Apocalypse no : c'est seulement pour la prochaine fois !
Le silence des agneaux...
Le Parlement flamand a refusé de voter ce lundi 10 septembre une motion présentée par le Vlaams Block-belang, qui demandait en fait deux choses : un référendum sur l'indépendance de la Flandre et donc un vote, ne serait-il encore que symbolique, sur une potentielle et proche déclaration unilatérale d'indépendance.
Tous les autres partis flamands ont, presque unanimement, voté contre cette motion du VB. Quelle merveille !
Mais ce vote, que veut-il dire en réalité ? Ce vote marque-t-il le retour de la sagesse et de la modération fédéral? Est-il le signe qu'une Flandre assagie, redevenue sereine, accepte désormais d'en revenir à une Belgique où règnerait enfin le fédéralisme d'union, de collaboration loyale, de solidarité responsable par delà les "frontières" internes de notre État ?
Hélas non ! Ce vote ne signifie rigoureusement rien de tout cela. Il signifie juste une chose : que les partis flamands autres que le VB ne sont pas d'accord avec l'agenda proposé par le VB, ni avec son mode opératoire, Mais qu'ils continuent massivement à prôner le confédéralisme, le séparatisme "feutré", en vertu de ce que l'un d'eux a appelé récemment "l'évaporation progressive de la Belgique".
Les revendications communautaires restent intactes, les exigences de fédéraliser la quasi totalité des institutions politiques, économiques, fiscales, sociales, bref de diviser jusqu'au trognon la totalité de ce qui organise la réalité d'un État solidaire, ces revendications sont rappelées avec insistance par tous les intervenants au débat de ce lundi au Parlement flamand.
Jusqu'à Mieke Vogels qui proclame que Groen! exige la scission de BHV, sans contrepartie pour les francophones, alignant sa position sur celle de tous les autres partis flamands ! Même pas une abstention, lors du vote récent au parlement fédéral : non, Groen! y a voté avec les partis flamands.
Rien n'a changé : il y a juste un parti "péri-fasciste" qui a réussi un coup publicitaire sans risque, et sans être mis au ban par les autres partis flamands.
Pour le reste, les francophones de ce pays feraient bien de se rendre compte que ce rejet de la demande de "mise à l'agenda des travaux parlementaires", parce que c'est juste çà qui a été rejeté, ne signifie en aucune façon que les partis flamands abandonnent la moindre, la plus petite de leurs exigences.
Les francophones, hommes politiques, de presse et même voire surtout le public en général, doivent prendre conscience que cette comédie qu'on leur a jouée est une poudre aux yeux, une grande illusion : la Flandre a décidé la voie qu'elle entendait suivre, elle s'y maintient et en poursuit la mise en oeuvre. Cette voie, c'est la dissolution de tout pouvoir fédéral au profit des entités fédérées, qui deviendront à plus ou moins court terme, aussi indépendantes en réalité que si l'une d'elles le proclamait haut et fort, mais sans les risques que ferait courir une déclaration de séparation unilatérale.
Les partis flamands espèrent bien, grâce à ce coup-ci, conserver le bénéfice du silence des agneaux, qui ne veulent pas voir qu'on les mène à l'abattoir !
Le silence des agneaux...
Le Parlement flamand a refusé de voter ce lundi 10 septembre une motion présentée par le Vlaams Block-belang, qui demandait en fait deux choses : un référendum sur l'indépendance de la Flandre et donc un vote, ne serait-il encore que symbolique, sur une potentielle et proche déclaration unilatérale d'indépendance.
Tous les autres partis flamands ont, presque unanimement, voté contre cette motion du VB. Quelle merveille !
Mais ce vote, que veut-il dire en réalité ? Ce vote marque-t-il le retour de la sagesse et de la modération fédéral? Est-il le signe qu'une Flandre assagie, redevenue sereine, accepte désormais d'en revenir à une Belgique où règnerait enfin le fédéralisme d'union, de collaboration loyale, de solidarité responsable par delà les "frontières" internes de notre État ?
Hélas non ! Ce vote ne signifie rigoureusement rien de tout cela. Il signifie juste une chose : que les partis flamands autres que le VB ne sont pas d'accord avec l'agenda proposé par le VB, ni avec son mode opératoire, Mais qu'ils continuent massivement à prôner le confédéralisme, le séparatisme "feutré", en vertu de ce que l'un d'eux a appelé récemment "l'évaporation progressive de la Belgique".
Les revendications communautaires restent intactes, les exigences de fédéraliser la quasi totalité des institutions politiques, économiques, fiscales, sociales, bref de diviser jusqu'au trognon la totalité de ce qui organise la réalité d'un État solidaire, ces revendications sont rappelées avec insistance par tous les intervenants au débat de ce lundi au Parlement flamand.
