Support NeoGAF

[Vigilant Walrus]

OP - OMFG. This was perhaps the best summery I have ever seen of a country's history. Major f**king kudos to you!!! Seriously. Not only was this informative, it made me feel smart!



I have a question for you though, mr. Belgium-ish man.

I love this Youtube show, called Autotune The News, where these guys make songs out of political speeches and political talk. In one of them, a guy goes crazy at some Belgiumish politician, while saying that Belgium is not even a real country. It was fcuking crazy.

Video in question, the beginning of it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpYIKF1wuyE


Do you know anything about it or who this Belgium guy is? Does European politicians dislike Belgium? A lot of the top meetings are held in Brussels, so I am a bit confused.

 

[Dilly]

PS/SPA and CD&V coalition out just yet.

Worst case scenario right there.

OP - OMFG. This was perhaps the best summery I have ever seen of a country's history. Major f**king kudos to you!!! Seriously. Not only was this informative, it made me feel smart!



I have a question for you though, mr. Belgium-ish man.

I love this Youtube show, called Autotune The News, where these guys make songs out of political speeches and political talk. In one of them, a guy goes crazy at some Belgiumish politician, while saying that Belgium is not even a real country. It was fcuking crazy.

Video in question, the beginning of it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpYIKF1wuyE


Do you know anything about it or who this Belgium guy is? Does European politicians dislike Belgium? A lot of the top meetings are held in Brussels, so I am a bit confused.

The Belgian is the so called European president, the man insulting him is a British politician who was angry at him because an unknown politician from Belgium was able to become the president.

 

[Souldriver]

Yeah, seems OpenVLD is doing worse than I had expected. NVA deserves to be part of the government in the sense that they'll be the clear winner, but a NVA-CD&V-SP.A coalition on the other hand doesn't look like it would work well.

Well, that's what we've got on the Flemish level, so at the very least there would be some consistency. :lol





Also:
- VLD going down
- SP.a going up

--> Did not expect that. I thought VLD would be the surprise winner. De Croo and his party seemed to have taken much of the spotlight in the campaign, next to De Wever off course.

But still, very partial and incomplete results, so probably not really a trend taking form.

 

[Furoba]

Yeah, seems OpenVLD is doing worse than I had expected. NVA deserves to be part of the government in the sense that they'll be the clear winner, but a NVA-CD&V-SP.A coalition on the other hand doesn't look like it would work well.

Everything will come down to the number of seats each party gets, percentages now are still too vague and incomplete.

OpenVLD didn't have any big names to bring onto the field, and they seem to be getting punished for blowing up negotiations. Alexander De Croo will have to step down. :lol

 

[Dascu]

Well, that's what we've got on the Flemish level, so at the very least there would be some consistency. :lol

Huh, for some reason I thought the Flemish Parliament had an NVA-CD&V-OpenVLD coalition.

Also, goodbye Dedecker. I had to hold back a chuckle when I saw Ulla Werbrouck third on their Kamer-lijst.

 

[Dilly]

Alexander De Croo will have to step down. :lol

I really hope he won't.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

The Belgian is the so called European president, the man insulting him is a British politician who was angry at him because an unknown politician from Belgium was able to become the president.

Wait... European President?

Are we talking about the thing related to the Lisbon treaty?

 

[Tieno]

True, but still, you could apply the same situation on the European level. There aren't any clear rules on how to secede from the Union and there are many competences that have been transferred to the EU level through the decades. So in a way the member states are also "forced" to work together. And if they really say "fuck this shit" they could leave the Union, but it would cause many problems. It's not different from Flanders saying "fuck this shit". A unilateral secession is possible, but it would cause problems. Also, if you follow European politics you can see how there has been complete deadlock on that level for 5 years, which is even longer than on the Belgian level.

And even more so than on the Belgian level, I shudder at the idea of what happens now in Belgium happening on the European level. If they current mentality in our country were to be omnipresent in Europe, it would only be a matter of time before what we have built up the last 50 years gradually gets broken down again. We'd end up with a European Parliament dominated by the non-inscrits, the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy", "European Conservatives and Reformists" and "European Free Alliance" fractions. I mean a bunch of people who rather point out the people who they don't want to work with instead of trying to work together, or regional fraction wanting a "Europe of Regions" that's mainly focusing on intergovernmental instead of supranational co-operation.

