La génération “mix” peut-elle changer la Belgique ?

Larry Asslinger wrote:

Thank you for your concern Belgica. I am aware that your group is bound to contain 'FLAMINGANTS' & 'WALLINGANTS' alike amongst us Unitarists, which in my opinion is a 'healthy' way to approach the ongoing delicate political situation. I sincerely hope that it will not take too long for our other Belgian compatriots, such as PC and Boormans, to put aside once and for all their HATRED towards one another and make the effort to at least try and comprehend what us Unitarists are trying to achieve for the GOOD of our Country as a whole.

You may have noticed, however, that Belgica and his companions never actually make a real effort to engage in meaningful discussion with what they call 'enemies' (interesting choice of words, no?) Questions about the feasibility of their programme are met with contempt, tired jokes or just plain silence. Their programme is treated like a gospel, and it is very difficult to get them to explain just how they are going to make all these extraordinary things happen. Moreover, reading your plans to abolish all political parties that don't agree with you, I understand very well what you are trying to achieve. It's a good thing the Belgian voters don't agree with you or BUB.

Quote :

Even PC & Boormans know that, should Belgium cease to exist, none of the three divisions will survive without one another. It is also a known fact that the 'FLAMINGANTS' have no desire to become part of Holland in the first place. As for the 'WALLINGANTS'I must admit that I have no idea what they are hoping to achieve by wanting to be 'adopted' by France. On the otherhand I can just about comprehend the desire of the German speaking 'WALLINGANTS' to be 'adopted' by Germany, but I do feel extremely sad for those Belgian Ardennais whose families had to suffer so much under the Nazi occupation, especially during the Battle of the Ardennes towards the end of WWII.

I see resentment towards all things German runs in the unitarian family. Funny how unitarians wish for Flemings & Walloons to put aside their differences, yet they don't seem to have come to terms with the fact that WWII has ended 65 years ago and we're living in a united Europe now. You might also be interested to know that the people living in the German Community never actually asked to become a part of Belgium: Eupen-Malmédy et al. were simply taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty.

Quote :

You mention above ".......but all political parties except for the B.U.B. are linguistically divided*. LINGUISTICALLY divided ! That is exactly what I have been trying to make you and the others aware of this fact which has been a 'thorn' in the relationship between Flemish/b][b]speaking BELGIANS, French speaking BELGIANS and German speaking BELGIANS.

No, the political parties used to be divided linguistically until the beginning of the 1970s, when Flemings & Walloons found it impossible to get along even within the same political family, and so went their own way rather than risk any more internal conflicts. Federalism was the consequence of this linguistic division, not the cause.

Well, Larry, interesting to see how you explicitly refuse to have a debate. Apparently the only thing we should do is to listen to your advice and not criticise it or ask questions. But we shouldn't expect something else from someone who wants to abolish democracy, should we? Nevertheless, I urge you to read this and try to formulate an answer.

You talk about hatred between both nations forming Belgium together. But is there hatred? No, definitely not - I'm not even sure if the top politicians of the nationalist parties really hate the other group. Having a political conflict is not necessary the same as haing each other. You know what hatred is? That is when people blow up pubs, put car bombs in the street or attack police stations, when paratroopers start shooitng at demonstrations, when demonstrations are attacked with stones, stick and firebombs, when foreign contries have to assist to help forge a peace deal between the two groups - exactly what happened in Northern Ireland. But are tese things happening here? Is there violence in the streets, death squads, terrorist groups, paratroopers policing the streets? I think not. So don't project the troubles of your own country to other countries where this is happening.

Belgium has alwyas been and will always be a country containing two different cultures which grew in the course of it's history into two (or maybe three if some evolutions in Brussels continue the course they are taking now) different nations. This is in itself not a problem, provided you can find a workable solution for the differences and political conflicts which are unavoidable in such a situation. THe best solution for this is to go towards a strong federalism (not going to start the endless and useless discussion about federalism vs confederalism) where you combine far going autonomy for the regions with a strong federal state taking care of a limited number of tasks. It hink that all other soluions, be it pure unitarism, be it separatism are completely undesirable. If that makes me a "flamingant" in the eyes of the BUB, then I couldn't care less.

