Wallonia - Independence, union with France or Union with the Netherlands?

[Tchek]

One can use French if one pleases, but the demand for a basic capability of the language of the host nation, is a very common, rational and democratic one.

So far, Flanders isn't a nation.


Not even when it freezes in hell, France would give up territory that is
a) historical French, territorial and cultural
b) is part of their present territory
c) has chauvinist aliens/invaders unwillingly to use French in regards of their contact with public institutions, schools, etc..
d) colonize, occupy and demand the anschluss of this territory, because they are unwillingly to adjust.
e) produce shit, but ask more and more money.

The problem of Belgium, this non nation, regards concerns and objects that are Flemish, be it our money, our territory or our right to protect our cultural identity against Walloon imperialism.

a) "historically"? modern Flanders is a 20th century concept, so the "historical" claim is bogus.
b) and d) anschluss? I thought Flanders were eager to consider Brussels its capital? its expension surely shouldn't be a problem then, or is it.
c) A lot of french-speakers are learning flemish/dutch
e) produce shit? The french-speakers of the periphery are the richest Belgians!

Walloon imperialism, there is no such thing :rolleyes:

[Magister Eckhart]

So far, Flanders isn't a nation.

a) "historically"? modern Flanders is a 20th century concept, so the "historical" claim is bogus.

False.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Quad_Flandria.jpg

[Tchek]

Pred natural resources.

Flanders has the Antwerp port which is one of the biggest port of Europe, one of the most ideally situated and generating the biggest part of Flanders' wealth, and this is "natural luck" too.

Then tell me what happened, because from what I've read recently they seem to be the anchor keeping Flanders from really prospering.

Wallonia was at the forefront of the industrial revolution in continental Europe in the 19th century, then the industries went bankrupt in the '70, just like in northern England and France, Chicago area etc... afterwards every single prime ministers were Flemish since then, none of them cared about Wallonia (last walloon prime minister: 1973). It's easy to point finger then.

[Magister Eckhart]

Wallonia was at the forefront of the industrial revolution in continental Europe in the 19th century, then the industries went bankrupt in the '70, just like in northern England and France, Chicago area etc... afterwards every single prime ministers were Flemish since then, none of them cared about Wallonia (last walloon prime minister: 1973). It's easy to point finger then.

Still sounds like a nation of welfare queens to me, which is exactly what the Rust Belt in the US became. Besides, you've shown a strong anti-Flem bias that fails to convince me of the legitimacy of your side.

[Tchek]

False.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Quad_Flandria.jpg

This is the county of Flanders, which has nothing to do with modern Flanders save the name. Anyway, Brussels wasn't even part of it so thanks for proving me right. :D

[Ouistreham]

Then tell me what happened, because from what I've read recently they seem to be the anchor keeping Flanders from really prospering.

From the early 19th century to the mid-20th Wallonia was among Europe's most developed regions. Around 1900 it was absolutely the most advanced in steel making, chemicals (Solvay), mining and mechanical engineering. Thanks to small Wallonia Belgium was back then nearly as important in international trade as Germany or France!

Now it's a rust belt. Just like parts of Lorraine (France), of Saxony or Rhurgebiet (Germany), of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Clydesdale (UK) — or of Pennsylvania.

When old manufacturing districts begin to decay, nothing can be done. They are sterilized for ever. The remnants of outdated industries nerver fertilize new activities.

[Tchek]

Still sounds like a nation of welfare queens to me, which is exactly what the Rust Belt in the US became. Besides, you've shown a strong anti-Flem bias that fails to convince me of the legitimacy of your side.

Anti-flem bias? I'm not anti-flemish, I'm anti-flemish nationalist propaganda.
You can't blame america's rust belt, or wallonia, or northern england, for the collapse of its industries.

[Payens]

So far, Flanders isn't a nation.



a) "historically"? modern Flanders is a 20th century concept, so the "historical" claim is bogus.
b) and d) anschluss? I thought Flanders were eager to consider Brussels its capital? its expension surely shouldn't be a problem then, or is it.
c) A lot of french-speakers are learning flemish/dutch
e) produce shit? The french-speakers of the periphery are the richest Belgians!

Walloon imperialism, there is no such thing :rolleyes:

a) Flanders and Flemish is the label we use to refer to the Southern Dutch people in the Belgian context. It is Dutch territory, or so you will Frankish, West Germanic territory. The direct ancestry of the people we today call Flemish dwelled the lands and the places (even pre volkerwanderung) now claimed by the impoverished imperialists.
b) Blabbering and playing with words is pointless, Brussels may be geographically encircled by Flanders, because clearly its a historical Dutch city, today Brussels is stolen, forced by the Francophile lunatics, to become a region.
You might explain to me
- why the Walloons invented the Wallo-Brux federation?
- why they demand a territorial link, a passageway between Wallonia and Brussels at cost of territory of the Flemish region, their bullshit never ever going to happen corridor?
c) Then why don't the FDF politicians in Flemish cities respect the Dutch language and the law they have to obey?
d) yes produce non to shit, as a whole Wallonia is impoverished in both cultural and economical terms.
e) Imperialism, definition : The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Let this be exactly what the chosen ones of the Walloon people are trying and are realizing at this very moment.
- They claim territory from the Flemish region, that is under the legal supervision of the Flemish government.
- They claim political influence within the territory of another community.


Wallonia was at the forefront of the industrial revolution in continental Europe in the 19th century, then the industries went bankrupt in the '70, just like in northern England and France, Chicago area etc... afterwards every single prime ministers were Flemish since then, none of them cared about Wallonia (last walloon prime minister: 1973). It's easy to point finger then.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.

First, we have most prime ministers, since, well, we are simply the overwhelming majority of this nation.

Second, the intern economical policy of Belgium, is one most profoundly defined as logrolling, on behave of Flemish capital of course. In practice this means that whenever the federal government invests in for example Flanders infrastructure, Wallonia must get the exact same amount of money or a project of the same prestige. This absurd notion of equality results in absurd and surrealistic realities. I will give you the most famous one. The boat lift of Strépy-Thieu a non project of megalomanian proportions, hardly used, resulted after the expansion of a Flemish harbor, an expansion based on hard economical facts.

On your remark of caring for Wallonia :

I would suggest to the Walloon people to stop voting for the most archaic Socialist Party of Western Europe. A 100% corrupt and on clientelism based hobby and lobby club.

I would suggest to drop their delusion of grandeur.

I will write during next week a longer post about the language facilities, the financial transfers, the founding fathers of Belgium, the Belgian revolution, the role of France, the anti-Dutch sentiment and the constant repression of the Flemish people, the question of territory and culture, from a modern Flemish/Walloon, a Dutch/French, a Germanic/Latin and a early Indo European perspective.

