Not an official position, but… Does Belgium intend to take a key role in relaunching European integration? There are a few significant elements which indicate that it does. And these are not vague phrases or catch-all expressions of goodwill, but specific intentions which do not rule out the possibility, if it should prove necessary, of considering what used to be called two-speed Europe. I refer to the interview, published last week in the Belgian daily Le Soir, with Olivier Chastel, Belgian Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose responsibility it is to make the preparations for the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU (second half of 2010). This was not a written document or an official position; but it is hard to imagine that Mr Chastel was not echoing certain views and opinions of the government of which he is a member.
It will be another year before Belgium takes up this Presidency, but preparations are already in full swing due to the extended use of the "trio method", featuring the coordinated preparation of three successive Presidencies. This principle has already been applied, more or less successfully, for some time; but the Lisbon Treaty will formalise it, and the first three countries to come under this new framework - Spain, as of next January, Belgium and then Hungary - have decided to anticipate the full application of the new system: between them, there will be more than just the usual exchange of information on their respective intentions, but a definition of priorities and a common programme covering a year and a half, theoretically. This exercise, which has been carried out to the extent that it is possible to predict the future, leaves open the possibility for each of the three Presidencies to lay greater emphasis on any individual aspect and to indicate a general political orientation. And it is against this backdrop that Mr Chastel's statements take on their full significance.
Respecting the Community method. The title which was given to the interview is significant in itself: "Belgium, the guardian of Utopia" (our translation throughout). The Belgian minister started by emphasising the need to respect the Community method. The institutional innovations brought in by the Lisbon Treaty should not mean any kind of slide towards the inter-governmental method. The redressing of a number of tendencies must be done, in Mr Chastel's opinion, by such means as re-establishing the central role of the General Affairs Council (GAC), which "must become the linchpin between all of the formations of the Council and between the institutions. It, and not the future stable President of the European Council, must set the agenda". This is the view which Jacques Delors has always defended. Belgium calls upon its partners to look into the possibility for each member state to appoint a deputy prime minister with general responsibility for European affairs; he or she would attend the sessions of the GAC. At the same time, Belgium confirms, quite logically, that it is in favour of a strong European Commission.
Moving forward at different speeds, if needs be. And this brings us to the crux of the interview. Mr Chastel gets the feeling that there are some member states which have not fully embraced "the European project". It is, he strongly believes, vital to define it "territorially and conceptually". He adds: "the way we wanted the Union has come apart at the seams". Does this mean we should be thinking about parting company with the countries which disagree? Here is his response: "As things stand, it is hard to argue that it is desirable. But it could become so. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there may come a time when some of us will have to give the Union new impetus".
The second life of Guy Verhofstadt. The other "Belgian case" is that of Mr Verhofstadt. As soon as he became elected to the European Parliament, he said: "the second part of my life in politics is just starting". And he intends to devote himself fully to it, starting with the presidential responsibilities conferred upon him by his political grouping (Democrats and Liberals, ALDE, the third largest party within the EP with 84 members), which he sees as a full-time job. He already showed his European orientations and intentions as prime minister of this country (the Declaration of Laeken was him, for a start); in his last electoral campaign, he ignored national rows in order to focus on the European level, and won the support of the electorate for so doing.
"I have no hidden agenda. I am here for the five years of the legislative period", he said, stating two objectives: a) "a large coalition of political groups with a pro-European commitment"; b) "a strategy to deal with the economic and financial crisis which is specific to the European Union and goes further than coordinating 27 national relaunch plans". His general references to Europe he outlined in his book - which won the European book prize of 2006 - and the title of which speaks for itself: "The United States of Europe". His latest work has a double title: "The Way Out Of the Crisis: How Europe Can Save the World". Are both of these titles perhaps excessive? Possibly; but they also speak volumes.
(F.R./trans.fl)