Thread: Belgian elections

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Exactly. I don't know why Sucre keeps hammering on the language difference. The article that he linked to also proves that the difference in language is not really an issue in the everyday life of the Belgians.

Language only becomes an issue when Francophones who move to Flanders want to annex Flemish territory.

Language was not even a real issue in Flanders during last election campaigns.

The main issues in last elections were that differences in political mentality (in general: right conservative in Flanders versus leftist socialism in Wallonia) led to total immobilism of the federal government (BHV and state reform) or some really strange compromises. Also that regions and communities are not (fiscal) responsable for their deeds.

For example migration: last elections, the Flemish voted for parties who adhere a more strict migration policy in Belgium. In Wallonia, people voted for parties who stand for regulation of illlegal migrants on a large scale.

So what was the compromise reached in the federal government? There came a new round of regulation of illegal migrants and 88% percent of those migrants were supposed to be send to the Flemish community.

So the Flemish voted against regulation, but still we got one AND Flanders was supposed to take care of 88% of the costs. The Walloons were supposed to take of 11% of the immigrants and Brussels 1%.

Eventually, the compromise was repelled after numerous Flemish cities protested against it.

Be honest, that's just sick... Then how can anyone be surprised that the Flemish establishment parties don't attract the voters anymore when such things happen? How is that intolerant, Sucre? Flanders votes A, Wallonia votes B, so in the end we get B, and Flanders gets to pay for it. Should Flanders accept that?

Another big issue in the campaign: Flanders wants more autonomy and asked for a state reform in previous elections. Walloon parties just say 'no' so nothing happens. The federal government was blocked for about 3 years and fell a couple of times. Which off course is a great thing to happen during an economic crisis...:rolleyes:

The problem is that Flanders has been too tolerant for way to long. The Francophones are used to Flanders being the nice guy and paying for everything. That's over now. Flanders is out of money and out of goodwill.
That doesn't mean that Flanders will use violence. It does mean that Flandes now puts Flemish interests first, and ain't nothing wrong with that!

The Belgian compromise used to have the meaning of different communities that negotiate a -sometimes quite bizarre- solution which was acceptable for every community.
Today the Belgian compromise means that one community f**ks the other backwards or even just plain ignoring the problems... Just look at the BHV issue. The problem is there since 1961. And still, there's no solution.

How can a sane voter accept that? Maybe by being tolerant:rolleyes:.

-------
Election campaigns 2010: the PS won in Wallonia, N-VA won in Flanders.

Belgium has a deficit of 6%, public debt of 100%.

The N-VA promised that she would cut back budgets and start saving some money.
The PS promised that they would spend billions of money more on social security. They didn't talk about the subject of cutting back budgets at all.

And please do note that Belgium is about the only European country left that hasn't announced budget cuts. International markets are about to start asking questions any time now. Maybe we'll talk about the BPIIGS in the future...

Please elaborate Sucre, how a tolerant person like you would fix this?:rolleyes: How can you compromise between one community that wants to spend, spend, spend and another that wants to cut budgets?
Tolerance has its limits, you know...

It seems that you are living in some peace, love, unity, wisdom and respect bubble, but it just doesn't work that way. Smooth talk doesn't fix real problems.

When I read this, with this amount of details, I can't help but think : yes, this is exactly it - It's your entire system which is fucked up.

And if you ask me, as an outside observer not as an expert in Belgium internal intricacies, I think your system is fucked up because too much importance has been given to the differences in languages from the outstart or to some alleged or real differences between communities.

I don't understand for example why it isn't possible to vote for the party you wish and you are tied to the community you are supposed to belong to. If this weren't this way, there would be no "special" rules for the French living on "Flemmish" territory. (Which I believe has been a point of contention)

Since you are in one single country, you should all be able to vote for the same parties, regardless of its origin.

After all, (and I read French you know and can read what's written on forums of LeSoir or similar), a Wallon may wish to get rid of these detestable Flemmish and vote for a Flemmish independentist party.

As far as your example on immigration is concerned, there is nothing unusual in one country/ State to have diverse opinions on how money is spent. You are making a huge deal out of the fact that "Wallonia who votes A" wants this while "Flander who votes B" wants the opposite. Since both Wallonians (?) and "Flemmish live in the same country, why not replace the first term of the equation by "the Belgians" ? If you do, you get the standard situation of any Western democracy ...

IMO, it is too much stress on particularims which leads to the present situation.

Focus on local particularism is a sign of lack of tolerance - or let say lack of "inclusiveness".

