Proposition 52K1799

Projet de loi portant diverses modifications en matière électorale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

Feb. 5, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

national election organisation of elections parliamentary election political rights regional election right to vote criminal law election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld LDD MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 26, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

These bills are intended to solve a series of technical problems in the light of the experience gained during the 2007 elections. In particular, they incorporate the corrections made by the law of 13 February 2007 with regard to federal legislative elections in the legislation governing the procedures for the election of regional and community parliaments and of the European Parliament.

These corrections and improvements mainly concern:

- the digital transmission of the contact details of the members of the electoral offices and the minutes drawn up by these offices;

- the numbering of candidates on traditional ballots and on automated voting screens;

- the registration on the list of voters of their identification number in the National Register in order to facilitate the scoring of voters;

- the reduction to 18 years of the minimum age required to be appointed as effective adviser or replacement adviser of a voting office.

The draft law with various amendments in electoral matters also aims to incorporate several improvements in the legislation governing the modalities of the election of parliaments of so-called federated entities. These improvements concern:

- the delivery of copies of the list of voters to political parties and candidates who request it, on digital or on paper, and the prohibition of mentioning on those lists the identification number in the National Register of voters, in order to ensure the due respect for their privacy;

- the confirmation of the rule that the candidate presented both to the actual term and to the substitute may not be proclaimed replacement elected if he has already been designated as effective elected;

- the imposition of the municipal seal on the application form in order to certify the quality of the voters who sign the presentation act;

- the obligation imposed on the main offices of cantons to provide training to the presidents of the voting and discharge offices or to the secretaries of these offices.

This bill aims to make the following specific adjustments to the Electoral Code:

- the further harmonisation of the calendar fixing the electoral operations for the federal elections with the calendar regulating the operations of the election of the parliaments of the Region and of the Community;

- the confirmation of the city of Nivelles as the seat of the main office of the wallon province of Brabant for the election of the Senate, insofar as that city is already the seat of the main office of the constituency for the election of the Chamber, notwithstanding that the headquarters of that province is established in Wavre;

- the doubling of the expropriation offices into an office A for the election of the Chamber and an office B for the election of the Senate in electoral districts with six or fewer than six representatives to be elected, in this case in the electoral districts of the Wallon Brabant, Namur and Luxembourg;

- the inclusion, in the Electoral Code, of a specific chapter dealing with the closure of the expropriation operations and the sending of the minutes of the voting offices to each Chamber, as well as to the Minister of the Interior;

- the approval by the Minister of the Interior, on the basis of an opinion issued by an accredited control body, of software used for the transmission of the results of the voting screening by digital means as well as for the automated voting census within the screening offices;

- the recognition in the electoral law of observers delegated by international organizations such as the Council of Europe or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor the proper conduct of the elections held in our country, as well as the appropriateness of the new technologies implemented for voting and the automated collection of votes.

Finally, and ⁇ most importantly, the draft law pursues two very specific objectives.

It aims, first and foremost, to ease the procedures for voting by procuration in favour of voters who invoke an authorised stay abroad in order to be admitted to vote in this way. These voters are now given the faculty to establish, by a simple declaration on honor, the impossibility in which they are found to appear in person to the polling station in order to express their vote there when they are not able to produce a document attesting their absence from the Kingdom on the date of the election.

Furthermore, it aims to provide an adequate response to the judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 187/2005 of 14 December 2005 concerning the deprivation of the right to vote following a criminal conviction. According to that judgment, this deprivation can no longer be automatic as it is now the case, but it must be pronounced by the criminal judge who will determine the duration itself, taking into account the gravity of the offence committed by the convicted person.

The draft law brings the necessary changes not only to the General Electoral Code but also to the Criminal Code.

Mr. Ducarme, if I have understood correctly and to support the attention of the assembly, from now on, the provision voted by the Interior Committee will allow people who travel at the time of the elections to no longer have to provide a certificate from a travel operator proving that they are actually on vacation. A simple declaration of honor will make life easier for fellow citizens. Is it not, Mr. Speaker?

In fact, Mr Baeselen! Since elections are still held in June in our country, this poses a problem for many people who can thus go on holiday more peacefully. When they are on vacation, they will be able to fulfill their citizenship obligations and vote.

I would like to thank you for these clarifications. Will you be present on the election day?

I will be present, but I may grant myself a few days from June 8th.

Mr. Baeselen, I thank you for these important questions. It seemed useful to clarify this. I am also convinced that Mr. Baeselen will be in office!

During the general discussion, a colleague regretted that a text intending to regulate the election of the European Parliament does not contain a solution for the electoral district of Brussels-Hal-Vivorde while, according to him, any dossier relating to the European elections is closely linked to that of the split of this electoral district.

For this colleague, we find ourselves on the ground in the face of an Anschluss policy consisting in connecting Brussels with Wallonia, annexing large parts of the Flemish Brabant. This comparison with the events that occurred in a dark past in the Sudet region that Nazi Germany had invaded just before World War II did not fail, Madam the President, dear colleagues, to hurt some other colleagues, of whom I was.

One colleague replied that the bill under consideration was intended solely to make technical adjustments in the light of the experience gained during the 2007 elections and that it therefore has nothing to do with other politically sensitive files such as the split of the Brussels-Hal-Vivorde electoral district.

You are interrupted by one of your MR colleagues: they are not very polite, anyway.

I have heard the argument mentioned, which is obviously not yours. If we speak of Anschluss, is it also planned to remove the corresponding number of voters from the municipalities that do not organize the European elections by themselves in order to give an extra seat to the French speakers?

I am a simple speaker, a small speaker. I cannot judge what has not been discussed in the committee. The question is well-founded, but we have not discussed this issue in the committee. I have to stick to the report, but I thank my colleague for this question.

Another colleague was surprised that less than a hundred days before the European elections, the minister deposits a bill regulating the elections and calls for urgency while we have known for five years that European elections will take place on that date and that the State Council had given its opinion on 13 January 2009. Finally, a colleague noted that some municipalities are resorting to the possibility of recruiting volunteers to operate the polling stations and polling stations. He insisted on the need to avoid a polling station consisting exclusively of volunteers and advocated the creation of a legal basis to resolve the issue.

Following my report, I will speak personally. While it is true that this project brings profound improvements in certain points, which the Reform Movement is delighted with, in particular, as Mr. Baeselen said it very correctly, in the procurement system that was too complicated and source of administrative overload, it seems to me that it was possible to go even further, especially in terms of voting of Belgians from abroad. Xavier Baeselen, Corinne De Permentier, Daniel Ducarme who have also worked on this subject in the committee will agree to me: you all know, dear colleagues, that the MR has always been at the forefront of the struggle in favor of the right to vote of our expatriates (which are not less than 500,000), a democratic right that responds to a great expectation of all our compatriots – the vote is mandatory – who although residing abroad, continue very happy to be interested in our country, their country, and want to contribute to the political debate.

From the beginning of this legislature, the MR had submitted bills to simplify these heavy and unnecessarily complex procedures that aimed to extend this right of vote of Belgians abroad for regional elections – regional matter is important anyway; today, there are many matters that are dealt with by the Regions, there will probably be even more tomorrow – as well as for European elections for Belgians who reside outside the European Union.

These texts were presented in the Interior Committee since January 2008!

The President of the Commission, Mr. Frédéric, present today, suspended the discussions to resume them only today, that is, at a time when the timing becomes extremely tight to see the texts voted and applicable to the next vote of 7 June, since the deadline is 1 April.

We remain convinced that if it had become difficult, it was not, therefore, impossible on the condition of not, of not dragging.

In order to give us every chance of succeeding, we had even taken our proposals back in the form of amendments to the project that I have just ⁇ to you. Unfortunately, these amendments were declared unacceptable. This may be a strict approach of the Parliament.

You can choose between a rigorous approach and a flexible approach. We have interpreted the rules.

I don't know if the approach was strict. It was simply – and you know it – the pure and strict application of our Rules, as this has been confirmed by the Conference of Presidents and by the President of this Assembly.

As long as I am the chairman of this committee, at the disposal of all the groups that make up it, I will try my best to implement this Rules.

