we now have to let go of this missed opportunity, the opportunity to conduct a public consultation on the EU Constitution, then we take on the next challenge and we would like to ask each of you to be able to conduct the fundamental debate on a public consultation on the community problems in this country.

Many things have already been said and repeated on the subject. I would therefore like to hold on to a few brief considerations. Since some have wanted at all costs that this debate be held today in very special conditions, it is now about saying why we have come there and to learn from it, all together I hope.

The only unacceptable thing would be that these considerations would be swept again by the sentence I have often read and heard in recent weeks: if the PS poses so many problems, it is because it is against popular consultation, etc.

Before I come to what is for me the most important thing, I will repeat what some do pretending not to hear. There is no worse deaf than the one who does not want to hear. Let’s solve the question that is formally asked in the House today — are you for or against the proposed revision? So let’s address the substantive question that the proposal raises.

First, the substantive issue that we should have been dealing with. Yes, we are in favor, in favor – if you want me to say otherwise – of this perspective of popular consultation on international treaties or on some of them. We need to engage in a serious examination of this good idea. Then we are against the proposal, ⁇ against the text that is submitted to us. I will now explain why by saying what I called the essential.

It is simple, we are here to say no to a proposal, for the right and simple reason that we have not discussed it and that we are still not in a position to discuss it. It does not matter, therefore, the legal problems posed by the text. We have raised some of them by also proposing to try to meet them through a common reflection. On the other hand, it can be directly stated what must be concluded from all this: the authors of the proposal are, in my opinion, responsible for the vote of rejection that sanctioned the proposal in committee and which, ⁇ , will sanction it on the occasion of the voting tonight.

Let us be clear! On such an important issue, one cannot caricate the positions of those who raise problems. We cannot ignore those who could be partners. Nor can one ostensibly despise the rules of law, in the small week or according to the interests of the day. I have heard and read in some newspapers that those who would be opposed to popular consultation, because in their eyes representative democracy would be the most coherent system, those would not be true democrats. This is obviously unprecedented and manipulative. In any case, it is not among quality people that one expects to meet him. A valuable man.

Mr. Giet, please allow Mr. Will Michael interrupt you?

Mr. Giet, like you, I think that one should strive, even in passionate debates, to keep the head cold and to hold quality arguments, regardless of the position one adopts.

I can respect the fact that the PS is very clearly reserved for a popular consultation on the European Constitution. But there’s one thing that strikes me, that’s the form.

We have submitted this text proposal to adapt the Constitution in a totally constructive and positive dimension. I just said that we had not heard any solid argument, in the committee groups that have gathered, to oppose it on the legal level. I did not see that you had proposed amendments to improve the text. We have proposed to work together to improve the text. Now, today you seem to say that we would have submitted a text, suddenly, while we did so because, at the first committee meetings, you had expressed your reservations in the first place on the constitutionality of a pure and simple consultation without adapting the Constitution.

To tell us today that the approach would have been brutal and disrespectful of the partner, I find this at least sidering in terms of truth compared to what happened a few weeks ago.

I will come here, Mr. Michael. So I said that a respectable man could write this: "May those who do not hesitate to spread their speeches of calls to citizenship and references to democracy be finally coherent with themselves!"

What is this kind of abrupt affirmation? We are supportive of the proposal as it is served to us, we are Democrats! We are opposed to it or, moreover, opposed to the popular consultation itself, we are not Democrats or Democrats of the facade if we want to! Great discussion of ideas! I will not comment on the severity of the judgment. History has taught us what it means "not a Democrat"; everyone will appreciate it! This is ridiculous, however, if you take into consideration the opinions of some. So one MR senator was able to write very recently: "The direct democracies dear to Rousseau belong to the past. In our political and institutional system, the holding of a structured and effective debate of ideas can only exist through the involvement of the parties, official relays of particular opinions.”

Let us recognize it together, brocard the contradictor with contempt, this is not debate, it is killing the debate! This creates a climate, a bad climate, where one continues to run away without realizing it.

I was hurt and sad for all of us in some words. I would not tolerate that a member of my group, of my party, ironizes about a Reynders-Dewinter axis because they are both supporters of a lower tax. We can no longer afford this! Let’s keep these jokes for other occasions and be worthy of what we really are! There is, by tradition but also by a real conviction, a true respect between us and a true ability to listen and debate, especially with one whose position is not shared. Be careful not to break.

Our position is not the one we are denouncing. I have always said and repeated, since we are engaged in this matter, that the PS is not opposed to popular consultation. We have supported it at the municipal and provincial level. We support it at the regional level with a proposal, also jointly signed by the heads of group MR and PS.

But we also said that it could not be organized in the same way at the federal level. And we listed the problems: 1. It is important, in particular, to create safeguards so that the opinion of minorities, of one community or of a region in relation to the other can be clearly appreciated and taken into account. 2 of 2. We also warned against improvising a reform today. In terms of international relations, there is a risk of making impossible the Senate reform that will be dedicated precisely to this matter and that could otherwise distribute the powers.

I simply remind you of two elements. First, the rule itself through a constitutionalist, Jacques Velu. "A constitutional provision may be amended several times in the same legislature. But once it has been amended on one point, on that point the constituent has exhausted its competence." We know that the same solution emerged during the extensive parliamentary debate on institutional reforms in 1980.

Secondly, in addition to the rule, I will quickly remind you that its respect is essential in a democratic society. The law is not the act of the prince, it is not the expression of his good pleasure without any accounts to be rendered to anyone. Curious and contradictory attitude of raising your shoulders before the law or the Constitution, on the one hand, and giving lessons of democracy, on the other.

Furthermore, we have stated that we agree to discuss the proposal and the aim pursued, but not in a game of fools. Decision and agreement are needed on all aspects of the problem, including those that could or should be the subject of implementing standards. Thus, the controlled and balanced funding of the campaign; as well as the determination of the issue and the control of this issue.

We have not answered, except that we have to vote now. You have to say “yes” or “no” now. In these conditions, it is “no” obviously and it is “no” in a ⁇ mediocre context.

I will remind you that we have committed to trying to solve with the authors of the proposal the problems we have raised. I would like to remind you that, in order to take the time to come up with solutions, we suggested suspending the consideration of the proposal, so that it is not subject to a vote of rejection. I would remind you that our proposal aimed at at least the heads of the majority group together to seize the ministers responsible for the institutional forum and ask them to attach the proposal to the negotiation on the Senate reform. I will also reiterate that we are not less sensitive than others to the European challenge, to what is denounced as a democratic deficit, to the need to consult the population, to appreciate the opinion.

We have also submitted a proposal that enables, in the current context, to meet this objective. It was not debated, as if the goal had become less important than the pleasure of the invective.

In the face of all this, one can doubt the will of the authors of the proposal to make it happen. If it is a strategy that is intended only to be able to say “We are for and they are against,” they despise citizens. If it is only this, I fear that it does not impress or convince many people. I do not believe that this will increase neither politics nor politics. That is fucking! So bad for you! So bad for all of us! That is fucking! That is why we will be reduced to a bitter, but ⁇ negative vote.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that a failure is not a renunciation. Not for my group in any case.

Therefore, I will do, from today, the approach I proposed but which, at that time, was not acceptable for some. I will therefore address, on behalf of my group and my party, the presidents of the institutional forum, asking them to join the issue of popular consultation on certain international treaties with the consideration of the Senate reform. I will attach to this request the problematic issues that we would like to see discussed and resolved. Let others join this approach and maybe we will find the right sense of the path we should have followed. I thank you.

I try to alter the languages and nuances in the debate, since this is not an opposition/majority debate as such.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, last week, late in the evening, the Chamber held a debate on whether or not to approve the report of Mr. Verherstraeten on the topic we are currently discussing.

Last week I said that I, though with mixed feelings, was glad that this debate gave us the opportunity to put the nuance that spirit wanted to bring into this debate, ready and clear. My argument today can be nothing else than what I told you last week. Spirit is and remains obviously in favour of inserting the possibility of holding a referendum in the Constitution.

If we want to conduct the debate honestly — colleague Verherstraeten, I think you have taken a little walk with the reality — you know that spirit initially — this remains our stance — was of the opinion that for a popular consultation no constitutional amendment was needed, but for a referendum. Mr Hasquin is equal to stating that this proposal was an attempt to break a bridge. We have tried to make an opening to enable the continued involvement of the population in the decision-making process, a matter that is dear to all of us. To infer from this that we have said from the beginning that the constitutional amendment was necessary for a popular consultation is not correct.

For what element are we standing today? We know that a constitutional amendment is necessary for a referendum to be held. Given the articles that have been declared subject to review, we are "inside" within certain possibilities.

The present proposal is a first opening to make the benefits that a referendum can offer us still possible. Through referendums, decisions can be taken by a larger public. From time to time, together with our 150 members, we may think that we are the center of all attention. Unfortunately, too often we know that too few people follow the debates in the hemisphere and too few people are involved with all the arguments that are submitted, even in complex debates. I am not afraid to ask people between elections by asking their opinion. I am not afraid to make attempts, even in difficult conflict situations with the population, to reflect on complex and very difficult to explain problems, with the intention of persuading people, pulling over the line and engaging in the decision-making that is dear to all of us.

