Thread: Belgian elections

Originally Posted by Sucre

But the difference is OF COURSE that Germany IS paying althought this is not the SAME State. They don't like to pay but they do it on their own will.

Until there is a partition Flander and Wallonia are one single State. (Whether you like it or not.)
Not so Germany and Greece.

Besides, do answer this: if the legal form of the community does not matter, why the hell are you trying to change it ???

The legal form of the community doesn't matter, in regard to solidarity. Seems to got lost in translation.

I found another difference. Flanders is solidar with Wallonia by pouring in free money, which doesn't have to be accounted for.

Germany is solidar with Greece by giving it even more debt, but not before it had implemented an austerity program, with the goal to save its own banks.

Now who really is solidar?

Originally Posted by Sucre

The difference is therefore between a broadminded and farseeing politician called Angela Merkel and stubborn Flemmish Nationalists who cannot think further than 100 kilometers.

If you say so.

I think there's a large chance that a lot of European countries will split up in regions. Catalonia, Scotland, Flanders, Silezia, Corsica etc... You can't deny the trend.

And I also think there still is a chance that Greece is defaulting/restructuring its debt.

We'll see in a couple of years who really was visionary.

Originally Posted by Sucre

While you waste your time fighting over these communities issues, the situation in your house is getting worse and worse.

Now this could be interesting. Please go on.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

I solely wanted to express the idea that a language defines ones view on the world. You're Francophone so It's only logical that you chose to read solely Francophone Belgicist newspapers like Le Soir and don't understand that the Flemish wish for autonomy is more a quest for democracy then a quest for an independant state.
While the Francophone newspapers have all interest in making that demand for autonomy seem like its undemocratic and nationalist.

So don't act like you see the whole thing through if your information is incomplete. You're like a judge who already made up its mind about a case after having heard only one party out of two.

If you are trying to say that there are two parts to a story, thank you, we know it, I know it.

I do not “chose” to read solely, I only can read because I was born in France and not in Flanders. But I can also read English and German. The New York Times was not particularly flattering for that matter. Or maybe the journalist was biased because he did not speak Flemish

Besides, you keep giving your side of the story on this forum. The fact that you are using English and not your native language does not annihilate the validity of your point of view, no?

This leads me to say that my non-knowledge of Flemish does not annihilate my critical mind.

I’d rather read Le Monde, who will be more objective than the Belgian media and more informed than the German media. But maybe you should read Le Soir and its blogs too! The discussions on the forums are very interesting - the heat, the passion of the conversations and the different levels of argumentation. And many Dutch-phone who participate too.

This is a mistake to think that because I am Francophone, the issue would be familiar to me.
Actually, I find the issue precisely that fascinating because most of what has been happening in Belgium has gone unseen by the rest of the world for many years. And here I give you right: maybe Flemish nationalism has precisely been underestimated because the culture expressing itself uses an ultra-minority language so that even the other half of the country did not hear them (or was not capable of assessing its importance).

It is also a mistake to think that because I am Francophone, I would automatically side the French-speaking folks. My natural tendency in politics is to side the “minorities” and the “disadvantaged”- So that would be the Flemish in this case, right? Except if they use violence or are aggressive though. I support language diversity in Europe as a matter of principle – (But here I feel like saying: “not like that”.)

Originally Posted by Thanatos

It's called poisoning the well, and that's a logical fallacy. Even if I really am nationalist, arrogant or feeling superior, It doesn't matter for the discussion!

No, it’s called killing the messenger. But it does matter for the discussion. I explained why. Making fun of my answer does not refute it.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

The legal form of the community doesn't matter, in regard to solidarity. Seems to got lost in translation.

Well, yes, I am precisely saying the contrary: the legal form of the community matters when it comes to solidarity.

To be very honest, I would be more supportive of your movement if it had the gut to separate for good. But no, it wants to remain in the same States, but without the disadvantages so to say. It’s really, really tough not to see that as egoist. It’s also a bit naïve to believe that it can work in the long term. (Unless splitting remains the real long-term goal after all, of course ...)

