Proposition 51K2494

Prise en considération de la proposition de résolution relative au démembrement de l'Etat belge en vue d'accorder l'indépendance au peuple flamand et au peuple wallon souverains.

Summary ¶

(From the official documents)

La Flandre et la Wallonie étant deux communautés ayant leurs propres valeurs et intérêts, il n’existe pas d’intérêt général belge. Or, un État tire sa légitimité de son attachement à servir l’intérêt général des membres de la «communauté politique». C’est également sur la base de ce critère que l’on peut déterminer si et dans quelle mesure un État exerce le pouvoir de façon légitime. Étant donné qu’il n’existe pas d’intérêt général belge – nous visons en l’espèce un intérêt partagé par les Wallons et les Flamands –, l’État belge sert fatalement des intérêts autres que l’intérêt général. C’est essentiellement là que résident le déficit démocratique de la Belgique et le manque de légitimité de l’État belge. Le rétablissement de la démocratie en Belgique (en tant que concept géographique) suppose dès lors la fin de l’État belge en tant que sujet de droit international public et son remplacement par une Flandre démocratique souveraine, d’une part, et une Wallonie démocratique souveraine, d’autre part.

General information ¶

Authors

VB Gerolf Annemans, Bart Laeremans

Submission date

May 18, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament State

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Open Vld N-VA FN VB

Voted to reject

Ecolo LE PS | SP MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Herman De Croo (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 1, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Proposal no. 2494/1.

Is this the fourth of the list?

Yes, Mr the President.

It is not in our habits to oppose a priori a request for consideration solely because the proposal or text in question comes from an extremist pen.

However, in this case, we believe that the text of the resolution proposal that proposes the dismemberment of Belgium, the destruction of the country and the disappearance of our institutions is not acceptable. We also consider that this text postulates that our country, Belgium, is not a democratic state.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I wish that we can clearly oppose the consideration of this resolution.

On behalf of the Group, I therefore request a vote on this text. In this way, I think, we will fulfill our duty as guardians of democracy. (Applause)

Mr. Bacquelaine, now I am really surprised, very surprised! The proposal is only printed, because last year we celebrated the 175th anniversary of Belgium and we always look a little forward. We do not look back, we look forward. We are in favor of a major state reform, that of 2007. It is a state reform, in which all of you will have to participate, in some way. Even CD&V will have to take initiatives for that. It will be a very important moment.

You have, thanks to Verhofstadt, been able to delay this for a long time with regard to the Flemish parties. Since 1999, any further development of the state reform in Belgium has been stopped. We look further into the future. We do not do so in order to destroy the institutions -destruction de notre pays - or the country, we do so because, after all, one must be able to set the ultimate goal in a democracy and ask for a discussion about it. We do it in that spirit.

You can request that book here – I have read it myself again – in the Library of the Chamber. It is in your language, Mr. Bacquelaine, "La partition de la Tchécoslovaquie". It was very legitimate that a law was passed there, la loi du 24 novembre 1992 relative à la disparition de la République fédérative tchèque et slovaque. That is a law that in the federal parliament of Czechoslovakia, similar to the House, in a very peaceful, fluffy manner provided for the separation of the country. You can borrow the book here, I will bring it in tomorrow. “According to the law of 24 November, the Czechoslovak Parliament, the Federal Assembly, approves the constitutional law on the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, in which it is foreseen, with reference to the prior decision of the Czech and Slovak Parliaments, that after 31 December 1992, the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic ceases to exist.”

In a normal democracy, it must be possible to discuss this alternative as well. Their

Ladies and gentlemen, the following thing surprised me completely. Yesterday Mr. Destexhe told us in a Flemish newspaper that Wallonia is no longer really a democracy. Well, if you have nothing better at hand these days as MR than pretending that I am overthrowing democracy here, from Flanders, then I think you no longer know what you should actually do. Then I think you are trying to use the Flemish Interest, and this very democratic proposal, as an excuse for your own problematic situation in Wallonia. Their

Good luck with the elections! We see each other back in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the request made by my colleague Daniel Bacquelaine in so far as denying the democratic character of Belgium reveals, if needed, the idea that some have of democracy. Therefore, it cannot be questioned for the PS Group to take the first step of the legislative procedure concerning this text.

Mr. Speaker, when we swore as parliamentarians, we swore to respect the Constitution. However, the unity and territorial integrity are fundamental elements of the text on which, I repeat, we all have sworn. That is why it is out of question for the CDH group to consider this kind of text. There is no need, today, to discuss the abolition of Belgium.

I don’t want to sit down and get up. I will therefore hold a major vote.

I would like to take the word in the debate.

In the considerations, the use is always to consider all texts. That is not to say that they subsequently also lead to a text that is substantially approved in this assembly. This is not a discussion on the substance of the case. In a democracy, however, it must also be accepted that texts are submitted that do not involve the approval of a large part of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the word in order to repeat the decades-long position of SP- or sp.a-fractions in the House.

In fact, our view is that the content of a proposal is in principle separate from a consideration. Unless a text contradicts, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights, it is the rule of our group that we always accept the consideration. Their

This does not mean that we agree with the text. In fact, I dare to say that we are even against the direction of the text, which is a grotesque provocation of the Flemish Interest.

I would like to say for the benefit of the French-speaking colleagues that a judgment by a non-democratic party such as the Flemish Bloc on the democratic content of the political system is for me of zero and of no value. If it ever were considered to put this text on the agenda of a committee, all 23 members of our group would oppose the agenda in a committee.

I cannot be more clear in our opposition to the content of the text. However, we do not wish to break the rule that in principle in a Parliament any proposal that is not contrary to constitutional principles or European treaties must be put forward by a party.

Mr. Speaker, my group also considers that the consideration is necessary to enable a democratic debate, which is also the content of the proposals. We need to evaluate and discuss them at the right time.

In the past, other proposals were submitted to the House that we or our former political family at the time regretted that they were never considered. Democracy must allow all proposals, whatever the content and how extreme the content is, to be considered.