Mr. Giet has just said important things. Today we have a fairly high-level debate about the possibilities and the essences needed for a referendum. Last week I explained that, in my opinion, there are two fundamental problems in referendums, in the first place the questioning. We have long agreed that the final wording of a question is essential in order to correctly hold a referendum. Equally important is the debate held on the issue.

I actually wanted to ask several questions. However, Mr. Bultinck also wanted to ask several questions, but on topics that — he must still explain to me — are not directly related to the European Constitution. The European Constitution could indeed have been the subject of a referendum for us. Indeed, the European Constitution could have given us the opportunity to engage in a broad dialogue with the people, because the European dream is so dear to us. A referendum would have liked us, because I find that too many people are kicking down because they are given too much false information.

Treaties, however complex they may sometimes be, can be the subject of referendums. That is what we are talking about today. It is about whether we are willing to write into the Constitution that referendums on treaties are possible.

Mr. Verherstraeten, the Committee on Political Renewal has already been referred to.

I know what I say. Mr. De Crem, in a report by Joke Schauvliege, which you may still know, the question is asked whether the groups are in favor of organizing referendums or popular consultations on, among other things, international treaties? There followed a “yes” from the CVP who today gets the opportunity to take that step here. There followed a “yes” from the CVP who believes that referendums can be held on treaties and wants to amend the Constitution.

That was the time when I was still in the People's Union. Even then we said “yes”, just as we will say “yes” later.

( ... )

What does the Bible say about the nail and the beam in the eye?

Today we cannot ignore the question of whether we will take this historic step by entering the possibility of referendums into the Constitution. Will we take this first step? For us, this is an imperfect step, since we believe that we should also be able to discuss other topics with the population. What Mr. Giet, the group chairman of the PS, has just said is fundamental and I note it. He said that in the committee was asked to suspend the debate in order to be able to further and deeper debate on the proposal presented today. Unfortunately, this was not addressed. At that time we were also in favour of deepening the debate, in order to be able to apply the nuances that one wants to apply or not. However, it does not diminish the fact that we consider that here today is a proposal so interesting that we should approve it.

I remember — I will really reach out on that point — that you ask the Presidents of the Forum to discuss the subject further. The debate is not closed, which may later be the vote.

Mr. Speaker, can I speak briefly?

Colleague Lambert, you just referred to the difficult problem — we agree on that — of asking the right question at the right time. You try to classify the whole debate as if it was all the fault of the Flemish Interest that the fundamental debate did not come, because they had brought the debate about Turkey into it. But, Mr. Lambert, considerably you have had the opportunity to make some attempts, because you were the chairman of the famous subcommittee that had to draw up the questions, which had to solve the technical remarks and problems.

In other words, you must not come here to accuse your colleagues in the meeting room that, as far as the questioning is concerned, there was no serious possibility. You were counted — also for this the necessary pyrouettes had been carried out — the chairman of the subcommittee who had to discuss the whole matter technically, who had to apply the right finesse and ask the right questions. Therefore, you cannot blame us, ordinary Chamber members, that nothing came from the house, while you, as the chairman of the subcommittee, have obviously been given the opportunity and have not succeeded in bringing this item to a good end.

Mr. Bultinck, you are drastically mistaken. The subcommittee that was installed had to reflect on the process of the referendum. What happened there...

... ...

Dear colleague Tante. The subcommittee had to give a further elaboration to the Rules of Procedure in which we could make the referendum take place or not. But what have I noticed in those meetings, what have I noticed in the same meetings today? That CD&V never wanted to take a position whether they were yes or no for a referendum. What have I noticed again, Mr. Bultinck? You just insist: you don’t want a referendum, you don’t want a speech – I must repeat in the speech of last week – about a European referendum, not about foreign policy, not about defence policy, not about basic social rights, but about a country, a population group, a religion that is present here. This is what it is about: it is about fundamental rights!

I have already told you: the argument of Mr. Giet that indeed the way of a referendum should be considered more thoroughly and discussed more deeply, because certain questions are not discussed, is equally fundamental for me. Never often I give you the keys of my car, when I know you only have one intention: people drive from the street. Never often never! (Applause of Appeal)

Collega Lambert now pretends to have made a ⁇ fruitful contribution here during the discussion of the many proposals. I would like to know when colleague Lambert has intervened in the discussion of the MR proposal. Null times, Mr. Lambert, null times! You have never been speaking in the whole discussion of the MR proposal on the public consultation. I suggest you go to your place and be quiet for the rest of the evening, because you have taken the word zero times. Null times, double zero, triple zero! You have taken the word zero times! See in the report: spirit has not opened his mouth.

Take a different, parliamentary term.

Mr. De Crem, you can call me a great hypocrite. You can refer to the report, I have indeed taken on the proposal of Mr...

Null, double zero, triple zero

Mr. De Crem, let him answer.

Sometimes, Mr. De Crem, it is more useful to be silent than to be silent for half an hour than to be silent for half an hour... Sometimes, Mr. De Crem, it is more useful to be silent than to talk for hours and say nothing, talk for hours and say nothing, talk for hours and say nothing, talk for hours and say nothing, talk for hours and say nothing.

Mr Wathelet has the word. No, Mr. De Crem, it is done. Let him speak too. (Hevig tumult) Mr. De Crem, you have now said "nothing" 122 times. You have called the word "nothing" 122 times.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to the very spiritual contribution of our colleague Lambert.

Mr Lambert, I can understand that you are trying to enjoy your stay on this speaker’s floor and your stay in the Parliament for as long as possible and that you want to make full use of every minute you can stand on this speaker’s floor. After all, you really know very well that your stay here will be limited to a very short time. Your colleagues from sp.a, who sit next to you, have long known that your contribution and electoral contribution has been reduced to zero. The stay will therefore be very short.

Your question is intellectually unfair. From your corner, I am not surprised. The Flemish Interest has always said very clearly that we were going to apply the item Turkey, but that we could even find ourselves in a referendum on the EU Constitution, without a question being asked regarding Turkey.

So pretending that we have polarized the whole debate in this direction is intellectually unfair. Colleague Lambert, I can understand that you are not capable of any intellectual activity.

Mr. Bultinck, what does it mean very short?

However, there are chamber members who still take themselves seriously and who do not have to live only of Di Rupo’s cuddling.

Mr. Bultinck, you can calmly say that. You can calmly say that you would not want to hold the debate about Turkey. However, your posters and stickers were ready. Your entire campaign was finished. And then say that you are for citizenship. You, your party, are the cause that people who speak Dutch, who are native, must run away from their work, because you preach hate. I will never allow that.

A little quiet in the hall, please!

I will try to say something.

I think it will be: “I am against popular consultation.”

No, Mr Bacquelaine I will try to talk, I will not ask you to speak in my place.

Just recently, Mr. He spoke in a humanistic tone. I recognized myself in what he was saying and then I saw that he was reading a CDH press release.

There was an evolution.

With “c”, as “consultation”. But you know that there is also a “c” in “cdH”. You can also use it. You will be able to re-use your word games based on the name.

Reading the press this morning, I read: “Are the Belgians less intelligent?” Today, we can provide a partial answer to this question: Belgians are smarter in international law than in other subjects, since they are asked their opinion on these issues but not on others. This is the answer to what you said.

What are the three questions that arise today? The first concerns opportunity; the second concerns feasibility and the third concerns legality.

What about democracy?

Mr. Bacquelaine, we are not used to consider democracy as a specific point. This is a point that transcends all of the questions I am going to ask today. This is not a chapter in itself, it is a chapter in all the chapters that I will address. Stop giving us lessons of democracy, it will be more convenient for the debate!

As for the opportunity, we can talk about it, it is in our program. by Mr. Michel quoted us just recently: even though we were still PSC, we did not change our mind on this issue. At the municipal level, we have supported this proposal and we are ready to support it at the community and region level.

Indeed, we are for a popular consultation or a referendum, depending on the level of power. You must be able to consult. We are told that some countries do, it is true, but other countries do not. At the same time, it must be said that Belgium is a specific state. I do not have to recall the number of debates we have at the moment that remind that Belgium is not always a country like the others and that there are issues that, if they are less sensitive elsewhere, may seem more sensitive in us, depending on our specificities. This, in my opinion, also makes our wealth.

We must ask the question of the usefulness of this popular consultation. What question should we ask? How should we put it? We should ask these questions, of course. But will we have time? Is it consistent to do it now? Were we not too fast?

Of course not, Mr Bacquelaine. But you know like me that the treaty approval or its ratification is not for tomorrow, it is not for the next month, or for in two months.