So, I don't have a "solution" for you, except maybe to cool down a bit and try to look at the situation in a more relaxed way. I agree with Stillalive here : open businesses in Wallonia to give jobs After all, the Flemmish have a superiority over the Wallonians that they usually speak their language better. Instead of pointing to the deficiencies of the alleged adversed community, try to work together.

This is the fondament of European unity you know - create concrete solidarities - Work together to live together.
"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."
Schuman Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----
A lot to be said still about small States v. large States, the pointlessness of a conferederation and the private ambition of politicians - and of course being the prime minister of Belgium under the present circumstances would be a political killer, not an achievement !!

Originally Posted by Voland

1. The Czechs and Slowaks have been sucessfully and peacefully through this in the early nineties. But in their case both sides wanted to end the joint state.

I still think the breaking up of Czechoslovakia was beyond stupid. Their languages are very similar, there might be more diversity within Italy (and I am not speaking about the autonomous regions there) than language wise. The break up of it a political and power decision hardly demanded by the people that ferociously at all. While both countries are doing fine now, probably also because they are integrated part of the EU and the single market by now nor do have fear any foreign invasions etc in the larger compound of both EU and NATO, the breaking up just added to the further balkanization of central Europe with little to gain from except of creating and strengthening ever more micro nations. Something Europe is certainly not in further need of.

A breaking up of Belgium would be even more of that balkanization of Europe. While Belgium alone may not be a problem to swallow if that becomes a Europe wide trend with movements in Spain, UK, Italy etc following swift it may endanger the well being of the whole continent. I may remind at the downfall and fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire. It caused more or less a whole lost century for the regions in question.

2. People in Alsace and Lorraine may refer to themselves as locals of Alsace and Lorraine ( which means german heritage) but rather not as Germans. It is a couple of generations too late for that and in times of unification and open borders that issue is irrelevant. If you are looking for a french region with secessionist tendencies I recommend Korsica......

It's funny isn't it? In Alsace a few generations are enough, but Belgium is called an "artificial state" already for nearly 200 years. It seems to me that the Flemish people seem to be overcompensating for Walloons dominance in the past now that they become the wealthier and more powerful part. On the other side the Walloons seem to suffer from a sort of minority complex. Both sides should come together again but sadly enough it seems, those who are out for escalation and further destruction of the common state are more popular nowadays.

I realize that funnily the separatism in Belgium actually does not undermine the European Union like some British EU-phobes might suggest but rather the opposite as those balkanized small separate states would need a larger umbrella for all the stuff they are simply too small to take care of efficiently. Still this possible trend of spreading separatism in Europe can't be in the EU's interest as an EU with 50-100 small members would have a real hard time to work anymore, even though this might actually really lead to the formation of far deeper European integration, not out of love but simple necessity to prevent its collapse.

Originally Posted by stillalive

May I add something here, probably explaining how the whole issue came about ?

Up into the early eighties, the Flamish had less rights than the Wallon.
The King is and always has been Wallon.

Wallons were in civil service, for a Vlaamse to get in was close to a miracle.

The Vlaamse worked and produced nearly 70 % of the national income, but the Wallons in Government did not invest in Vlaamen, they directed more than 90 % of all subsidies to the Wallon.

I still remember the upheavals, the Vlaamse protests in the sixties and seventies, just to get VOTING rights for all Vlaamse. To get an equal share in Government and to have a say in public matters.

Most of these protests were solved by the use of batons, even guns, by the then to the greatest part Wallon police and Army. I´ve seen some of them while working in Belgium.

Perhaps you should take this in consideration. Perhaps then you will at least see the point, the Vlaamse are trying to make.

Belgium will not split up.
Nor will there be a case of you keep yours, we keep ours.

What will and MUST happen is for more Vlaamse to venture into Wallonia with her army of unemployed and start businesses there.

Todays Wallons know it can´t go on like it did for so long.
The young WANT to work, but lack the opportunity as their parents had relied solely on the state to care for them.

Give Vlaams business a chance in Wallonia, give Wallon youths jobs with Vlaamse employers and the problem will solve itself.

It might take another twenty years til the last of the diehards in either Province are gone, but there will be no split Belgium.

Do me a favour, Still, and tell me where you get these ideas. I really could use a good laugh and this seems to be coming from a satirical site that's even better than the Onion.

40% of the votes are for the Flemish nationalists.

The future looks bright.

^^ ... bright for Flemish nationalistic separatists. That's not necessarily the same as a bright future in general.

So many myths to debunk and so little time.

Let's start with the historical aspect.

Originally Posted by stillalive

The King is and always has been Wallon.

