Proposition 51K1555

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 23 mai 1990 sur le transfèrement inter-étatique des personnes condamnées et la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 13, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European convention foreign national judicial cooperation suspension of sentence transfer of prisoners criminal law extradition ruling release on licence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA

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 24, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We received a very comprehensive written report. I have seen a lot of speakers registered. The same speakers are also mentioned in the report. I refer to the written report, unless one or more colleagues would request a comprehensive report.

I refer to the written report.

The general discussion is opened. (Tumult) Sorry, I have scrupulously applied the Rules. Ladies and gentlemen, you will have the word in this debate. Then came Mr. Maingain, Mr. Laeremans and Mr. Marinower.

( ... ...

Sorry, but that point has been addressed.

Then we are in a different procedure. You should know that after all these years. We talked about the work. This point is closed, but our colleague asked for the word at ordemotie.

Mr. Tante, I gave Mrs. D'Hondt the word.

( ... ...

How much, Mr Wathelet? The debate on whether or not to put this point on the agenda is exhausted. (The tumbling)

( ... ...

Mrs. I am sorry. Two members are against and two are for; not per group. So is it.

Mr. Speaker, the sixth item of the Rules of Procedure provides for five minutes of speech time per person, per political group.

Article 48, 6° "urgent" indicates, unless the President decides otherwise, five minutes per political group.

If I am not mistaken, Article 48, 6°, of the Rules of Procedure provides that in this case both the author of the proposal, the question of whether the motion as one speaker per political group has five minutes of speaking time, unless you decide otherwise.

I have stated, from the beginning, that I am applying Article 17. Article 17 provides for the amendment of the agenda, I applied it scrupulously. I am not going from one article to another.

I have said that I would scrupulously use Article 17 concerning the amendment of the rules of work.

Why not the article

We are in Article 17. by Mr. So much has understood it perfectly. He asked if two speakers for and two speakers against could speak. I then asked for a fifth of the House to rise, which was done. We had two speakers against, no speakers for. The debate is over.

Mr. Tant understood this very well: he asked for four speakers to speak, two for and two against. I have asked for a fifth of the members of the Chamber to stand up, which has happened. We heard two speakers against, but no speaker for. The discussion on this subject has thus ended. This is not a circus.

President, I want to ask you something.

I said that it was approved, so my report is correct. (The protest)

Mr. Verherstraeten, we are now in the debate about removing the aliens. Do you abstain from speaking or do you take the word?

Mr. Speaker, I can ask the President of Social Affairs with what right the statements in the Social Affairs Committee have been approved.

This will be discussed in the debate later, Mrs. It all comes as you want. I only addressed the agenda. (Tumult by Tumult)

Do you take the word or not? Come and talk. Do you take the word or not? You have the word in the general debate. If you do not take it, I will remove you. Then Mr Maingain. The Rules are applied from A to Z. Ladies and gentlemen, you have the word. Their

Ladies and gentlemen, you have the word. Do you take the word, yes or no? No to? (Tumulte dans l'hémicyle) (Tumulte dans l'hémicyle)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Per ⁇ it is interesting to read Article 78, the fourth. Because you are writing history several times in this Room. I quote: “With regard to the texts attributed to them in particular, the speakers may submit their improvements in writing in advance. They shall be deemed to have approved those texts if they have not submitted their improvements within a period of three days, counting from the day following the day on which the texts are available. However, the aforementioned period can be shortened by a decision taken by the chairman of the committee before the vote on the whole of a bill, a proposal or a budget." These deadlines have also been shortened. Only, Mr. Speaker, and this question was asked by Mr. D'Hondt, and you should give the answer, when have the Commissioners of the Social Affairs Committee been able to give their approval to this report? When did you get this, Mr. President? What is the scrupulous application of the Rules you have talked about several times? Is it scrupulous or is it “scrapuleus”? Their

This is not the first time we experience this with you. You will write history as president. You could have written history. With your intelligence and your electoral power, you can take an independent position here between majority and opposition. You let this after. You continue to follow the majority in slavery to have the absolute certainty of being able to sit there as a sun king!

I will return for a moment to Mrs. D'Hondt's criticism of the report. (The speaker cites Article 78, fourth paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure).

It is true that the present draft is being dealt with urgently and that the deadlines have been shortened but Mrs D'hondt asked when this report had been adopted in the Social Affairs Committee. Does the President apply the Rules scrupulously or “scrapily”?

The president could have written history in this hemisphere by playing the role of cement between the majority and the opposition. But he prefers to be servile to the majority because he obviously wants to stay on the sidewalk.

(...): Mr President, I ask for the suspension.

Let the Lord do his work. I have to tell you, Mr. De Crem, that the Social Affairs Committee has not requested a reading of its report.

On vient de me communiquer que la commission des Affaires sociaux n'avait pas recall on the banks) Mr. Verherstraeten, if you stand here, it is to speak. Otherwise, I will replace you with Mr. Maingain. I requested the reading of the report.

I cannot interrupt this debate.

That is another debate. Now you continue this debate.

You will not get me out of this place.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have the word. You are not looking for incidents, right?

You are looking for them!

No, I am not looking for incidents.

I do not know what the President wants to answer to that question when it is approved in the Social Affairs Committee.

I ask you again: when was the Social Affairs Committee able to adopt this report?

What do you say?

What is the subject of the meeting?

If I understand it correctly, Mr De Crem asks for a suspension. He calls for the meeting of the Conference of Presidents.

The point on which we voted is part of our agenda; it is no longer the subject of controversy.

I would like to convene the Conference of Presidents if requested by a group leader. I will do it, it is a tradition.

If requested by two group leaders, I would like to convene the Conference of Presidents. We will resume the plenary session at 20:00.