Proposition 52K0955

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Traité de Lisbonne modifiant le Traité sur l'Union européenne et le Traité instituant la Communauté européenne, et à l'Acte final, faits à Lisbonne le 13 décembre 2007.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Feb. 29, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union European integration EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Treaty on European Union international agreement regulation (EU)

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Zoé Genot (Ecolo) 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 ¶

April 9, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The report presented to you is quite exhaustive of the work carried out in a parliamentary committee. Instead of going up to the tribune to simply make a condensate of the statements held by one and the other, I can without any difficulty, given the quality of the intervention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, refer to my written report.

Mr. Ducarme, all my congratulations for your report! (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I must confess that it is with a sense of déjà vu that I climb the speaker’s floor this afternoon. I would even dare to say a repetitive déjà vu feeling about the contempt of European decisions for the opinion of the European citizen.

My first experience in this area is already old, namely from 1992 and that was about the Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht Treaty was of very great importance, not only for the further expansion of what is now called Europe, but also for the ordinary daily life of the European citizen. As far as you would not know, colleagues, in Maastricht, it was also decided that there would be a single currency.

The highlight was that when this so important Maastricht Treaty was to be submitted to the European democratic institutions, namely the parliaments or the European voters, this happened in a very strange way, such as in Denmark, for example. I remember very well the comment of Gerolf Annemans on the referendum in Denmark. There, the voters found it necessary not to accept that treaty. At that moment the story should have been out. It concluded that this treaty could only enter into force if each of the signatories agreed to it.

I remember that Gerolf Annemans greeted the referendum in Denmark with the words: “Hoera for the Danish people.” Indeed, hoera for the Danish people, but ⁇ not for the European institutions, because we remember just as well that they thought that the Danes had voted wrong, that they had to transfer their homework. New elections were held and then the Maastricht Treaty won with a very small majority. This is something that would happen later. If the people vote wrong, then one can take various measures: no more voting, no more voting, or simply no more consulting the people. This was also the case with this plan, even in 1992. The Treaty of Maastricht was discussed in this Parliament for three days – then it was three days – but no one in the whole country knew about it. When the Maastricht Treaty was finally approved by this Parliament, it was opposed by the then party Agalev – green was then some rebels – and of course by the then Flemish Bloc. We were and we are still.

After that Treaty was approved, the Dehaene Government decided to conduct a large campaign of 40 million Belgian francs – I remember it well – to tell the citizens of this country what this Maastricht Treaty contained. After the decision was made, the citizen had to know something about it.

Unfortunately, this story is repetitive. After Maastricht came Nice. The Treaty of Nice was also chased by us, but then Ireland went across. In Ireland, they had to hold a referendum on this because it was legally mandatory.

The Irish Nationalist Party carried out a heavy campaign against Nice and won it. What happened to Nice? No one attracted anything from that Irish ruling, the Treaty of Nice was put into force and the Irish were then re-voted. Their homework had to be done again.

After Nice came the European Constitution. It became even more fun. The European Constitution was, as it was said at the time of Egmont, chased with the carwats by the Parliament. Fortunately, at that time there were still countries where a referendum could be held. Both France and the Netherlands voted against.

Then we thought that since two European countries did not want to know about it, we would never see that European law appear again. However, this was out of value. Democracy, concern for the public opinion and for the position of the voter does not exist in the European cenacles.

By the way, the European Constitution, allegedly based on an idea of Verhofstadt, was beautifully preserved and immediately replaced by a new treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon. Lisbon is no different than the rejected proposal for a constitution that was rejected by great nations such as France and – our brothers from the north – the Netherlands, among others.

If you do not want to believe me, and if you think that it exaggerates Flemish Interest, then I would like to refer you to a few statements of people who are usually not labeled as extremists.

I will start with Guy Verhofstadt himself.

"The new treaty," he says, "restores the main elements of the Constitutional Treaty." Interview with Agence Europe of 27 June 2007.

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: “Some cosmetic changes were made. The basic document remains the same.”

Zapatero, Spain’s prime minister, said: “We have not removed any essential item of the Constitution. This is undoubtedly more than just a convention. This is a project with a founding character, a treaty for a new Europe.”

And even Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark, says: "The positive thing is that only the symbolic elements were taken away and that the most important thing, the heart of the text, was preserved."

In other words, Europe – or at least your Europe – that disgusting construction you put down there is only a return to what I would at best call the enlightened despotism. They say they do everything for the people. That is claimed; there may be some who also believe that they do. Nothing is done with the people.

In that Europe, which pretends to transmit democracy around the world as a mission, there is no democracy. In that Europe they are facing a terrible problem in that area.

Now, if you do not want to believe those various foreign heads of state and prime ministers, colleagues, I would like to refer to the opinion of the Council of State on the present proposal, of your Council of State, of the Council of State of this country, which I dare assume that you have some respect for.

What the State Council says in the first chapter of the opinion that has so far been quoted by no one, not even in the Senate. The Senate did not even have the time to read the advice. The Senate approved the proposal in 24 hours. What does the State Council say in its first chapter? “The Lisbon Treaty amends the Treaty on European Union without changing the title.” Here is . One changes everything, but one retains the title and one expects that the ordinary people will fall into the trap. So simple is it.

If you think this is not enough, I refer to the second chapter of the State Council document. It states that despite a difference in approach in the method used, the content of the Lisbon Treaty is largely similar to that of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. In other words, colleague De Croo, as they say in a language that you are very dear: on prend les mêmes mais on recommence. So nothing has changed: it’s the same song, but it’s given a different title. Whatever the European citizen may have said about it, whatever the European citizen may have thought about it, it has no meaning in this debate. The European citizen is not playing in that Europe which you are trying to show us that it is a birth of democracy.

But the State Council goes much further. The Council of State has the greatest doubts regarding the Lisbon Treaty, which has been ratified or approved by a government of ongoing affairs. This was nothing new: Maastricht was too. It was the outgoing Martens who signed Maastricht. The State Council assumes that Lisbon is not really in line with our Constitution. In fact, the State Council assumes that one should first amend the Constitution before one signs Lisbon, because otherwise Lisbon will conflict with our Constitution.

The State Council says that several times and very clearly. “As stated above, the consent to a treaty, including a treaty entrusting powers to a supranational institution such as the European Union, can result in the need to revise the Constitution.”

The State Council is so convinced that the Constitution must be revised first, that the Council even suggests that the Constitution should be amended to such an extent that it must be possible for a government that wishes to proceed to a constitutional revision, to do so effectively without having to wait for a next government. That is the assurance, Mr. Minister, of the Council of State on this subject.

The State Council goes on. Having determined that the Maastricht Treaty will overload the Constitution to a large extent and that there will in fact be a primacy for the Lisbon Treaty, the Council says that certain freedoms, which we have incorporated in the Constitution – including the freedom of education, worship and protection against expropriation – are no longer mentioned. Furthermore, the Council of State notes that there is a need to worry about derivative powers.

It is therefore possible to ask whether Article 4 of our Constitution, which states that Belgium is divided into several language regions, can still be ⁇ ined ahead of the Lisbon Treaty. If you ask yourself this question, colleagues, and you also know that through Lisbon a large part of the treaty law moves to Europe – colleague Colen will talk about this later – then you also start to wonder why we have had to fight against that European minority treaty for so long because maybe it will be imposed on us by the EU and we have nothing more to say in this matter. So perverse is Lisbon!

I read another passage from the commentary of the State Council. This is Article 53. “The question arises whether Article 53, by referring to the protection of the rights and freedoms in the constitutions of the Member States, also prevents the institutions of the European Union, when issuing the derivative European law, from being able to prejudice, or from obliging the Belgian authorities to prejudice specific safeguards granted by Title II of the Constitution.” In other words, today we say goodbye to that constitution on which all of you were so proud as the most beautiful, most modern monument of the 19th century, which now has been challenging for almost two centuries and which at that time served as a symbol throughout Europe. Well, we say goodbye to that today.

Then the State Council in its honesty goes on to Article 53 and says that there are two possible interpretations. The State Council, however, says that the broad range is the one that may be put forward as a defence argument. However, the Council of State has already pointed out that the second broad interpretation of Article 53 would imply a true reversal of the current principles of the European legal order by placing a priority of the national constitution over the European law and enabling a non-uniform application and enforcement of European law in the various States. In other words, the interpretation that one could in fact defend the primacy of the Constitution through Article 53 is already rejected by the Council of State. I think this is very important in the debate. It is, I repeat it, so far almost never cited.

Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have already said that this so-called Europe – I repeat it, this so-called Europe – is a construction with an immense democratic deficit. Not only do we wash our feet – I say “we”, but I mean European politics, of course – to the different opinions that have emerged in recent years in various European countries rejecting this federalization of Europe, not only do we not attract a crack of what the European citizen thinks in this matter, one goes even so far that one sells our constitution.

Why Why ? Now what is that great, that immense that could answer this? Don’t tell me it’s Europe. Don’t tell me you’re working for Europe. Because what you are building is not Europe. That is a formless, odorless, flavorless club that deals exclusively with highly technocratic affairs and above all with economic problems.

I can imagine that you feel at home as a liberal. Well, do not excuse me, but Europe that could be more, much more.

That your Europe does not only have no form. You want to follow Turkey, and I hear recently even talking about Eurabia. It would also involve North Africa. I also recommend Thailand. This is a country that is economically well. If it’s for the club, you can also get it, why not?

It is not only a formless matter, but moreover that Europe has no political project. Oh yes, we are talking about the great values, such as democracy, human rights, citizen participation. But then we see what we ourselves bake out of it: in the best case illuminate absolutism!

It has no political power and, above all, no political will. Because while all Western Europe was building that so-called Europe, we had to appeal to the Americans to bomb a European capital, in Serbia. That Europe was not even able, and is still not able, to start cleaning up the stuff itself in its own backyard.

That is why we give up our Constitution. We are giving up a lot of our sovereignty. I repeat it, it’s a club, it’s an investment club of people who come together to manage their coins, no more or no less. I just said that it is formless, tasteless, colorless, but it is also soulless.

The soul of Europe, the true soul of Europe in which many people have believed, and in which I still believe, is built on that unity in diversity that we have seen build through the centuries. The roots of that Europe are our Christian mystical traditions and the freedom traditions of free thought. That free thought, Mr. Minister, is much older than the time of the Enlightenment, with which one is so often mocked. This was really part of the prehistory of our Europe.

In addition to those two great philosophical and even religious tendencies, which find each other and are sometimes in conflict with each other, but which together have formed the spirit of our Europe, there is also the diversity. Europe, that is the Slavic world, that is the Germanic world, that is the Romanic world, that is the Hellenistic world, that is Greece and Rome. Europe has a soul and a civilization.

That civilization is built on the unity in diversity and is unique in the world. We should not sell them all over the world. It is a civilization that belongs to us.

Unfortunately, Europe, which we are working on today, has nothing to do with this. On the contrary, they are suffocating the soul of our old Europe.

Mr. Minister, the Flemish Interest is proud to announce that it will vote against the present bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, three weeks ago, a Monday late afternoon, the Foreign Affairs Committee met for a discussion and a first vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

It is a sad ending to discuss the Treaty in the committee of the Belgian federal parliament, at the end of the day, a rainy Monday. Within 22 minutes, the Belgian federal parliament settled how the discussions around the Lisbon Treaty would take place. On our benches, a small bunch of leaves: the position of various associations and trade unions. “For information,” they said.

Despite our insistence, no hearing was planned. There was no other discussion than that on Monday. The PS has gotten tired of auditions on everything! This is the point in which Ms. Burgeon intervened. Later on, however, Mr. Di Rupo who claimed that the search for a legal means to hold a popular consultation was nevertheless still possible, but that the population did not have sufficient information on the draft treaty to validly express themselves on the issue. Unfortunately, they did not join us on our proposal to set up a popular consultation.

We demanded a precise timetable from the start of the debates to the vote in order to be able to properly play our role as a parliamentary and as a relay of the expression of the views of civil society on a topic as important as that of the Treaty of Lisbon. In this regard, we thank colleagues Van der Maelen and Ducarme for joining us on this proposal.

Because, yes, this is an important, even crucial topic, on which the Greens would have desired a debate!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. As I was in the committee, I will just note that the MR was divided on the popular consultation. In fact, Mr. Flahaux intervened to say that it was not favorable. I say this for the sake of balance. This will not only affect the PS.

I can hear you, but you will understand.

The word is for mr. Give it up for a personal fact.

I would like to thank my colleague for highlighting my speech. I will add to the address of the socialist interviewer, whom I appreciate very much elsewhere, that the MR did not divide since I was the only one who expressed myself.

The [...]

Go on, Madame Boulet!

Mr. Mayeur, this is the reason why I specified that I thank my colleagues namely for joining me on this proposal.

It must be admitted that there were not many people in the committee itself. You were there, at the bottom of the room, but I don’t know if you stayed from the beginning to the end. You did not intervene either.

If you allow me to continue, I will continue with the introduction.

The [...]

Thank you for allowing me to speak; you are very kind.

(Thanks to)

by Mr. The President suggests that we continue on the basis of the Treaty.

This topic is important – I would even say crucial – and the Greens would have wished to be able to conduct a debate at the height of the European ambitions that this treaty carries within it.

Almost eight years have passed since the first desires to create a constitutional treaty. Indeed, immediately after Nice, the desires were manifest to find a text in accordance with the new European balance that was emerging. Questions are existential. Europe was going to expand to about fifteen new members and it was time to reposition ourselves on the Europe we wanted.

Two points of view were faced: that of the heads of state and government present from 7 to 9 December 2000 in Nice and that of the tens of thousands of protesters present in the streets to claim a more social and closer to citizens Europe.

Nice was to mark the end of the intergovernmental method. This method, which brought together diplomats, representatives of foreign ministers and representatives of the Commission and the Council of the European Union, had highlighted its inability to build compromises, and above all compromises readable and understandable for citizens. How many times, in fact, we did not talk about the decisions taken in Brussels, highlighting the fact that these debates were held in a closed vase, without connection with the reality experienced by Europeans. We had to change the method.

The leaders then proposed to opt for the method of the convention. This involved more political actors and representatives of civil society. But although it was never a large public forum, it nevertheless allowed to relay the views of many actors in society. From this convention the Constitutional Treaty was born.

“Treaty” because the mode of revision remained unanimous and “Constitution” because the first part of it reprisaled the fundamental rules, the second including the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

While the Convention had enabled consistent compromises, it also left many inconsistencies in Part III of the draft text, the one referring to the Union’s policies.

Gradually, unfortunately, the new idea of systematically opening debates to non-governmental actors was challenged by some, while the draft Constitutional Treaty provided that every Intergovernmental Treaty Revision Conference would be preceded by such a Convention. The Constitutional Treaty resulted, as is well known, in the “No” of the French and Dutch.

Faced with these different “no,” the heads of state and government, ⁇ overwhelmed by an existential doubt, decided to take a pause for reflection. There were also several national elections, including the French presidential elections. In the meantime, the game remains blocked. After the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy, the cards blurred again. We have actually seen the French president speak successively of “mini-Treaty”, “Treaty +”, “Remodified Treaty” or “Amended Treaty”. It was eventually Angela Merkel who, under the German presidency, brought about the process that gave rise to a “Treaty of notes at the bottom of the page”, as our former Prime Minister Verhofstadt called it. Return to an intergovernmental method, then expressed this time, which resulted in the Lisbon Treaty.

It can be said that the will to open up did not last very long. The Lisbon Treaty settled under the auspices of sherpas who followed orders within small working groups of experts, through whom all decisions passed. A former diplomat notes that “never in the history of European construction, the closed diplomatic door had been so locked between July and October 2007.”

As the professors Degryse and Pochet, of the European Social Observatory, emphasize, the Lisbon Treaty is a "Nice at the exhibitor 10" in terms of its readability and "a text deliberately incomprehensible for the non-initiated". What’s more, as some close to the case note, it will probably no longer be expected to have a new Convention before at least ten years.

Like what we demanded in 2005 for the ratification of the draft Constitutional Treaty, we wanted to actively advocate for a broad public debate on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. We can only bitterly regret the manifest will of the majority of European countries, including Belgium, to opt for parliamentary ratification, and thus to limit the speech of European citizens.

The Ecolo-Groen group! The European Parliament has submitted a draft resolution calling for a public consultation on the new Treaty. Such a consultation, accompanied by an extensive citizen information campaign on the issues, would have enabled widespread participation in the process of building a democratic and sustainable Europe, both socially and environmentally.

2008 has been declared the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, demonstrating the desire to strengthen European identity and citizenship. It should be a symbol of increased dialogue.

European citizenship must, for us, be respectful of all segments of the population that make up it and must respect cultural and religious diversity without creating domination of one religion over another. We also regret that secularism is not mentioned as a framework value, which is the foundation on which Europe has been built since the Enlightenment. It is the values of secularism that have put Europe on the path of progress that respects cultural and religious diversity.

That being said, it is undeniable that the Treaty brings some improvements compared to the existing Treaty. The extension of the qualified majority procedure should facilitate the functioning of a Union of 27 Member States and the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament and national parliaments should also serve as a lever for increased democratic control and accountability of the Union institutions. The election of the President of the European Commission by a majority in the European Parliament would also go in the same direction. The right of citizen initiative would allow European citizens to play a more active role in the choice of EU policies. Finally, making the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding is also a significant step forward.

Despite these innovations, it is important to point out that the Treaty, however, marks a status quo and is below the demands of Ecolo and the European Greens in the socio-economic field and at the level of the common foreign and security policy. Fiscal policy remains subject to the unanimity rule, so it does not facilitate upward harmonisation, the fight against fiscal dumping or a common ecological taxation.

However, we have more than one major challenge to face. There is, in particular, that of energy, and we hope that the provisions of this treaty will enable them to respond better. This energy package decided by the Commission is extremely important, although we would obviously have preferred it to be more ambitious. It is important to make it happen in the next two years. It will not be easy to distribute this work and make it a useful challenge for society. Since this treaty includes climate issues, it will also need to promote a more voluntary European energy policy. We will be very attentive to this.

