Consensus does not mean unanimity. That's the first thing I want to emphasize. In the case of a consensus, there must be two components. First, there must be a search for a consensus, a process, a procedure to bring together the parliamentarians. That's what I see, I think, with you today. We'll have to see the results of your consultation and what measures will be taken. The second thing is that a significant portion of MPs must support the reform project. Citizens are always a bit suspicious when they see their elected officials fiddling with the electoral system, and they know that partisan interests may enter into play.
That said, the documentation shows us that political parties and governments that tried to modify electoral systems in their favour, thinking that it would benefit them, were wrong. Political figures, on the institutional level, adapt. Things are rearranged. When people thought they could carry out a reform that would benefit them, in the end, that did not turn out to be the case.
I invite the committee to reflect, first and foremost, on the reform proposals based on the improvement of democracy and not on partisan interest. In any case, history teaches us that political parties that attempted electoral reform based on a past result were not always rewarded in the end because the voter and political life evolve.
Does that answer your question?