[VP] RW in Brussels - short message
Day 2,644, 08:58
•
Published in Belgium 
•
by
•
by eBe Raw
I write to you this short message to inform you about some problems that have repeated itself again.
I am talking about the Resistance War started in Brussels.
I am to tell you that the government of Belgium does NOT support this war!!!
Why not? you say...
Because we have a renting agreement currently in place which was created with the intend to help Cuba get a congress again(which they where unable to do deu to the constant occupation of their land during those times).
I am not going to explain all the details of this agreement, you can see that in here: [url=]http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-ebe-cuba-belgium-renting-agreement-2489762/1/20[eBe] Cuba-Belgium Renting agreement[/url]
So what's the problem?
Our current Minister of Defence(MoD) Santiago Junior decided to once again start a Resistance War in Brussels despite the fact that he was fully aware of the existing agreement and took deliberate actions against this agreement.
This action and the counter actions that followed cause confusion and anger.
I close this now.
I do tell you that i can not speak for the CP himself and hope to hear from him soon on further actions in this matter.
I for once recommend the immediate dismissal(fire him from his job as MoD) of Santiago Junior.
So please do not fight in Brussels!
Prime Minister of eBelgium
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
>>> I am to tell you that we don't support this government of Belgium; which is NOT supporting this war!!!
>>> Because we don't want a renting agreement currently in place which was created with the intend to help Cuba get a Congress again.
I also saw Junior shouting a few times to fight for Argentina against Chile (which is our ally for a long time). I don't mind that if he was just a regular citizen, but he is MoD - his shouts now have a different weight than before...
or we can do one for activities in eBelgium and we prevent before. But if 10 persons are ok to lose 1000 bef, i don't know if that deserve a lot citizens.
Voted
And now they want to sell two of our other regions to the Germany in prearranged wipe.
Must be epic stuff that you're smoking
Give me your source and I might believe you, but just might.
Propaganda
Evil propaganda
me like som belgium acton 😁
Agitprop
Why remove Santiago?
Why we help Cuba , what eBelgium people have...eBelgium interes.
Pure example of the Dictatorship we are livin' in.
The facts stated are correct, I'll write an article tomorrow.
looking forward to it!
[removed]
in the CP program for this term you can read ( http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-maartenw-cp-program-2492960/1/20 )
"Ministry of Defense
The word for MoD this month is Activity, we want to motivate people to keep fighting and not to fall into an eternal slumber.
-Trainingwar(s) with Cuba and/or one of our neighbors."
then a rw (a war that we seem to lose) is started and all hell break loose.
Santiago made an effort to bring som activity to belgium, cheers to him.
Junior pretend it's a TW so it should be for Belgians, right ?
http://prntscr.com/65qooj
[Serbian] Фигхт фор Белгије у Бриселу
[English] Fight for Belgium in Brussels
me like ss to:
http://prntscr.com/65qs81
asked him this right after the rw started.
Fire Santiago!
I guess the pseudo-left wing wannabee communists don't want the rental agreement, I guess they rather see their example country have the region for free, in true socialist style. Or wait, would they really care about a country in need?
I am guessing the pseudo-right wing wannabe capitalists want the rental agreement.
I am guessing they rather see their example country not having the region for free, in true capitalistic style.
Or wait, would they really care about a country in need?
They have already left eBelgium long time ago in their search for higher bonuses and bigger profits.
It`s better to go to Honduras
That's why I was again the principle to give one minister per party. The best was to give ministers only to the parties in the majority then give a post of opposant to each party that doesn't agree to be included in the majority.
We need unity, we need a coherent policy and be sure the MU will fight for the country, not for their personal interests
I said the same idea in MoD, xPhone's article, but I defend it for a few months.
Seeing how many people have been in the government during the past months shows that what you suggest is impossible. We lack people who have the experience to do this job. Look at the governments of the last years, you will see a lot of the same names because they are the only ones willing and able to do the job. Every CP appoints the people he thinks are competent to fulfill his agenda, that's why we don't really focus on the parties as they always chose the best ones, not the ones of such and such party.
We can't have unity nor a coherent policy if we can't find the middle ground. That is the first requirement for unity. But as long as this is impossible (and history has shown this) we won't achieve Unity and mutual respect.
I understand the matter about the competences but the loyalty to a government is important for a minister because the ideas can take over the responsability to serve the country and be a matter for the policy. My plan is to build a majority-opposition structure with the participation of parties that don't have a minister, as opposants to consult,, but the president decides to appoint his government with people who he considers as competent. Of course unity is impossible, but we can try to find a compromise, people just need a group logic.
It is basically impossible to find any compromise if no sides is willing to move from their ideas. Let take Immigration as an example. One side wants a Free Immigration,the other wants regulation. The middle ground would be some regulation and some freedom but as many propositions that there have been, those who want free immigration don't want to reach the middle ground nor co operate to find a consent. Thus, nothing happens. This is not the way it should go.
Welcome to the true life, where the lack of accord brings nothing, except a odd policy 🙂