Proposition 51K2548

Projet de loi portant diverses modifications en matière électorale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 14, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

organisation of elections parliamentary election election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

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 ¶

Nov. 16, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report, with one clarification. Following the draft law submitted, colleagues from the minority groups have requested to link a total of five bills relating to the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. On the basis of Article 24, the majority of the committee voted against this treatment in the light of the draft. Then ...

The [...]

The reporter publishes a report. Don’t go after me, Mr. Laeremans. Subsequently, Ms Lanjri also made a few comments on her report.

Did I register Mr. Claes?

for a voting statement.

I will give you the word for a vote.

Who will register for the general discussion? Mr Laeremans is? Who else? Is it all?

Then I will give the floor to Mr. Laeremans in the general discussion. You have the word, Mr. Learman.

I would like to address you in particular.

It is not without bitterness that I speak here today, in the first place as Flaming and Vlaams Belanger who must establish that with this bill may be buried the last chance to approve before the federal elections of 2007 the so long anticipated and so necessary split of the unitary electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. I also stand here first and foremost as a member of parliament, as a representative of the people, as a member of the Federal Chamber. I stand here as a Democrat who needs to establish that the chairman of this parliamentary hemisphere, who should be the guardian of the Rules of the Chamber, the guardian of free speech and of free expression, that that chairman has abused his situation in an unprecedented way and that the debate on Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde has just squeezed in the germ.

It is impossible to overestimate the seriousness of what has happened here. The President has declared amendments inadmissible and therefore undiscussable on the basis of the famous Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure which stipulates that amendments must be directly related to the exact subject or article of the draft law. Well, this is a shameful premiere for this country. Within this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, there existed the tradition, there existed a golden rule that this article of the Rules of Procedure would never be used, that this article would be considered a nuclear weapon that would never be removed from the closet under normal conditions. It would only serve as the ultimate, highly secure emergency brake, only to be used when the work of the Parliament would become completely paralyzed and the democracy itself would thus be endangered.

Here happened exactly the opposite. The nuclear weapon was appeared in a almost banal manner on a vodje paper from the House Speaker that was steamlessly locked inside the committee. It even went so far that, when we requested the document through the Commission Secretariat, we heard a categorical "njet". We were not even allowed to see the President’s vodka paper. We would read it all in the report.

One knew very well that there was a smell of the story and the procedure and that the chairman had overplayed his hand heavily.

Colleagues, if the famous Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure could be applied in the future by the precedent of the Committee on Home Affairs too properly and inappropriately if it belongs to the Chairman of the Committee or to the Chairman of the Chamber, it means less and less that the opposition can be cut off at any time and on a completely arbitrary basis. In this way, the opposition is no longer able to do a significant part of its work, in this case, the proposals of the majority are verbally contested.

Mr. Speaker, what you have done is ⁇ dangerous for the functioning of our institution and, in no small degree, violates the rights of your members of parliament. I make it clear on behalf of our group that it is not susceptible to repetition and that you will not prevent us tonight from explaining our amendments on the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde.

Furthermore, it was completely incorrect and false to say that the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde issue would be substantially separate from the original bill, which is nothing more than a technical thing that should arrange a number of practical preparations for the upcoming federal elections. Nothing is less true. One of the key provisions of the draft, Article 26, has indeed a very clear political meaning, which is 100% related to the debate about the split of the electoral circles.

What is the article about? It is about the famous Lennik dossier. It is about the canton of Lennik where in 2003 through a grill of the former Franco-speaking Minister of Interior all the votes received by letter from abroad were concentrated. This resulted in a huge vote gain for the French-speaking parties in that country and Flemish canton.

We had warned that these foreign voters who were registered in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde would largely vote in French. It was about another instrument to push the Flamings further backwards. Our right was confirmed by the result in Lennik in abundance.

Well, it was this remarkable outcome in 2003 that was at the base of the actions of the mayors, in particular of VLD Mayor Willy De Waele, a companion of you, Mr. Minister, but o so much more prominent than you. That Willy De Waele was so scandalized that he convened a state-general of the mayors, after which the old demand of the division became more current than ever. From that moment on, the dossier has again come to the agenda and the mayors chased out the politicians before them, until they could nothing more than solemnly sign that they would immediately push through the division after the Flemish elections.

