Alexander de Croo, deputy prime minister of Belgium HARDtalk

Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen Sackur. The recent UK general

election was supposed to strengthen the British government's hand in the

looming Brexit negotiations. Instead, it backfired spectacularly.

Theresa May is a weakened Prime Minister at the head of a minority

government ill-prepared for the complex, difficult talks that lie

at. My guest is Deputy Prime Minister of old Jim, Alexander de

Croo. -- Belgium. Does Europe viewed written's travails with sympathy or

relish? -- view Britain's travails. Alexander de Croo, in Brussels,

welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Their use it as a senior minister in

a European government. -- there you sit. And as luck would have it, in

the institutional capital of the European Union. Be honest with me.

How much attention do you pay to what is happening in British

politics right now? Well, we do pay a lot of attention to what is

happening there, because we know that the discussion on Brexit is one

where time is of the essence. We have a two year period to negotiate

a good deal with the United Kingdom, but three months have gone already

and the time is ticking. So we are ready to go to the table to have a

good negotiation, but I think the moment has come to really start

talking, to get beyond the theatrical rhetoric and to get down

to business. You say that with such gentility, but I get the sense that

frustration is creeping into the EU position. I can quote to you the EU

parliament chief participants negotiator in the expected Brexit

talks, who also happens to be a former leader of your political

party in Belgium. He said this, on Twitter, just a few hours ago. "We

Are waiting impatiently for negotiating positions of the UK

government, the current uncertainty cannot continue". Do you share that

degree of frustration? I shared the degree of impatience. Because, look,

we have looked at this election, and I have to reactions. One reaction is

that I am reassured, because the whole idea of negotiating an

unnecessary hard Brexit, I never understood why this would be to the

benefit of the UK citizens or the European citizens. And what I see

here is that there is no majority mandate for the negotiation of a

hard Brexit. That, I think, is a good thing. The other element is

that I am preoccupied, because as I said, time is of the essence. We

only have to years for very, very difficult negotiations. We need to

be very clear, there is nobody in Brussels who is wanting to punish

the UK government or the UK citizens. I think the UK citizens

have punished themselves already enough, with political instability,

with a disunited kingdom, with a pound sterling which is falling and

which is increasing, for example, the cost of going on holiday on the

cap a continent. -- on the Continent. I think we have seen

enough drawbacks, we are ready to negotiate. I guess that is music to

the ears of many in Britain, that you do not see this in any sense to

be a form of punishment. But you have maybe inadvertently just

entered the most sensitive areas of the British debate right now, about

what Brexit means. Because after this election there is no clear

sense from the new Parliament, as it is made up today, of where a

majority lies in terms of what kind of Brexit is wanted. You say there

is clearly no majority for hard Brexit, but many people in Britain

say there is no such thing as a soft Brexit. Brexit means that we in

Britain have decided we are not repaired any longer to accept the

free movement of people or the jurisdiction of the European Court

of justice. -- not prepared. We want to govern our own affairs and take

control, and that is Brexit. You can call it hard, you can call it soft,

you can call it hard baked ash Macca fake, at Brexit is Brexit. -- you

can call it hard baked, at Brexit is Brexit. So we should get to the

table. We have sent out the first position paper of the European

Union. Let's be clear. We are ready to negotiate, and we are ready to

negotiate any type of deal that the United Kingdom wants. We have

received a letter that says we want to divorce. If one of the partners

says they want to divorce, well, that is something that we should

accept. Now, what is a problem today is that we get a letter saying we

want to divorce and that the same time we hear that actually we want

to remarry, because we want to create some kind of working

relationship with the European Union. I think for talking about

getting remarried we should be clear on the elements, on the principles

of the divorce. -- before talking. That is a clear element of

negotiation. First we discuss how to divorce and after that we discuss

what is the way going forward. I continue to be convinced that

despite the Brexit, the UK citizens and the European citizens continue

to have more interests in common than interest that would be against

each other. Let's talk about the specifics of the divorce agreement

as you see it in a moment. Just on this issue of time, we'd talk about

Michel Barniet, the chief negotiator for Brexit on the European side. He

says it is extraordinary, nothing has happened, three months after you

took the decision to trigger Article 50, we have had no negotiations, no

sense of what the British government's negotiating position

is, and somebody has calculator that is more than 12% of the entire two

year period in which this deal is supposed to be done. That has

already disappeared. Is it time for people like you, senior political

figures in Europe, to say that it is obvious this is not going to get

dealt with? It is not going to get negotiated in two years, and we

already have to start talking about extending the deadline. Are you

prepared to say that today? No. I think we should get started. There

was a question for a mandate to negotiate. That mandate was supposed

to be strong and stable. Well, the elections have taken place, let's

get to the table. I don't think that we Europeans should be in a position

to judge what the position will be of the United Kingdom. Hang on a

minute. You cannot ignore reality. You know that Theresa May is not

strong and stable. UN Belgium no better than anybody that democracy

often throws up extraordinarily difficult results which do not allow

for stability. -- You in Belgium. That is where we happen to be today

in Britain, like it or not, and you are going to have to live with that

just as the British people. It may require a second election soon. But

you cannot say we demand coherence and stability and a strong

government position in Britain if it is simply impossible. But we do not

demand anything. There has been a request for Brexit. This was not

something that the rest of the EU had asked for. But the United

Kingdom as a sovereign country and makes its own choices. A letter

referring to Article 50 has been sent, three months ago. It is true

that we have been waiting for the last three months, but let's forget

about why this happened. What is important for me is that we get to

the table and that we start talking. That we start talking about

negotiating a good deal. A deal will not be done in two years. Would you

at least agree on that? Well, to figure it out, we should at least

start. Up to now, what we have heard too much is rhetoric about hard

Brexit, soft Brexit, about being generous, one relating to another.

