During the second half of 2010 Belgium will hold the presidency of the European Union. It will be the twelfth time it has held this role since the start of European integration in the fifties.
For the first time, however, Belgium begins its presidency without having a full-fledged government. Domestic events have already had an impact on some presidencies: the Czech government fell halfway through its presidency in 2009; Italy and Denmark changed governments during their presidencies in the nineties. Such situations create confusion as it is unclear who will chair meetings and observers wonder if the new government will still have the same European priorities as the old team. Yet, domestic changes of power during the presidency have never led to major problems. The meetings went on as usual, programmes were worked through and the diplomats responsible for the behind the scene preparations usually remained at their posts.
In recent months, the Belgian authorities have repeatedly stressed that the lack of clarity in home affairs would have no negative effects on their presidency. This contribution will first examine the Belgian political context. It will examine the post election domestic situation and assess the chances of a full-fledged government being formed in the second half of the presidency.
Secondly the institutional reforms resulting from the Lisbon treaty that have had consequences for the rotating presidency will be looked at. The Spanish, the first ones to be confronted with the new regulations in the first half of the 2010, have already felt the consequences. The significance of the first President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, being Belgian will also be discussed.
Despite the decreased importance of the rotating presidency and reassuring words that Belgian diplomats have a great deal of experience in European matters, it is not ideal to begin a presidency with ministers who have resigned. This will be discussed along with some of the paradoxes in Belgium’s European policy.
In conclusion the priorities of the Belgian presidency will be reviewed.
Belgian political chaos
We have to go back to the federal elections of 2007 to understand the Belgian political deadlock of recent months. For eight years Guy Verhofstadt had been Prime Minister of a liberal-socialist coalition. His popularity had declined and in Flanders the Christian Democratic CD&V was thriving again after years in opposition. This party, led by Yves Leterme, announced during the election campaign that it would not participate in a government unless there was an agreement on a new far-reaching reform giving the federal states additional powers. Moreover, CD&V promised to put an end to the situation in which French-speaking parties from Brussels could get votes in the Flemish municipalities in the wider Brussels area. It therefore strove for the electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde to be split up: Brussels-based parties would no longer be allowed to field candidates in the Flemish region around the cities of Halle and Vilvoorde. On account of their strong pro-Flemish attitude the Flemish Christian Democrats succeeded in forming an alliance with the Flemish nationalist Party N-VA (Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie/New Flemish Alliance) and went on to win the elections convincingly.
Negotiations with the French-speaking parties about the formation of a new federal government were particularly laborious. It soon became clear that none of the French-speaking parties was willing to meet Flemish demands. In the international press this led to speculation that Belgium would disintegrate. It did not, however, come to that. From March 2008 (after an interim period, in which Verhofstadt remained prime minister for a few months), Leterme was able to lead a coalition with Dutch- and French-speaking Christian Democrats and Liberals as well as the French-speaking Socialist party. Meanwhile the Flemish nationalist N-VA withdrew from its cartel with the CD&V as it did not believe that the new government would be able to introduce the Flemish demands made during the election campaign. At the end of 2008, Yves Leterme had to resign as prime minister because of difficulties during the banking crisis. His government was accused of ignoring the separation of powers and attempting to influence the judges deciding on the Fortis Bank sale. There were no new elections, however, and Leterme was succeeded as prime minister by his fellow party member, Herman Van Rompuy. When the latter was appointed the first permanent President of the European Council in the autumn of 2009, Yves Leterme again became prime minister. His government fell again in April 2010 as a result of increasing discord between the French and the Dutch-speaking coalition partners.
It therefore became clear that Belgium would start the European presidency without a full-fledged government. New elections could not be held before June and the complex political situation, together with the deep-rooted differences, mainly between the French and Dutch speaking parties, meant no new government would be formed before 1 July 2010. This meant that Belgium would take up the presidency with a so-called caretaker government that has only restricted powers, is unable to take new initiatives and unable take important decisions. This caretaker government is essentially the one in place before the June elections with Yves Leterme as Prime Minister and Steven Vanackere as Foreign Minister.
The elections of 13 June 2010 produced two obvious winners: the Flemish nationalist N-VA became the largest party in Flanders and the socialist PS by far the strongest party in the French-speaking part of the country. Under the leadership of PS President Elio Di Rupo negotiations have started about the formation of a new government based on the PS and N-VA. If Di Rupo succeeds he will be the next prime minister. The aim is to finalise negotiations in the summer to allow the new government to begin work by September or October. This will have consequences for the Belgian presidency as nobody knows who will chair the European Council meetings scheduled for the end of 2010.
It is still unclear if the new government can be put in place by autumn as the negotiating parties are still some distance apart. After the 2007 elections, negotiations took more than six months so it is perfectly possible that the caretaker government will be there for the entire presidency period. The intention, however, is that an agreement on a new government will be met by the end of the summer. The French-speaking parties are likely to comply in part with the Flemish demands and the Flemish parties seem to be more disposed to compromise now than in 2007. Neither scenario is ideal as the caretaker government will be weak and a change of administration will bring new ministers into play at a crucial point.
It should be noted that some of the decisions made in council ministerial meetings during the presidency will not be followed up by the federal government. The regionalisation of Belgium has advanced to such an extent that some powers now come entirely under the regions. When the European ministers of Environment, Education, Youth, Culture or Fishery meet, they will not be chaired by Belgian ministers from the federal government but by regional ministers. Other council formations, however, will still be chaired by federal ministers.
The full article can be downloaded by using the pdf button at the top of the page.
Table of Contents
Belgian Political Chaos
The presidency in a new context
Herman van Rompuy wins
The presidency is not a priority
The paradox of Belgium's European policy
The Belgian presidency programme
Conclusion
Hendrik Vos (Mechelen, 1972) studied Political Sciences at Ghent University where he became a professor at the Department of Political Sciences in 1999. He is currently professor and director of the Centre for EU-Studies. His research specialises in decision-making and current developments in the European Union. He has published many books and contributions in renowned professional journals and regularly takes part in international conferences. Hendrik Vos is a much asked commentator on EU affairs in newspapers and on radio and television.
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
This article reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.