Off course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that sure as hell is not what I'm hoping for.

There's no absolute rule for deciding wether we should split or stay together, only everyday reality and working towards a better functioning system. If the system doesn't work, change it. If that change is split, then so be it. There aren't any hard walls or limits.

NVA doesn't say "fuck this shit, lets leave". Split doesn't mean "not work together, goodbye", it can also mean working together in a different way, as different entities. A country or state is just another level at which people work together, same as a city or the EU.

I don't see how Flemish independence and EU disintegration follow from each other, or how fear for one should prevent the other from happening.

 

[Vitten]

Love this attittude, i know a couple of people who dont care about voting, and fill in blanco, but they are always the first to complain if something goes wrong.

Not saying you're like that though ...

I'm certainly not a complainer, I just have zero interest in politics. Hearing politicians blabber in those debating programs almost makes me physically ill.
Doesn't matter much who's in charge anyway, all politicians can do is ride the waves of the global economy.
Didn't go in the end. Felt like playing some more Bioschock 2.

 

[tea_and_crumpets]

List Dedecker FTW

 

[Dilly]

Wait... European President?

Are we talking about the thing related to the Lisbon treaty?

Yes, he doesn't have much power though, he just opens and closes conferentions afaik.

 

[Souldriver]

There's no absolute rule for deciding wether we should split or stay together, only everyday reality and working towards a better functioning system. If the system doesn't work, change it. If that change is split, then so be it. There aren't any hard walls or limits.

NVA doesn't say "fuck this shit, lets leave". Split doesn't mean "not work together, goodbye", it can also mean working together in a different way, as different entities. A country or state is just another level at which people work together, same as a city or the EU.

I don't see how Flemish independence and EU disintegration follow from each other, or how fear for one should prevent the other from happening.

I'm not saying the Belgian split would lead the European disintegration. :lol I'm just pointing out similarities in the mentality that would cause both.


And I'm following you partially. If things don't work, change them. I'm not a fan of going to an independent state "just because". Let's do these things gradually. And no offense, but what kind of "solidarity" between an independent Flanders and Wallonia would exist, that doesn't exist between Holland and Belgium? Those seem hollow words to appease the Walloons: "oh we want to split, but that doesn't mean the end of solidarity!".

I'm also pissed on how this is just becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. If you rile things up and antagonize a group, the other group will antagonize you too. If you claim that things don't work, you insult the people doing the work and that causes fights, making it true that things don't work. Like I said in my first post, for example claiming the federal level does bad and the regional level good while cleverly keeping your mouth shut about the financing laws, you're being very dishonest at best.

I see this separatism taking hold of many people getting tired of dead lock, but the deadlock only gets worse the more separatism there is. It's a circular process, that once it starts going one way is very difficult to stop and only becomes self-reinforcing. The separatists/nationalists have succeeded in steering this process into their preferred direction, so disintegration on the Belgian level is going to take place no matter what.

 

[Goldrusher]

Don't compare Belgium to the European Union, it's a very different thing. Most importantly, that member states join the Union out of free will and keep their own identity.

 

[Souldriver]

Don't compare Belgium to the European Union, it's a very different thing. Most importantly, that member states join the Union out of free will and keep their own identity.

I'll compare what I want thank you very much. Comparing things doesn't mean equating things.

 

[Kuran]

I escaped from Belgium three weeks ago, planning to become a US citizen.

 

[E-phonk]

a NVA-CD&V-SP.A coalition on the other hand doesn't look like it would work well.

That's the coalition in flanders, which is working quite ok, no?

 

[Scipius]

I see this separatism taking hold of many people getting tired of dead lock, but the deadlock only gets worse the more separatism there is. It's a circular process, that once it starts going one way is very difficult to stop and only becomes self-reinforcing. The separatists/nationalists have succeeded in steering this process into their preferred direction, so disintegration on the Belgian level is going to take place no matter what.

I would argue that the dissolution of Belgium was inevitable from the start; it has always lacked a 'natural' basis. This process has been ongoing since 1830 and will continue unabated because there are no forces working in the opposite direction; the only ones that could at this point would be an invasion by an outside force other than the Netherlands and France or the discovery of massive amounts of minerals/oil in Wallonia. Pretty unlikely.