For me, it is hard to understand what is really meant by that. At

some point we just need to get to the table and start negotiating. And

the message from Michel Barniet is quite clear. The European Union is

ready, the clock is ticking, so let's get to the table and let's

start talking. But Michel Barniet has already said that he thinks the

first thing and the only thing that can be on the agenda at the

beginning of the price, the divorce costs, before you get to any

negotiation of a new and different future deal between Britain and the

EU. He has talked about 60 billion euros, others have talked about a

figure up to 100 billion euros. You must realise that politically,

Theresa May, more than ever, is not in any position to sign off on those

sorts of sums of money as a sort of compensation package for the EU. It

is just political impossible. -- politically impossible. On

principle, the moment you leave a club, I think it is quite normal

when you leave a club that you settle the bill. If you will not

settle the bill in leaving the club, it basically means that somebody

else is going to pay the bill. How fair would that be to the other

European citizens, to say, you know, in the end you are going to pay the

bills for somebody who, on one side, has decided to leave the club? I

think I have seen those numbers ranging from 60 billion euros to 100

early in euros. Let's get to the table. Let's put the bill on the

table and let's look at what is the most reasonable way of getting to an

agreement there. Then we will go further. OK. I don't want to get too

bogged down in detailed specifics, but there is a very live debate

after the UK election, a very live debate about whether cross-party

consensus in the UK can be found for the notion that we actually tried to

stay inside the European single market, but negotiate an

unprecedented sort of get out clause that would ameliorate the

difficulties Britain has with the freedom of movement of labour. Can

you imagine such a one-off special deal being offered to Britain? Stay

in the single market, but get some concessions on freedom of movement?

Look, I think in general, we are open to negotiate deals ranging

from, on one side, being part of the single market, but you have to

understand that one, you want to be part of the single market, it also

means that you respect the four freedoms. -- that when you want to

be part. That is the movement of people, capital, goods and services.

And of course you also accept the authority of the European Court of

justice and the European Commission. Deputy Prime Minister, you are

ignoring my question. Can you imagine a press spoke, tailored deal

which allows Britain some opt out for leniency on some of those four

pillars you have just outlined? -- bespoke, tailored deal. I think it

is hard to do cherry picking. The European Union is not a supermarket

where you can go in and say, you know, this is the one ingredient I

want and all the rest of it, I do not want to be part of this. Being

part of the single market is of course one choice that can be made,

but there are certain consequences to that, of course. And if this is

what the UK negotiators want to negotiate, let's get to the table

and exchange views on that. There is an opposite view, which is the hard

Brexit, where you basically say that you do not even want a customs

union. But up to now, for us Europeans and for the European chief

negotiator, it is unclear what the option is that will be brought to

the table. Let's at least be clear on what you basically want, and then

we can discuss it. One thing which Theresa May's negotiating team was

insistent upon before the election, and some of them are still saying,

but not all of them, is that in the end, from Britain point of view, no

deal is better than a bad deal, and they are ultimately prepared to walk

away from the table to get to the two-year deadline and, in a sense,

fall off and EU cliff and have Britain outside the EU was no

negotiate -- with no negotiated trade deal. It seems to me that

there is no question, even for those to advocate that position, that it

would be damaging to the UK economy. But have you considered just a

damaging it would be to the EU economy as well? Not just because

you wouldn't get this payoff that you want of a 100 billion euros of

divorce settlement, but also the impact on European trade, on

European growth, you can't afford for that to happen, can you?

Honestly, I think we need to take a step back and see as politicians why

are we doing our jobs. We are doing our jobs because we want to create

an environment which is good for our citizens, which creates prosperity

for our citizens, which create security and peace for our citizens.