The case of Lennik has thus been an incredible catalyst throughout the entire split story. It was ultimately on the basis of the obvious Flemish government agreement of July 2004 that I read here today, at least the relevant passage. To the attention of our colleagues from VLD, sp.a-spirit and CD&V-N-VA, I read the following: “The Flemish government and its government parties take over the commitment, as expressed in the statement of 13 May before the mayors of the Halle-Vilvoorde arrondissement. To this end, they ask their group in the Chamber and Senate” – listen carefully, colleagues, it is about you – “to submit, independently of the forum announced by the federal government, no later than at the beginning of the parliamentary year” – i.e., in September or October 2004 – “legislative proposals for the splitting of the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde for the election of the Chamber of People’s Representatives, the Senate and the European Parliament, respectively, for the splitting of the judicial district, and to approve without delay. In parallel and simultaneously, the Flemish Government will use the institutional resources available to it within the framework of cooperative federalism in order to realize this.”

In the meantime we know what happened. Word breaking was committed in an incredible way. The costly vows were swallowed, the traditional parties had the courage to carry out clear, clear and concrete promises after those Flemish elections, nor in the spring of 2005. The departure was total. Your departure was total.

So do not say today, colleagues of the VLD and sp.a-spirit, that the bill that is here on the table is of a technical nature and has nothing to do with the issue Brussels-Halle-Vivoorde. It is ⁇ closely connected with it.

This is a political bill and it would be completely unacceptable that in this context, Mr. Speaker, we, your party colleagues – the party colleagues of Mayor Willy De Waele – should not confront with your own writings, your own bill. It would be unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, that you would deny today to the incarnate opportunists of spirit the opportunity to vote for their own bill, for which they have so courageously and fiercely manifested in Halle in May 2004.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is a second reason why we should be able to discuss today at least the proposals surrounding the division. It is the proposal of the last chance. This proposal has as its sole and specific purpose to lead the 2007 elections to a good course. After the approval of this draft, unfortunately, there is no longer any opportunity for parliamentarians to put the issue on the agenda with any probability of success.

The debate should be held today. First, because the Court of Arbitration actually forces us to do so. Those who read the decision of the Arbitration Court correctly and put it in its proper context will have to admit that the Court in 2003 obliged us to settle the case within 4 years and therefore before the 2007 elections. The Court has in no way permitted that the case may be postponed suddenly for eight years to 2011. This is exactly what it is about: if we do not do it now, it will be 2011 before we can discuss it. If the division does not occur now, we have suddenly left again for 4 years without the division being guaranteed afterwards.

Moreover, the last municipal and provincial council elections have clearly demonstrated that the imperialism of certain French-speaking politicians must finally be stopped. It is indeed unacceptable that a deputy prime minister of the genre Reynders, who within the government had also the task of finding a way out in this dossier, in full election time and in the most perverse terms took the Flamings in the vizier and exiled for intolerants and called for a radical anti-Flames voting behavior. All of this was, by the way, poured with a sauce of homwee to une Belgique francophone. This is stated in his pamphlets that were distributed in Halle-Vilvoorde bus by bus. This shameful imperialism, this macabre Anschlusspolitik, which reminds of the darkest brown episode in history, must come to an end. Only the immediate split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, without compensation, can provide an answer.

If the file were to be raised over the elections, the opposite threatens to happen. In that case, the entire file threatens to end up in an unfathomable curve of concessions and compensations, and we could end up in the drop of the rain. In that case, the claims of the Brussels imperialists on the Rand could eventually be reinforced rather than stalled.

Colleagues, our amendments are nothing but the text jointly submitted by the traditional parties VLD, sp.a-spirit and CD&V in October 2004 and which was promised to be approved without delay. We cannot imagine that today you would simply vote against your own text.

My final word today is for Mr. Deputy Prime Minister Dewael.