You talk about the 80% of people who want to keep Belgium alive. Well, It hink that number is pretty much correct. However, the way this number is interpreted by unitarists like the BUB is completely false. Those same enquetes show clearly that a large majority of that 80% want at the same time tha Belgium functions as a federal state. In other words, most Belgians feel that they are Belgians, but don't want to sacrifice their Flemish or Walloon identity for the Belgian state. They are quite happy living in a country where they both have the opportunity to live their own culture, to do things the way they want to and at the same time to do things together with their neighbours and historic partners. Anyone denying the existence of two distinct nations inside Belgium is not a real Belgian. Any solution for Belgium ignoring or denying the fact that the country colmibens two different - but similar - nations will be doomed to fail. Any attempt to re-unitarise the country, that is, to get rid of the existing political institutions of both Flemings and Walloons is doomed to fail and will destroy Belgium. Because a unitarist state can mean two things: It can be pure unitarism without real protection of the French speaking minority in the country, leading to huge frustrations for that minority because they will be constantly outnumbered in any decision. Or you can keep the existing protection for the French speaking population, resulting in huge frustrations for the Flemish majority, because their eyes they will be forced to do things they don't like by the minority. Either way it will end in the unavoidable collapse of the Belgian state. THe only way to avoid this is to combine autonomy for the regions with a limited but strong federal state.

PC wrote:

Well, Larry, interesting to see how you explicitly refuse to have a debate. Apparently the only thing we should do is to listen to your advice and not criticise it or ask questions. But we shouldn't expect something else from someone who wants to abolish democracy, should we? Nevertheless, I urge you to read this and try to formulate an answer.

You talk about hatred between both nations forming Belgium together. But is there hatred? No, definitely not - I'm not even sure if the top politicians of the nationalist parties really hate the other group. Having a political conflict is not necessary the same as haing each other. You know what hatred is? That is when people blow up pubs, put car bombs in the street or attack police stations, when paratroopers start shooitng at demonstrations, when demonstrations are attacked with stones, stick and firebombs, when foreign contries have to assist to help forge a peace deal between the two groups - exactly what happened in Northern Ireland. But are tese things happening here? Is there violence in the streets, death squads, terrorist groups, paratroopers policing the streets? I think not. So don't project the troubles of your own country to other countries where this is happening.

Belgium has alwyas been and will always be a country containing two different cultures which grew in the course of it's history into two (or maybe three if some evolutions in Brussels continue the course they are taking now) different nations. This is in itself not a problem, provided you can find a workable solution for the differences and political conflicts which are unavoidable in such a situation. THe best solution for this is to go towards a strong federalism (not going to start the endless and useless discussion about federalism vs confederalism) where you combine far going autonomy for the regions with a strong federal state taking care of a limited number of tasks. It hink that all other soluions, be it pure unitarism, be it separatism are completely undesirable. If that makes me a "flamingant" in the eyes of the BUB, then I couldn't care less.

You talk about the 80% of people who want to keep Belgium alive. Well, It hink that number is pretty much correct. However, the way this number is interpreted by unitarists like the BUB is completely false. Those same enquetes show clearly that a large majority of that 80% want at the same time tha Belgium functions as a federal state. In other words, most Belgians feel that they are Belgians, but don't want to sacrifice their Flemish or Walloon identity for the Belgian state. They are quite happy living in a country where they both have the opportunity to live their own culture, to do things the way they want to and at the same time to do things together with their neighbours and historic partners. Anyone denying the existence of two distinct nations inside Belgium is not a real Belgian. Any solution for Belgium ignoring or denying the fact that the country colmibens two different - but similar - nations will be doomed to fail. Any attempt to re-unitarise the country, that is, to get rid of the existing political institutions of both Flemings and Walloons is doomed to fail and will destroy Belgium. Because a unitarist state can mean two things: It can be pure unitarism without real protection of the French speaking minority in the country, leading to huge frustrations for that minority because they will be constantly outnumbered in any decision. Or you can keep the existing protection for the French speaking population, resulting in huge frustrations for the Flemish majority, because their eyes they will be forced to do things they don't like by the minority. Either way it will end in the unavoidable collapse of the Belgian state. THe only way to avoid this is to combine autonomy for the regions with a limited but strong federal state.

