Future of Belgium

[Witproduct]

T
Huh? I am afraid I don't understand. Czech and Slovak are 99% mutually intelligible. The differences in grammar don't usually affect understanding at all and so problems only arise with some words which are different. (And also with false friends - my favourite one: pivnice=beer hall in Czech, but pivnica=cellar in Slovak. I wonder what the Slovaks were doing in their cellars...)

Anyway, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia also made the average beer consumption go sky-rocket in the new-found state of the Czech Republic. I guess I was wrong, but indeed I knew your languages were mutually intelligible, but a Slovak once told me that Slovaks are more aimed at Czech culture than vice versa and that you'd find more Czech books in a Slovak library than vice versa.
Makes sense though, because in the not-so-distant past Slovaks were slightly more rural and I guess they tend to look more upon Czech as their bigger brother.

In recent years the media started spreading alarmist stories that Czech children don't understand Slovak anymore, unlike vice versa.

It's mostly about wanting to understand anyway. I cringe when they tell me that Dutch and Flemish be different languages or that Flemish and Dutch have troubles understanding each other. They're even this crazy here to subtitle Dutch people and Dutch subtitle Flemish. Even worse, Flemish subtitle Flemish. It's a habit they have picked up watching subtitled non-Dutch-speaking films/series/etc... Subtitling your own people: such behaviour also exists in ex-Yugoslav countries.

In my experience that's utter rubbish. Yes, they may get slightly confused by some words and it may take a little time to get used to the way Slovaks speak, but after a few days of adjusting, any Czech will understand standard Slovak perfectly. There may be problems with some less usual varieties of Slovak spoken in the East of the country, but standard Slovak is perfectly understandable.

I guess all people have access to education now, being in a developed country (and I'm talking about our both countries here), and I assume everyone is a literate and is familiar with his own standard tongue. Of course talking about dialects being not mutually intelligible in that light would be plain dumb. It reminds me of Flemish who claim that their ancestors used to not understand Dutch in the past. Not in my family. Anyway, it are mostly rural people telling this and I feel for them not ever having left their province (I might sound arrogant here, but I just cannot understand isolationism on this scale).

Czechoslovakia didn't split because of ethnic tensions between the nations. It split because of conflicting ideologies and personal antipathies of their elected leaders, as well as because of the dysfunctional federal political system inherited from the communist era and the strong pressures of post-communist transformation.

I see, but wasn't the conflict a bit older? Slovaks didn't hold a grudge against Germans, whilst Czech had a big German-speaking minority who didn't treat the Slavic majority nicely. I'm a noob about your country and don't know any about possible sensitive matter, just interested.

Belgium is very different. The languages are not mutually intelligible, Belgium didn't inherit a dysfunctional political system (it has created it on purpose ), it is a monarchy, there is a longer tradition of statehood, etc.

Indeed, our politicians are passionate, but our people are just indifferent and tend to not care. They also know nothing about their history, nothing about the other part of the country, and so on... Just common masses who go along with the flow, nothing special here, nor surprising.

 

[Masada]

For boycotting the Netherlands, it was mainly for economical reasons. They were a concurrent in the cotton industry. Also, Belgium was the second country in the world to hit the industrial era (the British Empire the first), you can see that the loss of Belgium was a great blow for the Netherlands. Also, this industrialization started in what's today Wallonia, so the French neither were allowed to get that part.

Dude, states don't work like that. I can't see Lord Palmerston sitting around a table thinking: "I really need to break up this Netherlands business so they can't compete in the cotton trade and become an industrial super-power". Real life doesn't work like that. The real reason was to ensure that France couldn't get hold of it, that Britain didn't intervene to stop that thus avoiding a European war. That Belgium also had some measure of utility insofar as it protected British interests and provided a nice neutral roadblock to French ambitions further north was just incidental to those outcomes.

 

[Winner]

Anyway, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia also made the average beer consumption go sky-rocket in the new-found state of the Czech Republic.

