Hatunen 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.
>> How many people know the benefits of nearby Pas-de-Calais, for example?
>> It would take quite some work to get Flanders (or Wallonia) recognised
>> internationally where it counts.
>
> I suspect in the world of commerce, Antwerp is a better name to
> drop. Might even be a candidate for the capital of Flanders.
>
Although Ghent, Leuven and Bruges all have very good historical reasons,
I think Antwerp is the strongest candidate if ever the capital moves
from Brussels. It has history and an industrial base on its side, plus a
vibrant arts scene. Great town, it must be said. |