Even if there is no popular consultation, if there is no referendum, let us still have a debate. In fact, I hear some say that if we do not organize a popular consultation, there will be no debate on the European Constitution. Have we ever had a healthy debate in Belgium? It is true that they are tormented and difficult from time to time, but they can also be very good. Is it because we have never held a popular consultation or a referendum in Belgium that all the debates have been bad, that we have never been well informed? No to No! I therefore make an appeal, whether there is a popular consultation or not, that good information be given about the European Constitution. Some of us are already contributing to this and are trying to go to the meeting (...)

( ... )

This is not good yet, Mr. Tant. In any case, some are already going to meet the citizen.

If I understand right, the CDH’s position is to say, “We will explain to you, but you will be silent.”

Absolutely not, Mr Bacquelaine.

That is what you just said.

Belgium has been silent for 175 years. The Belgians have never been able to speak. There has never been a popular consultation or a referendum. Our fellow citizens have never been able to participate in a debate.

Let us remain on the subject. If I understand correctly, you consider that it is enough to explain, to debate between privileged, between initiated and that the people only have to "stay on the balcony".

No, Mr Bacquelaine Has there ever been a healthy debate in Belgium? Have people ever been informed? Have we ever met them? Maybe this is your case? I know nothing. We are going there!

Mr. Wathelet, you are actually giving explanations and I don’t blame you. It is entirely your right. But would it not be easier to say clearly that you are opposed to the popular consultation on the Treaty on the European Constitution?

Because this is not the case. I will also make a call, Mr. Bacquelaine.

If you were not opposed, you would vote with us. It is as simple as this.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I am not against this. I will make a call soon. We will then see if you are really for this popular consultation. That is the real question. After talking about the feasibility of this referendum, I would like to address the question of its feasibility.

Why make it complicated when you can make it simple?

We will soon see if you are really for this popular consultation. Per ⁇ that is the real question.

As I said, I would like to extend a moment on the feasibility of this referendum! Like the mr. Lambert said it just recently, some questions still arise today. If the text is voted today, if a popular consultation is to be organized, a lot of questions will remain. I listed some of them. These are frequent questions in the committee. What will be the question that will be asked? How will this referendum be financed? Will it be mandatory or not? Can Belgians abroad vote? What are the elections? How will we be able to guarantee the position of minorities within this deadline? What will be the deadlines for the organization of the campaign? How will this campaign be organized? I hear you say there is no problem.

I would like to say that Mr. Wathelet and others had not made any obstructions for three months, we would have largely had time to fix all these technical problems.

Mr. Wathelet, I hear you indeed say, and I share your opinion, that there will be another set of matters to be arranged.

But do you not agree with me that these are not matters that need to be regulated in the Constitution?

That is true, that is true.

Do we need a constitutional amendment anyway?

Mr. Lambert, you must understand that these questions will only arise if there is a preliminary amendment to the Constitution. We are fully agreed. Do not try to caricate the debate.

My first point concerned the opportunity, the second concerned the feasibility. I took as a precaution, at the beginning, to say that, if we organize it and vote this text today, will all these issues, and especially this question, still need to be settled.

I come to my third point, that of the legality of the proposal which we are discussing today. I believe that the subject of this debate was whether to say “yes” or “no” to this proposed amendment to Article 167. Mr. Bacquelaine, I think that in such crucial questions, one should not say “yes” at all costs. But you were even ready to say “yes” to Mr. Mr. proposal. by Daems. Fortunately, the State Council opinion arrived and confirmed the case-law on the matter. It was then that you submitted this alternative proposal. You wanted to get it at any cost, no matter the proposal.

Now we have your proposal on the table and that is what we are discussing. Why should we say no? For three reasons. Mr. Bacquelaine, you have this will to say it is “yes” or “no”, let us explain why today we will say “no”. The first reason is that this article is actually revisable for something other than that object. Indeed, we received a service note saying that this argument was not a peremptory argument. As you can see, I have a minimum of objectivity. However, we can see that there was something else. Indeed, and Mr. Verherstraeten spoke about it just recently, this question of the revisibility of Title 3 which actually concerns the possible insertion, in our Constitution, of a referendum or a popular consultation, has been purely and simply removed. Explicitly, the pre-constituent had said no to the inclusion of a referendum or a popular consultation.

First, on the legal level, the argument is quite ridiculous and absurd, I apologize for saying it. Then, these are two separate elements. On the one hand, there is a reflection on the need to amend the Constitution to organize in general popular consultations at the federal level; on the other hand, there is a scenario aimed at adapting the mechanism of approval of international treaties by organizing, on a punctual and framework basis, the possibility to organize a popular consultation — subject to a decision of the House. These are two different things, you cannot consider it to be the same thing. Also, on a legal level, this does not change anything.

Mr. Michel, first argument: a popular consultation or a referendum on this question – is this actually a consultation or a referendum? and yes! It has been refused for the whole, it will not be allowed for an exception, for a particularity, for a type of popular consultation or referendum on a very particular point. The second argument: the implicit revisions. We also had House notes on whether this did not imply an implicit revision of Articles 36 and 42 of the Constitution. This is indeed the case. Can we admit it? We do not think so.

Indeed, there is indeed an implicit revision of articles relating to powers. It is also in these articles that you wanted to insert the referendum or popular consultation.

In this regard, I believe that we must consider the actual situation as a whole. It is effectively recognized, including by Professor Dumont who advanced the possibility of organizing a referendum or a popular consultation as part of the revision of Article 167, § 2, that there is an implicit revision of Articles 36 and 42. Professor Dumont says well — and the House services in their notes confirm it — that since 1970, there have been implicit revisions that arise from articles that are revised, that are revised, which makes other articles implicitly revised. He considers that this is problematic — and the House notes cite other authors going in the same direction — but that it is almost inherent in the revision mechanism because it would not be possible to revision, every time, all the articles.

So, since 1970, implicit revisions have been carried out. This part of your argument seems to me to be a little weak.

Is it because we have been doing it since 1970 that we must continue? and no. Is it because the Court of Arbitration will not be able to decide and condemn that we can do it? and no. Furthermore, Madame Nagy, Mr. Dumont that you cited placed some shelters. He proposed three that are not included in this proposal. These guards came to counterbalance this venial sin. I am quoting Mr. by Dumont. We are no longer PSC but cdH: now we can talk about "vennial sin"!

The compromise, the counterweight proposed by Mr. Dumont is not met in this proposal.

Another argument: one can only revise one article of the Constitution once. I quote the House President himself — what an authority anyway! You cannot say the opposite. by Mr. He cited Mr. Velo just recently. Indeed, if we revised this article now, we would no longer be able to revisit it on the point for which it was revisable, namely to insert an amendment concerning the Senate.

This is the call I want to make to you today. We are in favor of the principle of popular consultation or referendum, but let’s do it correctly! Let us think, let us think! Let us clearly, correctly solve the questions of opportunity, feasibility and legality. Let us take the time to do it. Amend this article 167 by introducing at the same time a possible modification of the Senate. So I give you a way to meet with an argument that I raised today.

I hear the call of Mr. Giet regarding his willingness to address the institutional forum on this issue. I make the same call. If this question is as important as you claim it — and we think it — let’s make sure...

You do not, I do! I feel that this proposal is important enough to deserve this debate. We accepted this debate today, we will never refuse it! But let’s not be content with the debate; let’s make sure it succeeds! And in order for it to succeed, all the questions of legality, feasibility and opportunity must be solved! That is why I make this appeal.

Take the time to do it correctly. This is the only way to get it done!

Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate that has taken place since September 16, 2004, we have the impression that ultimately everyone is for the popular consultation, everyone is for listening to the citizen, but this is never the right time, it is not the right level, we have not worked seriously enough to succeed. Therefore, it is always necessary to postpone the debate to later, on something else, another topic, to another level.

At the beginning, we have rather a proposal of good augur; this is found in the violet statement: "The government will work to have a referendum at the European level on the constitutional treaty." Everyone has noticed this bill submitted by a party chairman, by an eminent member of the majority; everyone is in favor of it. A majority is drawn: the sp.a-spirit gives a favorable opinion, but with conditions, of course. The various parties stand by saying yes and the debate begins.

Listening to the discussion tonight, I say to myself that at the bottom, we’ve been turning around the pot for six months. In fact, Mr. Giet, in my opinion, for six months, you can do serious work, if you want to. If we wanted to put all the questions on the table, we could have agreed on a text and then discussed the modalities. But we have never reached this level of discussion. But never, Mr. Giet!

The discussion ended with a question of principle. First, the legal arguments came out, with a request for opinion to the State Council. Different opinions were formed from this State Council opinion, which was not a surprise and which came to confirm a fairly common case-law. Then, it is true, there was the opening of another track that allowed to answer the various objections.

First of all, the constitutional article was subject to revision. It is true that this is not the subject of the revision, but it is subject to revision and it is possible, within the framework of an important treaty that transfers sovereignty, to imagine not to replace direct and representative democracy, but to complement representative democracy with participation. This could have been seriously discussed. Unfortunately, it seems to me that again, we are not really going to the bottom of things.