That had more to do with the return to capitalism

I guess I was wrong, but indeed I knew your languages were mutually intelligible, but a Slovak once told me that Slovaks are more aimed at Czech culture than vice versa and that you'd find more Czech books in a Slovak library than vice versa.
Makes sense though, because in the not-so-distant past Slovaks were slightly more rural and I guess they tend to look more upon Czech as their bigger brother.

Yes, that is correct. The cultural transfer is very... uneven. Slovaks more often watch Czech TV channels, read Czech books (which are usually not translated; books by Slovak authors on the other hand are usually translated to Czech if they want to sell them here). Czechs import predominantly Slovak music, they're not as exposed to Slovak culture in general.

There is definitely this older/younger sibling mentality. It has more to do with the fact that Slovakia is smaller and has historically been... well, less developed as a society. For them, Czechia has always been their gateway to the West, a source of innovations and trends. I don't want to sound condescending here - even Slovak elites usually acknowledge this as a matter of fact. Today, it has a lot to do with the closeness of the languages. Czechia is a bigger market so many things that aren't yet available in Slovakia are available here - and Slovaks don't want to wait.

Plus, there are hundreds of thousands of Slovaks living, working and studying in the Czech Rep., so the link between the two countries is well maintained. In fact, most Czechs and Slovaks don't consider the others as foreigners.

It's mostly about wanting to understand anyway. I cringe when they tell me that Dutch and Flemish be different languages or that Flemish and Dutch have troubles understanding each other. They're even this crazy here to subtitle Dutch people and Dutch subtitle Flemish. Even worse, Flemish subtitle Flemish. It's a habit they have picked up watching subtitled non-Dutch-speaking films/series/etc... Subtitling your own people: such behaviour also exists in ex-Yugoslav countries.

That's crazy. I don't think it has ever been done here, except for fun of course.

I guess all people have access to education now, being in a developed country (and I'm talking about our both countries here), and I assume everyone is a literate and is familiar with his own standard tongue. Of course talking about dialects being not mutually intelligible in that light would be plain dumb. It reminds me of Flemish who claim that their ancestors used to not understand Dutch in the past. Not in my family. Anyway, it are mostly rural people telling this and I feel for them not ever having left their province (I might sound arrogant here, but I just cannot understand isolationism on this scale).

Linguistically speaking, there is no reason whatsoever why a Czech shouldn't understand Slovak. If he claims he doesn't, he's either extraordinarily mentally challenged or he's lying. I was like 8 when Czechoslovakia dissolved, so I really didn't have much contact with Slovak as a kid, but I still understand it perfectly. I suppose it may sound a bit weird at first to someone who has never heard it in his entire life (is that even possible?), but the same is true for some of the peculiar dialects of Czech one may encounter

I see, but wasn't the conflict a bit older? Slovaks didn't hold a grudge against Germans, whilst Czech had a big German-speaking minority who didn't treat the Slavic majority nicely. I'm a noob about your country and don't know any about possible sensitive matter, just interested.

Both Czechs and Slovaks have their complexes. Czechs historically felt inferior to the Germans (and still, catching up with Germany and Austria in terms of economy is the unstated goal) whereas Slovaks felt inferior to the Hungarians and then Czechs.

But there has never been any real conflict between Czechs and Slovaks, if you discount the brief period when Slovakia was a Nazi puppet and Bohemia-Moravia were occupied. Never until Czechoslovakia dissolved in 1993 had there been a majority of either Czechs or Slovaks who would support dissolution of the country. Even when it was clear the country would split, majority of people in both republics opposed it.

Indeed, our politicians are passionate, but our people are just indifferent and tend to not care. They also know nothing about their history, nothing about the other part of the country, and so on... Just common masses who go along with the flow, nothing special here, nor surprising.

Well, if people remain passive, then the country will eventually come to its end. Politicians are idiots by nature, they will tear the country apart to create their own little sandboxes to play in if they get the chance.

