Proposition 53K1476

Proposition de résolution relative à l'établissement d'un calendrier concret de négociations avec l'Allemagne et les Pays-Bas sur la réactivation du Rhin de fer et la désignation du premier ministre comme coordinateur de ces négociations.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Peter Luykx, Liesbeth Van der Auwera
Open Vld Patrick Dewael
Vooruit Peter Vanvelthoven

Submission date

May 18, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Germany Netherlands international negotiations resolution of parliament rail network rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Bert Schoofs (VB) 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 ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the committee responsible discussed both draft resolutions at its meetings of 17 May and 5 July 2011. They were joined by the committee. The comprehensive report can be consulted in the minutes of the committee.

During the first meeting, on 17 May 2011, the main speaker of the proposal, Mr. Peter Luyckx, will lead the discussion with a reference to the explanatory note to the resolution. Its purpose is that only one minister would conduct the negotiations on the reopening of the Iron Rhine. He also stated that all Flemish parties support the proposal.

The central question between Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany concerns the distribution of costs. The choice for the historical trace has been acquired. We have German support. However, the multitude of consultation contacts is counterproductive and sows doubts about the final outcome. A strong signal would be to charge an authority, more specifically the Prime Minister, with the negotiations.

Mr. Johan Decuyper of the policy cell of Secretary of State Schouppe emphasizes that there will still be numerous bilateral contacts on the dossier between the Belgian and Dutch governments. On the agenda are the establishment of the trace, the distribution of costs, and the extension of the European freight corridor to Antwerp. The German government is in favour of the historical trace, but Belgium and the Netherlands should be discussing it again.

Mr Gerald Kindermans proposes amendments that allow the Prime Minister to assume a coordinating and not negotiating task. Normally, the Prime Minister negotiates only with the German and Dutch governments and not with those of the counties.

At the meeting of 5 July 2011, a new draft resolution was submitted. The committee decided to continue working on this text. The chief plaintiff, Mr. Peter Vanvelthoven, states that the difficult government formation and several other factors make no progress in the file. Now the Secretary of State for Mobility, then the Minister of Public Affairs and Public Companies and then again the Prime Minister will lead the negotiations. The issue was addressed to Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands.

In any case, it is necessary that one principal responsible person is charged with the file and acts as a point of contact.

Mr. Michel Balon, an employee of Secretary of State Schouppe, summarizes the elements of the IJzeren Rijn file as follows. First, the Iron Rhine is not a novelty. It is a competitor of the Montzenroute. Second, Germany was in favor of the historical trace. The Netherlands and North Rhine-Westphalia did not agree. However, there is now consensus on this. Third, the timeline is not arranged. Fourth, there is also no agreement on the cost sharing. Nevertheless, the financing of the Iron Rhine is borne by the Flemish part of the 60/40 distribution key and is therefore not a competitor of the route over Athus-Meuse. This is a freight corridor with existing lines, partially financed by Belgium, in the Netherlands and is therefore separate from the TGV freight.

For two months, State Secretary Schouppe and Minister Vervotte have been negotiating with the Dutch Minister of Infrastructure and Environment following a letter from Prime Minister Yves Leterme to Dutch Prime Minister Rutte.

During the discussion, Ms. Linda Musin believes that the debate on the Iron Rhine should be extended to the role of freight transport in the 21st century. Its amendments aim to enhance Belgium’s leadership position in logistics by convincing the German government of the importance of the TGV-freight project.

Mr Jef Van den Bergh notes that the amendments of colleague Musin constitute another point of discussion and have nothing to do with this proposal.

Mr. Steven Vandeput warns that European subsidies in this area will be lost if the file is not completed before October.

The draft resolution is adopted with 13 votes in favour and 1 abstinence.

You congratulate you for your first intervention in our assembly. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Iron Rhine has been discussed repeatedly in our hemisphere and in the various committees in recent years.

This historic railway connects the Antwerp port area via Dutch territory via Budel, Weert and Roermond with the German Rhinebeck.

Since 1991, the freight traffic has been halted and the line is also being upgraded to be used more intensively.

Between Belgium and the Netherlands and Germany, disagreements arose regarding, among other things, the distribution of the costs of this and the reactivation. On 23 May 2005, the Arbitration Tribunal of The Hague issued a judgment in that appealing dispute. The judgment states that Belgium and the Netherlands must reach agreement on the works to be carried out and the distribution of costs. The difficult government negotiations, both in the Netherlands and in Belgium, have drawn the file.

However, in my many questions in the committees to the Prime Minister and other ministers involved in the dossier, I could also find that the government took many initiatives to complete the discussions. The problem here is, I think, that the file has therefore gone over a lot of traces. Talks are organised between the federal and Flemish authorities, on the one hand, and between the heads of government and the ministers of trade of the Netherlands, Germany and North Rhine-Westphalia, on the other.