[Tchek]

a) Flanders and Flemish is the label we use to refer to the Southern Dutch people in the Belgian context. It is Dutch territory, or so you will Frankish, West Germanic territory. The direct ancestry of the people we today call Flemish dwelled the lands and the places (even pre volkerwanderung) now claimed by the impoverished imperialists.
b) Blabbering and playing with words is pointless, Brussels may be geographically encircled by Flanders, because clearly its a historical Dutch city, today Brussels is stolen, forced by the Francophile lunatics, to become a region.
You might explain to me
- why the Walloons invented the Wallo-Brux federation?
- why they demand a territorial link, a passageway between Wallonia and Brussels at cost of territory of the Flemish region, their bullshit never ever going to happen corridor?
c) Then why don't the FDF politicians in Flemish cities respect the Dutch language and the law they have to obey?
d) yes produce non to shit, as a whole Wallonia is impoverished in both cultural and economical terms.
e) Imperialism, definition : The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Let this be exactly what the chosen ones of the Walloon people are trying and are realizing at this very moment.
- They claim territory from the Flemish region, that is under the legal supervision of the Flemish government.
- They claim political influence within the territory of another community.

a) and b) "Brussels was stolen", THIS is lunatic thinking. You're basically denying that Brussels belongs to the Bruxellois, and should belong to Flanders instead (which is the corner stone of Flemish nationalist reasoning). The "Francophile lunatics" ARE the original historical inhabitants of Brussels for centuries!
Wallo-brux federation is just a name, it's exactly the same federation as the "french community", nothing changed. The cooperation between Brussels and Wallonia is just that, it has nothing to do with "stealing" whatever territory.

c) Who cares about the FDF. And they favor bilinguism anyway.
d) It seems you Flemish (the nationalist kind) always call french-speakers arrogant and scornful without being short of those characteristics yourself. This must be a severe case of "Freudian projection".
Typical reasoning: "Oh those french speakers are so arrogant and scornful! And they are dirt poor we must get rid of them and we are so much better than them!".
Yeah right, who's arrogant and scornful again?
e) The fact that Bruxelles is getting bigger has no impact on Wallonia which will stay the same, Wallonia never stole nor claimed any territory. The Brussels region and Wallonia are two different things. If Brussels is the capital of Flanders (and Flanders is insisting on that) then why are they so upset that a few Flemish villages are part of Brussels or not?
Personally I don't care about BHV, or whether those people got their administrative papers in French or not; but why is Flanders so eager to claim Brussels for itself, while treating its inhabitants as illegal aliens at the same time when they go 2 miles away from Brussels into Flemish territory?


Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.

First, we have most prime ministers, since, well, we are simply the overwhelming majority of this nation.


Second, the intern economical policy of Belgium, is one most profoundly defined as logrolling, on behave of Flemish capital of course. In practice this means that whenever the federal government invests in for example Flanders infrastructure, Wallonia must get the exact same amount of money or a project of the same prestige. This absurd notion of equality results in absurd and surrealistic realities. I will give you the most famous one. The boat lift of Strépy-Thieu a non project of megalomanian proportions, hardly used, resulted after the expansion of a Flemish harbor, an expansion based on hard economical facts.

On your remark of caring for Wallonia :

I would suggest to the Walloon people to stop voting for the most archaic Socialist Party of Western Europe. A 100% corrupt and on clientelism based hobby and lobby club.

I would suggest to drop their delusion of grandeur.

I will write during next week a longer post about the language facilities, the financial transfers, the founding fathers of Belgium, the Belgian revolution, the role of France, the anti-Dutch sentiment and the constant repression of the Flemish people, the question of territory and culture, from a modern Flemish/Walloon, a Dutch/French, a Germanic/Latin and a early Indo European perspective.


Flemish are the "overwhelming majority of this nation"? More like slightly more numerous.

PS is incompetent. The NVA are pig-headed extremists. Belgium should drop the mandatory voting system.
If the votes weren't mandatory, both PS and NVA votes would drop significantly. Their electorate are uninformed easily manipulated people who wouldn't vote if they weren't forced to.

Your future post about Belgium, I expect it to be the typical flemish neo-romanticism "Oh we are an eternal oppressed Germanic people for centuries etc..." "Walloon are napoleonic imperalists" "Belgium is an anti-Flemish invention", far removed from reality.
Fact: Flanders' wealth flourished WITHIN the context of Belgium and Wallonia's wealth plumetted WITHIN the context of Belgium.

By the way, you said "It is Dutch territory, or so you will Frankish, West Germanic territory. The direct ancestry of the people we today call Flemish dwelled the lands and the places (even pre volkerwanderung) now claimed by the impoverished imperialists."
Are you claiming that the Bruxellois buying houses in the periphery are *not* the descendants of the Belgae or Franks? that Walloons are actually *aliens* to these ancient inhabitants? They ARE the Belgae and to a lesser extent Franks! Just like the Flemish! Except that they have been romanized. You make it sound like the Flemish are the Belgae/Franks and Walloon/Bruxellois are recent alien imperialists!

Really, though there are problems in Belgium that should be dealt with, and IS a badly run country; the Flemish nationalist mindset seems to circumstancialy navigate between "Oh we are so oppressed, pity us!", and "others are poor and they suck, let's get rid of them!"; Basically, jealousing the rich and despising the poor. Not the most glorious human reasoning, and is ultimately the PETIT-BOURGEOIS mentality!

[Tchek]

je ne vois pas en quoi une Wallonie indépendante aurait statutairement davantage de facilité pour commercer avec le Nord qu'une région Wallone au sein de la communauté nationale. Il serait d'ailleurs intéressant de voir si le commerce extérieur wallon n'est pas davantage tourné vers le Nord-Pas-de-Calais que vers l'Allemagne ou les Pays-Bas.

La republique française est Une et indivisible, et toute influence étrangère (c'est a dire néerlandaise, allemande...) serait decouragée or la Wallonie doit justement s'ouvrir vers le nord, encourager les echanges, si elle veut sortir du marasme actuel. (La France voit d'un très mauvais oeil les "euro-regions" qui pullulent un peu partout)

[Tel Errant]

Une influence de quelle nature? S'il ne s'agit que de s'ouvrir commercialement, le cas de l'Alsace, région prospère pour laquelle le commerce transfrontalier est essentiel, illustre bien le fait que l'appartenance à la nation française n'est en aucun cas un frein au libre échange. Il ne faut pas confondre jacobinisme politique avec isolationnisme économique.

Quoi qu'il en soit avant d'encourager les échanges il faut d'abord penser à ce que l'on a à échanger, relancer la machine économique wallone avant de vouloir stimuler l'économie en s'appuyant sur la demande extérieure. Une Wallonie française aura le reste du pays derrière elle pour la soutenir économiquement, une Wallonie indépendante se sentira bien seule.
(Et puis bon, si la Flandre après l'éclatement de la Belgique se met à prospérer insolemment alors que la Wallonie stagne et a du mal à se sortir du marasme économique ça ferait vraiment mauvais genre.)

[Nglund]

La republique française est Une et indivisible, et toute influence étrangère (c'est a dire néerlandaise, allemande...) serait decouragée or la Wallonie doit justement s'ouvrir vers le nord, encourager les echanges, si elle veut sortir du marasme actuel. (La France voit d'un très mauvais oeil les "euro-regions" qui pullulent un peu partout)


Une influence de quelle nature? S'il ne s'agit que de s'ouvrir commercialement, le cas de l'Alsace, région prospère pour laquelle le commerce transfrontalier est essentiel, illustre bien le fait que l'appartenance à la nation française n'est en aucun cas un frein au libre échange. Il ne faut pas confondre jacobinisme politique avec isolationnisme économique.