I told Mr. Wathelet and Mr. Giet that I heard the call launched and I think the track could be examined. It arrives with a six-month delay, but better late than never. The idea would be to submit the question to the two deputy prime ministers. But there remains one condition, Mr. Giet, one condition that depends mainly on your party: the prime minister and his government have adopted a timetable for ratification.

This calendar of ratification, which was transmitted to us by the Chairman of the Chamber and which was adopted by the Government on 9 November 2004, provides for the examination by the Parliamentary Assemblies from February to April 2005 and the deposit of the instrument of ratification by 9 May 2005, in order to have a final vote before the end of May.

Can you guarantee me today that this government calendar is no longer relevant, that is, that Belgium agrees to ratify not before June 2005, but within the time limit allowed for ratification? The deadline for ratification is October 2006. There is a request from the European Parliament for the founding countries to ratify in 2005, but I think that if Belgium explains to the European Parliament that it does so in order to organize a popular consultation, a referendum, the European Parliament will not be able to refuse.

I am willing to believe in your call but it takes the commitment that the calendar of Mr. Verhofstadt is no longer in force because it is incompatible with the proposal you make, namely that it is the Institutional Forum that takes up the matter so that Article 167, §2 is effectively amended in the sense of Senate reform and the approval of a law that allows the organization of a system of ratification of treaties transferring sovereignty supplemented by a popular consultation. by

There is no answer, there is silence. I have some doubts about the sincerity of the call, but I am willing to change my mind.

Other arguments were put forward to point out that it was not possible to carry out this popular consultation or this association of the population to the ratification of the constitutional treaty.

The first is the difficulty of the operation. I agree to say that a country that has no tradition of consultation or referendum must actually work a lot on the pedagogy of this operation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the goal is worthwhile: 25 countries that come together, after a rather original democratic operation such as the Convention, to adopt a constitutional treaty. I believe that if we take the time and put in the right means, it will be possible. In this regard, I would point out to you that the Netherlands has decided on the question they will submit to their people.

The question is: “Are you for or against a Dutch agreement with the Convention for the Establishment of a Constitution for Europe?” “Yes,” “No,” it is not possible to abstain in the Netherlands.

In addition, the debate is organized for 1 million euros: 400,000 euros will be reserved for supporters of the Constitution, 400,000 euros will be reserved for opponents of this Constitution and 200,000 euros will be destined for initiatives aimed at giving neutral information. This is how it is organized! It’s complex, you have to think about it, there’s a specific commission that takes care of it, but it’s possible, quite feasible! The Netherlands will hold a referendum on June 1, 2005. Another difficulty that I find far more dangerous, I told Mr. Lambert: I find it hyper dangerous to argue that the far-right party seeks a question to divert the debate. I find this really very dangerous! Why Why ? The issue of Turkey has nothing to do with the constitutional treaty, nothing to do with it!

Mrs Nagy, I share your view that the question concerning Turkey has nothing to do with this. You are right, but do you think it is not fundamentally important that we take it into consideration – I know it can be easy from the position of the French-speaking Political Parties – once a particular party wants to “rape” the question? Do you really think that is not important?

Mr. Lambert, it is not a question of being French-speaking or Dutch-speaking. It is a question of being Democrats. In France, the issue of Turkey is also used by sovereignists opposed to the constitutional treaty and, in addition, by people who are in favor of the constitutional treaty. So, the debate in France poses a telescoping problem with the position of France, where the political class has a much more open debate than Belgium on this kind of issues. This question is therefore not specific to Flanders or Vlaams Belang, but we must have the courage to confront it.

I now come to the issue of Turkey. Turkey’s accession is scheduled as early as 2014. It has nothing to do with the constitutional treaty. You can explain this to the public. You can say it and not submit to the dirty beast that is waking up! In fact, I ⁇ ’t want to avoid constant debates because others use them. Of course, there is a need for pedagogy. It takes time. In terms of public opinion, the Belgians generally rank among the pro-European ones. It would be quite interesting...

Madame Nagy, Mr. Cocriamont wants to interrupt you.

Madame Nagy, I would like to come back.

The issue of Turkey’s accession to Europe. It is false to claim that the treaty will have no effect on Turkey’s accession. Indeed, the voluntarily blurred texts of the treaty threaten our identity. Until recently, the borders of the Union States were defined by the states themselves. They were all European. The proposed Constitution does not define these boundaries. So this is an immediate and much faster entry than what you say in the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, another objection is frequently raised: the one related to the difficulty of understanding the treaty by the whole population. However, I recommend that you take a look at Parts 1 and 2 of the Treaty. They are generally clearer, clearer than the text of the Belgian Constitution and many of the laws we discuss.

I am not saying that Part 3 on EU policies is a very easy topic to address. What is asked of the citizens is to understand today the values, the objectives, the European project which is found, in a rather well-explained way, in texts quite understandable.

The French send to every citizen of the age of participation a text of the Constitution. Its reading is accessible. In this regard, I think that a false argument is used and I regret it.

Why is this debate about Europe so frightening? Why, especially within the left, among the progressives, is there such a fear of organizing a real debate in which citizens could participate, who could then express themselves by voting? The implicit question of this debate is, in my opinion, that of the European project as it has been implemented for a number of years. It is considered too liberal, leaving too much space for the market economy and neglecting social, environmental and fiscal issues. What does this suppose? Today, the Socialists are represented or have a majority in 14 of the 25 governments of the Union. All policies of the Union are implemented with the agreement of the socialist family. Per ⁇ this is what is so scary when we talk about opening the debate on the issue. This is, in my opinion, the core of the problem.

Mr. De Crem, you know you have eight minutes left. You also said that you would respect time.

Do you want to intervene for a personal fact, Madame Lalieux? It is not because we speak of socialists that there is necessarily a personal fact!

I would like to point out to Ms. Nagy, who wants an open debate and who says that the Socialists are afraid of it, that the Socialists have held a congress on the issue.

Mr De Crem has the word.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, last week, during the discussion of the rejection and rejection of that rejection, we have already been able to raise a lot of arguments.

I would like to answer. In all honesty, first of all, I do not think that organizing a debate within your own political family exempts you from the obligation to accept the debate in society. Then, I signal to Mrs. Lalieux that we have organized debates within Ecolo, in all our regional elections, where the two points of view, the “yes” and the “no”, were defended and that the final vote, if it can interest him, was the support for the constitutional treaty. The fact that we at Ecolo organize an internal debate is, in my opinion, not enough. Those who are not part of a party, who are not activists should also be able to participate in the debate. Society is not only composed of the militants of a party, even when it is a big party.

I see the rainbow, the fourth version.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, present, first of all, since that has not yet happened, I would like to pay tribute to the rapporteur, Mr. Verherstraeten, who has delivered an exceptionally good report on this yet difficult issue and who has already said many important things on behalf of our group.

After the discussion we held last week, I would like to limit myself to a few essences.

I would like to talk a little about what has come forward in the committee meeting, but also during the discussion in the plenary session last week, following the procedure.

Collega Daems has argued that this struggle is actually a struggle between progressive or major democrats who want referendums and other people who would be conservative, those who defend representative democracy and those who believe that direct democracy should actually be able to replace that representative democracy.

It could, of course, be a ⁇ interesting finding, had we not seen how progressive the VLD has been in the past, especially in the last legislature, and when we have seen the progressive vision of the VLD on the functioning of democracy, especially in the electoral electoral reforms of 2002 and 2004. Because it was not really about engaging the citizen in more democracy, in order to engage that citizen more and better in direct decision-making, but it was about electoral self-service.

In fact, I think that the VLD today in this discussion should come to say little about the great, progressive and folk-democratic current that it would defend. Because what have we seen? In the reforms that have taken place, the VLD has done electoral self-service. First, listen to my words, but do not look at my deeds; listen to the voice of every citizen, but thus enlarge the voting circles. We have seen that important fact by the VLD: increased electoral circles. Everyone has known that the larger the electoral circle, the greater the distance between politician and voter.

Second, introduce a voting threshold. The Greens have also thought that in the context of "let us work more democratically", especially the Flemish Greens than of then Agalev and the current Green!. They thought: let’s get more democratic representation in Parliament and let’s introduce a electoral threshold. The Greens fill it together. Result after the next elections: the Greens no longer represented in this Parliament.

But especially the VLD wanted by the electoral threshold, coupled with larger electoral descriptions, actually not so much to let the voters speak or so that large heads would arise, so that they could actually enjoy that scale enlargement. In fact, the purple partners all participated in this. For the Greens, this is over. The Socialists have succeeded a bit. Eilaci, in the Flemish elections of 2004, no longer, because a year after the elections in which that was a success, they have lost the elections.

I must also say that the field of tension between real Democrats, progressives and great Democrats has reached its peak especially in the context of the double candidacy. Within the framework of the double candidacy, which should also be the rendezvous with the voter, the VLD, as the spokesman of democracy, has done nothing but mislead the voter rather than involve the voter. I would like to say that the highest jurisdiction of this country, namely the Arbitration Court, considered this case unconstitutional.

