It looks like a case for Hercule Poirot. The Economist wants to kill off Belgium. What is the motive, what will be the instrument of death? In an editorial this week, that venerable bastion of common sense in a world of cable news banshees suggests that Belgium should be allowed to just wither away. Not that it doesn’t carry some importance as the gearbox of the European Union bureaucracy, but after its last general election, Belgium is still without a government and, according to the Economist, the Belgians don’t give a fig. According to the prime minister designate, Belgians have nothing in common but “the king, the football team and some beers” (about 500).

What can you say about a country whose main symbol is a little boy pissing, that is responsible for brussel sprouts and the saxophone. A country of Walloons (French) and Flemings (Dutch) who don’t particularly get along, even though they don’t blow each other up as is the case in other divided countries. Maybe beer, fried moules and chocolate have something to do with their more gentle dispositions. I have enjoyed the few days I have spent wandering the street of Brussels.

Belgium does need some organization. (They have a reputation for waffling). Heavy pollution is attributed to a lack of it. So what is the Economist saying? How should Belgium deal with Belgium? Does the country need a “great decider?” We have one and don’t recommend that .

Maybe its just time to send up a trial Walloon.