Talk:Hypothetical partition of Belgium

Possible consequences

Perhaps we should try to add a section on the possible consequences of Flemish independence or the partition of Belgium in the current context. A number of newspapers published articles on what the consequences of an independent Flanders would be with regard to EU membership, etc. I think we can use those articles as a source of information.--Ganchelkas 10:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - as much information as is relevant. However, I would warn against turning to opinions and speculation about stuff that hasn't happened yet, or there isn't any practical process going on. K a r n a 11:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I agree with both of you. —Nightstallion 12:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

--Has anything been said about Brussels, and its officially-bilingual status (as well as its rather-unique status in EU affairs)? Right now this is just speculation on my part, but should Flanders and Wallonia become independent countries in the European Union --or part of the Netherlands and France, respectively--, could Brussels become sort-of a modern day Danzig? Could it cease being the seat of government of any particular country, and assume a full-time role as the seat of government for Europe as a whole? (Like the "Distrito Federal" of either Brazil or Mexico, or the "District of Columbia" in America?) --At any rate, I agree that only relevant information should be included, and NO original research. Pine 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Brussels has been noted as a factor in the issue, but right now its all speculation that must be avoided, as it is not really information, just conjecture. K a r n a 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Brussels is majority French speaking, so i guess it will become a part of Wallonie or France instead of an independent country. But it depends on the negotiations in the future. If the Dutch want to secede from Belgium, than the French will have the best starting position for negotiations, because they want Belgium to continue functioning. (I hope Belgium remains a country. A partiton can have serious consequences for my country, Holland).Daanschr 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I sure wouldn't count on Flanders becoming a part of Holland, Holland will become a part of Flanders "Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated!" Borg (Star Trek)  ;-) ;-) ;-) JurgenG (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho, this has become a very nice article. When I started it, I didn't know anything about writing a thorough article, but this seems to have covered the bases, and covered the important developments. My thanks to everybody who made this article so good. K a r n a 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A great article indeed, congratulations! Maybe you guys from out of our country understand better what happens here than we do... JurgenG (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

% in favor of partition

The number needs a reference. I heard about 10% or so. SA mtm (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the type of poll. There were polls that just asked whether Flanders would be better off independent (which generated a result of more than 40% in favour) and polls that asked what the political future of Belgium should be and gave more than two options (which generated a result of about 10% in favour of partioning Belgium). I'll see whether I can find a reference for some of the surveys that have been conducted in this period. --Ganchelkas (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already found one: België moet blijven, maar niet zoals nu. I don't know whether you can access it, it's possible that you need a subscription. Anyway, it says 12% of the Flemings want the end of Belgium, 37% wants more responsibilities for the communities and regions, 23% favours the status quo, 6% wants less responsibilities for the communities and regions and 15% wants to return to the unitary state.--Ganchelkas (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Political parties

While I agree with Karna's opinion that the former section on political parties was more a bullet list than a correct article section, I think it should not have been deleted but expanded. The relative weights of these parties shows qualitatively the importance of the topic in the current political debatre. Their opinion with respect to the practical realization of an hypothetical partition of Belgium (e.g. whether Brussels should belong to Walonia or to Flanders) give an idea of the current possible alternatives. I think also a short description of the reasons why those parties promote or not the partition of Belgium should be included as well as an historical analysis of their electoral success. The opinion of the parties which do not have a clear position with respect to an eventual partitioning should also be analyzed and references with extracts of their manifestos or political programms. Vb 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