 

[Marla_Singer]

During my trip in Central Europe, few years ago, I've met a Slovakian old woman in a train from Kosice to Bratislava.

The woman didn't speak English, however, my friend asked her if she spoke German, and she had some rudiment of the language learnt as a kid. The old lady told that it was funny, because in the first half of the 20th century, the language to learn for Czechs and Slovaks was German, then in the second half of the 20th century, it turned out to be Russian, and nowadays, in the 21st century, it is English!

The story is funny, but it also shows well how this part of Europe has been the battlefield between greater European powers in History. I think that in a way, Belgium has been the victim of the same game, except that it was between France, Germany and the UK instead of Germany, Russia and the US.

What needs to be known is that, if Napoleon never existed, the whole of Belgium would most likely be French, and French speaking, today. I don't say this to irritate Flemish people, but simply because it's true. As a matter of fact, during a very long period of time, most Flemish people spoke French. The Flemish singer Jacques Brel pictured well that period... he made almost all his carreer exclusively in French and considered Flemish people who refused French bilinguism as close minded.

Nowadays that period is long gone. Progressively in the 20th century, opening itself to French culture slowly became less interesting, as the country was losing influence in the world. The more the English culture progressed, and the more Flemish people refused French. In such a context, what happens now is natural, and it's not at random that it happens now and not before.

The only thing I hope for is people to become reasonable. As no matter what happens, they would always remain close neighbours. Flemish independentists want Brussels as their capital, and the whole BHV mess is the consequence of it. However, Brussels is 90% French speaking, and this won't change. People from Brussels made clear they didn't want to be part of a monolingual Flemish state, and who can blame them for that?

All in all, I think Flemish people slowly starts to understand that they couldn't get Brussels in case of independence. And IMHO, this is actually the first reason for Belgians to keep the unity of Belgium.

 

[Danielion]

What needs to be known is that, if Napoleon never existed, the whole of Belgium would most likely be French, and French speaking, today. I don't say this to irritate Flemish people, but simply because it's true. As a matter of fact, during a very long period of time, most Flemish people spoke French. The Flemish singer Jacques Brel pictured well that period... he made almost all his carreer exclusively in French and considered Flemish people who refused French bilinguism as close minded.

Wrong! The lower class never spoke French, except for a rudimentary variant. Also, Jacques Brel was a Francophone monoglot who looked down upon Dutch (he even called our language Flemish and acted as if it be a different language; even worse, in one interview he even said Flanders doesn't have a language, because of the diversity of dialects that hadn't been standardized lol, this was during the era in which Walloon and Picard were also spoken languages by the way and yes Dutch was our language, also back then). He called himself Flemish because he was a descendant of Flemish people, and saw people who didn't want to accept the dominance of French in Flanders to be close-minded. This is also where Flemish protested against, a monolingual Wallonia next to a bilingual Flanders. The close-mindedness was for a huge deal on the Francophones' part for being monoglots. It was a fact however that French was considered as English is today by the upper class, but how many people are nowadays replacing their language by English (yet)? Not many. That's no shallow-mindedness, because who says English is meant to remain dominant? In the 19th century a Fleming even got executed innocently because he couldn't understand French.
Back in the day Flemings would accept a bilingual Belgium, but Walloons were against that back then. In fact, the Francophone politicians are the ones who pulled through the idea of a federal Belgium, not just the Flemish ones.

Also, if Napoleon didn't exists we could also have ended up being anything. I think Dutch is also a likely possibility, seeing as Belgium used to be one state with the Netherlands until the late 16th century. The Austrian/Spanish Netherlands were mainly of utility as a buffer zone between France and the United Provinces, even though France always remained interested in the Southern Netherlands.
Of course, I know Walloons would never wanted to end up in the United Netherlands, but that Flemish wanted to be French as well, that's utter bullcrap.
Anyway, if France would invade the Southern Netherlands, they'd be seen as an aggressor, also without Napoleon. Maybe they would give it to France. During the Vienna Congress they decided to give it to Wilhelm I of the Netherlands, after the Austrians and the Prussians refused to take it, the third choice fell upon Wilhelm I, but they didn't like hem getting it, because they didn't deem him influential enough to hold the country tightly together.

