Hours of nightly debate about the return policy became a ‘Theo show’ without many spectators

By his own admission, Theo Francken was well prepared. He started reading from countless reference works in order to use his filibuster to sabotage the debate on the draft ‘sustainable return policy’. But his words in The appointmentThursday had barely died down when reality caught up with the MP. The N-VA decided to debate the draft, which will be voted on next Thursday.

The subsequent hours-long nightly debate turned into the “Theo show”, without too many spectators. Basically it was quite constructive. The former State Secretary for Asylum admitted that he would support the draft if the ban on detaining rejected asylum seekers with children in a closed institution were removed from the draft. But the majority continually pointed out to him that in reality this makes no difference. There are currently no families with children staying in a closed institution.

Now that ban remains controversial. For Vlaams Belang it is possible pull factor for candidate asylum seekers. Even within Vivaldi, not everyone feels happy about this. Egbert Lachaert (Open VLD) admitted during the debate that he “didn’t agree with everything”. But the text is simply a compromise between seven parties. For the ecologists, such a ban was a must to move elsewhere. Finally, Ben Segers (Vooruit) delicately pointed out that the next government could easily lift such a ban.

Kosovo

It did not strengthen the position of the N-VA and of Francken in particular. Because the draft ‘sustainable return policy’ remains a clarification, a tightening and an improvement of the return policy. Rejected asylum seekers can be monitored more strictly. Refusal to cooperate in the procedure may be punished. And there will be more staff to supervise the return – voluntary or mandatory. And everyone, including the N-VA, realizes that return agreements with the countries of origin are more important than this design.

“Of course this is not the solution,” Lachaert emphasized. He did not believe in a “holy grail” in the field of asylum policy that would immediately solve all problems. He then wiped the floor with Francken’s discourse with his pleas for a prison for undocumented criminals in Kosovo or a deal with Albania to accommodate the flow of refugees. According to the former Open VLD chairman, they have in common that they cost a lot of money, but have not yet proven their usefulness.

Night work

In any case, the discussion of the design on Thursday evening came as a surprise. The opposition made a lot of noise that the agenda of the House was being turned upside down. But the majority understood that this time PVDA/PTB would not support the N-VA and Vlaams Belang in sending the draft to the Council of State again for advice. The parties immediately fell short of the required fifty votes. Vivaldi wanted to strike while the iron was hot.

The N-VA therefore changed tack through Sander Loones and promised to shelve the delaying maneuvers on the condition that a real debate followed, in other words: no limitation of speaking time and with the intervention of the majority. So it happened. At a quarter to four on Friday morning, Chamber President Eliane Tillieux (PS) sent everyone home and thanked the services for remaining at their post throughout that time.

Undoubtedly, the criticism from competent State Secretary Nicole de Moor (CD&V) that the N-VA was blocking a stricter return policy was also not met with cold air. The Belgian government delegation to Morocco to negotiate the return policy with the authorities also did not go unnoticed, although Francken publicly laughs away those results.

The De Moor cabinet analyzed that its predecessor does not wish his successor anything, but that his faction sounded a bit more nuanced. There is great relief that the design will be approved after all. It remains the final part of the asylum deal that was approved a year ago after much sweat and tears within Vivaldi.

Meanwhile, the Flemish nationalists also dropped their opposition to the draft on open government. Their intention to delay, even block, at a time when the majority still wants to have a number of drafts approved before the dissolution of the House, turns out not to be so bad in practice.