Loomio

[post - cancelled] The N-VA prefers conservation of power instead of confederalism. To a state reform by the people then?

J
Josse Public Seen by 190
IB

Ilja Baert Mon 24 Dec 2018

I see a story in this post, but is there a proposal here as well? Or what exactly do you want to do around this topic?

J

Josse Tue 25 Dec 2018

First of all, I wanted to tell the story to make people aware of how Belgium has become even more prone to particracy because of the many governments. From that analysis, there are logical ideas we can demand easily and are very to the point in order to already save our democracy a little bit. Of course, the further we go in our ideas, the easier it is to make people vote.

J

Josse Sat 29 Dec 2018

I finished the article and the translation to French in https://pad.pirateparty.be/p/particratie

J

Josse Sat 29 Dec 2018

Would be good if someone could review. @koendv @koenvdp

RVE

Renaud Van Eeckhout Sat 29 Dec 2018

I think this article is a very personal one, an article of opinion, rather than an analysis.

For example, I see :

  • "Meer onafhankelijkheid is nergens zo legitiem als in België aangezien zij die onafhankelijk willen zijn in de meerderheid zijn"
  • Veel Walen, zeker in Mons, zien [Elio di Rupo] als de beschermengel tegen de anti-humane Vlaming/N-VA
  • Maar de démarche van N-VA riskeert de Waalse kiezer terug richting PS te brengen ipv de constructie met MR

en français :
- Une plus grande indépendance n'est nulle part plus légitime qu'en Belgique, puisque ceux qui veulent être indépendants sont majoritaires.
- Beaucoup de Wallons, surtout à Mons, voient[Elio di Rupo] comme l'ange gardien contre le Flamant anti-humain / N-VA
- Mais la démarche de la N-VA risque de ramener l'électeur wallon au PS au lieu de la construction avec MR.

I believe this can not be endorsed by PPBe. It's not a problem if a Pirate decides to publish it under their personal name, but I wouldn't want to be associated with that text as a member of PPBe.

J

Josse Sat 29 Dec 2018

The last point is not in the text anymore I hope. It is a fact that Flemish people are in the majority (there are more of them, it is an argument if you compare e.g. with Catalan independence, just to make the comparison) and if you say, people in Mons don't see him that way, how do they then? You can't deny Elio positioned himself that way in the press. My goal is to say there are problems on both sides and these are the polarizing sides. This is things I took from the book. I try to be both: factual and make very clear that the people on television are not as holy as they look.

J

Josse Sat 29 Dec 2018

Just hesitating if in my personal opinion, I could insult and stuff...

RVE

Renaud Van Eeckhout Sat 29 Dec 2018

Indeed, the last point is not in the text anymore, I was using a former version of the text, sorry about that.

It is a fact that Flemish people are in the majority

Well, yes, but the article says the majority of people want independence, that's a very strong affirmation that requires proofs. Only 17% of the NVA voters wanted a separation (according to this 2010 study). So 17% of a party that has 17% of the expressed votes, that's not a majority.

people in Mons don't see him that way, how do they then?

I don't know, but I don't write about it ^

You can't deny Elio positioned himself that way in the press.

But your article doesn't mention what he says in the press. It depicts EDR is almighty and just puts his pawns wherever he wants. Except he has internal conflicts inside the PS (because competition with Magnette, because competition with the PS-Liège) and outside (PS has been ousted from walloon government).

J

Josse Sat 29 Dec 2018

The point is that the question for more independence (I did not want to split) is nowhere more legit than in Belgium where the majority of Flemish agree with that and they are also in a majority. So, just saying that the demand for more independence is legit, nothing more. I could make that clearer in the text.

The point is not that EDR is all mighty (happy there is some resistance), but that he misuses the Belgian institutions to have less democracy in favour of his own votes and he is not the only one who did it, but he took it further and that way manages to overweigh his votes. And what you see now, is that the N-VA takes it further, while they were demanding to clean the mess of the Belgian state up, but somehow decided it is not sure it is that necessary anymore. I can find statements in the press from EDR about unitary Belgium... if that could convince.