The shortcomings of the Lisbon Treaty are also evidenced by the fact that, in the absence of the necessary consensus, the innovations brought by the text result more in institutional or procedural improvements, perceived by public opinion as being of an essentially elite and technocratic nature, than in concrete responses to the expectations of the inhabitants of the Union to see it play an increased role in the protection of social rights and proactive responses to the challenges posed by economic globalization. But the challenges of globalization are there, hyper-present. It is undeniable that today’s Europe is based on a neoliberal logic, favouring the economic and financial aspects at the expense of a strong social and environmental policy.

We find ourselves at a turning point that is based on the dominant idea of free and non-distorted competition, on the omnipotence of market rules but also on a flagrant lack of democratic control that a parliament must exercise as well as the maintenance of the rule of unanimousness in the fiscal or social field.

Furthermore, the recognition of social partners in the Treaty seems to be more limited than in the draft European Constitution. Their role now seems to be confined to social policy issues in the strict sense and not, at least formally, to macro-economic issues. Paradoxically, a horizontal social clause is introduced in the Treaty which aims to confront all Community policies with a series of social requirements. We will see in practice if this happens.

It is also important to emphasize that the common foreign and security policy remains essentially intergovernmental. It is concerned in this regard that the Treaty does not provide for control by the European Parliament or judicial control by the Court of Justice over measures for the collection and processing of personal data in the context of the implementation by States of the common foreign and security policy, in contrast to the processing of personal data by the institutions of the European Union and the Member States when they carry out activities which fall within the scope of activities subject to the co-decision procedure.

Following the government statement, a small sentence from Mr. Leterme almost restored my confidence. Indeed, we have discovered that the government fully supports the ambition to develop a comprehensive and coherent European foreign policy, including a security and development policy. We therefore dare to hope that Belgium will be keen to advance towards a true foreign policy and a true European diplomacy.

In fact, not all Member States are in favour of greater integration. It is sufficient to refer to the number of derogations obtained by Member States during the negotiations on the amending treaty to make it clear that the new treaty is not a constitutional treaty. Those derogations would, in particular, deprive the United Kingdom and Poland of judicial obligations regarding the protection of the rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and therefore risk undermining the cohesion of the building and the equality between Union citizens.

It is important to recall that like the vast majority of other green parties in the member countries of the European Union, Ecolo supported the draft Constitutional Treaty with a “yes” of combat. The Ecolo-Groen group! We have therefore decided to vote in favour of the ratification of this Treaty because we remain convinced that a social and sustainable Europe is possible. If we recognize the limits of the Lisbon Treaty and demand a more democratic and transparent Europe, a social and citizen Europe, we cannot deny the contributions – especially institutional – compared to the previous treaty.

The status quo will not provide a solution to the current situation. For environmentalists, therefore, it is necessary to foster a strong Europe and to continue the action to ⁇ a social and environmental Europe that provides answers to the challenges we face. We also emphasize the need to strengthen the European Social Dialogue and the European Social Model, both in decline.

Solidarity in all its dimensions constitutes a prerequisite for sustainable development and cannot be relegated to social policies alone.

While it is undeniable that the Treaty is below the expectations of environmentalists with regard to a Europe capable of responding to the challenges posed by economic globalization, it seems to us that it also marks the willingness to continue European integration.

In 2005, Ecolo was in favor of the ratification of the draft Constitutional Treaty. Our position has not fundamentally changed since then because, if the current text loses its mind, it is very similar to it. We do not forget, however, the need to continue working towards a Europe in the image of a political, solidary, democratic and transparent ecology and where social, environmental and economic objectives go hand in hand. Many social and environmental challenges still need to be addressed. We will all contribute, while supporting the European idea and bringing it closer to the citizen.

The government agreement also promotes this and I quote: “The government will emphasize citizens’ participation in the political process by promoting the use of new participatory methods and especially citizen panels and online public consultations.”

Unfortunately, this statement was made only three weeks ago. It does not appear to involve a change in the attitude of the government, which does not seem to want to move from speech to action by proposing a public consultation on the Lisbon Treaty. So we will vote today without this treaty being an example of citizen participation. It is a pity!

Finally, for Ecolo-Groen!, the ratification of this treaty marks the beginning and not the end of a process that will improve its content in the years to come. Therefore, in all our votes that will be positive, we will symbolically mark the blow with an abstention in each linguistic component. This abstinence will mean a yes, a fighting yes, a yes, but a yes of impatience. We will therefore vote on this treaty with moderate enthusiasm, but with a lot of voluntarism and determination.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, it’s been a long time ago. I need to get used to the new situation, maybe you too. It has been nine years since I was allowed to speak in a parliamentary debate from this speaker to the House. That’s almost a quarter of my parliamentary life, but I have to say that during the other three quarters I have used and abused it extensively.

I know, Mr. Speaker, and the House also knows that this treaty will be approved. Questions can be asked in the comments about the content of the debate. I have structured my presentation in several parts: first a captatio benevolentiae – which the President and I know very well – with two small examples, something about the treaty itself, something about the regions and their role in Europe, also what I think about the possibilities and the role that the Benelux could play with the new expanded Europe, and then the role of Europe towards our country. I will end with the soul of Europe, Mr. Van den Eynde. I will not forget it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will give you two small examples. There is the energy supply of Europe and the role that Russia plays, for example. This morning we had the opportunity to listen to a debate on the relationship between Russia and NATO in the Joint Committees for Land Defense and Foreign Relations. What would we be if we were divided, separately negotiating with that great country? Our energy supply goes through Russia. This country has the largest natural gas reserves in the world, the second-largest coal reserves and is ranked eighth for oil reserves.

A look at the Congressional Research Service Reports shows that Russia supplies gas: to Germany for 39%, to Italy for 31%, to France for 24%, to Austria for 69%, to Poland for 43% and to Greece for 82%. A number of countries depended on the former Russian Empire: Hungary with 64%, Czech Republic with 77%, Slovakia with 99%, Poland with 43%, Finland with 98% and of course the other countries of the Baltic region with 100%.

I, of course, know very well that, on the contrary, the trade relations between that great country and our continent are vast. Imagine, however, that a quarter of the supply of this necessary energy in Europe is supplied by Russia.

If there were no trade relations between Europe and Russia – worth 166 billion – then we would not have the power to demand that we as this country’s trading partner, with 53 percent of Russia’s trade, can play a united and joint role.

Don’t forget the first example, which underscores how strategic and powerful the place of Europe can be.

The second practical example – Ms. has talked about it later – is climate change. The fight against climate change is one of the objectives of European environmental policy in the Lisbon Treaty. It goes far beyond just the concern for a healthy, acceptable climate. The report of the High Representative Solana and of the Commission, published here in Brussels at the Council, shows the strategic implications of such a situation, in terms of stability and security, and the important role that Europe can play through prevention in resolving these conflicts.

It is estimated that the world community would lose 20 percent of its global GDP per year if we keep things going and one percent if we act concentrated. If one considers the strategic consequences of climate change, should one, as in the first domain – the relations between Russia and Europe on energy – wait to bring forward a powerful, unified policy?

These two examples, in addition to the hundreds to choose from – from agriculture to social matters – show how burning current Europe is becoming for us.

I know, Mr. Minister, that progress has been made in the Lisbon Treaty. There are new tools, which create opportunities that we did not have before. It is complex. I know there will be a president and a high representative for foreign policy. To a certain extent, there is also a great increase in the power of the European Parliament, which demonstrates the representation of Europe in a democratic way. That is good. I also know that a number of possibilities, to which we were so attached and in which Belgium has played an outstanding role in abandoning the veto right, are striking.

Twenty-three subjects, the basis of European policy, now require a qualified and yet complicated majority to concrete changes and adjustments. These include asylum, migration, support measures in the field of crime prevention, the non-operational measures on police cooperation Europol-Eurojust and some important aspects of our daily lives.

That treaty re-digits the unanimity in 21 key additional objectives such as a Community environmental policy, social security measures, free movement of wage workers, and so on.

Lisbon is a step forward, allowing us to be sure and firm about new opportunities, no matter how complex and difficult the matter is.

There are, of course, dark points in that treaty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not an integral part of the Treaty despite the fact that it would have the same force, but the many opt-outs – and I just heard the speech of colleague Boulet – of Poland and the United Kingdom reveal a mutual faulty commitment of those countries in this area.

There is insufficient Community approach on foreign policy, taxation and social affairs. Contrary to the Constitution that we have adopted here, ⁇ with a similar majority, we see that it is an amendment of existing treaties, and therefore complicated and poorly readable. There is also no recognition as such of countries with strong regions.

I want to say a few things about these regions. There are 74 regions in Europe with legislative powers, called strong regions. Belgium, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland, Portugal and the United Kingdom are 8 countries out of 27 comprising the 74 strong regions today grouped in the Committee of those regions.

This committee has only a consultative role in the legislative process of Europe and has 344 members. I remember a recent debate in Strasbourg, where I was allowed to represent national parliaments, with the regions on the other hand. Almost all the provinces of the Netherlands were present, and they are therefore part of those 344 regions that do not have the strength, the capacity and the legislative powers of the one we know well.

At the same time, I would like to ask a question, Mr. Minister, on one of the points, one of the declarations of Belgium. Declaration 51 on National Parliaments. We have – correctly – stated that before that treaty the national parliaments named are also understood to be not only the federal assemblies or assemblies at the federal level, but also those of regions and communities. The scope of such a statement is by definition unilateral. It is thanks to our own construction that we can participate in the strong regions that are also our own.

Why should a treaty like this be sent to all Parliaments for approval? Well, because no distinction can be made in the powers of federal, community or regional nature. In doing so, for all certainty, we are able to present a full approval, from the first to the last article.

Mr. Speaker, I must also say that we are the only federal country where the possible veto rights or the possible rights to bring the debate back to the European level are classified among the Regions or the Communities by a kind of treaty, an arrangement, which the State Council considers not sufficient for some reason.

At the same time, however, there is something more important, namely the role of the Benelux in that Europe of tomorrow. If one looks at the strength of the three countries of the Benelux, only to the weight in the decision-making for a majority, we have thirteen votes in the Netherlands, twelve in Belgium and four in Luxembourg, combined twenty-nine votes. That’s as many votes as Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The Benelux is heavier than Poland and Spain. Moreover – Mr Tommelein, who knows the Benelux well, just explained it to me again – if we are one economic union in the true sense of the word, then we are a member of the G8.

I know that this government is tightening ties with the Netherlands and with Luxembourg, and rightly. In a vote, we can, by weight, by population and by country numbers, thanks to the 27,5 million inhabitants, make up 5.5% of the total that Europe today counts. So we can play a role that is capital.

I therefore invite you – I know that you are doing so – to have all preparations at the European level worked out by the Benelux ministers, which is already the case today. There are position papers on a number of policy areas – the better. There is an ax of foreign ministers who meet. The ministers come together. Colleagues, let us advocate, knowing that the Benelux Treaty has entered its extension phase, that that force of the Benelux in Europe could play an additional role.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the enlargement of Europe can offer us a number of opportunities. We can think with the small 500 million Europeans we are that we will play a kind of weight in the big debates of this global policy on energy, influence, globalization. I think this will not be enough. I am deeply convinced, with all the nuances thereof, that the weight of Europe must be expanded, not only for the sake of peace in the Balkans. We will also need to develop special contacts and ties with Turkey and beyond Turkey to the Caucasus, the place ⁇ where in the future everything that happens in the world will arise and can be settled. I must also say, Mr. Minister, that the attitude of Belgium in this regard is attractive, positive and by me experienced as supportive.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, a few words about Europe and our country. If one looked at the figures of what has been introduced, including material, by the European institutions, and what its derivatives are, and the attractiveness of this in our capital and in all that surrounds it, we would, in my opinion, open our eyes to the concrete influence of this Europe. The Bible speaks of the tower of Babel, but it exists: it lives in Brussels. There is an incredible attraction here that makes Brussels have more diplomats than post chiefs in Washington. There are more than 1,750 international interest organisations, European federations and NGOs of all kinds. There are four European schools, ten international schools and Brussels is the fourth congress city in Europe.

On the material level – I refer to the decomposition that Minister Vanhengel made for the Brussels Community and the Brussels Region – the input, the attraction, the suction power that is exercised directly and indirectly by Europe here in Brussels, is equivalent to more than one billion old Belgian francs per working day.

And then, Mr. Van den Eynde, I want to come to what you called the soul of Europe. The soul of Europe, colleagues, then I see before my eyes the history: 1870, war Germany-France. I see before my eyes the history: 1914-1918, to a certain extent again Germany and the others. And I have in mind the dramatic circumstances of 1939-1945, again, to some extent, Germany and the rest of Europe. And I also have in mind what happened to the six million Jews, Gypsies, and people who had a different sexual orientation. Murdered, by Europeans who probably could also play Beethoven on the piano and maybe read Schiller and Goethe.

That Europe of hatred, that Europe of struggle, that Europe of crackdown, that Europe of humiliation, that Europe of racism, that Europe of struggle no longer exists. Mr. Van den Eynde, if that only had been the result, that we have that peace today, that you can go today without any control from Stockholm to Kathena, that we have Schengen, that we have a common currency, the euro, while the Americans took fifty years to make their dollar, if that didn’t pay the effort to make Europe, then I don’t know what project should be carried out here.

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments.

First and foremost, I have just heard Mr. De Croo defending the Benelux with so much fire that I conclude that he, like me, regrets the fact that Belgium has ever been invented.

Second, as regards the soul of Europe, I must say that I am moved when someone of the obedience of Mr. De Croo takes the word soul into his mouth. However, from the rest of the statements he made, it shows that he is still not really familiar with the subject. Mr. De Croo, the soul of Europe, that is not that war, that was anti-European, that is not that hatred. The soul of Europe – I said it myself later, but you did not want to hear it – is to build a civilization from the diversity together. We have been doing this for two thousand years, falling and rising. We have our own civilization, a civilization that has its values and that has a soul. You have not understood that because your Europe is the money club, the money club and only the money club.

I’m not a tiers-mondist, you know that. I will also say something bad about Europe, because I must be able to remain objective. Well, it is indeed true that today there are poor people in the world, or that today there are two billion people earning less per day than the support given per capita of beef on the European agricultural market. At the same time, however, one percentage of GDP, the European machine, and having a common currency, as well as a common research, a Barcelona process, a Lisbon process, succeed, and we see that today young people can go together to study and develop projects together instead of calling each other for help or forth. If this is not the soul of Europe, where should we find the soul of Europe?

Moreover, Mr Van den Eynde. If there is a nation in this world – I call it a nation and one day the United States of Europe will exist – which bows over the countries of poverty, which develops a generous policy for development cooperation, which tries to watch over the premiums of the civil insurance – that is what aid to developing countries should be – then this is also achieved by Europe.

Between the big blocks of China, Russia, the United States of America – which was then also discussed with harshness – we are looking for our own path, from a humanism that, of course, springs from our origins, which is mixed with all the past, with falling and rising. We have also fought for a hundred years between religions, for the benefit of the same god. We did this recently in Northern Ireland. That image, that new model of civilization, that shows its generosity and that also tries to create a balance between the blocks of this world, if that is not the soul of Europe!

Mr. Van den Eynde, I am a European. I am very convinced. I hope that Europe can develop this mission, this mission, this democratic attitude, this power. For this reason, if necessary, I would like to stay on this speech stand for a while. (Applause of Applause)

Collega De Croo says it is wonderful that young people who have found each other study together. Yes, but you didn’t invent anything, Mr. De Croo. This happened in the Renaissance. It even happened in the Middle Ages. There is nothing new in that. It is very good that it happens again now, but that is not the revolution, as you imagine it.

In the Renaissance, people were burned for their opinions, not in today’s Europe.

The [...] !

I would like to point out that my colleague, Mr. De Croo, did not lose his hand to launch a debate. At the time when we were to talk about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, we are now back in the period of the Renaissance. Only Herman De Croo is able to succeed in this round of force. But I realize that he also gave us a first. In fact, I was preparing to say how pleased I was with the great change that occurred between the holding of the committee meeting and that of the plenary session. If we had a minister, during our work in commission, they were here in the number of two. But what is especially remarkable is that we have gone from one to two to no longer have a plenary session at all at the moment. This is ⁇ one of the effects of the historic intervention of Herman De Croo.

I would like to say to our colleague, Juliette Boulet, that I understand her reaction when she indicates that it is at least singular that a vote of such importance is not preceded by a broader debate. Certainly, civil society might have contributed different elements to this debate, but it did not take place. But I feel that this debate, even though it is broadcast by the media, is insignificant and related to the great significance of the Treaty that we are actually going to vote on. That is what is special. When Europe is in the midst of a crisis, everyone insists on the element of crisis and the major debates, as well as a major mediation, are honored. But when Europe takes positive steps, most of the time, it is not necessarily spoken enough. This is ⁇ the case in our country. This may be a happy element compared to the dynamics we know, but it is above all the future that will allow for more fundamental debates.

Mr. Speaker, when referring to the Treaty of Lisbon, we cannot ignore the fact that, compared to the Constitution as it was prepared by the European Convention, there are still a number of retreats. Some will argue that these are not major retreats. Only the symbols were removed. Certainly, on the initiative of some major countries of the Union, symbols such as the European flag, the European anthem, the European motto have been removed. If, in the slow process of European construction, this is not important, it should nevertheless be regretted the disappearance of such symbols.

In any case, the most paradoxical is to find that the motto held by conventionalists that “Europe could be united in diversity”, even this phrase “united in diversity” does not find itself in the Treaty. Thus, the European Union progresses undoubtedly, but it also continues at the pace of the will not intergovernmental but international between some of its countries and most ⁇ the big countries. This means that we must remain very vigilant and avoid, in the coming years, a European construction that focuses only on certain points that do not allow it to count as a full, whole and solidary unit in the international concert.

What I regret most – and we discussed it in a parliamentary committee, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs – is that other much more important points are not explicitly addressed. The first is that the term “law” at European level has not been ⁇ ined. Second, that the notion of the primacy of European law over national rights does not appear directly in the texts. The third, and I will return to it, is that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is currently still not in the arrangement as it has been adopted and that we will vote in the parliaments of the 27 member countries of the EU.