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Germany is solidar with Greece by giving it even more debt, but not before it had implemented an austerity program, with the goal to save its own banks.

Please, speak at least of stuff you understand: stick to Flanders. If Europe and the IMF had not given money to Greece, it would have been bankrupt before it had had even the slightest chance to implement an austerity programme. Your statement does not make any sense.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

I think there's a large chance that a lot of European countries will split up in regions. Catalonia, Scotland, Flanders, Silezia, Corsica etc... You can't deny the trend.

No, I am not denying the trend. It does not mean I support it. I see no point in creating a lot of small kingdoms headed by minuscule kings with big egos.

More fundamentally, I think that …
1) It's always been a trend
2) It is a manageable trend

After all, I wouldn’t be pro-EU if I thought otherwise. I am pro-EU not in the sense of the liberal sense of the city in London (or of the present European Commission) but in the sense of Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann.

There are things you don’t see either: there is a contrary trend.

The trend of these young people who either have the possibility to travel, study, work abroad or who are born abroad and speak several languages - and see themselves not as Catalan, or Spaniards, Berliners or Germans but as Europeans, the generation which is called the "Generation E" by T.T Reid in his book "The United States of Europe"
The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy: Amazon.de: T.R. Reid: Englische Bücher

(The title of the book is misleading. The book is is more about explaining Europe to the Americans than presenting the new super power)

Originally Posted by Sucre

But maybe you should read Le Soir and its blogs too! The discussions on the forums are very interesting - the heat, the passion of the conversations and the different levels of argumentation. And many Dutch-phone who participate too.

I am one of those Dutchphones.

Originally Posted by Sucre

If you are trying to say that there are two parts to a story, thank you, we know it, I know it.

I do not “chose” to read solely, I only can read because I was born in France and not in Flanders. But I can also read English and German. The New York Times was not particularly flattering for that matter. Or maybe the journalist was biased because he did not speak Flemish

Besides, you keep giving your side of the story on this forum. The fact that you are using English and not your native language does not annihilate the validity of your point of view, no?

This leads me to say that my non-knowledge of Flemish does not annihilate my critical mind.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Sucre

It is also a mistake to think that because I am Francophone, I would automatically side the French-speaking folks. My natural tendency in politics is to side the “minorities” and the “disadvantaged”- So that would be the Flemish in this case, right? Except if they use violence or are aggressive though. I support language diversity in Europe as a matter of principle – (But here I feel like saying: “not like that”.)

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Sucre

I am pro-EU not in the sense of the liberal sense of the city in London (or of the present European Commission) but in the sense of Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann.

That explains a LOT. Now I know your leitmotiv, I see all the pieces fall together. Only now, your posts really make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Sucre

Please, speak at least of stuff you understand: stick to Flanders.

Too bad opinions without arguments are worthless.

Originally Posted by Sucre

If Europe and the IMF had not given money to Greece, it would have been bankrupt before it had had even the slightest chance to implement an austerity programme. Your statement does not make any sense.

In short term, yes. In long term, no.
Ya still think Greece's public debt is decreasing?

Originally Posted by Sucre

No, I am not denying the trend. It does not mean I support it. I see no point in creating a lot of small kingdoms headed by minuscule kings with big egos.


More fundamentally, I think that …
1) It's always been a trend
2) It is a manageable trend

Kings? Please no, I'm a republican.

I see no point in stopping the regionalising of Europe. Law should serve reality instead of shaping reality. No country should be forced to split in regions, but the sovereignty of the people should be respected if they wish to split.

Originally Posted by Sucre

There are things you don’t see either: there is a contrary trend.

I don't think regionalism and European identity are contrary.