I would have taken you ten seconds on Wiki to learn that the royals are and always have been German.

Originally Posted by stillalive

Up into the early eighties, the Flamish had less rights than the Wallon.

That's a joke. That situation, put in those words, has never existed.

What did happen historically is that Belgium was a typical European monarchy with an extreme aristocratic nature. There has never been a discrepancy in rights along linguistic lines but there sure was along the lines of wealth and gender. Up until 1893 one literally paid for the right to vote. The amount of that payment was high enough to keep everyone except the aristocracy, pardon the male members of the aristocracy, from voting. That was as designed.
That didn't change until 1893 when under pressure from mostly the socialist movement in Wallonia (!!!) the right to vote was extended to include all male Belgians. But the prerogatives of the wealthy were secured by instituting a system where a more wealthy person had more than one vote.
Only in 1918 was that system abolished and replaced with the standard of one man, one vote. At no point in this evolution were there any differences concerning these rights along linguistic lines.
As mentioned there was a huge difference though along the line of gender. Women couldn't vote until 1948. If anyone has historical reasons to claim historical inequality it's them, regardless of which part of the country they lived.

There was a strong overlap between the group that formed the aristocracy and the group that spoke French, that is true. But that was never institutionalized on a personal level with regards to a person's background as was the case for e.g. black people in the USA or Apartheid in South Africa. Social mobility was perfectly possible for people of Flemish origin. One has but to check the lists of people in the goverment throughout the 19th and early 20th century to see that there was no shortage of people with Flemish names on them. That these people chose to speak French in order to become priviliged was their personal choice. It was also their choice to remain 'Frenchified' once they were in a position of power. These -Flemish- people never chose to stir the pot and never made an issue out of the predominance of the French language and are thus principally responsible for the continuation of the situation.

Originally Posted by stillalive

Wallons were in civil service, for a Vlaamse to get in was close to a miracle.

Same here. There were plenty of Flemish people in the civil service at any stage in the existence of Belgium. They just chose to speak French.

Originally Posted by stillalive

The Vlaamse worked and produced nearly 70 % of the national income, but the Wallons in Government did not invest in Vlaamen, they directed more than 90 % of all subsidies to the Wallon.

This is just a plain lie or propaganda (if there's a difference between the two to begin with).
Of course there has never been an exact correspondance between population, income, taxation and whatnot. That is the case in any country in the world at any time, no matter along which arbitrary criteria one draws a line through it. In the course of Belgian history these flows that are today decried by Flemish nationalists have been as much towards Flanders as they are allegedly now towards Wallonia. In the days of the typical products of early Industrialization (mining, coal, steel) it was actually Wallonia that produced the most of the national income and which attracted hundreds of thousands of Flemish workers.
Such fluctuations are normal in any country. Just look at Detroit in the 60's vs. Detroit of today to give an example in the US.

Originally Posted by stillalive

I still remember the upheavals, the Vlaamse protests in the sixties and seventies, just to get VOTING rights for all Vlaamse. To get an equal share in Government and to have a say in public matters.

This never happened. If it's a genuine memory you have, you may consider visiting a medical professional. Voting rights have never been along linguistic lines.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

No wonder the world thinks that Flanders is some fascist state...

Maybe the world knows the origin of Flemish nationalism better than you do ?

Fact of the matter is that historically the core of both the Vlaams Belang AND the NVA is consituted of people that are directly linked to the Nazi collaboration before and during the second World War.

VB and NVA are grafted on roots from organizations such as VNV, Verdinaso, etc.
Have you ever read a Verdinaso pamphlet ? It's almost literally the same as the nationalistic propaganda of today. All that's going wrong is blamed on 'the others' with 'the others' being mostly anyone who happens to speak French. It says a lot about the rationality of the argument that in the 1930's the Walloons/French were the problem because they were rich while today the Walloons/French are the problem because they are supposedly poor.

I mean, hello ? What's it going to be ?

A word about the elections results.

First, it's not correct that 40% of the people have voted for Flemish-nationalist parties. The figure is actually 25.2 %. These were federal elections, not regional ones. Until you guys officialize the Untermenschen status of people in Brussels and Wallonia the votes of these people still count.

But yes, in Flanders the figure is 40%. And more than 40% of the so-called representatives will adhere by proxy to the idea of Flemish nationalism. I write 'by proxy' because the quality of the political personnel of both the NVA and VB is pretty poor. NVA's landslide victory will cause the NVA itself a lot of problems too as they simply don't have the qualified people to fill all the seats they took. Most of these backbenchers will simply vote with the Leader and be of no significance individually.