Quoi qu'il en soit avant d'encourager les échanges il faut d'abord penser à ce que l'on a à échanger, relancer la machine économique wallone avant de vouloir stimuler l'économie en s'appuyant sur la demande extérieure. Une Wallonie française aura le reste du pays derrière elle pour la soutenir économiquement, une Wallonie indépendante se sentira bien seule.
(Et puis bon, si la Flandre après l'éclatement de la Belgique se met à prospérer insolemment alors que la Wallonie stagne et a du mal à se sortir du marasme économique ça ferait vraiment mauvais genre.)

Sans vous déranger, il est plus convenable de dialoguer en français dans la section française de ce forum...

[Payens]

a) and b) "Brussels was stolen", THIS is lunatic thinking. You're basically denying that Brussels belongs to the Bruxellois, and should belong to Flanders instead (which is the corner stone of Flemish nationalist reasoning). The "Francophile lunatics" ARE the original historical inhabitants of Brussels for centuries!

Not correct. Already during the Brabant Revolution (1790) a great number of Walloon revolutionaries moved to Brussels.

Even before this during the 17th and 18th centuries a number of exile, like noblemen, writers, scholars and political figures, settled in Brussels, many of these came from the Walloon region.

There came in to existence Walloon schools, monasteries, French newspapers etc...

Regardless of the Dutch people adopting French, it was a result of the huge Wallonian and French pressure on the city before, during and after the Belgian revolt.

The Belgian revolution was a result of France and Wallonia. The first flags to symbolize the revolt in the Dutch city of Brussels were French, the first shouting’s 'Vive la France'. Flemish and Dutch speaking cities were loyal to the Netherlands, with the exception of Leuven, which was encouraged surprise, surprise by a newspaper : Journal de Louvain (!) with anti Dutch leaders with surprisingly non Dutch surnames, D'elhougne and Roussel, because one wouldn't expect this right?

The material support originated in Liege, with weapons, manpower and other arms. Not to dismiss the numeric French volunteers (!) of course! Not to mention Charles Rogier, this lunatic, Frenchman, leader of the Belgian revolution, later Belgian prime minister, declared the following :

"Les premiers principes d’une bonne administration sont basés sur l’emploi exclusif d’une langue et il est évident, que la seule langue des Belges doit être le Français. Pour arriver à ce résultat, il est nécessaire que toutes les fonctions, civiles et militaires, soient confiées pour quelques temps à des Wallons; de cette manière les Flamands, privés temporairement des avantages attachés à ces emplois, seront contraint d’apprendre le Français et l’on détruira, peu à peu l’élèment germanique en Belgique"

"The first principles of a good administration are based upon the exclusive use of one language, and it is evident that the only language of the Belgians should be French. In order to achieve this result, it is necessary that all civil and military functions are entrusted to Walloons and Luxemburgers; this way, the Flemish, temporarily deprived of the advantages of these offices, will be constrained to learn French, and we will hence destroy bit by bit the Germanic element in Belgium."

So, yes, stolen is a huge understatement. Not only is Brussels stolen, more correct would be to acknowledge that Flanders was stolen from the Netherlands by a Walloon/French coalition. Even today the holiday of the French Community in Belgium is on the 27th of September, the day the Dutch forces had the retreat (under international pressure) from Dutch soil.

So yes the Flemish should give a big fuck you to the Wallonian and French imperial monster.


Wallo-brux federation is just a name, it's exactly the same federation as the "french community", nothing changed. The cooperation between Brussels and Wallonia is just that, it has nothing to do with "stealing" whatever territory.

Nonsense, and you conveniently avoided my second remark on the issue :

- why do they demand a territorial link, a passageway between Wallonia and Brussels at cost of territory of the Flemish region, your bullshit never ever going to happen corridor?


d) It seems you Flemish (the nationalist kind) always call french-speakers arrogant and scornful without being short of those characteristics yourself. This must be a severe case of "Freudian projection".
Typical reasoning: "Oh those french speakers are so arrogant and scornful! And they are dirt poor we must get rid of them and we are so much better than them!".
Yeah right, who's arrogant and scornful again?

http://i52.tinypic.com/206n6f6.jpg

Yup, how dare we?! Demanding rights to defend our territory, while paying unemployed socialist voters in Wallonia. Our money and our territory, but shame on us!


e) The fact that Bruxelles is getting bigger has no impact on Wallonia which will stay the same, Wallonia never stole nor claimed any territory. The Brussels region and Wallonia are two different things. If Brussels is the capital of Flanders (and Flanders is insisting on that) then why are they so upset that a few Flemish villages are part of Brussels or not?


All stolen :

Houtem, Waasten, Neerwaasten, Komen, Herzeeuw, Luingne (Lowingen before Walloon annexation and colonization), Moeskroen, Dottenijs, Orroir, Rozenaken, Amougies (Dutch : Amengijs), Bierk, Sint-Renelde, Neerheylissem, Sluizen, Zittert-Lummen, Opheylissem, Korsworm, Wauteringen, Rukkelingen-aan-de-Jeker, Bitsingen, Wonck, Eben-Emael, Ternaaien.

I will not discuss French Flanders stolen by your brothers.


Your future post about Belgium, I expect it to be the typical flemish neo-romanticism "Oh we are an eternal oppressed Germanic people for centuries etc..." "Walloon are napoleonic imperalists" "Belgium is an anti-Flemish invention", far removed from reality.

"Les premiers principes d’une bonne administration sont basés sur l’emploi exclusif d’une langue et il est évident, que la seule langue des Belges doit être le Français. Pour arriver à ce résultat, il est nécessaire que toutes les fonctions, civiles et militaires, soient confiées pour quelques temps à des Wallons; de cette manière les Flamands, privés temporairement des avantages attachés à ces emplois, seront contraint d’apprendre le Français et l’on détruira, peu à peu l’élèment germanique en Belgique"


Are you claiming that the Bruxellois buying houses in the periphery are *not* the descendants of the Belgae or Franks? that Walloons are actually *aliens* to these ancient inhabitants? They ARE the Belgae and to a lesser extent Franks! Just like the Flemish! Except that they have been romanized. You make it sound like the Flemish are the Belgae/Franks and Walloon/Bruxellois are recent alien imperialists!

The northern Belgae were Germani Cisrhenani. In fact the Celtic language north of the Somme was more the exception then the rule, probably in correlation with the Nordwestblock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock).


Really, though there are problems in Belgium that should be dealt with, and IS a badly run country; the Flemish nationalist mindset seems to circumstancialy navigate between "Oh we are so oppressed, pity us!", and "others are poor and they suck, let's get rid of them!"; Basically, jealousing the rich and despising the poor. Not the most glorious human reasoning, and is ultimately the PETIT-BOURGEOIS mentality!

We have been oppressed, and even today the situation for the Dutch speaking people isn't healthy, honest and right. We have struggled against a nation that was out to destroy our ethnic identity (literally!), and even today the international perception that Belgium is indeed a French speaking nation still stands.

The issues of Belgium revolve around Flemish money, Flemish territory, Francophone expansion and Francophone privileges. And even up to this moment, 180 years later, the Flemish are the ones giving up those objects. What did Wallonia lose in Belgian context, other then their illegitimate supremacy over the Flemish? Did they lose or gain territory? Lose or gain money?

[gandalf]

Just give Bruxellistan to the Flemish ,
and the Wallons to who they want to be with ,
hopefully Dutch will want them , whatever , or be independant ,
because it would make a hunchback on the back of Frankreich .

