How to develop a
real quartier
européen?
by Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt,
Brussels, 22 April 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen, in December 2000, during the Nice European Council, it was decided that after enlargement, all European Councils would take place in Brussels. And even before enlargement, there will be a European Council in Brussels during each presidency of the European Union. In this way, a European Council will take place in Brussels, in October of this year, during the Danish Presidency.
As you know, the Belgian delegation had not asked for this new arrangement in Nice. President Jacques Chirac suggested it. And of course, we did not refuse.
In my mind, this new arrangement presents three clear advantages. First and foremost, it confirms Brussels as the capital of the European Union. With the Nice decision, Brussels is now the seat of the European Parliament, of the European Commission and of the European Council.
Secondly, this decision will lead to a redramatisation of the European Council. It will take away part of the glitter, the pomp and circumstance of the meetings of the heads of state and government. It will make our meetings more businesslike and down to earth. And a third advantage, of course, concerns the local Brussels economy, which will profit from these regular summit meetings.
Both Romano Prodi and myself saw immediately that this new arrangement offers an immense opportunity for Brussels. That is why we decided to invite a group of leading intellectuals and artists to hold a couple of brainstorming sessions and to discuss the expectations, the needs and the functions of Brussels as capital of Europe. I must say that I have enjoyed the discussions of the group enormously. The fact that we brought together people from very different horizons had a stimulating effect on the debate. I would like to thank all the participants of the group, as well as the European Commission for its logistical support.
I remember that my opening remarks at the first meeting of the group, in May of last year, did surprise some of the participants. I told them that Brussels is the ideal place for a European capital because it is not a national capital like others such as Paris or Berlin or Rome. The Belgian people do not have a strong sense of national identity. This has to do with our history and with the fact that two cultural communities are living together in one state. Federal states very often do not have strong capitals. For these reasons, Brussels is an open space that can be developed into a modern European capital without creating tensions with the role of Brussels as a national capital. Of course, Brussels already is the capital of Europe, with the seat of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, Brussels has an enormous concentration of journalists and lobbyists. But there was a general feeling in the group that this was not enough, that something was lacking in order to turn Brussels into the real capital of Europe. Buildings and monuments are important, but people matter more. Brussels has enough of the hardware, the buildings, but not enough of the software. Brussels must attract more young people, students, academics, artists. We must boost the European identity in this city. Because the fact of the matter is that the 300 million European citizens do not yet recognise Brussels as their capital. That is why I welcome the final report of the group with enthusiasm. I agree with its conclusion that we don't need a nation-style capital for the European Union. On the contrary, it is through exchanges between European citizens and through cultural contacts that we must build this European capital. "We must develop the software rather than the hardware", was a phrase often heard during the brainstorming sessions. In the final report, several proposals are made such as a centre for advanced studies, an institute for multilingualism. In this way, Brussels should reflect the diversity of the European Union, which is multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-ethnic. It is important that we make this statement, especially at a time when nationalist, anti-democratic and anti-European political parties are on the rise in several member states.
But the final report also insists on the need for a new, transparent method for deciding about the location of European buildings. This method should include international competitions. This is, in my mind, sound advice, which couldn't have come at a better moment.
As you probably know, the Belgian government, together with the Brussels authorities and the European Commission, is preparing a decision on the location of a new building, which will hold the European Council meetings, as well as other ministerial meetings of the European union. Such a new building is necessary if we want to organise in an efficient way the meetings of the heads of state and government in a union of 30 member states. Several options are being discussed. I am confident that we will be able to announce this decision in the coming weeks. And it is my intention to launch an international architecture competition for this new seat of the European Council.
But it would be a mistake if we did not at the same time launch a programme to rehabilitate and develop the "quartier Européen" between the Schuman roundabout and the Leopold square. We do not only need new buildings. We also need a new conceptual framework. I think we should improve both quality of life and quality of work in this part of Brussels. We should reconcile the people living in this "quartier" with the European institutions.
Most members of the group were very critical about the lack of such a global, conceptual framework for this district of the city. Pasquall Maragall, the former mayor of Barcelona, said he had the impression that Brussels had had a great accident, hit by a meteorite called the European Union. Others talked about a bomb that had hit Brussels.
Indeed, there has never been a real attempt to improve the relations between the European institutions and Brussels. The "quartier Européen" was developed without a global vision on what it should become and how it should function within Brussels. We should not repeat these mistakes. That is why I am considering to launch a study in order to develop a global urbanisation concept for this European district with a view to integrate it into the city of Brussels and, at the same time, make it a powerful symbol of European openness and integration.
Thank you.

back to the top

rate card

circulation

editorial synopsis