These are points on which we must remain much more attentive than on the points relating to symbols, especially since this notion of law and this notion of primacy of European law are found in the Protocols annexed to the Treaty and that it will be in accordance with the European institutions and also with the will of national governments to intervene so that the very concept of entry in a protocol can be found, as soon as possible, at the level of the dispositif of the European institutions. I insist on what concerns me with this reference to the law. When the fully operational phase of the Lisbon Treaty comes into effect, i.e. in 2014, it would be good that the Annex Protocol referring to the law and the primacy of European law could be found.

That being said, I do not want, as far as I am concerned – and this is the will of my political family – to consider that this treaty would at least be a retreat. This is not a step backwards; it is a step forward that should effectively allow Europe to work better. On the institutional level as such, I consider that this advance is significant in that all the institutional problems faced by Europe since the Maastricht Treaty, with the difficulties of the Nice Treaty, are now fully solved.

Briefly, I will cite ten fundamental points for the foundation of this new foundation from the ratification of the Treaty.

1 of 1. A permanent President of the European Union will be elected by his peers and will serve for two years.

2 of 2. The Vice-President of the Commission will be responsible for Foreign Affairs and will be called High Representative for Foreign Policy. Even if we no longer speak, on the initiative of the British, of a minister, I think that this role will be decisive.

3 of 3. As of 2014, the number of Commissioners will be reduced to two-thirds of the Member States.

4 of 4. We are now recording the transition of several central themes from unanimous to qualified majority.

5 of 5. The qualified majority will be obtained according to a double majority system: 55% of Member States representing 65% of the population. This system, although it comes into effect only in 2014, will obviously be potentially blocked until 2017 with what is called, at the initiative of the Poles, the "Ioannina compromise", but let us still be aware of the fact that having held keys such as these constitutes for European decision-making a more important one.

6 of 6. The possibility for nine Member States to form enhanced cooperation and I will return to the defence policy.

7 of 7. The number of MEPs increased from 785 to 750, but with an extremely enhanced co-decision power for the European Parliament.

8 is National parliaments – Herman de Croo spoke about it; although I am less optimistic than he, I will also return to it – will be able to criticize a proposal from the Commission, ⁇ require it to review its copy. The question is whether this will not remain a dead letter.

9 of 9. The role of the Committee of the Regions is confirmed, which I think is an important point, especially for a country like ours.

10 of 10. The right to petition is recognised at the European level, which is important for the citizens’ articulation.

Only these ten points seem to me essential in terms of progress. Anyone who is interested in the European dimension knows that two or three years ago, skepticism was placed over the existence of a Lisbon Treaty subject to ratification by national parliaments and containing these ten points. For me, these are essential elements for the ratification of this treaty. I dare to welcome the significant contribution of Belgium in this process. Why not remind that if this vote takes place today, it is thanks to the will of the Belgian Presidency to launch this mechanism. We ⁇ ’t have had this without Laeken’s statement. When you read parliamentary work in other EU countries or meet with colleagues from those countries, you realize that the Laeken declaration was an extremely important moment.

Let me take a glance towards the Ecolo-Agalev group – and I willingly use its old name, not out of nostalgia but to remind them of their presence in the government at the time of this Laeken statement. You should also rejoice and vote with a lot of enthusiasm for such a text because it is thanks to a Belgian government in which you participated that this process has been launched.

Yes, it is true, the Socialists were not ... but everything changes, you noticed it! They have nothing to do with the success of this operation!

The [...]

No, Mr. Mayeur, I don’t need aspirin and, basically, I have attended hospitals less than you. I would simply like to tell you that the most decisive element, and on which we may not insist sufficiently, is that the ratification of this Treaty will induce an extraordinary change on the institutional level. The power that will be that of the next European Parliament will be extremely important for the government of Europe. The fact that the European Parliament has a greater and broader responsibility regarding the choice of the President of the Commission, the choice of the Commissioner, the control of that Vice-President who will be in charge of foreign policy will radically change the way European issues will have to be presented to the public. If we have not had a consultation regarding the Treaty, there will in any case be a consultation that will be major, that of the European elections in June 2009 where it will be necessary to see how to emerge majorities in the European Parliament to determine the content of the policies.

It is true to say today that the Treaty does not enable a policy such as that of the environment and the climate, it is true; to say that we do not review the whole growth strategy at the Lisbon level, it is true; to say that we do not have enough concrete elements in relation to the rights of persons, to the evolution of the criminal and civil law at the European level, it is true; to say that we do not know where we are going in defence policy, it is also true; but the June 2009 issue will be sufficiently decisive to determine what content we want to put in these policies. The debate that we have known at the European level and which has been relayed in this Parliament, on a matter as important as that of services, and in particular of public services, will be at the heart of the arrangement.

Who will be the President of the Commission? Who will be the Commissioners? What policies will they invest in to lead the European Commission for the five years following 2009? This is where the issue will be.

I believe it is extremely important to be well aware that the Treaty is one thing but the political mechanism it induces will indeed have to lead us to engage more strongly in this policy at the European level.

I believe that everything concerning parliamentary control will be as important for national parliaments as it is for the European Parliament. I do not believe that the current arrangement, with the presence of national parliaments every six months at this so-called COSAC meeting, is fundamentally at the height of what the Treaty implies. The treaty will give much greater power to national parliaments. This power, within the framework of subsidiarity, will have to be used by national parliaments. Are we well aware that the use of this power must involve changes in the organization of our debates? Other countries, such as France and Germany, are now preparing, together with their national parliaments, to put in place procedures allowing quitus, if not every year, ⁇ every six months, to proposals issued by the European Commission on subjects that could return within the framework of subsidiarity.

I believe that reflecting at the level of the Belgian Parliament and ⁇ of the House on strengthening the control system in the context of this subsidiarity is essential if we want to advance this process of European interest and if we want to avoid deviations in the European framework. Considering a parliamentary initiative at the House level that allows us to work much more in the form of a national delegation on European issues rather than in the form of the opinion committee as we know it today seems to me essential. If we remain with a committee of opinions that merely organizes from time to time what can be called forms of colloquium in relation to the European problem, we will not fulfill our democratic duty. On the other hand, if we organize ourselves in terms of a delegation controlling all subjects with, as is now the case in parliamentary committees, the role of a form of observer European Ombudsman to report, I believe we can be effective.

Why not consider having a parliamentary debate twice a year on all these topics? There must be a report so that each Minister – not only the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister in charge of the preparation of the Belgian Presidency but all the Ministers according to their competence – can tell us the position defended in the Councils of Specialized Ministers. On this basis, we must have what I call a debate, a vote sanction, making sure to live the democratic debate at the level of the European Parliament. This is a hypothesis that I put forward. There may be others, but I believe that it is important to ask today, at the time of the vote on the ratification of the Treaty, the question of organizing our work to ensure good democratic control.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the positions taken by the federal government and sometimes also by the governments of the federal entities, I would simply like to add that, in the Council of Specialized Ministers, there is a coordination called "B11" that sets the positions. These positions are therefore known even before they are pronounced in the respective councils. Mr. Ducarme, however, you are quite right in saying that Parliament should organize itself in such a way as to follow this more effectively. Still, the positions are known. It is also because they are known that you will be able to control them.

I consider your intervention as positive. If this is done at the executive level, it will not be done at the parliamentary level.

You are often the subject of questions or interpellations in this Parliament while the matters dealt with have already been resolved at government level. That is why I believe that an up-to-date work and coordination on this subject between Parliament and the Government(s) on this point can be positive.

So I come to an issue that raises some concern in my home. I am talking about the development of defence policy.

When examining the Treaty, it is noted that in defence, a number of competences undoubtedly fall to the European Union under the control of the European Parliament. It is also noted that a second batch remains exclusively within the national jurisdiction and that a third batch remains within the intergovernmental jurisdiction.

Today, the European Parliament declared itself competent for the democratic control of the entire defence policy. There will also be a vote on a report from the European Parliament in the plenary session of this Parliament in June next year. In this report, the European Parliament stipulates that the national parliaments will be consulted, but that the main part of the control belongs to it.

I think that represents a danger. Indeed, how can we envisage a significant European presence in different operational theatres at the international level? How can we consider the security of Europeans in Europe or established outside Europe if there is no real system of democratic control linking not only the European Parliament and other European institutions, but also the national parliaments?

In a field like this, it is essential to consider a form of “proactivity”, beyond the vote of the Treaty, in order not to find ourselves confronted with a number of major policies when it is necessary to decide to intensify a presence not only of the Defence Europe but also of national armies on one or another field of operation, or even when we will see emerging – and it is clear that this will happen – a particular European defence force at the initiative of a limited number of countries, what is already called the G6, from implementations desired in particular by the Italian government in connection with the follow-up of the Summit of Saint-Malo whose anniversary will take place in a short time. What will be our place at that time? What will be the place of the smallest countries?

How will we count and what attitude can we develop?

The upcoming opening of the debate on the problem of Afghanistan and the question of whether an EU-level intervention to support democratic structures is considered rather than merely an increased presence show the importance of considering a number of adjustments, in order to connect national parliaments.

I now come to an essential point, which concerns the individual dimension for the respect of Europeans in their personal rights. It is not to break the health cord for a Democrat that to address the Vlaams Belang. I heard the words that were held. I have especially tried to decode, both in the committee and in this place, the reasons that seem to me the most fundamental in your eyes to refuse a vote such as this. You echoed European law in what it could intervene in the defense of the individual rights of Europeans. Wouldn’t the main reason for your rejection be there? I would like to tell you that the Treaty will be fully operational only from the moment we have submitted a number of acts, among which ⁇ includes the accession of the European Union and the European Community to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Next week, the Council of Europe will vote on a report explicitly calling for the ratification by the European Union, by the national parliaments of an act ensuring that the mechanisms of the European Convention on Human Rights are fully applicable within the framework of the European Union. This means, on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13 March 2007, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as not currently incorporated in the Treaty, will be able to form part of the legal order at the level of the European Union.

I am delighted! I hope that as soon as possible we will have such a vote.

Article 21 of this Charter of Fundamental Rights, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, stipulates that “any discrimination based in particular on gender, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion and convictions, political opinions and any other opinion, belonging to a national minority, fortune, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation is prohibited”.

This means that such a provision, effectively ratified, will allow every citizen of the Union and also every French-speaking citizen in the territory of the Flemish Region to intervene to defend their rights and to ensure at this time that this is not a dead letter in a procedure adopted within the framework of this Council of Europe, but rather in a procedure much more ⁇ ined on the legal level, within the framework of the European institutions. This is an extremely important advance.

If it were just for that, I believe that there is an interest for all Democrats to vote on this text, which could not only compel you to respect rights beyond all the differences, but that might also allow – this is not your concern – to respect the right of a certain number of people who, today mandators, are not appointed while they have been elected by universal suffrage.

If Europe can bring us the respect for democratic principles and the tolerance of the Flemish people, I think that we may have thus taken a step, and a very positive step.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to this, and not to the statements of Mr. De Croo, who equated more or less half of the Dutch and French population with people who spread warlike love and even racism.

However, this is interesting. In fact, Mr. Ducarme says that the European Convention will be able to be used by the French speakers to safeguard their language rights within the framework of human rights through the European Convention. It is about the same reasoning as in connection with the Minority Convention, Mr. Minister, which you know very well and with which you will still have to deal. The French speakers also say that this must be ratified.

I speak as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We continue to say – not only the Flemish Belang, but the whole of Flanders continues to say that applying the minority treaty to the Belgian situation, which already provides minority protection for the minority of the French-speaking minority in a very excessive way, leads to perverse effects.

Flanders will continue to defend this statement, just as we will say as Flemish Belang, like all other Flemish parties, that we will continue to support all human rights and all human rights treaties and charters in that field, even if they have the perverse effect that the linguistic minority in Belgium would use it to carry out a political struggle and for that purpose abuse the European institutions and European treaties.

Not left to us, as long as in that charter on human rights the political conviction will continue to exist, I speak now for a moment as a Flemish Belanger, and does not happen what Mrs. Onkelinx has done in the discrimination law, namely the word political conviction light out of the charter and remove that to still be able to hit the Flemish Interest.

If this is applied correctly and the political conviction continues to be included in it, we will support it. However, we will continue to point out the misuse of European treaties and European charters in Belgium to map the community problems at the international level and to misuse the international level. We will always continue to oppose this. I hope that this will happen together with all other Flemish parties.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere with this discussion, but I would like to point out, however, that the scope of the Charter is limited to the scope of Community law and to the Belgian legislator, in the present case, within the limits of Community law and does not have a general scope.

Regarding the Flemish Importance, I would like to say the following. There is, of course, a declaration of fundamental rights, not in the treaty, but through a protocol attached to the treaty, with the same validity. However, it is wrong to think that at this time the European Court of Justice would not protect human rights and fundamental rights.

The Court of Justice is now doing so and has several legal sources for it, including the European Convention on Human Rights and also what is called the common traditions of the constitutions of the Member States, as well as the general principles of law. In other words, as regards the legal scope, this Declaration of Fundamental Rights does not change much as such. What changes is that there comes a codification, in other words also a readability for the European citizen, of the rights he knows protected. In practice, these rights are already protected. There are dozens, not to say hundreds, of judgments of the Court of Justice referring to the protection of fundamental rights in Europe. The situation as such does not change. In other words, Mr. Annemans, if you are looking for a reason for not approving the treaty, you are actually wrong.

My reasons are many, but just that reason is not there. Only, colleague Ducarme has cut the debate, and I felt addressed, literally by the way.

I can add the following. Regarding the minority treaty – our group has already been able to do so with Mr Maingain – we here again confirm that once the Belgian State is dissolved and Flanders is independent, there will be no minute before the Flemish Interest ratifies the minority treaty. I say it here, as far as it is necessary, with so many words.

In anticipation of this, Mr. Ducarme has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that the European debate advances the intra-Belgian debate.

I would like to tell Mr. The ministry says that these are not merely general provisions. Furthermore, I draw his attention to the content of that judgment of 13 March 2007, given by the Court of Justice in the context of the Unibet case: “Therefore, although it is in principle the duty of national law to determine the quality and interest of a justiciable to act in court, Community law nevertheless requires that national legislation does not prejudice the right to effective judicial protection. It is the responsibility of the Member States to provide for a system of remedies and procedures to ensure the observance of this right.”

As the report, which will be voted at the Council of Europe next week, emphasizes: “This judgment confirms the Court’s will to require the Member States of the European Union to contribute to the establishment of a comprehensive system of remedy capable of ensuring compliance with the requirements of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the Community legal order.”

Mr. Minister, this means that it will not be a matter of having, with all these votes followed by Lisbon, the will to debate and to know if we can or if we cannot. What we will fortunately face is a different implementation of the law and the possibility of individual recourse by every citizen of the European Union, whether from Kosovo or elsewhere, in order to defend their own rights.

In such a context, I say it again, we Democrats have a major interest in seeing the vote of such a device. Indeed, European law with its remedies can finally come to the rescue of a number of interests that are not currently met.

I hope that all members of the Belgian delegation to the Council of Europe next week will have the heart to vote positively, Mr. Annemans, on this report presented by Mrs. Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc of the Netherlands who, on behalf of the European People’s Party group, defended the entire dossier.

I would like to conclude with one point, addressing myself specifically to Mr. The Minister and Mr. The Secretary of State. It is obviously something that does not appear in the Lisbon Treaty, and yet it is a reference that I think is essential to what Europe must do to establish its external visibility. External visibility, this can be politics, it can be a presence in international institutions, in agreements that can exist with other continents but it is also the way one values a capital. I note one thing: if you go to any large country, especially the countries with a continental dimension, an extremely important effort is made to make the capital of this continent the most positive showcase possible.

Europe should receive a message, as well as its institutions. This message is to consider that the capital of Europe, Brussels, cannot be an operational vitrine for Europe from the moment when the unemployment rate of this region is one of the highest of all European regions, where the poverty rate of this region is one of the highest in the European Union, where the mobility problems are the most important compared to other countries and where the visibility of what may be European culture is not present, including in the heart of the Brussels European Quarter.

If we want to act in a way that gives the European citizen a little more desire for Europe, I think this is one of the points that we cannot put aside. Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, I hope that as part of the preparation of the Belgian Presidency of the Union, this point can be put on the agenda. If Europe needs to function better institutionally, with the Treaty it can have the means to do so. If Europe wants to have a stronger policy with stronger choices in 2009, it can have the means with this device. If she wants to have a defence policy, she can do it. If it also wants to ensure that citizens are better protected, it can consider it. It may also be necessary that it considers to provide itself, in collaboration with all the competent institutions, regional or national, with the useful means for Brussels to be a dignified and dignified showcase represented within the framework of the European Union. If we do this in the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty, I think that the confidential debate that will be ours today will not necessarily have been unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, in the process of forming the European Union, the Lisbon Treaty is undoubtedly a milestone. Several strong steps are being taken forward. That may be, of course, because the treaty has gone a long way, as has already been noted by some speakers.

In 2003, the European Convention laid down a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. In June 2004, an agreement was reached on a constitutional treaty for the European Union. That so-called constitution would render all other treaties superfluous and set a new institutional framework for Europe. The approval process was fixed on a “no” during the French and Dutch referendums. The dissent of the voters. The European project may have alienated many citizens at that time. The question is whether this is less the case now.

Just as a good architect has to revise his plans after rejection, the European Union has to revise its design. It has had many feet in the earth to find a common text that was carried by everyone. But look, here we stand now hopefully with our gaze towards the future.

With the sp.a-group, we are absolutely in favour of a solid foundation for the European Union. We must move forward. This treaty guarantees more democracy, more participation. More than necessary restructuring. The European Parliament will be more involved than before. The co-decision process has been greatly expanded. These are definitely positive innovations.

National parliaments also have a voice in European affairs. This is necessary because most of our legislation comes from the EU. It is good that parliaments are informed of legislative proposals that are on the way. If one-third of those parliaments oppose a proposal, the Commission should reconsider the proposal and clarify why it is necessary. This is the so-called yellow card procedure.

Furthermore, if a majority of national parliaments votes against a particular proposal, the Commission should consult the European Parliament and the Council in order to reach a new decision. This should not disrupt European decision-making. We can only hope that this increased participation will increase the public’s interest in European themes.

People need to know what is happening in Europe, so much is clear. There is talk about it, it needs to be discussed and debated. Europe must be close to us. A sufficiently transparent policy is necessary to enable a higher degree of democratization.

