Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:26:32 +0200, Michael wrote:
>
>> Martin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:20:03 +0200, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>> If all this sounds complicated, welcome to Belgium. But the point is
>>>> that if ever it did break up, a whole host of the problems would be left
>>>> intact: transport, employment, international competiveness and steep
>>>> social security costs.
>>> but not in Flanders which has low unemployment, is internationally competitive
>>> and has good transport. Good social security involves high costs everywhere.
>> Flanders would be less interesting without the name-drop of Brussels.
>> This comes not from me, but from a recent Flemish trade trip to China.
>
> China exports.
The trade trip wasn't my idea. But it's fair to say that China also
invests, and China also decides who invests in China.
>
>> How many people know the benefits of nearby Pas-de-Calais, for example?
>
> Most people with a white van?
Not many of those are interested in setting up factories or call centres
in Belgium.
>
>> It would take quite some work to get Flanders (or Wallonia) recognised
>> internationally where it counts.
>
> and?
And it would cost money to establish the Flanders or Wallonia brands, so
to speak. Cheaper to patch up the current spat and knuckle down to
business.
>
>> The social security will rise in Flanders as its population is aging.
>
> and will the population of a united Belgium remain forever young?
Wallonia has a higher birth. Unless they abandon ship, a proportion of
these new babies will finance the current generation's pensions. Having
a lower birth rate, Flanders will start feeling the squeeze in a decade.
I don't know the figures for Brussels. |