André Frédéric is someone who chairs the Interior Committee extremely well but he is sometimes a little too much on regulations.

The rigour, Mr Ducarme.

The rigour is important but the Rules provided for two interpretations in relation to the amendments submitted. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had discussed this bill earlier, we could have submitted amendments that correspond to your strict interpretation of the Rules.

It is regrettable that we have had to wait until the beginning of this year, so more than a year, to discuss this important bill for these 500,000 Belgians from abroad. Nevertheless, Mr. Frédéric, I remain convinced that it was possible to attach these amendments to the draft. If they had been accepted, we would already be able to implement the voting right of Belgians from abroad for regional elections.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that some do not want to grant a basic democratic right to all Belgian citizens. I deeply regret it.

I will end by telling you that the Reform Movement will continue, as it has been doing for years, to work for our expatriates because, for us, the Belgians abroad are not too foreign!

Dear colleagues, Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Interior, today is the last opportunity to organize the European elections so that they can take place in a split electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. That is no more than the evidence itself, because in the European elections the discrimination is even greater if possible than in the House elections.

Candidates from all over Wallonia can come to vote on 7 June to steal votes in Halle-Vilvoorde, while the opposite cannot. I am not crazy, Mr. Flahaux, you must not act as if I am crazy, it is the reality. There is in all Belgium only in Flemish Brabant, in Halle Vilvoorde, a piece where you can vote from all over Wallonia. The opposite does not exist. There is no region in Wallonia where votes can be stolen from Flanders. That does not exist.

In short, there is discrimination. There is a fundamental inequality. You as the mayor of a Walls-Brabant municipality, Mr. Flahaux, should know this very well.

If you knew the geography of your country better, you would know that Braine-le-Comte is not located in the Wallon Brabant, but in the Hainaut. Personally, I have no problem with the fact that voters in our country can vote for Flanders candidates. Vlaams Belang has already appeared in the federal elections in Hainaut and obtained an extraordinary score of 285 votes for the entire Hainaut! I do not see any objection to your candidacy in the European elections in Hainaut as in the whole of Wallonia. We’ll see what you really represent.

Here you place your finger on the wound. You are right, Mr Flahaux. We have indeed already submitted a list in Henegouwen because of the situation of the Flamings in Komen, but that was a list that served for the province of Henegouwen, for the people of us who came up in the province of Henegouwen. This was not a list that came up throughout Flanders and in Henegouwen. This is not how it works.

That is the difference with the European elections. You actually live in Henegouwen and not in Waals-Brabant. I was wrong. I would like to recognize that. In Flemish-Brabant, a part of our province is a winery for Wallonian parties, while the opposite does not exist. There is no place in Wallonia where you can steal votes with Flemish lists.

You say: for me it must be possible, I am in favor of a regulation where it is possible. This is a federal electoral circle. That is your opinion, but you are on the side of it right now. The Federal Electoral Circle is not there and will not be there. This would be at the disadvantage of the French-speaking parties.

The French-speaking parties will never accept a Wallish constituency, if it would reduce the number of French-speaking constituents. You will say: well, the Flemish may come up here, but the number of elected on the Wallish and Flemish side must be fixed. This is the requirement under which the French speakers agree to a federal constituency.

However, this is not democratic. You should actually be consistent and say: the Flemish get more votes in Wallonia than the Wals in Flanders and therefore there are more Flemish seats. However, you will never agree with this. We will continue this debate. This debate is not on the agenda today.

The fundamental injustice and the accompanying Franco-speaking imperialism must, in our opinion, be abolished as soon as possible. This can be done in a very simple way, which in addition costs nothing to the Waal parties. They cannot lose anything because they are the best protected minority in Europe. Their seats are guaranteed for Europe.

The French speakers are not even financially bound by a split of the electorate when it comes to the European elections. Senate and Chamber is nothing else. There are financial tickets attached to the party financing, but for the European elections there is no financial disadvantage in a split and with a own electoral district Halle-Vilvoorde.

For us, therefore, it was no more than logical that we have submitted some amendments to the present draft law, which is exclusively related to the European elections and the organisation thereof, based on the proposals for division and therefore on the bill that the mayors once drafted.