That is the angel in this reform treaty. It contains a sad paradox. Unfortunately, the text that provides for more efficiency and more democracy is absolutely unreadable. It is a clutter of references and unclear articles. This is, of course, detrimental to the involvement of the population and, in addition, a missed opportunity. It will be waiting for the Constitution in verses of the Brussels Poetry Collective to obtain a legible version of this otherwise historical Treaty.

A major victory, which I cannot fail to mention, is that the Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding. It should be a matter of course; it is a pity that Britain does not agree with that.

So we can say that the Reform Treaty gives the EU the building blocks it has long needed. That is a good thing. A house cannot stand upright without solid foundations.

Now that we have the basic structure, it is time to look further. Now we have to look at the content.

In this regard, the SP has a number of concerns. It is positive that the Treaty introduces a horizontal social clause. That is, in every area in which the EU makes decisions, the social theme is charged. However, we must be careful. Europe has always been very ambitious with social goals. For example, the Lisbon Strategy states that Europe must invest in people and in the modernization of the labour market. Efforts must be made to prevent social exclusion and to combat poverty. Nevertheless, we cannot deny that the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy has left those last social themes out of sight. This is where our concerns lie. Social issues are always on the European agenda. That while various reports, both from the European Union and from Member States, point to an ever-increasing social uncertainty. Globalization demands its toll and thus creates increasing inequality.

In this regard, Europe must urgently make the turn: from the Europe of the economy to the Europe of the ordinary man. This curve must make Europe. Per ⁇ Europe needs to address some majority factions of this Parliament to know how to make a curve. Globalization and economic reforms do not take into account those who are behind and increase the precarious employment situation of many in our European society. The poverty rate continues to rise.

The European Commission’s report, which was presented at the spring summit in March, states itself that one in five 15-year-olds cannot read enough. One in six eighteen to twenty-four-year-olds has ⁇ no more than lower secondary education. This makes it very difficult for them to enter and make progress on the labour market. Education is an important component of the fight against social exclusion. 78 million Europeans are poor or at risk of falling into poverty. That is 16% of the total population. There are 14 million working poor people in the EU. It is absolutely necessary that Europe be social.

The flexicurity was the miracle remedy that was meant to bring both more employment and more job security. Well, an analysis of the ABVV shows that although flexicurity can lead to greater flexibility, it also leads to greater uncertainty. The promised combination of economic progress and social security appears to be a utopia.

The storage of a number of symbols such as the slogan “unity through diversity” is a regrettable thing. It seems that further European integration is still far away. And that while a number of major social developments are ongoing where a European response is indispensable. The growing globalization, the negative side effects of which are now painfully illustrated by the credit crisis, is just one example.

Europe is an ancient continent. It has a great burden to bear the aging, or the decay as you wish. For purely subjective reasons, I would rather talk about decay than about aging, but well. Europe has a very large burden to bear in terms of population ageing. An integrated policy is therefore really necessary, especially if we notice – the Court of Auditors gives us absolutely right in that – that we can expect very little from the Belgian government in this regard.

The European model should not be based solely on economic growth and progress. People also need to get better. Europe is more than a market alone, Mr. Speaker: it is a project that brings peace, democracy and solidarity between peoples, or at least should bring about. This solidarity, my colleagues, must continue. Thus, with a united Europe, we can face many challenges. We can provide a common answer to the financial crisis that has emerged in the United States. Together, we can tackle the challenges facing globalization, immigration, interculturality.

In addition, it is the opportunity to profile us as the big player in terms of climate. It offers us a lot of opportunities, both ecologically and economically.

So we can be assured that we have the foundations of a solid home. The Sp.A. also wants to go for that house. Therefore, our group will support the Convention.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen what the decoration of the house will give. Will it become a cold and cool fortress Europe, without room for social measures and solidarity, or will it become an open, warm, sustainable home with doors that are wide open?

I hope for the latter, so that the European social model will also be given a chance, if it were, to be reinvented and once again prioritised on the agenda.

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. At a time when we are called to speak again, we must mark the event, each expressing his feelings and his philosophy regarding the Treaty itself, the European Union and the position of our country towards the Union.

To be simple, we are facing a minimalist choice: it is the choice between immobility and moving forward a little bit. I don’t even dare to say “progress a little bit,” we’ll see this in use! In any case, to evolve. We are again called to take our responsibilities and we must do so. We must learn from what happened in our neighboring countries, France, the Netherlands.

In France, the debate has been intense, legitimate and often just about what Europe is and what it should be. He rarely focused on the Constitutional Treaty. I still hear all the tenors expressing in a masculine way their conviction that a “no” of France would move things, that is, would improve them. It is hard to see that there has been a change but to say that something has been improved compared to the Constitutional Treaty would be abusive.

Finally, since we have already voted for the Constitutional Treaty, one might simply wonder whether the Lisbon Treaty is so different or degrades the Constitutional Treaty so much that we should change our attitude. Even if it is more complicated, that it is in pieces, that it lacks readability, any analyst somehow unobjective will say that if the difference does exist, it is nevertheless not of nature to question what has been decided. We will follow the same course of conduct.

Nevertheless, it must be said, and it is not the Minister of Foreign Affairs who will deny me: since the Europe of Fifteen has prepared to host the ten and then the other twelve countries, we are in a situation where the supporters of a purely economic and financial Europe have taken it over the supporters of a stronger integration, of which we were, as we have had the opportunity to say repeatedly, like Mr. Verhofstadt, the former prime minister, wrote it in a book.

This situation has put Europe "in ruins" of economic and human projects. One aspect seems to me to save the situation; it is environmental work. I already hear the comments as it is not enough. Indeed, we can go further. Nevertheless, the European Union, in relation to the regions of the world, must be recognized as a valuable effort.

However, it must be acknowledged that today, the European Union is effectively locked in its treaties. I do not want to go into the details of the two treaties, but the unanimity rule contained in the Lisbon Treaty is a terrible rule that crushes the European Union. That is the least we can say. In any case for the PS, this rule further exacerbates competition and allows an almost unmoderate exercise of competition compared to harmonisations and a much more federalistic design.

Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, you are there for nothing but, often, we look at the European Union and specifically the Commission. I’m not talking about today’s Commission; therefore it’s not about one or another person who would be a member of the Commission today. We have known others! However, the Commission is often seen as the guardian of the temple that the European Union has built for itself, a guardian without any step of manoeuvre.

As far as the United States is concerned, we have also been able to see this with flight and airspace exchanges between the United States and the European Union, for example. Many citizens have been shocked to learn that in order to exceed 25% of the capital of U.S. companies, there will still be effort to do. At the European level, these possibilities have already been widely opened. Many citizens react because they are talking about terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not talking about the bottom line, but billions of U.S. government dollars have been invested in the U.S. economy and not only in the military economy, a kind of “keynesian” intervention. At home, I haven’t yet seen the European Union make a massive support decision against extremely critical situations, simply because the treaties are what they are. It is not just the people who rule.

Regarding the Treaty that we will or will not ratify, you have discussed a lot about it. It contains positive aspects that we already knew in the so-called Constitutional Treaty: the merging of the pillars, the requirement of promoting a high level of employment, the guarantee of social protection, the fight against exclusion, the pursuit of a high level of education, the fight against all discrimination – in this regard, we should not underestimate what is in the texts, in particular in terms of gender equality, with this need for transversality across all subjects –, sustainable development, solidarity between generations, the protection of children’s rights, respect for wealth and cultural diversity within the Union.

Among the amendments, the fact that the terms "an internal market where competition is free and not distorted" have been replaced by "a social market economy", let me see there a sign, ⁇ minimal but positive, a sign of humanization and the return of the economy to what it should be: the instrument of the human society in which we live.

It should also be said that the recognition of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is important. You, as well as I, have been conventional. We will remember the endless debates, especially conducted by Britain in this regard. We found a solution. I believe this is not the ideal solution, but it is in my opinion a significant advance.

Strengthening the role of the European Parliament is significant. In this regard, we should be pleased.

Among the positive aspects, but like the language of Esope, it is ⁇ the best and the worst of things, citing the amplified role of national parliaments. I spent some of my rare moments of rest reading and re-read some books on this subject. Once these treaties are ratified, their implementation will require a lot of work.

I have heard proposals that deserve to be considered seriously. I will give you my own. The country has seven parliaments. Europe has set deadlines. We have to act as a Belgian.

We must also be up to what we represent at the level of the European Union, that is, a major founding country, of course, but whose size remains relatively modest and the number of inhabitants measured.

In order for our initiatives to have a minimum impact, we must persuade and partner with other parliaments. In fact, it is not because Belgium would express itself that it would be followed by the European Union, even though I would like it to be so. We must therefore, Mr. Speaker, reinvent, as parliamentarians, our decision-making process with regard to the European Union.

I have no advice to give to anyone. I am not a teacher. I can only make suggestions in accordance with what I could have heard in the Joint Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee.

So, is it not necessary to set up an instance, a special commission to deal with these issues, as the problems and the extent of our responsibilities increase? Furthermore, with our seven parliaments, shouldn’t we ask ourselves how not to be totally inoperative? How can we make the voice of our country, that is, the voice of each of our Regions and Communities, heard?

In fact, it is not a matter of discussing the primacy of a country over a Region or Community. If we fail to organize ourselves intelligently and efficiently, when a Region will want something to happen, the intrabelge system could make us totally inactive compared to the expression we should be carrying at the European Union level. In my opinion, efforts will need to be made, somewhat like the Conciliation Committee, which makes it possible to make decisions in shared decisions.

We still have a few years ahead of us, but the years are passing fast! Those and those who reach a certain age know it even better than the younger ones. We are interested in moving forward in this matter. Why Why ? Because we have the deadline for the European elections and that Belgium will assume the presidency of the EU in 2010. These are deadlines of great importance.

Without wanting to be too long, I still get to the negative aspects. But first, I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in the coming months we will probably say yes to the Treaty. But public opinion remains a little hungry for lack of understanding.

I think we should take advantage of this vote and the debate in parliament. We understand how important it is to see all the media rush to our auditorium to mark the major impact of our discussions! We must never despair in politics and continue whatever the circumstances. So we have an information effort and parliaments, especially the Federal Parliament, can play a big role.

How to ? First, by a simplified explanation of the content of the Treaty. Fortunately, today, we find the coordinated treaties, but they are coordinated by individualities, like some informed experts, while the official text is not yet "beschikbaar" and we will still have to wait a little.

Furthermore, I think we should hold a debate on the prospects of our EU Presidency. For us, despite the positive aspects, it will be necessary to redefine issues such as the coordination of economic and social policies, environmental issues with even more coercive measures, services of general interest, etc. This would be an opportunity to have a pedagogical aspect from the Belgian authorities and, at the same time, allow citizens to express themselves on other topics.

Among the negative elements, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, and you know them better than I do, the Treaty texts presented to us are in intense mutual distrust. One can say what one wants of the Convention, but it was initially a Belgian idea: indeed, it was born under the Belgian presidency, at the Laeken Summit. There had been a previous one, but in its unimaginable and yet concrete form of our Convention, chaired by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, she came from the Laeken Summit. Of course, all this is forgotten and must be remembered.

In view of what has happened to date, the Convention has nevertheless made it possible to develop concepts, texts of a quality that, in view of what remains to us today, would make us very happy to obtain a consistent copy.

Things are what they are. Governments took it over the Convention and the non-French gave a pretext to anyone who did not want to move forward to do so. We are where we are.

Let us recognize among ourselves that the abandonment of symbols such as the flag, the European anthem and the Union motto is more than regrettable. This is a mistake because it spoke to the trips of our fellow citizens. Of course, this is very ideological; if this has been done, it is because nationalisms are strengthening a bit everywhere, nationalisms that go against the general interest, ⁇ even the interest of their own nationals. This is the fate of every political action and of every governed people.

We made progress, but from the beginning it was impossible to go further. However, it must be regretted that measures, especially fiscal, remain unanimous.

There is still one thing that remains unbearable, it is intra-European competition that is ⁇ ined – I do not dare to say supported or even encouraged – in certain aspects; indeed, States have the faculty to act alone. There is something terribly dangerous, frustrating and degrading quality in each of the Member States of the European Union.

As for actual progress in terms of socio-economic governance of the European Union, they will be considered in the future. The social component remains at least extremely low and enhanced cooperation is barely simplified. All this is very moderate.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to conclude by saying that European integration – and you know I am quite critical – is ⁇ the most useful human project for our fellow citizens. This is a guarantee for peace and democratic stability.

I take this moment to add that, in my opinion, the European model is a form of civilization, of human model, of course, with varying degrees. It is not quite the same in Britain as here, but the core core of the European Union can boast of real economic progress, significant economic growth and high-quality social protection, which we do not find in the United States, even in the health care system. In the United States, people die younger. Mortality is higher than in the fifteen.

Americans live on average four years less than us. However, it is necessary to recall it from time to time when you see how much each year of life costs.

We have an extremely efficient social protection system and an environmental policy that is internationally ahead. The European Union proved this during major advances such as the Kyoto Protocol and a few weeks ago in Bali.

I think we can be proud of this model. We must try to make it a reference in the world. We are not going to impose the European model on anyone, as the discussion these days shows, but I think we must be convinced of this extremely efficient and human character of the European system in order to be able to make it a reference element elsewhere in the world.

I would say that we still have things to do. We will not abstain from voting on this treaty, even if I respect those and those who abstain, because I believe that decisions must be made and, if everyone abstained due to one or the other aspect of the treaty, there would be no progress. After this vote, it will be necessary to continue to move forward on fiscal policies, on policies against relocation, on services of general interest, on more measures for the environment.

Here, my colleagues, in a word like a hundred, today it seems to me that we are facing a new challenge. When we have voted, it will not be an achievement at all. This will only be a beginning. These are tools with which we will do what the artisans, that is, everyone, including ourselves, will want to do. But what we must do above all is to give our fellow citizens the desire for more Europe. In this regard, I believe that our Parliament has an important role to play.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, the debate we are holding today on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty can safely be called historical.

We must be aware of this, although the spirit of time is not willing to attach much importance to it. We would also have preferred to see a European Constitution, but the steps taken with this Treaty are not steps back. The process of European integration has not stopped, despite the crisis we have experienced.

As cited today, it has its roots in the dramatic events that have dominated the past century and their consequences, in particular the two world wars that began and ended on European soil.

“Never again war” should actually be the subtitle of the treaties that the Member States of the European Union have concluded with each other and are still concluding today. Indeed, the purpose of the founding fathers of the Union was to create an instrument that would force the arch-enemies to cooperate and thus neutralize the focal points of conflict. This has succeeded.

Schuman spoke in 1950 of a jump in the dark. History is made by such leaps. From then on, a process has begun that is so fundamentally profound for both European states and their inhabitants that we consider Europe today as an additional level of governance. It has almost become evidence. There is an increasing awareness that the European policy level has a real added value, both politically, socio-economically and socially.

This added value must now also be reflected in the international community. In an increasingly globalized world, the European Union has undoubtedly become an important economic power factor.

However, there are still doubts about the political power of the Union. Europe today still responds too divided and can therefore still not sufficiently impress its footprint on resolving large and small political disputes.

Colleagues, much has already been said today on the various aspects of the Convention. In my presentation, I will focus primarily on the external action of the Union.

The new Treaty, which is presented today, incorporates virtually all provisions of the Constitutional Treaty in the fields of foreign policy and security and defence policy. These changes are promising for strengthening Europe’s role in the world, including defence.

I will highlight a dozen points for which this Convention represents a clear reinforcement.

First, there is the transformation – it has already been said today – of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy into a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, but without the title of minister.

Second, there is the establishment of a European Diplomatic Service under the name of the European External Action Service.

Third, there is the clarification of the general principles that were and should be the basis of the external action of the European Union and the simplification of the legal instruments used for this purpose. The Decisions Instrument replaces the previous distinction between common strategies, common positions and joint action.

Fourth, in order to address the lack of flexibility in the foreign policy budget, the concept of guaranteed quick access to the budget is introduced, as well as the idea of a new start-up fund, to be approved by qualified majority, to finance tasks that today cannot be borne by the European budget. This fund will therefore be funded by contributions from the Member States.

Fifth, the legal personality of the European Union in the field of its external relations is confirmed, so that there can no longer be any discussion about it. Of course, colleagues, we cannot deny that the possible complication at the institutional level and in the field of personal relations is the role of the new permanent president of the European Council, who at his or her level assumes the external representation of the Union on issues relating to foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the future High Representative. It should not be that personal ambition would become a gambler in it.

Sixth, there is the enrichment of the so-called Peterberg tasks, tasks that the European Union may fulfill in the field of peacekeeping, state-building and humanitarian needs. In practice, the range of potential contracts was already very wide, but this is now clearly confirmed in the Treaty, including the provision that the authorised Union contracts abroad can also contribute to the fight against terrorism.

Seventh, there is the introduction of new procedures for cooperation between smaller groups of EU Member States. I mean the procedure of enhanced cooperation and the procedure of permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence.

Eighth, there is the introduction of the solidarity clause in the event of a terrorist attack or a humanitarian or natural disaster.

Ninth, there is the clause of mutual assistance in the event of an armed attack on one of the EU Member States.

Tenth, there is the inclusion in the Treaty of the already existing and functioning European Defence Agency.

Colleagues, with these ten points, we can safely say that the harvest in this domain has been good. The role of Jean-Luc Dehaene as chairman of the Convention Working Group Foreign Action and the supporting role of the Belgian diplomacy were positive and result-oriented. Most of the proposals and ideas submitted by them have remained consistent in the Lisbon Treaty.

It is, of course, regrettable that a political agreement had to be reached between the proposal to anchor the future High Representative in the European Commission and the proposal for a permanent President of the European Council. This latter proposal remains for us a false good idea, in the first place, because it is difficult to accept that a prime minister of a given Member State is going to give directives and instructions to an individual trade minister of another country in the name of the coherence of European activities.

It also does not seem very effective to exclude a role for the head of government of that country during a period of the presidency of a Member State by denying him the presidency of the European Council.

