Proposition 53K2139

Projet de loi portant modification du Code électoral, en ce qui concerne le vote des Belges à l'étranger.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Raf Terwingen
Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Benoît Lutgen
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Patrick Dewael
PS | SP Thierry Giet
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

April 4, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

registration of voters institutional reform organisation of elections postal vote counting of the votes election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 20, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in agreement with Mr. Brotcorne, I will briefly present the report on the first bill in the series of Community agreements concluded between eight political parties in the summer of last year.

The present bill on the right to vote of Belgians abroad was submitted by the group leaders of eight parties. First, as Mr Bacquelaine explained in the committee, the bill introduces objective criteria that determine in which municipality the voter residing abroad may register.

In the past, voters abroad were assigned to a particular electoral canton, where one sometimes received a different attitude, depending on whether the Belgians abroad were registered with it.

Now there are objective criteria, which are based in the first place on the last place of residence in Belgium, in the second place on the last known place of residence of the parents, so up to the second degree. That proposal could count on sympathy from the political majority in the committee.

In the general discussion, two fundamental elements were added. Mr. Ben Weyts, on behalf of the N-VA, requested an extension of the system for elections other than the federal, in other words, also for state elections. In this context, he referred to legislative proposals submitted in the past by other parties.

Ms. Pas had submitted amendments to secure the Brussels Flamings. To this end, she would rather have the Dutch-speaking Belgians who reside abroad to be able to register in the electoral list Brussels. This would optimize the possibility of an elected within Brussels.

These were the main changes compared to the original proposal.

The meeting turned on this and eventually remained with the original text, with one minor amendment after being introduced by the eight parties. This amendment took into account a number of comments from the State Council, including the fact that the date of implementation coincides with the European elections.

It was approved with 12 votes for and 5 abstentions.

I have nothing to add to this excellent report.

Thank you to the rapporteurs.

I wish everyone a good morning. It could have been a good morning. At first I thought it was a good bill, but when we look closer, it is not true.

The simplification of the procedure for voting rights for Belgians abroad is a good idea. We have already submitted concrete proposals for this, but – I will immediately go to the core of the debate – why not also for the state parliaments?

All of Flanders are asking for it. In all programs of all Flemish parties it is stated that Flemish people abroad should be able to vote not only for the Federal Parliament but also for the Flemish Parliament. Some parties go a long way into this. Open Vld even sent Patricia Ceysens to New York to establish a division of Open Vld. They seem to want to export domestic success abroad. Mrs. Ceysens said in New York: “There are many Flammers living in New York. Flemish voters abroad are sometimes neglected, but they still have to vote. Open Vld plans to conduct an active campaign in the event of elections.”

Then followed a strong plea for participation in the federal and Flemish elections from abroad. Despite Ms. Rutten, Ms. Ceysens also returned from New York.

On 5 December 2011, “Flamings in the World” organized a forum in the Flemish Parliament, entitled “The forgotten Flemish province.” The representatives present and parliamentarians of all Flemish parties have clearly and unanimously expressed their strong support for the extension of the voting right for Belgians abroad, including for state elections. Less than six months ago, these solemn declarations were made. One would then think that today one cannot do the opposite of what was pledged six months ago in the Flemish Parliament. Then you underestimate the intellectual agility and the principled agility of some colleagues.

Why do we want people from abroad to exercise the right to vote for the state parliaments? There are several reasons for this.

First, we live in a federal country, which means that the Flemish Parliament is on an equal footing with the federal Parliament. That logic is contained in the Constitution. If a Belgian is granted the right to vote in the federal elections abroad, that should logically apply to the state elections. Either for everyone and all parliaments, or for nobody.

Secondly, I think this can also be discriminatory, or it is. I spare you the technical discussion from the previous parliamentary period in the Committee on Home Affairs in the context of granting voting rights to Belgians abroad. It was a long legal debate about whether Belgians abroad did not fall under voting obligation instead of voting rights. It was said that voting must be mandatory, because otherwise there would be discrimination between the Belgians at home and the Belgians abroad: the Belgians at home have the voting duty and the Belgians abroad have the right to vote.

There was now an adjustment. The solution is: “If the Belgian who resides abroad has the possibility of whether or not to register in a consular population register, he has, as a rule, not only the right but also the duty to vote as soon as he has completed this formality, and is therefore registered on the list of voters.”

If a person enters into a consular population register abroad, therefore the voting obligation automatically follows. That is the logic that will be applied today.

Then, of course, this voting duty also applies to the state parliaments, because one cannot have a partial voting duty, a voting duty for one parliament and not for the other. That seems to me discriminatory and a basis for destruction by the Constitutional Court.

A third argument in favour of granting the right to vote to Belgians abroad for the parliaments of the provinces is that the powers of the parliaments of the provinces affect precisely the opinions of those Belgians.

I will give a few concrete examples. For example, the Flemish government has a specific budget for cultural activities abroad. Firefighters abroad also want to say something about this.

The Flemings abroad ask that they could talk about the organization of Flemish education abroad. They want, in the example of Germany with those Deutsche Schulen, as well as Britain and France, also Dutch-speaking education abroad.

It is precisely the counties that are primarily concerned with those powers, with those topics that concern the Belgians abroad and so the Flamings want to speak abroad and get a democratic voice in the chapter.

Finally, why extend the voting right for Belgians abroad before the state elections? The answer is based on simplicity and transparency. This government, supplemented by Green and Ecolo, wants to ensure coincidental elections.

Then the Government will have to explain to the Belgians abroad that they have partial voting rights in the elections for the Federal Parliament and for the state parliaments, which fall on the same day. Therefore, one will have to explain that they can vote for one and not for the other. Instead of making things easier, you make them more complicated.

In addition to the Flemish parties, Ecolo and ⁇ the MR are also strong supporters of the extension of the voting right for Belgians abroad to the state elections. However, this is not included in the present legislation.

All Flemish parties are in favour, also on the French-speaking side it is widely carried out, but yet this is not stated in the bill. Why not, one can ask. This is a response that we often have to give here: the PS does not want it. This is not included in the bill. If the PS does not want it, the French speakers do not get it and then the Flamings do not get it. That is clear. If it is against the interest of the PS but for the interest of Flamings and French speakers, then it is quickly decided in this country. The importance of the PS is above all other interests.

Why is the PS against it? An analysis of the voting behavior of Belgians abroad in 2007 shows that 120 000 votes were cast abroad.

Two conclusions can be made. First, the ratio of 60 % Flemish and 40 % French speakers is completely inverse abroad. There are 70% French speakers and 30% Dutch speakers. This is a normal evolution. In the 19th century it was different, but it is true that the migration into economically less performing regions will always be greater. The migration from Flanders was very large in the 19th century. In the 20th century, this was primarily given a Waals.

Second, the MR scores relatively much stronger than all other parties. For the 2007 domestic Senate elections, the MR scored 33%. For Belgians abroad, that is 38%. This makes a snack on the drink. For the federal elections, 1 to 2 seats may matter. There are 1 to 2 seats for seating.

