Belgium in the news

[BlueStar]

Just wondering: big news yesterday here in Belgium that we made the headlines of the international news. I'm just wondering what is known about the Belgian political situation in other countries.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=BlueStar;325142]Just wondering: big news yesterday here in Belgium that we made the headlines of the international news. I'm just wondering what is known about the Belgian political situation in other countries.[/QUOTE] Politically, you guys are in trouble, no real governing body for what... 4 or 5 months now? I hope everything works out, and I hope your doing ok. Weird situation there, and I don't really understand it completely... You have several different groups that should have a voice, but none of them are really in controll (sound right?). However, Hopefully this does not impact the Beer you guys offer, not to mention Chocolate. Also, Love the waffle's! Seriously though, is there something you would like to share? Or are you just curious if we have heard of the situation.

[BlueStar]

Don't worry...we still have 5 governments that are still working... I'm perfectly willing to try and explain the situation if someone's interested.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=BlueStar;325149]Don't worry...we still have 5 governments that are still working... I'm perfectly willing to try and explain the situation if someone's interested.[/QUOTE] I'm curious, because I haven't heard anything that's "Yesturday" type news. Sounds like it's interesting, perhaps good news? Anyways, sure, I would like to know what's going on.

[BlueStar]

First of all, let me describe Belgium. Logically, Belgium consists of 3 different parts: The Flemish part (where Dutch is the main language), the Walloon part (where French is the main language) and a very tiny German part (stuff from the war). The last part can be disregarded in the whole discussion, so to keep things easy...there are 2 big parts, which roughly are the same size. Belgium has a "national" government, responsible for making national laws. These are laws for both parts of the countries. An example: using drugs are illegal in both parts of the country. Another one: speed limits. You get the picture I think.... Over the years, both parts also have their own government, called the "federal" government. So there is a Flemish federal government and a Walloon federal government. These governments make decisions on "local" matters. An example: how much money every city or town gets as a grant, the way certain institutions work, etc. These governments are not elected at the same time. We had a national election 5 months ago, but the federal election was 2 years ago. THe problem now is with the national government, not the federal ones as they are still working. Clear so far? I'll type up part 2 in a sec.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=BlueStar;325151]First of all, let me describe Belgium. Logically, Belgium consists of 3 different parts: The Flemish part (where Dutch is the main language), the Walloon part (where French is the main language) and a very tiny German part (stuff from the war). The last part can be disregarded in the whole discussion, so to keep things easy...there are 2 big parts, which roughly are the same size. Belgium has a "national" government, responsible for making national laws. These are laws for both parts of the countries. An example: using drugs are illegal in both parts of the country. Another one: speed limits. You get the picture I think.... Over the years, both parts also have their own government, called the "federal" government. So there is a Flemish federal government and a Walloon federal government. These governments make decisions on "local" matters. An example: how much money every city or town gets as a grant, the way certain institutions work, etc. These governments are not elected at the same time. We had a national election 5 months ago, but the federal election was 2 years ago. THe problem now is with the national government, not the federal ones as they are still working. Clear so far? I'll type up part 2 in a sec.[/QUOTE] Yes, perfectly, and easier then has ever been explained before I think.

[BlueStar]

For the national elections, the Flemish part can only vote on Flemish parties, and the Walloon part only on Walloon parties. Which I think is daft but that's the rule... In Belgium there are a number of political parties that have joined together as a united front, sort of an alliance or a joint-venture, if you like. Last election (5 months ago) we had a few political parties that wanted more authonomy (or even independence) for Flanders. Nothing really major, but it is a fact at the moment that the Flanders economy is doing okay while the Walloon is in shambles. The result: of all the taxes that are collected, a lot of money goes from the Flemish part to the Walloon ones. These parties want more power for the "federal" government. These parties have always been really small, and still are. Problem is that one of these is now in a joint-venture with the biggest Flemish political party and hold a total of about 35% of the votes in Flanders. That being said...representatives of both parts of the country have to make a government and this is where the fun and games started 5 months ago. During the elections, this Flemish party made a lot of promises (more federal influence, etc) which are of course not in the best interest of the Walloon part (as they would lose money and influence). So the Walloon parties are not too keen and are, by right, very suspicious of the biggest Flemish party. The result: 5 months of bickering between the 2 parties and basically a no-win situation: if the Flemish party wants to reach an agreement and form a national government, they will either have to throw most of their electoral promises down the drain OR dump the small "nationalist" segment of their party. Problem is, when they dump that party, they will not have a majority in the government. Other options look equally bad: new elections would probably create an even bigger gap between the 2 parts of the country, getting another political party on board would be against their electoral promises, etc. Only result: we're now 5 months without a NATIONAL government. Is this bad? Yes and no. It is especially bad because a lot of social matters (NATIONAL) (like the rising prices of fuel and basic goods) are just not being treated. Does that mean we're in complete anarchy? Not in the slightest as the federal governments are still working. My 0.02...the national problems are only the problems created by a minority of people. Most of us Belgians are more worried about the pricing and day to day things than about the creation of an independant Flemish nation. But then again, electorial promises and things created this situation...and it's going to be interesting to see how we solve things this time round.