Finally, it was also not necessary for the High Representative for Foreign Affairs to enter into personal competition with the permanent President of the European Council.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the crucial question is obvious: what should be done with these new provisions? How can they influence the role of the Union in the world? First of all, it is necessary to ensure the correct and timely implementation of these new provisions. The risk of a too minimalist and gradual approach in the implementation of the new instruments and provisions is constantly present in the European Union, as well as the risk that the reflection begins too late due to personal interests and calculations. I would therefore like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to further assist in monitoring the avoidance of this risk.

Second, the new provisions must be placed in the light of the real challenges and needs of the European Union. Looking at the regional issues, we can also make the following conclusions. The Western Balkans are in less good condition than they were a few years ago. The European Union has still not found the ideal mix of political and economic security instruments to move society in the right direction. In Kosovo, the European mission will only succeed if the EU is accepted by the Serbs and if the international organisations present today on the ground effectively cooperate and develop more unity.

Even in the Middle East, Europe is trying to advocate the creation of a Palestinian state that can coexist in peace with Israel, but the Palestinian negotiators today represent only one-third of the population whose condition is also severely deteriorating. In the quest for more stability and security around Europe – think of Turkey, the Caucasus, Transnistria – one cannot say that it has become safer in our immediate surroundings compared to a few years ago. Of course there are exceptions. I think of Ukraine, for example.

Even on the east side of the European Union we are facing an increasingly aggressive Russia. Fortunately more politically than militarily, but I still have to note that Europe fails to develop a common policy based on the identification of common concrete European interests.

Colleagues, also with regard to the international themes on climate change – it has already been cited today – Europe is beginning to take a central place thanks to concrete ambitious proposals from the European Commission, but also thanks to a strategic approach, which is currently absent, ⁇ in the field of energy supply policy.

With these examples, I would like to show that the new provisions of the Treaty must not only be considered institutionally, but also serve real challenges and needs. The same can be said about the development of the diplomatic service. The temptation is great to see its creation only in terms of power relations between institutions, large and small member states of persons.

Successive waves of enlargement have loaded the body of the European Union heavily, even too heavily, in recent years.

In this regard, the Lisbon Treaty is also a very important step forward. We believed that after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, no further enlargement of the EU would be possible until the necessary reforms were carried out to restore the balance between deepening and enlargement.

Well, with the Treaty it can be assumed that this balance has been restored to the required extent. This does not mean that the door should be wide open to countries interested in membership of the Union. The Lisbon Treaty contains an interesting provision that requires that the accession criteria agreed by the European Council be taken into account.

In 2006, the European Council commissioned the European Commission to draw up a report on all aspects of the EU’s absorption capacity and to draw up an analysis of how citizens experience the enlargement now and in the future. As for the European Council, the social level of the enlargement is also for us a determining element of the absorption capacity.

However, colleagues, the Union’s absorption capacity is more than just a social level. The absorption capacity relates to the impact of candidate Member States on the nature and future developments of European integration and on the internal cohesion of the EU, the impact of candidate Member States on the efficiency of EU decision-making and action, the impact of candidate Member States on the identity of the EU and the European awareness of its citizens, and the impact of candidate Member States on the financial capacity and budget of the EU.

Countries cannot join for us if they do not meet a set of basic requirements, for example in relation to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion, or in connection with the protection of minorities. Countries cannot join unless they guarantee the effective or credible implementation of the separation between state and religion. Countries cannot join if, due to their large size and thus also due to their high demands on European aid, they undermine the financial capacity and, consequently, the integration process of the Union. Countries cannot join if the population of the Union is not open to undeniably large political, social, economic and, above all, cultural differences.

We are not the only ones and we are not the first to say it. Turkey is not ready for the Union and the Union is not ready for Turkey.

Wait a moment, colleague Van den Eynde, because there will be another follow-up.

However, it cannot be intended to reject Turkey in its endeavor to ⁇ as much approximation as possible to the Union. Turkey is an important and friendly country with which we have good relations that we want to maintain. In addition, for decades, the Union has given Turkey the prospect of membership. If it is true that Turkey cannot join the EU, then the Union should maintain the best possible ties with this important partner.

Mrs. Muylle, you may have thought you would shock us by saying that the European Union should try to build the best relations with Turkey. However, we fully agree on this. Turkey is not in Europe.

I then complained that the Europe built here by the traditional parties is a tasteless, soulless and formless thing. Turkey is part of the aforementioned formlessness.

As a neighbor, however, I want to build the best relations with Turkey. At least we agree on that.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I never intended to shock you. After all, I know that it is almost impossible to do that.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to my decision.

The new government must be well aware of its place within the European Union. As a representative of a small and founding country of the European Union, the Belgian government has always occupied a special place. Not only was she acclaimed and often disguised for the sake of compromise readiness and institutional cutting-edge technology, which, however, works conflict-management. Also and above all, the Belgian government has always been vigilant to remain the engine of a European integration process, the basis of which is solidarity and justice.

Colleagues, the present treaty, which we will vote on tomorrow, is taking steps in the same direction. Our group will therefore approve the draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will not resume the discussion on the history of the establishment of the Lisbon Treaty because this has already been extensively discussed by previous colleagues.

The Lisbon Treaty is the treaty that replaces the legislative treaties of the European Union and thus replaces the rejected European Constitution. The amendments made are of such nature that the texts of the already existing treaties have been so confused that the whole is practically unreadable.

The treaty has the value of a constitution. This is a very important step in the expansion and integration of the European Union, but powers from the regional and national levels are transferred to the European level, undermining sovereignty in various areas.

It is remarkable that Belgium will be less difficult with its representation in the Council of Ministers. As a result, our country loses its power to stop or push through certain texts.

Given this profound impact of the Lisbon Treaty, a genuine information campaign is needed. This Convention will have a fundamental impact on the lives of European citizens, in particular by extending the co-decision procedure. Therefore, there is ⁇ a need for social support for these profound changes.

Our conclusion is that direct democracy is struck with feet. Our vision is that the Lisbon Treaty can only be ratified if the citizens can vote on it through a referendum. That is for us the most essential thing that cannot be carried out today. In addition, I would like to point out that colleagues in this hemisphere, who today are part of the current majority, previously shared our views on this issue.

The possibility of a public consultation is not offered today. Since this is essential for us, we will abstain tomorrow at the vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, tomorrow this House will vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Members of our Ecolo-Green Group! They are convinced Europeans. We are emotionally absolutely attached to the European idea and also rationally convinced of the need for greater cooperation, in order to tackle cross-border problems in an efficient way. But above all, we are Democrats and as Democrats we have very good reasons not to simply unanimously approve this Treaty. The Ecolo-Green group! We will vote in favour of this Treaty, but two Members of Parliament will abstain, because in this way we want to send a very critical signal, not only with regard to the content of this Treaty, but also with regard to the manner in which this Treaty is decided.

This is ⁇ not a treaty to be proud of, but it is the recycling product of what was the European Constitution in 2005. After negative referendums in France and the Netherlands, the term "constitution" was removed, the anthem was removed from the text, like the euro and a number of other European symbols, terms such as a European Foreign Minister and a European President. These things were removed from the treaty. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and Ireland do not have to adhere to the enhanced police and judicial cooperation. The United Kingdom has also obtained an opting-out for the yet very important Charter of Fundamental Rights. From a European federal perspective, which we absolutely support, this evolution is regrettable. Why Why ? Because it creates gaps in the common impact force of the Union.

Most of the other ingredients of the Constitution continue to be preserved, as I said before. This, unfortunately, also means that on social policy, taxation and foreign policy the unanimity is ⁇ ined. Colleagues, that means that the step towards a social Europe is still as big as before, still as big as at the time of the current Nice Treaty. Progress in those key policy areas will remain very difficult. As a social and progressive group, we can only regret that. A genuine European social security, minimum social standards and so on are issues that are now much more difficult to organize at European level.

But the EU can also act stronger thanks to Lisbon. That must also be said. In terms of energy and climate, for example, much will be possible, but the outcome of what will be possible is of course determined by policy, by politics, by political struggle, by struggle between different opinions.

The possibilities of close cooperation are also being expanded, which offers very much potential. More decisions are made by majority and less by consensus. The European Commission and the European Parliament will be given more power and weight in the European decision-making process. However, as always, it is up to the Member States, and therefore also to Belgium, to take advantage of these possibilities. I compare this Lisbon Treaty to a house. I compare the European Union to a house whose construction is done by the Member States, by the national governments that meet and decide what policies come out of.

We call on the new orange-blue-red government to start developing a powerful vision on Europe, a project that can secure the future of Europe as a solidary, sustainable, ecological project. It remains to be seen whether this government can transcend the internal quarrels, the community crackle, to put on the table a clear vision also with regard to Europe. After all, it is very necessary, we are there for a long time, not long.

The Lisbon Treaty is not a historical treaty. We must be able to admit that. For this reason, the progress is not too spectacular and the integration dynamics continue to be miles behind the expansion dynamics that have been much more explosive in recent years.

Above all, however, it is for us the decision-making process that strikes us against the chest. In 2005, the draft European Constitution was rejected by 55% of the French and 62% of the Dutch. The Constitution then went through the hammer moles, but many essential elements remained. However, anyone who now thinks that this new Lisbon Treaty will again be presented to the public opinion in France and the Netherlands is wrong. What has happened? The French were consulted and the Dutch were consulted. The result failed and now a wide turn around the public opinion is taking place. From a democratic point of view, this is rejectable. We strongly reject this. It is a mistake that the political elites do not want to make anymore. Both France and the Netherlands now opt for a parliamentary procedure. That is much safer and so unpleasant surprises are excluded. This demonstrates brutality. It is an arrogant mid-finger towards public opinion in those two countries. If you allow me, I will read a quote. “There was a referendum on the first draft treaty. Therefore, it is consistent to hold a referendum. If the government does not, then the people will probably think “what the ladies and gentlemen politicians have not managed through the front door, they do now through the back door. It will only increase Eurocynism.” This quote does not come from an ecologist, it does not come from a trade unionist, it does not come from the social civil society, this quote comes from Frits Bolkestein, former European Commissioner for the Internal Market. That is in this a completely unmistakable source that makes harsh criticism of the way this Lisbon Treaty came about.

And also in our own country, too much debate has been avoided, too much public participation. Ecologically green! has submitted here in this House a proposal for a resolution on the organization of a public consultation. After all, many people ask themselves questions about the direction, about the European project, about the way Europe is dealt with.

We should not make illusions. A European integration that is only promoted by politicians without the people being with them is a project that is doomed to failure. The gap between citizens and Europe is becoming far too big and this was the perfect time to take into account the public opinion and start the debate. From a democratic point of view, this is necessary. We could have built on more involvement with Europe but the orange-blue-red majority had no ears to it.

On page 35 of the government agreement, however, we read the following, I quote: “The government will emphasize the participation of citizens in the political process.” That sounds very beautiful but also very bitter if those words are not turned into actions. Our group – we are not people who want to give up – has submitted proposals to organise hearings. However, this question was also discarded. They did not intend to hold hearings. However, hearings could have been a way to engage civil society, ⁇ , trade unions, public opinion in the Convention. This has not happened, it has been rejected.

The reality is that this Treaty was persecuted at an increasing rate in this House and also in the Senate. In the Senate, the debate and voting took place over a period of only three days. Here in the Chamber there was a committee meeting with an explanation of ⁇ ten minutes by Minister Karel De Gucht. Well, today and tomorrow we are kindly but compellingly asked to approve this text. This is how the decision-making process in our country went.

Some colleagues complain stone and foot about the lack of parliamentary work. The truth is that this Parliament occasionally perpetuates its own powerlessness and organizes at times when we could indeed have liberated ourselves from the compulsory juke of the majority, in a period of interim governments and so on. Democracy implies debate and ⁇ with mature proposals and texts such as a new European treaty. Well, the political elites have done everything they can to chase this Lisbon Treaty through the pipelines of this Parliament without democratic debate and public opinion involvement. This will not be with us!

My Ecolo-Green group! refuses to simply move on to the agenda, as the majority of the factions here. Two members of Parliament will abstain from voting, I myself for the Greens! Zoé Genot for Ecolo. Our group calls on colleagues in the Chamber to do the same. Let us, in the voting on the Treaty, in all the groups with one or two abstentions, give a very critical signal of the European policy level and of the decision-making and approval process on the Treaty of Lisbon, in protest against the lack of democracy and action in Europe, in respect for the value of the social debate and in respect for the public opinion.

Meanwhile, we look forward to the day when the Union emerges from its shadow and yet dares to engage in the debate with the people. We look forward to the day when the Union will reach out to the people and explore ways to reduce the gap between Europe and its citizens.

It is of course necessary to ratify the Lisbon Treaty and the sooner this will be done, the better it will be! Why Why ? Because it is the only way we have today to get out of the institutional crisis that has blocked Europe for too many months. It is also because every progress at European level must be welcomed favorably.

As CDH and representatives of Christian democratic thought, we remain convinced that the European idea has all its reason to be and we always dream of a peaceful Europe and a prosperous Europe, of a Europe that takes all its place in the world and responds to the hopes that have been placed in it, not only by the citizens who live there, but also by all those who, from around the world, hope, look at it and sometimes see in it a political, economic or social alternative.

The new Treaty allows us to correct the imbalances of the Treaty of Nice. It safeguards the fundamental achievements of the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference. It strengthens the democratic legitimacy and institutional effectiveness of the Union. In short, as other speakers have already said, if the Treaty is not perfect, it at least has the merit of existing and it constitutes the best solution that Europe could hope in view of the situation that is now its own.

Our fellow citizens should know that the Treaty we are discussing today is a good treaty. We have to say it and repeat it.

It happens too often that the public opinion no longer knows what to think about the European idea, its evolution, especially institutional. Too often, Brussels seems today to be the source of a whole series of difficulties, ills or to be the source of a bad way of living. However, this idea has always aroused a lot of empathy in Belgium.

We must therefore be careful that this empathy does not leave room for disillusionment tomorrow. That is why it is the responsibility of politicians to present the European idea in such a way that our people truly appropriate it.

We have all received letters from collectives or associations that fundamentally question the Lisbon Treaty. It is clear that these letters, and especially in so far as they give a signal in favor of the need for a citizen debate on Europe, must appeal to us.

I am not convinced that it was not by bringing the opponents of the Treaty into a committee that we would have advanced this civil debate. Rather, by going to meet the citizens who, today, are lost, by explaining to them the challenges, we will truly fulfill the work that is ours. We should not abandon this whole field of public opinion which, in the absence of vigorous and enthusiastic actions on our part in favor of Europe, could be recovered by others for other purposes or for rejection – which would be worse – of the European idea with which we have been living for more than sixty years.

Furthermore, bringing Europe closer to the citizen is probably our first task. This is an extensive program. Romano Prodi said: “Once Europe is made” – I don’t know if one day one can say that it is definitively completed – “We will have to make Europeans.” This is the fundamental idea. The CDH believes that this proximity with the citizen is not played in random popular consultations. Instead, it comes with original solutions. There are two, for example, in the new Treaty that we are proposing: publicity of debates in the Council and, even better, the right of citizen initiative. It’s hard to imagine that tomorrow, on the whole population of the European Union, one million signatures will be enough for those who ask for the debate by a petition to be sure that this debate will be held at the level of the Parliament.

The Lisbon Treaty also brings another change. Many speakers have mentioned it. This is the establishment of the subsidiarity control that is to be exercised by the national parliaments and in our country by the federal entities. This is a role, and it is a new, essential element, which will also allow us politicians to appropriate the European debate to ourselves and to better replicate it to our fellow citizens.

Our role and purpose will not be to interfere with the European institutions in their initiatives but, on the contrary, to enable us to put on the agenda of our committee meetings in particular the presentation and study of European directives or regulations. We will also need to mark in our parliamentary work the willingness to really enroll us in this perspective. The role of Europromotors in this regard, within each of our committees, will be fundamental. This is how we will see the interest and importance that we say we want to give to the European dimension of our work.

It has also been noted that the Lisbon Treaty has its shortcomings. In particular, let us mention what is harm, namely the exemption granted to the United Kingdom and Poland with regard to the binding effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Fortunately, this type of exemption is, in principle, temporary. Therefore, we must also count on the training effect that the European dynamics must produce. Even today, the scope of the special status granted to Poland and the United Kingdom is uncertain. Certain rights enshrined in the Charter are recognised by other international instruments which apply to all Member States. Other elements could be considered by the Court of Justice of Luxembourg as general principles of European law, which will also apply to all Member States, regardless of their freelance.

Institutional, we know that in Europe, there is no obvious and easy solution. We are well placed to know. The same principle applies at the European level.

On the institutional level, it is true that if the reform of the voting by qualified majority is a good thing, one can consider that the time taken to accomplish it, the various exemptions, the particular modalities are elements to be placed obviously on account of the difficulty of allowing some to move forward, but can also be considered as so many steps forward accomplished to allow us to go on the path that we want to follow.

I look forward, as a group, to the creation of this President of the European Council who will have the opportunity to carry out a long-term work in time. I am also pleased, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, that you have let it be heard and that the Prime Minister has also taken this argument on his behalf that it will be necessary to ensure that the next – in any case the first – President of this Council is a convinced President of the European Union and not a discounted European; for me, this implies a president from a country that adheres to all of the European policies and not someone who uses the card, depending on personal choices or national choices he represents. We need a truly convinced European, that is, coming from one of those countries that adhere to all European policies.

We will also see tomorrow what will be the capacity for political action of a Commission reduced to 18 members. This seems to be the right way to act effectively, but we’ll see what happens with time. Will the power of the Commission, the driving body of the Union, be reduced or increased? We will appreciate it with time.

In the same spirit, we obviously welcome the appointment of a High Representative, with the rank of Vice-President of the Commission, who will have the essential task of unifying our foreign policy and being the indispensable link for Europe, finally, to speak as regularly as possible with one voice on the international stage. This is where many await us; this is where we have a lot to give.

We also do not deny certain cases that annoy, such as the Bolkestein Directive, fortunately corrected in its course, the Television Without Borders Directive, inappropriately amended last year to allow more frequent interruptions for advertising. In short, some elements still need to be improved in institutional functioning as well as in EU policies.