The only thing I hope for is people to become reasonable. As no matter what happens, they would always remain close neighbours. Flemish independentists want Brussels as their capital, and the whole BHV mess is the consequence of it. However, Brussels is 90% French speaking, and this won't change. People from Brussels made clear they didn't want to be part of a monolingual Flemish state, and who can blame them for that?

Brussels has a majority of people who use French as their lingua franca. Further, if you want a decent job in Brussels you have to know both Dutch as French. Sadly, nowadays the leaders try to make the immigrant population as much isolated from Dutch as possible with massive unemployment rates and poverty as a result. I think only 60% there has French as his mother tongue, and 90% speaks it as the lingua franca. 10% votes for Flemish parties. While I'm realist enough to think Francophone parties will keep having more votes, no one can predict Flemish parties will continue declining, because if one group is keeping that 10% stabile, it's immigrants who have learned Dutch.

All in all, I think Flemish people slowly starts to understand that they couldn't get Brussels in case of independence. And IMHO, this is actually the first reason for Belgians to keep the unity of Belgium.

I don't think that's the case anymore. I think the aggressive campaign to keep Brussels as monoglot Francophone as possible makes more Flemish to not see it as their capital (after all it's the 'bilingual' capital of Belgium isn't it?). The hostility you see in Francophone newspapers (Le Soir on top), is something that just doesn't exist in Flanders.
Flemish independists neither would get as many votes as they do without the imperialism in B-HV. Neither would they get their votes if non-nationalist politicians were less spineless. Keep in mind that in Francophone Belgium on a communitarian scale are just as radical as the N-VA, but that's the mainstream there. This is why they don't have to vote for nationalist parties, because the mainstream parties are Francophone nationalist enough themselves.

 

[Winner]

During my trip in Central Europe, few years ago, I've met a Slovakian old woman in a train from Kosice to Bratislava.

The woman didn't speak English, however, my friend asked her if she spoke German, and she had some rudiment of the language learnt as a kid. The old lady told that it was funny, because in the first half of the 20th century, the language to learn for Czechs and Slovaks was German, then in the second half of the 20th century, it turned out to be Russian, and nowadays, in the 21st century, it is English!

Indeed it's a lot of fun talking to old people about the 20th century history. They often have some interesting insights.

My grandaunt often confuses Germans and Russians when she talks about the 1940s. I wonder why

 

[Stapel]

What needs to be known is that, if Napoleon never existed, the whole of Belgium would most likely be French, and French speaking, today. I don't say this to irritate Flemish people, but simply because it's true. As a matter of fact, during a very long period of time, most Flemish people spoke French. The Flemish singer Jacques Brel pictured well that period... he made almost all his carreer exclusively in French and considered Flemish people who refused French bilinguism as close minded.

As Danielion pointed out, this is not completely true. French was never ever spoken by lower class or middle class people as their first language. Upper class Flemmish, even still today in some areas, DID/DO speak French. As a result, throughout the first 150 years of Begian history, all political, cultural and international outings were in French. I think the Belgian constitution was only translated into Dutch in the 1960's for the first time.

Even in The Netherlands French used to be the upper class language, as a result of the French Time (1795 - 1813). King Willem II didn't speak any Dutch... As prince, he even joined the Walloon rattachisme movement.... (but that has little to do with this thread).


Marla, where did you pick up the idea that for a long period of time, French was actually spoken by most Flemmish people? It holds no truth at all.......