[Albion]

Nah, just give Brussels a referendum on who they want to join, either Flanders or Wallonia.

[Payens]

Nah, just give Brussels a referendum on who they want to join, either Flanders or Wallonia.

Perhaps one can hold a referendum in London within a year or 150 to see who they prefer to join, Pakistan, the British West Indies or who knows England.

Brussels is a city, nothing more, nothing less. If they want more living space they can start building towards the sky. A city within Flanders, so therefore if Belgium would split, a city within the new nation state of Flanders.

[Albion]

Perhaps one can hold a referendum in London within a year or 150 to see who they prefer to join, Pakistan, the British West Indies or who knows England.

Brussels is a city, nothing more, nothing less. If they want more living space they can start building towards the sky. A city within Flanders, so therefore if Belgium would split, a city within the new nation state of Flanders.

I don't think you can compare them like that, the Walloons are native to Belgium as are the Flemmish, the Pakis and West Indians aren't.

I suspect most Brusslers are just Frenchified Flemish really and I'd prefer it's inclusion with Flanders myself.

[Payens]

I don't think you can compare them like that, the Walloons are native to Belgium as are the Flemmish, the Pakis and West Indians aren't.

I suspect most Brusslers are just Frenchified Flemish really and I'd prefer it's inclusion with Flanders myself.

They are native to Wallonia. Belgium is an artificial nation. But ok, how about over a time span of less then 200 years, a million Scots moved to London, they didn't integrate, became the majority, demand the expansion of London with English city periphery along the outer boundary, and when Britain is in crisis, demand the annexation of London with Scotland and in the spirit of true expansionism a geographical link with Scotland over English territory. Would the English give them a referendum?

Brussels is ours, it will remain bilingual, with a system of positive discrimination in favor of Dutch and the recognition and cultural protection of the Francophone community as a historic minority, limited to Brussels.

[Tchek]

They are native to Wallonia. Belgium is an artificial nation. But ok, how about over a time span of less then 200 years, a million Scots moved to London, they didn't integrate, became the majority, demand the expansion of London with English city periphery along the outer boundary, and when Britain is in crisis, demand the annexation of London with Scotland and in the spirit of true expansionism a geographical link with Scotland over English territory. Would the English give them a referendum?

Brussels is ours, it will remain bilingual, with a system of positive discrimination in favor of Dutch and the recognition and cultural protection of the Francophone community as a historic minority, limited to Brussels.

This is bullshit... The idea that French-speakers are aliens "stealing Brussels" or Flanders, is drilled in all little Flemish kids head these days. There have always been French-speakers historically in Flanders; Brussels (and Brabant) has always been a crossroad of many cultures.
Second, the Flemish are refusing a referendum because they know that the Brussels inhabitants won't agree with them? Very democratic.

And the system of "positive discrimination" in favor of Dutch is already sneaking, unofficially anyway. Go ask the french-speaking Bruxellois, in the job field, they'll tell you cynically that being flemish is a diploma in itself.

What's scary with your deluded, one-sided vision of history is that it is believed by soo many flemish I spoke to.

[Payens]

This is bullshit... The idea that French-speakers are aliens "stealing Brussels" or Flanders, is drilled in all little Flemish kids head these days. There have always been French-speakers historically in Flanders; Brussels (and Brabant) has always been a crossroad of many cultures.
Second, the Flemish are refusing a referendum because they know that the Brussels inhabitants won't agree? Very democratic.

Walloon politicians claim territory to ensure Brussels as their own in case Belgium would fall apart, this is a fact.

We refuse a referendum because we have surpassed the days when independent city-states were powerhouses. Brussels is a city, one that is overestimating itself hugely, spits in the face of the autochthon population while asking more autochthon money to support their lousy governed town.

They have nothing to agree about, cities don't change nation by their own opportunistic actions.


And the system of "positive discrimination" in favor of Dutch is already sneaking, unofficially anyway. Go ask the french-speaking Bruxellois, in the job field, they'll tell you cynically that being flemish is a diploma in itself

That is because our system of education is of a higher, internationally acknowledged standard, then what is served to pupils in Wallonia by and under the supervision of the French community.

The fact that both Dutch parents as well as Walloon parents send their children to Flemish schools speaks for its own.

[Payens]

What's scary with your deluded, one-sided vision of history is that it is believed by soo many flemish I spoke to

Because it is factual. This isn't patriotic blabbering, it is choosing right above wrong.

[Tchek]

Walloon politicians claim territory to ensure Brussels as their own in case Belgium would fall apart, this is a fact.

Flemish politicians are geopolitically isolating Brussels into Flanders by splitting BHV, under-financing it etc... to ensure Brussels as their own in case Belgium fall apart, this is a fact. Actually much more factual than what you claim Wallonian politicians are allegedly doing... because "walloon" politicians don't actually want the country to split, while most Flemish politicians do. Walloon politicians want Brussels to be the capital of all Belgians. They just want Wallonia to be close to Brussels because it is still the capital of Belgium. It's totally natural for a region to ensure connections towards the economical center of the country in order to stimulate its economy. In any country.
Unfortunately, with the purposeful growing isolation of Brussels into Flanders, the city is "drifting away" from Wallonia thanks to all the little sneaky tactics the Flemish governement is doing so Brussels fall into their hands like a ripe fruit.


We refuse a referendum because we have surpassed the days when independent city-states were powerhouses. Brussels is a city, one that is overestimating itself hugely, spits in the face of the autochthon population while asking more autochthon money to support their lousy governed town.

Brussels spits in the face of the autochton population? (and who are the autochton population? the Flemish?)

[Tchek]

"The first principles of a good administration are based upon the exclusive use of one language, and it is evident that the only language of the Belgians should be French. In order to achieve this result, it is necessary that all civil and military functions are entrusted to Walloons and Luxemburgers; this way, the Flemish, temporarily deprived of the advantages of these offices, will be constrained to learn French, and we will hence destroy bit by bit the Germanic element in Belgium."

So, yes, stolen is a huge understatement. Not only is Brussels stolen, more correct would be to acknowledge that Flanders was stolen from the Netherlands by a Walloon/French coalition. Even today the holiday of the French Community in Belgium is on the 27th of September, the day the Dutch forces had the retreat (under international pressure) from Dutch soil.

So yes the Flemish should give a big fuck you to the Wallonian and French imperial monster.

The pro-French stance (whether you admit it or not, Flanders was not anti-French at all, and they hated the Dutch for religious reason, some gladly spoke French) only lasted until World War I, when the invading Prussians (you should love them) imposed the Flamenpolitik which is a set of pro-Flemish laws that were actually never withdrawn since then.
The Prussians are the inventor of modern Flanders. Moritz von Bissing more exactly. It was a geopolitical invention meant to create a germanized strip of land linking Western Prussia (via un-flemish Limburg) to the port of Antwerp, strategical port for an offensive towards England.
From then on, Flanders never lost its advantage given initially by the Prussian occupation (the second world war was a the last nail in the coffin of Wallonia)
In 1917, Von Bissing drew a line in the middle of the country (absolutely identical to the modern division), declared Brussels the capital of the newly created region of Flanders, and Namur the capital of Wallonia. Brussels was given to Flanders in order to give the north of the country a geopolitical advantage.
This politics reappeared decades later during the federalisation of the country when the linguistic frontier was fixed, where most of the Flamenpolitik points reappeared! The same lingustic line, the same capitals! That's why Flanders suddenly went uphill and Wallonia downhill right after respectively WWI and WWII ended!