However, this cannot be reversed by the PS. For the federal seats and the federal elections, there is already voting right for Belgians abroad. Therefore, the PS could not reverse anything.

Before the state elections, however, there are even more seats on the table proportionally. Therefore, the profit of the MR can be much greater. Involved in a competitive struggle between PS and MR for Wallon domination, these seats can of course play an important role.

What the PS wants, God wants it. In fact, the solution was simple. Mr. Bacquelaine, the solution was very simple. If the PS does not want the French speakers from abroad not to be able to vote for the Wallish Parliament – tant pis, one would think: Everyone’s democracy; tant pis – then give the powers to the provinces themselves. The logic would be to give the states constitutional autonomy, so that Flanders and Wallonia, each for themselves, can decide on the organization of their own elections at home and abroad.

Constitutive autonomy is also a matter that all Flemish parties have. It is also a matter that was agreed upon in the Community negotiations during the formation of government. She was no problem.

However, what is now on the table in the Senate in the name of constitutional autonomy is very limited. It also ensures that the state parliaments are absolutely not entitled to organise their own elections. The state parliaments are not allowed to decide on their own elections and therefore not on the right to vote of Belgians abroad.

Again, we notice here a strong piece of PS dominance over this country and over six million Flemish. The PS does not give it to the French speakers and therefore does not give it to the Flamings. In the other case, the French speakers might take an example from the Flemish and follow the Flemish example. So the PS blocks everything.

Thus it becomes clear once again that the Flammers have a chain at their legs to which a large prison ball hangs. The prison ball is the PS. It is a prison ball that inhibits us and six million Flammers in their doing and letting. The present file illustrates the aforementioned statement.

I would therefore like to ask the Flemish parties as well as the MR and Ecolo to cut through that chain with the large prison ball for one time and to free us for one time from the aforementioned prison ball, which can be very simple.

Colleagues of the MR, that can be thanks to your own bill. Colleagues Daniel Bacquelaine, Corinne De Permentier, François-Xavier de Donnea, Denis Ducarme, Jacqueline Galant and Charles Michel themselves have submitted a bill granting voting rights to Belgians abroad, also before the state elections. We submit this bill as an amendment to the present bill. This is probably the first time in history that I have submitted a bill from the MR. I will undoubtedly keep it with this one time too, but when it comes to defending the interests of the Flamingos then we are embarrassed for nothing, not even for submitting bills from the MR.

This is actually the only way to eliminate the absurdity that will occur in coincidental elections in among others in 2014. It is absolutely inexplicable that Belgians abroad could vote for the Federal Parliament on the same day, but for example not for the Flemish Parliament. The current bill is sold as a measure to make everything simpler and more transparent, but in practice it will simply make everything more complicated. It will be necessary to explain to Belgians abroad that they have only a fraction of the right to vote.

If you do not approve our amendment, of N-VA and MR of course, then you make the Flemish Parliament subordinate to the Federal Parliament. This, of course, goes against any federal logic. If you do not approve our amendment, then from now on we have an important federal Parliament, for which anyone from abroad can vote, and the small parliamentary brothers, the Pagadder Parliaments, for which no one from abroad can vote. Just like the children’s parliament. If you do not approve our amendment, you degrade the Flemish Parliament to the subordinate parliament, subordinate to the Federal Parliament. If you do not approve our amendment, please tell me how you will once again hold your promise regarding the granting of voting rights to Belgians abroad for the state elections. No constitutive autonomy and also in this bill you do not recognize that from this federal level. How will you fulfill what you promised six months ago?

Cut through that chain with that prison bulb once and glue it back to each other when it is necessary, but do it at least once so that you can fulfill your own promises at least once.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this proposal may not immediately appear to be the most sexy proposal in the series of proposals that come up in the framework of the reform we have envisaged, but it is not insignificant. I think you are also aware, like the other colleagues, that this proposal on the right to vote abroad eventually introduces an objectivation of the registration to vote and of the place where one is going to vote.

That further objectification is undoubtedly an important step. Why Why ? Because it is an adaptation of the legislation on voting rights of Belgians abroad before the federal elections. However, it is ⁇ also an important element since the easing that came in 2002. Previously, there was a voting right for Belgians abroad, but it was introduced very limited. The system was eased in 2002, resulting in approximately 114 000 Belgians actually registered abroad to vote at that time. In 2007, there were 122 000, much less in 2010 due to the procedure in addition.

At the same time, however, we found that a quarter of those registered Belgians abroad were counted in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district. For example, in 2003 all those votes were counted in the canton of Lennik, with the result that it was thought that the freezing in that region had increased very strongly. The ultimate effect was that the seat distribution was also changed. At that moment, in the entire Halle-Vivoorde region, the mayors – I look at colleague Michel Doomst – also reacted and stated that it could not be that in this way the mostly French-speaking voices from abroad were taken in a Flemish region. Then there was effectively taken a further step and those votes were not counted in Lennik.

Today we take another step in objectivizing the voices of people living abroad because they actually need to demonstrate that they create an objective bond with the municipality where they are enrolled.

That is one of the main reasons for which we consider this proposal important and also support it, in addition to the fact that this proposal comes with a simplification and at the same time the voting by letter is somewhat diminished or at least discouraged.

I can imagine, Mr. Weyts, that you are not so happy. You said that the states do not enjoy the same voting rights. Would you not have escaped from the negotiating table! But you know that story. I have so far, unless I am very seriously mistaken, not seen any text from you in which you provide it. So you should not stand here, but effectively demonstrate that you are doing something like that, because intervening in this way does not help either.

Mrs Becq, I would like to invite you to stay on the floor, because I have another concrete question for you. For us it is very clear that the best solution to this problem consists in granting constitutive autonomy to the state parliaments, as your party stands for, as stated in the well-known resolutions of the Flemish Parliament, as all Flemish parties stand for and as it was also on the negotiating table, when we were still sitting at the table. There was consensus on this. That was no problem. My surprise is great, because you have admitted it and because you have also returned to it.

If I can speak out of confession about Vollezele, in Vollezele there was no problem with the PS about this. and passions. There was immediately an agreement on this. The granting of full constitutional autonomy to the state parliaments was no problem. My question to you is the following. If you have also admitted and engaged in this, and if you have reclaimed, how will CD&V fulfill the promise that was solemnly made six months ago in the Flemish Parliament, together with other parties? If you do not grant constitutional autonomy to the state parliaments, how will you ensure that the Flemish people abroad still have the right to vote for the Flemish Parliament? How will you do that?

Mr. Weyts, (...) that I have not seen that you have submitted proposals on this subject.

Second, if there were all agreements about it, then I do not understand why you fled and you did not make sure it came effectively. I do not mean you alone, because the best drivers are always on the side, but together, with the support of the whole Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, within the framework of the institutional agreement that will guarantee our country a serene future and peaceful relations between its various communities, the eight parties also decided to simplify the procedure of registration on the list of voters and thus facilitate the voting of our expatriate compatriots in the federal legislative elections.

