- 5 Posts
- 12 Comments
A striking figure emerges from an analysis by the National Bank, which Minerva is highlighting again. Between 2012 and 2016, Belgium’s gross domestic product (GDP) was 3.5 percent higher than it would have been if there had been no immigration to our country during that period. This additional growth came from both EU and non-EU migrants. During those years, migrants paid more on average in taxes and social security contributions than they cost in benefits and public services. For society, migration therefore didn’t mean an extra bill, but rather increased income.
Another example of today…
So, several right wing groups have been left without subsidies, correctly following an independent expert advice, but the N-VA decides to include 2 left wing groups even thought they got positive reviews. And the excuse of N-VA’s Diependaele is that they do not follow the independent expert advice “because they have an agenda”… Plus, the government decides to reduce the subsidies to the minimum for other left wing associations…
IMO, there is a clear bias of the article, taking sides for the government position, criminalizing some groups “just because they did not distance enough from other violent actions”. If the government would apply its own standards for not distancing from the war crimes of Israel, shouldn’t they sanction the N-VA too?
Indeed, and sometimes they have gone a bit sensationalist and clickbaity… which is a pity because a good quality public media is very necessary. I think it has to do too with VRT being underfunded…
There are a lot of articles, including this one from VRT, talking about the increase in electricity production, but it should be said that this is/would be a global increase, normally affecting China and other countries in development. See the graph:
In Europe and other Western countries, the electricity consumption has been stable or slowly being reduced. See the graph for electricity consumption in Belgium, with a peak around 2010 and then a small reduction.
How dare anyone to invest in anything but weapons, even if it means to save the Planet??? How dare anyone to tell us that there is a real danger bigger than Russia invading Brussels???
/s
What is the point of NATO? I thought the main point was to have a powerful group of nations that would prevent any attack for Soviet Union / Russia? NATO has 3 times the military power of Russia. Is that not enough for you to prevent an attack? If NATO does not provide safety, and it is ruled by the now semi-fascist US (Trump), what is the point of fulfilling any NATO obligation?
I really can’t understand how the narrative “Russia is going to invade us” is so spread around.
First of all, Russia has struggled for 3 years to only conquer a 20% of Ukraine. How are they supposed to try to attack any NATO country, which would create for them a WW3 against an army more than twice their size? Not speaking about Russia attacking our beloved Belgium (first they would have to pass Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, etc…)
I am in favor of an EU organized army, independent from USA, but if we take in account together all the EU military investment, that counts nowadays as even more than the Russia’s one. Why should we invest even more in military then?
And what type of military organization is NATO? there is actually no coordination whatsoever between NATO country members?
Why we were told that public pensions were “unsustainable” but now we are told that there is no problem for us to invest whatever it takes in weapons? I don´t know, Rick…
Cargill, “the worst company in the world”
Corporations that want to continue the colonization…