Bottom line: Belgium was beneficial to Flanders after both german occupations.


All stolen :

Houtem, Waasten, Neerwaasten, Komen, Herzeeuw, Luingne (Lowingen before Walloon annexation and colonization), Moeskroen, Dottenijs, Orroir, Rozenaken, Amougies (Dutch : Amengijs), Bierk, Sint-Renelde, Neerheylissem, Sluizen, Zittert-Lummen, Opheylissem, Korsworm, Wauteringen, Rukkelingen-aan-de-Jeker, Bitsingen, Wonck, Eben-Emael, Ternaaien.

I will not discuss French Flanders stolen by your brothers.

French flanders are not my brothers.

The fact those places possess also a Flemish name doesn't mean they should be Flemish. Liege should be German then: it's called Luttich too!
What about Limburg? It was part of Liege for 1000 years, why is it in Flanders today? Stolen? What about Paris? Dutch name=Parijs... OMG it must be Flemish then!

The irony is that you are calling French speakers "imperialists" while you are actually the imperialist-minded one!


We have been oppressed, and even today the situation for the Dutch speaking people isn't healthy, honest and right. We have struggled against a nation that was out to destroy our ethnic identity (literally!), and even today the international perception that Belgium is indeed a French speaking nation still stands.
This is wrong. As I said before, Flanders actually BENEFITED from Belgium, as the region was built and prospered *within* its very context! It's a Flemish nationalist myth that Belgium "oppressed" Flanders! As I said above, there was no oppression of Flanders after 14-18, quite the contrary (all your "historical proofs of flemish oppression" are, nowadays irrelevant, pre-WWI references). Now Belgium had its time and became a bit "useless" for Flanders and want to get rid of it. In order to manipulate the Flemish population into radicalism, a mediatically fed "flemish victimhood" propaganda has been religiously imposed towards its population for a decade now, and you are a good priest of it.


The issues of Belgium revolve around Flemish money, Flemish territory, Francophone expansion and Francophone privileges. And even up to this moment, 180 years later, the Flemish are the ones giving up those objects. What did Wallonia lose in Belgian context, other then their illegitimate supremacy over the Flemish? Did they lose or gain territory? Lose or gain money?
What did Wallonia lost? Wallonia went from one of the richest to one of the poorest region of Europe within Belgium!

[The Lawspeaker]

O.K.. aangezien het een topic betreft over onze Nederlanden schakel ik over op mijn eigen taal. Payens: ik ben het niet helemaal met je eens dat je alles maar bij de Walen in de schoenen schuift te meer omdat Vlamingen EN Walen het slachtoffer zijn van dezelfde politiek - en van dezelfde vijand. De vijand in dezen is Frankrijk die gaarne zijn grens naar het noorden probeerde te verplaatsen en lokale culturen heeft verpletterd en prijsgegeven aan het centralisme en aan de willekeur en uitbuiting door zijn elite.

De mensen die de Vlamingen hebben onderdrukt waren niet de Walen maar een ver-Franste elite .. soms zelfs van Franse afkomst die OF door de Fransen tijdens de Middeleeuwen werden aangevoerd, OF tijdens de Revolutie OF die gewoon als collaborateurs werkzaam waren.

Wallonië mocht dan wel tijdens het begin van de twintigste eeuw het rijkste stukje van continentaal Europa zijn.. de gewone Waal heeft daar nog geen sou van gezien - hij mocht slechts tevreden zijn met een kleine chomage nadat de mijnen en fabrieken werden gesloten --- en de banen verplaatst naar lagelonenlanden. En toen de mijnen er nog waren werden Italianen of andere buitenlanders ingevoerd om de lonen te drukken. Investeringen in veiligheid ? Mais pourquoi ? Ik noem maar als voorbeeld de mijnramp van Marcinelle in 1956.

De grote opstanden waren dan ook in Wallonië en niet in zozeer in Vlaanderen. De grote werkstaking van 1893 is daar een zeer typisch voorbeeld van of anders wel de Jacquerie van 1886 - of recenter de algemene werkstaking van 1960-1961. De gewone Jean in Wallonië heeft dezelfde sociale ellende moeten doorstaan als velen in de grauwe industriesteden van Groot-Brittannië.

Misschien geld voor zowel jou als voor Tchek - die mooie Amerikaanse uitdrukking: you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Tchek]

O.K.. aangezien het een topic betreft over onze Nederlanden schakel ik over op mijn eigen taal. Payens: ik ben het niet helemaal met je eens dat je alles maar bij de Walen in de schoenen schuift te meer omdat Vlamingen EN Walen het slachtoffer zijn van dezelfde politiek - en van dezelfde vijand. De vijand in dezen is Frankrijk die gaarne zijn grens naar het noorden probeerde te verplaatsen en lokale culturen heeft verpletterd en prijsgegeven aan het centralisme en aan de willekeur en uitbuiting door zijn elite.

De mensen die de Vlamingen hebben onderdrukt waren niet de Walen maar een ver-Franste elite .. soms zelfs van Franse afkomst die OF door de Fransen tijdens de Middeleeuwen werden aangevoerd, OF tijdens de Revolutie OF die gewoon als collaborateurs werkzaam waren.

Wallonië mocht dan wel tijdens het begin van de twintigste eeuw het rijkste stukje van continentaal Europa zijn.. de gewone Waal heeft daar nog geen sou van gezien - hij mocht slechts tevreden zijn met een kleine chomage nadat de mijnen en fabrieken werden gesloten --- en de banen verplaatst naar lagelonenlanden. En toen de mijnen er nog waren werden Italianen of andere buitenlanders ingevoerd om de lonen te drukken. Investeringen in veiligheid ? Mais pourquoi ? Ik noem maar als voorbeeld de mijnramp van Marcinelle in 1956.

De grote opstanden waren dan ook in Wallonië en niet in zozeer in Vlaanderen. De grote werkstaking van 1893 is daar een zeer typisch voorbeeld van of anders wel de Jacquerie van 1886. De gewone Jean in Wallonië heeft dezelfde sociale ellende moeten doorstaan als velen in de grauwe industriesteden van Groot-Brittannië.

Misschien geld voor zowel jou als voor Tchek - die mooie Amerikaanse uitdrukking: you're barking up the wrong tree.


^ Except for the fact that I'm not as anti-France as you are, I mostly agree.

[The Lawspeaker]

Ik geloof niet in het uiteenvallen van België. Dat zou betekenen dat wij dus met VIER Nederlandse staten (vijf als je de Afrikaanders meetelt) te maken gaan krijgen terwijl de Nederlanden een zouden moeten zijn.

Voor de buitenlanders: een Nederlander is niet een op klompen lopende kaas- en haring-vreter die zijn tulpen verzorgd en zijn molen nog eens een keertje poetst maar een bewoner van de lage landen.