The PS Group welcomes this important measure of administrative simplification, which should sustain the vote of our compatriots who wish to, even in the case of early parliamentary elections while guaranteeing the security of the vote. This is a significant democratic advance.

From now on, once the law has entered into force, it will be sufficient for the Belgian living abroad, who chooses the vote in person or by procuration, to register only once on the list of voters and his registration will be perpetuated in so far as he votes at each vote. It will therefore no longer, as it is now, have to re-register in each election with the risk of practical difficulties arising against the exercise of the right to vote, in particular in the case of early elections, as was the case in 2010 when the number of voters had dropped sharply compared to the elections of 2007.

Furthermore, for the PS, it was also important to determine the objective criteria for attachment to a voting municipality, these criteria being linked to his life in Belgium or to that of his parents. Like any citizen living in Belgium who must vote in the municipality of his domicile, it was normal for the Belgian living abroad to determine, in an objective manner, the municipality and therefore the constituency in which his vote will be counted. It was an imperative of fairness of the election and thus no longer allowing the Belgian established abroad to determine the municipality of attachment of his choice, without any objective link with it.

Along with the aim of facilitating the voting of Belgians abroad through administrative simplification measures, it was essential for the PS to continue to guarantee the security of the vote. It was, in fact, about avoiding at all costs that the perpetuation of the vote would create situations where ballots would have been sent into nature. In contrast to the maintenance of civil status records in Belgium, which allows to know whether a person has died or moved, the updating of the consular registers depends only on the information transmitted by the citizen himself. The consulates do not know, a priori, whether the Belgian on the list has changed country, address or has died.

If it were not imposed on the Belgian who chose the correspondence vote to confirm his registration a few weeks before the elections, which thus allows to confirm his existence and his address, bulletins would be sent to wrong addresses or to wrong recipients. The situation is the same for the Belgian who did not vote in the previous election: the consulate does not know, a priori, not why he did not. Is this a deliberate violation of the voting obligation? Is it because he moved or that the call did not reach him or is it still because he died?

As a security measure, these people will have to re-register.

Finally, we welcome the important arrangement planned for information of the Belgian living abroad in relation to the legislative change and the new arrangement created, both at the entry into force of the law and at certain moments of his life as an expatriate, at the age of 18 or when he is registered in the consular registers.

Expatriates are sometimes very distant from life in Belgium and what is happening there on the political and social level. It was therefore important to provide for information measures that enable them to exercise their right to vote with full knowledge.

These are the reasons why my group is entirely in favor of this device.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the law of 7 March 2002 amending the Electoral Code with a view to granting the right to vote to Belgians residing abroad for the election of the federal legislative chambers and establishing the freedom of choice of the representative in the event of voting by procuration had made a significant step in the access of all to the right to vote. And the proposal to be examined goes in this direction.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution under which voting for federal legislative elections is mandatory, Belgians residing abroad have long been in the legal impossibility of fulfilling this obligation. In fact, they had to wait until the elections of June 13, 1999 to be able to effectively participate in a federal election. At the time, however, the administrative formalities were extremely heavy. In fact, in 1999, only 20 Belgians actually could take part in this vote.

The law of 7 March 2002 reduced the number of formalities. In 2003, the votes of 114,000 Belgians were recorded and 122,000 votes were counted in 2007. The number of voters, on the other hand, decreased very sharply in the 2010 elections, which were early elections.

Despite this obvious improvement, the new legislation still suffers from administrative burdens that unnecessarily complicate the democratic task of our expatriates. For the electoral candidate, the main administrative formality lies in the obligation to renew, at each ballot, his application for registration.

This obligation to systematically renew the application for entry on the lists is inexplicable in so far as this formality is not required for Belgians residing in Belgium. In accordance with Article 180 of the Electoral Code, the voting obligation is imposed on all Belgians who meet the conditions of the electorate and are registered in the population registers held in the Belgian diplomatic or consular posts of career abroad. The inconsistency is all the more evident as the second inscription appears superfetatory since the Belgians registered in the consular and diplomatic posts are, in principle, known to the authorities. This system showed all its limitations in the last legislative elections, in 2010, where our fellow citizens residing abroad encountered obvious difficulties to participate in this election since of the 122,000 Belgian expatriates who voted in 2007, they were only 42,000 three years later to fulfill their electoral duty.

Complaints were sent to us by mail and the difficulties encountered by Belgians residing abroad were widely mediated. These complaints refer to shortcomings in information and the specific procedure established in the context of the organisation of early elections given the deadlines for dissolution and the deadlines for the calling of voters. Many of our compatriots complained that they could not be properly informed by the competent authorities of the formalities to be undertaken for their re-registration as voters. The late distribution of mailed voting bulletins was also challenged. Whether it is malfunctions related to the organization of elections or problems related to the transmission of information, it is clear that these deficiencies do not allow a normal exercise of the right to vote for our compatriots established abroad and explain a ⁇ low participation rate.

As part of the institutional negotiations in autumn 2011, we wanted to address this issue and to simplify the voting system for Belgians residing abroad. For the Reform Movement, this was an essential point. This agreement is now translated into the law, which we are delighted with.

The new law facilitates first of all this registration step as registration forms will be automatically sent to Belgians residing abroad as soon as the law is published in the Moniteur belge. It is therefore immediately applicable. The same form will also be offered to Belgians who settle abroad when they register in the consular registers. Finally, this form will be available on simple request: it will be appropriate for the voter to inform the Belgian municipality to which he may be attached according to the subsidiary criteria of the law and to return the form to the office.

But the most significant advance is obviously that, contrary to the current situation that imposes the obligation to re-register as a voter in each legislative election, the new procedure provides for the perpetuation of the registration. Specifically, the registration for the next elections scheduled for June 2014 will also be valid for the subsequent parliamentary elections, provided that the voter has fulfilled his electoral duty. Otherwise, they will have to re-register.

Finally, for voters who choose to vote by mail in 2014, a mail will be automatically sent to them before the next election to check whether they confirm that choice of vote.

We welcome these advances and this overall simplification of the system, but we believe that we will need to go further in the future to definitively put on equal footing the voting rights of Belgians abroad and Belgians residing in Belgium. We therefore want to extend the current reform of our proposals on the right to vote for Belgians abroad for European elections for those who reside outside the EU countries, since others already have this right to vote in European elections.

We find it necessary and logical, within the framework of a federal system, to remedy this gap and to grant the right to vote to expatriates for the election of councils and parliaments of federal entities. Indeed, for us, the Belgians residing abroad have a manifest interest and must be recognized a right to participate in the election of the elected and therefore in the shaping of political options prefiguring the fate of the Regions and Communities to which they belong.

Tomorrow even more than today in the framework of the sixth state reform transferring new competences to the Regions and Communities, it seems to us essential that the voting right of the Belgians residing abroad also concerns the federated entities, the Regions of that country, at the time when they are given more power.

