We note this veto of the PS vis-à-vis the N-VA. This is a new element. I have also often expressed difficulties with the N-VA project. But without putting a veto, and moreover the PS had not put one either. Until 15 days ago…
Governing with the N-VA in Brussels? “Not a problem”, for Alexia Bertrand, “as long as there is no community that harms the capital”
What do you think happened to justify this toughening?
I analyze this as a lack of desire to join the majority and participate in government. The socialists realized the extent of the reforms to be carried out in Brussels. This demotivated them. They came with different pretexts, like the note from the Flemish parties, to move away from the negotiations.
Isn’t this a bluff aimed at raising the stakes?
According to everything they send us as a message, it is indeed a veto. It’s not serious to come with this after 6 months. And this makes no sense, because the note from the Flemish parties is only the pooling of the institutional demands of the Dutch-speaking parties that have been known for a long time. It’s not because we agree to discuss with them that we will accept everything, obviously. I too have institutional demands that the Flemings are not going to accept, such as reducing the number of deputies. But today, there is a budgetary emergency. The Region loses 2 billion euros per year. 6 months of blocked negotiations means 1 billion euros lost…
The Brussels institutional supernote, deemed “undrinkable” by the PS, was as much inspired by the Flemish socialists and Groen as by the N-VA
What is the risk if the deficit remains this high?
In March, if Standard&Poors does not have a guarantee that strong measures are taken, they will increase the Region’s rating, and our debt will cost us even more. (Editor’s note: the annual debt burden amounts to 335 million in 2024). We will then have to contact Flanders, Wallonia and the Federal Government to ask for help. But they won’t just write us a check. They will affect the autonomy of Brussels. This blockage is concrete. On February 28, Audi withdrew from Forest. Who will manage this? What do we do with the gutted Stalingrad district, waiting to know what will be decided for the Metro project? What about Rénolution, when in January we will once again be in the dark regarding building renovation bonuses? We are reaching the heart of the system. It is no longer simply a question of wanting to negotiate or not, because we lost or won the elections. All those who engage in politics in the noble sense of the term must put the interest of their party aside for the benefit of the general interest.
Should we persist in convincing the PS?
Given the PS veto, we cannot sit there and watch the flies fly. We clearly need to explore the track with Ecolo and Défi. I extend my hand to Ecolo. We saw that Défi was constructive and ready to discuss. I simply ask Ecolo and Défi to sit around a table to discuss possible convergences.
gullEcolo has more in common with us, on several themes, than with the PS. We can form a strong axis within the Brussels government with Elke Van den Brandt (Groen), Zakia Khattabi (Ecolo), and me.”
Marie Lecocq and Zakia Khattabi repeated their choice for the opposition.
I understand Ecolo’s difficulties. But we can build convergences. The main thing today is the budget, governance, since Brussels is blocked, but also the climate and the transition, which is the biggest challenge of our generation. We do not have the same methods as Ecolo but we have the same objective. There are also convergences on health, social and economic issues. Alain Maron started the PSSI (The Integrated Social Health Plan) and it is a good plan. Barbara Trachte did a great job on the shifting economy. Ecolo has more in common with us, on all these themes, than with the PS. There is also the possibility of finding common ground on the preservation of Josaphat Park, but also of preserving the LEZ (low emission zone), which the PS and the PTB would have wanted to call into question. It seems to me that we find the essential here. We can form a strong axis within the Brussels government with Elke Van den Brandt (Groen), Zakia Khattabi (Ecolo), and me.
At Écolo, the refusal to participate in the majority in Brussels is not unanimous
The MR and the Engagés came into force by postponing the entry into force of the low emission zone (LEZ). It was not likely to create bridges…
We had to compromise on the LEZ, which was part of a broader deal, to preserve Renolution. But the situation has evolved. The refusal to return to the decumulation was a signal from the Engaged. I say this to Ecolo: you have the opportunity to influence the project we are building together. If you don’t take this opportunity to come and see what we can do together, you will no longer be able to criticize what the next coalition will do.
Convincing Ecolo to work with Georges-Louis Bouchez’s MR won’t be easy…
David (Leisterh) is not Georges-Louis (Bouchez). In the discussions, there is a real Brussels vision of the MR, with which we can discuss.
There is also the metro, which Ecolo no longer wants.
We never said that we had to build the metro as is. We talked about an independent study, possibly modifying the project to make it financeable, etc. There will need to be a discussion about the metro.
This risks getting stuck on Good Move…
Good Move is 50 measures. Our idea is to keep the ambition for mobility that is in Good Move, undoubtedly by changing the name and removing problematic elements, but keeping the main aspects. Given the urgency of the situation, we are all ready to make efforts to set up a coalition with Ecolo and Défi.
