According to Beissel, it looks increasingly unlikely that there will be a referendum on the constitutional revision. The MP for the Democratic Party (DP) and rapporteur of the ‘Rights and Liberties’ chapter of the revision thinks that if an online petition cannot collect 25,000 signatures, there is very little chance that the analogue procedure via the municipalities will accomplish that.
Beissel reiterated that the reason why the majority parties – and until recently also the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV) – think that a referendum is not a good idea is because with a total of 150 articles, there is a risk that people will simply vote ‘No’ because they think that some go too far while other do not go far enough.
The DP politician also rejected the accusation that the government is taking decisions while trying to exclude the population. Beissel pointed out that in the case of the ‘Justice’ chapter, for instance, only minor technicalities were adjusted. As for the other chapters, Beissel continued, an information campaign is underway. The MP also pointed out that the new articles proposed for the ‘Rights and Liberties’ chapter were actually suggested by the citizens themselves. This includes child protection, animal protection, access to culture, protection of the cultural heritage, and freedom of research among others, Beissel explained.
Following criticism by the Alternative Democratic Reform Party (adr) that the constitutional revision would dilute the meaning of ‘family’ or introduce voting rights for non-Luxembourgish nationals “through the backdoor”, Beissel recounted that the other MPs were left completely bewildered. The DP politician stressed that this way of reading the constitution is “completely wrong” in her eyes. Beissel explained that the European Convention on Human Rights from 1950 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union from 2000 both stand above Luxembourg’s constitution, which is now merely being completed. Regarding voting rights for non-Luxembourgish nationals, Beissel stressed that all proposals would strictly adhere to the results of the 2015 referendum.
“I have complete understanding for the dog”
Another topic during the interview was the debate surrounding security in Luxembourg City. According to Beissel, the Platzverweis (a prerogative right for police officers to expel individuals from the entrance of buildings) announced by the government does not go far enough. The member of the capital’s municipal executive argued that firstly, the measure must be introduced, and secondly, there must be enough officers to actually enforce it. Beissel defended the municipality’s use of private security agents, stating that they are “needed” until enough police officers are available.
Meanwhile, Beissel also argued that the incident in August, when one of the security company’s dogs bit a man, is “overrated”, with Beissel adding that she has “complete understanding for the dog”. The DP politician stated that she herself owns large dogs and that every dog whose owner is attacked will bite.
Contrary to Prime Minister Xavier Bettel’s plagiarism affair, in the context of which the DP wants to await the results of the internal investigation by the University of Nancy, Beissel stated that even before the conclusion of the official investigation, she is already certain that the man in question was “aggressive” and that the dog “did everything right”. Nevertheless, Beissel acknowledged that her “pro-dog-statements” might be “a little subjective”.