There is, for us, no distinction to be made in this regard between, on the one hand, the legislative elections and the elections concerning the composition of the parliaments of the Communities and Regions and for the European Parliament. We will therefore in the future support any initiative, our own in particular, to ensure that this right of vote is effectively conferred on the Belgians residing abroad for the election of the parliaments of the Regions: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels.

We believe that the mechanism of electronic voting should also be promoted for this right to vote.

We are perfectly aware that we were not able to get all of what we wanted in terms of voting for Belgians residing abroad. This is the result of a compromise. We respect it and we respect our agreement. This obviously does not exempt us from continuing our struggle for the vote of Belgians residing abroad in the Regions. After 2014, for the next regional elections, we will work on it and we think we can get that right to vote.

I would like to point out that we have been goods alone sometimes defending this measure for years. We are pleased that some have expressed the desire to participate in this claim. So much better! We believe that together, within this parliament, we will be able to make sure that this happens for the elections that will follow the 2014 regional elections.

In anticipation of these new reforms, my group will vote in favour of the reform proposal as it is an important element of the institutional agreement and as it constitutes a progress for the democratic rights of all Belgians, whether they live abroad or in Belgium.

However, this debate brings some news.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I understand that you say that you were all alone with the MR in the plea for granting voting rights to Belgians abroad, before the state elections. CD&V, the Open Vld, Green, and the sp.a have not supported you in this regard, despite their party programs. That surprises me to a great extent, especially since I have just heard Mrs. Becq ask questions about the proposal of the N-VA.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I say about you the same as I say about CD&V: here is our proposal. The amendment is in advance. It is your bill, converted into an amendment.

You say that in the future you will work on granting voting rights to Belgians abroad. The future begins today. Isn’t that someone’s electoral slogan? Mr Bacquelaine, you can approve the amendment today. We can submit it together. The copyright rests with you. I fully recognize your copyright. You can sign the amendment. It is all of me. It is now on the table. I tell both the MR and CD&V and the other Flemish parties that the future begins today. You can now work on granting voting rights to Belgians abroad.

Let us be honest. Couldn’t it be that you’ve all gotten ground together, only by the PS? How is this possible?

I find quite amusing this kind of angelism that would almost make you believe that you are landing today in this parliament and that, suddenly, you realize that it is impossible to immediately realize everything in which one believes. Apologize to me! I think this behavior is quite childish.

We are working within the framework of an institutional agreement that involves a fundamental reform of the state, which involves taking into account the positions of one and the other, as the parliamentary life in a democracy demands. We have not invented anything in this regard. So at some point it becomes necessary to reach an agreement and come to defend it in front of parliament. That is what we do.

This does not remove the concerns of one another. I remain convinced that, among the eight groups that support this majority agreement, all set priorities in various matters that they would like to see result. But it is the same situation as with desire: it weakens when satisfied. Therefore it is necessary to keep the matter and continue to fight the struggles we believe in.

Maybe one day we will be brought to vote together on other texts. No one can predict the future. I hope you remain constant in your position.

I have two minutes to speak, which will not be pleasant, as usual.

I find it incredible to treat the behavior of the N-VA as childish. How then should we consider the majority parties, including the MR, who participate in this proposal and do not even go to the end of their ideas? It is lying to the people. It is too simple to present yourself with very sharp ideas, and then never have the courage to go to the end.

I therefore find that the MR has once again misled in its ideas to become a member of the majority and occupy ministerial positions. The N-VA showed courage and decided not to participate in the government to respect its ideas and not to lie to its voters. You should take example.

by Mr. Bacquelaine said that you can’t get everything right away, for everyone and everywhere. This is what I learned from his speech.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, in recent years we had to find that there were problems with the way the voting rights of Belgians were regulated abroad.

A first major problem was that Belgians abroad had to register again before each election. That was a very time-consuming procedure and it caused unnecessary administration. Early elections proved to be a big problem. For example, in 2010 there were 33 000 Belgians abroad registered for the elections. In 2007, there were 96 000.

A second problem was that Belgians abroad could freely choose in which municipality they wanted to register. It was not expected to show any connection with that municipality. Unfortunately, the right to vote for Belgians abroad has thus often become the subject of political and community discussions, which we now really need to be able to leave behind.

Colleagues, the sixth state reform must, after years of community crackdown and bidding, with an administrative shutdown and an unprecedented crisis in our country, finally rest in the household. Our group is pleased that, within the framework of the latest state reform, a solution has also been found for the right to vote of Belgians abroad.

The first problem is resolved by removing the mandatory re-enrollment at each election. Registration as a voter must only take place once. The registration for the next election is valid for all subsequent federal parliamentary elections.

The second problem, the free choice of the municipality of registration, is solved as the State Council has previously suggested, namely by linking objective criteria to the place of registration.

There are four objective criteria – I summarize them in order of priority –: first, the municipality where one was last registered, second, the municipality of the place of birth, third, the municipality where the father or mother is registered in the population register, fourth, the municipality where a relative up to the third degree is registered.

In this way, it will no longer be as easy to register in any municipality, in a municipality where one has no personal connection and the risk of political recovery is therefore reduced to a minimum.

These are for us correct solutions to concrete problems. Our group will approve the text.

Many speakers before me have already explained exactly what the bill means.

I will not repeat this, but I would like to comment on the following. We have just heard from the N-VA a whole litany about the fact that Belgians can not vote abroad for the elections of the regions and the communities.

In itself, it is a very interesting discussion of how far one can go in granting those rights. The conclusion drawn by Mr. Weyts, namely that the MR would have stood at all, is absolutely incorrect. Everyone has their own points and priorities, which one wants to ⁇ and one comes to an agreement, where one and the other get something in. This is how it goes. I understand, however, that it is difficult for him to understand exactly how negotiations work.

Like us, you have been sitting at the negotiating table for a year, ladies and gentlemen of the N-VA. We have been together in a number of meetings for a year. I have never heard of your proposals to extend the right to vote.

I have never heard them. Now the present legislation is almost a catastrophe, a horror for the Flamings. If the theme was so important, why were there never proposals on the table? Why was that point not scheduled in the note-De Wever, if it was so important? It is not in it.

Mr. Van Hecke, can I try to explain you something again? Open your ears to listen and then draw your conclusions.

The given of constitutive autonomy was in the texts from the beginning, as long as we were negotiating. From the first day, it was in the texts. It is with that principle that we could realize this in the state parliament. It is only when we have gone away at the negotiating table or pushed away, ... (Rumor in the room) because the latte had to go down and we were not prepared for it, that also that given from the texts has disappeared.

Thank you, the Flemish parties who remain there.

I must acknowledge Mr. Jambon that he has left. That is true.

Indeed, on page 33 of the note-De Wever there is a section about constitutive autonomy. What was missing was what you, with the constitutive autonomy, wanted to regulate exactly everything yourself. Do you want to do everything, 5 points, 10 points? There was absolutely nothing detailed in that note.