[BlueStar]

Part 3 - an example A lot of stuff is really sort of symbolical. A small history lesson...for the biggest part of the 20th century, the Walloon part was richer than the Flemish part. This is more historical than anything...they also owned a lot of land and factories in Belgium. We've had what we call a (fictional) "language border" installed during the late 20th century. The reason was clear: because we are not speaking the same, native language, people should know in advance what language they'll be receiving official information in. Logical it seems.... The capital of Brussels is officially bi-langual. It is also dead in the center of Belgium. In the late 20th century there was a lot of immigration in Brussels. Most of the immigration came from either Italy and North Africa and settled in Brussels. A lot of wealthy, French-speaking, citizens moved to the suburbs at that time...to both sides of the language border. The result at the moment is that there are a few villages on the Flemish side of that language barrier that in fact have 75% of french-speaking citizens. And of course these citizens want a mayor that speaks their language. Problem is that OFFICIALLY, due to the village being on the Flemish side of the language border, all communications and officials have to be in Flemish. Some Flemish parties now want to make this official, while the Walloons would like to have these villages accepted as french-speaking villages. The result...a lot of bickering and pestering going both ways.

[djthefunkchris]

I've been wondering if there is a chance this could turn into something worse, like a type of civil war... Or if it's going to be just a big political mess untill it's decided to bring the NATIONAL government back into power, with even power from the two biggest federal governments.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=BlueStar;325156]Part 3 - an example A lot of stuff is really sort of symbolical. A small history lesson...for the biggest part of the 20th century, the Walloon part was richer than the Flemish part. This is more historical than anything...they also owned a lot of land and factories in Belgium. We've had what we call a (fictional) "language border" installed during the late 20th century. The reason was clear: because we are not speaking the same, native language, people should know in advance what language they'll be receiving official information in. Logical it seems.... The capital of Brussels is officially bi-langual. It is also dead in the center of Belgium. In the late 20th century there was a lot of immigration in Brussels. Most of the immigration came from either Italy and North Africa and settled in Brussels. A lot of wealthy, French-speaking, citizens moved to the suburbs at that time...to both sides of the language border. The result at the moment is that there are a few villages on the Flemish side of that language barrier that in fact have 75% of french-speaking citizens. And of course these citizens want a mayor that speaks their language. Problem is that OFFICIALLY, due to the village being on the Flemish side of the language border, all communications and officials have to be in Flemish. Some Flemish parties now want to make this official, while the Walloons would like to have these villages accepted as french-speaking villages. The result...a lot of bickering and pestering going both ways.[/QUOTE] Far as the language thing goes, I see us having that same problem within' the next 20 years or so (depending on border's more then anything).

[BlueStar]

[QUOTE=djthefunkchris;325157]I've been wondering if there is a chance this could turn into something worse, like a type of civil war... Or if it's going to be just a big political mess untill it's decided to bring the NATIONAL government back into power, with even power from the two biggest federal governments.[/QUOTE] Chances are as good as nill, I hope. In Yugoslavia the situation was different: they had historical and religious differences and a lot of poverty. The small part wanting independency really have no historical grounds (something like the country of Flanders has never existed, and even though the region existed, it consisted of different geographical parts than it is now). Also religion is not an issue over here. The only reason would be an economical reason (the Flemish part being richer than the Walloon part) but that leaves Brussels as a sort of "save point". Brussels does have a lot of economy and, while officially bi-langual, is french for 90%. Which would leave a very difficult position: giving Brussels to the Walloon part, and losing a lot of your economy (the reason for wanting independency to begin with) or keeping Brussels in Flanders (but that would be giving up your reason)... And, despite a few citizens playing Mafia games and lynching someone, we are actually people that just get on by...I'm not a betting man, but I don't see the possibility of a civil war being in the odds. What I do see, is that a lot of people lose interest in the politics of Belgium and turn to more "radical" parties...some of which can be downright "racist" parties.

