Just before the political summer recess, we witnessed yet another unpleasant episode in the Brussels coalition soap opera.
After weeks of relative silence, George-Louis Bouchez (MR) had big news, coincidentally or not, once again on Flemish National Day. A magical solution, conjured up out of thin air, of course, would finally solve Brussels’ political deadlock. His proposal did indeed have the merit of being creative, but less than 24 hours after its launch, it was already dead in the water.
Bouchez proposed that an “N-VA-compatible personality” be appointed as French-speaking secretary of state on behalf of the MR in order to get the N-VA halfway into the government. In exchange, the N-VA would effectively provide a kind of tacit support to the Dutch-speaking side, so that there would also be a majority there, which is necessary to get a Brussels government off the ground.
However, it soon became clear that there was so much uncertainty about the interpretation of this arrangement that the proposal was immediately discarded. Firstly, it remained absolutely unthinkable for the Brussels PS to even sit down at the table with anyone from the N-VA. No leader, not even a “sherpa” or staff member. Apparently, every member of the N-VA is still a kind of leper with whom any contact must be strictly avoided, at the risk of one's own life.
Secondly, there was also disagreement about who would appoint this “N-VA-compatible” state secretary. The N-VA naturally wanted to appoint this person themselves, while the PS had apparently been given the impression by Bouchez that they would approve the appointment.
A sly manoeuvre?
Moreover, Bouchez's proposal actually solved a problem that did not exist. The four Dutch-speaking parties at the table (Groen, N-VA, Open VLD, and Vooruit) had already reached an agreement on the distribution of ministers on the Dutch-speaking side. Groen and N-VA would get a minister, Vooruit a state secretary, and Open VLD was satisfied with a government commissioner for the Budget.
So why did N-VA need to get a state secretary on the French-speaking side? The only reason I can think of is that a state secretary carries less weight than a minister. Legally speaking, consensus within the Brussels government means consensus between the five ministers, not the state secretaries. Was this a cunning manoeuvre to be able to bypass the N-VA later in the event of disagreement within the government?
Whatever the case, all negotiators decided to go on a monthlong holiday until August 15, as if the matter was maybe serious but not all that urgent. By the time they are back in Brussels, the current situation will have been ongoing for 430 days. As a reminder, new elections are not possible before June 2029, because federal entities cannot hold early elections.
If the soap opera drags until December 2nd, Brussels will actually break Belgium´s 541-day record deadlock of 2010-2011. In my view, it is truly outrageous that after almost 200 years of Belgium, the largest Flemish and Belgian party, which today even provides the prime minister with a double majority, has to beg to perhaps, if possible, maybe be allowed to have a representative at the table during government negotiations in its own capital region. Who would even come up with something like that?
Can this situation be tolerated any longer? What is the federal government actually waiting for to intervene in Brussels itself? How is it even possible that N-VA leader Cieltje Van Achter is so submissive that she is even willing to send a representative on her behalf? Politicians sometimes have too big an ego, but a total lack of self-respect sometimes is even worse.
Unacceptable veto by the PS
It is now really time for all Flemish parties to take a clear stance: the veto by the Brussels PS, refusing to even sit down at the negotiating table, is fundamentally unacceptable. You can make 101 compromises on the content of a political agreement, on the speed of an austerity program, on where exactly to intervene, on who gets which ministerial portfolio, etc… But you cannot compromise on the basic principle of accepting each other as equal partners and sitting down at the table together. It is time that parties such as Groen, Vooruit, CD&V, and Open VLD also take this position. They too cannot continue to look the other way.
Ultimately, the Brussels PS must be given a choice. Either that party finally drops its unacceptable veto and sits down at the table with the four parties that form the Dutch-speaking majority in Brussels. Or it continues to refuse, in which case there will be no new Brussels government until the 2029 elections and we will remain in caretaker mode for the full five years.
That is not good news for Brussels, but basic principles are not negotiable. If the Brussels politicians in charge of day-to-day business choose to simply allow the debts to continue to mount, that is their responsibility. In the event of a subsequent state reform, they will have no choice but to undergo a far-reaching revision of the Capital Region's statute in exchange for a partial federal takeover of the debt.
Under federal guardianship
In the meantime, the federal government must prepare to intervene itself if the budgetary situation in Brussels continues to spiral out of control. According to constitutional expert Quinten Jacobs, there are two possible courses of action. Firstly, the federal government could ‘usurp’ certain powers, such as mobility and public works. This means that it would take over these powers but would then also be responsible for financing them.
In concrete terms, this could mean, for example, that the STIB/MIVB budget and investment plans could temporarily come under federal supervision. Given that the STIB/MIVB has a budget of more than €1 billion, this would actually benefit Brussels and prevent a total financial collapse. Of course, this budget also needs to be urgently reviewed. The STIB/MIVB's budget rose by no less than 46% over the period 2016-2022. Rationalization on both the revenue and expenditure sides is urgently needed.
Secondly, the federal government can limit the borrowing capacity of any federal entity through a provision in the Special Financing Act (BFW). The Brussels Region currently borrows around 2.1 billion per year, of which 1.6 billion to cover its sky-high deficit and 500 million for refinancing. The deficit amounts to around 28% of revenue, while Europe applies a maximum threshold of 6%. Brussels, and especially Brussels taxpayers, urgently need to be protected from themselves.
This is uncharted territory, as this provision of the BFW has never been used before. A first step is for the Minister of Finance, Jan Jambon (N-VA), to seek a (non-binding) opinion from the High Council of Finance. It seems useful to me to take that first step when the political year resumes in September.
After more than 400 days, the situation in Brussels can no longer be tolerated. When basic principles of political cooperation are no longer respected by certain parties, action must be taken. The Brussels PS cannot and must not be rewarded for this anti-democratic attitude. There are limits to patience and goodwill. After that, it will be up to the voters again in June 2029 to express what future they want for the Brussels Region.