Now it comes to say that there was a chapter of constitutional autonomy. It is, of course, easy to just walk away from the table and then say that important point was not realized.

What are you doing out of poverty? You take over a bill from the Mr. You make an amendment. You serve that. That means that you have very little inspiration to design texts yourself and have a contribution to the debate.

We will see this later in the debate on the judicial district. You just did the same thing. First you say that everything is not good, you propose a better solution to then deepen a 2003 bill, the work of another, and submit as an amendment. Then it is your alternative. That is the way you work. This is ⁇ hypocritical.

I will make another last attempt to explain what constitutive autonomy means.

Pearls for pigs.

Full constitutional autonomy means that the Flemish Parliament itself decides on its own elections. Since all Flemish parties, including your party, are in favor of granting voting rights to Belgians abroad for the Flemish Parliament, this can be arranged immediately from the Flemish Parliament.

Constitutive autonomy was in all the notes we supported. It was always on the table, but you apparently didn’t see it. You may need another third employee, paid by the government, to understand all that. This seems to me appropriate. I want to even support that, because I see that there is still some insight, some knowledge and knowledge missing.

It is 11.04 hours; it has taken a long time before the argument came. I thought it would come.

Mr. Weyts, I assure you that we too at the negotiating table have defended the principle of constitutional autonomy, like many parties. The present text is what came out of the agreement. This is the case at all: in each of the sixteen texts that will be addressed, one could say on which points one could have gone further. Even this afternoon can be the same for the thirteen texts coming from the Senate: about political renewal, for example, or about the Senate reform, which will be discussed later. With each of these texts, one can say that there was more possible, yes. However, it is an agreement with eight parties. As far as we are concerned, it is a balanced agreement and a major step forward, also in terms of easing the system for voting abroad.

That arrangement means a step forward, an improvement: it is a relief for the Belgians living abroad. From a democratic point of view, this is very important, as is the way the votes are allocated. This is now objectivized. Per ⁇ everyone thinks that is a good thing. For us, this is an important step forward and we will therefore also support the text.

That first step, the first proposal discussed here in the House, is also important because it means ending years of immobilism since 2007 due to community disturbances. I am therefore very pleased that today we can start the debate in the House and draw a line under a history of immobilism, which has severely affected our country.

Many important files that Parliament has to work on have remained behind. Today we see that there is a conference in Rio, twenty years after the first. Never before has so much attention been paid to the important problems that are being addressed there and will have consequences in Belgium as well. Over the past fifteen years, we have always looked at our internal state position, to the split of BHV, to a further state reform. Many other problems remain. I hope that today, at the beginning of our discussions, we can finally close a chapter so that Parliament can address the real problems of our society.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard Mrs. Becq stating that the present bill is not the most sexy proposal of all the bills that shape the sixth state reform. I don’t know if the term “sexy” is correctly chosen for all the bills that we will be submitted for discussion. It is not a good name for all the proposals that are still on the agenda today.

This is one of the less serious proposals. There are many worse suggestions to us. If Mrs. Becq meant that with her words, I can follow her in that.

Of course, we have no objection to the improvement of the voting and voting recording method with the present proposal. That objective criteria will determine in which municipality in this country the voter residing abroad may register was also urgently needed.

However, due to the negative consequences of other elements of the all but sexy State Reform, the Flemish Interest proposes other, objective criteria for the registration. I will soon go deeper into it.

First, however, I would like to take a look at what Mr. Weyts just said.

I understand the concerns of the members of the N-VA, in particular that the present bill does not grant voting rights to compatriots residing abroad for elections to state parliaments. It is only for the federal parliamentary elections that the present bill grants voting rights to voters residing abroad.

The amendments submitted to this end by the N-VA members will address the aforementioned concerns and will regulate federally. However, they do not seem to be an ideal solution. Indeed, it should be the competence of the state parliaments themselves to regulate the registration.

Mr. Weyts, in the discussion you have cited a lot of documents in which the constitutive autonomy would stand or not. However, there is a document in which the members of sp.a, CD&V and the N-VA should definitely know that the constitutive autonomy is included in it. The provision is in your own, Flemish government agreement.

In your Octopus Note, which is an annex to your Flemish government agreement, the very first sentence is: “First we ask for a greater, constitutive autonomy.”

All Flemish government parties agree on the aforementioned provision. I wonder why you here make sharp accusations against CD&V, while in the Flemish government you do not call as loudly against your coalition partner, in order to be able to implement your own government agreement. In the Flemish government, you remain loyal to CD&V, who here makes you great accusations. In the Flemish Parliament, you vote out conflicts of interest against the current State reform, because of your loyalty to CD&V. You even vote away from the hearings with the magistrates, which you call out loudly here. You do all this out of loyalty to the same CD&V.

Any consequence in the loud shouting is appropriate. I wonder, frankly, what you are doing in the Flemish government, except opening mosques and subsidizing mosques. You are not there to fulfill the Flemish demands. So much is clear.

During the discussion of this bill in the committee, our group submitted four amendments. We will present them today. These amendments all have the same purpose: the allocation of the votes cast by compatriots abroad to the Brussels Capital Region. We want that arrangement to compensate for one of the grotesque imbalances caused by the impure division of the BHV electoral circles. I explain myself more closely.

From next week on, we will discuss the division thoroughly in the Committee for the Revision of the Constitution. Well, the Brussels Flamings are paying the league for the impure division of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district. In the proposals for the electoral climate reform on Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, every balance is sought. Instead of taking into account the existence of two balanced communities in Brussels, the least numerous group, the Flamings, is politically excluded. The Brussels Flamings are completely abandoned.

The division of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district for the Chamber Elections is deliberately carried out in such a way that it is now excluded that the Brussels Flamings can obtain one or two seats out of the 15 Brussels seats in the Chamber. Unlike the elections for the Capital Region, Europe and the Senate, there are no language-split lists for the House and it is also expressly prohibited for parties to link their lists. Any form of attachment or pool formation is excluded. All Dutch-speaking lists will fall below the electoral threshold. Therefore, it becomes impossible to elect a Dutch speaker as a Chamber member in Brussels.

Concretely, the Flemish parties thus lose two Chamber seats to the French speakers. All 15 Brussels Chamber Members will therefore belong to the French-speaking language group, despite the fact that more than 10 % of Brussels voters vote for a Dutch-speaking list. It becomes a purely symbolic voice. The Flemish Brusselsers are thus simply politically lining. The traditional parties in the Flemish government are there and watch it. However, the majority parties have, following the discussions in the Senate, also had to admit themselves that a Flemish elected in Brussels may no longer be in it.

The people are not waiting for an ideological sterilization, for a list of units, but from the reactions to the call of Wouter Beke, it turned out clearly that a Flemish list of units is not directly at issue. The result will therefore be that a number of Flemish political parties will want to post some candidates in possibly unelected places of the lists of their French-speaking equal knee.

