Excellent piece. The point about federal political parties is
especially relevant. Yet Belgium is an artificial creation - Talleyrand
did as much as anyone to promote it - to curb the power of the Dutch
who were, in effect, partitioned. There is scope for a PhD thesis (if
one hasn't already been written) on the lines of 'Partition: - a
disease of elder statesmen.'
The fact that Belgium has survived for 177 years only shows that nothing endures like the temporary.

 instrumental pop

How do you call Dhimmi Thiefman calling wallon KGB troups to grab flemish people?

I hope you look to the video.

PVDH,

I don't believe you "feel" Flemish at all.. You seem to represent the "typical" European leftist elite..

Anyway, my thanks to "marcfrans" for the "Analysis" comments.. very well written I might add...

@ Spraynasal

Of course the view that Wallonia would fragment (assuming or following Flemish secession) is "speculative".  It pre-supposes FIRST Flemish secession.  It is therefore also very unlikely to happen in the near future (assuming no dramatic 'new' geopolitical events). 
A careful reading of Belien's article, however, should leave no doubt that he does NOT think that such fragmentation would last. Rather, he expect the different bits to join neigbouring states.  From a European perspective, that would mean less 'fragmentation'.
 

@ Pvdh

Thank you for expounding on your "point of view".

1) On the language issue.

-- I do not doubt that you want to be a "democrat", but I do doubt that you are fully cognisant of the cultural underpinnings of democracy.   I certainly do not mean to say that one has to speak a particular language to be democratic.  But I do claim that the maintenance of 'democracy' requires a certain amount of self-respect, including cultural self-respect.  People who allow themselves to be trampled - disrespected really - by others, are unlikely to bring forth the necessary commitment and involvement to maintain their 'democracy'.   Why? Because such behavior is indicative of absence of genuine 'rule of law'.   This applies as much to tolerance of large-scale illegal immigration (as in the US, for example) as for Flemish tolerance of violations of the letter - and certainly the spirit - of the Belgian language laws.  The latter were based on a 'democratic' compromise between two different peoples (or linguistic communites, if you will) in Belgium.   You cannot simply claim that "language is a private matter" and that is that.   That is the equivalent of saying that "taxes are a private matter", and then allow individuals to pay whatever amount of taxes they feel like paying!   Yes, people can speak whatever language they want, certainly in private and (in my opinion) even in public, but they have to respect the laws, including the Belgian compromise (between Flemish and francophones) that is contained in the language laws. Just like people have to respect the Belgian compromise (between political parties) on the tax laws.

--  You make ths same mistake w.r.t. the language issue as you do w.r.t. the immigration issue.  You adhere to this (widespread) mistaken notion that one can buy 'love' from aggressive people or, in your words, these people should not be "pushed to a hostile position" .  That is ludicrous, and against much empirical evidence.   People who manifestly show that they do not respect your culture, and they certainly do that by violating important laws of your 'democratic' country,  already have a "hostile position".  Your weakness will not gain respect.  On the contrary, it will gain you pity.  And it does!!  Very few muslims would tolerate large numbers of your type of 'secularist' to immigrate to muslim countries, and very few francophones would tolerate 'special facilities for Flemish' in Wallonia (not even in Brussels any more).  If you want to see how the typical francophone reacts to disrespect from 'outsiders' to their culture, take a careful look at France's policies of cultural self-respect, or even better look at what French Canadians have done and do.

2) Your comments on the economic issue show signs of both realism and ignorance.

--   You are aware that Wallonia is "addicted" to Flemish money, but you seem unable to grasp that institutional change is necessary to remove that addiction.  Addicts rarely do give up their addiction voluntarily.  They must be forced to, and not with 'love'.

--  You keep talking about a "cost" of dissolving the Belgian state structures.  But you never explain what these costs are.  I am not asking for specific numbers, I am asking for a description of the nature of these costs.  What are they?   Large countries, and many small ones too, have frequently engaged in structural institutional reforms.  Sometimes there are minor and temporary netto costs associated with 'reform', but they do it for substantial long-term gains.  The 'opening' of the Indian subcontinent to external competition in the early 1990's, after 4 decades of stifling 'socialism and nationalism', now that was a real institutional change of substance.  Compared with that, the fiscal 'responsabilisation' of the 3 Belgian 'regions' is truly peanuts!  

-- You are very wrong that it is "we" (the Flemish) who "have made the Walloons addictive to our money in the first place" by "buying language privileges".   That is absurd, that is truly turning the world on its head. 

The fundamental problem is that you do not (yet)  understand human nature.  When are western naive-lefties going to stop blaming 'themselves' for the misdeeds, aggression, and disrespective behavior of others!        

spray " The prospect of a fragmentation of Wallonia in case of the splitting of Belgium is purely speculative."