So I could actually say that the VLD here today should not be the defender of the great importance, of progressivity, of the great bourgeois democracy. Because what have we seen? At the time it came, whatever the chairman said: “Let’s shrink the electoral circles, let’s make clear agreements, let’s bring the voter closer to the people,” his party just did the opposite.

The argument to organize a popular consultation on the European Constitution now, I think, sounds ⁇ hollow.

That was the fact. I am now coming to the 2004 European elections. What opportunity has the VLD not missed to inform the voters? Was it the ideal time to do that? This is what we have always said: make these European elections an information moment. This is what we have done with our candidates for the European elections. We have traveled the country with a powerful list, with European persuaded candidates, and we have asked our candidates to contact us and read our electoral program to know what is in the test of the European Constitution.

We have had to defend that text from many who thought it didn’t go far enough. We also had to defend that text from many who thought it went too far. In any case, we did it and you did not do it. I have only seen that the VLD list tracker for the European elections has made the survival of purple to the use of those elections. That was important: it was Verhofstadt or the chaos and everything that had to do with Europe, with the enlightenment, the enlightenment and the enlightenment of the European Constitution was not discussed during those elections. It was actually just a piece of voter deception and now we should accept from the party that the prime minister believes to be allowed to represent, the VLD, that we should be able to hold a popular consultation today on the basis of their proposal. Again, it is a hypocritical attitude. Their speech sounds huge, huge hole!

I should also pause a moment on what the colleagues of spirit have put forward.

Last time you talked about the museum. You still know. You also know that you said that when it comes to the European referendum, one must be like Museeuw: one must ensure that one starts on time. Well, I will not repeat what I said then, but in any case, the judgment comes now.

Last week Mr. Lambert said: “Let us be clear, we have spoken clearly, I am prepared to hold the debate on this next week.” But what did you say last week, Mr. Lambert? "No matter how much I am a supporter of referendums, I will never or never allow a referendum on fundamental issues, on fundamental principles, and on fundamental rights." Now, please explain to me what is the meaning of your attitude here? Their

I wonder what makes sense for you. Does the rapid Belgian law make sense to you? Turkey does not make sense. Your position within the SP, is it meaningful? You have to say it. What is actually meaningful? You say that fundamental issues should not be discussed. Should we not talk about fundamental rights? About what then?

I could once again refer to the report of the Committee on Political Renewal. "Question: Are the political groups in favour of organizing referendums or public consultations on fundamental rights?" and no.

What do we not want to hold a referendum on? I will explain it in words that you will understand. I do not want referendums on norms and values.

Mr. Lambert, I will tell you the following: you want a referendum on nothing. You are against it, but you must be for it, because of your predecessor, Mr. Anciaux. I have the evidence with me, colleagues: "Revision of the Constitution, Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives", a report that colleague Verherstraeten presented in a ⁇ performing way. Mr Lambert, I have seen that you are part of that committee on behalf of the sp.a-spirit group. It would be interesting to hold a referendum on whether or not you actually belong to that group, but this whole side. In addition to you, on behalf of your group, your colleagues De Coene and Geerts are also sitting there.

I read on page 2: Not to see Geert Lambert. Page 4: Geert Lambert is not visible. Page 5: Geert Lambert is not visible. Page 6: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 7: Geert Lambert is not visible. Page 8: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 9: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 10: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 11: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 12: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 13: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 14: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 15: Geert Lambert not to be seen. Page 16: Geert Lambert not to be seen.

Mr. Lambert, the conclusion is that you are not for the referendum. If you were in favour of the referendum, you should have been in the report at least once. Your story is holy. You enter a number here. You are not for it, or you may not be for it, but you have nothing to say about this referendum in any case. You have lost across the entire line. I will tell you why: because you do not like Stevaert and the Socialists. That is the only reason. Do you know why? Because next time you will no longer be on the list and will no longer be in Parliament. That is the reason.

Mr. Speaker, we will not approve the proposal submitted by the colleagues of the MR, for the very simple reason that it came into being after the ⁇ fruitful statements of Mr. Lambert, of which we unfortunately see nothing in the report and because it came into being as a pure improvisation, after a poor discussion of Mr. Daems’ proposal. I think that we cannot do such an important matter, amending the Constitution to make referendums possible, in such an improvised way. That is why we will vote against.

To those who today claim that they will bring such matters in the Forum, or in the Committee for Political Renewal, I would also like to say that they are for the trouble, because we have seen what it has led to.

Mr. Speaker, Pieter De Crem has referred to the report of Servais Verherstraeten as I assume. He could also refer to the report of Hervé Hasquin on the proposal of colleague Daems. In this regard, I have taken certain positions, including on Mr Hasquin’s proposal. I will give it with.

Have they been so important, colleague Lambert? They have been so important that you are not in the report on the proposal-Hasquin.

Read Mr Hasquin’s report. Mr. De Crem, I hope that someday a thesis student will address this debate. He will write: “Pieter De Crem: Nothing said.”

I ask for the word for a personal fact.

No, that is not a personal fact. I want to say something, but I will not say it.

This is a personal fact. The thesis that this student makes will be titled: "How the position of spirit with respect to the referendum induced the end of spirit".

The truth has its rights. I would like to remind this assembly that there are two reports. They were artificially divided into two parts because the discussions were constantly confused. I can testify that in the report I signed, Mr. Lambert is present and has expressed itself widely!

With that said, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will first make a finding that should not please us. The European Union comprises 25 countries. Of these 25 states, there are exactly 4 that have, under no circumstances, consulted their population about Europe. These states are Greece — which has not always been a model of democracy — Cyprus — which is at war — Germany — where Chancellor Schröder was a supporter of the organization of a popular consultation but the Christian social opposition has refused and prevents the organization of a referendum in Germany — and Belgium. In this matter, this gives rise to reflection, especially since the circumlocations, the contorsions of certain political formations can interpell us.

I would like to remind you that France already gave the example in 1992 with the referendum on Maastricht. The statements made at the time are interesting. by Mr. Spitaels, who played an important role within the Socialist Party in 1992, explained a few days before the French referendum that the referendum was a very democratic way to consult the population and raise awareness of the citizen. In addition, Mr. Busquin and Lizin will speak in Bethune to defend the “yes” in the French referendum. There is no doubt that Mr. Di Rupo and maybe a few others will go to Mrs. Aubry’s house in Lille, will support Mr. Aubry. Hollande in favour of the French referendum. What is good for the foreign is not good for the Belgian citizen. I will return to it in a few moments.

by Mr. Bacquelaine recalled with some irony last week to Mr. Wathelet the remarks made by Ms. Milquet at a major press conference, in 1999: "Dare to referendum." In 2000, the same person proposed a referendum on euthanasia — I don’t know if you remember it. In 2001, Mr. Vande Lanotte proposed a referendum on the ageing fund. I will not have the cruelty to recall all the other examples! But when one is confronted with a certain reality, one turns away, proposes other actions, one talks about what is happening abroad.

I would like to remind you of this...

He drove Belgium in the air for 50 years!

No, he didn’t blow Belgium into the air! It allowed the people to speak out.

The [...]

I will come back! During the committee work, a whole series of objections were made. We have been raised with objections of a technical nature, which were met by a working group both in terms of funding and material timeframe and a number of budgetary arrangements to be made. The deadlines were easy to meet; we have until March to organize a popular consultation in May.

There were other complaints, other demands. It was called for mandatory voting, and it was joined by a majority in the committee. We asked for a revision of the Constitution; we discussed it widely, we even reversed the order of priorities initially defined to meet this wish. A broad campaign of information was requested; I find that those who are, in this hemisphere, at the extremes, who play an eminent role in the French Community, who control the board of directors of the RTBF, public institution of radio-television, have not yet allowed this institution to organize debates on the European Constitution. Today, the French-speaking citizen is still reduced to watching French television!

I believe that Mr. Hasquin continues in these drifts that could be heard on a public radio and which were unacceptable.

Is it unacceptable to note that there has not been a debate so far?

Please let me speak, Mr. Hasquin!

It is completely unacceptable that he continues to make this kind of remarks. by Mr. Hasquin probably didn’t hear Thierry Giet. He continues to take refuge in his autism as he has been doing for months, as is the case for all the members of the MR. His words are totally out-of-the-source and scandalous!

Mr Hasquin, — you cite other European countries — I remind you that no federal institution in Europe has held a referendum on the European Constitution. I invite you to read your stories and history books.

Everyone knows, of course, that Spain has remained a perfectly united country and that Catalonia does not exist!

I would like to continue my speech by making a number of observations.

We have two cultures.

( ... )

Mr. Henry, I think today the notions of left and right are outdated. There are conservatives and reformers.

There are those who first trust their activists, their delegates in a congress, well-framed, domesticated and even raped to believe Mr. by Jean-Maurice Dehousse And then, there are those who trust the citizens and do not estimate that 500 delegates who have listened to a half-hour speech on the European Constitution, are more enlightened than a few million citizens who have had the opportunity to inform themselves because they have worked hard to do so. The role of the politician is also to do pedagogy!

