Green against the use of constitutional article 195 as a passe-partout for state reform

If constitutional article 195 is declared open to revision, Groen wants it to be clearly explained that it cannot serve as a ‘passe-partout’ for a state reform. It seems like nothing more than some messing around in the margins.

In preparation for the June 9 elections, Prime Minister Alexander De Croo (Open VLD) is working on the list of constitutional articles that are declared open to revision. Only the articles that jointly designate the House, the Senate and the government are declared open to revision. Once parliament approves such a revision declaration, it is automatically dissolved and elections will follow within 40 days.

Crucial in the limited list that had previously been approved by the government is constitutional article 195. That is the passe-partout with which the entire constitution can be amended. It was the key that the Di Rupo government used to make the sixth state reform possible, without the constitutional articles in question having been declared open to revision in advance.

De Croo wants to once again declare Article 195 subject to revision, if only to avoid being accused – like Prime Minister Charles Michel (MR) – of blocking such a state reform in advance. The Prime Minister wanted to quietly reach an agreement within the majority on the list of constitutional articles that were declared subject to revision, so that the political debate about a seventh state reform would not flare up.

But the greens are being difficult. Deputy Prime Minister Petra De Sutter (Green) is not against constitutional article 195 being declared open for revision, but does not want it to be used improperly to make a seventh state reform possible. De Sutter demands ‘a motivation that must make it clear that 195 cannot be used as a passe-partout’.

In majority circles, little importance is attached to it, because such a ‘motivation’ or explanation in the revision of Article 195 is of no legal value. This is messing around in the margins, say constitutional specialists. The next parliament is not bound by explanatory notes to the constitutional articles that are declared subject to revision. The ‘trick’ with Article 195 can simply be repeated, it is said.

Moreover, the revision of the constitution is not the alpha and omega for a state reform. A large part of a state reform does not take place through the constitution, but through special laws. To amend special laws, a two-thirds majority is required, just like for the constitution, plus a simple majority in both language groups.