Yep, there's been trouble up in post-conlfict camelot. Its something that I actually took an interest in when it was happening, because it seemed to show the absolutely impossibility of trying to keep different nations together in the long-term, which said something about the American adventure in Iraq.

Until von Rompuy came to power, Belgium went without a functioning central gov't for a while, and the local governments actually handled things fine. But it was a huge embarrassment.

The irony is that the predecessor to Belgium, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, was created by the powers at the Congress of Vienna to contain France to the north (Napolean had taken the Netherlands, and the British considered French control of the area intolerable).

France didn't want Britain to have the Netherlands, and Britain wanted isolation from the continent, so the Torys don't want Tony Blair as EU President, and the other powers don't want someone powerful getting it... wait am I confusing stories here? :)

Belgium seceded in 1830 (it was Catholic, Holland was Protestant) and the powers gave them a king a told them to keep quiet. That's all they really have in common though- is the King, heavy handed imperialism (the Congo) and good beer.

Flanders (Dutch speakers) is much wealthier than Wallonia (lazy French), and thats another stress. Then Brussels is in Flanders, is historically Dutch, but is now mostly Francophone, so both claim it- the Belgian Jerusalem of sorts.

This is part of a devolving power trend in Kantian societies. Scotland, despite getting its own parliament, a Scot as PM, and its own currency (cosmetically) still agitates for independence here in Britain, even though it makes no sense economically. The Baltics are back (even though in Hobbesian world, they would have no chance) and Balkans are turning into a bunch of microstates. Perhaps political centralization needs war to sustain itself?