It is regrettable to see that a number of parties here present have so little confidence in the man, in the woman. It is with a certain sadness that I see that there are present in this hall of the deputies whom I respect, who carry high the honor of women and feminism, and who do not realize that they use against the citizens of this country the arguments which their party has used against them for fifty years, to deny them universal suffrage!

Mr. Hasquin, first of all, as a woman, I do not feel at all oppressed in my party and I do not allow you to speak in my place or in the place of socialist women, you are not mandated for this. Then, you who like to hear the citizens talk, you launched on a website of the MR a petition for the referendum. But the MR fails to specify the number of signatures collected by this petition. I wonder if there are thousands and thousands of signatures. If this had been a great success, Mr. Maingain, hundreds of thousands of citizens would have signed and joined you. So do not speak on behalf of the majority of citizens who do not follow you, Mr. Hasquin.

I would like to say, in conclusion, that it is a shame that a debate that everyone apparently agrees to find important — unless there is a double language again — is organized in the middle of the night. It seems to me to be a little case of a debate about the future of democracy and the role that citizens should be able to play in politics in this country. I have heard, for years and especially in recent weeks, only a speech on the necessity of conducting a policy of proximity, of doing pedagogy to interest the citizen in politics, to fill the gap that separates the politician from the citizen. It is not with attitudes such as this, which consists in confiscating the debate from outside, that democracy will be advanced!

Whatever you think, Mr. Wathelet, we trust man more than some of you. The word “humanist” is not present in our acronym because in us, because of our philosophy, it is superfetatory. We are not trying to hang ourselves on the oriflame that does not stick to our history!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, given the advanced hour and the fact that we are all tired, I ask you to allow me to make it a little easier for myself.

As far as this debate is concerned, two questions have been thrown together, once well chatted, and then conclusions have been drawn. What are the two questions that arise today? The first question is the very concrete proposal of the MR colleagues to amend Article 167 of the Constitution and the attitude of each group against it? There has been another issue, especially the question of who is for and who is against a referendum. For weeks on a piece, one clutches it through each other and blends it with the other.

Considering the advanced hour, you will allow me to make it easy for myself. I would like to separate these two things and begin by formulating a position of the sp.a. chamber members regarding the question of what we should do with the proposal of the MR colleagues to amend Article 167 of the Constitution.

I will summarize it in two words and will clarify later. I think we are dealing with a dangerous hurry. First, I want to clarify the term “urgent work”. Many colleagues here have pointed to me the fact that a number of questions were raised during the debate. We have a report by colleague Verherstraeten of 17 pages. The introduction of something that is a revolution in our political system, namely the introduction of a referendum, one wants to play off after a debate that can be summarized in 17 pages.

I took the word “dangerous” into my mouth. I will not repeat what has already been said by several colleagues. I will not repeat the debate about the extent to which the pre-constituent binds the constituent. I will not repeat the question of the implicit changes. I will also not repeat the debate whether it is possible to change the same article on the same topic twice. Anyone who exhibits a little intellectual honesty must admit that for each of these three points there are opposing opinions.

In our file there is a note from the Ministry of Home Affairs that states that if we amend Article 167 as proposed by the colleagues of the MR, it will no longer be possible to use that same article to review the Senate.

Colleague Maingain, I can show you the note and will read it. I quote: “If one wants to bring the two goals to a good end, ‘that is to say a change in the role of the Senate and the organization of a federal popular consultation, it seems necessary to integrate these principles into one single revision of the Constitution.”

Colleagues, I have the intellectual honesty to admit that there is a note from our own legal services that comes to a different conclusion.

This is the note of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. I assume that this note was written under the responsibility of the Minister of Internal Affairs. This note from the Ministry of Internal Affairs states...

If you are intellectually honest, you must admit that there are different views on this.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I answered this argument in a committee by relying on the Senate report on the revision of Article 41, where the Senate agreed with the House - in 1988 and 1989 and the report is explicit - resolved this question once and for all. The best evidence is that Article 41 has been revised twice during the same constituent, on two separate points.

You know that, since then, this Senate report drafted at the time by our excellent colleague Claude Desmedt makes authority for both assemblies and binds them.

The issue has long been discussed between the two assemblies and has been settled. The House did not have the same point of view as the Senate. In 1989, during the revision of Article 41, it was faced with the problem of revising the same article for the second time. This issue has been resolved and a constant jurisprudence has been created.

Mr. Maingain, this is the correct statement. I have said that the statement exists, but what is silenced on the part of the MR colleagues is that there is another statement. Please allow me to finish my reasoning. You remember — I suppose you were present in the committee — that I proposed to address the question to the government whether it can give us the guarantee that, if we amend Article 167 in the sense of the colleagues of the MR, the reform of the Senate will not be compromised. You can approach it legally, but I wanted to approach it primarily politically. If they know on the other side that they can hide behind it, then I think you have enough political intelligence and experience in your group to know that the political chance that there will be no Senate reform is very real, because one will be too willing to hide behind such arguments. Therefore, I requested that we obtain clarity on this, that we continue to dialogue with the government on this.

But no, the colleagues of the MR and also the colleagues of the VLD did not want that, there was a hurry with it, it had to move forward. That is my first argument—and allow me to develop my other arguments as well—to say that this is rushwork and that it is dangerous. Something that we, especially the majority parties, should have in our hearts, that is, what is stated in the government agreement, the realization of the Senate reform, could — you see that I am cautious — be compromised if we proceeded steadily to implement your proposals.

The second argument. We all know that this article was first in Le Soir by Hugues Dumont and that fourteen days later there was the bill of the MR. The MR based on the statement of Professor Dumont and submitted a proposal to amend Article 167, § 2. However, there are still two serious recommendations from Professor Dumont in that article, of which one finds no trace in the proposal of the MR. I think this is a second illustration of the hurry work that comes with the proposal. The proposal actually hangs in a vacuum. It is noted that Belgium is a federal state. There are treaties that are called mixed treaties. It is forgotten that our state reform provides that there are exclusive powers at the state level and that there are exclusive powers of regional parliaments. I read you for a moment what Professor Dumont says about this: "A solution, the introduction of a referendum via article 167 §2, can only" and I continue in French, because one could understand it: "second condition: the referendum ne devrait intervenir qu'après les assentiments parlementaires que chaque assemblée fédérale et fédérée est appelée à donner dans l'état actuel du droit applicable aux traités mixtes."

To put it simply: Professor Dumont says that organizing a referendum in the federal State of Belgium on a mixed treaty is only possible if it is recorded in the Constitution that all regional and community parliaments have also given their consent.

Can the colleagues of the MR tell me where I can find that in their proposal? Can they tell me that, or is there no longer for the colleagues of the MR the thirty years of state reform that we have behind? So that’s my second reason to say that we’re dealing with hurry work here.

My third argument is that again the MR forgets what their source of inspiration, Professor Dumont, suggests. What is his “first condition”?

First condition: "Le constituant devrait renvoyer à une loi spéciale, qui exige notamment une majorité dans les deux groupes linguistiques, tant à la Chambre qu'au Sénat, pour ce qui concerne aussi bien l'énoncé des modalités d'organisation de référendums de souveraineté que la décision d'en organiser au cas par cas." For whom do you take me? I have always said that compulsory appearance is a crucial essential condition for our group. The compulsory appearance could be implemented in that law with a special majority. As you now imagine, case by case will be determined under what conditions a referendum will be held in Belgium and case by case will be determined whether or not it is with compulsory appearance. With everyone but not with the sp.a. room faction.

My conclusion is that here, as regards your bill, we are dealing with hurry work that is dangerous because it puts the reform of the Senate at risk. It contradicts the many agreements that have been poured into laws passed by a special majority. In addition, there is the political danger that you will enter the referendum without compulsory appearance.

Several have since said, and the SPAA has always said, that the referendum must be in accordance with our Constitution. Here is a constitutional proposal, and you assume that this will be enough for us. I’m sorry, but you’ll have to overdo your homework and it’ll have to be of a better level before you make the chance that the sp.a-room faction follows you. My answer to the first question, which will be the attitude of the sp.akamer members with regard to this proposal, is obvious. What you propose to us is not good enough to be approved by us.

Now I come to the second question: sp.a-chamber group and referendum. What I blame some of you is that things are mixed up. Maybe I’m going to provoke a little. I would call this almost legal knotwork. If a student ever makes a study of what has happened here, he would without doubt say that the level of the proposal that we have had to speak about is very short in anticipation of a careful amendment of the Constitution, if one introduces something so essential as direct democracy in the Belgian Constitution.

Our group voted for direct democracy at the municipal level. There are proposals ready to discuss direct democracy at the level of the Regions and Communities.

Our group will vote in favour. I tell you, let’s do it, colleague Michel. I repeat: if there is a proposal to organize a referendum on treaties involving the surrender of sovereignty and if there is a proposal presented with the necessary care and at a sufficiently high level, then you might be surprised by the vote that the sp.a. house group would vote in these.