In my opinion, we should ⁇ also explain to our fellow citizens that these particular cases are not linked to the texts themselves of the European treaties, and ⁇ not to the Treaty that we will ratify tomorrow, I hope, but on the contrary, cases that are more the result of the confrontation of the political forces that establish themselves at the European level.

On this point, I think it is important to insist: with a European Parliament today competent on the vast majority of matters and a Council of Ministers competent on all of them, it is very clear that Europe will be and will finally become what our political choices will make of it.

The Treaty we will ratify is an instrument that will enable the implementation of policies. These policies will be made by the elected members, European parliamentarians, ministers sitting in the Council and commissioners at the Commission level. They are the ones who will make sure that there is a Europe of the left, the right, or the center. In any case, the one I call my wishes.

In other words, this means that the Treaty is somehow painless, insofar as it does not impose any direction. It is based on what politicians and politicians will decide to do with this instrument, using it in the service of the policies they decide, that we will be able to advance this Europe that we call our wishes.

This also leads us to have to accept that, sometimes, the national interests of Belgium are put aside in order to conform to this common and predominant European will. This is the qualified majority. If we call it our will, we will also sometimes have to accept that it applies to our country and our federal entities. Some have spoken in a very special way on this subject. For my part and for my group, we are convinced that what may sometimes appear to be discomfort at times will, on the contrary, be the benefits of our participation in the Union. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the objective is to continue in this peaceful and prosperous Europe both for itself, for its citizens but also for the citizens of the world who have the gaze turned to our capacity to bring about an alternative vision of how to live together, to do politics, social and economic. My colleague, David Lavaux, will speak in the second round on these different points.

At this point, I say to you, Mr. President, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, that the “yes” of the CDH will be an unreserved “yes” of conviction, bearer of the European idea and which requires only to be able to be enthusiastic again so that this idea advances and goes as far as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, dear, courageous colleagues, it is a boutade to say that the Lisbon Treaty has been a difficult birth. It was a heavy six-year birth whose conception began in 2001 with the Laeken Declaration and which ended with the birth of the Lisbon Treaty on 13 December 2007.

The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to make the European Union a powerful and efficient organization that can better cope with the challenges of the 21st century. Europeans demand that we, as policymakers, have something in our hands to address global challenges. Global challenges include globalization, climate change, demographic shifts, security and energy. It is our view that the desire for more European action is reflected in the equation embodied by the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty gives Europe more tools to meet the legitimate expectations of European citizens. This was the great challenge faced at the time of the Laeken Declaration: to what extent is Europe still attractive to contemporary man; how to restore content and perspective to the European project. Let us not forget that Europe must always be supported from below. Without this support, Europe cannot become a core player in creating a stronger economy, a better quality of life and a space of security and security.

It should be my heart that it disturbs us that the Lisbon Treaty has become a virtually unreadable text, except for specialists. With disappointment, I therefore capture the paradox between the clear, clear text of the Constitution, which was shot down and replaced by a dragon of a text. I have a good understanding of the text form. That is regrettable.

Given the often cited gap with the citizen, that is not a good thing at all. It is already very difficult to explain to the citizens the functioning of Europe. The majority of citizens are not specialists in the European Union. However, it is preferable to those for whom the treaty was written. I dare here with certainty and with certainty not claim that the more readable or understandable the text, the greater the chance of rejection.

More than looking at the format of the text, we must ask ourselves whether the Lisbon Treaty is an improvement to the existing European treaties and whether Europe is helping forward. The European Constitution may have a number of major imperfections, including its name, but the advantages of the constitutional treaty have been translated into the Lisbon Treaty.

The Union will become more transparent and efficient. Lisbon will enhance the impact and democratic content of the European Union.

As Flemish nationalists, we therefore find it positive that the following points were incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty.

The first point is respect for the national identity, the internal division of powers and the territorial organisation of the Member States, including respect for local and regional self-government.

The second point concerns the promotion of territorial cohesion as one of the objectives of the Union, while respecting the diversity of languages and cultures as one of its central principles.

Mr. Van den Eynde is no longer here, but I would like to say to the colleagues of the Flemish Interest that we share their concern for a Europe that would turn into a united shell and for the grey Europe, which we all fear.

We believe that this paragraph addresses the above-mentioned concerns. It is now up to the Member States and the policymakers to fulfill the paragraph.

Third, the strengthening of the functioning of the Committee of the Regions. The committee’s advisory powers will be expanded. It will also have legal access to the Court of Justice to defend its privilege. Regional interests will therefore be given more attention in the European Union. These developments are important to ensure that regions have their own voice in Europe, at a time when different positions are discussed at the European negotiating table.

Note: For us, the Committee of the Regions cannot be the real alternative for European sub-states who are eager for greater independence, so that in the long run, as independent Member States, they can take their rightful place in Europe.

Fourth, strengthening the role of national parliaments in the Union, including through the strengthening of the principle of subsidiarity. This is, of course, a very positive thing. I will return to the point later.

Fifth, the European Union acquires single legal personality. The formal and complicated pillar structure created by the Maastricht Treaty ceases to exist.

Sixth, there is the limitation of the number of European Commissioners. This also improves decision-making and efficiency. Diversity in the European Union is extremely important. However, the organization must remain active. The above-mentioned decision is a step in the right direction. In my opinion, agreements should be made on the future rotation of EU Commissioners, for example in the context of the Benelux.

Seventh, the number of regions eligible for a qualified majority is expanded and the system of qualified majority voting is adapted.

Eighth is the simplification of the current system of the existing legislative procedure. The co-decision procedure becomes the general rule. This will greatly strengthen the legislative role of the European Parliament. With a few exceptions, all European legislative acts must be approved by the Council and Parliament. At the budget level, Parliament is also fully involved.

Finally, as a ninth point, the soul of Europe is indeed in the Treaty, the anchoring of the Union as a community of values. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has the same legal force as the existing treaties. Human rights thus acquire a central place in the European integration process.

Mr. Minister, I have deliberately limited myself in my list to a few points. However, it should be clear: in terms of values, powers and decision-making, the European Union is making great progress. Institutional and procedural reforms will improve the efficiency of decision-making in the long run. Our conclusion is that the Lisbon Treaty is a step in the right direction. The treaty is a comparison that can break the European impasse. Europe simply must not miss the train of globalization.

Understand us well, the Lisbon Treaty is just a step. Our support for Lisbon does not imply that for us the house we call Europe is gone. The Lisbon Treaty is not perfect. The treaty should have paid more attention to the role of other political entities than the Member States. We would have greatly appreciated it if, for example, the Communities and the Regions had been granted direct access to the Court of Justice and that, on the contrary, they could also have been directly addressed by that Court. The existing system of European decision-making, which only takes into account States, is not sufficiently adapted to the structure of some Member States of the Union. You, Mr. Minister, could take the lead in this regard for the regions that are facing similar problems but are not sufficiently supported by their national governments.

Progress is also to be made in other areas. The introduction of the double majority and the abolition of the vote weight simplifies the European decision-making process, but at the same time complicates the pursuit of the so-called split vote. In other words, one vote will still be reserved for each Member State, which cannot be divided between the provinces. The Communities and the Regions therefore remain obliged to work hard together to reach compromises in matters for which they have exclusive competence. This situation undeniably affects the acquired autonomy of our Communities and Regions. When a compromise is not possible, it remains for Belgium and the respective regions only the option to refrain, which we do not consider as positive.

For us, also the coordination of regional policy at European level should have been a little more anchored. For example, the recognition of the Committee of the Regions as a full-fledged institution is not included in the Convention. The Committee remains only an advisory body.

Mr. Van den Eynde, there are other options between for and against votes. One can also try to work and try to improve things.

Finally, let me return to the intention of the Lisbon Treaty to strengthen the dialogue between Europe and the national parliaments. As stated above, the role of the Regions and Communities in the Lisbon Treaty is still too limited for us. However, the review of the principle of subsidiarity, in which the national parliaments should play a major role, already gives us a great responsibility. It is therefore essential that the participating entities of that country are able to fully carry out that task. In order to enable this, Belgium, at the time of signature of the Convention, indicated in a unilateral declaration that both the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the Parliaments of the Communities and Regions, act as components of the national parliamentary system, in accordance with the powers exercised by the European Union. This means that the Communities and the Regions should also be entitled to object in the context of the simplified review procedure and the subsidiarity test, as regards their competences.

However, the Council of State says it is not sure that the declaration, which Belgium has made within the European legal order, is effective. In other words, it is questionable whether the European institutions assume that the legislative assemblies of the Belgian subsidiary entities fall within the national parliamentary system. However, a cooperation agreement on this subject and the adaptation of the Special Act of 8 August 1980 have not yet been reached. The legal certainty that the Communities and Regions of this country can exercise the rights conferred on them by the Constitution is therefore currently not available.

This situation, Mr. Minister, is at least unfortunate. The declaration made by Belgium on the national parliamentary system is knutselwork. No one knows who approved that statement. Furthermore, it has no legal value, which means that it does not have to be followed. This ratification therefore demonstrates that this country does not take too much account of the institutional framework and does not show enough respect for the distribution of powers under our federal system.

After all, we approve a treaty here, without first bringing the internal kitchen in order. As far as we are concerned, the internal kitchen should have been in order before we would ratify this convention. After all, the proper functioning of our counties depends on a well-developed internal structure. In any case, the government and Parliament still have a lot of work to do if we want to make the treaty legally fully effective at the domestic level, according to the federal system, outlined in our Constitution. I know that you, Mr. Minister, have said in the Committee on Foreign Affairs that the powers conferred on national parliaments under the Lisbon Treaty must be exercised internally. Now, we call on the parties concerned to take the necessary steps to do so and we expressly ask the Government whether it is indeed willing to respond to the comments of the State Council concerning the necessary amendments to the Special Act on Institutional Reform and concerning the conclusion of a cooperation agreement on the simplified review procedure and the representation of Communities and Regions in the European Council.

With all that said, for us, the Lisbon Treaty is an instrument. It is not a project in itself. This agreement is undoubtedly a step forward, but there is still work to do in the store. Panta rhei, as Heraclitus already declared at that time: everything is in motion. The Lisbon Treaty is only the basis for future reforms. We are ready to work constructively on this.

Ladies and gentlemen, all the political parties took the floor. I have three speakers in a possible second round. Either I give the three speakers the word now and you speak at the end, or you take the word now, as you prefer it yourself.

The speakers are Mr Lavaux and the ladies Colen and De Bont. I assume that they will all speak briefly so that we can close the debate at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is obviously an important political fact and constitutes an event that the Democratic Humanist Centre welcomes. The face of Europe of tomorrow is drawn. If my colleague Christian Brotcorne convinced us of the necessity of proximity between Europe and the citizen, I will, for my part, highlight the progress made by the Treaty of Lisbon with regard to certain policies carried out by the European institutions. It is through its achievements and its ambitions that Europe justifies itself. So, what are the new prospects opened by this Lisbon Treaty?

I will focus my intervention on only two points, but two fundamental points: the social dimension of the Union and the conduct of its external relations.

In the words of Jacques Delors: “I reject a Europe that would be merely a market, a zone of free trade without soul, without conscience, without political will, without a social dimension. If this is the way we go, I’ll shout an alarm.”

It cannot be denied that in the past, market and free competition have often been at the forefront of European policies. Today, the last treaties, and especially the Lisbon Treaty, operate a certain re-balance towards the social. There are new ambitions. For the first time, the concept of social market economy has been incorporated in primary law. More specifically, it can be read that Europe works for a highly competitive social market economy, which tends to full employment and social progress. The Treaty also recalls that the Union fights social exclusion, promotes social justice and protection, equality between men and women, solidarity between generations and the protection of children’s rights. These objectives should not remain a dead letter. Through the horizontal social clause, introduced during the Intergovernmental Conference of 2004, at the request of Belgium, the Union must now take into account the above objectives in the definition and implementation of all its policies.

The Lisbon Treaty also recognises, as an important point, the importance of the dialogue between the social partners that the Union must promote and facilitate. The practice of the tripartite social summit, which brings together the social partners, the representatives of the current presidency and those of the two subsequent presidencies, is explicitly recognized.

In the field of social security, measures related to the free movement of workers will now be able to be adopted, not only for the benefit of salaried workers but also for self-employed workers.

Finally, in the field of public services, EU law will be enriched by a new Protocol on services of general interest. This Protocol emphasizes the essential role and the wide range of maneuver of national, regional and local authorities in the provision, commissioning and organization of services of general economic interest.

Member States therefore retain a wide autonomy in the organisation of their public services.

I would now like to highlight the clarifications made by the Lisbon Treaty on foreign policy, first of all, to welcome the fact that Lisbon turns the page of the duality Community/Union. Other speakers before me emphasized this.

More fundamentally, it is necessary to highlight the objectives of the Union’s external action, which are now laid on paper.

In its relations with the world, the Union contributes to peace, security, sustainable development, free and fair trade, as well as to the strict observance and development of international law, including respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. This referral to the United Nations system seems to us welcome, at a time when NATO is looking for a new strategic concept.

The common foreign and security policy will be more harmoniously integrated into all actions outside the Union. The appointment of a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Common Security Policy is at the heart of this development.

This High Representative will be part of both the Commission and the Council. He will be a member of the Commission while presiding over the Council on Foreign Affairs and will have a right of own initiative.

In terms of defence policy, the Lisbon Treaty allows those who wish to go even further. This additional step will take the form of a permanent structured cooperation, open to any member who undertakes, from the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, to intensify the development of its defence capabilities.

This is an important political choice for Belgium.

Do we want to be part of this permanent structured cooperation? Are we ready to significantly increase our military budget for this? We do not have to answer this question today, but we will ⁇ have this debate very soon.

Finally, it is clear that external relations form a whole. They also consist of a common trade policy, development cooperation. I will not detail all the changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty, it would be too long. However, I would like to point out that a specific legal basis will be inserted for humanitarian aid. The same provision emphasizes that a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps will be created, which is also an innovation not to be neglected in the long list of beautiful projects that are included in this Lisbon project, which we will therefore heartily defend here in the House, but which we will also have to defend with each of our fellow citizens.

I would like to start with a quote. “Europe is like a religion. You are a follower, and therefore a believer, or you are not. Those who are critical of that faith are regarded as apostates, as in the Church, and there is obviously no place for heretics.” This is a quote by Johan Vande Lanotte from De Morgen of 21 October 2003.

However, Europe is not a religion that leaves man the freedom to choose whether to join or not. In 2005, both France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution by referendum. This Constitution has just been rewritten, only the chapters have been confused a little.

Nobody denies that, by the way. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the author of the Constitution, says that the Lisbon Treaty contains all the key elements of the Constitution. German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the content of the constitution remains ⁇ ined. European Commissioner Margot Wallström says that this proposal is essentially the same as the old constitution. These are just a few statements.

This is an unheard of brutal maneuver. A text is subject to a referendum and rejected by the population, and is simply submitted again some time later, this time without allowing referendums.

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, the then President of the European Council, had already announced it in May 2005, just before the French referendum. He said, “If the answer is yes, we go on. If the answer is no, we will continue.”

The European elite, which pretends to know better than the people, but fails to explain it to the people, last year decided not to allow a referendum. Ireland alone cannot do otherwise because its constitution obliges to hold a referendum. Considering the elevation on that island at the time of the Treaty of Nice, it is clear that this referendum is also rather a technical formality. If the Irish say no, they will be obliged to hold a new referendum until they say yes.

The year 2007, the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, will go into history as the year in which all EU member states give up their national sovereignty in favor of the army of Eurocrats in Brussels which does not seem to be burdened by the prevailing democratic deficit. Their transparent end goal – a new superstate – and their little hidden means – the totalitarian truck box – are known.

Anyone who has concerns about all this is accused of not being a good European. He is a heretic for the new European religion.

We do not want an undemocratic Europe. In fact, in order to maintain free trade and friendship with all peoples, one does not need the idle visions of a small group of self-proclaimed social educators about a European defence, a European diplomatic service, a European tax scale, a European labour law and other concepts that originate in the new Treaty.

Europe has, in its own words, listened to the aspirations of the European citizens. Therefore, these citizens do not need a second referendum according to the Brussels Eurocracy. The European Union has now become a lie. Europe is an undemocratic construction that seeks to destroy the old European national states.

Even economically, the political union offers few additional benefits. The massive subsidy as an example of emerging economies in Eastern Europe is facing justified criticism in the West. That will not change with a political union.

Of the one hundred and eighty-nine countries in the world, including Kosovo, only ten openly deny being a democracy. These include Swaziland, Bhutan, Vatican City and seven monarchies around the Persian Gulf. Even China, Belarus, Cuba and Zimbabwe are officially living as democracies.

While the number of democracies increases year after year, real democracy is in danger. The danger lies in him here in Brussels, where Europe simply imposes its will on the Europeans, while taking the Europeans control of their own fate.

Guy Verhofstadt once wrote blatant texts about the referendum. It is not because Verhofstadt now rejects his own words that he was not right then.

The Lisbon Treaty finally puts Europe on the trail of a technocratically-led superstate which fundamentally undermines the sovereignty of the Member States.

The text itself is an unreadable labyrinth of twelve protocols, thirty-nine attached statements and three hundred and fourteen articles. The unreadability must disguise how profound the content is.

The Treaty of Lisbon gives the European Union the constitution of a federal state. It thus creates a new legal entity, a new European Union that is very different from what we now call the EU. The new EU has the constitutional form of a supranational federal state that exists next to and above its member states, in the same way that, for example, the Federal Republic of Germany stands next to and above Bavaria, or the USA stands next to and above California.

In the new Union, the European Commission will be able to take decisions that automatically bind all Member States for all areas of competence. It will have almost all the characteristics of a fully developed state. This change in the character of the EU is achieved by the Lisbon Treaty in three legal steps.

A new EU will be established, having its own legal personality and existing for the first time as a separate entity of the Member States. The Treaty removes the distinction made in the two existing European Treaties between the supranational and intergovernmental pillars, resulting in the new Union having the possibility to exercise all state power through a uniform constitutional structure.

The Treaty makes us all actual citizens of this new union and not just citizens in name, as has been so far. A state must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a state, not of a community or cooperative association. In fact, residents of the EU countries will now be citizens, both of the EU and of their national state. From the establishment of a federal European state as stated in the Treaty, it follows that citizens are obliged to obey the laws of that state and to submit to the authority of that state. This duty will take precedence over the duties of citizens to their own country, as the authority of the new EU takes precedence over the authority of the Member States.

