Political landslide in Belgian elections

[Starglider]

What are the downsides to this way of doing things? It seems pretty win-win for the people of the small regions and for the EU as a whole.

If it worked, which looks unlikely at present.

[wautd]

My prognosis: NVA, SP.A, CD&V on the Flemish side and PS-CDH on the Walloon end form Di Rupo I

Seconded. Including the MR in particular will be a recipe for desaster but since the PS loathes them anyway I don't see that happen soon. I'm overall hopefull that both sides got a strong mandate from the electorate, and despite their differences they seem (so far) interested to compromise. Even if they can only fill in some of their relevant promises, it's still better than the 3 years of immobilism with 0 results, so it should be possible to both come out as a winner of sorts.

(and by "CD" I mean "government pension plan").

Don't worry, I'm sure the PS will put a corrupt, full-time drunk like Michel Daerden on the job for that. How that tool still manages to get so many votes is beyond me

[Bounty]

It occurs to me that our next premier will be a second-generation immigrant, son of an economic refugee, who grew up in abject poverty, still managed to become a doctor of chemistry, and who is openly and somewhat flamboyantly gay. How's that for an international calling card? He's all that has gone right in this country wrapped in a bowtie.

[Bluewolf]

Czechoslovakia broke into two different republics based on ethnicities; Yugoslavia did it as well albeit more violently. There's the push to devolve power in the UK, where Scotland has its own government now, Wales has "Home Rule" I think it is called and I guess Cornwall is pushing for the same. I've long heard of the Wallonian and Flemish situation, and we all know how the Basque have been...

What is the deal with Europe fracturing into smaller and smaller countries based on ethnic enclaves? It seems kind of like a throwback to tribal ways of thinking, to me at least. Aren't groups getting a better deal by staying together? Doesn't it make funding more expensive? It seems that a national health care or police or rail system with millions of people cashing into the pot will be cheaper than all the same things broken down into little statelets with a few hundred thousand people apiece.

Sorry but you cannot compare two rather messy and violent breakups in Central/Eastern Europe to the gradual devolution of Scotland and Wales (Cornish independence is pretty much a joke) and use it as proof that Europe is breaking into smaller and smaller nations. Even more so when the first two examples happened over 10+ years ago. Europe is generally quite stable overall and what you are seeing are just some recent examples of break away's, not Europe turning into many tribal states. If France and Germany started to break apart into many tiny chunks then maybe you'd be correct but for now, Europe is not going to change much in terms of territory. The nations within it will still be fine paying for the various needs of the people within the state just fine.

It seems that at some point, Europe will have to have EU-wide public services just to get decent economies of scale. And what about power grids and other things that physically cross the lines of increasingly smaller states?

It doesn't make sense. The EU will have to federate or die, and that means picking a standing government and ministries and language.

Oh come on. The EU has helped Europe become far more mobile with various treaties but you wont be seeing an EU government running services like a country. At most you will see joint schemes by other countries to run things.

The idea that the United States of Europe will form is silly and countries like Britain would never play ball to such an idea anyway. The EU does fine with language and it has rarely been a carrier. It already has centres of government in a sense and some form of miniseries in certain things. It will not become USE however. I freely admit it may become far more integrated but not to that effect.

[wautd]

It occurs to me that our next premier will be a second-generation immigrant, son of an economic refugee, who grew up in abject poverty, still managed to become a doctor of chemistry, and who is openly and somewhat flamboyantly gay. How's that for an international calling card? He's all that has gone right in this country wrapped in a bowtie.

Speaking of that, Marianne Thyssen saying that De Wever should be prime minister... is she just that dumb, arrogant or just a petty looser?

[anybody_mcc]

Czechoslovakia broke into two different republics based on ethnicities; Yugoslavia did it as well albeit more violently. There's the push to devolve power in the UK, where Scotland has its own government now, Wales has "Home Rule" I think it is called and I guess Cornwall is pushing for the same. I've long heard of the Wallonian and Flemish situation, and we all know how the Basque have been...

What is the deal with Europe fracturing into smaller and smaller countries based on ethnic enclaves? It seems kind of like a throwback to tribal ways of thinking, to me at least. Aren't groups getting a better deal by staying together? Doesn't it make funding more expensive? It seems that a national health care or police or rail system with millions of people cashing into the pot will be cheaper than all the same things broken down into little statelets with a few hundred thousand people apiece.

Sorry but you cannot compare two rather messy and violent breakups in Central/Eastern Europe to the gradual devolution of Scotland and Wales (Cornish independence is pretty much a joke) and use it as proof that Europe is breaking into smaller and smaller nations. Even more so when the first two examples happened over 10+ years ago. Europe is generally quite stable overall and what you are seeing are just some recent examples of break away's, not Europe turning into many tribal states. If France and Germany started to break apart into many tiny chunks then maybe you'd be correct but for now, Europe is not going to change much in terms of territory. The nations within it will still be fine paying for the various needs of the people within the state just fine.

I don't really think you can call break up of Czechoslovakia messy or violent If anything it was an example how to do breakups peacufully. Yes there were problems of economic and organizational nature, like who gets some art or money reserves, or who will inherit position in the hockey world But I would be very suprised if even one person died in this process because of the splitting. I would say Scotland's and Wales' push for autonomy already is more messy than that because of how long it is taking.

[Zed]

It occurs to me that our next premier will be a second-generation immigrant, son of an economic refugee, who grew up in abject poverty, still managed to become a doctor of chemistry, and who is openly and somewhat flamboyantly gay. How's that for an international calling card? He's all that has gone right in this country wrapped in a bowtie.