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 have heard many arguments aimed at telling us that, in short, we were unable to hold a debate on the proposal for the revision of the Constitution submitted by the MR group, due to lack of time, lack of having heard legal answers to essential questions we have asked.

I would like to first make a little constitutional history and, to those who voted the principle of popular consultation at the municipal level by amending the municipal law without prior revision of the Constitution, I ask them where were their legal scruples. Where was their concern about the respect of the Constitution?

I have discussed this in the committee and I have not heard any credible response on this subject. Not even in the opinion of the State Council, Mr. Wathelet. Furthermore, the State Council, embarrassed by this problem since everyone knows that the Constitution has only been revised after having inserted in the law the principle of popular consultation at the local level, the State Council, I say, in order to try to justify what should be unconstitutional in its eyes, has no other argument than to tell us that there was no problem at the local level, for two reasons.

First, because, de facto, there have already been organized several popular consultations at the local level, without legal or constitutional basis; therefore, the fact of having it included in the law without first revising the Constitution did not seem to pose a problem to him. Then, because the interior ministers, questioned about the organization of these local popular consultations, have so often marked their approval that, in short, a situation of fact has imposed on all.

To understand the reasoning of the State Council, the only thing that we should ultimately blame is that we have not yet organized sufficiently frequent popular consultations at the federal level to raise any doubt on the legal plane. This is the opinion of the State Council. We have already known him better inspired!

In addition, there are those who claim that there is an implicit revision of the Constitution. I would like to hear a lot of arguments, but I answered them in a committee: there is no implicit revision of the Constitution. In vain it is sought in what - and the services of the House agree - there is a flagrant, implicit revision of Article 33 and Article 42 of the Constitution. This legal argument also falls.

We are told then that there is a danger of creating a precedent in a federal country like ours. The precedent of 1950 would obviously be the horror to stir, but ⁇ it was not from those ranks that this argument was expected.

But let us take Switzerland, the Swiss Confederation: three language communities, a federal country if any. Do these people never hold referendums? Is there ever a contradiction between the Romans, the Alémaniques and the Italian speakers, in Switzerland, on referendums? And there is a civil war that breaks out the day after a referendum because there are contradictions between the public opinions romantic — francophone -, alémanique and italophone? Have you ever noticed something like this?

If you take the only European debate in Switzerland, the problem of whether Switzerland would get closer to the European Union, in particular by signing the accession to the ALE, you will find that the Romands are very favorable there, the German Swiss much less, but, despite the finding of divergences of opinions in Switzerland, this does not create a constitutional problem and a threat to the very existence of the country.

At the end of a congress of the Socialist Party, it had to be understood that the chairman of the Socialist Party was suddenly discovering the virtues of the referendum and of the popular consultation. It is true that one had to attend after that his first live Dutch lesson to understand that what one believed to have grasped as an adherence to the principle of popular consultation was challenged because it became too little subtle.

So, fundamentally, I would like to know whether what the French Socialist Party has done internally should not be done internally within the Socialist Party in the French Community. by Mr. Hollande was faced with an essential debate and he used, very usefully, the referendum to settle the internal debate. Per ⁇ if tomorrow the Socialist Party would ask itself, internally, whether there is no reason to organize a popular consultation in our country, on the constitutional treaty, it might have the chance to hear its militants say to it: "Of course, it is necessary to organize the popular consultation."

(The applause )

And by saying this, I am not seeking to create an axis against the Socialist Party because, in the end, I am merely joining what the European Socialists themselves have said. I read last night Olivier Duhamel, a brilliant French constitutionalist who sat in the European Parliament. In his chronicle, he who was at the Convention, he recalled a document of which I quote the last major point of the European Socialists’ position: “Citizens who decide. The Constitution shall be adopted by a European referendum held on the same day in all States of the Federation. by

Who said that? The European Socialists in the European Parliament, on the proposal of the French Socialists. That is why, today, when I look for allies, I am honored to be with those who, in the European Parliament, even within the socialist ranks, have advanced the idea of Europe by giving back the word to the citizens.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, in a representative regime, the people elect the representatives who govern them, the electorate makes legitimate a power whose representatives are the only holders; there is total delegation of sovereignty. In a regime of true popular sovereignty, the elected is a mere spokesman; he expresses the will of the people and of the nation. He does not incarnate that will.

The key notion, in democracy, is the participation of the people in their destiny. Democracy is the political form that allows each citizen to participate in public affairs by designating the rulers. It also involves the possibility of expressing or refusing the consent of the citizen to political professionals, thus obliging them to respect their promises and commitments.

It is not the institutions but the participation of the people in the institutions that makes democracy real. The maximum of democracy is confused with maximum participation. Self-proclaimed experts cannot alone determine the common good. If the people are not consulted, if their will is not taken into account, they disinterest in public affairs. If the elections were not mandatory in Belgium, the abstentionist party would be the first party in our country.

This political apathy is dangerous. It reflects the deep gap between the rulers and the governed. It also translates a certain degeneration of the democratic ideal. Universal suffrage does not summarize all possibilities of democratic procedures. If it is not completed by a popular consultation or, better yet, by a referendum of popular initiative, it can lead to its opposite: the more or less partial dictatorship of political parties or even of party presidents, the partition.

Any progress towards more democracy is, for us, welcome. Thus, if the House would accept, but unfortunately probably won’t, a simple popular consultation subject to parliamentary approval, the National Front would welcome it.

As a colleague said last week, while abstaining from the vote extending the debate on a possible popular consultation, we must go further, we must dare the referendum.

There are two forms of referendum: the referendum in the French language, submitted by the President of the Republic – in Belgium, it would undoubtedly be submitted by the government or by the parliament – and the real referendum, the referendum of popular initiative.

This is what the National Front prefers. The referendum is a guarantee of direct democracy perfectly compatible with the demands of modern life. It has been applied in Switzerland, in California, too, for many years and it allows the triumph of general interests over private or private interests.

Too many Belgians feel excluded from major political decisions. Power is only legitimate when it largely responds to the concerns of the people. The referendum gives the word to the people. There can be no democracy without a popular community. It does not dislike the political class: a people is not a simple aggregate of individuals. It is also not a toy that is manipulated by economic lobbies. A people is a unit of destiny shaped by ethno-cultural identity.

The draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe underlines in Article 2-71, second paragraph, that "the political parties contribute to the expression of the political will of the citizens of the Union." Freedom of expression cannot be partial; it is whole or it is fictitious.

The reason for the debate today is the popular consultation or referendum on the draft treaty establishing a European Constitution. In several EU countries, citizens will be called to vote for or against this text. At home, the question will probably not be asked to the public. Belgium from below will once again have the impression that traditional parties have nothing to do with their opinion. Many will speak of a democratic deficit.

For the National Front, it is about giving the word to the people and honestly informing them of the consequences of this treaty. The National Front is against this treaty because we are passionately European. This Constitution breaks the hope of a free, independent and sovereign Europe in the near future. Certain articles of the text, such as 1-41, 2° approve the vassalization of Europe by the United States by arguing that our defense would be compatible with the common security policy agreed within the framework of NATO. However, these arrangements were made in a completely different geopolitical context from the one that exists today. And the military, political and economic interests of the United States, at present, are different from those of Europe, different and even often antagonistic.

But if our independence is threatened by this subjection to imperialist America, there is even worse! The text of the European Constitution does not provide for geographical or cultural boundaries of Europe.

From the acceptance or rejection of establishing a Constitution for Europe depends the social, economic, cultural, human future of our great homeland, Europe. Moreover, it is its own survival that it is about. This treaty is unacceptable for all true Europeans.

We want the referendum to become constitutional in Belgium. We will vote for a popular consultation, even if it does not go far enough. Our hopes will ⁇ be disappointed because, despite many statements, few policymakers seem to want more democracy. by

For a long time, we have noticed that it is the people who talk the most about democracy who despise it the most. We must return to our people, through the adoption of the right to referendum, the true democracy. I thank you.

The floor is yielded to Mr. Daems, the last speaker in these debates. Then we will move on to the voting.

Do you want to listen immediately, colleagues?

Mr. Speaker, one would almost say that the culture of open debate has come back a little tonight, in that sense — I don’t know what your opinion is — that I am satisfied with one thing. For a moment in this House, apart from majority and opposition, we have debated on an important principle topic. We have done that. If you ask me, it is a long time ago. We may have different opinions and opinions, but in the end there is still a beginning of debate or there has been a beginning of debate on such an important topic as direct consultation of the citizen on an important issue that may directly affect him.

I am pleased that the fellow group leaders of almost all parties are here. In that sense, colleagues of CD&V, of sp.a, of PS, of MR and of Vlaams Belang, that now is not there, we have, of course, missed a chance. And of course spirit! In the end, we’ve been working on that matter for six months—everyone has said it here—and we’ve never really discussed the substance of the matter with each other in the committee. If we are here today, it is because we said last week that we would discuss the proposal in the plenary session and that we would therefore not go back to the committee to discuss some possible adjustments and amendments in order to bring the quality that some colleagues believe is lacking to this proposal.

