The Economist Magazine calls of the end to Belgium soverenty

[whistle]

...It is beginning to look a lot like 1939 all over again

<snip>
Belgium

Time to call it a day
Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Sometimes it is right for a country to recognise that its job is done

A RECENT glance at the Low Countries revealed that, nearly three months after its latest general election, Belgium was still without a new government. It may have acquired one by now. But, if so, will anyone notice? And, if not, will anyone mind? Even the Belgians appear indifferent. And what they think of the government they may well think of the country. If Belgium did not already exist, would anyone nowadays take the trouble to invent it?

Such questions could be asked of many countries. Belgium's problem, if such it is, is that they are being asked by the inhabitants themselves. True, in opinion polls most Belgians say they want to keep the show on the road. But when they vote, as they did on June 10th, they do so along linguistic lines, the French-speaking Walloons in the south for French-speaking parties, the Dutch-speaking Flemings in the north for Dutch-speaking parties. The two groups do not get on—hence the inability to form a government. They lead parallel lives, largely in ignorance of each other. They do, however, think they know themselves: when a French-language television programme was interrupted last December with a spoof news flash announcing that the Flemish parliament had declared independence, the king had fled and Belgium had dissolved, it was widely believed.

No wonder. The prime minister designate thinks Belgians have nothing in common except “the king, the football team, some beers”, and he describes their country as an “accident of history”. In truth, it isn't. When it was created in 1831, it served more than one purpose. It relieved its people of various discriminatory practices imposed on them by their Dutch rulers. And it suited Britain and France to have a new, neutral state rather than a source of instability that might, so soon after the Napoleonic wars, set off more turbulence in Europe.

The upshot was neither an unmitigated success nor an unmitigated failure. Belgium industrialised fast; grabbed a large part of Africa and ruled it particularly rapaciously; was itself invaded and occupied by Germany, not once but twice; and then cleverly secured the headquarters of what is now the European Union. Along the way it produced Magritte, Simenon, Tintin, the saxophone and a lot of chocolate. Also frites. No doubt more good things can come out of the swathe of territory once occupied by a tribe known to the Romans as the Belgae. For that, though, they do not need Belgium: they can emerge just as readily from two or three new mini-states, or perhaps from an enlarged France and Netherlands.

Brussels can devote itself to becoming the bureaucratic capital of Europe. It no longer enjoys the heady atmosphere of liberty that swirled outside its opera house in 1830, intoxicating the demonstrators whose protests set the Belgians on the road to independence. The air today is more fetid. With freedom now taken for granted, the old animosities are ill suppressed. Rancour is ever-present and the country has become a freak of nature, a state in which power is so devolved that government is an abhorred vacuum. In short, Belgium has served its purpose. A praline divorce is in order.

Belgians need not feel too sad. Countries come and go. And perhaps a way can be found to keep the king, if he is still wanted. Since he has never had a country—he has always just been king of the Belgians—he will not miss Belgium. Maybe he can rule a new-old country called Gaul. But king of the Gauloises doesn't sound quite right, does it?

<link> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9767681

[scarletwoman]

1. 1939 or not, it is certainly in line with the neocon ambition to destroy the concept of the

nation-state.

The corporatists want the same thing. When Thom Friedman speaks of his "flat world", he means a world in which all the common people are flattened beneath the juggernaut of corporate globalization.

The neocons just want to rule the world -- so for them, the destruction of social/governmental institutions that provide any sort of sense of unity and cohesion to any particular group of people is, at the very least, prudent.

sw

[whistle]

2. Yep!

[bemildred]

3. Sounds great.

Who needs a national government anyway?

[Rydz777]

4. I lived in Europe for seven years and spend a minimum of

time in Belgium where English seemed to be the "neutral" language. I asked a hotel clerk, "Do you speak English? and he replied, "Of course."

Since countries as small as Luxembourg and Slovenia are full fledged members of the European Union, it seems practical that Belgium could become two countries within it. I doubt anyone would notice much difference. In fact, that might set a trend. Scotland is straining at its union with England, and it is certainly conceivable that Catalonia might be happy separating from Spain.

Incidentally, I agree with Scarletwoman's comment about Friedman's "flat world."

[BlooInBloo]

5. If they don't want to be a country, why should they continue?

[kineneb]

6. Flemish historical contribution to arts and music...

in the 15-16th centuries:

Painters-
Hans Memling, the van Eycks, Rodger van der Weyden, Dirck Bouts, Heronymus Bosch, Gerard David, Peiter Breughel

Composers:
Jacob Obrecht, Johannes Ockeghem, Heinrich Issac, Jacobus Clemens ("non Papa"),

Flanders was also a center for harpsichord building in the 16th and 17th centuries.

In the 17th century there were the painters Peter Paul Rubens and Anton van Dyck.

I loved Antwerp when I visited, and would happily move there...so much interesting history, especially music history.

[TahitiNut]

7. Waterloo is in Belgium, too.

:shrug:
One of the more beautiful places in Euorpe is the Meuse river Valley around Dinant, in the Namur province. Summer in the Grand Place, especially with all the flower vendors, is lovely.