After all, the European Union and eurozone are exactly the reason why regionalism exists more than ever. If we still had the Belgian Frank, there would be no way that we could not have a government for about... hmm... I don't know about half a year again? Ooh times goes fast. The Belgian Frank would have dropped like a whale with a little straw parachute. Now, the EUro, that's the real safety parachute.... The Euro provides the stabile environment that enables regionalism.
Old nationstates lose competences to exterior supranational organs and internal regions all the time. Those states will soon be obsolete.

Regionalism is in fact very European.
It's the solution for the oldest EU contrast: that between large and small countries. Regionalism makes the EU more equal. It provides an environment which can lead to a real proportional representative European democracy without a need for special majorities and other bs.
Regionalism also puts democracy closer to the citizens. Regions close to the people, the EU for effects of scale. Perfect antidote for anti-politics.

A federal EU consisting of administrative regions. Who can't like that? Only people who like a EU reigned by a directoire of the large EU states. By rejecting a EU of regions, you are defending old nationalism, not me.

btw: I completely answer to the description of the generation E. Speak 4 languages, have seen about all European countries, I have a German girlfriend ( ), my grandparents are French/German (Id, I'm not even Flemish pur sang myself, ya really think I would defend exclusive nationalism? Think again!).

And I do feel European. But I don't believe in uniform identities. I'm waasmunsteraar, Gentenaar, Vlaming, Belgian and European. And also French and German because of my grandparents, but in someway I feel also very connected with the Dutch (mentality). Know what I mean...

Identity is multi-layered. I reject a uniformised European identity. Unity through diversity...

Originally Posted by Sucre

To be very honest, I would be more supportive of your movement if it had the gut to separate for good.

The Flemish Movement is a house with many chambers. Democrats, seperatists, fascists, orangists, moderats and radicals, right and left, people who want to 'keep' Brussels and people who don't...
It's politically represented by the New Flemish Alliance and Flemish Interest Party, who are also quite different.

The only thing the whole of the Flemish movement really agrees on is that Flanders needs more autonomy and the fact that the Flemish region won't give up any of its territory anymore.

A revolution is out of the question though. All flemish parties want to gain autonomy by talks ( evolution ). A revolution would upset the international financial markets, would send a shockwave through the EU and would be disadvantegeous for everybody.
If we would have a revolution, we still would have to talk afterwards to split Belgium up. It doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Sucre

"But no, it wants to remain in the same States, but without the disadvantages so to say." It’s really, really tough not to see that as egoist.

What disadvantages exactly?

The fact that Belgium is the only state in the world with more people enjoying unemployment and other benefits then people working? And the Parti Socialist not willing to give that up?

The fact that Belgium needs a budget reform to fill the 25 billion gap we have on the federal level? In the meanwhile, the Walloon region doesn't want to lose a single euro in the process (the PS who won the elections in Wallonia even promised better pensions and benefits for the unemployed...) and the Brussels region wants half a billion euros extra.. Both use the credo "we have to sustain the intraregional solidarity".
Yea, being solidar is nice. But that leaves only one entity to pay the 25 billion euros... the region of Flanders. That's no solidarity!!!!! That's a parasiting profitariaat.

So yes, a majority of the Flemish are fed up of living in a state with those disadvantages. We don't get the reforms we want and we also end up paying for the results due to those lack of reforms.

I don't find that egoistic at all... This election is all about Flanders saying: we need reforms, we need fiscal responsability, because if we keep governing like this Belgium is bankrupt in a couple of years. The Francophones still don't want those reforms? Well, then we want the competences ourselves so we can do the reforms ourselves.

This crisis is the result of Flanders looking into the future while the Francophones convulsive hold on to this old Belgium, where Flemish manna falls out of the sky. But we're out of Flemish manna... They still don't get that.

In my position, I can only see the Francophone attitude as egoistic. They would rather have the federal government go bankrupt then reforming it to make the best of the future. You can't have large budgetary cuts like that (25 billion is 2500 euros for each Belgian) without any pain.