K

koen_v Sun 30 Dec 2018

Dear everyone,
I have also read the text, from the beginning it was there.
There are good elements in it, I have the impression, for example the ‘logische oplossingen om de particratie al een beetje te temmen’ (‘the logical solutions to tame the particracy’).
But also, I would like to warn that the text, according to me, can make rise some misunderstandings amongst readers. And I have the tendency to understand the position of Renaud Van Eeckhaut @vanecx . I think it would be good to listen to him concerning this; maybe because he is coming from the French speaking part of Belgium, he can look at the text more at a distance than some Flemish people, and thus warn for possible misunderstandings and mistakes.
Amongst others, to name a few:
The text says:
“Meer onafhankelijkheid is nergens zo legitiem als in België aangezien zij die meer onafhankelijk willen zijn in de meerderheid zijn. En werd nergens zo door een kleine minderheid van de stemmen tegengehouden van 18%: de PS.” I also doubt strongly if this is correct. Even in Flanders: I believe a clear majority would be against independence. And yes, in the meantime there is written ‘móre independent’. But I also doubt strongly if it is true that the majority of Flemish people want that… Maybe yes, maybe not. We don’t know. And the sentence does not even talk about Flemish people, but suggests the majority in the country of Bélgium wants that. Which is very certainly not the case at this moment, I believe.
-it has been written in the text: “Het is Elio di Rupo die met zijn PS het land zogezegd per se unitair, maar vooral in zijn greep wilde houden.” EDR got elected on an Belgium level in 1987. At that time, Belgium already wasn’t ‘een unitaire staat’ anymore, but had evolved strongly towards ‘een federale staat.’ So he couldn’t keep Belgium ‘unitair’, it allready wasn’t ‘unitair’ anymore. (eventually, see also https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatshervorming_(Belgi%C3%AB) and http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2012/01/18/van-unitair-naar-federaal-in-woord-en-beeld ). Hence, this sentence gives the impression that the pirate party doesn’t know what a ‘unitaire staat‘ is. Which would be bad publicity for PPBE.
-Sentences like “In werkelijkheid waren Vlaanderen en Wallonië beter af geweest gesplitst dan met de schade die hij toegebracht heeft aan de democratie.” And “Di Rupo beheerst die particratie nog het beste van al want met het minste stemmen gijzelt hij het land.” I do not know if the majoriy of the pirate party members would agree with those sentences.
-Josse writes, in Loomio: “Just hesitating if in my personal opinion, I could insult and stuff…” I think that he has/you have reason to hesitate. The text could provoke misunderstandings.
This is my humble opinion,

IB

Ilja Baert Sun 30 Dec 2018

This whole thing (independent or not, NVA vs PS...) is a very polarised topic. I fear we're gonna get confronted with this sooner or later, so I think it's an important subject to talk about (even though I was always very hesitant to bring it up), but this feels to much to soon to already release something under the ppbe name about his.

Recently, it's been brought to my attention that we (Flemish people) to have been pawns in this game of polarisation as well (we, people in Belgium,, all have). I think that, as the group that we are, we're in a privileged position that we can get together, share takes we have on the subject and look through the bullshit. I also think we should actually start doing this some day.

About the article itself, I have a problem with the last point where 'logical conclusions' are drawn. That's basically making election points and therefore a big no-no for me. The fact that the sentence before said "so we prefer not to impose them ourselves" but then the points are still made, doesn't make it any better for me.

J

Josse Sun 30 Dec 2018

Maybe the logical conclusion needs to be to go back to asking the people (e.g. referendum about institutions) and we could just remove the last paragraph or suggest the ideas between the text instead of imposing them at the end. Although as ppbe it would be logical to promote small parties e.g.

With the unitary state, it is rather the idea of keeping Belgium united.

The sentences - “In werkelijkheid waren Vlaanderen en Wallonië beter af geweest gesplitst dan met de schade die hij toegebracht heeft aan de democratie.” And “Di Rupo beheerst die particratie nog het beste van al want met het minste stemmen gijzelt hij het land.” are almost literally from the referred book about particracy. That does not mean the book can not be a bit controversial, but it would be good if ppbe can be aware of how damaging our particracy combined with communautary problems is. Wallonia would have been better off now independent without the communautair particracy, just to say how bad the consequences of a misused bad state structure can be. But I understand your concern.

RVE

Renaud Van Eeckhout Sun 30 Dec 2018

I think that, as the group that we are, we're in a privileged position that we can get together, share takes we have on the subject and look through the bullshit. I also think we should actually start doing this some day.

I don't know if we HAVE to do that, but I believe that if we want, as a group, to take stances on this issue, we shouldn't do it in the few hours/days after someone proposes an article about it. I agree with @iljabaert that we can have a discussion, and once we have conclusions on this issue, we can write more easily. In other words, I would put this article in the fridge for a (long) while, until we have had these discussions between us.