This will then lead to a strengthening of the Francophonie in Brussels and to a political liquidation of the Flemish in Brussels at the federal level. Brussels is a French-speaking city. In addition, the French-speaking electorate body will also be added to the French-speaking votes from the six Flemish facility municipalities around Brussels. The French-speaking inhabitants are therefore given a high level of political protection. Their voice leads with certainty to a chosen one while a cross is made over the Flamings in Brussels. This new discrimination is extremely shocking and must absolutely be avoided. It also ensures that the French-speaking parties are overrepresented in Parliament.

Due to the large number of foreigners in Brussels, partly due to the status of European capital, Brussels is allocated a very high number of room seats in proportion. It is unacceptable that all those foreigners in the future will only be represented by French-speaking politicians. Therefore, we also find it logical that all votes cast by compatriots from abroad will be assigned in the future to the Brussels Capital Region. Brussels and the associated international institutions and functions are, after all, for many compatriots the only link with our country. They often have a much greater bond with Brussels than with the municipality where one last stayed or where one was born and ⁇ with the municipality where father, mother or a relative in the third degree is registered as provided in the present bill.

Approximately 40% of votes abroad are issued by Flamingen. If one adds it to the Brussels Capital Region, then one will expand the Dutch-speaking electoral body in Brussels by several tens of thousands of votes. In this way, the chances are even greater that the Flemish parties in Brussels can reach the electoral threshold so that the Flemish in their own capital can at least survive politically.

Mr. Speaker, my speech will be brief since many colleagues have already expressed the reasons why it was appropriate to adopt such a proposal, which improves the conditions and the exercise of the voting right of Belgians abroad. Its interest is to allow the objectivation of the allocation of votes to the municipalities of which belong Belgian citizens residing abroad. It will also simplify the procedures for registration on the list of voters as well as the exercise of voting by these citizens.

Above all, this proposal will ensure respect for civil rights and duties through the maintenance of the voting obligation, the securing of the scrutiny and the verification of registrations.

It is for these simple but crucial reasons for a democracy that we support this text.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, on behalf of the CDH group, I would like to say, in my turn, how much we look forward to this bill which is being taken back as part of the state reform. We are fully in line with the text. I mean as proof the proposals we have already submitted several times in this direction.

Above all, it is of democratic essence, and it is even a requirement, that all Belgians – regardless of where they reside – can participate in the elections held in their country. We all know that distance is not necessarily a criterion of disinterest. On the contrary, our expatriates want to maintain this link with their country of origin. The right to vote is ⁇ a fundamental manifestation of this.

Therefore, I totally agree with the objective pursued by the proposal to facilitate the participation of these Belgians in electoral operations.

Unlike other countries – in fact, France just experienced this experience on the occasion of the legislative elections – Belgium has not made the choice to create one or more electoral districts abroad. Instead, we wanted to define objective criteria for the connection between these Belgians from abroad and the municipalities to which they would be allowed to register. It’s like a return to the source, a return to the barracks.

The key advance lies in the fact that once these Belgians are registered, they will remain. Finished the boring formalities that often discourage the use of this right to vote. This systematic obligation to re-register every election is a thing of the past. It is finished! This measure is a real advance!

Similarly, progress has been made in the modalities of exercising the right to vote and displacement.

Finally, I think it should also be emphasized that this system does not remove anything from the mandatory character of voting, which is ⁇ ined with regard to Belgians abroad. Once they have made the choice of this inscription, they will have to assume this electoral duty.

That being said, we consider that what we are likely to vote for tomorrow is an important step, but that it is only a first step for the voting rights of Belgians abroad. Like others, we want to go further and we also want to extend this right to regional scrutiny. We also hope that Belgian residents outside the European Union can participate in the European elections. I hope that we will not have to wait for a possible new reform of the state to ⁇ this.

I consider this to be a first step. I believe that all the groups that make up this Parliament should vote on this text. Unanimity can be considered. It would be proof that we accept the wisdom of small steps, even though we know that we must – and we wish to – go further tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we are here today at the beginning of the discussion of a whole series of bills that are the result of a political agreement between eight parties that have a two-thirds majority in this House. It is a political agreement and the first thing we, as political parties, must make sure of is whether this bill provides a correct and correct fulfillment of what was politically agreed. This is how political democracy works. One makes a political agreement and then one tries to give the right legal fulfillment to this political agreement. We must answer that this bill is a correct fulfillment of what was agreed in the Community Agreement between the eight political parties that have a two-thirds majority in this Parliament. That is the essence of a political agreement.

Is this bill on the right to vote for Belgians abroad perfect or complete? Should there have been other things? of course ! Each party has a broader view of each theme – we will be able to establish this in all sixteen bills – than what is stated in the bill. This is a political agreement. It is about concluding a political agreement with the various parties to come to a basic text that everyone can stand behind. Behind this bill a large part of the Parliament may stand because the opposition parties have limited themselves to an abstinence. In other words, they agree in principle with the way in which the right to vote for Belgians abroad is facilitated and objectivised by determining where they can register and where they can participate in the elections. By abstaining, they have agreed to the principle, but they find it a little too little. They wanted to add other things.

Indeed, the bill has added a number of objective criteria which we are ⁇ pleased with as they have led to a number of fundamental disruptions in the past. For example, I think of the canton of Lennik where in 2004 all Belgians from abroad were annexed. This suddenly led to a language relationship and a relationship between political parties that was not at all a reflection of the population situation on the ground. Also the then addition of all Belgians from abroad to the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde will now take place in a different way. One will look at the place of birth, the place of residence, the family bond to the third degree. Therefore, there are objective data that will result in a spread of Belgians abroad across the country.

Colleagues consider that a fundamentally good proposal. We will also support this proposal.

On the other hand, there are the elements proposed by the two opposition parties.

Why does this only apply to federal elections? Well, in this we must be very clear. Our party is in favour of giving voting rights to Belgians abroad for elections at the other levels. We go even further. Our party is in favor of giving total autonomy in this regard to each parliament, to determine who its voters are and, in other words, to add the Belgians abroad to the elections for example the Flemish elections or for the other levels. Each level should represent it for itself, as there is no hierarchy between parliaments. We must continue this discussion in order to reach a political agreement on this in the future.

However, I do not accept the criticism of N-VA that this element could already have been in the agreement. The report to the King by Mr. Bart De Wever on 17 October 2010 does not mention this either. We must honestly dare. One must stop here with telkenmale pushing forward the argument that this was in the agreement of Vollezele, because that text is not known. In the report to the King of 17 October 2010, as was confirmed to me just then, it is not stated. That element had already been discarded by the negotiators. They realized that there was no political agreement on this.

Mr. Weyts, you had already said in Vollezele to your friend Di Rupo, who so much liked you to be Prime Minister and for whom you had everything left, that you would drop that element because Mr. Di Rupo did not like that. Do not turn things around today.