Terwijl de geschiedenis hem cultureel aaneen heeft gesmeed en later voor een gedeelte weer verdeelt heeft dezelfde geschiedenis hem politiek verdeelt. Slechts weinigen beseffen nog dat België en Nederland in principe precies hetzelfde betekenen: het betekent de Lage Landen. Ook tijdens de Zeventiende Eeuw was de latijnse naam van onze Noordelijke Nederlanden Belgica (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgica) -- Belgica Foederata (Belgische Bond / Belgische Federatie), Foederatae Belgii Provinciae (de Geünieerde Belgische Provincies) terwijl wat nu België heet bekend stond als Belgica Regia. Onze taal werd in het Latijn omschreven als Lingua Belga - ons nationaal embleem als de Leo Belgicus (de Belgische Leeuw).


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/1583_Leo_Belgicus_Hogenberg.jpg

Noord en Zuid gingen samen de onafhankelijkheidsstrijd in en we kunnen zeggen dat de Nederlanden de oorlog niet hebben gewonnen (hoewel Orangisten en calvinisten nu anders zullen beweren): het Zuiden ging verloren.

De Verenigde Nederlandse Staten/ Verenigde Belgische Staten van 1790 was een ander typisch voorbeeld van een onafhankelijkheidsstrijd. Het Zuiden zocht aansluiting en steun bij het Noorden.. het was toen Oranje (dat geheel samenwerkend met Pruisen, Oostenrijk en Groot-Brittannië) onze volksgenoten in het Zuiden liet barsten. 1830.. was een groot drama. In een vlaag van waanzin, aangestuurd door een stupide politiek van Koning Willem I EN Franse ambities, gingen Nederlanders uit Noord en Zuid elkaar te lijf.

Het huidige Nederland en België zijn twee rompstaten. Noord- en Zuid-Nederland. Noem het een soort Oost- en West-Duitsland minus muur en communisme maar even verdeeld.

[Payens]

Flemish politicians are geopolitically isolating Brussels into Flanders by splitting BHV, under-financing it etc... to ensure Brussels as their own in case Belgium fall apart, this is a fact. Actually much more factual than what you claim Wallonian politicians are allegedly doing... because "walloon" politicians don't actually want the country to split, while most Flemish politicians do. Walloon politicians want Brussels to be the capital of all Belgians. They just want Wallonia to be close to Brussels because it is still the capital of Belgium. It's totally natural for a region to ensure connections towards the economical center of the country in order to stimulate its economy. In any country.
Unfortunately, with the purposeful growing isolation of Brussels into Flanders, the city is "drifting away" from Wallonia thanks to all the little sneaky tactics the Flemish governement is doing so Brussels fall into their hands like a ripe fruit.

This is a preservationist forum for European peoples, their land, history, culture and identity. Perhaps you are not in your element here.

You are claiming land, history and culture that wasn't yours, isn't yours and will never be yours while you destroy by doing so the identity of my people. You are a thief, destroyer and an imperialist, that is the naked truth.

Brussels is isolated within Flanders, true. Don't see your point. As it is a Dutch city, frenchified within Dutch territory. True true true. The rest of your argument equals to the murder of truth, logic and reality. But fine.

a) Splitting BHV : Brussel Halle Vilvoorde is about Francophone privileges, opportunism and a good dose of arrogance really. It is the only arrondissement in Belgium - with the exception of bilingual Brussels (part of it) - where politicians of the other community can collect their votes, giving their little colonizers within Flanders no reason to integrate and respect Flanders and the Flemish as they can vote for Francophone parties with imperial Francophone interests and intentions.

To illustrate this reality, see the imperialist dogmas spread within unilingual Flanders by the depute prime minster of Belgium under flag of the Union des Francophones.

"« Les candidates et les candidats MR s"engagent à vous défendre, à refuser toute scission des arrondissements judiciaire et électoral de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde, à exiger l"application de la Convention-cadre sur la protection des minorités nationales, à revendiquer l"élargissement de la Région bruxelloise aux communes où vit une communauté singnificative de francophones, à combattre les plans flamands visant à l"assimilation linguistique et culturelle des francophones de la périphérie.
S"il y a une patrie à donner aux francophones, s"il y a une patrie à leur faire aimer, c"est une patrie francophone, une Belgique francophone. »"

Reminds me of "La Belgique sera latine ou ne sera pas" by Rogier. Fuck Belgium if this shouldn't be clear already.

BHV non surprisingly is located within Flanders. There is no such arrondissement nor reality within Wallonia. Therefore it is by definition a privilege for the Francophone community. A non constitutional privilege as ruled by the Constitutional Court of Belgium (2003). It provided to the walloons to vote across the linguistic border within unilingual Dutch territory. For the Flemish no such luck of course. Mind you both the linguistic border as well as the unilingual communities came at request of the Walloons. Fearing the Dutch speaking majority within Belgium. The first uprising of the Flemish cultural and social struggle resulted in Vive la séperation administrative in the Belgian Senate in 1910.

BHV equals a unconstitutional construction that encouraged the frenchification of Flanders.

b) financing Brussels

Brussels doesn't want to belong to Flanders. Though it will patronize the Flemish and disrespect the language legislation in Belgium. Then why would we pay even more then now for a city full of Arabs and negroes governed by A, Francophone imperialists (FDF) or by B, the marxists of the PS. You tell me.


Walloon politicians want Brussels to be the capital of all Belgians. They just want Wallonia to be close to Brussels because it is still the capital of Belgium. It's totally natural for a region to ensure connections towards the economical center of the country in order to stimulate its economy. In any country.

The Flemish region and her community should give up their modern and historic territory for this bs argument? What people would do so?

Brussels was is and will be ours, nothing you can do about it. A disintegration and split of Belgium will result by international law in two new nations along their linguistic borders. This is the real reason for the imperial demand of the Walloons.

Build your new capital in the Ardennes for all I care.


The pro-French stance (whether you admit it or not, Flanders was not anti-French at all, and they hated the Dutch for religious reason, some gladly spoke French) only lasted until World War I, when the invading Prussians (you should love them) imposed the Flamenpolitik which is a set of pro-Flemish laws that were actually never withdrawn since then.

Not true. Antwerp was praised for its loyality to the House of Orange.

I do love the Germans for it. The Flamenpolitik gave us the first Dutch university in Belgium in the city of Ghent, my university :). Absolute horror indeed.


The Prussians are the inventor of modern Flanders. Moritz von Bissing more exactly. It was a geopolitical invention meant to create a germanized strip of land linking Western Prussia (via un-flemish Limburg) to the port of Antwerp, strategical port for an offensive towards England.
From then on, Flanders never lost its advantage given initially by the Prussian occupation (the second world war was a the last nail in the coffin of Wallonia)
In 1917, Von Bissing drew a line in the middle of the country (absolutely identical to the modern division), declared Brussels the capital of the newly created region of Flanders, and Namur the capital of Wallonia. Brussels was given to Flanders in order to give the north of the country a geopolitical advantage.

I am not sure about the interpretation you use for the term invention. How can modern Flanders be merely and only a geopolitical invention when it covers the Dutch speaking ethnicity. He made the cut along the already on ethnicity depending linguistic lines that existed in this region since the time of Rome and before.

Firstly Flanders, or so you insist, the Dutch speaking North of Belgium is only part of Belgium because of Francophone separatism and the social and cultural suppression of the Dutch people in the North. So this notion that Brussels was given to the Dutch speaking population by a German for his geopolitical invention is a manipulation of reality and a disregard of history. Brussels was already our capital within the Belgian context of 1830, the Dutch context before it and long before this during the 17th century as capital of the Southern Netherlands, the 16th century as capital of the Netherlands and perhaps I didn't mention it as a city within this Dutch speaking part of this globe.