We were very surprised that all our amendments were declared unacceptable by the Chairman of the Commission. Mrs. Burgeon, you can’t do it, you are the House Chairman ad hoc, but the real House Chairman has done the same. He declared our amendments in the plenary session unacceptable.

He subsequently said that we would have a debate on this in the plenary session, but he is not there. He cut off his shell. He escaped the debate. I find this ⁇ regrettable. The former chairman is very angry with me. I am pleased to hear of your indignation. I am ⁇ pleased that the Speaker of the Chamber is not present here, although he has simply declared our amendments unacceptable, while they were 100% related to the draft law.

Commission Chairman Frédéric of the Socialist Party and now also Chamber Chairman Dewael clearly abuse the Rules of Procedure here. This is a serious incident, colleagues, because they hide the amendment right of the opposition members, which also the Vld, colleague De Croo, when she was still in the opposition, has used extensively and correctly. Think of your colleague Daems, who is behind you. He submitted many amendments at the time. The banks were full of stacks. We go much less far. We have submitted a dozen amendments that are closely related to the European elections and yet they have been declared inadmissible. I think this is very serious and very undemocratic. The regrettable thing is, Mr. De Croo, that you have created the precedent in the past. So I cannot call you to help, because you are yourself responsible for the abuse of power that Dewael has applied.

So you are an undemocratic. The chairman has been antidemocratic. That a committee chairman, like Mr. Frédéric, makes a mistake, can then still fall between the twists. He has sought advice and based on it, but the fact that a Chamber Chairman falls out of his role and becomes partisan is much more painful and disturbing, Mr. Chairman. We find it ⁇ painful and disturbing that you are so undemocratic that you lay down the Rules of Procedure next to you and that you simply declare unacceptable amendments that are 100% related to the content of the draft law. I take note of the arrival of the Chamber Chairman and I am pleased to be able to speak to him clearly.

This abuse of Article 90 is ⁇ disturbing. You should be the guardian of the Rules, not the party member who limits the Rules. The famous Article 90 on which you are based, Mr. Speaker, is being respected by us. Our amendments are directly related to the content of the draft law. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is the tradition of this House that this article is used only in very extreme, exceptional situations. It is a kind of atomic bomb, which only serves to prevent a total blocking of parliamentary work, and this was obviously not the case here.

If the amendments were declared admissible, then the draft law in the committee would, by the way, have been dealt with much faster, because then we would not have had to protest as long as we have now done. If they were declared admissible – and that was all that was to be done – the Flemish majority parties CD&V and Open Vld should of course have recognized color and should vote against the amendments regarding the splitting of the electoral circle. That would have been painful, of course. Mr. De Potter, I see you clearly sticking that this would have been a problem for you. Of course, you would rather not have done that. Therefore, Commission Chairman Frédéric received a lot of support from a very unexpected angle, in particular from CD&V and then even from colleague Doomst, one of the mayors who has elected very strongly profiled on the split issue.

Mr. Doomst, I am now addressing you. You know I have great respect for what you have done as mayor in the case of the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde: you are one of the pioneers in this case. That respect for you as a person is sincere and it still exists. In terms of goals, we are on the same wavelength. In particular, I think, also concerning the judicial district.

However, since you have been elected here, I must confirm that you have lost much of your ballority and have suffered too subsequently that your party has been forced to delve into this file over and over again. You have accepted that the file was always pushed back on the long track, and even that your party, contrary to the clear positions of the mayors in, agreed to go to negotiate on this file, while everyone who knows the file well knows that there is no room for negotiation in this file at all.

You have experienced that your own party has begged the French speakers expressly and successfully to submit a conflict of interests again, if necessary through the German-speaking Community, if necessary through the Waals Region, up to twice, in May 2008 and January 2009, although both bodies in the far distance have nothing to do with the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde file, so that the ongoing conflict of interest is essentially unconstitutional and therefore void.

Not so long ago as yesterday – you were there, along with a few other colleagues – we have been able to experience in Hall 2 here in Parliament that the Waals Region had no meaningful story, and that the once so notorious José Happart is only able to whisper and stumble. He had nothing to make of serious arguments concerning the great interests that the Waals Region would have. It was a disheartening experience. That such a person is president of Parliament is really embarrassing.