I will reply to you in due course PC. I was just about to send a long message to Boormans when my computer decided to freeze on me and I have therefore got to start again.
You judge me harshly PC ! Believe me, I do respect your views and I am always open to discussion, and possibly change my views accordingly. I obviously need a great deal of convincing beforehand !
I am unable to answer messages quickly, as I have a tight schedule during the day. Rest assured I will come back to you and the others.
Regards,
Larry

Larry Asslinger wrote:

PC wrote:

Well, Larry, interesting to see how you explicitly refuse to have a debate. Apparently the only thing we should do is to listen to your advice and not criticise it or ask questions. But we shouldn't expect something else from someone who wants to abolish democracy, should we? Nevertheless, I urge you to read this and try to formulate an answer.

You talk about hatred between both nations forming Belgium together. But is there hatred? No, definitely not - I'm not even sure if the top politicians of the nationalist parties really hate the other group. Having a political conflict is not necessary the same as haing each other. You know what hatred is? That is when people blow up pubs, put car bombs in the street or attack police stations, when paratroopers start shooitng at demonstrations, when demonstrations are attacked with stones, stick and firebombs, when foreign contries have to assist to help forge a peace deal between the two groups - exactly what happened in Northern Ireland. But are tese things happening here? Is there violence in the streets, death squads, terrorist groups, paratroopers policing the streets? I think not. So don't project the troubles of your own country to other countries where this is happening.

Belgium has alwyas been and will always be a country containing two different cultures which grew in the course of it's history into two (or maybe three if some evolutions in Brussels continue the course they are taking now) different nations. This is in itself not a problem, provided you can find a workable solution for the differences and political conflicts which are unavoidable in such a situation. THe best solution for this is to go towards a strong federalism (not going to start the endless and useless discussion about federalism vs confederalism) where you combine far going autonomy for the regions with a strong federal state taking care of a limited number of tasks. It hink that all other soluions, be it pure unitarism, be it separatism are completely undesirable. If that makes me a "flamingant" in the eyes of the BUB, then I couldn't care less.

You talk about the 80% of people who want to keep Belgium alive. Well, It hink that number is pretty much correct. However, the way this number is interpreted by unitarists like the BUB is completely false. Those same enquetes show clearly that a large majority of that 80% want at the same time tha Belgium functions as a federal state. In other words, most Belgians feel that they are Belgians, but don't want to sacrifice their Flemish or Walloon identity for the Belgian state. They are quite happy living in a country where they both have the opportunity to live their own culture, to do things the way they want to and at the same time to do things together with their neighbours and historic partners. Anyone denying the existence of two distinct nations inside Belgium is not a real Belgian. Any solution for Belgium ignoring or denying the fact that the country colmibens two different - but similar - nations will be doomed to fail. Any attempt to re-unitarise the country, that is, to get rid of the existing political institutions of both Flemings and Walloons is doomed to fail and will destroy Belgium. Because a unitarist state can mean two things: It can be pure unitarism without real protection of the French speaking minority in the country, leading to huge frustrations for that minority because they will be constantly outnumbered in any decision. Or you can keep the existing protection for the French speaking population, resulting in huge frustrations for the Flemish majority, because their eyes they will be forced to do things they don't like by the minority. Either way it will end in the unavoidable collapse of the Belgian state. THe only way to avoid this is to combine autonomy for the regions with a limited but strong federal state.