All this is something that we as Flames reject. Flanders want to become a full-fledged sovereign state and have their own voice in the concert of nations. It does not want to become a state of Europe, as it is now a state of Belgium. After all, it makes no sense to exchange one Brussels for another Brussels that is an even larger moloch, which goes even further from the 6 million Flamingen and deprives us of our right, the right of every people to be the boss in our own home.

After all, the Lisbon Treaty will also strengthen the small European peoples. This applies not only to Flanders, but also to Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and the Baltic states, all countries that are much more democratic than the big countries because the government is much closer to the people.

There is a lot of talk about subsidiarity. The Lisbon Treaty acknowledges this in its name, but what do we see in reality? The Treaty gives greater power in number of votes to the major member states. The new system of a double majority for the adoption of EU laws by the Council of Ministers states that the majority is delivered by at least 15 Member States and 65% of the EU population. This makes the number of inhabitants the most important criterion and places the major states, especially Germany with its 80 million inhabitants, in a much stronger position than a country with only a few million inhabitants.

That may be the rule in real federal states, so not in Belgium where the Flemish majority is systematically minimized. However, we do not want a federal Europe in which we, as a small nation, will be empowered by the big ones. The European Commission will automatically consult the larger countries in advance of its legislative proposals, because it is aware that smaller countries are constantly being voted against. In the future, the most populous countries, Germany and France, will be able to block any EU law or directive if they can persuade two or three small or less large countries to agree with them. Thus, the big ones get a de facto veto right as it is today, but the small ones do not, while they still have it today. The question then is: why do the big ones have more rights than the small ones? Why can they come to us to impose their will, but we do not come to them? We are small, we are only a few million against 82 million Germans and 60 million French, but we attach to our independence, to our freedom, to our sovereignty. We do not want Paris and Berlin to be the service here. That is why we reject a European superstate.

With the Lisbon Treaty it is no longer the case that every country has the right to a permanent EU Commissioner. It is true that the big states also lose their right to a permanent commissioner, but they have other means of exercising influence on the Commission where all EU legislation is proposed. Until now, it has always been assumed that it was especially important for the smaller states to have an EU Commissioner. For small countries, the loss of that Commissioner means a much greater loss than for the large Member States. In addition, the national government also loses the right to decide who becomes the commissioner. This is decided in the Lisbon Treaty by voting, allowing a special majority of 20 out of 27 prime ministers or presidents representing 65% of the EU population to designate someone from a list of suggestions. It is no longer about proposals of candidates by Member States.

The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Union the power to dictate laws or make decisions in 68 new policy areas where the Union had no competence so far. In these 68 policy areas, the right of veto of the Member States is abolished. In 49 of these areas, the EU obtains a legal basis for legislative action and in 19 others, the existing system of legislation is replaced by legislation by majority by unanimous vote. These new areas include civil law, criminal law, justice and police, immigration, public services, energy, transport, tourism, space, sport, civil protection, public health and the EU budget.

In certain areas of foreign policy, the decision is implemented by a majority.

This expansion of the EU’s power immediately also means a significant increase in the personal power of the 27 national politicians sitting in the Council of Ministers. It allows them to make even more laws behind closed doors that bind 500 million Europeans, while withdrawing power from the citizens and the national parliaments who elect these politicians and who so far made the laws for their own countries.

Within each Member State, this shift of power to the EU also leads to a shift of power away from the legislative branch of the government to the executive branch. This further undermines democracy within the Member States.

The treaty also gives greater powers to the unelected Commission in Brussels, which has the monopoly to propose European legislation to the Council of Ministers. The Commission will be assigned many new policy areas for which new legislation can be generated.

The Treaty also gives the EU the ultimate power to decide what the rights of Europeans are. Our civil and human rights in all areas of European law are finally defined by the EU. This also applies to the directives transposed into national law, which already constitute the largest proportion of new laws introduced annually in the Member States.

The rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights become binding for all Member States. As a result, it is the 27 judges of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg who have the last word in many areas on what our rights are and no longer the state’s own Supreme Court, nor the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The latter is not an EU court, but depends on the Council of Europe. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is further removed from the citizens. The procedures are more expensive and it becomes more difficult for citizens to secure their rights.

As the Lisbon Treaty grants the new federal EU state jurisdiction over human rights, it will only be a matter of time for the Commission to issue laws to safeguard and implement those rights and ensure that they are applied uniformly in all EU Member States.

This is the case with all other treaties. National legislation must be applied in a way that is consistent with EU law, because if there is a conflict between the two, then EU laws have priority.

That principle will also apply in respect of rights, resulting in collisions between the standards and standards used for rights and sensitive matters, which are now very different between Member States. These may include rules on testimony in court, the rules of jury, censorship, the legalization of drugs and prostitution, rights associated with state churches and religions, conscientious objection, military service, the right to life, euthanasia, inheritance, property, family law, the rights of children and the elderly. Each nation can then determine its own laws, but through the EU it will all be equalized.

The Lisbon Treaty can be self-amending and self-empowering. The EU institutions will be empowered to amend the Treaty on their own and to grant themselves more powers. In various places, the Convention contains circumvention clauses called “passages” or “ratchet clauses” that allow, for example, to replace the unanimity rule with a majority by voting.

This is the case for eight domains and in a simplified review procedure, which allows treaties to be amended by a decision of the EU ministers and presidents without requiring new treaties or ratifications.

Can I ask you to slowly finish?

I almost did.

The national parliaments are given a veto right on the application of the system, but the citizens are not given a word at all because there are no referendums to be held on the exercise of the veto right.

Finally, the national parliaments are given a new role by this system. The Treaty provides that if one-third of national parliaments object to an EU law proposed by the Commission, the Commission must review that proposal. Proponents welcome this as a significant role that national parliaments can play in the new structure. This is only a poor compensation for the fact that parliaments are losing their power over legislation and decisions on the 68 policy areas that are being transferred to the EU level.

Today, 75% of national regulations already come from the EU. In the future, more power will be transferred, but the supporters of the Treaty argue that parliaments will continue to play a meaningful role. How can one retain his power if one gives it away?

In our national parliaments we have seen for several decades how the power of the parliaments – in other words, the legislative power – was usurped by the governments, the executive power. We know from experience how we, as parliamentarians, are in fact degraded to the voting machine that should bear what the government decides.

Europe, the European Union, has degenerated into a cartel of governments. In the European Council, representatives of national governments meet and already pass the lion’s portion of legislation through the EU. Europe becomes an institutionalized mechanism allowing governments to impose decisions on each other with all of them on the 27 national parliaments without having to directly seek their approval. Until now, however, each of those governments had a veto and the areas in which Europe could decide were still limited to some extent.

The Lisbon Treaty abolishes that, subjects the small countries to the dictatorship of the big, and delicately expands the areas over which Europe gets control.

We are making ourselves completely powerless and superfluous in this Parliament, yet we are the representatives of the nation. That is why we say: no, Lisbon, no, in the name of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, I will be slightly narrower as a red lantern carrier, but I am glad that you have allowed my colleague to speak, because I think that the other side of the European medal should also be shown.

In fact, it was a little hallucinating that one wanted to deal with this subject, which, however, cannot be regarded as futility, merely on a drafte, between the twists of government formation. I am proud that our group has forced a debate. I also want to use my time.

I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, that what is now called a constitution in 2004 and 2005 was called a constitution. Some regret that it is no longer so called. Well, Mr. Speaker, a constitution is not a vodje paper, which is serious. He is the foundation of our society and therefore it would also be normal that our society is known in it and that it is carried by our society.

Outside this hemisphere, there are very few people and associations who know and realize what we are doing today. It is also our intention, as colleague Di Rupo wanted, that the public be informed of what we are discussing here in Parliament.

For strategic reasons, the Reform Treaty is now no longer referred to as a constitution and other symbolic issues, which had already been included in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, have been omitted. However, as several colleagues have already cited, what appears now is approximately 98 percent equivalent to what was rejected by the citizen in 2005 both in the Netherlands and in France.

There is an important difference. In this I must contradict my friend and colleague Van den Eynde. There is a difference between this proposal and the previous one. The previous proposal was, in fact, a readable text, in which a soup mixer has now been introduced, making it much more difficult to find out what is actually all in it.

I also want to admit that there are positive points in it, of course. There are measures to enable the enlarged Europe to work more efficiently. The European Parliament is given a little more power, which is of course also positive, and even the national parliaments are given a little more participation, including in connection with the principle of subsidiarity, which now even – as Minister De Gucht has read in the committee – could be enforced under certain conditions.

However, we should not make illusions about this. The thresholds for the national parliaments to be able to effectively influence have been consciously kept high, on the insistence of Belgium. Furthermore, the legal control that can be carried out is difficult, as a legal control over whether or not the subsidiarity principle is applied is difficult. This depends on a political judgment, which a court is not capable of.

Moreover, the time given to national parliaments to bow down and worry about Europe is very limited. This is what we are facing today too. I would like to contribute to colleague Ducarme. There is an urgent need for us to take certain measures here in this Parliament in order to better grasp our responsibilities toward Europe. We must assume our responsibility to the extent that it is permitted to us, but we think it is permitted to us too little. It cannot be recognized at all that this reform treaty, which appears to have to be implemented urgently in order to manage the enlarged Europe efficiently, is actually a further exploitation of the sovereignty of the Member States, in the interest of efficiency. Efficiency is one point, democracy and the will of the voters are another point.

Our group believes that we cannot simply transfer the confidence that the voter has given us at the federal level to another level without knowing the voter. The voter did not give us this permission.

The [...]

And rightly! You don’t think so, but I don’t let it intimidate me. That is your opinion, but not my opinion. Democracy is not respected by Europe. Europe was hardly a theme in the previous national elections. This is precisely why not only the Ecolo-Groen!, but also our group already submitted a bill at the end of last year to organize a popular council. Of course, the urgency of this bill was not accepted, as probably the bill itself would be laughed at very loudly.

However, we are absolutely of the opinion that only a popular consultation can provide sufficient democratic support to this yet quite important and substantial bill, which we are discussing today. A poll in the Financial Times shows that 75% of the Spanish, 71% of the Germans, 69% of the British, 68% of the Italians and, Mr Flahaux, also 64% of the French are in favor of a referendum on this treaty.

In fact, the Treaty of Lisbon entails a significant transfer of competence from national states to Europe.

I will not repeat on which level there is a delegation of powers. You know that a lot of powers have been added where the veto right no longer applies, but where it is decided by a qualified majority. As of 2014, the European Commission will also have as many members as two-thirds of the number of Member States. This means that from that point on, each country will have no representative in the European Commission for every three periods. We Flammers know what it is to not be able to represent ourselves.

New is also that the European Union will have a kind of president who will lead the meetings of heads of state and government. It will also be able to develop its own decision-making circuit. There is no Foreign Minister. The position was given a different name, in particular a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union.

All this will undoubtedly lead to a shift of power from the small to the big Member States. With the aforementioned transfer, we give up a large part of our sovereignty, just at a time when we would at least, supported by the Flemish voters, much rather ensure a transfer of power in the other direction, namely to the Communities. As long as Flanders are not independent, it can in any case with the present treaty forget to represent itself directly on the European level through a split vote.

We do not want misunderstandings about this – I see you already thinking –: we are also Europeans. We are fully aware that Europe has an important role to play, as Mr. De Croo pointed out.

I would like to take a look at the spirit of Europe. We also know that Europe may be at the base of the fact that our generation, fortunately, was not directly confronted with the misery of a war, of which we are of course not a supporter. For this purpose we did not have to dismantle the national states. On the contrary, more and more national states have been added. It is the past period, precisely in the states where the peoples were forced to live within one political structure that created most problems and most bloody conflicts.

We are also Europeans. We are not European federalists. We are European confederates. The reform treaty presented here is ultimately a step towards the United States of Europe. You may love that concept; that is your right. We do not like it. We do not even know the borders of the United States. Will Europe remain, or will it, without the participation of the citizens, become Eurasia? All this is best possible. Indeed, the borders of Europe are not referred to in the present treaty, which we finally find a missed opportunity.

I decide . With regard to a number of problems that need to be addressed at a cross-border level, it is absolutely necessary to ⁇ better coordination within Europe. This, however, cannot be done at the expense of the democracy we stand for. We cannot take a step towards a super-state Europe without the residents’ involvement. Our democracy should not be that we as politicians decide what is good for the people without consulting the people themselves. As I have already said in the committee, there are DDR practices. If the reform treaty is considered so fantastic by the united majority, it cannot be so difficult to convince the people and involve them.

In any case, we are absolutely not yet convinced that the ordinary Flame is becoming better socially, culturally and economically than the treaty discussed here today. Multinational companies will be better off. This is not wrong in itself because they must ultimately provide for a portion of the employment. However, there are very few guarantees that their benefit will benefit the individual Flaming we are supposed to represent. That is why our group will not support the adoption of the treaty. I thank you.

I think everyone has been able to speak now. I have just received an amendment from Mrs. De Maght, Mr. Dedecker and Mr. Van de Velde. Ms. De Maght has promised to explain this very briefly.

I will keep the word and keep it very brief.

We concluded today that the pain point that runs like a red thread through this whole discussion – and that is essential for our group – is that European citizens are not involved in the decision-making about this treaty.

Therefore, we considered it necessary to submit, in the last instance, yet another amendment in which we very explicitly ask for an article 2a to be added to the consent text – it is a draft legislation agreeing with the Treaty of Lisbon and not a description of it – with the description that before ratification, a public consultation is held on the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community and with the Final Act made in Lisbon on 13 December 2007. In this case, yes or no must be answered to the following, only question: can the House of Representatives approve the bill approving the Lisbon Treaty? All persons referred to in Article 1 of the Electoral Code are entitled to vote in this referendum and the procedure of the referendum is regulated by law.

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. It is the result of a long exercise that was not always obvious in politics.

When the Constitutional Treaty was not feasible for a number of national-political reasons, there was discouragement in the European political ranks. It was like a ship had to find its course again. This has taken a long time. That happened just at a time when the sea, in this case the world, became increasingly turbulent.

Today we can find a balance. The Lisbon Treaty makes the European Union more democratic, more efficient and more transparent. You will undoubtedly remember that these were the three major key stones of the Laken Declaration which laid out the beacons for the further European floor.

Dear colleagues, I have to admit that one of these objectives was, unfortunately, altered along the way. Transparency has been “victimized”.

The Constitutional Treaty presented itself, in fact, as a single treaty aimed at replacing existing treaties. The response to the concerns expressed in France and the Netherlands was to present the Lisbon Treaty as an amending treaty, therefore inaccessible.

The innovations brought by the Constitutional Treaty are thus incorporated through multiple amendments to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has been renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This change of method makes the Lisbon Treaty completely unreadable. In order to understand this, it is enough to go through the text even distractedly.

The Constitutional Treaty introduced various elements that contributed to the visualization of the European political project. These elements were abandoned. These are symbols such as the mention of the flag, the anthem, the currency and the currency. However, these symbols continue to exist and 16 Member States, including Belgium, have also reiterated their commitment to them.

A terminology considered too state-based has also been biffed. This is not a constitution, but a treaty. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Union becomes a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The terms “European Law” and “European Framework Law” are not repeated. Furthermore, we have returned to the classic and so reassuring terms of “regulation” and “directive”.

The primacy of European law, though a pillar of the case-law of the Court of Justice for several decades now, was not even incorporated as such in the Treaty, but buried in an anonymous declaration, together with an opinion of the Legal Service of the Council, which I truly regret, since it is a novelty in European treaties, which can only surprise.

In addition, several other provisions, declarations and protocols give an unnecessary additional profile to the need to respect the level of national competence and the separate character of the common foreign and security policy, where sovereign sensitivities often still prevail. I also regret that, among other things, because it reveals a certain lack of pride and commitment to the European project and excessively emphasizes the national at the expense of the supranational. That, dear colleagues, may be the price we pay for an intergovernmental time spirit.

However, while the Lisbon Treaty shows noticeable differences in form from the Constitutional Treaty, it retains the substantial substantial innovations. Thus, the objective of transparency was not completely abandoned. After all, the Council of Ministers will meet in public session when it comes to the discussion and adoption of legislative proposals.

Important terminological clarifications and functional improvements were also introduced. This eliminates the distinction between the European Union and the European Community. The Union will replace the Community and will receive its own unique legal personality in the future.

The well-known pillar structure, which prevented a coherent and legible structure of the European jurisdictions, is removed. The division of powers between the Union and the Member States will also be sharperly delimited. In this way, the transparency towards the form is somewhat weakened, but on the content level strengthened. This is an exchange that I can live with.

One of the other objectives of the Laeken Declaration was to make the Union more democratic. I believe that the Lisbon Treaty fully meets this ambition. All democracy is based on values and fundamental rights. Although the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not included in the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty of Lisbon specifies that the Union must respect the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter, which has the same value as the Treaty.

The Charter will therefore be binding on both the European institutions and the Member States when they implement EU law. It is true that a derogation is envisaged for the United Kingdom and Poland. Although I regret this exception, I find it far preferable to another formula considered at some point, namely to impose the binding character of the Charter on the institutions of the Union and to completely exempt Member States from it.

The Lisbon Treaty also provides for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. Such accession was not possible until now in the absence of a legal basis in the Treaty. This legal basis is now established, which is undoubtedly another democratic advance.

You will appreciate with me that the powers of the European Parliament have been significantly increased. The European Parliament will elect, for example, the President of the Commission. This election will, of course, be held on the basis of a proposal from the European Council, but the European Council must, in its proposal, take into account the democratic outcome of the European elections. In doing so, the Treaty once again strengthens the legitimacy of European democracy.

The co-decision procedure becomes the ordinary legislative procedure, which will apply in 95% of cases. The Treaty thus extends co-decision to entirely new areas, such as agricultural policy, criminal judicial cooperation or police cooperation. Parliament’s powers are also extended in budgetary matters and in the conclusion of treaties between the Union and third countries or international organisations. The European Parliament finally acquires the right to propose a revision of the Treaties.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, another important aspect of the decision-making process also concerns you, and more specifically the role of national parliaments.