 

[innonimatu]

Dude, states don't work like that. I can't see Lord Palmerston sitting around a table thinking: "I really need to break up this Netherlands business so they can't compete in the cotton trade and become an industrial super-power". Real life doesn't work like that.

You're right, reading diplomatic histories I got the impression that all actions taken by governments had short-term goals and depended very much on quickly mutable circumstances. In Britain's case an that time, elections were one of the reasons for changes in foreign policy. The general grand strategy was limited to ideas like "balance of power" where the relative power of France/Germany/UK would be far more important that that of the Netherlands.

But cannot it be also true that undermining the Netherlands as a competitor was a minor motive for some people influencing the british government?

This whole "creation of Belgium" thing had a parallel recently in the dismantlement of Yugoslavia. One view of what happened there is that certain large european nations wanted to have smaller, more easily influenced, nations to deal with there. Though they might not have anticipated the price of those changes, the destructiveness of the wars it caused. Another view is that the whole thing was about getting rid of an undesirable government in Belgrade. Another that the whole process was internally driven and the outside intervention happened without any previous planning and in reaction to the events inside Yugoslavia. Another that the US happily poured fuel into that fire in order to expand its area on influence still in a cold-war logic (which the later investment in the "colored revolutions" to the east would confirm). I don't think that any of these alone explains what happened.

Czechoslovakia didn't split because of ethnic tensions between the nations. It split because of conflicting ideologies and personal antipathies of their elected leaders

That's the one common cause of all secessionist movements.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Marla, where did you pick up the idea that for a long period of time, French was actually spoken by most Flemmish people? It holds no truth at all.......

French used to be widely spoken in the Belgian Flanders. There's nothing shameful in this, it's just a fact. Of course the working class spoke it a lot less, as it's always the case with a second language. It's the same today with English and no one makes a fuss about it.

I fail to understand why Flemish and Dutch people despise so much France or the French language. I guess it's somehow the historical evolution of an initial fear dating back to the Napoleon era which became more and more outdated with time. But anyway, in the end of the day, never forget that French people are people like anyone else. They aren't more "evil" or "pityful" than anyone else.

We're all the same, you know. We all try to do our best in our own misery.

 

[Danielion]

I fail to understand why Flemish and Dutch people despise so much France or the French language. I guess it's somehow the historical evolution of an initial fear dating back to the Napoleon era which became more and more outdated with time. But anyway, in the end of the day, never forget that French people are people like anyone else. They aren't more "evil" or "pityful" than anyone else.

Yes, many might despise it, but I don't. Trust me on that. Of course I'm not a fan of some of the history of Belgium and I find many of the Belgian Francophone to be very shallow-minded people (I'm also often disappointed in Flemish people also by the way), but I'm certainly not a Francophobe.
Also, I don't hold past grudges or anything, all grudges I might have are from current events. But truth to be told I think few people understand the Belgian conflict and why hostility exists here unlike in for example Switzerland where every canton respects one another.

But you're right, I don't understand why Dutch-speaking (Flemish and Dutch) claim to be open-minded, while most are only interested in Anglo-Saxon culture (sometimes even above their own).

Many Dutch and Flemish don't like their own culture so much as French do, sadly. Dutch are slightly more proud though.

 

[Stapel]

French used to be widely spoken in the Belgian Flanders. There's nothing shameful in this, it's just a fact. Of course the working class spoke it a lot less, as it's always the case with a second language. It's the same today with English and no one makes a fuss about it.

I fail to understand why Flemish and Dutch people despise so much France or the French language. I guess it's somehow the historical evolution of an initial fear dating back to the Napoleon era which became more and more outdated with time. But anyway, in the end of the day, never forget that French people are people like anyone else. They aren't more "evil" or "pityful" than anyone else.

We're all the same, you know. We all try to do our best in our own misery.

???