Speaking of that, Marianne Thyssen saying that De Wever should be prime minister... is she just that dumb, arrogant or just a petty looser?

She wants De Wever intrinsically connected to this government, so that, if the government fails to effect state reform, he won't be able to put the blame on other parties. Patrick Janssens said something similar recently - other parties would have to be mad to accept the premiership.

[wautd]

It occurs to me that our next premier will be a second-generation immigrant, son of an economic refugee, who grew up in abject poverty, still managed to become a doctor of chemistry, and who is openly and somewhat flamboyantly gay. How's that for an international calling card? He's all that has gone right in this country wrapped in a bowtie.

Speaking of that, Marianne Thyssen saying that De Wever should be prime minister... is she just that dumb, arrogant or just a petty looser?

She wants De Wever intrinsically connected to this government, so that, if the government fails to effect state reform, he won't be able to put the blame on other parties. Patrick Janssens said something similar recently - other parties would have to be mad to accept the premiership.

Since the walloons (and some of the flemish) have been demonizing De Wever for years it's simply a bad idea for any future negotiations with the walloons. Leterme was highly unpopular for the walloons and we all know how that turned out. And if Leterme was already unpopular, De Wever must be satan incarnate to them.

[Zed]

Di Rupo has been demonized in the Flemish media for a decade. The P.S. is widely described as a bastion of corruption and clientelism, while Di Rupo was publically accused of pedophilia and is widely perceived as a maffioso-type. Beyond that, there is the mere fact that he isn't Flemish, which will aggravate the most ardent nationalists. I think both of these figures will have issues with the other part of the country.

[Bounty]

while Di Rupo was publically accused of pedophilia and is widely perceived as a maffioso-type

OTOH, the way he handled himself during those false accusations was commendable and must have earned him quite some credit.

[Twigler]

From the original article:

Some analysts believe the next government will take in as many as eight parties, the BBC's Dominic Hughes in Brussels reports.

An eight party coalition? That sounds like another round of elections is only a couple of months away. Is this something that's relatively normal for Belgium, or is eight going to be a new record?

[Zed]

De Haene I and II consisted of four parties, Verhofstadt I out of six, Verhofstadt II out of four, Verhofstadt III out of five/six (due to the N-VA's ambiguous position), Leterme I, Van Rompuy I and Leterme II all consisted out of five parties again. Eight is larger than usual, but I don't see why it'd happen. I think seven parties is more likely than eight. (CDH, CD&V, PS, SP.A, N-VA, Ecolo, Groen)

[Bounty]

An eight party coalition? That sounds like another round of elections is only a couple of months away. Is this something that's relatively normal for Belgium, or is eight going to be a new record?

Note that nearly half of those eight parties are doubles - PS and SP.A are both socialist, Ecolo and Groen are both green, CDH and CD&V are both Christian-Democrat. Of those, the greens are unlikely to blow up a government and the others have proven they can efficiently run a government together on the Flemish level. So while it may seem like an unwieldy coalition, it certainly has better chances than, say, a purple-green one.

[Coyote]

Sorry but you cannot compare two rather messy and violent breakups in Central/Eastern Europe to the gradual devolution of Scotland and Wales (Cornish independence is pretty much a joke) and use it as proof that Europe is breaking into smaller and smaller nations. Even more so when the first two examples happened over 10+ years ago. Europe is generally quite stable overall and what you are seeing are just some recent examples of break away's, not Europe turning into many tribal states....

Well, don't read into it; I'm not saying that Europe is destabilizing and on it's way to a racial war or something. It just seems to me that over the last several years, there has been more and more clamoring for mini-states based on ethnicity over the years. Some of those breakups have been peaceful and gradual; some have been shockingly violent.

It's not the means I am talking about, but the desired goals: "I want my state of left-handed redheads here. You can have your state of right-handed blondes there". Obviously Europe as a whole remains pretty much stable with all this, which means that the desire for these breakups comes as no surprise and pretty much passes with little comment or concern.

I was surprised that there seemed to be such import put on ethnic... identity? Issues? In Europe.

A federated Europe, in my example, would be done more because of economics. Let's say --just for an example-- that Brittany decided to break from France, and that France was okay with this. (Like I said-- just for argument's sake). Brittany doesn't want to give up the rail lines, or dismantle their health care system, or cut the power & water lines and build new ones, or whatever, so they just keep it all. Eventually you might have two or three or more smaller ethnostates sharing common grids. Maybe even new ones would join, even-- say Flanders decided to join the "France-Brittany network" of stuff for whatever reason. Maybe the Basque do as well, etc. It would take decades, but the economic push to standardize would mean that slowly, Europe would just come together as it became more sensible for central mangemant that was answerable to everyone.

Remember, in 1945 post-war Europe, the current system would have been seen as fantasy. And that is still within living memory.

[Bounty]

I was surprised that there seemed to be such import put on ethnic... identity? Issues? In Europe.

I'm surprised you're surprised. Europe has had shifting borders from the day it started having borders; the current problems in Belgium technically date back to about 50BC. Countries have broken up, reassembled, expanded, contracted, have been inherited and swapped and conquered so many times there's hardly any patch of land that hasn't seen about half a dozen owners over the centuries. All that leaves various groups with a strong ethnic, linguistic or religious bond stuck living together under one national umbrella they might not have chosen. Sometimes this works out (the German part of Belgium, for instance, has generally been content ever since it was glued on), but more often there's a lingering desire to redraw the map based on current allegiances.