Capital gains and losses for Brussels

Efforts need to be made to close the gap between the Belgian city and the EU institutions.

Brussels claims to be the capital of Europe, but the claim is, like much of the city, built on sand. There is no European Union text that awards such a title to the city, even if the term ‘Brussels’ is widely employed (usually pejoratively) as a shorthand term for the European Union.

Instead, there is a text that ordains that the European Commission shall have its seat in Brussels, though it adds, with typical Eurospeak clarity, that “the departments listed in Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the decision of 8 April 1965 shall be established in Luxembourg”. The same text, a protocol to the EU’s treaty, ordains that the Council of Ministers shall have its seat in Brussels, though it adds that “during the months of April, June and October, the Council shall hold its meetings in Luxembourg”.

Brussels’s claim on the European Parliament is more tenuous. The protocol provides that “the European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg, where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions…shall be held”, but goes on to say that “the periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels” and adds: “The committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The general secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg.”

Despite all these mentions of Strasbourg and Luxembourg, the net effect, combined with the addition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee and the permanent representations of the member states, is that the centre of gravity of the EU institutions rests in Brussels. A significant step was the decision in December 2000 that all the European Council meetings should be held in Brussels, ending the practice of holding summits in the country that holds the presidency of the Council. Which is why the summit being held today and tomorrow (24-25 March) is happening in Brussels. The expansion of the EU from the initial six states to 27 has significantly increased its impact on the city.

De facto then (though not de jure), Brussels is indeed the capital of Europe, but the path taken to get here has been very indirect (and in the case of the construction of a building to accommodate the Parliament in Brussels, it was downright deceitful). This gradualism has not been helpful – either for the EU institutions or for Brussels. The EU institutions have established their homes in Brussels sometimes more by accident than design – as the architecture bears witness.

The improvisation and ad-hoc arrangements have left their scars on the urban landscape of Brussels, which was already vulnerable. Rivalries and disagreements between distinct Belgian authorities have not helped forge harmonious planning. The EU institutions too have competed against each other, to the detriment of the overall result, both aesthetic and practical. Residents of Brussels barely got a look in, whatever the EU might have been saying about its commitment to transparency or about bringing Europe closer to the people.

The lack of openness encouraged suspicions that either the EU, or property speculators, or both, were profiting at the expense of the locals.

Belatedly, attitudes are changing. Freeing the EU institutions, particularly the Commission, to own property has encouraged a longer-term view. Some of the Belgian authorities, worried for the city’s future, are getting their act together.

Yet there is still a gap between the Belgian city and the EU institutions, which European Voice would like to close.

Our aim is to connect people and to help them better understand each other. To that end, European Voice is next week hosting a discussion of Brussels as the capital of Europe and how the EU is shaping Brussels (details on Page 18). Readers of European Voice, particularly those who live or work in Brussels, will be most welcome. The future of Brussels deserves to be debated openly.

Click Here: kanken kids cheap