The reason why we stand so far today and only now have a debate on the subject is twofold. I think we need to learn a lesson for the future. On the one hand, the colleagues of CD&V and cdH at the beginning — I do not blame them for that — said that in this debate they may be able to divide the majority. They also played this politically in the committee. These are the facts. They watched whether they could divide the majority, not understanding that this should be a debate — indicated in the beginning by us — that should have nothing to do with majority or opposition. That is the reality, and you have played it that way. Until today, CD&V has not really put forward a principled arsenal of arguments to indicate why it is either for or against a referendum and why it would be either for or against a referendum on the European Constitution.

The PS, with all respect, is a little of the same sheet a trousers. I respect the opinion of the PS, of course, as of any group, but today you come to tell that you have asked if you could argue. Yes, after three or four months after the substance of the matter was ultimately not debated, the only matter that came up was — in addition to the fact that CD&V and CDH actually thought that there was a possibility to divide the majority here — that on the other side of the majority, with the socialists, in reality there was an opinion and there is that one does not want a popular consultation on the European Constitution, that one is still a little afraid of it because one thinks that the citizen in this may not really have the opinion that we would like them to have, especially that they would be for it.

That is the truth in the debate. So far we have not really debated whether or not to organize a public consultation on the European Constitution, which I have here with me. The European Constitution is not small. There are fundamental rights; there are freedoms; there are matters that make the European Constitution really have priority over the Belgian law. After all, she is inspectable. There may be debate among lawyers whether the European Constitution and its provisions have priority over the Belgian Constitution. This can be discussed, I admit. The Belgian law has priority. Everyone agrees on this.

The colleagues heard it: 4 out of 25 countries have the citizen not involved in the affair. Belgium is one of those countries. So that is very regrettable and grieved, now that we have the European Constitution here in front of us, especially when we open the Constitution and read what is in it. I dare ask my colleagues who has already opened the European Constitution in the hemisphere. That is also a good question. Who has ever opened the European Constitution and looked at what is in it? Of course, colleagues, some have already done that. Therefore, they are also asking for a public consultation. They also know the importance. It is mainly the following.

The authors say they are grateful to the members of the European Convention — hear right now — “because they have drafted the Constitution on behalf of the citizens.” They have drafted the Constitution on behalf of the citizens, not on behalf of institutions or nations. This is true, but it is mainly done on behalf of the people. This is my main argument to conclude that, if a Constitution is drafted which has priority over the Belgian law, is examinable and is drafted on behalf of the citizen, then it is the right of the citizen to have at least an opinion on it and to be able to express it. That is the reality.

Let us get into the ground of the case. Indeed, we differ in opinions on a number of fundamental issues concerning the popular consultation. Two elements come to mind here.

First, we differ in the hemisphere of opinions about the model of democracy we advocate. That is so. We have different opinions on this: direct democracy versus representative democracy. I take it together. Mr. Verherstraeten has formulated it beautifully, as he so often does. He says we tested it because we went to the middle field. We have heard in particular how the various organizations have formed their views on the European Constitution. In fact, so some people have said that, after direct information to the citizen, his opinion should be asked, without filter. Other colleagues believe that once the mandate was obtained, a filter should be created to know whether they are legitimate or not. That is the difference between consulting the civil society, what happens organized, and, as liberals and others advocate, directly consulting the citizen. That is direct democracy versus another equally respectable form of representative democracy.

We differ in opinion on this.

The question then arises: is there a binding referendum or not in this country? and yes. Have you ever thought about it? That does exist. Once every four years there is a binding referendum with compulsory appearance when we are elected. Once every four years there is effectively a binding referendum with compulsory appearance, imagine. We all find that the citizen at that time is perfectly capable, wise and responsible enough to be able to choose from ten different party programs, with all the details, with all the candidates explaining about I know a lot, what. But not about this! (Applause of Applause)

That is incomprehensible! When you, colleagues, find that one is able to understand your party program — those who are not in favor of this; that is your right — then one is ⁇ able to understand the European Constitution and also ⁇ able to pass on to us a judgmental opinion there. That sure. (Applause of Applause)

When we put together the arguments of the colleagues I heard here tonight, the fundamental question is: can or can not the proposal of colleague Hasquin be approved. Where does that depend on? There are many arguments, for and against. They are all of a technical nature. I return to Mr. Verherstraeten, whose presentation in this was exemplary. He was right for it. He said that one could actually be both for and against. The note of the Chamber, which we all know, perfectly reflects that, if one interprets A, one must be against it, while if one interprets B, one can be for it. This is about whether one can change that article more than once. The note from the Chamber makes it very clear that this is not a problem, because it is an addition. So you can perfectly change it again afterwards to reform the Senate. Mr Maingain, on the other hand, gave the example of Article 41. Of the implicit change, says the note of our Chamber, that it is not at all a problem; it depends only on how you interpret it.

I would add an argument. We here, in the hemisphere, as constitutional legislators, are sovereign in the vote we hold on this. I will give you an example. Has there ever been a discussion of when 107quaters were introduced in the Constitution? and never. This is simply included. Can one give a better example than that regarding the sovereignty of the constituent here, who can perfectly decide what he wants? That is actually the reality.

Where does all this debate go? On a simple element: the political will to do this or not. All the rest, with all the respect for the colleagues and for their opinion, is actually a little bit of sluggish cool. We must be honest in that. Among other things, the note of our own house, this house, being a sovereign constituent, has indicated that it can perfectly. We are just talking about this: do we, representatives of the people appointed here in a binding referendum with compulsory appearance note bene, that the citizen about a project that has a giant direct impact on society – Belgium, the center of Europe, with Brussels as the capital of Europe – directly, after sufficient information, should be able to say whether he or she likes this project or not?

The political will exists for it or not. Those who today — with all respect for their opinion, even if I disagree with it — use or abuse the pretext that they are against to reject Mr Hasquin’s proposal, actually say that they are against the citizen’s direct expression of his opinion on the European Constitution. That is the only political fact that counts, and nothing else.

It is perfectly possible to obtain a two-thirds majority. I discussed this with colleague Bacquelaine. Cd&V and cdH have, during the debates so far — very briefly — refrained from arguments on the grounds of the case, as they thought to divide the majority. Their normal voting behavior should be that they abstain. That is the truth, for they have not given a true opinion, not yet to this day.

Those who remain, who have spoken a little about the substance of the case — but not enough in my case — can offer a two-thirds majority. Just make the count. I admit, colleague Giet, that it has to do with some absences in your group – we must be honest – because in fact it just ⁇ ’t succeed if everyone were there. But if today the colleagues who have actually abstained in the debate would also abstain in their voting behavior, there is a two-thirds majority for the amendment.

I would like to return to the argument of the PS. I would like to return to the argument of colleague Giet. I will conclude my speech with this.

I actually find it not right, colleague, that you say you have suggested to discuss it in depth and first look at the modalities and to take some time to see if we can hold such a referendum. Please read honestly the proposal of Mr. Hasquin. It only states that the possibility of a popular consultation is created and that one can only hold it when one makes another law. It is expressly stated in its proposal that all modalities should be included in that law. So, in fact, your conditions are met in the proposal that colleague Hasquin put on the table. So you could perfectly agree and deliver the two-thirds majority to debate whether or not we want to have a public consultation on the European Constitution and whether or not we want the citizen to express his opinion directly, without filters, on such a large and important project that has such a big impact on their daily life as that European Constitution.

I call on everyone – and I think so – to look at their own hearts just as honestly and ask themselves: isn’t it because I just don’t want the referendum on the European Constitution? And I’m not just looking for a drug trap to avoid that?

After all, what is the difference between this law and the law that would install the popular consultation? This requires a two-thirds majority and that other law requires only an ordinary majority. These are the political facts. I tell you that those who make the choice today — and that is their good right — not to accept the proposal of colleague Hasquin, make the choice to give the message to the citizen: I find you skilled and mature and wise enough to choose me, the great People’s Representative, but in fact you are too stupid and irresponsible when it comes to directly expressing your opinion on such an important project.

This general discussion has engaged us for about three hours. We had a two-language text, but there was a three-language text — document 1531/3 — which I will submit to the vote.

The discussion of the single article is closed.

The vote on the proposal for revision is reserved. The vote on the proposal for revision is held.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vote agreement with Mr. Anthuenis.

Mr. Speaker, I have voted.

This is recorded.

Mr. Speaker, our group will support the resolution. If there is a majority to support this resolution, we are surprised that it is not translated shortly by legislative provisions. Next week, as part of the Health Act, we will submit amendments to incorporate, as far as possible, the content of this resolution through legislation. I hope that we will have the support of all democratic parties.

Beginning of the vote / Beginning of the vote. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 6) Yes 135 Yes No 0 Non Abstentions 0 Abstentions Total 135 Total Consequently, the House adopts the draft resolution. It will be notified to the Government.

Parliament has issued a majority that is faithful to what polls reveal about our public opinion.