Find Insurance Online

2010 was not a good year for the Belgium government. The governing coalition fell apart, sparking fears that Wallonia and Flanders really could not govern mutually in a federal government at the state level (something that no American state has attempted). In early 2011, the typically European integrationist Belgium government found itself at odds with a Franco-German proposal for greater fiscal coordination at the EU level for the states that had adopted the euro as their currency; the Belgium prime minister had to protect the Belgium social agreement because that was part of the deal that allowed him to step in as prime minister when forming a government was such a difficult problem. Belgium, it may be said, was suffering existentially. Should it split up, go to a looser confederation within the EU, or maintain the status quo in spite of the difficulties?

As I understand it, only 30% of the Flemish voted for the NVA in the election on June 13, 2010, so less than a majority in Flanders support splitting Belgium into two states in the EU.  I suspect there would be resistance in the European Council to Belgium becoming two states in the EU because that would mean more representation in the EU for what is now Belgium.  There was a similar resistance in the US when the southern region of Illinois wanted to seceed from Illinois and form a new state in that union.  In that case, there would be four US Senators where now there are two.

In terms of the Belgian election results of 2010, it has been typical that four parties have been needed to form a governing coalition. Therefore, the NVA won’t be able to unilaterally split Belgium up. The socialists, for example, support a united Belgium.  I don’t think the NVA’s idea of a confederation rather than a federal system in Belgium would work.  I can’t think of many cases of a federal system becoming a confederation. Power doesn’t seem to work that way.  In any case, that Belgium is itself a state in a federal system mitigates the difference that such a change would make.  Because Illinois (and California, for that matter) is so diverse politically by region, I have thought that it should have a federal system, perhaps even confederal; Illinois itself would be mainly representing the states in the US Senate and regulating relations between the states (e.g., funding highways).  Belgium would have a similar role were Flanders and Wallonia to become members of a Belgian confederation.  I think it is possible, though not probably. Kant says the same thing about the kingdom of ends, given the pathology of self-love. that is, possible but not probable. He thought world federation could bring peace. 

In reading about Belgian politics, it does seem to me that from a governance perspective splitting Belgium might not be a bad idea.  It has been rather rough governing as it is.  At some point, I would think people would ask themselves if it is worth all the trouble.  Flanderscould become a province of the Netherlands and Wallonia could easily join France. That both regions of Belgium would still be in the EU lessens the magnitude of the change. Similarly, by the way, were the Middle East to form a federation perhaps the fight over land in Isreal and Palestine would be to a certain extent cooled because it wouldn't matter as much.  An empire-level/scale federal system can make what seems to be intractable problems actually not so important, and thus the respective positions not so rigid.

Living in America, I have a very outside perspective on what is going on Europe, not to mention in Belgium. However, sometimes such a perspective can be useful to people otherwise focused in on the daily problems of governing on the ground. It is easy for any of us to take our poltical artifices too seriously.  Political entities are but dust, and to dust they will return.  We ought not get too attached to the sandcastles we build. They, like us, are mortal. Put another way, politics is naturally a sea of change, constantly churning.  So too are we. The political sand castles we build are thus apt to change or be changed with after one too many tides.  In the mixture of dynamic politics and static polities, it is wise to periodically adapt the latter to take account of the former; otherwise, a political titalwave might just inundate one’s weakened sandcastle.