In the future, they will be more closely involved in the European project, including on the subsidiarity test. According to that principle, the Union should act only if the objectives set cannot be addressed at national, regional or local level.

If one-third of national parliaments consider that the principle is compromised by a legislative proposal, the Commission may be invited to re-examine the proposal in question.

If half of the national parliaments have adopted that opinion, both the Council and the European Parliament should organise a specific debate on the matter.

From its specific institutional background, Belgium has formulated a declaration recalling that the legislative assemblies of both regions and communities are part of the Belgian parliamentary system.

I would like to add that the Lisbon Treaty also emphasizes that the Union must respect the constitutional structure of each Member State, including regional autonomy.

Not only the European Parliament, but also the Court of Justice will be given new powers, in particular for acts on asylum policy, immigration policy, judicial and police cooperation.

Access to rights for natural and legal persons will also be expanded. That category will now also be able to raise disputes before the Court regarding obligations that would be imposed on them within the framework of the common foreign and security policy.

The Lisbon Treaty also strengthens participatory democracy by introducing a right of initiative for citizens. This right of initiative will allow European citizens to ask the Commission to submit specific legislative proposals.

I therefore conclude from the foregoing that the Lisbon Treaty constitutes a strong democratic progress, in particular by strengthening the parliamentary dimension.

At the end of the Laeken Declaration, the Union must finally become more efficient. To be effective, the Union must, on the one hand, reform its institutions and, on the other hand, deepen its policies.

In institutional matters, Belgium’s approach has always been to strengthen the Community method. This method is based on the equality of Member States and on the participation of all in decision-making processes. The community method allows us to defend our interests more than the intergovernmental method that favors the relationship of force, thus the largest Member States.

It is essential to understand that the Lisbon Treaty preserves all the institutional innovations of the Constitutional Treaty. The Community method thus becomes the basic rule for the adoption of legislative acts, which I cordially welcome. Except in a very limited number of cases, legislative acts will be adopted on a proposal from the Commission by the Council of Ministers acting by qualified majority and by the European Parliament. They will be subject to the legality control of the Court of Justice. This is therefore perfectly in line with our initial strategic ambitions to strengthen supranational integration and to strengthen its democratic aspect.

The European Commission, through its power of initiative, is at the heart of the Community Method. It is she who must define the general interest and it is she who introduces legislative proposals. The strength of the Commission lies in its collegial character, but this collegial character is nevertheless threatened by an excessive number of 27 Commissioners. The College risks turning into an assembly incapable of deciding. In this regard, the Lisbon Treaty confirms that from 2014 the Commission will be reduced to a number equivalent to two-thirds of the number of Member States. Rotation within the Commission will also be carried out on an equal basis.

The calculations and scope of qualified majority will be improved. First, the calculation of the qualified majority will be simplified in the future. The qualified majority will be set at 55% of the Member States representing 65% of the EU population. This new calculation of the qualified majority, based on clear and objective criteria, will facilitate decision-making. It will also take into account demographic developments.

The Constitutional Treaty had provided that this new calculation would be applied from 2009, but to meet Poland's demands, the Lisbon Treaty postpones this reform to 2014. In addition, between 2014 and 2017, a Member State will always be able to request, during a vote, that the calculation of the qualified majority be made on the basis of the weighting of the votes in the Treaty of Nice.

The "Ioannina compromise" had to be reinforced to soothe the fears of Poland.

This compromise allows to request an extension of negotiations when states opposing a decision represent – even if they do not constitute a blocking minority – a significant minority. Curiously, this was not incorporated in EU primary law, and I believe that this compromise will otherwise be impractical.

As regards the scope of qualified majority, it will also be substantially extended.

Another institutional innovation is also receiving a lot of media attention today. More specifically, it concerns the introduction of the European Council as an institution in the Treaty. The European Council will be chaired by a chairman who is appointed for a period of 2.5 years, once renewable. That permanent presidency, which replaces the national presidency, which rotates every six months, will give that position both greater continuity and greater visibility.

The task of the President of the European Council will be to lead and stimulate the work of the European Council, not to direct the entire Union. Any preparation for the meetings of the European Council shall be carried out in close cooperation with the President of the Commission and upon notice of the General Affairs Council.

The European Council will also be able to make real decisions in the future, which has not been the case so far. For this reason, the Council of State suggests that the 1994 Cooperation Agreement concerning the representation of Belgium in the Council of the European Union should be amended. Therefore, we should definitely review this and update it if necessary.

I would like to add the concern that the composition of the European Council is regulated by the Treaty itself. It is inhabited by the Heads of State and Government of the Member States and the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, respectively. Each member of the European Council may be assisted by a minister. These facts will have to be taken into account in any Belgian cooperation agreement.

Furthermore, work should be carried out on the basis of the results of the General Affairs Council. This board is functionally covered by the 1994 Cooperation Agreement. In practice, the position of Belgium in the European Council is already very well taken into account, and even without a specific cooperation agreement, with the positions of the Regions and the Communities.

There is another important innovation. If the Treaty of Lisbon does not retain the title of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Union, it preserves all the functions of the so-called High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This new position will enhance the coherence, visibility and effectiveness of the Union’s external action. The High Representative will indeed carry out the functions currently performed by both the High Representative for the PESC and the European Commissioner for External Relations. He will therefore be a delegate of the Council for the PESC and responsible for external relations within the Commission, whose vice-president he will also be. The High Representative will preside over the Council on Foreign Affairs of the Union and will be assisted by a genuine European diplomatic service. The Treaty also includes the possibility of launching structured cooperation in defence. It thus allows those who want to engage more in a European defence, to do so within the EU framework.

The Treaty also defines the eradication of poverty as the main objective of the European policy of development cooperation. The objectives of this policy should be taken into account in other areas and other Union policies that may have an impact on developing countries.

The objectives of the European Justice and Home Affairs Policy are specified and developed. Immigration, asylum and border control policies are now defined as common policies.

The Lisbon Treaty provides for the establishment of a committee to strengthen operational cooperation between the services responsible for internal security. It also considers the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The most important progress, however, is the introduction of a qualified majority which, with limited exceptions, in particular the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and operational police cooperation, will now apply to the entire area of freedom, security and justice, the third pillar. In order to keep this progress, a concession had to be made. The Amsterdam Treaty provided for an “opt-out” for the UK on immigration, asylum, border controls and civil judicial cooperation policies. This derogatory regime is extended by the Treaty of Lisbon to police cooperation and criminal judicial cooperation. I regret it. But the formula allows those who want to move forward to do so without being blocked by the unanimity rule, which I think is fair.

A horizontal social clause requiring social requirements to be taken into account in the whole of the Union’s policies has been incorporated, as well as a specific protocol on services of general interest.

In the next specific area, the Lisbon Treaty is even quite innovative compared to the Constitutional Treaty. After all, the objectives of the environmental policy are, in my opinion, usefully complemented by the fight against climate change. In terms of energy, the legal basis is further supplemented by references to the need for European solidarity in supply problems and on the interconnection of energy networks across national borders, which is an essential element for energy independence.

The Lisbon Treaty preserves the dynamics of the European Union. It extends the possibilities of recourse to enhanced cooperation. It even brings new possibilities in the field of police and judicial cooperation compared to the Constitutional Treaty. In the event of blocking, enhanced cooperation can thus be automatically established to create the European Public Prosecutor’s Office or to launch initiatives within the framework of operational police cooperation.

The Lisbon Treaty also ⁇ ins the gateway clause that will allow the European Council to apply qualified majority and co-decision in areas where the ordinary legislative procedure is not applied. This change of procedure may be made without modification of the Treaties, but any parliament may, as in the Institutional Treaty, oppose it.

The specific gateway clause for enhanced cooperation is also preserved. This clause provides that States participating in enhanced cooperation may decide to apply the qualified majority to an area of their cooperation which, according to the Treaties, would be covered by unanimous vote. Other Member States will not be able to oppose it and national parliaments will not have a veto right. This provision offers opportunities to advance in areas that, like taxation, remain governed by unanimous rule. So, once again, the new Treaty offers us an opportunity to further increase European integration.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, as I said in my introduction, the failure to implement the Constitutional Treaty was a damper on the European momentum. No, this Lisbon Treaty is not perfect, not least in terms of readability, caused by an amalgam of amendments. Depending on the political perspective, other points of reference will be found and sought. After a lot of struggle with the institutions, the left and right also politically remain sharp corners behind.

Is the Lisbon Treaty a light version of the Constitutional Treaty? Very ⁇ not. It seems to me to respond to today’s political situation and leave the necessary space for it, which should not be seen as emptiness. The lessons of the past and the real politics of today have led to this treaty. It is a history in itself. Anyone who follows Geert Mak’s television series or takes his book on European history by hand knows that this moment, this document, will not end in footnotes.

In addition to the technical analysis I came to give, the Lisbon Treaty has another dimension for me. In 1982, as a young parliamentary, I was allowed to collaborate with Altiero Spinelli on the famous draft of a constitution for the European Union. Spinelli, a notorious communist, and the European thought: a non-evident combination. But I discovered a great gentleman who was able to transcend doctrines and party views to develop a visionary idea. To be able to assess this today, it is good to take the preamble of the Spinelli Report back to hand. This preamble literally says the following:

In order to continue and restart the work of democratic unification of Europe in which the European Communities, the European Monetary System, cooperation are the first achievements, and convinced that it is increasingly important for Europe to affirm its identity,

- welcoming the positive results achieved at the present stage, but aware of the need to redefine the objectives of European construction and to give more efficient and more democratic institutions the means to ⁇ them,

- based on their adherence to the principle of pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the preeminence of law,

Reaffirming their desire to contribute to the building of an international society based on the cooperation of peoples and states (peaceful settlement of disputes, security and the strengthening of international organizations),

Resolved to affirm, through an even closer union, the safeguarding of peace and freedom, and calling on the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

Decided to increase the solidarity of the peoples of Europe in respect of their historical personality, their dignity and their freedom within freely accepted common institutions,

Convinced of the need to enable the participation, in the appropriate forms, of local authorities in the construction of Europe wishing to progressively ⁇ their common objectives by respecting the necessary transitional stages and subjecting any further progress to the consent of peoples and States,

- intending to entrust common institutions, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, with the only powers necessary to carry out tasks which they will be able to carry out more satisfactorily than States alone,

“The other Contracting Parties, Member States of the European Communities, have decided to create the European Union.”

We write 1982. As for history, I want to go even further. In 1944, Altiero Spinelli wrote a flaming manifesto: the manifesto of Ventotene, the island where he was imprisoned for ten years for his anti-fascist activities.

I read the last paragraph of it:

Today it is necessary to know how to get rid of the old burdens that have become overwhelming, to be prepared to welcome the novelty that is presented and which is different from all that one could have imagined, to know how to throw away those of the old ones that prove to be unfit and to arouse new energies among the young. It is today that those who have been able to discern the motives and the current crisis of the European civilization are being sought and found, in view of the future plot, and who thus collect the inheritance of all the uplifting movements of mankind that have sunk because they have not been able to understand what was the goal to ⁇ or to imagine the means to ⁇ it. The path to be followed is not easy or safe, but it must be followed and it will be done.”

We write in 1944.

Why these past concerns, colleagues?

Today, the Government is presenting to you, representatives of the people, the Lisbon Treaty for ratification, confident that you will capture this momentum in history and give your approval, across the party boundaries, because Mr. President, dear colleagues, this is our common responsibility.

Mr. Van den Eynde, do you want to replicate now? You are free, although you can submit a vote statement tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we can submit a vote statement tomorrow. However, a replica is part of the debate and I think that the debate has not ended without a replica.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I would like to start this reply with a thank you. I want to thank the Minister. It is common. I want to thank him for acknowledging first and foremost from this tribune that Lisbon is in fact a cosmetic operation in relation to the draft constitution rejected by a number of European countries or European electorate. At least that had the advantage that it was the truth.

I would also like to thank the Minister – and I really do not say this in a ridiculous way – for his technical explanation. Not that that presentation convinced me – the minister will not expect that from me – but it was interesting to hear. Mr. Minister, it is a pity that this technical explanation came at the end of the debate. I admit that you have also said a lot in the committee, but you have pulled it for a while now. and right.

Per ⁇ it is a little pretentious of mine, but the fact that the opposition has moved here today, in particular the Flemish Interest, has at least been able to cause the government and the supporters of Lisbon to give a decent explanation. This explanation was missing in all this debate, and has been missing for a long time. As I just said, in fact, it would have been much better if one had started with that explanation.

The problem, Mr. Minister, is that the cloth will fall tomorrow. In fact, it has already fallen today, but it will be voted tomorrow. The canvas will fall over one of the – you know it and I agree with you about it – historical developments for this country, for Western Europe and even for a large part – unfortunately not entirely – of all Europe.

Undoubtedly, this will bring a lot of changes in the lives of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Minister, you are also calling for democracy. Don’t apologize, but the reality is different. I will no longer discuss the Constitution and the fact that the people voted against the Constitution. The reality of what is now being approved here is that no one outside this hemisphere is currently aware of the fact that something so important is being discussed, not even in political circles.

I want to quote someone. The quote is worth what it is worth. A few days ago, one of our colleagues had a meeting with Mr Suykerbuyk, a former Vice-President of the Flemish Parliament, a Christian Democrat and someone who is very familiar with politics. Mr. Suykerbuyk did not know that Lisbon would be addressed now.

Even our fellow citizens do not know.

We do not care! But as a Democrat, I believe that our fellow citizens should know what is going on!

by Mr. Suykerbuyk or Mr. Painblanc are not aware of today’s discussion regarding the Lisbon Treaty is not a relevant political fact! If this can reassure you, my 15-year-old daughter told me that she was aware of this debate!

It is symptomatic!

I remain with you; you do not know outside what is happening. Per ⁇ even worse, or at least as bad: even in Parliament, colleagues, very little is known about it.

Please do not apologize, but the debate started at 14.15 and it is now 18.56 hours. At around 19.10, everything might be behind the back. It can also be 19.30 hours. Such an important debate in such a short time with so few colleagues. I had to find that among the colleagues present may have 50% more interest in the course of the cycling race Gent-Wevelgem than in the debate on such an important subject.

When I look around now, I see that the largest party of Flanders and of this country is represented by the chairman of the House, the chairman of the group and another third member. Mr. Jambon will not blame me when I say that CD&V is represented by 3.5 persons, not that Mr. Jambon is a half guest, but he can not blame me yet that I do not consider him a full-fledged CD&V’er.

Mr. Van den Eynde, Mrs. Van der Straeten wants to say something. I still don’t know who won Gent-Wevelgem.

Oscar Freire has won.

Mr. Speaker, colleague, it is of course bon ton to always say that there is so little interest in Europe and then point to a hemisphere that is almost empty. Our parliamentary and legislative work takes place not only in the hemisphere and not only during a plenary session. I would like to ask you, colleague, what is happening on European work in the committees. How many questions are asked about positions taken by our national ministers in European Council of Ministers? Very very little.

If the Prime Minister has always been very careful in receiving letters and debrief at a European summit, how many people were there at those meetings? How many questions were asked there? I think, colleague, that it is not absolutely necessary to shoot at the fact that there is little people here. You can also put your hand in your own belly. The work around Europe must also be taken seriously in the committees.

I am sure that you will receive applause from the right-wing liberals. This will undoubtedly give you pleasure.

Miss, what you push forward here confirms what I say. Interest is small and I am not concerned with the fact that there is little interest in Europe in this debate.

There is damn little interest in something that is so essential for the future of every citizen in this country. It is much more important than a technical discussion on any European topic. Don’t apologize to me, you can hardly blame my party for the fact that there is not enough initiative on Europe in Parliament. We are just the opposition. You need to know the Cordon Sanitary. Imagine that we would propose to hold a debate about Europe. You would be the first to vote against it, because of the cordon sanitary.

That being said, I would like to return to the conclusion, Mr. Minister, that in the country one does not know what is happening at the moment. We are not aware of it at all, and in Parliament too little. That’s where the shoe runs. The shoe does not wreak, because the government defends a cause that I, as a member of the opposition, am against. This will happen more than once, very often even. The shoe wraps, because one makes such an important decision, not only without a referendum, without a popular consultation, but even without the people knowing anything about it, without realizing what is happening. I personally find this very bad.

Then I spoke about a democratic deficit in relation to Europe. Well, this is ⁇ the worst democratic deficit. We live on that level, I repeat it, at least in a kind of enlightened absolute monarchy or enlightened absolutism. I cannot call that progress.

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of responding, but in hearing the words that have just been made, I would like to make three comments.

First, it is true that the representative of the Belang did well to congratulate you, Mr. Minister, because you have brought additional elements and above all you have put into perspective what we are going to experience on the European level. This is what we should focus on now.

Secondly, to say that the small number of parliamentarians present now or who have participated in the debates means a lack of interest in Europe, is nonsense. We know very well that the debate that was announced today is a debate of which we knew the outcome. What matters above all is our country’s commitment – as it happened in the Senate vote and will happen in the House vote – to give the signal to other Europeans of Belgium’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. That we send out blunders on a number of policies, as the minister said, this is quite logical and normal; but let pass the message of a disinterest of our country for European construction, I do not want it!

Third, I am pleased to hear speakers express their agreement to work on the establishment of a parliamentary system linking the other assemblies in order to adopt a working method for subsidiarity and the competence of national parliaments. To respond concretely to a certain disinterest of the population for Europe, it will be to reinvent a way of working that shows, as it is said about the work of the euroromotors in the framework of parliamentary committees, that the Parliament can be now and more than ever, thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, proactive in European matters.

In this way we will succeed in a political demonstration in favor of Europe and we will ensure that the issues of the European Union are met by all parliaments and most ⁇ by the House.

I would like to point out that if we vote tomorrow, there are five other assemblies that have to decide on this treaty. So the debate is not over. Seven assemblies have to vote on the treaty.

I totally agree with Mr. Mr. by Ducarme. We need to move forward with regard to the decision-making in Parliament on European affairs. My predecessor concluded a cooperation agreement between the seven assemblies, among other things, on the subsidiarity procedure. There have already been initiatives, although, I repeat, we must move forward.