I sympathise with your sentiments of solidarity, but the creation of Belgium did not fully take into account two dominant political ideas that were to follow shortly after; linguistic nationalism and universal suffrage. These fundamentally changed the concept the founders of Belgium had for the country.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Yes, he doesn't have much power though, he just opens and closes conferentions afaik.

haha, what a joke. Wasn't the whole point that a leader in Europe could make things happen, instead of everyone just arguing?



I think this is the problem in Europe. It would be ideal if we had a person elected, with considerable power, but much less, than say a american president. It would have to be someone who could make serious thing happen, but could still be vetoed' if opposed by the governments 2/3 of the european countries(or something along those lines). I think that would be more ideal.

I really dislike how we just argue about stuff. USA do a lot of stupid stuff, but at least they do something.

 

[Souldriver]

I would argue that the dissolution of Belgium was inevitable from the start; it has always lacked a 'natural' basis. This process has been ongoing since 1830 and will continue unabated because there are no forces working in the opposite direction; the only ones that could at this point would be an invasion by an outside force other than the Netherlands and France or the discovery of massive amounts of minerals/oil in Wallonia. Pretty unlikely.

I sympathise with your sentiments of solidarity, but the creation of Belgium did not fully take into account two dominant political ideas that were to follow shortly after; linguistic nationalism and universal suffrage. These fundamentally changed the concept the founders of Belgium had for the country.

Fully agree. The existence of Belgium on itself seems like a violation on the laws of politics. :lol


But then again, politics don't have laws. And Belgium hardly is the only country that consists of different cultures and language communities. And Belgium as a whole is still one of the richest countries in the world so the state up till now has not been a complete failure. However, before people get the wrong impression. I'm fully in agreement with everyone saying structural reform is necessary, and the only viable option right now is a move towards confederalism.

 

[Walshicus]

I have to disagree with your view Soul, that Belgium's splitting would be a bad example for the EU. As an anti-Unionist Englishman who argues consistently for the breakup of the UK you'll also see me as one of the EU's biggest supporters.

We built these states, Britain, Belgium, Spain and so forth in a time when bigger was better and the need to defend against outside threats was great. We don't have that need any more. Is it too much to say that the politics of Flanders are very different to the politics of Wallonia? That an electoral map of the UK shows every nation has its own political consensus?

It just seems that every time you read about Belgian politics over the last decade the system is in deadlock over the conflict between the interests of its two nations.

Some political commentators seem worried about "Balkanisation" which is baffling to me. The problem isn't breaking up states into constituent nations, it's the fact that the states were made multi-national to start with. And as I say, now we *have* that Confederal EU government tier do we really need to keep these hodge-podge states together for history's sake? Who would really lose out?

 

[Dascu]

That's the coalition in flanders, which is working quite ok, no?

Depends on how you look at it. A coalition in the Flemish parliament can work because they might be in agreement on the Flemish competences. On the federal level, you've got things like pensions, and as I'm aware, NVA, CD&V and SP.A all hold different views on that.

 

[Kabouter]

Who would really lose out?

Walloons who want to keep mooching.

 

[Scipius]

Some political commentators seem worried about "Balkanisation" which is baffling to me. The problem isn't breaking up states into constituent nations, it's the fact that the states were made multi-national to start with.

This is not the case as such; Belgium is partly federalised now, but until the 1960s it was indeed a unified state like e.g. the UK was and far more unified than Yugoslavia was.

The remarkable thing about Belgium is the slow speed and the non-violent nature of its dissolution.

And as I say, now we *have* that Confederal EU government tier do we really need to keep these hodge-podge states together for history's sake? Who would really lose out?

Realistically speaking no-one would lose out in the long term. The Walloons just face greater changes that they will have to make compared to the Flemings.

The great sticking point will be Brussels though.

 

[Souldriver]

I have to disagree with your view Soul, that Belgium's splitting would be a bad example for the EU. As an anti-Unionist Englishman who argues consistently for the breakup of the UK you'll also see me as one of the EU's biggest supporters.

We built these states, Britain, Belgium, Spain and so forth in a time when bigger was better and the need to defend against outside threats was great. We don't have that need any more. Is it too much to say that the politics of Flanders are very different to the politics of Wallonia? That an electoral map of the UK shows every nation has its own political consensus?