Well, first of all I like France a lot and I do speak some French. At least far far better than most Dutch. I visit France, on average, 4 times a year. This year I've been there 3 times already (Rhone-Alpes twice and Paris once) and two other trips are planned, Ardèche, which is again in Rhone-Alpes, and Burgundy. There simply is no other country in the world I like to go to that much and I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up living in France, some day. Not only for the country, but also for its culture!

I have said this before: You cannot and should not assume what my opinion is!


Back on topic. For a good part, we agree. It is a simple fact that, for a very long period of time, French was the official language of Belgium. Its constitution, its cultural, political and educational matters were all in French. The Flemmish upper class spoke (and strill speaks) French. So, any Flemmish citizen that wanted to get anywhere in life, needed to speak French.
Yet, most common Flemmish people in the 19th and 20th century did not speak a word French. Think of times that education was simply only for rich or happy few. There is quite some background info on this subject regarding the First World War. Probably the best info can be found in Sophie de Schaepdrijver's work The Great War: the kingdom of Belgium in the First World War. ITs a balanced book: The book does away with Flemmish propaganda about Flemmish soldiers being sent to death by Walloon / French speaking officers (sergeants would simply translate order, as simple as that). Yet, it does describe that French was the only official language in the Belgian army. One could become a general without speaking a word of Dutch, but for becoming a corporal, one had to speak French. As a result of this, there were far more Walloon officers than Flemmish, as most Flemmish did NOT speak any French....

As a matter of fact, the idea that French was an elitist language, is one of the roots for the dislike of French by many Flemmish.

Today, most reasonably educated Flemmish people speak (some) French. Yet, it is is nonsense to think that in the 19th century most Flemmish spoke French. Again, this is simply caused by the fact that today, any kid gets education, at least until 16 or 18, whereas education used to stop, if given at all, at 12.

I'm still quite puzzled where you got the idea that French used to be widely spoken by the Flemmish. You present it as a simple fact, whereas it is not true at all.

Another note: you do make a fair point that French was a first choice 2nd language during a very long period of time. In Belgium this was quite obvious, but it was the same in NL and elsewhere. On diplomatic levels, French used to be THE language.

 

[Masada]

You're right, reading diplomatic histories I got the impression that all actions taken by governments had short-term goals and depended very much on quickly mutable circumstances. In Britain's case an that time, elections were one of the reasons for changes in foreign policy. The general grand strategy was limited to ideas like "balance of power" where the relative power of France/Germany/UK would be far more important that that of the Netherlands.

It didn't help that the Netherlands hashed the job and wouldn't take proactive measures designed to keep the Belgians invested in the project. If they hadn't there wouldn't have been a problem. But it happened and in doing so it invited an outcome that threatened the general European peace. The situation was therefore removed from their hands and the Treaty of London drawn up. The Dutch refused to accept it and both major signatory powers to it, Britain and France took action to ensure compliance. The French contributed land-forces and the British the Royal Navy. It was by that stage already a fait acompli and the rest was just semantics.

But cannot it be also true that undermining the Netherlands as a competitor was a minor motive for some people influencing the british government?

That might have been part of it. But considering the uncertain length of the blockade and the relative speed with which this all unfolded it was hardly going to be a basis to make much more than temporary profits from. You certainly wouldn't construct new factories in anticipation of reaping the benefits of a long blockade. Arguably, it probably hurt British commerce more than it helped. The Netherlands was a major British market. Its just a convenient sop for Netherlanders to blame their relative decline on... one of many, really.

This whole "creation of Belgium" thing had a parallel recently in the dismantlement of Yugoslavia.

The Dutch don't get nationalism. The refusal of many to countenance that the Belgians might have had legitimate reasons for leaving is on show here. It wasn't a popular move endorsed by swathes of the population. It was instead the creation of Machiavellian foreign forces looking to impose an unpopular move made by vile political elites on the helpless population. That it still exists and that many still don't want to be part of the Netherlands kind of throws cold water on theory but whatever.

