On a vu Forward briefly withdraw from federal negotiations. Will the Flemish socialists end up joining the future government?
A negotiation is a game of chess and, from the start, Vooruit gave himself the role of the party in an uncomfortable position, demanding that this government be centrist and not right-wing. They do not hesitate to communicate disinformation, through short sentences, particularly on capital gains taxes. We feel that they are uncomfortable, while Les Engagés and the CD&V, which are centrist parties, are at their side to defend certain issues, including the financing of health care. The Flemish socialists even have an alliance with the MR to fight against the increase in taxation. But, for now, Vooruit feels strong enough and dares to go very far in this game of chess to see who will give in first.
Will the other parties agree to lean less to the right on the socio-economic and budgetary aspect?
I see that the files Vooruit is fighting for are already in the trainer’s note. The capital gains tax or the pension reform, for example, appear there, but Conner Rousseau finds that the note does not go far enough and he calls for more guarantees. However, did Bart De Wever receive guarantees on community aspects or federalism? None ! No party can say that it is fully satisfied with this note…
Vooruit continues to examine Bart De Wever’s proposal
The behavior of Conner Rousseau against Arizona is it dangerous given the state of finances?
This attitude has lasted for five months! If Vooruit just played a game by getting involved knowing it wouldn’t work, then they really were playing with the destiny of all Belgians. Conner Rousseau seems absent, very little combative. When Bouchez ended negotiations in August, notably because of the 10% tax on stock market capital gains, he inherited the Zwarte Piet (Editor’s note: “Black Jack” in French). He then fought to show that he did not want Arizona to crash. Now, it is Rousseau who has the Zwarte Piet, and the difference in attitude is obvious.
Its strength is that there is no serious alternative majority…
Effectively. I don’t believe in a classic tripartite, without the N-VA, because Bart De Wever is very invested, he makes concessions and even plays the role – quite unusual – of savior of Belgium. And replacing Vooruit with Open VLD would give too weak a majority, 76 seats out of 150 in the House. In addition, the CD&V and Les Engagés are not in favor of it. For once the French-speaking and Flemish voters have given a clear signal, it is very strange to see that these policies do not want to firstly serve the interests of the country. They all think above all about the good of their own party. They seem not yet to have realized the importance of Belgium’s budgetary situation…
An “Arizona” majority at the federal level would not do the PS’s business
THE relations between Bart De Wever and Conner Rousseau have they deteriorated?
Before the municipal elections, they had an agreement to try to form majorities in most of the large Flemish cities. Rousseau knew that it would be very difficult in Leuven and Ghent, because these cities are very progressive, and the N-VA is perceived there almost as a far-right party. This was confirmed. In Ghent, Vooruit members opposed the majority with the N-VA. And De Wever reacted to this rejection of his troops with great emotion. He found it difficult to accept such a perception of his party. Tension then emerged between the two presidents. De Wever felt that Rousseau was not a strong enough president and that he was not capable of imposing himself at the local level. This has not stopped the trainer, since then, from talking a lot with Rousseau to convince him to negotiate.
Before the negotiations, we knew that Bart De Wever had a poor image of Georges-Louis Bouchez. Has that changed now?
If we ask Georges-Louis Bouchez the question, he will answer positively (laughter). But, in my eyes, he made a huge political error by rejecting Bart De Wever’s note at the end of August and forcing the trainer to resign. He broke this Arizona project which meant a lot to the Liberals and gave a major argument to Vooruit who can boast of never having compromised the future government to this extent. As for Bart De Wever, he likes winning parties. In the documentary dedicated to him and which is currently being broadcast in theaters, we hear the president of the N-VA react to Bouchez’s 30% in the federal elections by saying that the liberal was already unbearable with 20%. “It’s going to be worse now“, he quips. What De Wever does not like about the president of the MR is that it is difficult to know whether he will support the agreements concluded or undermine them. He therefore has respect for Bouchez, but he remains on his guard.
Given the current difficulties, is the president of the N-VA always the right person to lead federal discussions ?
I understand that after five months, we ask ourselves the question. But who could replace him? Very few people at the table can boast of having the trust of all the negotiators. Relations between young party presidents are very bad. Bart De Wever has natural authority. No politician has received as many votes as him. He has the strength and power to build a coalition and lead the country to a better future. I do not believe, in any case, in the intervention of a personality with more experience like Didier Reynders or Johan Vande Lanotte in discussions. It never came to fruition!
More Bart De Wever Is he not likely to get tired of this mission, more and more hectic ? Especially since he frequently repeats that his dream was never to become Prime Minister…
He doesn’t want to give control to anyone else at all. He does not want to make the same mistake as in 2020, when he lost his place at the negotiating table even though the N-VA was the largest party in Belgium. As long as he holds the rudder, he cannot be pushed aside and, what’s more, he can influence the content of the agreement, particularly at the Community level.
At the municipal level, by joining forces with the PTB in several citieshas the PS opened Pandora’s box?
Some coalitions in Brussels were rather logical… In Molenbeek, it was mathematically impossible to form a coalition without the PTB. And in terms of content, in reality, I don’t see any difference between Catherine Moureaux’s PS, Team Fouad Ahidar and the PTB. They have the same recipes for the same problems. They are very communitarian.
Isn’t Paul Magnette shooting himself in the foot by making his main adversary approachable?
His strategy is really weird! The PS highlighted throughout the campaign that the PTB did not take its responsibilities and was incapable of making compromises, unlike the socialists. Magnette therefore lost his one and only anti-communist argument. The PS has been saying for ten years that the PTB is useless. However, this is no longer the case…
“What is happening is impressive. In Flanders, we no longer see any difference between the PS and the PTB”
How are these coalitions with the far left perceived in the north of the country?
Personally, I found it very arrogant the way in which, in the south of the country, the N-VA was threatened throughout the campaign with being excluded from any federal coalition if it allied itself with Vlaams Belang. Now we see that the PS is allying itself with the far left, even in a big city like Mons. In Flanders, we find Paul Magnette a bit hypocritical.
Does it shock you so much to see the PTB rise to a municipal majority? que le Vlaams Belang ?
I’m not shocked in any case. But I am perhaps more surprised to see Vlaams Belang manage to join a coalition at the local level than the PTB. In Flanders, we had already seen the far left join a municipal council in Zelzate and Borgerhout. But Tom Van Grieken’s party has gone very far to participate in power. In Ranst, they threw all their principles in the trash to be able to join the majority. I think that in the end, Vlaams Belang above all wanted to be able to boast of being in charge. The same was true of the PTB. Former party aldermen explained to me that no one cared about what they did, all that interested the political party was being able to say that the PTB governed in several municipalities.
THE negotiations stagnate in the Brussels region since the attacks of the PS against the MR. Did Ahmed Laaouej go too far? talking about racism concerning the liberals’ refusal to leave the mayorship of Schaerbeek to the controversial Hasan Koyuncu?
Given their respective programs, it is already remarkable that they were able to start negotiating in the Brussels region. The PS and the MR have never stopped attacking each other in the capital. The MR always says that the PS is communitarian and, in a way, he is not wrong. We really feel that the discourse is different between Paul Magnette in Wallonia and Ahmed Laaouej in Brussels. Regarding accusations of racism, Ahmed Laaouej too quickly resorts to this argument. We remember the debates on the languages to pass the driving license in Brussels. The PS wanted to add five. What the liberals had refused, arguing that there were already three languages in our country and that it was still necessary to preserve the Belgian identity. The socialists then accused the MR of being racist. This really surprised me! The PS had gone too far. Talking about racism all the time discredits the term.
Related News :