Of course, it is impossible for him to go through life with such a surname. Through his political actions, however, he can avoid being increasingly regarded as a half Waal or a Flaming who prioritizes the Waal and Franco-speaking interests.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I admired you at the time as a flamboyant opposition leader, who tried to praise our party in all possible debates on Flemish orientation. However, since you became Flemish Prime Minister in 1999 and subsequently Belgian Deputy Prime Minister, it has only gone up with you. You have not been able to fulfill the expectations that the Flamings and your Flemish VLD voters – who were still there – had placed in you. Your presence at the political summit has been an eight-year waste of time for Flanders. You have made your career on the back of the Flamings. However, you did not return anything to the Flames at any time. Even worse, in the case Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde you showed yourself in 2004, with your heavy, disciplinary threats to the mayors and with your intimidation policy to the mayors, from your darkest side.

Today, again, as a completed slalom specialist, you try to ski through the real, political debate. You want to bury the bitter question of BHV as deeply as possible, and that for a man who once promised that he would abolish the facilities.

Mr. the former Flemish Prime Minister-President, your party has proved fateful for the Flamings. There will come a day when you and especially the many, lower representatives of your party will regret it.

Mr. Laeremans, I do not want to open a debate about what you have just said. We also discussed this briefly at the Conference of Presidents. Mr Van den Eynde was there. There are precedents, I can tell you, from 1992, 1984, 1983 and 1999.

I do not need to give an explanation, but I will give an explanation to the Chamber. Mr. Laeremans, at a certain moment, on 11 October, the committee has decided by voting a number of bills, I am not going to quote them all, you know them all, twice from Mr. Daems, twice from yourself, once from Mr. De Crem and other colleagues, not to be added to bill no. 2548 to 1.

Then, it is your right to make amendments, the same bill with amendment was discussed. At that time, for those facts, namely the rejection of the proposal or rather the non-accession to the discussion of the main draft, I have decided, in application of several articles of the Rules of Procedure, to declare the amendments inadmissible for both Article 9, which you cited, and for Articles 5 and 75, because they were the same as the one that the committee had removed from the discussion on 11 October.

by Mr. Frédéric made the same decision for subsequent amendments.

You submitted your amendments, three minutes ago – so I couldn’t read them – when you started your discussion. If those amendments – I do not know at this time – are the same as the bills that were not attached to the main draft on 11 October, they will not be declared admissible by me either. But I do not know yet. We are currently looking at whether these are the same texts or not.

I do not know if the Minister has received the texts. We are looking at it at the moment. If they are the same amendments as one or more of the bills on which I applied the rule that you have appealed – and I do not discuss your charge – the decision will remain the same. But I don’t know it at the moment, I confess it.

If you say to me: these are the same amendments, you make my work easier. If you don’t say that, I’ll have to check it, but I can’t know.

These are not the same amendments. Even if they were the same amendments, a plenary session is not the same as a committee. And again, we want to explain our amendments. It does not mean that you dismiss matters that have a substantial connection with the present draft, which is a political draft and is about a political move from Lennik to Brussels, for clearly political reasons. You cannot say that those amendments do not belong to that draft. These belong perfectly to the home and are carried out, in addition, by people from the VLD, sp.a and CD&V, and in principle even by your party chairman.

Mr. Laeremans, if – I don’t know at this time – you or your colleagues have submitted amendments that would be the same as the bills that were split from the discussion on 11 October, I remain with my decision. If they are other amendments – I’ll let them check – it’s the normal course of affairs, of course.

We should not call each other a lithium bed. We, and everyone here in the hemisphere, know very well what it is about. We know very well that the issue Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is a very hot potato that prefers to shift the policy, the regime in this country, because one really doesn’t know which side to go with it.

We also know very well that the amendments of my colleagues Laeremans and De Man relate to Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. We are not going to turn around the pot. Don’t apologize to me, but this is, if I can express myself so, a kind of program law relating to the elections, a program law – I call it so in the absence of better terminology – in which all sorts of matters of very diverse nature are contained. Mr. Laeremans has referred to the problems of the French-speaking voices that go to Lennik, but this is also about many other matters, such as computers, and so on. I don’t want you to read the eight points I’m talking about because you know them as much as I know them and that would be a waste of time.

In such a program law – I repeat that the terminology may be inadequate – any point of view, any proposal concerning elections can, in my opinion, logically be defended outside of politics. It is therefore appropriate, fair and fair that people who want to talk about the split of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district try to address these issues here through amendments. When we are dealing with the Parliament as we know it, a parliament according to the traditions of this country, in which the president is always appointed by the majority, while this does not have to be done elsewhere...