But that doesn't mean that 40% of even the Flemish population actually believes in the ideology of nationalism. Elections are no longer political. They are akin to Miss or Idol elections; they are spin, hype, marketing and mass hysteria. That has been pretty clear in the last ten years in Flanders.

In 1999 the hype was green due to the dioxin scandal and the ecologists won. In 2003 the hype was Stevaert and the socialists won. in 2007 the hype was Leterme. There have been VB and Dedecker hypes too. These hypes last at most a few years. VB is crumbling, Dedecker is all but gone, Green and SP are back to their station of before the hype and Leterme's CDV took a huge blow.

How long will the NVA hype last ? I don't give it as much as two years. As early as the election night itself Dewever was backpedalling on his brazen statements of the campaign so fast one could have powered a wind turbine with it. The reality of politics after the election and outside of the campaign which is completely non-committal will make the current popularity of Dewever dissipate as quickly as it has been the case with Leterme.

After all, you can dream all you want about independence or whatever and promise heaven for all in a campaign, but nobody, including Dewever, has ever proposed even the outline of a realistic plan that could achieve this in the real world.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

And off course, last government didn't even have a Flemish majority, because Walloon parties don't want to rule together with Flemish Nationalists.

Going to single this out to illustrate how the Flemish Nationalists do politics.

The last government didn't have a majority in Flanders because......here it comes..... the Flemish Nationalists of the NVA quit the government they were a part of.

It's a bit like burning the Reichstag yourself and then blame the Jews, euh scuse me, the Walloons for it.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Why? The Flemish don't want to join the Netherlands, the Walloons don't want to join France and Brussels... well, who cares about Brussels.

The Flemish do. Or at least they should if they're smart.

33% of the employment in Brussels is constituted of Flemish people commuting to and fro Brussels (*). That's 228,000 people that are dependent upon good relations with and easy access to Brussels.
The inverse flow is only to the extent of 44,000 so there's a net economic migration from Flanders to Brussels of 184,000.
The income tax these people now pay goes to Flanders because these people are living there. If/When there would be a split this income tax would of course fall to Brussels. After all, if one community wants to be selfish, why wouldn't the others in reaction ?

Or worse, if Brussels would apply the same rigid conditions e.g. the VB wants to introduce in Flanders against 'foreigners' then most of these commuters would quite simply lose their job. That would increase unemployment in Flanders by almost 100% and bring the employment rate of Flanders well below that of either Brussels or Wallonia.

You speak of budget reductions in order to cope with upcoming pension payments. Budget cuts are just one, ideological, way to cope with that. Do you realize that Brussels is one of the very few places in Belgium with both a positive net migration rate and a net positive natural population increase ?
When splitting Brussels from Flanders you would have to have extra budget cutq in Flanders solely to compensate for the loss of, shall we call it higher demographic activity, of the people in Brussels.


(*)http://www.bruxelles.irisnet.be/cmsm...27b32473790021

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Do me a favour, Still, and tell me where you get these ideas. I really could use a good laugh and this seems to be coming from a satirical site that's even better than the Onion.

What´s so funny about it ?

Originally Posted by stillalive

What´s so funny about it ?

Try reading the thread ?

Originally Posted by Sucre

Nop. I don't understand. Tell me.

What is this difference which makes you accept the concept of "solidarity" in one case and not in the other case ?

You know, as a Nation State, Germany was united later than Belgium, than separated for two generations in two different States with conflicting economic and socio-cultural systems, forging different kinds of mentalities. Not so Belgium which was united in 1831 and never separated since.

So what is the difference ?

Why do consider the lack of solidarity in Belgium as "normal", "acceptable" but not in Germany where the gap in income and devlopment is deeper ?

Firstly, let me say that I have not come out and say one way or the other whether or not I think Beligum should break up. So, please, stop putting words in my mouth. All I have said is that if the Flemish feel as though they can govern themselves as an independent nation, and if a majority of the Flemish people think this, then it is well within their right to break away from Belgium and form their own country.

Now, why do I think the current dynamic between the former east and west German areas is somehow different? Why do I think they should remain as one country? The answer is simple; Germany was split by foreign powers, against the will of its people. In addition to this, there is no real movement for the break-up of modern Germany. Certainly not on the scale we see in Flanders anyway. If, for example, there was a movement in, say, Hesse for the independence of their state and that movement represented the majority of Hessians then I would support their right to form their own nation. This inspite of the fact that I believe a unified Germany is the only way for Germany to exist.