• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Belgian government falls

caveman1917

Philosopher
C
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
8,143
It took us 4 years and its term was going to be up in just a couple of months anyway, but still...mission accomplished, down with the government!
 
The government has resigned (assuming that the King accepts the resignation).

For all practical purposes, that means that we are stuck with a caretaker government until after the 26/may/19 parliamentary elections.
Given the time that may be needed after the elections to form a new federal government, this Michel caretaker government may well be in power for a year or so.
 
Firestone said:
The government has resigned (assuming that the King accepts the resignation).

For all practical purposes, that means that we are stuck with a caretaker government until after the 26/may/19 parliamentary elections.
Given the time that may be needed after the elections to form a new federal government, this Michel caretaker government may well be in power for a year or so.
Click to expand...

It means the planned austerity reforms can not be implemented because a caretaker government does not have those powers. Bring out the champagne! :)
 
Mycroft said:
An anarchist cares why?
Click to expand...

Are you being serious? Anarchists have opposed the austerity reform programs in the EU since, like, always. For example the planned pension reforms can now not be implemented until at least since the next election, as well as a bunch of other planned reforms which have been stopped.
 
The main reform that was supposed to be voted on this week in parliament is the reform of unemployment benefits.

One of the conditions of the N-VA (Flemish nationalist party) for supporting the government was that this reform would be implemented.
But this was not the sticking point, as all parties in the coalition had already agreed to the reform.

It may well be, given the budgetary situation and the pressure by employers, that parliament will approve this reform. Not this week, but at the beginning of next year, after some more backroom wheeling and dealing.
 
Last edited:
Firestone said:
The main reform that was supposed to be voted on this week in parliament is the reform of unemployment benefits.

One of the conditions of the N-VA (Flemish nationalist party) for supporting the government was that this reform would be implemented.
But this was not the sticking point, as all parties in the coalition had already agreed to the reform.
Click to expand...

Well not anymore apparently.

It may well be, given the budgetary situation and the pressure by employers, that parliament will approve this reform. Not this week, but at the beginning of next year, after some more backroom wheeling and dealing.
Click to expand...

It's unlikely though, a government of running affairs can not introduce new legislation.
 
caveman1917 said:
Well not anymore apparently.



It's unlikely though, a government of running affairs can not introduce new legislation.
Click to expand...
Parliament is still there, the government can (try to) get agreements on specific measures.
This happened during the 500 (or so) days of the Leterme running affairs government.

To be clear, I'm not saying it will happen, but it is possible.
 
caveman1917 said:
It took us 4 years and its term was going to be up in just a couple of months anyway, but still...mission accomplished, down with the government!
Click to expand...
You don't seem to be a NV-A voter, caveman... The NV-A (who had lost ground to Vlaams Belang in recent elections) asked Michel to not sign the Marrakesh UN migration deal. He refused, and now he is likely to lose his job as head of a full powers government. I think there is often great contempt for "extreme-right" ideas in Belgium, especially among French-speaking politicians, which is probably related to Nazi crimes, and is perhaps not fully justified.
 
Michel H said:
You don't seem to be a NV-A voter, caveman...
Click to expand...

Obviously. I generally don't vote, but this time I might vote for these people (they're even looking for candidates, only 10 simple conditions you must fulfill).

The NV-A (who had lost ground to Vlaams Belang in recent elections) asked Michel to not sign the Marrakesh UN migration deal. He refused, and now he is likely to lose his job as head of a full powers government.
Click to expand...

Not quite, the NV-A had agreed to sign the UN pact but at the last moment changed their mind and started opposing it because they were afraid of losing more of their extreme-right base to VB. So it's not that they were opposed to the pact, they were in favour and only made a U-turn at the last moment.

I think there is often great contempt for "extreme-right" ideas in Belgium, especially among French-speaking politicians, which is probably related to Nazi crimes, and is perhaps not fully justified.
Click to expand...

There is by far not enough contempt for it in Flanders, but Flanders is a notoriously right-wing and xenophobic region.
 
caveman1917 said:
Are you being serious? Anarchists have opposed the austerity reform programs in the EU since, like, always. For example the planned pension reforms can now not be implemented until at least since the next election, as well as a bunch of other planned reforms which have been stopped.
Click to expand...

I though anarchism was anti-government, but in this case they're for larger government? I.E. increased government spending?
 
Mycroft said:
I though anarchism was anti-government, but in this case they're for larger government? I.E. increased government spending?
Click to expand...

That question is so misguided I don't even know where to start. Anarchists have always opposed wealth transfers from the working class to the bourgeoisie.
 
caveman1917 said:
That question is so misguided I don't even know where to start. Anarchists have always opposed wealth transfers from the working class to the bourgeoisie.
Click to expand...

It would help if you defined your terms better, and also recognize that very often your use of terms doesn't correspond with common useage.

I'm assuming from context that you see the austerity policy as the "transfer from the working class to the bourgeoisie" anarchists would be against, but what I'm asking is if anarchism is anti-government then it would follow that it should oppose the very idea of government pensions.
 
Mycroft said:
It would help if you defined your terms better, and also recognize that very often your use of terms doesn't correspond with common useage.

I'm assuming from context that you see the austerity policy as the "transfer from the working class to the bourgeoisie" anarchists would be against
Click to expand...

Well of course it's a wealth transfer from the working class to the bourgeoisie, the entire goal of the austerity reforms is to finance subsidies and tax breaks for the rich by cutting social services. It's a literal description of the policy, taking wealth from the working class and transferring it to the bourgeoisie.

but what I'm asking is if anarchism is anti-government then it would follow that it should oppose the very idea of government pensions.
Click to expand...

By your logic they should also oppose the very idea of labour regulation, such as the 8-hour work day, yet it was mostly the anarchists who led the movement for it. Have you considered that anarchists might just not be stupid enough to fall for that "let's cut your pensions and give it all to the bourgeoisie because pensions are gubmint stuff and you're opposed to the gubmint"?
 
Mycroft said:
It would help if you defined your terms better, and also recognize that very often your use of terms doesn't correspond with common useage.

I'm assuming from context that you see the austerity policy as the "transfer from the working class to the bourgeoisie" anarchists would be against, but what I'm asking is if anarchism is anti-government then it would follow that it should oppose the very idea of government pensions.
Click to expand...

That presupposes that Anarchists have thought anything through and have a rational plan for society.
 
Maybe they will go and beat their record - "Belgium matched the record for time taken to form a new democratic government after an election, at 353 days"

Anarchy indeed ;) - plus the fact that the economy experienced good economic growth in that record breaking time.

Early Christmas present perhaps :D
 
Captain_Swoop said:
That presupposes that Anarchists have thought anything through and have a rational plan for society.
Click to expand...

Uh, because they don't?
There is a reason why Anarchy is generally made up of small groups of students and academic intelletuals.
They can preach total nonsense without the worry that their theories will actually be put to the acid test of reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom