Three and a half months after the federal elections, French-speaking and Dutch-speaking parties in Belgium have not yet managed to form a new government.
The Flemish side has a long list of state reforms it wants to be implemented, granting more powers to the regions and leaving almost nothing to the central government, apart from the defence. Belgium would thus be a confederate country, rather than a federal one as it is now.
They also want the division of the electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, an area encompassing both French- and Dutch-speaking municipalities. The Francophones see this as one more step towards the independence of Flanders.
The Francophones would only agree to the scission if the handful of predominantly French-speaking municipalities in the outskirt of Brussels, but officially located in Flanders, were to be annexed to the Brussels region. They fear that French-speakers there would lose their linguistic facilities if the plan wanted by Flemish politicians is enforced. Flanders refuses to cedes these municipalities because they are amongst the wealthiest in the country (see related article). Kraainem and Rhode-St-Genese have recently been ranked 2nd and 3rd best municipalities in Flanders for quality of life in a study by Dexia Bank. Yet both are over 80% French-speaking.
How could Belgium split ?
At present, neither side wants to make any concession. Belgium could split or become a confederate state if Flanders agrees to cedes its Francophone municipalities to Brussels.
A confederacy would be better in many respects.
1) The present states (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) would continue to exist, with Brussels as a bilingual region. This is easier and less costly to implement. It would satisfy both linguistic group in the capital.
2) It would keep the name "Belgium", which is vital for the country's image internationally. Such a small country, not so well known outside Europe, cannot afford to rebrand its image at an even smaller level. It's hard enough to pinpoint Belgium on a 15' screen world map; what would it be for Flanders and Wallonia ! Then countless documents, signs and institutions would need to be replaced just for accommodate the name change. Highly impractical, time-consuming and costly.
3) It would satisfy the significant percentage of the population that does not want the country to split completely.
4) It would solve the problem of the monarchy.
5) It would avoid another debate about the integration of Wallonia into France (an issue maybe as divisive as the Flanders-Wallonia split).
This is why I do not expect the country to split completely. On the other hand, I also do not expect it not to stay as it is. The confederacy seems inevitable.
Paving the way to a federal EU ?
The disagreement between Flemings and Walloons has been criticised as a step backward in the age of the European Union, which aims is to bring nations together. I strongly disagree with that.
It is only natural that people belonging to a different linguistic and cultural group think differently and have different ways of doing things. That is why efficiency requires different linguistic areas to have a different system.
The split of Belgium does not go against the EU's aim. In fact it would be unthinkable without the European Union. Now that borders do not exist between EU countries (well, Schengen members), that visas are a relic of the past, and that the Euro exist as a common currency, daily life and business can continue naturally even if the country splitted completely. Flemings and Walloons could continue to work in Brussels. Belgium-wide companies would continue business as usual...
What is happening is Belgium now may only be the first step towards a federal EU, in which each cultural group forms its own state within a bigger whole. Belgians are amongst the most fervent EU supporters. It is a country where more people feel European than Belgian. Brussels is the capital of the EU, and some would like to see it as an independent capital district modelled on Washington D.C. It is fairly normal that Belgians have enough confidence in the future of the EU, and feel protected by it, to throw away the intermediary federal government between the EU government and the regions.
The Flemish side has a long list of state reforms it wants to be implemented, granting more powers to the regions and leaving almost nothing to the central government, apart from the defence. Belgium would thus be a confederate country, rather than a federal one as it is now.
They also want the division of the electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, an area encompassing both French- and Dutch-speaking municipalities. The Francophones see this as one more step towards the independence of Flanders.
The Francophones would only agree to the scission if the handful of predominantly French-speaking municipalities in the outskirt of Brussels, but officially located in Flanders, were to be annexed to the Brussels region. They fear that French-speakers there would lose their linguistic facilities if the plan wanted by Flemish politicians is enforced. Flanders refuses to cedes these municipalities because they are amongst the wealthiest in the country (see related article). Kraainem and Rhode-St-Genese have recently been ranked 2nd and 3rd best municipalities in Flanders for quality of life in a study by Dexia Bank. Yet both are over 80% French-speaking.
How could Belgium split ?
At present, neither side wants to make any concession. Belgium could split or become a confederate state if Flanders agrees to cedes its Francophone municipalities to Brussels.
A confederacy would be better in many respects.
1) The present states (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) would continue to exist, with Brussels as a bilingual region. This is easier and less costly to implement. It would satisfy both linguistic group in the capital.
2) It would keep the name "Belgium", which is vital for the country's image internationally. Such a small country, not so well known outside Europe, cannot afford to rebrand its image at an even smaller level. It's hard enough to pinpoint Belgium on a 15' screen world map; what would it be for Flanders and Wallonia ! Then countless documents, signs and institutions would need to be replaced just for accommodate the name change. Highly impractical, time-consuming and costly.
3) It would satisfy the significant percentage of the population that does not want the country to split completely.
4) It would solve the problem of the monarchy.
5) It would avoid another debate about the integration of Wallonia into France (an issue maybe as divisive as the Flanders-Wallonia split).
This is why I do not expect the country to split completely. On the other hand, I also do not expect it not to stay as it is. The confederacy seems inevitable.
Paving the way to a federal EU ?
The disagreement between Flemings and Walloons has been criticised as a step backward in the age of the European Union, which aims is to bring nations together. I strongly disagree with that.
It is only natural that people belonging to a different linguistic and cultural group think differently and have different ways of doing things. That is why efficiency requires different linguistic areas to have a different system.
The split of Belgium does not go against the EU's aim. In fact it would be unthinkable without the European Union. Now that borders do not exist between EU countries (well, Schengen members), that visas are a relic of the past, and that the Euro exist as a common currency, daily life and business can continue naturally even if the country splitted completely. Flemings and Walloons could continue to work in Brussels. Belgium-wide companies would continue business as usual...
What is happening is Belgium now may only be the first step towards a federal EU, in which each cultural group forms its own state within a bigger whole. Belgians are amongst the most fervent EU supporters. It is a country where more people feel European than Belgian. Brussels is the capital of the EU, and some would like to see it as an independent capital district modelled on Washington D.C. It is fairly normal that Belgians have enough confidence in the future of the EU, and feel protected by it, to throw away the intermediary federal government between the EU government and the regions.