I would like to talk about the essence of the present proposal. Any political party can stand behind that essence, including your party, Mr. Weyts. It would adorn you if you would say wholeheartedly yes to this proposal, instead of looking for new counter-arguments, such as a jaw blow for the Flames, which allows you to point out what is not taken in!

Our position is very clear. Let us, with the Flemish parties and with the MR, convince our friends that in the future each political level can organize its own elections. We stand behind that.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Biesen, I want to make it clear. You try to repeat a lie as much as possible, so that something may still hang from it.

You can read the note of royal clarifier Bart De Wever on it. It states clearly: full constitutional autonomy. That means, including the granting of voting rights to Belgians abroad for the state elections. It is as ready as a puddle.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my habit to defend the N-VA and I will often quote from the note-De Wever at the many steps of the state reform that we are going to experience here. At this point I must, however, quote the following from that note: “In order that they can regulate their organization and functioning themselves, the new government will remove the restrictions on the constitutive autonomy of Communities and Regions.”

For the rest, I refer to all my subsequent statements in connection with the note-De Wever, because it is of course interesting.

It is, of course, that the constitutive autonomy, which we have said later, is mentioned in a small sentence. But, Mr. Weyts, in no way does this explicitly or implicitly refer to the voting right of the Belgians abroad, in no way.

You had already dropped it. Give it to me. You should not keep lying in this Parement. The method you use, the caprioles you always do here, do it for the Venetian Commission or for a well-believing Flemish Parliament, but here the essence is said. And the essence is that this is a good bill that improves the situation of Belgians abroad.

Please rest assured, I will not be too long. Weyts has already perfectly explained the grievances we can address to this bill.

However, it seems to me important to show Flanders that in Wallonia too, parties defend the constitutive autonomy of the federated entities, without, it is true, wanting the division of the country or confederalism. Please understand that many Wallons do not want the separation of the country because they refuse to live under the socialist dictatorship. Imagine our life in the Socialist Republic of Wallonia! It would be a real hell!

In order to preserve the unity of the country, it is time to opt for a real successful federalism that respects the federated entities because federalism for the benefit of a Community, as is the case with the French-speaking minority of the Brussels periphery or federalism for the benefit of a party, the Socialist Party, can no longer last.

My party defends a realistic and progressive vision of our federalism. It is true, we want to continue to live together but we also want that all citizens of this country have the same rights and that all federal entities are respected. Unfortunately, by refusing to respond favorably to the demands of the Flemish majority, the political parties especially French-speaking are gradually destroying our country and its unity.

Just as I believe that the benefits that are granted to a minority in the facility communes of the country should be abolished, I am convinced that the constitutive autonomy of the federated entities should also be opted for. In this sense, I will, of course, support the amendment filed by the N-VA, which demonstrates, once again, the hypocrisy of the French-speaking parties and, first of all, clearly the MR.

In this sense, I truly congratulate the initiative of the N-VA which really puts the MR before its responsibilities. The French-speaking parties that I am used to attend are indeed very strong to tell fools to the public! Once they have to choose between ideas and ministerial posts, they very often deny their beautiful promises to respond to the sirenes of power! This system has worked for years. It is true! I want to prove the number of socialist seats in this assembly! On the other hand, I am convinced that this will not last longer because the people no longer accept not to be heard and they are tired of beautiful words!

By doing this, traditional political parties, who like to lie to the people, gradually dig the gap between citizens and the political world, to such a point that this gap has now become a real gap. I would like to say to the traditional parties that they wanted federalism and it must also be said to the French speakers that they refused generalized bilingualism decades ago. They must take their responsibilities and fulfill their commitments. It is therefore necessary to create a true federalism respectful of all the federated entities of this Kingdom and this begins by giving the same importance to the federal and regional elections, which completely denies this proposal.

Humbly, I would like to ask all parliamentarians to realize that “Papa’s Belgium” – I’m not talking about “Papa Daerden” – has lived, and that the real center of gravity of this country is the Regions. If we refuse to see this reality, I fear for the future of our country. It has been repeated enough, the ruling parties are informed of this situation, it is up to them to take it into account or to play the politics of the straw. In any case, it will have to be assumed. If you do not listen to the opinion of the majority, even if it comes from Flanders, you will have to pay the consequences later and you will not have to cry when Belgium can no longer continue to exist.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from all the banks that the text proposed today is a real step forward, which goes in the right direction. The only complaint that is made to this text is that it is not going far enough.

I remind you that as long as you do not negotiate until the end, and as long as you do not stay at the table until the end, the advances, you never have them! Without a comprehensive institutional agreement, supported by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, without an agreement on these texts, all these advances are impossible. This kind of text shows how much better it is to continue negotiating to move things forward.

The second element I would like to mention is the fact not to extend it to regional parliaments. I am somewhat surprised by the arguments mentioned by Mr. and Weyts.

The bill submitted by Mr. Weyts himself on the subject does not mention any possible discrimination between the federal and regional elections, either in the explanatory memo or in the articles.

This alleged discrimination, which Mr. Weyts has just explained to us the hand on the heart, not raised by the State Council, already exists for a number of years in Belgium since the vote of the Belgians abroad concerns only the federal elections. I repeat: the Council of State does not raise any discrimination. And there are so few, Mr. Weyts, that when you submit a text on this topic, you do not even mention the question!

You are now trying to focus on the word "constitutive autonomy" of the De Wever note. Well tried ! Honestly, it is well tried!

It is true that you do not want a federal parliament anymore since you want purely and simply the division of the country. It can therefore be understood that, in your opinion, everything should be transferred to the federal parliaments. The vote of the Belgians abroad... even the word “Belgians” annoys you! It is normal that, under these conditions, you are not opposed to the establishment of constitutive autonomy with all that can result.

Trying to make you believe, today, that with constitutive autonomy, you want to end the alleged discrimination that existed between the federal and regional elections, that is well found! Good found ! But everyone knows that this is not true. I mean as proof that, as I have already pointed out, when you submitted bills on the subject, you did not address this aspect.

That being said, I would like to react, Mr. Speaker, with regard to elements that are found in the opinion of the State Council and which, in my opinion, should be included in the report as being the position defended by the Government, on the basis of the bill proposals under consideration.

Two questions are asked by the State Council, questions to which it is fundamental to give the most detailed and accurate answers possible.

Regarding the situation of voters who have not voted, it is important to clarify that the bill aims, in particular, to perpetuate the registration as a voter in a municipality. For this purpose, it provides that registration as a voter will now be valid for the legislative election that will take place from the first day of the fourth month following the filing of the registration form, as well as for all subsequent federal legislative elections. In other words, the Belgian is no longer obliged to re-register as a voter in each election, unless he is no longer registered in the diplomatic or consular post in question, he has not voted in the previous election or he has chosen to vote by correspondence in the previous elections and has not confirmed his way of voting within the scheduled time. In these three cases, it will be up to the Belgians abroad to again fill out a form of application for registration as provided for in article 181bis, § 1er.