Jusqu'à Mieke Vogels qui proclame que Groen! exige la scission de BHV, sans contrepartie pour les francophones, alignant sa position sur celle de tous les autres partis flamands ! Même pas une abstention, lors du vote récent au parlement fédéral : non, Groen! y a voté avec les partis flamands.
Rien n'a changé : il y a juste un parti "péri-fasciste" qui a réussi un coup publicitaire sans risque, et sans être mis au ban par les autres partis flamands.
Pour le reste, les francophones de ce pays feraient bien de se rendre compte que ce rejet de la demande de "mise à l'agenda des travaux parlementaires", parce que c'est juste çà qui a été rejeté, ne signifie en aucune façon que les partis flamands abandonnent la moindre, la plus petite de leurs exigences.
Les francophones, hommes politiques, de presse et même voire surtout le public en général, doivent prendre conscience que cette comédie qu'on leur a jouée est une poudre aux yeux, une grande illusion : la Flandre a décidé la voie qu'elle entendait suivre, elle s'y maintient et en poursuit la mise en oeuvre. Cette voie, c'est la dissolution de tout pouvoir fédéral au profit des entités fédérées, qui deviendront à plus ou moins court terme, aussi indépendantes en réalité que si l'une d'elles le proclamait haut et fort, mais sans les risques que ferait courir une déclaration de séparation unilatérale.
Les partis flamands espèrent bien, grâce à ce coup-ci, conserver le bénéfice du silence des agneaux, qui ne veulent pas voir qu'on les mène à l'abattoir !
© Scarron de Bruxelles
2 commentaires:
Voici l'article de The Times du 8 septembre, une vision extérieure de notre pays, qui a le mérite d'appeler un chat un chat, notez aussi la réaction du Turc, justement ce que craignent les Européens si la Belgique se scinde:
Cracks appear in Belgium’s long marriageDavid Charter in Brussels
King Albert II cut short his holiday to make a dramatic plea for national unity, but not even his intervention has stopped Belgians from thinking the unthinkable: would the two squabbling halves of their country be better off apart?
Three months after national elections, a collapse of trust between politicians in the Dutch-speaking north and the French-speaking south has left them unable to form a coalition government, and no solution is in sight.
Belgians have been shocked by a poll this week that gave 43 per cent support in the Flemish north for secession. Even in the French-speaking southern half of Wallonia, which would have the most to lose economically by partition, one in five people believes that a break-up would be favourable.
As the political impasse deepens, the media is full of analysis of “the Czechoslovakia option” — referring to the “velvet divorce” of the Central European country that split successfully into two nations. “Living together in one country is impossible if year after year the minority prevents the majority from realising its most important desires,” said Het Laatste Nieuws, Belgium’s largest daily, voicing the frustration of many in Flemish-speaking Flanders, where 6 million of the population of 10.5 million people live. “Prepare for divorce,” announced the cover of Le Vif, an influential French-language weekly magazine, which spelt out the far-reaching costs for the impoverished region of Wallonia of splitting the health and social services, railways and the national debt.
Related Links
Christian Democrats set to win Belgian elections
Far Right trounce the liberals of Belgium
The crisis arose from Belgium’s elections three months ago. The winner, Yves Leterme and his Flemish Christian Democrats, want greater autonomy for the regions, but they have not been able to find suitable coalition partners.
Guy Verhofstadt, the outgoing Prime Minister whose Flemish Liberals were soundly beaten on June 10, was persuaded by Albert II to return with his old Cabinet as a caretaker government while the parties squabble about forming a new coalition.
In the French-speaking south, the Liberals refuse to form a government with Mr Leterme without strong guarantees against the drift towards national disintegration. The sister party of the Christian Democrats in the south is also deeply suspicious of Mr Leterme, who once called Belgium “an accident of history”. He will not compromise.
No major party is seeking a break-up openly. However, Gerard Deprez, a former Christian Democratic leader in Wallonia, voiced the feelings of many when he declared: “I do not want the end of Belgium, but I fear it will happen.” Belgium’s two parts have bickered since independence was won from the Netherlands in 1830. The glue that holds the country together is often said to be the royal family.
The failure of Albert II to find a solution to the political crisis has shaken his popular support, although the problem of what to do with the royals remains one of the main barriers to the break-up of the country.
Another is the future of Brussels. The Belgian capital is a bilingual oasis in Flanders and, despite being the seat of the Flemish parliament, has a largely Francophone population. Its role as home to the EU and Nato has led some to suggest that it should become a kind of Brussels DC for Europe. Proposals unveiled this week to consolidate the European Commission estate with an ambitious new building programme have added to suspicions that the capital’s authorities are preparing for such an eventuality.