The border can not be absolutely identical to this border as the linguistic border of this day is a construction of a Walloon request in 1962. Nor do I see why you are so tense, this separation of administration in 1917 is exactly what was asked for in the Francophone Belgian Senate in 1910.

The linguistic border was from its own nature more southern positioned then it is at this juncture within the Belgian context.


This politics reappeared decades later during the federalisation of the country when the linguistic frontier was fixed, where most of the Flamenpolitik points reappeared! The same lingustic line, the same capitals! That's why Flanders suddenly went uphill and Wallonia downhill right after respectively WWI and WWII ended

If you believe this nonsense then you are mistaken. Flanders will be richer, more prosperous because of its mentality, innovation, education and culture.

The Flamenpolitik doesn't force the modern Walloons to vote for the PS and its socialist culture. It is not Bissing who forces Walloons to strike on every good or not so good opportunity or event.


Bottom line: Belgium was beneficial to Flanders after both german occupations.

Today after 180 years of La Belgique sera latine ou ne sera pas this Flamenpolitik is to be considered as a short but more then welcome breath of fresh air. Truth, if the Walloons wouldn't be have been so much in favor of constructional and cultural genocide in regards of the Flemish this Flamenpolitik wouldn’t have been in existence.


The fact those places possess also a Flemish name doesn't mean they should be Flemish. Liege should be German then: it's called Luttich too!
What about Limburg? It was part of Liege for 1000 years, why is it in Flanders today? Stolen? What about Paris? Dutch name=Parijs... OMG it must be Flemish then!

The irony is that you are calling French speakers "imperialists" while you are actually the imperialist-minded one!

You are childishly naive. They shouldn't be Flemish, they are Flemish regardless of their position in regards of the border. They are so because these towns were founded by people of Germanic speech. And while perhaps the Walloon region believes in cultural and linguistic supremacy and assimilation as ground for citizenship and territory regardless of ethnicity, I for one believe in ethnic nationalism. These are areas where in recent times the local, historical and cultural language was replaced by the non native French.

For example the Low Dietsch area in what is now Liege where the cultural language was always a form of lowlandic Germanic speech.

The danger in defining a people and nation in the manner you do lies in the fact that you will have to accept blacks and arabs as they recently learned to speak your tongue.


This is wrong. As I said before, Flanders actually BENEFITED from Belgium, as the region was built and prospered *within* its very context! It's a Flemish nationalist myth that Belgium "oppressed" Flanders! As I said above, there was no oppression of Flanders after 14-18, quite the contrary (all your "historical proofs of flemish oppression" are, nowadays irrelevant, pre-WWI references). Now Belgium had its time and became a bit "useless" for Flanders and want to get rid of it. In order to manipulate the Flemish population into radicalism, a mediatically fed "flemish victimhood" propaganda has been religiously imposed towards its population for a decade now, and you are a good priest of it.

The emancipation of the Dutch speaking Belgians is always objected, corrupted and destabilized by the French establishment. Although it is more provable and out in the open within the first 100 years of Belgium, and much more complex and political after it.

The reality of our economical success isn't part of post ww2 Belgium, but of anti socialist sentiments and strong entrepreneurial activity and a strong and high educated middle class before the first ww. A middle class restricted from legitimate power because of the anti Flemish Belgian construction.

We have to get rid of Belgium because its purpose and birth is against us. We have to get rid of Belgium because although we are the majority living in a center right political entity we have to compromise with a socialist region that has in regards of its numbers a disproportional influence. We have to cope with a walloon/socialist enforcement of the right for immigrants to vote and a immigration policy for which we didn't choose, but the Walloons.

We have to get rid of Belgium because we have to pay for it under the false flag of solidarity. Flanders gives the French community each year about 10 billion Euro without any conditions attached (5% Flemish GNP) The Netherlands give the European Union around 3 billion Euro (0.5% of their GNP). This is a unhealthy situation within any federation.

[gandalf]

I heard that belgium parties made a new reform
increasing power and autonomy of regions .

Will it end the threat of a partition of Belgium ?

[The Lawspeaker]

Unlikely. It means that Belgium will remain Belgium for the foreseeable future.

[Albion]

Unlikely. It means that Belgium will remain Belgium for the foreseeable future.

...Hurray?.....

[The Lawspeaker]

...Hurray?.....
It would certainly give the two countries the chance to grow even closer together instead of rushing things.

[The Lawspeaker]

Voor onze Waalse, Nederlandse en Vlaamse leden. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30171) (This is an internal matter that has very little to do with the French or any other foreign race).

[dralos]

wallonia should stay in belgium,many other belgians feel this way too,they only speak french but other then that they don't have much connection with french
the wallonians look very germanic like the flemish while french are more atlantid looking

[The Lawspeaker]

wallonia should stay in belgium,many other belgians feel this way too,they only speak french but other then that they don't have much connection with french
the wallonians look very germanic like the flemish while french are more atlantid looking
Which might work too. If a reunification should ever take place then it should be the Belgians that should take the initiative. The chair is ready and we've kept it warm but it is the Belgians that will have to sit in it and we can't do that for them.

You can lead a horse to water... :thumb001:

[dralos]

Which might work too. If a reunification should ever take place then it should be the Belgians that should take the initiative. The chair is ready and we've kept it warm but it is the Belgians that will have to sit in it and we can't do that for them.

You lead a horse to water... :thumb001:
and if i'm not mistaking most belgians don't want belgium to split up,inlcuding me.

[The Lawspeaker]

and if i'm not mistaking most belgians don't want belgium to split up,inlcuding me.
Good. But it would still be a good idea to focus more on Dutch-Belgian-Luxembourg cooperation instead of the EU. The Benelux worked miracles for all of us. :thumb001:

[dralos]

Good. But it would still be a good idea to focus more on Dutch-Belgian-Luxembourg cooperation instead of the EU. The Benelux worked miracles for all of us. :thumb001:
i agree the benelux would be good for us,i bet it would make us much stronger in many aspects.and it would bring us more closer to eachother,and it would end the stupid stereotypes about the belgians and dutchmen:D

[The Lawspeaker]

i agree the benelux would be good for us,i bet it would make us much stronger in many aspects.and it would bring us more closer to eachother,and it would end the stupid stereotypes about the belgians and dutchmen:D
Those are funny and part of who we are anyway. :p It keeps both Belgians and Dutch sharp and it makes sure that we keep on outdoing each other and without that the Low Countries would be a stale and boring place.

And when it comes to the NL/VL section (where this thread belongs anyway) I will try to influence the boss into changing the flags into the tricolours of Belgium and the Netherlands and renaming it "De Lage Landen" and creating subsections for Frisians, Low Saxons, Flemish, , Limburgics, Dutch and Walloons or at least for Belgium, the Netherlands and Frisia. (like the British forum). :)

[Albion]

It would certainly give the two countries the chance to grow even closer together instead of rushing things.