I will reply to you in due course PC. I was just about to send a long message to Boormans when my computer decided to freeze on me and I have therefore got to start again.
You judge me harshly PC ! Believe me, I do respect your views and I am always open to discussion, and possibly change my views accordingly. I obviously need a great deal of convincing beforehand !
I am unable to answer messages quickly, as I have a tight schedule during the day. Rest assured I will come back to you and the others.
Regards,
Larry

Before I reply to your two previous messages, I thought you might be interested in the following article which I found published in today's Daily Mail (page 25): "IS THIS THE END OF BELGIUM? Belgium faces being 'broken up and abolished', one of the country's leading politicians has warned. Socialist MP Laurette Onkelinx believes the antimosity between the ncountr's two main regions could trigger a split. She spoke as King Albert II struggled to kick-start coalition talks between the state parliaments of the French speaking Wallonia and Dutch speaking Flanders regions. But negotiations with Flemish separatist leaders collapsed on Friday. Miss Onkelinx said: 'People must get ready for the break-up of Belgium." It is thought that a split would see the two regions become self-governing states."

What do you and the others make of this?

Every year since 1917 (birth of the flemish separatist movement), we hear "the end of Belgium is for this year". Belgian federlism was supposedly save the land, but we have every day a evidence of the antithesis.

But don't worry: Belgium is technically not scibdable, anyway without civil war.

Larry Asslinger wrote:

Before I reply to your two previous messages, I thought you might be interested in the following article which I found published in today's Daily Mail (page 25): "IS THIS THE END OF BELGIUM? Belgium faces being 'broken up and abolished', one of the country's leading politicians has warned. Socialist MP Laurette Onkelinx believes the antimosity between the ncountr's two main regions could trigger a split. She spoke as King Albert II struggled to kick-start coalition talks between the state parliaments of the French speaking Wallonia and Dutch speaking Flanders regions. But negotiations with Flemish separatist leaders collapsed on Friday. Miss Onkelinx said: 'People must get ready for the break-up of Belgium." It is thought that a split would see the two regions become self-governing states."

What do you and the others make of this?

I suppose the article you're talking about dates from a couple of days ago, because the PS have already changed their tone significantly. As Bart De Wever rightly pointed out, it's rather absurd to oppose financial responsibility for regions and communities by threatening to assume what is in fact complete responsibility. Moreover, Onkelinx' reaction has given N-VA another trump card: contrary to all expectations, they didn't mention the end of Belgium, the PS did.

BFE wrote:

Every year since 1917 (birth of the flemish separatist movement), we hear "the end of Belgium is for this year". Belgian federlism was supposedly save the land, but we have every day a evidence of the antithesis.

But don't worry: Belgium is technically not scibdable, anyway without civil war.

Thanks for your message BFE. However can you please clarify the following:-
...not scibdable... What does that word mean?

Vous pouvez me repondre en francais !

Au temps pour moi . C'était une faute de frappe, je voulais dire "non-scindable".

BFE wrote:

Au temps pour moi . C'était une faute de frappe, je voulais dire "non-scindable".

Thanks. I was in Namur at the beginning of August. Love the place ! Still have family there and several friends around Dave, Wepion, Floreffe, Floriffoux, etc...

BFE wrote:

Every year since 1917 (birth of the flemish separatist movement), we hear "the end of Belgium is for this year". Belgian federlism was supposedly save the land, but we have every day a evidence of the antithesis.

But don't worry: Belgium is technically not scibdable, anyway without civil war.

Not really, even in the past - that is before the last decades - even within the Flemish movement separatists were a small minority. Some Flamingants even were strong unitarists. One of the founders of the Vlaams Belang for instance, Lode Claes, was against federalism and in favour of unitarism because it would give all the power in the country to the Flemish. But it is new that now even French speaking mainstream politicians are talking about it, albeit that this is probably a tactical trick. Nevertheless, if so many people start talking about it, it can get dangerous - selffullfilling prophecies, and all that.

Yes, federalism saved the country, just look at how tentions could grow very quickly within the unitarian state. The referendum over Leopold III, the strikes against the Eenheidswet in 1961, theproblems around the university of Louvain come to mind.

But even without the possibility of Belgium falling apart, federalism is in a divided nation like Belgium a good thing in itself.

And larry with not scibdable he probably means not possible to separate.