The same kind of narrative applies to the Indonesian National Revolution. Its usually derided as the work of a move made by a small elite. Usually accompanying this is a something about Indonesian unreadiness for independence and this is proved by the ineptness of post-independence governance all held together with the glue of paternalism and the veneer of racial superiority. Its now trendy to talk about the inevitable victory of Indonesian Islamists something that wouldn't have happened in 'our' Indonesia. The trope before that was concerned with how evil Sukarno and Suharto were and the police state that the latter set-up during his rule.

 

[Stapel]

I have a question: It's quite clear that Bart de Wever (NVA) eventually wants to end to concept of Belgium, but what is his minimum target for this coalition?

 

[Jan H]

Very little has leaked from the negotiations this time. Which probably is a good thing...
There was a leak in the French-speaking press last week with a supposed list of demands or proposals by the Flemish parties.
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/100803_Formatie_Lek

According to the anonymous source, the NVA had asked for breaking up the national rail company (NMBS) and air traffic control (Belgocontrol). Other things they would want to de-federalize are control over the Northsea, police, fire brigades, the civil protection agency, organization of elections, migration and the issuing of identity cards. In other words, almost all powers of the federal minister of the Interior. But this are only rumours, so we cannot know if these are just some random ideas, clear proposals or hard demands...

Something they have been very clear about: Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde should be split without the expansion of Brussels. Some compensations are possible, but they would have to be "reasonable", probably along the lines of the proposal of Jean-Luc Dehaene last spring.

 

[Cato the Elder]

Jan - the split-up of both the NMBS and of Belgocontrol would be disastrous and I cannot understand why N-VA does not see that. The N-VA has no working solution for Brussels within a confederalised or independent Flanders, despite the fact that up to 1/6 of the Flemish population is dependent on Brussels for work and services. The split of the NMBS would mean that Brussels and Flanders would be under a different rail service, which while already a significant inconvenience for Flemings who study in Brussels like myself, would be even worse for the huge amount of Flemings who work in Brussels. The split-up of Belgocontrol makes absolutely no sense at all, considering it would mean the cooperation of no less than THREE air traffic controllers (the Brussels, Flemish, and Walloon ones) simply for planes to take off and land at our biggest airport.

These are the reasons I cannot understand N-VA. Nationalist feel good and well, actions like these are no less than idiotic. I'm not entirely sure who you support in this political disaster, but can you explain the logic cause it's going straight above my head.

 

[Jan H]

I'm just repeating what I read on deredactie.

Splitting Belgocontrol doesn't make sense to me either, but I don't exactly know how the European air traffic control system works and what the consequence of a split would be.
I don't see why the NMBS should be split either, but on the other hand, if it was split, it should be possible to make it work in practice. There are other countries with competing rail services or regional rail companies. anyhow, I don't think these two items ought to be high on the N-VA's list.

Aren't there more important issues that can be tackled first, like labour market, migration, ... I'm not saying that all of these should be split, but they are the areas were there are the biggest differences between politicians of North and South. So wouldn't it be better if they first tried to settle these?

And for the record, I did not vote N-VA...

 

[Stapel]

Very little has leaked from the negotiations this time. Which probably is a good thing...
There was a leak in the French-speaking press last week with a supposed list of demands or proposals by the Flemish parties.
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/100803_Formatie_Lek

According to the anonymous source, the NVA had asked for breaking up the national rail company (NMBS) and air traffic control (Belgocontrol). Other things they would want to de-federalize are control over the Northsea, police, fire brigades, the civil protection agency, organization of elections, migration and the issuing of identity cards. In other words, almost all powers of the federal minister of the Interior. But this are only rumours, so we cannot know if these are just some random ideas, clear proposals or hard demands...

Something they have been very clear about: Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde should be split without the expansion of Brussels. Some compensations are possible, but they would have to be "reasonable", probably along the lines of the proposal of Jean-Luc Dehaene last spring.