Originally Posted by Sucre

It’s also a bit naïve to believe that it can work in the long term. (Unless splitting remains the real long-term goal after all, of course ...)

Belgium now: the regions/communities don't agree. Special majorities and parities make that nothing can't be decided. Result: the whole country is blocked and reforms can't be made.
Belgium the Flemish way: the regions/communities get all/most competences so the center of gravity moves from the federal government to the regions/communities. Off course, there will still be lots of convergences between Francophones and Flemish. So the regions/communities chose themselves where they want to work together. Result: we still have one country, we still work together where we want to work together. But if the regions/communities don't agree, the country isn't blocked. Each goes its own way.

Yes, I seriously think this would work in the long term.

Originally Posted by Sucre

After all, I wouldn’t be pro-EU if I thought otherwise. I am pro-EU not in the sense of the liberal sense of the city in London (or of the present European Commission) but in the sense of Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann.

There are things you don’t see either: there is a contrary trend.

The trend of these young people who either have the possibility to travel, study, work abroad or who are born abroad and speak several languages - and see themselves not as Catalan, or Spaniards, Berliners or Germans but as Europeans, the generation which is called the "Generation E" by T.T Reid in his book "The United States of Europe"
The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy: Amazon.de: T.R. Reid: Englische Bücher

(The title of the book is misleading. The book is is more about explaining Europe to the Americans than presenting the new super power)

Sorry if I start meddling into your debate. I haven't even read everything of the thread. I wanted to mention only that I experience a certain developing disconnect within society in Europe. In academia its not a big deal to be off to wherever in Europe. You have constantly to do with other Europeans of different nationalities, for that case also with non Europeans as well. Contacts and social horizons often reach well beyond national borders.

When you leave the nice bubble of academia however you realize that for many people this is either an incredible thing, unimaginable or even simply mad. For them "Europe" is something very abstract at best.

It's a bit like during earlier times when the Latin and later French speaking elite was well connected across Europe. The main difference is that nowadays the well connected elite is much broader and partially reaches down into middle class.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Belgium now: the regions/communities don't agree. Special majorities and parities make that nothing can't be decided. Result: the whole country is blocked and reforms can't be made.
Belgium the Flemish way: the regions/communities get all/most competences so the center of gravity moves from the federal government to the regions/communities. Off course, there will still be lots of convergences between Francophones and Flemish. So the regions/communities chose themselves where they want to work together. Result: we still have one country, we still work together where we want to work together. But if the regions/communities don't agree, the country isn't blocked. Each goes its own way.

Yes, I seriously think this would work in the long term.

Fine. What about Brussels? Belgium looks to me like a Siamese Twin, with two bodies but only one head. How are you going to separate it?

In short again: What about Brussels? Voluntary cooperation when already obligatory cooperation does not work won't do the trick.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Sorry if I start meddling into your debate. I haven't even read everything of the thread. I wanted to mention only that I experience a certain developing disconnect within society in Europe. In academia its not a big deal to be off to wherever in Europe. You have constantly to do with other Europeans of different nationalities, for that case also with non Europeans as well. Contacts and social horizons often reach well beyond national borders.

When you leave the nice bubble of academia however you realize that for many people this is either an incredible thing, unimaginable or even simply mad. For them "Europe" is something very abstract at best.

It's a bit like during earlier times when the Latin and later French speaking elite was well connected across Europe. The main difference is that nowadays the well connected elite is much broader and partially reaches down into middle class.

Yes, I agree. It's not just academia though. It's this way in business too. However, the disconnect is nothing new. I don't think it will change - I read a statistics recently according to which only 10% of the Europeans have worked abroad (20% wished they could). Not much after more than 60 years European Community ...

I don't think you necessarily have to work abroad. It's already enough if people have connections abroad. May that be family, friends etc. But of course, work abroad is the most powerful thing of establishing connections.