And what I would want to avoid it is that this whole Brexit discussion is

about political parties, is about governments, and so on. I do not

think that aiming for no deal would actually be something that is in the

interests of the security of the British and European citizens. And I

think a UK perspective, there is a choice to be made. We live in a

global world. And I think in a global world, at some point, you

have to make an evaluation and say who are my allies? Who is the person

they see as an ally? Is Donald Trump and Ally? Is that it viewed in an

ally? Is Emmanuel Macron or Angela Merkel and Ally? I would go with

Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron any day. -- an ally. But that is a

decision that the United Kingdom is to make. A very interesting

perspective. And I want to come back to those global point you made. I

don't want this entire interview to be just about Britain, that would

not be right, given your position in Europe. But a final point on

Britain, in your heart of hearts, do you still think it is possible that

Britain will actually reversed its decision, and decide that it does

not want to leave the European Union? Who am I to judge? If I would

be a British citizen, then I have the right to vote, and the right to

be a part of this debate. I am not. And I think that this is a choice

that has been made in the United Kingdom. I believe that no deal

would be very bad for the UK citizens, and would be bad for

European citizens. I believe it would be worse than the UK citizen

and the EU citizen, but being Belgian, a small economy, who

believes in free trade, with most of our economy dependent on trade, and

the large but dependent on the United Kingdom, I believe that this

whole session with maybe no deal, I don't see how this could be to the

benefit of the citizens. Citing this as a political debate. But it is too

important to make this only a political debate. -- so I think this

is. A wider argument, let's think about where the EU is going up. --

going now. Man U Micron, where he is going, and Angela Merkel, and

perhaps you can extrapolate this to the Brits who are dragging their

feet, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel are talking about unity on

the security and fiscal side, do you think that that is where the EU is

going next -- Emmanuel Micron? I prefer having the British people on

the table. On a lot of topics, they are an ally. They are an ally in

discussions on free trade, and very often, they are at an ally when it

comes to foreign policy. But they are absolutely not an ally, when it

comes to further integration of the European project. Emmanuel Macron is

now talking about his vision of a Finance Minister co-ordinating

fiscal policy across the European Union. He, I think it is that to

say, definitely has a vision of a European army, European security and

foreign policy, heavily integrated. Britain was never followed. Britain

was on its way out to the accident. This seems to be the Franco-German

vision of where to take the European Union. I think this is their

catharsis moment. Brexit was a catharsis moment. But equally so the

election Donald Trump, and the United States lead in the Paris

Climate Agreement. I think these are all defining moment. And it comes at

a moment where there is a new leadership standing up in Europe. I

believe that the European project is much stronger than some people

thought it was. We need more Europe? Yes. To tackle... But have you seen

the opinion polls? These polls have asked people if they want more

treaties, more Europe, and in Germany, France, the Holland, Spain,

and others, the response is, overwhelmingly, no. Let's see how

you asked the question. If you look at whether the -- if you look at the

big themes of the world today. Climate change. Terror. Handling

migration. Everybody knows that there is no country that can handle

it on itself. Isaby can say that we want some parts in Europe which are

less, I can agree. I want less European democracy, it yes. -- I can

certainly say it, that we have some parts in Europe which one less, I

can agree. In working together, for certain causes, however, I think we

find each other. And I honestly think that in the discussion with

the United Kingdom, we will come back on certain topics. Yes, we have

to discuss Brexit. But when we are fighting terror, we have the same

interests. And instead of what we see from time to time, when there is

unfortunate terrorist attacks, trying to blame one another, I would

rather put my energy, instead of blaming one another, and you seen

what we can do together, can we work together to get a better solution?

System in this conversation you have chosen an internationalist

perspective, and you have talked about worrying trends that you see

in the United States and Russia and elsewhere, but, as a senior member

of a government in Belgium which is failing to meet some of its most

basic international obligations, I just wonder how strong the ground is

that you are currently standing on. For example, in Nato terms, Belgium

has an appalling record of failing to meet the 2% of GDP threshold on

to phase -- on defence expenditure. Only Luxembourg, pro rata, spend

less on defence than you do. And on international aid, your own

portfolio, you are only record of getting anywhere near to the 0.7% of

GDP spent on international aid, that is terrible. You are at 0.49%.

Belgium is not stepping up when it comes to its international

obligations. On defence, our Prime Minister has been clear on the fact

that we will step up and invest more. When we are talking about

foreign policy, I think that you need to sit in a broad perspective.

If we have had positive revolution in the world over the past ten

years, where has it come from? The reason number one is trade. And when

we talk about trade cover the European Union is second to none, in

relation to trade, and inward and outward investment. That is all very

interesting, but you seem to be avoiding my point that Belgium has

signed up to specific international obligations. Let's talk about your

own portfolio, before we Vanish. Belgium has said that it wants to

meet the 0.7% of GDP in two international aid, but time and

again, it has failed, and you have been crowing about how you are going

to cut the aid budget by another 270 million euros by 2019. -- we vanish.

I just don't see how you can then stand before me and said that you in

Belgium are committed to the internationalist agenda. What I

wanted to say before you cut me off was that the internationalist

agenda, in my view, is more spending criteria on defence and aid. Yes, we

need to step out our investment, and we need to do investments. But if

you look at what happened today, what makes a difference, it is open

democracies, it is trade, it is investing in the least developed

countries, which is somewhere where it Belgium is contravening the rest

of the world, it is too easy to judge countries on spending

criteria. Let's also see what we're doing. Minister, we are doing. The

thank you very a much indeed were joining us on HARDtalk My pleasure.

-- Thank you very a much indeed for joining us on HARDtalk.

The middle of the week is going to bring a peak

You could describe it as very warm across many parts of the country.

Especially across southern areas of England and Wales