I figured the BHV-issue would be an importnat one to N-VA. Actually, I think they are right about it.... I've looked in to it.... De facto, during federal elections, one of the 3 Belgian states is part of the western half province of another state. That's just....., weird.

I didn't realise there was quite a list of other issues. I guess such a list (as you mentioned) gives room for compromises.

Jan - the split-up of both the NMBS and of Belgocontrol would be disastrous and I cannot understand why N-VA does not see that. The N-VA has no working solution for Brussels within a confederalised or independent Flanders, despite the fact that up to 1/6 of the Flemish population is dependent on Brussels for work and services. The split of the NMBS would mean that Brussels and Flanders would be under a different rail service, which while already a significant inconvenience for Flemings who study in Brussels like myself, would be even worse for the huge amount of Flemings who work in Brussels. The split-up of Belgocontrol makes absolutely no sense at all, considering it would mean the cooperation of no less than THREE air traffic controllers (the Brussels, Flemish, and Walloon ones) simply for planes to take off and land at our biggest airport.

These are the reasons I cannot understand N-VA. Nationalist feel good and well, actions like these are no less than idiotic. I'm not entirely sure who you support in this political disaster, but can you explain the logic cause it's going straight above my head.

Demanding the split-up of issues that seem utterly nonsense, usually is nothing but creating change (I mean 'wisselgeld') for negotiatons. It's a simple political (and commercial) trick.

About 1/6th of the Flemmish being dependent on (the economy of) Brussels: That's really a non-issue, right? Howmany Belgian Luxembourgers (or Lotharians, Rheinlanders or Saarlanders) do you think are dependent on Luxembourg? Doesn't seem to be problem...

 

[Akka]

Belgium has been on the verge of breaking up for quite some time now - many Flemish wants to separate themselves from Walloons, and some Walloons seriously consider becoming French.
In fact, from what I know, the biggest reason it's still not happening is more than anything that both wants Bruxelles - Flemish because it's slightly inside their zone, Walloons because it actually is massively French-speaking. I bet that if it was not the case, Belgium would be dead by now, or at least in the final steps of breaking.

For now, there is still this sensitive point, there is still some sense of nationality, and there is still the royal family. The question is : how long all this will be able to prevent dissolution ?
Polls have shown there has been a very noticeable increase in separatism these years, and more and more Walloons start to feel that beeing rattached to France could be a possible option. As for the Flemish, they constantly elect more and more separatists.

Maybe it will calm down, maybe it will continue. I'm uncertain about how it will end for now, but it sure is a situation where nothing is impossible.

 

[Stapel]

Belgium has been on the verge of breaking up for quite some time now - many Flemish wants to separate themselves from Walloons, and some Walloons seriously consider becoming French.
In fact, from what I know, the biggest reason it's still not happening is more than anything that both wants Bruxelles - Flemish because it's slightly inside their zone, Walloons because it actually is massively French-speaking. I bet that if it was not the case, Belgium would be dead by now, or at least in the final steps of breaking.

For now, there is still this sensitive point, there is still some sense of nationality, and there is still the royal family. The question is : how long all this will be able to prevent dissolution ?
Polls have shown there has been a very noticeable increase in separatism these years, and more and more Walloons start to feel that beeing rattached to France could be a possible option. As for the Flemish, they constantly elect more and more separatists.

Maybe it will calm down, maybe it will continue. I'm uncertain about how it will end for now, but it sure is a situation where nothing is impossible.

Some Flemmish also feel Brussels is Flemmish because it has always been Flemmish. Well, it was 200 years ago, maybe even 100 years ago (dodgy), but certainly not now. I guess a Flemmish claim to Brussels can simply be seen as input for tough negotiations.
Apart from that: we can simply argue that Brussels is neither Flemmish nor Walloon. Officially, it is a state in a 3-state confederation. Brussels could simply exsist as an independent state and act as the capital of Europe (Brussels DC sort of thing). As for the royal family......: The Kingdom of Brussels .