Yeah, I know your game. ;) Maybe another idea would be to join the Benelux together as a federation. The states would be Wallonia, Flanders (incorporating Netherlands Limburg, Brabant and Zeeland maybe) , Netherlands and Friesland.

the old provinces could be retained in a similar manner to how they are in the Spanish autonomous regions or could become counties.
Each state would be able to set a native tongue as an official language alongside Dutch. Just an idea.


Voor onze Waalse, Nederlandse en Vlaamse leden. (This is an internal matter that has very little to do with the French or any other foreign race).

We let you comment on our internal affairs... ;)

[The Lawspeaker]

Yeah, I know your game. ;) Maybe another idea would be to join the Benelux together as a federation. The states would be Wallonia, Flanders (incorporating Netherlands Limburg, Brabant and Zeeland maybe) , Netherlands and Friesland
My idea was more something akin to a devolved UK or Switzerland as depending on the conditions of a reunification. Frisia as a recognised minority language in Frisia, Low Saxon in Guelders, Drenthe and Overijssel (and maybe Groningen). Walloon in Wallonia and Brussels bi-lingual Dutch and Walloon French (or Belgian French if they would consider that more appriopriate).

Otherwise: in the UK-scenario it would be a United Kingdom of the Netherlands and Belgium. So the Belgians have their rules and parliament and we have our own (and we would have a kind of Westminster as well but we should make Brussels the capital) but we would still be under one crown but for that we would need of our youngest princesses to marry one of their young princes. So the title should be changed to King (or Queen) of the Belgians and King (or Queen) of the Netherlands.
.


the old provinces could be retained in a similar manner to how they are in the Spanish autonomous regions or could become counties.
Each state would be able to set a native tongue as an official language alongside Dutch. Just an idea.
One would see mergers of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and the two Vlaanderen's, Brabant, Antwerpen en Noord-Brabant, Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland and the two Limburgs but that's about it.




We let you comment on our internal affairs... ;)
This is a bit too difficult a situation for you lot. ;)

[brunette]

What is this about?

[The Lawspeaker]

Wallonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallonia). :)

[The Lawspeaker]

For the Dutch and Belgians amongst us:


We had a debate about reforming the Dutch subforum (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18879) a while back and let's transfer the nature of this debate to this international thread so it becomes more clear. We don't have a functioning moderation at the moment so I hope that the administration will look into the matter asap because frankly in our subforum a major revision and organisational overhaul is long overdue.



For short:


I proposed to clean up the mess big time (as our once so superbly organised subforum has become a mess with threads about different subject huddled together and this is for a Dutchman like me -a race as punctual as Germans and just slightly less anal - an eye sore. So I proposed to put all the different treads about moving historical pictures into one big thread (Transl. example of how it would look: NL/FL/ History and culture/ Old imagery.)
I proposed a dedicated Nature & Environment subsection where all the threads regarding nature and the environment (maybe including green energy) can be placed.
I proposed a subsection regarding Immigration where we would talk about issues regarding immigration and the multicultural society.
And in order to clean up the visible space I proposed to use the "English look (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=39)" - meaning to reorganise the visual space into how it was done in the United Kingdom subforum.
Groenewolf proposed a Politics (Politiek) subsection.
I also proposed a Walloon subsection and I also think that a Frisian and Flanders subsection within the Dutch subforum would be a good idea. Basically it would become more like the United Kingdom subforum with it's Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland-subsections.
I would like to propose a new name: "De Nederlanden" (plural form of the Dutch name for the Netherlands as to signify the Greater/Whole Netherlands idea behind it).


We could use both the Dutch and Belgian flag (in the same way as we now have a Flemish flag) and give each new subsection it's own flag. :)

[gandalf]

Good idea , at last we will speak french in the Low Country's sub-forum !

[The Lawspeaker]

Good idea , at last we will speak french in the Low Country's sub-forum !
French would be one of the languages in use, yes. Particularly in areas when it comes to Wallonia.

[Dandelion]

De Verenigde Nederlandse Staten/ Verenigde Belgische Staten van 1790 was een ander typisch voorbeeld van een onafhankelijkheidsstrijd. Het Zuiden zocht aansluiting en steun bij het Noorden.. het was toen Oranje (dat geheel samenwerkend met Pruisen, Oostenrijk en Groot-Brittannië) onze volksgenoten in het Zuiden liet barsten. 1830.. was een groot drama. In een vlaag van waanzin, aangestuurd door een stupide politiek van Koning Willem I EN Franse ambities, gingen Nederlanders uit Noord en Zuid elkaar te lijf.

Toch was er toen reeds een zekere tweespalt duidelijk.

In het Frans werd de kortstondige confederatie uitsluitend 'Les Etats-Belgiques Unis' genoemd, waar men die in het Nederlands zowel 'De Verenigde Nederlandse Staaten' als 'De Verenigde Belgische Staaten' noemde.
In de Franstalige wereld was de naam Pays-Bas niet zo populair in die tijd. Het is trouwens sinds de late Oostenrijkse periode dat men de term Belg in bepaalde kringen ging hanteren voor uitsluitend de Habsburgse Nederlanden. Bij de opstandelingen in die tijd waren er ook twee voorname facties, nl. de Vonckisten die meer zagen in een Zuid-Nederlands centralisme en de Statisten van van der Noot die een hechtere band met de Nederlandse Republiek voorstonden.

Interessant is wel dat het verdrag van de onafhankelijkheidsverklaring zowel in het Nederlands als in het Frans opgesteld werd, daar waar de latere Belgische Grondwet uitsluitend in het Frans werd geschreven. Uiteraard waren de Brabantse Rebellen voornamelijk Nederlandstalig, daar waar de latere Belgische bestonden uit een Franssprekende burgerij van zowel Franse als verfranste afkomst.

[Dandelion]

Het is trouwens niet nieuw dat we verschillen van het Zuiden des lands. Tijdens de Nederlandse Opstand was de enige 'Waalse' stad die zich aansloot bij de Unie van Utrecht Doornik, daar waar ook sommige 'Nederlandse' steden de Habsburgers trouw bleven, maar waar praktisch het gehele Nederlandstalige gebied toch rebelleerde. Men ziet ook grofweg scheidingslijnen tussen Nederlands- en Franstalige gebieden: nl. Habsburgsgetrouwe zones Frans-, en opstandige zones Nederlandstalig.
De Waalse Provinciën hadden een machtere adel en waren ook toen al reeds cultureel hechter verbonden met Frankrijk. Zeker na de beruchte Batholomeusnacht in Frankrijk had het Protestantisme daar bovendien geen grote verspreidingsmacht.

Persoonlijk zie ik de benaming Nederlanden met Wallonië erbij als een pars-pro-toto-benaming. Het zwaartepunt was immers eerst Brugge, dan Antwerpen en om vervolgens te verhuizen naar Amsterdam. Daarom ook dat Franstaligen de voorkeur ontwikkelden voor Belgique i.p.v. Pays-Bas, omdat het hen getrouwer aanvoelt.
Het is hetzelfde fenomeen als het feit dat men de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (met Wallonië erbij) vroeger in de volksmond wel eens 'Vlaanderen' noemde en hoe men de Noordelijke nog steeds wel eens 'Holland' noemt (om maar te zwijgen van de huidige Vlaamse symboliek voor onze regio, de notie van 'Vlaams is Nederlandstalig' werd alom gepopulariseerd in de Late Oostenrijkse periode).

[Comte Arnau]

Be expansionist and call it Benelux. :D