It would be interesting to know if there is a trend, if Europeans become more open to the idea or not.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Fine. What about Brussels? Belgium looks to me like a Siamese Twin, with two bodies but only one head. How are you going to separate it?

In short again: What about Brussels? Voluntary cooperation when already obligatory cooperation does not work won't do the trick.

Brussels shouldn't be seperated. That would be impossible.

Brussels now has some sort of its own sui generis region. In the previous state reforms, it wasn't allowed to be a complete region. The community competences of Brussels are exercised by the Flemish and Francophone community.
The Flemish minority is overprotected in Brussels with special minority rights.
Brussels is an adminstrative nightmare with its 19 mayors and 4 parliaments for barely 1 million people.

Brussels once was a Dutchphone Flemish city, now its a mainly Francophone/Arab/English global city. Brussels should adapt to that reality. > No more special minority rights for the Flemish in Brussels (the bilingual status of Brussels is a juridical fiction anyway and there are more people speaking Arab then Dutch in Brussels..), no more Flemish or Walloon community which hold the community competences in Brussels.

I would make Brussels a complete region, just like the Flemish and Walloon region. Merge the 19 Brussels municipalities. Brussels should have one parliament, which has both the community and regional competences for its territory.


Result: A confederation of Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia and maybe even the Germanophone part where each region rules itself and has its own parliament. Brussels then isn't the head of Flanders and Wallonia anymore, but a full body besides Flanders and Wallonia.
If one or more of those regions want to work together (and they sure will), they still can, voluntary, at the federal level.

That would be my solution. But I prefer a referendum where the Bruxellois choose themselves if they want to be part of Wallonia or have their own region inside Belgium. I'm quite sure they prefer to have a region for themselves.

How serious is the movement to separate Belgium, or is there a way to be two autonomous states (or three from the sound of it)? And I'm curious what really is driving the conflict. And on a personal note, which part brews all the awesome beer?

Originally Posted by Amielle

And on a personal note, which part brews all the awesome beer?

We have some traditions the whole country shares... Chocolate, abusing children, brewing beer...

Here's a brewery map: Belgium beer map | The Beer Mapping Project

I'm not sure if all the breweries are on that map.

Originally Posted by Amielle

How serious is the movement to separate Belgium, or is there a way to be two autonomous states (or three from the sound of it)?

Can't tell you when or if Belgium is going to split but I can tell you that the trend where the Flemish ask for more autonomy gets more serious each election since WWII.

Nobody really wants a split, except a minority in Flanders. Most Flemish want only more autonomy. Flemish independence is mostly seen as the last solution. The Francophones (Brussels + Wallonia region) want to keep Belgium, which permits them to grab more money and territory from Flanders.

Originally Posted by Amielle

And I'm curious what really is driving the conflict.

In my opinion, It's mainly two blocks of people that oppose eachother, split by a language border (Dutch vs French) which is also an ideological border (Free-market vs socialist), a cultural border (Germanic vs Roman), a welfare border (rich vs less rich), a territorial border (which is respected by the first and disrespected by the second) and a social border (new Flemish money vs Francophone Bourgeois establishment).

So what drives the conflict? Historical negligence of Flemish rights, transfers in money from north to south (well, it's a bit more complicated then that), unbridgeable disagreements about policies which block the country and the wish of the Francophones to annex Flemish territory.

The result is that the Flemish want more autonomy and the Francophones want more Belgium (La Belgique sera latine ou elle ne sera pas. Belgium will be Latin (Francophone) or it will not be).

I know Sucre thinks otherwise, but imo the debate is mainly about money, self-determination and the acces to public services.

What's happening now is that both North and South are in trench warfare to grab as much money and territory, in preparation of the split of Belgium. Belgium is de facto split since decades, but the legal framework isn't adjusted yet.

We have off course also a third community (the Germans), but as they have a population of less than 100.000 people, they are a bit irrelevant to the debate. The third region (Brussels) is politically Francophone and in the same boat as Wallonia.

That's it in a nutshell.