Brussels, a European Washington DC?

[Van Geel]

What politicians actually think about this?

I think the man who launched the idea was the socialist (SP.A) Mr. Tobback, the mayor of Leuven. This man is very well known in Belgium because of his long political carreer (former minister of state, ... etc.). Others followed.

[groentje]

Belgian politicians think about it, because it would 'solve' the linguistic problem of Brussels.

But OK... Straatsburg is more relaxed, with less lobbyists, who don't follow, because most work is done. But you better be sure that they will follow, when the entire parliament is moved...

[tabbs]

Belgian politicians think about it, because it would 'solve' the linguistic problem of Brussels.

We should keep two things apart here, I think. One issue is having a European Union with some more federal elements. Guy Verhofstadt just published a book about his ideas for a further development, provocatively called "Verenigde Staten van Europa" (United States of Europe). And whether one agrees with his positions or not, I think it is important to actually discuss the future of the EU in public. The people in FR and NL were against the Constitutional Treaty - OK, but what did/do they want beyond the No? Seems that hardly anybody in these two countries (and not just there) really cares ...

The other question is whether a European Union should have some kind of Federal District, ie. whether Brussels (or rather "Greater Brussels") as a capital ought to be a separate political entity. If that helps the Belgians, why not? But as I wrote, such an FD does not make much sense without a political union, and an EU of 25 or more members is extremely unlikely to ever become one.

Christian

[ART]

A federal EU of the future doesnt have to leave necessarily with 25 states or more others: it can begin, an example, with the union of the six Community founders, waiting that the others can and want "play hard" they also.

[tabbs]

A federal EU of the future doesnt have to leave necessarily with 25 states or more others: it can begin, an example, with the union of the six Community founders, waiting that the others can and want "play hard" they also.

Right, and that is pretty much what Verhofstadt suggests too. (He does not actually refer to the "original six" but to some kind of core; that could also be the twelve euro countries, or some other combination.) He says that this group should then advance, and for example have a common foreign and defense policy, but at the same time be open for other member states.

That concept would also mean, however, that a country which is not willing to share this common policy model could not join the group. So those EU member states where the EU is primarily viewed as a mere common market could stay out of the political union while still being in the customs union for example.

While I find Verhofstadt's concept very interesting, I do not believe it will ever come to that. One third of those Community founders that you mentioned, for example, explicitly voted against the Constitutional Treaty. Not that I think this treaty was that terrific but it would have been a step in the right direction. Obviously the majority in FR and NL thinks differently about that. At the same time any major discussion about how to move on has been carefully avoided in the two "No" countries. So I do not believe they should be expected to be part of what Verhofstadt has in mind.

Christian

[Dakkus]

One third of those Community founders that you mentioned, for example, explicitly voted against the Constitutional Treaty. Not that I think this treaty was that terrific :) but it would have been a step in the right direction. Obviously the majority in FR and NL thinks differently about that. At the same time any major discussion about how to move on has been carefully avoided in the two "No" countries. So I do not believe they should be expected to be part of what Verhofstadt has in mind.

Christian

Well, it appears that currently a good majority of French and Dutch citizens actually favour accepting the constitution. The referendum was just some wobblety-dobbwety boh boh, not an actually meaningful vote. No one - neither the voters nor politicians - cared and no one still cares about the referendum..

[ART]

We cannot base our discussion mean a hypothetical federal union on the "Constitutional Treaty", because isn't a real costitution: it's only a treaty that someone has thought to nickname "costitution". Before a real project of European constitution is necessary.

[tabbs]

Well, it appears that currently a good majority of French and Dutch citizens actually favour accepting the constitution.

Possibly so, maybe not. Does not make much of a difference though; the Constitutional Treaty is dead in the water. Sure, theoretically there may one day be new referendums in both "Nay" countries, and who knows, maybe people would vote differently then.

But then we get the same reaction that we had a few years ago when the Irish voted against the Nice Treaty: People will say that "Brussels" simply insists on repeating a referendum until the result is a Yes. So making a little amendment here and a small correction there, and then let all 25 member states decide (in parliamentary or plebiscitary votes) again, does not sound like a viable option to me.

@ART: The Constitutional Treaty was basically a (slightly improved) merger of the EC and EU Treaties; hence the many articles that one would not really expect to find in a "real" constitution. And yes, a "federal" Union would need a different fundament. Which is why I believe that suggestions like the one Mr Verhofstadt makes will be very difficult to realize within the current EU ...

Christian

[ART]

Difficult or not, at least it must begin to discuss seriously to level of public opinion.

[Dakkus]

I find it rather interesting, that although it was known almost immediatelly when the constitutional convent started working, that their end product would be completely crappy, the convent's work wasn't interfered in any manner.