As mentioned above, a lot of attention is paid to the case. With this resolution, however, I would like to ask the government to combine and coordinate all those energies, efforts and initiatives by handing the dossier into the hands of a single federal minister, preferably the prime minister.

I refer to the call in the resolution. It is triple. First, let us also address a request to Germany and the Netherlands to put on the table a certain agenda, a time frame. Second, we want to assign the file to a single federal minister, preferably the prime minister. Thirdly, we would like to also announce the initiative to both the Dutch and German authorities and the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia, to have them appoint, if possible, also a responsible person who will take over the coordination.

Finally, I can only conclude that the proposal for a resolution received a lot of support. It was signed by all representatives of all Flemish parties. Moreover, the text was even submitted twice. This only strengthens the attention that goes to the file.

I therefore hold a warm plea to approve the draft resolution.

I would like to thank the colleagues of the committee who contributed to its creation.

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, 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,

This discussion was an opportunity to recall that Belgium as a whole is, by its strategic position in the heart of Europe, a fertile ground for logistics activities. Attractiveness enhanced by the numerous and excellent communication infrastructures that emulate our territory, such as riverways, ports, highways, freight airports, etc. In short, Belgium is really a small paradise for any self-respecting logistician.

But we still need to go further and make use of our natural benefits. In this case, Wallonia, Brussels-Capital and Flanders are complementary and allow the necessary balance for a coherent development of infrastructures at European level for the benefit of all our companies. The completion of major railway projects, both in Wallonia and Flanders, goes exactly in this direction.

That is why we took advantage of the debate in the committee to expand the reflection on the future of rail freight in Belgium by submitting an amendment that highlights the project of TGV Fret Eurocarex. This project is undoubtedly one of the most ambitious in the medium term and really places rail freight in the 21st century.

In the face of the reservations expressed by some colleagues, reservations not on the substance of our proposal but on the form, we have translated this amendment into a proposal for a resolution. With this resolution proposal, we want to ensure that all the living forces of our country remain attentive to the rapid implementation of this trans-European project that will place Belgium at the heart of high-speed rail freight.

Since all my colleagues have voted in favour of a strong support for this Rhin of Steel proposal, there is no doubt that they will co-sign the proposal that was recently transmitted to them. Indeed, I have no doubt that any political act aimed at encouraging and supporting the future of rail freight in our country will in the future receive as broad support as today for this resolution.

Does anyone ask for the word?

Does anyone ask for the word?

My group secretary would have put me on the agenda for four proposals.

Yes, but not at this point.

Yet yes.

There must have been a communication problem. I understand better why some members come to check whether they are well-registered.

Mr. Speaker, for all clarity. The Flemish Interest will support this resolution.

I think I should be with you to report a crime committed in this Chamber. The facts can be classified as copyright infringement, unfair competition, theft, extortion, blackmail and gang formation. The victim is undoubtedly colleague Luykx. The perpetrators are Peter Vanvelthoven, shining out by absence, Patrick Dewael and Liesbeth Van der Auwera. They have the text of colleague Luykx of the draft resolution no. 1242 shamelessly and literally de-written and thus picked up. They put their signature under it and they submitted it. The corpus delicti now bears the number number. by 1476.

What was the motive? Only my signature of piece no. 1242 which originally also carried the signature of the three previously mentioned suspects. When it came to them that my signature on paper no. In 1242 the three ruling parties decided to withdraw their signature. We saw a nervous colleague Dewael Peter Vanvelthoven chasing in the plenary session. When both felt strong and manly enough, they walked to Liesbeth Van der Auwera to persuade her to withdraw her signature. Colleague Van der Auwera, you are leaving. Come back then.

Op die manier werd collega Luykx een lesje geleerd. They have number number. 1476 Ingediend met their handtekening eronder. They have Peter Luykx under druk gezet. He had 72 hours of time om hans handtekening te zetten, en handtekening die niet op het oorspronkelijke stuk stond. Dan is Peter Luykx bij wijze van addendum nog toegevoegd. Het had gekund dat de resolutie was ingediend without Peter Luykx, by author van het voorstel. It must be done.

This may sound perfidious and infamous, but it is the normal way of doing the ruling parties. It is also surprising, colleague Dewael, that you and Mrs. Van der Auwera have used all that effort to royalize my signature. If I count the number of initiatives of this year, of this legislature of you and of Mrs. Van der Auwera on the Iron Rhine and the importance of the province of Limburg, then I end up at zero.

I looked at the whole bundle, but found no initiatives back. Mrs. Van der Auwera must – which is exceptional – have had a nutt too much when she signed the proposal. She did not know what it was about.Mr Dewael, for you, the dossier of the Iron Rhine is the land of never. Mr Vanvelthoven, the chief speaker of the proposal, shines out by his absence. He escaped the border.