It just seems that every time you read about Belgian politics over the last decade the system is in deadlock over the conflict between the interests of its two nations.

Some political commentators seem worried about "Balkanisation" which is baffling to me. The problem isn't breaking up states into constituent nations, it's the fact that the states were made multi-national to start with. And as I say, now we *have* that Confederal EU government tier do we really need to keep these hodge-podge states together for history's sake? Who would really lose out?

Well, I'm probably a bit scared of an unknown and new situation, I'm willing to admit this. And believe me, I consider myself 10 times the European as I'd consider myself either Belgian or Flemish.

I'm not completely terrified of a split, and I won't go parading on the streets with the Belgian tricolor flag if it were to happen. I'd just feel disappointed that we couldn't reach an agreement instead of turning our backs to each other. It is agreeing with the radical and antagonistic sentiments that Kabouter just expressed here. If you see the dynamic that has caused the deadlock of the past 4 years, I see how only with a change in mentality and some mutual understanding a solution would be found in a matter of days for most major issues. If that is too much to ask, you might as well end diplomatic relations altogether. So it's frustrating to see how things radicalize as an answer to increased radicalization, and that the radicalization causes deadlock and crisis, which causes radicalization to deal with the deadlock. If you follow Belgian politics, you see exactly why it has become such a clusterfuck, and that confederation or separation most definitely was not the only solution.

It's not so much that I'm afraid that there might be losers because of the split, but that I fear that there wouldn't be any winners either. Which makes this whole ordeal even more stupid.

But as it stands now, I gradually see the national/regional states sort of disintegrating and the European level getting more powerful. That's how I'd like it anyway, so the split of Belgium isn't even against my own sentiments or interests.

 

[E-phonk]

On the federal level, you've got things like pensions, and as I'm aware, NVA, CD&V and SP.A all hold different views on that.

Afaik, NVA is the only party who wants the remove the pensions from the federal level. All other "traditional parties" (cd&v, spa, ovld) want to keep them federal. NVA will have to make compromises anyhow, and I doubt pensions is one of the things they can get on a regional level.
Also: sp.a is kind of needed if they want to negotiate with the winner in Wallonia, PS - and the liberal party there has the FDF as a potential problem.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

:lol

 

[Kabouter]

It is agreeing with the radical and antagonistic sentiments that Kabouter just expressed here.

Call it whatever you want, the fact of the matter is that Wallonia needs to change. And it won't change as long as it can compensate for its failings by financial support from Flanders. If Wallonia has to fend for itself, or was to become part of a state not capable of supporting it to the same degree, it is forced to change. It is forced to deal with the massive problems like for instance generational unemployment.

And many in Wallonia do not want this, they are happy with the status quo, or perhaps they just don't realize how unsustainable the status quo is in the long run. Deep reform is needed, and it won't happen as long as Wallonia has Flanders to lean on.

 

[Souldriver]

Call it whatever you want, the fact of the matter is that Wallonia needs to change. And it won't change as long as it can compensate for its failings by financial support from Flanders. If Wallonia has to fend for itself, or was to become part of a state not capable of supporting it to the same degree, it is forced to change. It is forced to deal with the massive problems like for instance generational unemployment.

And many in Wallonia do not want this, they are happy with the status quo, or perhaps they just don't realize how unsustainable the status quo is in the long run. Deep reform is needed, and it won't happen as long as Wallonia has Flanders to lean on.

Yep. Agreed on all accounts.


But I'd rather reach this by cooperation than getting rid of them. However, far more than all the other shitty regional conflicts like BHV and Brussels and whatnot, the thing I'm the most concerned with is the difference in voting between the Walloons and Flemish. The Walloons still vote en masse for PS which is indeed all about subsidizing and stuff. This is far more troubling, and is essentially what you mean.

I really don't care about the geographical structure of the country, but the political party divide is very troubling. On the one hand I can't believe how stupid the Walloons have to be to think that the policies they support right now are smart long term thinking, but on the other hand perhaps is this the best way to get the economy of a lagging region going again. In either case, it is not in accordance with what "smart policy" dictates for Flanders. So when it comes to this (economic policy), I have to face the facts that right now the ideas of Flanders and Wallonia can't be unified.

