Proposition 53K2940

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 31 mai 1961 relative à l'emploi des langues en matière législative, à la présentation, à la publication et à l'entrée en vigueur des textes légaux et réglementaires.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 10, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

promulgation of a law legislation publication of a law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 17, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I refer to my written report, which after the discussion will become a historical document.

Unfortunately, I was unable to enter the committee on Monday. I think I have the right to speak here. I have understood that my colleague Kristien Van Vaerenbergh explained my amendment very comprehensively and correctly. I could even see this in the news.

However, I would like to give a brief explanation on this subject. I would like to ask a few more things.

First, we have seen a whole show in the last few weeks, which is quite incomprehensible on a legal level. Prince Philip, in his capacity as king, could draw with two names, with a French-speaking and a Dutch-speaking version. He allegedly wanted to sign only with his French-language name. There must have been apparently counterparty over, I assume of some Flemish deputy prime ministers in the nuclear cabinet. They would have noted that such a method was not proper and judged that it must be possible that under his reign he would also sign the royal decrees and laws with the Flemish or Dutch language version, namely Philip with “F”.

In itself, such a judgment is of course logical, had it not been that, in my opinion, there has actually been absolutely no dirt in the air, but it has never been. After all, if I understand it correctly, it has always been so that kings sign with both names – the French-speaking and the Dutch-speaking name. Albert is of course a name that was the same in both languages. Also Boudewijn has always signed with both names at the publication.

So I don’t understand where the commotion comes from today. I have understood that we do not see the original signature itself – this is also my first question. The original pieces are in your department. An original law or an original royal decree goes to justice. He has not signed yet. The original pieces come here...

Mr Francken, (...) you submit a draft, it is signed and it is in the Chamber’s archive.

You can see the physical signature.

The physical signature, by the way, causes problems for the electronic signature.

Mr. President, Mr. Francken, (...) regulates the naming and not the signature. We are free people. People can decide their signature themselves. It is not the responsibility of the Chamber to determine which personal signature a person must have.

Of course not, it’s about the formula.

I want to emphasize that we are free citizens. Every citizen is free to determine his own signature.

It is very kind that you want to emphasize that, but that was not my point.

My question is what exactly the formula is. I understand that it will be King Philip and King Philippe. It has always been so, except under Albert. I absolutely do not understand where the commotion comes from, nor that it was so-called a gift to say that he is the king of all Belgians.

The second point concerns the electronic signature. I assume that King Philip will be more in the country than King Albert in his final years. I can only hope that.

Very often courier flights had to be organized to places where the king was on holiday. This happened eight times last year.

When I had asked a written question about this, I was informed by the Minister of Land Defence that the cost of it is approximately 60 000 euros. The costs must be much higher. No one can believe that for 60,000 euros one can fly eight times with an Embrayer to Croatia, Italy and France.

That will only be the price of the kerosene. One will have reasoned that the aircraft is of Defense and has already been paid and that the staff is still military and therefore costs nothing. However, an aircraft with one person flying back and forth to Italy will cost much more than 60 000 euros, let alone for eight flights back and forth. That should be at least a few hundred thousand euros.

I had understood from the government that there was some grievance about this, that that procedure was no longer of this time, and that it must still be possible to deal with such matters a little more modern.

Since 2000, the Civil Code has made electronic signature perfectly possible. There is absolutely no problem. This is a missed opportunity. I had submitted an amendment in favour of this, but the majority voted against it because it would be so-called juridically non-conclusive.

I personally find this somewhat insulting. This is legally concluded. I try to prepare my affairs well. I am not a lawyer, but I have been helped by people who know a lot about it.

In my amendment I took the literal words of the passage in the Civil Code of 2000 on electronic signature. At that time, it was apparently legally closing for you. Now this is no longer the case or there are doubts about it.

However, I think this is not the point, but that you are caught in speed. You didn’t think about it, but you should have done it.

Then we could have introduced it immediately, and no more waste of money needed to occur because everything then happened electronically, as already regulated in the Civil Code.

I would like to call for this again today. We submit our amendment again, hoping it will be supported and approved. This is not a politically sensitive document. It is simply a matter of efficiency gains, to get things better organized, ⁇ in the holiday periods of the king.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we of course understand the amendment of the N-VA, but we do not participate in the courier am Symptom. The political and social schizophrenia of this kingdom is evident in this in fact banal question of signature.

I can reassure you in a way. Anyone who bets that we will break the party will receive 50 times their bet refunded by Unibet. We are not the breeders of this party. I want to give it a moment. You can celebrate on July 21 in peace.

I would like to tell Philip of Belgium the following, parering him on the words he once said that the Flemish Bloc will find him on his way. He will find us on his way. In 88 hours, when he comes here to take the oath, the crazy echo of my words may already have disappeared in the mist of the times, but I hope that they will crumble in the walls here: we continue to say that we continue to fight for an independent Flanders.

So I say from here on the speech to the man who will stand or sit in this place in 88 hours: Long live the independent Flemish Republic!