It is nearly five years ago, a group of Belgians south as northern countries, the Group Belgium Plus, we judged that the electoral district famous (and legal) Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde was indeed an anomaly in the Belgian federal system. They seemed contradictory in this case threefold as compared to the spirit of the Constitution, which organizes the Belgian linguistic regions in relation to the principle of territoriality recognized as the basis of all classical federalism. It was finally held in opposition to a federal vision insofar Francophone parties are entitled to present lists within thirty-five municipalities of Flemish BHV while the Flemish parties in Brussels and Flanders have this right no common French.
In this regard, it is equally wrong to oppose a vision of "territorial" Flemish "defense of the person" highlighted by the French since the principle of territoriality has been passed by both communities of this country and that plus an article of the Constitution provides that "a justified motion, signed by three-fourths of the members of groups (language) may declare that the provisions of a draft or a bill are likely to seriously damage relations between the communities. " This is the famous bell of alarm that can be rough for most of the legislature and therefore offers the opportunity and sufficient time for detailed negotiations.
That is, it must be emphasized that the term negotiation to be used and not that of compensation. They simply do not have to "obtain redress" in the context of a situation that is simply not acceptable constitutional ago by cons to "negotiate" the particular provisions of an Act for the achieve compliance with the law of persons who could admit that they are likely to feel aggrieved in their rights and legal policies. The application "substitute" French for "enlargement" of the Brussels region has no real purpose: it is a casus belli that opens a Pandora's box unnecessarily. Since the "war of Fourons," the French-speaking politicians know very well that such a strategy "territorial", which is also a door-to-one odds with legitimate, traditionally carried out in defense of "law people "is provocative.
Negotiations were therefore once again failed: all that Belgium has dispute resolution procedures (Committee of Wise Men, deminers, explorers, etc..) Appears to have been exhausted. Amid a media uproar amplifier conflict, the country has ceased to be real consistent with the virtual country policymakers who have found other ways to go to the polls, that is to say to postpone once again the "problem" indefinitely. And since there is no federal constituency in this country, let the voter the option of deciding, each within its community, which was the "best French" and that was the "best Flemish '.
Women politicians can reinforce each other - and cynically - by saying that in this strange country, we always find a way out. Belgium is in the process of institutional transformation for over forty years: a few more years or legislatures make little difference, especially in a context where a fast current hunting another.
Nevertheless: provocations to force one side and wait, or even filibuster the other, the "divorce at the Belgian" deepens as the chief political elites, who have noses on their only handle election than in their voters, North and South, have become strangers to each other and which are allowed to choose only one Poujadism hate or indifference to politics.
Like it or not, whether we like it or not, the "institutional piping is now in Belgium (as at European level for that matter) a policy priority, which is inseparable from what the head of Socialist Party insists on presenting until tiring in its audience, as the "real priorities". In doing so, he failed to mention that for over a decade, this "socioeconomic" bathes in the community (pensions, social security, employment policy, unemployment ...).
Throughout the crisis, it is a new Belgium it is and we must say and repeat it out loud. Throughout the crisis, Belgians of North and South have long since lost benchmarks. Throughout the crisis, there are now two entities that operate on different registers, even if it is true that this situation does not lead, you can bet on situations of violence. Over the last crisis, the "plumbers" and their miracle will have their policy: they have become a has-been increasingly disconnected from a political elite which, like the media, especially its rate of listening hearing.
BHV has been and will remain only an epiphenomenon of a more essential meaning: that of a more decisive reform of the federal government, which effectively means a shift in the most comprehensive, clearest and most especially consistency of the expertise already owned by the State to the Regions and Communities. In other words, more than ever is the principle of subsidiarity as defined for the EU countries formerly hybrid construction of "enemies" who must be the basis for this new reformed state.
But there is a "but", and even a "big but" conditional on this slide. As noted by Robert Deschamps, any new reform of the state reach its goals if and only if it is accompanied by a stakeholder accountability and cooperation / coordination between them. The first requirement refers implicitly to a certain political class francophone still too marked by cronyism and sub-regionalism, while the second concerns the main political order that gives too Dutch printing of acting as the sole interest of the mother Flanders.
Finally - and this conditionality is weight - should the political elite from whatever language it is taught to be silent and at opportune moments to step back from the pressure media-political. To read the chronology of the crisis, the President of the HRC, whose party is seeking to strengthen its electoral potential in the outskirts of Brussels, and the owner of TOT for the same reasons, bear a heavy responsibility for the outbreak of the crisis by stating bluntly, at the start of negotiations on the last note of the plumber Dehaene, note that the last chance was "clearly insufficient" for the first and "unpalatable" to the second. Both have clearly provided an avenue for the young president of the Open VLD, which also motivated by partisan considerations, has seen fit to dissociate himself from the government.
Of course if one wants to play to be afraid, there is a separatist solution or flatly confederalist, which is the same. It is however theoretical. Apart from the fact that it would not bring substantial gains to the richest part of the country - we will return to this point to another study by Robert Deschamps - independence does not decide unilaterally. In international law, the so-called right of peoples to self-determination is tempered - or even canceled - by the principle of "territorial integrity".
A resolution of the UN General Assembly clearly reiterates condemnation of secession in 1960 is already set: the right of peoples to self-determination can not be interpreted "as authorizing or encouraging any action which would either, which would dismember or impair, totally or partially the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent ". Any proclamation of independence can not be done only after a process of negotiation and mutual consent. It was as if the Czech Republic and Slovakia have also been longer than two legally separate entities in a reunified country artificially created and called Czechoslovakia. Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet empire and the creation of the CIS were the result of negotiated agreements, like concession of African independence. Finally, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence, but is not a member of the UN, like the European Union, have not recognized.
In this state, "Bye bye Belgium" remains a fiction, when it is not a fantasy designed to inflate the ratings