For decades, Europeans as outsiders have been fond of demanding a two-state solution in part of the former Trans-Jordan. After all, it's been the hobby-horse of the bien pensent for decades.
Fond of telling themselves that the financial crisis has revealed a fault line between [____] and [____] (like... WHATever) in some strange class-warfare argument, it releals little more than a society that seems to actually seek out reasons to convince the world that it has a bipolar disorder.
And let’s not get started on who is and is not in favour of reducing the interest rate Ireland pays on the bailout loans…Now they alone appear to be demanding two-state solutions all over EUvia.
(Hint: The Commission is in favour and the President of the European Council is in favour. The Chair of the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee is in favour. The IMF has no problem. The Élysée is not so keen.)
Now, can anyone tell me why the evil markets don’t trust Europe to agree a clear way out of the Greece tragedy?
With Belgium, as with most marriages, the split wasn’t foreseeable from the beginning. Despite claims by the Flemish nationalists to the contrary, when it was formed Belgium was anything but an artificial nation.
Even if a solution is found, it will only delay the problem until the next crisis. The Czechoslovakian example demonstrates that in such a case it is better to break up. In that country, too, everyone wondered why a split was absolutely necessary. Just like the Flemish and the Walloons, the Czechs and the Slovaks seemed destined to remain together eternally.So who’s going to smuggle in the Katyushas? Y’know it’s for a ‘liberation movement’ and all... How could any proper >Gutmensch be opposed to that?