Who the hell would want it?  A useless french speaking territory that only votes communist where only 40% of the population actually contributes to the economy and can only survive on massive subsidies?  Flanders may leave but I don't see Wallonia going anywhere.

You keep on attacking Paul Belien... What is your view, what are your solutions..Keep on singing the "Brabaconne" or do you prefer to sing the "Vlaamse Leeuw".. All your posts here in English and Flemish are very confusing to me..

Your "theme" seems to reflect too much what I read in "De Morgen" the "GVA" and "De Standaard"...

Its about time that the Flemish people stand up and face reality...

@marcfrans:

It was a sarcastic notion.
 

The Economist:

Belgium: Time to call it a day

Sep 6th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Sometimes it is right for a country to recognise that its job is done

A RECENT glance at the Low Countries revealed that, nearly three months after its latest general election, Belgium was still without a new government. It may have acquired one by now. But, if so, will anyone notice? And, if not, will anyone mind? Even the Belgians appear indifferent. And what they think of the government they may well think of the country. If Belgium did not already exist, would anyone nowadays take the trouble to invent it?

Such questions could be asked of many countries. Belgium's problem, if such it is, is that they are being asked by the inhabitants themselves. True, in opinion polls most Belgians say they want to keep the show on the road. But when they vote, as they did on June 10th, they do so along linguistic lines, the French-speaking Walloons in the south for French-speaking parties, the Dutch-speaking Flemings in the north for Dutch-speaking parties. The two groups do not get onBƒFhence the inability to form a government. They lead parallel lives, largely in ignorance of each other. They do, however, think they know themselves: when a French-language television programme was interrupted last December with a spoof news flash announcing that the Flemish parliament had declared independence, the king had fled and Belgium had dissolved, it was widely believed.

No wonder. The prime minister designate thinks Belgians have nothing in common except B[the king, the football team, some beersBƒA, and he describes their country as an B[accident of historyBƒA. In truth, it isn't. When it was created in 1831, it served more than one purpose. It relieved its people of various discriminatory practices imposed on them by their Dutch rulers. And it suited Britain and France to have a new, neutral state rather than a source of instability that might, so soon after the Napoleonic wars, set off more turbulence in Europe.

The upshot was neither an unmitigated success nor an unmitigated failure. Belgium industrialised fast; grabbed a large part of Africa and ruled it particularly rapaciously; was itself invaded and occupied by Germany, not once but twice; and then cleverly secured the headquarters of what is now the European Union. Along the way it produced Magritte, Simenon, Tintin, the saxophone and a lot of chocolate. Also frites. No doubt more good things can come out of the swathe of territory once occupied by a tribe known to the Romans as the Belgae. For that, though, they do not need Belgium: they can emerge just as readily from two or three new mini-states, or perhaps from an enlarged France and Netherlands.

Brussels can devote itself to becoming the bureaucratic capital of Europe. It no longer enjoys the heady atmosphere of liberty that swirled outside its opera house in 1830, intoxicating the demonstrators whose protests set the Belgians on the road to independence. The air today is more fetid. With freedom now taken for granted, the old animosities are ill suppressed. Rancour is ever-present and the country has become a freak of nature, a state in which power is so devolved that government is an abhorred vacuum. In short, Belgium has served its purpose. A praline divorce is in order.

Belgians need not feel too sad. Countries come and go. And perhaps a way can be found to keep the king, if he is still wanted. Since he has never had a countryBƒFhe has always just been king of the BelgiansBƒFhe will not miss Belgium. Maybe he can rule a new-old country called Gaul. But king of the Gauloises doesn't sound quite right, does it?

@ pvdh

I think you are being unfair to Mr Belien.   He was outlining a hypothetical case - "If the Flemish secede" - about what would happen to (different parts of) Wallonia.  You are old enough to know that there can be a big difference between what people SAY (under certain circumstances) and what they actually will DO when circumstances change.   I am not impressed by what contemporary francophones say in the forums of le Soir and La Libre Belgique.  Because all that small talk is taking place in the absence of any Flemish actual moves towards genuine sovereignty.    

If the hypothetical case were to become a reality, i.e. actual Flemish secession, I wouldn't be so sure (as you seem to be) about what francophones would actually do.  In that case, the historical factors that Mr Belien refers to might well re-assert themselves PLUS pure considerations of self-interest among the disparate French-speakers in Belgium. 

But I grant you, that the hypothetical case will likely remain.....hypothetical.   Your own writings confirm that there are too many Flemish lefties today, that are willing to 'collaborate' with people who do not have the best interests of the Flemish people at heart.   And they justify that collaboration by illusory pc ideology in the face of manifest empirical evidence to the contrary.   Eurabia is more likely to be the end result, instead of Flemish independance or the reconstitution of the historical 'Netherlands'.

P.S. The notion that Charleroi should be "proud" for being the biggest town in Wallonia today is truly a silly one. I know, it was not your notion, but another example of silly small talk by a francophone lady reader of the TBJ.

"20% of the Walloons are unemployed and 40% work for the government. "

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!   Ain't Fwench Socialism great?  Total retards.  Maybe if they could communicate with people outside of their overdubbed froggy delusional "culture" they could actually export something.  Not sure what that would be....

Paul, you should lower your drugs intake.

Dope-control should also be performed on journalists before AND after their writings !

"Liege isn’t the biggest town of Wallonia, it’s Charleroi."

 They can be proud of it!
 

Good mourning,EU,are you still there?Damn,I thought so...

" Flemings intend to ethnically cleanse the city"

Why only flemings? It can also be the "newcomers" to ethnically cleanse to city.

Giving what we saw in former yugoslavia wich ones would be allowed to do so and wich ones would be forbid by NATO to do that?

Good morning, Belgium. Are you still there?

Paul Belien: If Belgium breaks up it is likely that Wallonia will break up as well, with part of it preferring to go to Germany, part of it to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg (GDL) and part of it to France...Luxemburg, moreover, is a problem of its own. Historically Luxemburg , like Flanders and unlike Liege, was part of the Southern Netherlands. When Belgium was established in 1831, many Luxemburgians preferred to remain loyal to King William of the Netherlands. By way of compromise Luxemburg was split up in 1839. The eastern part of Luxemburg, the present GDL, became an independent state with the Dutch King as its monarch. This personal union lasted until 1890 when, upon extinction of the male line of the House of Orange-Nassau, the Netherlands passed to the female line of that house and Luxemburg to the House of Nassau-Weilburg. The western part of Luxemburg, however, was given to Belgium and is currently the Belgian province of Luxemburg. Many (Belgian or West) Luxemburgians would want to reunite with the GDL...The same may also be true for the inhabitants of the Belgian province of Namur. Like Luxemburg, Namur is a rural province. Unlike the rest of Wallonia, the provinces of Namur and Luxemburg are conservative and Catholic. Both provinces belong to the diocese of Namur. If Namur and Luxemburg secede from Wallonia to join the GDL – which would be likely – this would leave Wallonia proper with only the provinces of Hainaut and Liege, two strongholds of the Parti Socialiste – the party which is responsible for the current disastrous economic condition of Wallonia (and Belgium).

I think the problem is that Belgium lies on the fault-line between the Germanic and Gallo-Roman* peoples and cultures, and is a remnant of Lotharingia.

If one is going to readjust current state boundaries to reflect national and/or cultural ones, Flanders is only the beginning. Flanders, the Netherlands, Western Germany and Luxembourg (mainly of Celto-Germanic stock) should form a Swiss-style confederation possibly including England, although geography might not allow for that. The Bretons, Basques and Mediterranean French (e.g. Occitania) should each achieve sovereign statehood. More importantly, Southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Northern Italy (mainly of Germano-Alpine stock) should form a similar confederation. Due to environmental and human activity, it was virtually impossible to provide the major peoples of Europe their own states or nations; however, given the expansion of supranational and sub-national political organisation and the possibilities afforded by decentralised government, it is possible to better conform state boundaries to national ones.

*Gallo-Roman does not of course distinguish Mediterranean French from Celtic French e.g. Bretons

Paul Belien: Brussels is not viable on its own either. Almost half its population are non-European Muslim immigrants – “eurabianisation” has already progressed considerably – and the Brussels region also receives large flows of Flemish subsidies. Flanders would be happy to let the European Union have Brussels, provided Europe finances Brussels and relieves Flanders of that burden. However, since Flanders for obvious historical reasons feels responsible for this erstwhile Flemish town, an independent Flemish state would be willing to incorporate Brussels within its territory, granting it a multilingual status and recognizing the linguistic rights of Brussels’ French-speakers.

Brussels could become a "free city," given that non-Europeans are the majority there, unless the Flemings intend to ethnically cleanse the city.

This story is completely ignored in the U.S. press. But what you have to look at is if the experiment in Belgium was a failure, then what does that mean for other nation states that were created out of different nationalities? Are many doomed to a similar fate?

Wat will the Belgian enclave in the Netherlands, Baarle - Hertog, want? Will the resolve into the Netherlands, or will they remain a piece of an independent Flanders?

"What to do about Brussels,a French-speaking enclave within Flanders?"

Brussels isn't Europe's "Cooch-Behar",nor is it the Capital city of John Lennon's imaginery Nutopia.Flemings,stop floundering,and just get on with it!