To be clear, there is no bitterness. The Flemish Interest will, despite the sanitary cordon, the draft resolution no. 1476 is approved. We do not participate in such dirty games. Nor do we enter into the childish logic of the cordon parties.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, forget my reference to the crime, which I did at the beginning of my presentation. Keep it on the two-school mentality of CD&V, the sp.a and the Open Vld, complete with spies, writing off and bullying behavior.

Please do not forget, however, that also in the present file the original proposal no. 1242 is stronger and better than the copy, which is the proposal no. by 1476. More than three-quarters of the Flamings will agree with this and will refer the cordon sanitaire to the garbage cart.

I am also convinced that many Limburgers and Limburg in general are not served with such a course of affairs.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to one person, in particular Mr. Luykx.

Peter, I express my sincere thanks and send you warm Limburg greetings. You have tried, despite the pressure from the outside, to break the cordon sanitary, although this ⁇ wasn’t your intention. Your intention was simply to have all Limburg Chamber Members sign the proposal. There were ⁇ no other intentions. I do not want to assign them to you either. Such a thing would not honor you.

However, you must also have experienced the N-VA fraction pressure from the inside. I have heard that something has not passed quietly. There are pro and opponents in your group of whether or not close cooperation with my party. The opponents of cooperation with the Vlaams Belang can be cheered, since the signature of a Vlaams Belanger has also been removed in the proposal. Fundamentally, this does not bring our common goal, in particular an independent Flanders, closer. Such an attitude, on the contrary, brings it further away.

Some may think that ⁇ ining the cordon sanitary respect and goodwill imposes on the yes but parties. That is not my opinion.

Mr Luykx, you have understood this. I understood that. Continue your struggle for an independent Flanders with all Flemish parties.

Colleagues, for everyone in the hemisphere who thinks they are a monster cutting the throat, I have another message. Do not make illusions. You don’t have a knife that’s sharp enough and can stick deep enough. By the way, in front of you there is no monster. You are mistaken.

In any case, I will not be mistaken. I will ask my group to approve the present resolution with certainty and conviction. From the substitute Limburg and Flemish shame it will be forgiven to me that I abstain.

Mr. Speaker, the meaning of the last speech is somewhat out of my mind because colleague Schoofs has not said much about the essence, namely the Iron Rhine.

It was about the famous principle that would have been violated, namely the cordon sanitaire. I really take it hard. When I sign a text, colleague Schoofs – I look in the eyes of colleague Luykx – I also want to know what the finality is. Initially, the finality was that it would be signed by the colleagues who initially signed. Your signature was subsequently added.

I think that is a pretty fundamental thing. If I had known it in advance, colleague Annemans, I would not have done it. I am sorry for those who envy it, but for me that principle is still important. If colleague Schoofs thinks that and can steamlessly bypass then I have to tell you that I do not take that. I have withdrawn my signature because this principle is important to me. Cooperation with the Flemish Interest is not possible for me – not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow. I tell you this with all clarity.

If colleague Luykx thought he could bypass this – I don’t say he did this with evil intentions – then I pointed him to that. I will not go into what has happened in the Flemish Parliament, but I think some are starting to take a walk with a principle that says that one can only cooperate with parties that are democratic according to the content of their program.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the annals of the historians who follow this debate that Mr. Dewael is talking about exactly the same text. He thus makes his signature depend not on the content of what he signs, but on the possibility that it would be signed later, against which he ⁇ ins a sanitary cordon. I would like to thank him for this precision. For the Flemish public opinion, this will be more than clear enough.

The draft resolution was unanimously approved in the committee. This gives the Parliament a clear signal of the importance of the Iron Rhine for rail freight transport from the port of Antwerp and from Limburg. This means more transportation through railways. I regret that the debate sends in a debate about a signature. The essence is that the Parliament here gives a signal that the Iron Rhine is an important priority for freight transport in our country.

Mr. Speaker, for all clarity. In the committee, Mr. Veys and I discussed the content of this proposal. I did not hear Mr. Dewael participate in the debate. Let us be intellectually honest, colleague Dewael.

I do not fully agree. I have to admit that I was not present in the committee. I cannot attend all committees. I am in this house every day. I agree with the proposal, of course. I have also consulted with Mrs. De Block, but that’s not the point.

It is about the essence of today, the Iron Rhine. I’ve just said that in your intervention today you talked about the principle of the cordon sanitary. That principle still exists for me, let it be clear.

Thank you again to Mr Dewael. Yet to clarify again. He has ensured that the N-VA, if Mr. Luyckx had not signed his resolution, would be excluded from the current resolution that will be approved. For him, therefore, that principle of the cordon sanitary that he seems to want to maintain is more important than the Iron Rhine. It is about that.