Proposition de résolution relative à la scission de la sécurité sociale.
General information ¶
- Authors
- VB Ortwin Depoortere, Barbara Pas, Ellen Samyn, Dominiek Sneppe, Frank Troosters, Hans Verreyt
- Submission date
- Oct. 1, 2019
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- transfer of competence social security
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld MR PVDA | PTB
- Voted to reject
- VB
- Abstained from voting
- N-VA
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
Dec. 12, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Björn Anseeuw ⚙
I am referring to the detailed written report.
Ellen Samyn VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the well-known billion transfers from Flanders to Wallonia have been increasing every year for decades. Today we are at a record amount of €12.3 billion per year, which corresponds to €1.920 per Flaming per year. Of those 12.3 billion, approximately 2 billion euros can be directly allocated to social security.
On the division of social security, especially along the French-speaking side, there has been a lot of nervousness and commotion lately. For French-speaking politicians, social security, they say, is a red line that should not be touched. Philippe Close, the Brussels PS mayor, expressed it as follows in an article in De Tijd: “We will not touch social security. That is our red line. If we give up, Belgium is no longer of interest. This country will not be followed by the Red Devils. More is needed for that. I’m not saying that the rest cannot be negotiated, but we’re not going to do stupid things. But social security: never.”
Close is not alone with such statements for a long time. Several French-speaking headlines stated in the past that, if the social security is split, Belgium no longer has any interest for the French-speaking people.
Recently, in mid-September, an interview appeared in De Standaard with "Mr. Onkelinx" Marc Uyttendaele, in which he stated: "Social security is the added value of the federal Belgium for the French speakers. No French-speaking politician will make decisions that make his voters less comfortable living.”
Laurette Onkelinx said in 2010: “We want to milk the Belgian cow for another ten years and the carcass can be kept. She meant that Wallonia wanted to use the social security as a milk cow for another ten years, and that the Flemish were then allowed to keep the corpse. Onkelinx then openly confirmed how French-speaking politicians view Belgian social security, and more broadly, what value they still attach to this country. None, except for the Flanders to plunge as much as possible. of which act. I urge the Flemish politicians to think about this.
In this context of French-speaking profitariaat, the Belgian social security means more and more social uncertainty, with the quality of the health care offered increasingly deteriorating and where it becomes increasingly difficult to defend that pensions will remain affordable.
Why does the Flemish Interest always advocate and will continue to advocate the division of social security?
We start principally from the idea that every people has the right to self-determination. Flanders as well as Wallonia have the right to set up their own social security, according to their own insights and own needs. In practice, we also find that there are great differences between Flanders and Wallonia in terms of needs and needs. It therefore requires other recipes to address these differences in the most efficient and rational way, which is not possible in the Belgian framework.
Flanders and Wallonia are not only politically but also socio-economically two different countries, with different challenges and financial capacity. The social and economic gap between Flanders and Wallonia continues to grow every year. Studies show that the unemployment rate in Wallonia is more than twice as high as in Flanders. The rate of effectiveness in Wallonia is 10 % lower than in Flanders. Concretely, this means that in French-speaking Belgium more people enjoy a benefit and fewer active contributions to the Belgian social security.
Flanders and Wallonia also put other medical emphasis. Where the Flaming chooses to go to a general doctor earlier, the Whales more often go to a specialist immediately. We, however, are allowed to pay these heavy bills. Flanders also attach more importance to preventive health care. An example of this is the repaid vaccination against cervical cancer. Thanks to screening, expensive interventions can often be avoided. Wallonia has chosen not to do this. Here too, Flanders goes up for the invoice. The language limit is also a care limit.
More than 15,000 Flemish people are currently on the waiting list in disabled care, 135,000 Flemish people are waiting for a social home, three out of four Flemish seniors can no longer pay their rest home bill. As Wallonia passes through the cash, the Flamings pay. They pay for their own social security, they also contribute to the Flemish Zorgkas and also pay extra for French-speaking Belgium. The flame pays three times.
For Vlaams Belang, these wasteland states are unacceptable. A number of powers have already been transferred to the provinces, but as in many fields, fragmentation of powers is also here in the way of a coherent and cost-effective policy. It is hard to understand and not to blame for the fact that nine ministers in six governments are engaged in health care.
Soon we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the modern social security system, a system established for the purpose of good pensions, good sickness or unemployment benefits and above all the care for the socially weakest in our society. In order to continue to enjoy a healthy social security, it is necessary for the Flemish Interest to divide it.
A split will be the beginning of a better social security. Flanders and Wallonia will be able to respond to their own needs and needs. A Flemish social security is perfectly affordable. The Flemish economy is more than strong enough to guarantee proper care, to finance solid pensions and a family-supporting policy and to eliminate waiting lists.
Finally, I would like to address the colleagues of the N-VA. In the committee, you raised practical objections regarding the situation in Brussels. Due to the various state reforms, Brussels was indeed institutionally largely cut off from Flanders. The disadvantage resulting from this has in the meantime plagued our capital with gigantic problems. In principle, however, our party still considers Brussels as a full part of Flanders. If this does not happen on historical or geographical grounds, then it is important for our own future to focus Brussels again more on Flanders.
Brussels is our capital. It is an international centre and an important economic hub that is closely intertwined with our Flemish economy. Therefore, we want to remain solidary with the Brusselsers, also in the field of social security. We want to offer the Brusselsers a fair deal, without forcing them to choose a subnationality.
The spirit of this proposal is based on Brussels as the capital of Flanders, also in the future. I therefore call on you to support this resolution in its entirety.