You have finally experienced that three MPs, three broken political lambs, who have absolutely not eaten cheese from community negotiations, together with Annemie Neyts, who is an opponent of the split, were thrown into the snake cave of Moureaux and Maingain to prepare the negotiations on BHV. All these humiliations have been made so. We have not heard of you any strong protest against this, yet not externally, yet not so loud that the outside world could hear it.

As the elections are fast approaching again, we see that same colleague Doomst parade again in front of the camera. He puts on another cap, no longer that of a member of parliament, but that of the mayor. Look, there we see again a bitter mayor with a lot of verve and a lot of indignation protesting against the unitary electoral circles. I read on Belga that the mayors cannot submit to European elections where the electorate is not divided and that you demand that the abuse of the conflicts of interests be stopped, and even that you will negotiate with the German-speaking Community to refrain from such a procedure.

Strong language, strong words, colleague Doomst, but they sound o so unbelievable when one knows that your own party for the full 100% is responsible for the debacle. You would have better left the speech on behalf of the mayors this time to someone who is not stuck to his shoulder in contradictions.

The current situation is extremely schizophrenic. As a bullrous mayor, I am considered to be standing behind you. Remember, in the action “We support the mayors” you had the support of very conscious Flanders. We went together with 10,000 people to demonstrate in Halle, but as a brave and quiet member of parliament – yet in this file – you have deeply, deeper, deeply disappointed.

We really can’t accept that you have substantially defended that the file and the split amendments would be quickly wiped out of the mat instead of showing understanding for our initiatives. You might have done the same if you were in the opposition, and have shown understanding for our protest instead of letting this cup pass you.

By the way, I note that the mayors with their means of action go a lot less far than in 2004. Boycott here, boycott there. With results! With extensive commitments of the party presidents. Remember that they sat down at the table immediately after the demonstration in May. There were then extensive commitments due to sp.a and VLD. There was a written agreement for an unexpected split. This was then incorporated into the Flemish Government Agreement. In short, that threat of a boycott was in any case meaningful at that time.

Today, everything is just a bit more difficult. I am referring to Belgium again. They are literally the words of Mr. Doomst: “A real boycott of the elections to clear our criticism would have become too aggressive this time.” This is what Belgian colleague Doomst quotes.

There is no difference with 2004. The situation is exactly the same. Although, there may still be one difference. In 2004, CD&V was still in the opposition. Today CD&V is in the majority and has even delivered the prime minister. Is it then dull from me to conclude that CD&V used the boycott actions then primarily to put itself on the political map? Today, people want to stop taking that dirty word into their mouths, to prevent too much polarization. This time, the Van Rompuys party is no longer interested in this. CD&V hopes that community tensions will no longer be a topic in the upcoming elections. The mayors have listened carefully to the instructions of the CD&V headquarters. We deeply regret this.

Mr. Laeremans, you know very well that we are pursuing the same goal, but you have shown here what the difference between us two is. We try to realize it in a democratic way and you say “off with the democratic approach, which we all throw overboard.” As a member of parliament, you must be respected. With a bill here on the table for the first time in forty years, even approved, one must continue, of course with respect for all parliamentary rules attached to it.

The actions of the mayors have always taken place in responsibility. That means that we know very well that we are engaged in political actions, although always with respect a dignity, as we have always done. I think that is also a logical course of affairs. We have always held the same line and we intend to draw the line in the future.

As for the mayor, I am following you. The intentions of the mayors as a group have always been credible in the past.

However, you are terribly naive when it comes to parliamentary work. You would have been right until a year ago. Until the first conflict of interest, you were right. Until then, the rules are followed correctly. Since then, however, this was no longer the case. If you are familiar with the law on conflicts of interests, then you should know that from the second conflict of interest there has been legal abuse of the procedure of conflicts of interests. It was a completely unconstitutional abuse of law, especially now, with the third conflict of interest.