As a reminder, in the current system, the voter from abroad must re-register at each election. In the proposed and agreed system (the sixth state reform), he must no longer re-register as long as he has effectively fulfilled his electoral duty.

The proposed system aims to make it easier for Belgians to vote abroad.

In so far as the Belgians residing abroad, as soon as they fulfill their electoral duty, will no longer be compelled, like the Belgians residing on the national territory, to exercise any prior formality in order to still be invited to vote, the proposal does not appear to have to raise objections with regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, since it tends not to create new differences in treatment which, by the way, had not, in the previous opinions of the Legislative Section of the State Council, been criticized, but rather to reduce them.

However, there is still a difference in treatment between Belgian voters residing abroad who have not fulfilled their electoral duty and those residing in the national territory. “Only the first must accomplish,” to take the terms of the State Council, “a voluntary approach to be re-conducted into their status of voter from one election to another.”

It should be reiterated again that under the current regime, every Belgian residing abroad is subject to this formality of registration at each election, whether or not he has fulfilled his obligation to vote in the previous election. It should also be noted, as the European Court of Human Rights recently recalled after an in-depth analysis of international law and practices, "that no international convention prohibits restricting the exercise of the right to vote abroad and treating voters abroad differently from residents."

Moreover, these differences in treatment, which remain exclusively among Belgians who did not fulfill their electoral duty in the previous election, are objectively justified and are not disproportionate to the aim pursued. The fact of removing the mention of an inscription of an elector in this municipality does not deprive the latter of the right to vote. He is only obliged to re-register as a voter. And it can re-register at any time so that, contrary to what the State Council writes, the right to vote of the person concerned is in no way deprived of any effectiveness.

Furthermore, it seems largely exaggerated to write that the voter who has not made use of his right to vote sees his qualification as a voter subject to concrete implementation difficulties, since the only difficulty that has existed so far in the regime of common law is drastically reduced by requesting a pre-filled form for part and sending it back and returning it to the career consular post.

In this regard, it is interesting to recall that, in its 2010 report on voting abroad, the Venice Commission insisted on the fact that “it is quite legitimate to ask foreign voters to register in a register to be able to vote, even if the registration is automatic for residents.” Similarly, as the European Court of Human Rights has revealed, although in its 2010 report on voting abroad, the Venice Commission recommended that Member States facilitate the exercise of the voting rights of expatriates, it also did not see an obligation imposing on States.

Rather, it is a possibility to be considered by the legislature of each country, which is invited to balance, on the one hand, the principle of universal suffrage and, on the other, the imperative of security of the vote as well as practical considerations.

It is precisely this balance that inspired the authors of this proposal. For it must not be neglected the fact that, unlike the Belgians who live here, those who are settled abroad have no obligation to register in a consular register of the population. It can therefore move, or even settle in another country, or even die without this information being recorded in such a register. Indeed, as the Constitutional Court has found, the Belgian authorities do not have, with respect to a voter established abroad, a means to verify whether he is still established there and whether he was still alive at the time of the elections. A Belgian could therefore remain indefinitely registered in a consular register at a specified date and receive an election call while he no longer resides at that address or is dead. This situation does not apply to citizens registered in a population register of a Belgian municipality. The difference in treatment is therefore based on an objective criterion, as the Constitutional Court confirmed in the aforementioned judgment.

Where a voter has not taken part in the vote, the Administration has no means of knowing whether this abstinence is the result of negligence or if the call has reached a wrong address or if the person concerned has left the country without registering in another consular register. Therefore, it does not appear disproportionate to require the Belgian resident abroad who did not participate in the vote to carry out an extremely simple voluntary procedure, in order to avoid sending unnecessary election calls.

This is a long answer, but it is about the opinion of the State Council.

The proposal on the conditions for Belgians abroad who vote by letter provides for the following special measures. Foreign voters who have pre-selected to vote by letter are invited at each election to reconsider choosing a different way of voting that offers more safeguards. If the voter who previously preferred a letter vote fails to answer the question addressed to him by diplomatic and consular call post within 20 or 30 days in order to confirm his entry on the voter list and to indicate his chosen method of voting, the entry of the municipality of registration of the voter concerned in the consular population register shall be deleted.

Diplomatic or consular posts of careers shall not transmit to the Belgians registered in their registers the application form for registration as voters if they have not responded to the mail referred to in Article 180 septies in the last parliamentary elections and have not re-registered in due time to exercise their right to vote in the last parliamentary elections.

These particular measures are justified in the bill by the fact that, according to the 2002 Code of Good Conduct in Electoral Matters of the Venice Commission, voting by correspondence is the method of voting that offers the least guarantees and which, for this reason, should not be encouraged.

The specific arrangements for voting by mail in this bill should be ⁇ ined in order to prevent fraud and to encourage voters to opt for other methods of voting that offer more guarantees. It should not be forgotten that voting by correspondence implies that it is not an election call that is addressed to the interested party, but a ballot. Therefore, the risk of electoral fraud is much greater.

The administration shall not bear the risk of sending in nature voting bulletins which, not reaching their recipients, would be used by other persons. Indeed, as the Constitutional Court has recalled, with regard to the voter abroad, the Belgian authorities do not have the means to verify whether it is still established and whether it is still alive at the time of the election. The justification is the same as the previous one.

The request for confirmation of voting by correspondence occurring shortly before the election tends to minimize this risk of fraud and does not imply for the interested party a formality disproportionate in relation to the aim pursued and the principles in question, since it contributes to ensuring the regularity of the elections.

Similarly, the Constitutional Court has already admitted that the obligation to confirm a proxy that, otherwise, would no longer be valid is a means that allows to ⁇ the objective of not allowing a representative to vote while the representative is no longer established abroad, is no longer alive or has not expressed its intention to maintain the mandate he gave to vote on his behalf.

None of the provisions of Article 2, § 5, requires formalities or procedures that would be disproportionate in relation to this objective.

Moreover, the Venice Commission is not the only body that has pointed out the dangers of voting through letter exchange. In its previous opinion, the Department of Legislation of the State Council has itself highlighted the risks of voting by letter exchange. In that opinion, which she does not explain in any way why she should refrain from, she questioned the compatibility of that method of voting with Article 62, which guarantees the secrecy of the vote, and in particular because it cannot be guaranteed that the voice of the Belgian abroad will be surrounded by the basic conditions of confidentiality. According to the State Council, no government would be able to guarantee that the vote was cast personally by the voter, nor that it was not cast under coercion.

On the basis of that opinion, a number of measures were taken to prevent this type of fraud. However, this does not exclude that the voting method per letter exchange continues to provide less guarantees than other voting methods. Consequently, the bill provides for specific modalities to encourage voters who voted by letter at the previous election to reconsider the choice of a different way of voting at each election.

Mr. Speaker, I think that these two clarifications were indispensable for the proper order of the report and for the legal certainty to be provided following the comments made by the State Council on this text.