Constitutionally a new election cannot be called until the next scheduled vote in 2011, and the Verhofstadt Government is unable to take major decisions of state — such as signing the new EU Reform Treaty with the other 26 European leaders, which is planned for December.
Talk of separation has ignited interest in France, where a columnist in the newspaper Le Figaro suggested that President Sarkozy should welcome Wallonia as a new province if wealthy Flanders broke away. France, however, has shown no interest in annexing a population of 4 million with 15 per cent unemployment.
Have your say
The eternal problem since 1830. Some politicians call Belgium a "historical acciden" but nevertheless the system of cohabitation seems to have worked for much more than a century.
Ray Massart, Hombeek, Belgium
If the Walloons and Flemings can split up and go their own ways, including perhaps joining other countries, can any one tell me why the Turkish Cypriots are not allowed to do the same?
Ozgur, Istanbul, Turkey
There something about French speaking people.
Keith, Corpus Christi, Texas
Voici un article du The Times du 7 septembre:
Cracks appear in Belgium’s long marriageDavid Charter in Brussels
King Albert II cut short his holiday to make a dramatic plea for national unity, but not even his intervention has stopped Belgians from thinking the unthinkable: would the two squabbling halves of their country be better off apart?
Three months after national elections, a collapse of trust between politicians in the Dutch-speaking north and the French-speaking south has left them unable to form a coalition government, and no solution is in sight.
Belgians have been shocked by a poll this week that gave 43 per cent support in the Flemish north for secession. Even in the French-speaking southern half of Wallonia, which would have the most to lose economically by partition, one in five people believes that a break-up would be favourable.
As the political impasse deepens, the media is full of analysis of “the Czechoslovakia option” — referring to the “velvet divorce” of the Central European country that split successfully into two nations. “Living together in one country is impossible if year after year the minority prevents the majority from realising its most important desires,” said Het Laatste Nieuws, Belgium’s largest daily, voicing the frustration of many in Flemish-speaking Flanders, where 6 million of the population of 10.5 million people live. “Prepare for divorce,” announced the cover of Le Vif, an influential French-language weekly magazine, which spelt out the far-reaching costs for the impoverished region of Wallonia of splitting the health and social services, railways and the national debt.
Related Links
Christian Democrats set to win Belgian elections
Far Right trounce the liberals of Belgium
The crisis arose from Belgium’s elections three months ago. The winner, Yves Leterme and his Flemish Christian Democrats, want greater autonomy for the regions, but they have not been able to find suitable coalition partners.
Guy Verhofstadt, the outgoing Prime Minister whose Flemish Liberals were soundly beaten on June 10, was persuaded by Albert II to return with his old Cabinet as a caretaker government while the parties squabble about forming a new coalition.
In the French-speaking south, the Liberals refuse to form a government with Mr Leterme without strong guarantees against the drift towards national disintegration. The sister party of the Christian Democrats in the south is also deeply suspicious of Mr Leterme, who once called Belgium “an accident of history”. He will not compromise.
No major party is seeking a break-up openly. However, Gerard Deprez, a former Christian Democratic leader in Wallonia, voiced the feelings of many when he declared: “I do not want the end of Belgium, but I fear it will happen.” Belgium’s two parts have bickered since independence was won from the Netherlands in 1830. The glue that holds the country together is often said to be the royal family.
The failure of Albert II to find a solution to the political crisis has shaken his popular support, although the problem of what to do with the royals remains one of the main barriers to the break-up of the country.
Another is the future of Brussels. The Belgian capital is a bilingual oasis in Flanders and, despite being the seat of the Flemish parliament, has a largely Francophone population. Its role as home to the EU and Nato has led some to suggest that it should become a kind of Brussels DC for Europe. Proposals unveiled this week to consolidate the European Commission estate with an ambitious new building programme have added to suspicions that the capital’s authorities are preparing for such an eventuality.
Constitutionally a new election cannot be called until the next scheduled vote in 2011, and the Verhofstadt Government is unable to take major decisions of state — such as signing the new EU Reform Treaty with the other 26 European leaders, which is planned for December.
Talk of separation has ignited interest in France, where a columnist in the newspaper Le Figaro suggested that President Sarkozy should welcome Wallonia as a new province if wealthy Flanders broke away. France, however, has shown no interest in annexing a population of 4 million with 15 per cent unemployment.
Have your say
The eternal problem since 1830. Some politicians call Belgium a "historical acciden" but nevertheless the system of cohabitation seems to have worked for much more than a century.
Ray Massart, Hombeek, Belgium
If the Walloons and Flemings can split up and go their own ways, including perhaps joining other countries, can any one tell me why the Turkish Cypriots are not allowed to do the same?
Ozgur, Istanbul, Turkey
There something about French speaking people.
Keith, Corpus Christi, Texas
Enregistrer un commentaire