 

[Dilly]

haha, what a joke. Wasn't the whole point that a leader in Europe could make things happen, instead of everyone just arguing?



I think this is the problem in Europe. It would be ideal if we had a person elected, with considerable power, but much less, than say a american president. It would have to be someone who could make serious thing happen, but could still be vetoed' if opposed by the governments 2/3 of the european countries(or something along those lines). I think that would be more ideal.

I really dislike how we just argue about stuff. USA do a lot of stupid stuff, but at least they do something.

Europe isn't ready yet to really elect a president with much power.

 

[ymmv]

Walloons who want to keep mooching.

On the other hand, they could join France (and continue mooching)

 

[ymmv]

Well, I'm probably a bit scared of an unknown and new situation, I'm willing to admit this. And believe me, I consider myself 10 times the European as I'd consider myself either Belgian or Flemish.

I'm not completely terrified of a split, and I won't go parading on the streets with the Belgian tricolor flag if it were to happen. I'd just feel disappointed that we couldn't reach an agreement instead of turning our backs to each other.

The problem with Belgium is that the two different regions have nothing, absolutely nothing in common. They don't speak each other's language, they don't read each other's papers, don't watch each other's television programmes. They live apart from each other, elect different political parties and politicians. There's no common ground - except for Brussel.

It's like a bad marriage, both parties want a divorce but too afraid and too stubborn to call it quits. I really don't see why Belgium should go on like this. It clearly doesn't work _at all_.

Just split Belgium apart in two different states. It can be done. Look at Czechoslovakia. That country split in two nations in 92 without too much trouble.

 

[Souldriver]

The problem with Belgium is that the two different regions have nothing, absolutely nothing in common. They don't speak each other's language, they don't read each other's papers, don't watch each other's television programmes. They live apart from each other, elect different political parties and politicians. There's no common ground - except for Brussel.

It's like a bad marriage, both parties want a divorce but too afraid and too stubborn to call it quits. I really don't see why Belgium should go on like this. It clearly doesn't work _at all_.

Just split Belgium apart in two different states. It can be done. Look at Czechoslovakia. That country split in two nations in 92 without too much trouble.

That's only because we've let it come this far. If you systematically split every little part of a country into two halves, off course you end up with two separate countries under one name. Self-reinforcing process, self fulfilling prophecy, et all. I'm starting to repeat myself.

 

[Walshicus]

That's only because we've let it come this far. If you systematically split every little part of a country into two halves, off course you end up with two separate countries under one name. Self-reinforcing process, self fulfilling prophecy, et all. I'm starting to repeat myself.

But they've always been separate, no? You're dealing with two very different national identities. It's not like breaking up Belgium will mean people trying to break up Flanders or Wallonia next - there actually *is* a polity, a demos to work with there. It just seems that there isn't and never has been a Belgian national consciousness. Short of severe and unfair French-style language policies [which all but eliminated the nations within France] you're not going to be able to engineer that kind of identity. The Swiss did it through years of common adversity, but in today's peaceful Europe what's the point? Why have both shackled to a political system for no real reason, no real benefits that aren't already provided through other, larger systems?

 

[Furoba]

The problem with Belgium is that the two different regions have nothing, absolutely nothing in common. They don't speak each other's language, they don't read each other's papers, don't watch each other's television programmes. They live apart from each other, elect different political parties and politicians. There's no common ground - except for Brussel.

It's like a bad marriage, both parties want a divorce but too afraid and too stubborn to call it quits. I really don't see why Belgium should go on like this. It clearly doesn't work _at all_.

Just split Belgium apart in two different states. It can be done. Look at Czechoslovakia. That country split in two nations in 92 without too much trouble.

Absolutely nothing in common?
While we have distinct regions, I wouldn't exaggerate in such superlatives, and you shouldn't deny the fact that we have been a country and share a common history for almost 2 centuries.

 

[deadhorse32]

Top thread guys

I'm probably the only French-speaking Belgium inhabitant around here but I'm still Italian so no vote for me.

I don't see any split any time soon because nobody want to give up on Brussels. Anyway, I hope we get a government quickly (highly unlikely) and start talking about more important stuff than BHV.