There is a reason why the legendarily idiotic Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the leader of the constitution convent, used all the power he had to make the meeting as untransparent as possible. Everything was done secretly, apparently to make sure no one would notice early enough what they were doing. It of course would have been no problem (to them), if the Europeans had noticed the problems only after the memeber states had unanimously accepted the treaty. However, people actually were more interested in the treaty than the convent had thought. And so, some of the national governments had to let the people vote for it.

There were press articles about the convent's shady work during the first few months, but of course there wasn't enough to write articles about, when they told nothing of what they were doing.

This is an extremely good example of why transparency is an extremely essential part in governing a state or a state-like body.
The transparently almost completely failed in this case. And look at what lump of mud we are now in.
I figure the constitution should be rewritten from scratch. Okay, it will take ages. But if it's done transparently this time, then probably it cannot be made to kick the people to their faces.
It will take ages, but that's not really because of restarting the work but because of the original huge mistake of letting the original pseudo-work continue uninterrupted. Go slaughter the slimy convent, not those who will have to take the painful decision of either restarting the project (thus freezing the union for at least 5 more years) or accepting the current treaty (thus killing EU in 15 years when people get fed up with the stupid "We vs. the People" attitude of the legislation).

In the beginning everyone (who even knew something was happening) knew the thing was going to be crap. And, now it appears they were right.

I was very surprised to how _good_ the text actually was. Not because it would have been good, but rather because it was thousand times better than I could ever believe the blerting egoist d'Estaing could ever get his friends to make.
That's also why I was first for the constitution when the convent was "ready". The end product was better than I had thought.

[tabbs]

This is an extremely good example of why transparency is an extremely essential part in governing a state or a state-like body.
The transparently almost completely failed in this case.

That is not how I have experienced the work of the Convention.

Sure, I agree that Mr Giscard d'Estaing had an awkward attitude when it came to how certain issues were discussed in the Convention. But to say that the debate was behind closed doors is simply not true. The draft version of the various "portions" of the Constitutional Treaty were publicly available, and the changes that both the Convention members and third parties had proposed were published too. Quite a lot of that can still be read online at http://european-convention.eu.int/ except that nowadays you can of course not take part in the discussion any more.

Now one can argue that the Convention had no democratic legitimation to write a draft version since that body was not elected by the voters. But that is a fundamental problem of the European Union: It ultimately gets all its legitimation from the member state governments. The European Parliament, for example, does not have the competence to "make" a constitution by itself. (Those national governments were initially not terribly fond of that constitution project anyway, but that may have changed later.) So we ended up with this European Convention whose members were appointed by the European and national government bodies.

But is it actually the fault of the Convention that its work was not widely discussed across Europe? Is the Convention to blame for the fact that the media coverage of this debate was meager to non-existent? The EU Publications Office in Luxembourg even published printed versions of the draft at some point - but of course one had to order them in order to get a copy.

This is by no means a personal attack on anybody. But while the website mentioned above even had various discussion forums, the primary issue discussed in many newspapers was the oh-so-important question whether the preamble should have a reference to God. Maybe the EU (primarily Council, Parliament and Commission) should have spent even more on a large scale information campaign. Then again, that would probably have caused even more comments à la "look at what they spend our money on" ...

Christian

[mintoterino]

what?? Brussels capital of the EU? Do you mean another politicians, another burocracy?, OMG town&city councils, regions, nation-states, now supra-states...how many governments do we need for a living?. No, thanks.

[Phaseolus]

I voted No, because, I believe that the way Van Geel put his question is not fair for people that do not know the internal Belgian problems.

I explain myself : Brussels is a point of quarrel between French Belgians and Flemish people. The proposal to make Brussels a EU-district is a proposal to solve a Belgian issue and not to improve anything on a EU-basis.

When you need to answer a question, you must be able to understand the "aside"-questions, that in this discussion, are far to be anecdotic...

Apart from this, if I have to answer a question about the necessity of one capital instead of having two or three ; well, it's obvious, that one day, the EU will need to sort out this and decide for one place to gather... In these days where everybody is asked to make efforts on spending, the Member states should take a decision : make it Bruxelles, Strasbourg or Luxembourg, whatever, but take a decision.

[groentje]

A state or gouvernemental body doesn't need one capital. The UN have 3 HQ's, New York, Genève and Vienna. The Netherlands have one capital, but their parliament and gouvernment buildings are in another city. The EU has 3 main cities, Brussels, Luxemburg and Straatsburg.
If the EU decides to keep all cities as their headquarter, I do hope they choose one for each institution. But that's not for the near future...

[Guest]

what?? Brussels capital of the EU? Do you mean another politicians, another burocracy?, OMG town&city councils, regions, nation-states, now supra-states...how many governments do we need for a living?. No, thanks.

Conratulations... you have understood just all of the problem, good!