“Which Constitution after 2019?”: Synthesis report
Synthesis report of ‘Which Constitution after 2019?’, in which Belgian academics proposed amendments to the Constitution beyond state reform.
Translated from Dutch. The original is the authoritative text. Read the original.
Key points
In November 2018 the organisers of the conference ‘Which Constitution after 2019?’ invited lawyers and political scientists from Belgian universities to identify gaps and shortcomings in the Constitution beyond questions of federal architecture. More than 60 people responded, and two preparatory seminars were held on 11 and 25 January 2019 in the Palace of the Academies. The linked report synthesises the proposals and the degree of consensus they received.
On 15 November 2018, the organisers of the conference "Which Constitution after 2019?" invited the community of lawyers and political scientists at Belgian (Flemish and French-speaking) universities to take part in a reflection exercise on the gaps and shortcomings of the Constitution. The aim was to approach representatives of the political world with concrete proposals for improvement. The starting point was that the declarations of revision of the Constitution are often careless work and that the debate on the Constitution, because of community tensions, is dominated by issues related to state reform. These usually concern the evolution of the federal system. However, as similar reflection exercises in the past have shown, the Constitution appears outdated in several respects, quite apart from questions of federal architecture. It would be good if its revision could be prepared sufficiently in advance, and with more ambition and system.
More than 60 people responded to the call. On the basis of their proposals, limited to 300 words, the organisers set up two preparatory seminars. These took place on 11 and 25 January 2019 in the Palace of the Academies. This diverse group included the research groups in our country working on constitutional questions. The participants debated the amendment, or the retention, of a number of constitutional provisions. In doing so, the organisers and participants did not intend to take the place of the competent authorities by determining the content of future constitutional provisions in their stead, but rather to contribute their expertise to an overall reflection on the future of the Constitution.
This report contains a synthesis of the proposals formulated and of the exchanges to which they gave rise. Its content is the responsibility of the organisers. They have attempted to reflect the exchange of arguments as faithfully as possible and to indicate the degree of consensus that the various ideas could command.