 

[gutter_trash]

thanks OP for the summary, very informative

whatever happens.. it will be entertaining

 

[deadhorse32]

Absolutely nothing in common?

We've got Albert 2 pimping his Fiat 500

 

[Walshicus]

That's a good point for discussion. Assuming Wallonia and Flanders did achieve independence, what do you think the status of Brussels would be?

A lot of English commentators seem to think it becoming an EU governed city-state is the likeliest outcome - kind of like Washington DC.

 

[Souldriver]

That's a good point for discussion. Assuming Wallonia and Flanders did achieve independence, what do you think the status of Brussels would be?

A lot of English commentators seem to think it becoming an EU governed city-state is the likeliest outcome - kind of like Washington DC.

That would be the best solution imho, or the least bad at least.


However, neither Flanders nor Wallonia want to get rid of it:
- Flanders wants it because Brussels is an enclave completely surrounded by Flanders
- Wallonia wants it because Brussels consists for 90% out of French speaking people

 

[deadhorse32]

However, neither Flanders nor Wallonia want to get rid of it:
- Flanders wants it because Brussels is an enclave completely surrounded by Flanders
- Wallonia wants it because Brussels consists for 90% out of French speaking people

And that is why we will never split up. Wallonia really fucked up when they didn't keep a little bit of land to stay connected with Brussels.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

List Dedecker FTW

Are you part of the five people who voted for them?

 

[Furoba]

That would be the best solution imho, or the least bad at least.


However, neither Flanders nor Wallonia want to get rid of it:
- Flanders wants it because Brussels is an enclave completely surrounded by Flanders
- Wallonia wants it because Brussels consists for 90% out of French speaking people

Never mention the clusterfuck of splitting the national patrimonium among other things... If the Leuven university split up is anything to go by, both parties will get a really shabby deal.

 

[Dascu]

Top thread guys

I'm probably the only French-speaking Belgium inhabitant around here but I'm still Italian so no vote for me.

I don't see any split any time soon because nobody want to give up on Brussels. Anyway, I hope we get a government quickly (highly unlikely) and start talking about more important stuff than BHV.

I know of at least one other Wallonian gaffer, Moopoo.

 

[ymmv]

And that is why we will never split up. Wallonia really fucked up when they didn't keep a little bit of land to stay connected with Brussels.

You seem to be under the impression that the Flemish have take over a part of Wallonia so Brussels ended up in Flemish territory. Actually the complete opposite happened. Brussels lies in Flemish territory because it was a Flemish, Dutch-speaking city. The Frenchification started in the 18th century when the Spanish Netherlands were governed by a French speaking elite who made French the language of the government, the courts, culture, the media and education despite the fact that the vast majority of the citizens spoke Dutch. French was the dominant language in Belgium until the early 20th century. By then the city had become almost completely French speaking but the outskirts of Brussels were still Flemish. Those areas became Frenchified when many Walloons left the city and set up houses in the Flemish suburbs (and of course started asking for bi-lingual facilities so they could have French schools in Flanders - which usually set in motion the Frenchification of another Flemish town).

The Flemish are very touchy about Brussels because they feel they've almost but still not quite lost their city to the French speakers. When the country is split all the remaining Dutch speakers in Brussels will be left on their own.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchification_of_Brussels for an excellent article on this subject.

 

[deadhorse32]

You seem to be under the impression that the Flemish have take over a part of Wallonia so Brussels ended up in Flemish territory. Actually the complete opposite happened. Brussels lies in Flemish territory because it was a Flemish, Dutch-speaking city. The Frenchification started in the 18th century when the Spanish Netherlands were governed by a French speaking elite who made French the language of the government, the courts, culture, the media and education despite the fact that the vast majority of the citizens spoke Dutch. French was the dominant language in Belgium until the early 20th century. By then the city had become almost completely French speaking but the outskirts of Brussels were still Flemish. Those areas became Frenchified when many Walloons left the city and set up houses in the Flemish suburbs (and of course started asking for bi-lingual facilities so they could have French schools in Flanders - which usually set in motion the Frenchification of another Flemish town).

The Flemish are very touchy about Brussels because they feel they've almost but still not quite lost their city to the French speakers. When the country is split all the remaining Dutch speakers in Brussels will be left on their own.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchification_of_Brussels for an excellent article on this subject.