Not always . There have been exceptions.

There have been exceptions, but the Chairman is appointed as Chairman by the majority. We believe that, although he is a member of the majority, although he politically supports the majority, and although he always agrees with the majority, the President has the deontological duty to ensure that the opposition can be addressed.

I hear you referring to what happened in the committee for domestic affairs. The name speaks book parts. Under the chairmanship of Mr Frédéric of the PS, the opposition was undoubtedly banned from adding a number of proposals to the agenda, which is very exceptional. I said this at the Conference of Presidents. If the majority so wishes, it can, in every case discussed here, withdraw from the opposition every word by deciding by majority – that is democratic, by majority – what is not discussed, which argument is not discussed, which proposals are not discussed. Apparently democracy will still function then, but I will not insult you by saying that you would tell me that this is democratic. That is what happens here.

I will return to the first argument I have raised. Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde is a hot hanging iron. What will happen? If these amendments come here, they will be rejected by the majority. The system will not collapse, the throne will not be swung. There will only be voted, majority against minority, in the House of Representatives. Is this so bad now? Is this a revolutionary fact? and no.

Therefore, my group urges you and your colleagues – both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking – to try to be democratic and give the opposition its chances. We won’t win here tonight. The government will be there tomorrow. Point other line. But give us our democratic rights. This is essential, even in this country.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you will remember that on Tuesday, at the Conference of Presidents, I explained my decision with great caution and said that this is something you should handle with great caution. I remain there.

I suggest you suspend for ten minutes. I would like to check whether these amendments are in line with my previous decision. If that is the case, I will uphold my decision. If they follow another line, they are discussed and approved or rejected. I have no problem with this.

However, I cannot judge now. I do not want to judge a priori. That would not be correct. I want this to be checked by the services and it takes time. I will suspend for a quarter of an hour. I tell the Chamber clearly that if my rule can or should be applied, I will apply it. If not, the amendments will be discussed.

If we ask for a suspension, we will get them. If the president wants to suspend, we will ⁇ not protest. We reserve the right to challenge your decision later.

of course .

We will resume the meeting after this brief interruption.

With the cooperation I have requested, I must conclude that the amendments, in turn, literally take over Article 1379 of the bill of 13 October 2004. In the same logic as the one I announced here a few days ago for the suspension – because I had to know first what was in these amendments – I declare them inadmissible, voilà ma décision.

Mr. Speaker, it was natural to expect that you would fall back in the same mistake, the mistake you made when you sent a letter to the committee. I’ve never seen anything like this in the ⁇ 16 years I’ve been here. In that letter to the committee you say, as chairman, that these amendments will indeed not be debated.

Per ⁇ we should come to the bottom of the matter. You invoke Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure. Article 90 states: “Every member has the right to propose amendments. These amendments must be directly related to the precise subject or to the article of the draft law, or to the draft law which they intend to amend.

My position is the following. This bill, for example, concerns the reduction to 18 years of membership of a voting office, the appointment of deputy seats, the deputy deputy seats appointed by the chairman of the canton of the head office, the easing of conditions for giving power from abroad, and so on, but also – now I come to the article of the bill, as mentioned in Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure – the recording of ballots issued by letter exchange in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district. So, if we submit amendments to remedy the problem of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, while that is just one of the articles in the bill, in particular the voting recording of ballots issued by letter exchange in the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, then I absolutely do not understand how you can say that this is not directly related to the exact subject of that article of the bill. You cannot argue that impossible.

Why do you do that? Well, you disappear as a lackey of the majority. You are willing to go so far, to save the majority from the shame of having to vote against their own texts, to save the majority from the shame of having to swallow their promises again here in a plenary session – which is even worse than in the committee. That is now your role as a prejudiced president.

I would like to join with an example or anecdote from a few years ago, when the same happened with the law on party financing, a law intended to remove the dotation of the Flemish Interest. Also then, Mr Borginon said in the committee that it was done with debating on that draft. At the Conference of Presidents we accused this, after which you pledged a few more meeting hours. Also on that example I wonder what kind of democracy it is, where the opposition has all the right to speak, until the majority decides that it is enough. What kind of democracy is this, Mr. Speaker?

