Yes I do, but I find the situation too murky today.
There is a game going on between the "Europeans" in Brussels and the king, the "Belgian" establishment of the "Belgian" robberbarons and the unions.
Leterme is a pawn and BDW is a small toyboat which is driven by the winds wherever they come from.
The BIG problem is: there is no money, and the robber barons need zillions to save their flagship Belgium.
So for the moment there is no clear aim, only lusts and needs. The Davignons, Lippens and the king have seriously miscalculated the economy and their robbing of the banks(Fortis) has been too untimely. They thought to collect ABN-AMRO easily with the money of the small Belgian shareholders and it misfired in their face. If Fortis is in trouble the Belgian establishment as we know it disappears and a lot of other money-people will lose all influence.
Result: economical disaster and turmoil with the Belgian split-up as end game.
My wish: Flanders out of Europe, a tax-heaven with an industrial base and Zeebrugge/Antwerp as freeports.
Fluxys + the Zeebrugge terminal a new gas company with English, Scandinavian and Russian participation.
Brussels to be ignored until they have riots and come begging.

1) The comment of markpetens concerned the parliamentary treatment of the Lisbon treaty. It did NOT concern the position of various parties concerning the possible dissolution of Belgium.  

2) The comment of markpetens was confusing in the specific sense that he referred to the N-VA as "the Flemish nationalist party" and he further noted that it had voted in favor of Lisbon.  While the N-VA could reasonably be considered as a Flemish nationalist party, it is only a minor such party.  The major such party is the VB, and that party opposed Lisbon.

3) It is anybody's guess what the position of the N-VA is concerning the possible dissolution of Belgium. It is an indisputable fact that the N-Va is part of an alliance with a 'traditional' party of 'christian democrats', and is also part of a coalition-government that has been trying to preserve Belgium as a state by vainly trying to reach a compromise on certain 'structural' reforms.   By contrast, the real "Flemish nationalist party", the VB has been unequivocal in its pursuit of the dissolution of the Belgian state.

Conclusion:  Kappert was wrong on the essence of the matter under discussion (i.e. Lisbon and Flemish nationalism).  He may, or may not, be right on a side-issue (i.e. the position of the N-VA concerning the dissolution of Belgium).

Beste traveller, any comments on 'the End of Belgium' or the N-VA?

Hello there, your Flemish is perfect for a "German", but then again, many red colors come together and fall nicely into place.

Marcfrans has not only to corret wiki, but N-VA, too.
In haar streven naar een beter bestuur en meer democratie, kiest de Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie logischerwijs voor een onafhankelijk Vlaanderen, lidstaat van een democratisch Europa.

Don't tell you do not use it.

I see now why kappert compares so unfavorably intellectually with marcfrans (or for that matter, Alfred E. Neumann): kappert takes wiki seriously as a reliable source of information.

@marcfrans: if it's true what you say, you have to correct wikipedia.

@ markpetens

Your comment can only create confusion in the minds of most readers who are not Belgian, and who might wrongly deduce that "the" Flemish nationalist party voted for Lisbon.  If you are going to make this kind of comment it is necessary to point out that the N-VA is a small 'Flemish nationalist party' which does NOT advocate Flemish secession from Belgium.  The much larger Flemish nationalist party, VB, does publicly advocate the dissolution of Belgium, and opposed the Lisbon treaty.

The supposedly Flemish nationalist party N-VA voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty last week in the Flemish parliament.