I know all that I was speaking about the 60's language border solidification.

 

[Scipius]

I know all that I was speaking about the 60's language border solidification.

There was no basis for a solid corridor at that time. Though the 1963 border was based on the census of 1947, and the percentage of francophones had undoubtedly increased since then, it is doubtful there truly was a francophone majority in 1963 in those communities. That only happened in the following decades of urban flight.

I've always found the insistence on a corridor a bit of a red herring; even with a corridor, Brussels remains hemmed in tightly in Flemish territory. If Brussels were to become a workable independent state, it would need to annex at least all Flemish municipalities currently bordering it; hence why ideas of Brussels simply becoming part of Wallonia or France in the case of an acrimonious split are as unlikely as Brussels becoming part of Flanders. Brussels may be a French-speaking city these days, but its roots are still Flemish.

 

[deadhorse32]

There was no basis for a solid corridor at that time. Though the 1963 border was based on the census of 1947, and the percentage of francophones had undoubtedly increased since then, it is doubtful there truly was a francophone majority in 1963 in those communities. That only happened in the following decades of urban flight.

I've always found the insistence on a corridor a bit of a red herring; even with a corridor, Brussels remains hemmed in tightly in Flemish territory. If Brussels were to become a workable independent state, it would need to annex at least all Flemish municipalities currently bordering it; hence why ideas of Brussels simply becoming part of Wallonia or France in the case of an acrimonious split are as unlikely as Brussels becoming part of Flanders. Brussels may be a French-speaking city these days, but its roots are still Flemish.

I think we can all agree there isn't a clear/simple solution. Splitting the country raise even more problems than it resolved. We are going to be stuck together for another while

 

[Souldriver]

I think we can all agree there isn't a clear/simple solution. Splitting the country raise even more problems than it resolved. We are going to be stuck together for another while

Well, both situations cause trouble. So the only solution is to take things slowly. At this point this means gradually working towards separate states, and untying all knots that come with it. If somewhere along the way the situation stabilizes again, this might become the then pertaining status-quo. If things start to go wrong again, this might again set a process in action either towards confederalism or federalism, depending on the circumstances then. Although the more realistic expectation is off course again a move towards more confederalism.

 

[keuja]

What about the king?
If Flanders and Wallonia become independent countries, will he still be the King of Flanders or King of Wallonia or both? Are the Belgians very attached to the crown?

I find Belgium and its history kind of fascinating, like two countries in one. But how come the Swiss managed to do it with 3 (french, german, italian speaking communities) and Belgium can't??? Because of the lesser economic disparities across the regions maybe?

And there is the after story, will Wallonia be re-attached to France... Would the people want it? Would France want it, given the debt? The departments in the north of France are already among the poorest in terms of economy.

And then the fate of Brussel/Bruxelles, capital of Europe... As I said, fascinating... (from an outsider point of view at least). Good luck to our belgian friends!

 

[Scipius]

What about the king?
If Flanders and Wallonia become independent countries, will he still be the King of Flanders or King of Wallonia or both? Are the Belgians very attached to the crown?

As long as there's something called "Belgium", there will be a king of it. A confederal model would probably still include the royals, but then only in a ceremonial role.

I find Belgium and its history kind of fascinating, like two countries in one. But how come the Swiss managed to do it with 3 (french, german, italian speaking communities) and Belgium can't??? Because of the lesser economic disparities across the regions maybe?

Because, as far as languages are concerned, Switzerland has always been dominated by one group, which is by far the largest: the germanophones. Relations between the linguistic communities are defined by this reality. In Belgium on the contrary, the roles have been reversed. The francophones were originally dominant (as a class in Flanders and as a rich industrial region in Wallonia), but now a Dutch-speaking Flanders is the economic engine of Belgium.

And there is the after story, will Wallonia be re-attached to France... Would the people want it? Would France want it, given the debt? The departments in the north of France are already among the poorest in terms of economy.

There is support for this in Wallonia, but it would be more difficult than most would assume. Such an event may bring in the old politics of the European balance of power, as the Germans found when they absorbed the GDR; other European powers would likely not agree to France having two European capitals; hence why Brussels will always be a thorny issue in any scenario.