It is the second time in the short term that you use a kind of undemocratic weapon here to whip the mouth of the opposition: once when we defended ourselves to life and death against the reduction of our party funding, and now again when we want to bring the Flemish majority parties to their responsibility.

Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I think that your argument on Article 90 of our Rules of Procedure is not at all in place. It is true that our proposals are directly related, as it is stated here, to the exact subject of the article of the draft law.

I announced before the suspension that I would use the same logic that I used in connection with the commission.

( ... ) : ( ... )

That is your right. I have checked it, and you agree with me when I say that your amendments take back a bill whose addition was rejected on 11 October.

( ... )

I continue to use the same logic and I stick to my decision.

( ... )

Are there any other speakers in the general discussion?

Mr. Laeremans, please keep it brief, because we are now talking about the procedure.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear distinction between the famous bill submitted in October 2004 by the joint Flemish majority parties and CD&V, and the amendments. Why Why ? Because the 2004 bill also covered the European elections.

I understand that it is said that the bill includes a number of matters that have nothing to do with the House Elections. We do not allow this to be discussed exhaustively. Nothing prohibits the submission of parts of the bill in the form of amendments. We have always had that opportunity in the past. Even if you accept an amendment that has nothing to do with the content of the bill, you are going too far. After all, it becomes impossible for the opposition, as you did at the time, to filibusticate under certain circumstances. This would not even have been the case here. We would not have filibustered here. We would have had a very substantial debate about what we really wanted, namely to address the issue of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde in the House.

It has been prevented in every possible way from debating this issue in the Chamber Committee. You also know, more than anyone – you have been a champion at the time – that at certain times it is very useful and a right of the opposition to philibuster and to submit texts that are not 100% related to the current bills, but that can still be useful in parliamentary democracy, because the debate is aroused and thus stimulated to reflect. This is a fundamental right of the opposition to speak and oppose. You fucking that. It is very widespread to cheat that, even more because you have done it yourself in the past. You have been in the past longer than anyone else, than each of us in our faction, sometimes telling stories that side was still in ruins. No one stopped you then. No President has said to you at that time: Mr. De Croo, I invoke Article 90. Now you do it yourself.

You are not a great president. You are here just the lakei of Minister Dewael, who says there should be no debate. I stood up there next to you when you two were standing on a conclave. He said that the amendment of Mr. Ducarme should not be discussed, later with the bill, but not here in the plenary session in the context of the present bill, because he does not want to. You carry out what Mr. Dewael says to you. That is where the problem is. You are not defending the Parliament. You are an appendix of the government. I find this ⁇ regrettable.

Are there other speakers included in the general discussion?

Mr. Speaker, please answer my question: where is the direct link missing between our proposals on Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde and the article in the draft law on Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde?

Mr. De Man, there are textual acquisitions. I am not discussing it, I have seen it presented recently.

Where does the direct connection as required in Article 90 of our Rules of Procedure lack?

On 11 October – and this is my last word on that – those bills were rejected. I did not participate; the committee decided. The amendment was submitted in whole or in part. You are now doing the same thing. So I continue to take the same attitude.

You are the guardian of the Rules of Procedure. The Rules of Procedure stipulate that there must be a direct connection with the exact subject or article of the draft law. Where is that direct connection missing when we speak of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district and one of the articles of the draft it has about Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district? How much similarity do you want? Can the texts only come from the majority to be discussed?

There is a double argument: the resumption of the bills that were disconnected from the essential. You have done that, it is your right. I remain with my decision.

Mr. Speaker, in order to make things clear to everyone, let us specify that it is because my amendment has been considered admissible in a committee, that it has been discussed and voted there, that it is ⁇ ined in the plenary session.

As I said earlier, your amendment has been discussed and rejected in the committee; it is therefore admissible in the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, I note that Mr. Frédéric, the chairman of the Committee on Home Affairs, who is there the guard dog of the government in general and of the French-speaking majority in particular, is not present here. However, that doesn’t matter, because he has a wonderful replacement.

by Mr. Frederic is on an official mission in Rome, accompanied by Mr. and Annemans.

He is not here and I don’t care. He does not mind either. You have a wonderful replacement. You have good merit of the “sa” homeland. You have neither done a service to democracy nor to Flanders.

In protest, we leave the room.

(The Vlaams Belang group leaves the hall)