[BlueStar]

[QUOTE=djthefunkchris;325158]Far as the language thing goes, I see us having that same problem within' the next 20 years or so (depending on border's more then anything).[/QUOTE] Explain...I guess you're American?

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=BlueStar;325162]Explain...I guess you're American?[/QUOTE] Well, we are in certain situations in the Middle east right now, but most of us are more concerned about "Border Security" and the like. We have a constant influx coming from Mexico, and most the laws dealing with "illegal aliens" have been ignored. The "War on Terror" has been the focus (government wise), and seems that they just ignore the other things going on right here. This isn't to say I aggree or dissagree with the oversea's thing. However, we are spending alot of money... Government money from tax payer's on making sure alot of place's have spanish as well as english in most area's... To include driver's liscense, etc. There is a definate hispanic movement, with marching, protests and all going on in our country, although it's not as "Huge" as some make, not as small as other's. However, the fastest rising group right now, is hispanic. So I can easily see parts of the US ending up primarily Spanish speaking. I'm not saying a town here and there, I mean whole states, like Texas, California, etc.. bordering states. The problem as I see it, is it's also going to hurt the economy as well. The middle class has seemed to be dwindling for a while... Jobs and such are going to people that don't have to pay tax's, don't have citizenship, etc. Of course, the political parties have both against and for (Democrats and Republican's seem to be split in different area's on this) letting people cross the border's, and live here, get jobs, and not have to be citizens. It's not gone to the extent of it being a "normal" thing yet, but it sure feels like it's coming. Anyways, there is also a drive to let them vote in elections. This could help any politician that is in support of these things, meaning quite a few more votes in an election. These things have not come to pass, but there are alot of people that are working on these things to happen. Some are mistaking the desire to make them citizens, or enforce the law, as a prejudice (the media seems to try to portray this quite a bit). It's also been said that they are doing jobs that "American's" won't do, which is hogwash... They aren't just picking vegetable's for farmer's, which American's surely will do as well. They are working construction, factories, salesman, all over the middle class job force. Getting political power is to enticing for some politicians, through votes, that there are some that support this. It's not as simple as I put it, but it's bassically the overall thing that's going on. So, in about 20 years, I can see language being a problem here, if there is nothing done.

[BlueStar]

It's a bit different I think but that's not to say that we don't have that problem as well... The "language" migration in Belgium is completely legal as it is done by people of Belgian origin. But we do understand the problem as Brussels has become a hot bed for immigration of people of North Africa. And while they have every reason to build a future here, it's not easy: they don't speak a language, they got frowned upon for their colour and habits...resulting in a lot of impoverished (illegal) immigrants in Brussels. In Europe, especially Western Europe, there's a second migration wave going on. A lot of Western Europeans don't want to do meneal (is that English? jobs anymore so we have "economic" migration: lots of Eastern Europeans migrating over here for work reasons. The problems that they will face in the future, are the same: the language (as they are stuck with other people speaking a foreign language) and probably the risk of poverty once the economy takes a downside turn. I've actually had an interesting mail some time ago from someone in New York, let me see if I can dig that one up...

[Blackman]

[QUOTE=BlueStar;325149]Don't worry...we still have 5 governments that are still working... I'm perfectly willing to try and explain the situation if someone's interested.[/QUOTE] Great, cause I'm from Belgium and even I don't really understand the situation to a full extent. Don't care basically. :rolleyes: Only thing I notice is the amount of national flags that are hung up around our capital, which is basically where I live now. And I know our mayor is one of the 'major' (lol) French activists. The son of a bitch makes it a hard time for a Flemish to live in his own neighboorhood. But on the other hand, since most borderline Flemish cities are French anyway (or for 80% of the 'autochtoon' population), perhaps we should consider redefining the identity of those cities. As far as I'm concerned we are better off staying together, but i wouldn't mind a 'divorce' with the Wall00ns. I'm more fond of the Dutch anyways. :) And on the 'Flemish independant nation' topic: I think we're already ridiculed enough nowadays. Let's not make ourselves become viewed as total buffoons by splitting an already small country in half.