Brussels and the EU institutions. How it all began.

Fact: Brussels is the centre of EU activities, the main seat of its institutions. It is enshrined in the Treaties as such. But was it like this from the very beginning? And why was it chosen to play this role?

Going down history lane, we find Belgium, one of the founding members of the European Communities, holding the first ever Council presidency, in January 1958, when the Rome Treaties entered into force. It was, of course, by alphabetical order that this was decided. But since that was the very beginning and no precedent existed, the seat of the EC institutions was also not set. Luxembourg declined to get the seats of all EU institutions. However, the Council had to start meeting somewhere, and with Belgium at it helm, Brussels was the obvious choice. For practical reasons, the Commission came along. This was thought of as a temporary solution but in reality the provisional situation became the permanent location of the two EU institutions (formally confirmed by the Amsterdam Treaty, “only” 40 years later). The European Parliament, initially based in Strasbourg,  got its Brussels seat a bit later, when it became closely associated in the decision-making process by the introduction of the codecison procedure.

So if you thought that the choice of Brussels was somehow based on logical, historic, economic, common sense or whatever other types of reasons you can come up with, think again. It was indeed, by chance, and later by inertia that Brussels hosts the EU institutions. One can also look at it as a “legacy” of the first ever Belgian presidency. An interesting thought, now when we are approaching the start of Belgium’s 12th edition of EU Council Presidency. Back then the EC institutions had just been created and lots of nitty-gritty details of their working were to be decided in the first months. Now, the EU structure, redefined by the Lisbon Treaty, needs to be implemented in practice. Coincidentally, both times Belgium gets to play a leading role (baring in mind of course the very different historical context and the evolution of EU integration). As we saw, Belgium left quite a strong mark back then, putting Brussels at the centre of the EU. Will something similarly relevant be said about the 2010 presidency, 50 years from now?

Fact: Brussels is the centre of EU activities, the main seat of its institutions. It is enshrined in the Treaties as such. But was it like this from the very beginning? And why was it chosen to play this role? Going down history lane, we find Belgium, one of the founding members of the European Communities, holding the first ever Council presidency, in January 1958, when the Rome Treaties entered into force. It was, of course, by alphabetical order that this was decided. But since that was the very beginning and no precedent existed, the seat of the EC institutions was also not set. Luxembourg declined to get the seats of all EU institutions. However, the Council had to start meeting somewhere, and with Belgium at it helm, Brussels was the obvious choice. For practical reasons, the Commission came along. This was thought of as a temporary solution but in reality the provisional situation became the permanent location of the two EU institutions (formally confirmed by the Amsterdam Treaty, "only" 40 years later). The European Parliament, initially based in Strasbourg,  got its Brussels seat a bit later, when it became closely associated in the decision-making process by the introduction of the codecison procedure. So if you thought that the choice of Brussels was somehow based on logical, historic, economic, common sense or whatever other types of reasons you can come up with, think again. It was indeed, by chance, and later by inertia that Brussels hosts the EU institutions. One can also look at it as a "legacy" of the first ever Belgian presidency. An interesting thought, now when we are approaching the start of Belgium's 12th edition of EU Council Presidency. Back then the EC institutions had just been created and lots of nitty-gritty details of their working were to be decided in the first months. Now, the EU structure, redefined by the Lisbon Treaty, needs to be implemented in practice. Coincidentally, both times Belgium gets to play a leading role (baring in mind of course the very different historical context and the evolution of EU integration). As we saw, Belgium left quite a strong mark back then, putting Brussels at the centre of the EU. Will something similarly relevant be said about the 2010 presidency, 50 years from now?