There is a very interesting tribune about Matthias Storme’s appearance in De Standaard. He wiped the floor with that conflict of interest. In fact, it is a null conflict of interest and it is completely unconstitutional because there is no interest. The chairman of the Waal Parliament, José Happart, who was so busy yesterday, has said that the Waal Parliament has no interest in this matter. This is why the Brussels Parliament must do it. It did not, however, because there were still flames. If the President of that Parliament himself says that they have no interest in it, that conflict of interest is void.

Be careful, colleague Doomst. We are in the middle of the legislature and the third conflict of interest is ongoing. If it is still a little annoying, it runs until October, because all the holidays are added. Then comes the German-speaking parliament, which again lasts eight months. Then comes the Brussels Parliament, another eight months. Then we are at the end of the legislature and one has succeeded with five conflicts of interests in its proposal. I see Mr. Clerfayt knocking. He knows very well what the French-speaking strategy is. They are still right in themselves.

The system of conflicts of interests is an undemocratic system that undermines the whole democratic character of parliament. If a majority in parliament no longer plays and cannot do more of what they have been elected for, then there is no democracy here. You cannot get away with it.

I would agree with colleague Laeremans if the parliamentary clock should be stopped, but the parliamentary clock continues to tick. This is what I learned from Patrick Sercu: after the surplace always comes the sprint.

You can continue to repeat it. That naivety is yours, colleague Doomst. We fear that immediately after the elections, after heavy negotiations and concessions, a great community agreement will come about that will completely undermine the essence of the bill, which is being defended by you and by me. We will then get a division, but at the same time so many privileges are added that the situation will later become even worse than today. I would rather have no division than one that makes things worse.

I do not like the distinction between democratic and undemocratic parties. Please do not prove here that you would be an undemocratic party. (Germany of the Greek)

Colleague Doomst, is there anything more logical now than a parliament that decides by a majority on how democracy works? Is that the essence of our task? Why should there be a Community Agreement? Why should the French speakers force us to make some concessions?

If there is a case in which there is no room for negotiation, then it is precisely this, because it is about justice and elimination of discrimination. I do not understand why we would be undemocratic if we, like you, opposed this discrimination.

I do not like the position of Mr. Doomst as a mayor, the one he adopts as a parliamentary meets me. Belgium is always the fruit of consensus both politically and socio-economically. This is what makes our strength. If tomorrow, we want to pass in force on this kind of files, even if Flanders have a majority in Parliament, in this case, within 15 days, you will have the French border at Vilvorde!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a very brief explanation. Thank you for giving me the word.

Mr. Doomst, at the time, when the United States was not really the United States, Indians who spoke with a split tongue were spied.

Flanders deserve more and better than mayors like you, who speak with split tongue here every time, representing a particular idea with a lot of bombardment, but letting it sink here again and again.

I now give the word to Mr Jambon. Then I give the word again to Mr. Doomst, because he is personally fished.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the most relevant statement so far has been Mr. Flahaux’s statement. He has stated in unmistakable terms what it is about in Belgium. We support his words for the full 100%. Belgium does not tolerate a democracy of the majority, which Mr Flahaux rightly noted.

What we are talking about in this case is for democracy. Mr. Flahaux, your line of defense is to shut down democracy and allow other balances to play. For you, democracy must be shut down before politics can be done here.

Thank you for your very enlightening explanation.

Democracy consists of respect for minorities. I remind you that, for the European Parliament elections, German speakers, whose number amounts to 75,000, have an elected – and this is normal – while they weigh less than 5% of the population. Democracy is, first and foremost, respect for minorities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address very briefly Mr. Van de Velde.

Mr Van de Velde, you want to play it individually and on the person, but I do not actually accept that. What we do is really carried by a very broad base. It is really carried by 28 mayors from Halle-Vilvoorde who will not let this file go. In the future, they will ⁇ continue to build on it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the following to Mr. Flahaux. He will now have to choose. We are all Belgians – we are all Belgians – and then we can decide here as Belgians democratically. In other words, there is no Belgian, and therefore no Belgian democracy, and then the debate for me becomes really interesting. This choice must now be made. One cannot be Belgian when it comes to financing social security and ⁇ ining solidarity, and becoming a French-speaking minority when the Belgian majority decides something that does not apply to that minority. It is one or the other.