What do you think of this situation?

What do you think:

In Belgium there is a situation going on... Flemisch people who want to seperate from "the poor Walloon side"

Flanders has a modern economy, who create bilions of Euro's and cover the large dept of Belgium.
Wallonia has an old economy, a poor region, and need loads of money to modernise there economy.

Now the Flanders give about 6.5 bilion each year to Capital Burssels and Wallonia.

A group of Flanders fanatics thinks we schould split Belgium in 2 parts, Flanders indipendant repuplic and Wallonia.

What do you think?
It's not normal, if you have a brother, who is broke...you will help him right?

I'm all against splitting up of countries. They become weak and can be easily conquered.

I dont support "independence" movements either. All the politicians want is their own country, and when they become independent, the people usually suffer because of this.

Fight for your rights, not for independence.

funy situation now in Belgium... after 74 days, the negotiations has failed... the Orange-Blue coaliation. The Walloon Christian party and Walloon liberal party are against a reform of the State of Belgium (to give more responebility's to Flanders and Wallonia) The Flemish Christian party and liberal party want's that.
Now the future prime minister Yves Leterme from the flemisch christian democrates has stoped the negotiations. Now they are here in deep crisis.... probably there will be someone pointed from the walloon christian democrates to glue the coalition negotiations, if he/she failles, then we have a re-ellection... but every new ellection in Belgium is illegal, because the district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde must be splitted, witch the Walloon side don't want to see that happen.

I am curious how this will end. Is it expected that left-wing parties will score better in case there will be a re-vote?

Mmm there is a "scout" appointed by the King... an old minister (Van Rompuy) he is from the flemisch Christian Democrates...

I don't think there will be a re-ellection... they will make it... a backup gouverment it will be! Untill 2009 then it will fall.... and they will make 1 big election for the Flemisch parlement and Walloon parlement and the Federal Parlement.

The left wing has had a realy bad election... the socialists had a 7% loss (totaly not diserved...) Leterme (christian party) made to many prommises (like more region power) And the poor Flemisch people believe them. SP.a (socialists) did not make any promises, and wants to focuse on todays problems, like unemployment, healtcare... All the other party's focused on the region power and on B-H-V exept us.

In re-election i think we would grow 1% and the far right side (Flemisch Disere, LDD) would grow a lot, so it is not smart of Leterme to make that promises because if he failles, far-right wil trioumph again

I just hope it will not be divided up into two countries. Small countries are always poorer than a big country united.

For some reason, and a very good one, I think Flanders makes great part of its money on Wallonia.

Anyway... it's capitalism, capitalism should simply be destroyed.

Kenzu wrote:

I'm all against splitting up of countries. They become weak and can be easily conquered.

I dont support "independence" movements either. All the politicians want is their own country, and when they become independent, the people usually suffer because of this.

Fight for your rights, not for independence.

do you really so ? , independece is your rights...
You are really noobish , if people usually suffer , so why they make those idepedence movements? And its easy to talk to you your people wass't in so many federations...

comiescums wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

I'm all against splitting up of countries. They become weak and can be easily conquered.

I dont support "independence" movements either. All the politicians want is their own country, and when they become independent, the people usually suffer because of this.

Fight for your rights, not for independence.

do you really so ? , independece is your rights...
You are really noobish , if people usually suffer , so why they make those idepedence movements? And its easy to talk to you your people wass't in so many federations...

Many independance movements are not even supported by majourities but by very select powerful enough minorities and by the power of apathetic masses.

as you say many , but not all and we can say that its just representing the interests of a nation.

Historically Kosovo belongs to Serbia. I dont care who lives there. These people came there, but if they dont like it, they should go, not take the land with them!

comiescums wrote:

as you say many , but not all and we can say that its just representing the interests of a nation.

Yes, I didn't say "all". However, what proves that most people in Kosovo actually want an independent republic? (Getting back to Kosovo of course).

ZealotKommunizma wrote:

Yes, I didn't say "all". However, what proves that most people in Kosovo actually want an independent republic? (Getting back to Kosovo of course).

ya they whant it , but i agree with Kenzu , its Serbian lands.

You know what is funny? That this thread had started as the situation in Belgium and we brought Kosovo to this thread...

Quote :

(Getting back to Kosovo of course).

coz you sayed this

comiescums wrote:

Quote :

(Getting back to Kosovo of course).

coz you sayed this

Actually it was Kenzu and you and me just followed him

By the way yo should say "said this".

Quote :

By the way yo should say "said this".

thanks for english lesson.
But not only him start offtopic.

I guess I'll drag some of the last posts to Spamistan

can I have more info like why is that region poor? I don't think they should split, a constant change in govt can create chaos and it will be hard to get any kind of economy, Military, etc going

iceland was poor and ignored by the danish for hundreds of years it wasn't till we got independenc that iceland could exploit it's resurces for it self. independec can be a good thing sometimes the supirior cuntry invests more in tiself

mattabesta wrote:

iceland was poor and ignored by the danish for hundreds of years it wasn't till we got independenc that iceland could exploit it's resurces for it self. independec can be a good thing sometimes the supirior cuntry invests more in tiself

Do you think Iceland would have developed at the same rate had it got independence 50 or 100 years earlier?

mattabesta wrote:

iceland was poor and ignored by the danish for hundreds of years it wasn't till we got independenc that iceland could exploit it's resurces for it self. independec can be a good thing sometimes the supirior cuntry invests more in tiself

Do you think Iceland would have developed at the same or faster rate had it got independence 50 or 100 years ealrier?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

iceland was poor and ignored by the danish for hundreds of years it wasn't till we got independenc that iceland could exploit it's resurces for it self. independec can be a good thing sometimes the supirior cuntry invests more in tiself

Do you think Iceland would have developed at the same or faster rate had it got independence 50 or 100 years ealrier?

it would have been richer in the middel ages. the first stone houre in iceland was built in the late 19th century my grandmother lived in a farm made aout of grass and broken lava stones.
Iceland was so poor that the danish king rented iceland to rich pepole in denmark and gave them the titel of duke or earl of iceland

mattabesta wrote:

it would have been richer in the middel ages. the first stone houre in iceland was built in the late 19th century my grandmother lived in a farm made aout of grass and broken lava stones.
Iceland was so poor that the danish king rented iceland to rich pepole in denmark and gave them the titel of duke or earl of iceland

That was not my question. I asked wether you thought or not that Icelandwould have developed at the same or faster rate had it got independence 50 or 100 years earlier.

And, how would have it been richer?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

it would have been richer in the middel ages. the first stone houre in iceland was built in the late 19th century my grandmother lived in a farm made aout of grass and broken lava stones.
Iceland was so poor that the danish king rented iceland to rich pepole in denmark and gave them the titel of duke or earl of iceland

That was not my question. I asked wether you thought or not that Icelandwould have developed at the same or faster rate had it got independence 50 or 100 years earlier.

And, how would have it been richer?

umm the danish made it illegal for anyone to buy anything frome someone eles than the local danish merchant wich ment they could put up any price they wanted wich made the icelanders poorer.
life would have been generally better in the dane law period iceland would have had more population and would be richer then it is now.

maybe i'm just talking rubbish iceland dose have the higest standard of living in the whole worled at leat according to the UN