
How does one define one's "national identity"?
One way is to look at where a person is born. By that definion, I
could be called Flemish, Belgian, or European, whatever you think about
it.
Another way to look at it is how one feels about one's own identity.
This, of course, is a much more accurate way to describe a person; and
by that definition, I am either Belgian or European. I do not feel any
affinity with much of the so-called "flemish" identity, nor do I wish to
be associated with it any more than is strictly necessary. Obviously,
some people feel different about that for themselves.
This I can understand.
In fact, the statement to feel more Belgian than Flemish is probably
not one that is very common in this general area. I am not stupid; I
know that Belgium is not a
Nation (it is a state,
but that is a different matter). I just do not feel a lot of warm fuzzy
feelings about Flanders. Naturally, other people have other feelings
about that.
This, too, I can understand.
The logical result of the above is that my personal opinions about
the somewhat convoluted politics in this country are not shared by many;
that when I state my opinion, I may expect opposition, or at the very
least someone stating why they disagree with me.
This, of course, I can also understand.
But what I cannot understand is that every time I state my opinion,
someone must come out and insult my intelligence by telling me I "
do not have a clue". Please
do not mistake my disagreement for misunderstanding.
Martijn asks me to "check the facts". Let's do that, shall we?
- There's been a judgement by the constitutional court that the
current situation regarding which party may run for election in the BHV
region is unconstitutional.
- One group of politicians wishes to resolve this issue by splitting
the BHV region in two. That would certainly solve the issue.
- Another group of politicians dislikes this solution. They may be
willing to go along, but they want other concessions before they will do
so. This is what I referred to when I said that there were "a
huge heap of all kinds of side issues" in my previous post.
- The first group does not wish to make such concessions. Some of
their numbers have even stated in the press that there is no need to
make them, because, given the first point, there's only one
solution and that is to split.
That last point is, of course, complete and utter bullshit. It would
hold merit if there was only one way to solve a constitutional crisis;
but by definition, there are always at least two ways: one is to change
the law to comply with the constitution, the other is to change the
constitution to make the law no longer be unconstitutional. So a group
that feels strongly about one of these two possible solutions should be
prepared to negotiate with the other group so as to hammer out an
agreement that benefits both parties. In some cases, this will mean
doing things that they do not completely like; but if they're not
willing to do that, at all, they have no business being politicians. For
the longest time during the early negotiations, however, both parties
have stubbornly refused to even acknowledge the other position, let
alone talk about it.
Now, for clarity, I'm not advocating that the latter of the two
options in that previous paragraph is what should happen. Frankly, I
don't even
care what happens, so long as they manage to resolve
the issue at hand in some way. What I
do care about, however,
is that this country has been in a near-constant state of stalemate over
these past few years for an issue that
only matters to
politicians; I don't care who or what a group of people in a (to
me) obscure part of the country can vote for. This country needs a
stable government which can act on things that
actually matter.
Like, say, the international economic crisis of the past two years; I
think it matters much more whether the man in the street has a job than
whether John Q. Politician will past these next elections.