Speaking on Thursday 3 May, during a debate on the future of the EU at the European Parliament meeting in mini plenary session in Brussels, Belgium’s Prime Minister Charles Michel said Europe was “engaged but not blissful”, suggesting that a mechanism should be created allowing the EU27 to assess how each member state is behaving when it comes to compliance with rule of law.
Addressing a poorly attended hemicycle, Michel asked: “What do we want to do together, how and with whom?” While “our grandparents obviously found the idea of Europe reassuring”, today it is all “too often associated with feared globalisation, austerity and a form of technocracy”, he said. In order to overcome “the crisis of confidence” and re-conquer the hearts of European citizens, the Belgian prime minister believes it is necessary to convince by demonstrating the added value brought by action at European level.
In light of this, he listed three requirements: “prosperity, security and European values”.
On the first point, Michel advocated more tax harmonisation at European level, including taxation of digital platforms and harmonisation of the corporate tax base, as he believes “the sometimes outrageous tax competition between member states puts a brake on collective appeal”. He dismissed accusations made by socialist and environmental MEPs criticising Belgium which, as they see it, would block the taxation of financial transactions. As a Liberal, he supported “free trade” which generates economic and social progress, as long as it is equitable and balanced. He spoke of his involvement not only with ratification of the trade agreement with Canada (CETA), despite the hesitations expressed by Wallonia, but also with the defence of farmers in ongoing talks with Mercosur.
On security, the Belgian prime minister believed it necessary for the Union to have “collective capability to respond to security threats” at its borders. He cited conflicts in the Sahel, Syria and Libya and recommended a firm and balanced policy for combating illegal immigration, while saying that Europeans will not be able to avoid a political debate on legal immigration. “Should we not develop a legal and organised migration system?”, he asked.
Regarding the EU’s respect of European values, Michel recommended the creation of a specific mechanism the day after the Commission’s proposal to link the granting of European funding to compliance with rule of law (see EUROPE 12013).
“Belgium is proposing that a peer review mechanism on the rule of law should be set in place. In concrete terms, the EU27 would submit to regular scrutiny by the other member states. Such review would allow best practice to be developed in a collegial way, and for failings to be put right. It would be a way for each member state to take a good long look at itself”, he said.
On the subject of the multiannual financial framework 2021-2027, Michel described proposals tabled by the Commission the previous day as a “useful point of departure”. In his view, the Erasmus youth mobility programme must be “enhanced and enlarged”. It is necessary to spend “far more” by applying to the EU budget “the same meticulously strict rigour” as that applied by the European Commission when overseeing national budgets.
Finally, on the method of European integration, Charles Michel finds it preferable for the EU27 to move forward together without however closing the door to a vanguard. “Our strength lies in our unity, but not unity at the price of immobility, because immobility guarantees regression. I was among the first to press the case for a multi-speed Europe”, he pointed out.
During the debate, discussion turned towards Belgian domestic current events.
Without questioning Michel’s European commitment, Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgium) voiced concern about the differences between the address made in the hemicycle and the Belgian positions taken in Council on tax and migration issues.
Sander Loones (ECR, Belgium), whose N-VA party is dominant in the Belgian government coalition, said that the prime minister’s MR Liberal party highlighted European unity while the Flemish nationalist party is above all insisting upon diversity and cooperation between sovereign states. He praised the prime minister for having been the first to condemn police violence in Catalonia during the illegal referendum of October 2017.
“For too long, our country has been the battleground for major conflicts: wars of religion, succession, trench warfare, against Nazism. (...) There is but one possible future, and that is a common future and a European destiny”, said Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE, Belgium), for whom “it is not chocolate or beer that are typically Belgian but our love for Europe”.
In his view, all European leaders want to strengthen the EU’s external border surveillance. Nonetheless, they are reluctant to bear the cost while the financial envelope of €30 billion over seven years as proposed by the Commission corresponds to the budget that the United States devotes to its borders in just one year.
Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium) hailed Belgium’s European commitment as “obvious”. However, he strongly criticised his country within the Benelux, which is having its fingers rapped when it comes to taxation planning. “You refuse to recover €942 million in illegal tax gifts and at the same time public services are deteriorating”, he opined.
Lamberts also denounced Belgium which is reported to have lost its credibility on climate by not having a national action plan for climate at the time of the COP22 in Paris at the end of 2015. He went on to ask whether Belgium’s migration policy is firm and humane but said it is rather “violent and shameful!”.
Nigel Farage (EFDD, UK), who taunted leaders pretending to ignore Brexit, said that the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU was the “first building block coming undone”. He is convinced that the results of the Italian and Hungarian elections demonstrate that citizens are convinced a state cannot remain sovereign if it is part of the EU. “There is no European demos or European identity”, he stressed, before going on to describe Belgium as an exception – a pure “British creation” – which does not even have a national television channel.
“Thank you for your advice on the future of Belgium. You dealt with the future of the United Kingdom and look where it has got to!” retorted Michel. “Leaving the EU has its consequences”, he added. Addressing the press, he went on to say that keeping a customs union with the EU, a subject that has to date been a British red line, could allow many problems to be resolved.
On the impact that Brexit will have on Belgium, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said he hoped Belgium would show proof of “generosity to grant British EU officials Belgian nationality”. Juncker will be at the Flemish and Walloon parliaments next week to discuss the future of the EU. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)