==Political parties promoting the partition== ===Flemish=== * [[Vlaams Belang]] (Flemish Interest)<ref>{{cite web |title=The Manifesto of the Vlaams Belang |url=http://flemishrepublic.org/manifesto.htm |quote=The Vlaams Belang strives for the secession of Flanders from the artificial Belgian state. Our aim is to dissolve Belgium and establish an independent Flemish state. This state will be sovereign over the Dutch-speaking territory of Belgium and will include Brussels, which is the capital of Flanders but will have a separate linguistic status. accessmonthday= October 17| accessyear=2007}}</ref> (In the 10 June 2007 general elections, the party won 17 out of 150 seats in the Chamber of Representatives ) * [[Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie]] (New-Flemish Alliance) (5 seats) ===Walloon=== * [[Rassemblement Wallonie-France]] (Wallonia-France Rally) <ref>{{cite web |title=Manifesto of the Rassemblement Walonie-France (2002) |url=http://www.rwf.be/pages/Manifeste_anglais.html |accessmonthday= October 22 |accessyear=2007 |quote=The necessary alliance of our two regions, Wallonia and Brussels, with France would [...] have to be organised in line with that concept of our national identity. That would entail negotiations sanctioned by a referendum. Some form of special status may be envisaged for Brussels. As for the population of [[Voeren|Fourons]], the [[municipalities with linguistic facilities|six Brussels outlying communes]] and the [[German-speaking Community of Belgium | German-speaking communes]], they would of course be consulted on their status by means of a referendum under international control.}} </ref> (no seats) ==Political parties explicitly opposed to the partition== *[[Belgian Union]]<ref> *{{nl}}{{cite web |url=http://www.belgischeunie.be/nl/programma.php |title=Volledige programma van B.U.B. in PDF |accessmonthday= November 6 |accessyear=2007 |quote=De Belgische Unie – Union belge (B.U.B.) is een centrumpartij, opgericht in 2002, die als einddoel heeft de creatie van een nieuw unitair België, d.w.z. met één regering en één parlement, zonder gewesten en gemeenschappen, met provinciale decentralisatie op basis van 9 provincies (wat de hereniging van Brabant inhoudt), behoud van de taalwetten en een actieve politiek van tweetaligheid.}} *{{fr}}{{cite web |url=http://www.belgischeunie.be/fr/programme.php |title=Le programme complet du B.U.B. en pdf |accessmonthday= November 6 |accessyear=2007 |quote=L’Union belge (Belgische Unie – B.U.B.) est un parti centriste, créé en 2002, qui a pour but final la création d'une nouvelle Belgique unitaire, c’est-à-dire avec un seul gouvernement, un seul parlement sans communautés ni régions, avec une décentralisation sur la base de 9 provinces (ce qui implique la réunification du Brabant) avec le maintien des lois linguistiques et une politique active de bilinguisme. [Transl.: The Belgian Union is a centrist party, founded in 2002, which has as final aim the building of a new unitary Belgium, i.e. with a single government, a single parliament without communities nor regions, with a decentralization on the basis of the 9 provinces (which implies the reunification of the [[province of Brabant]]) maintaining the linguistic laws and with an active politic promoting bilingualism]}}</ref> (no seats) *[[Workers Party of Belgium]] (no seats) *[[Front National (Belgium)|Front National]]<ref>{{fr}}{{cite web |url=http://www.frontnational.be/programmeLegislatives2007.htm |title=Programme du Front National |accessmonthday= November 6 |accessyear=2007 |quote=7. Maintenir l’unité de la Belgique dans le cadre fédéral actuel. Le Front National propose à tous les Belges une paix communautaire. Il souligne les liens culturels et historiques qui, depuis des siècles, unissent nos populations de langues germanique et romane. L’unité de la Belgique lui assure, au niveau international, un poids politique et économique que nous entendons préserver. [Transl.: 7. Maintaining the Unity of Belgium within the current federal system. The National Front offers all Belgians a communitary peace. It underlines the cultural and historical links which, for centuries, unify our folks of Germanic and Roman languages. The unity of Belgium provide, at international level, a political and economical weight that we intend to preserve.] }}</ref> (one seat)

Of course, I agree with your points - I think that political parties may need a new section or simply expansion inside existing sections - feel free to do so. I've started to try to make this article an WP:FA, which means that I must follow FA guidelines. A peer review has begun above - please do help me with this with your feedback. K a r n a (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over neutrality

I'm a bit worried by the tone of the article. This could be just my impression, but I think it contains certain statements that aren't entirely NPOV and that may be biased towards Flemish nationalism. This may be due to the fact that a lot of articles on the English Wikipedia have the same or similar problems. Some examples: Saying that it was the Walloons who revolted against the Dutch is not neutral. For every historian who claims so, you can find one who claims the opposite, it's a controversial issue. Saying that there's historical continuity with, respectively, France and the Netherlands, in my view, implies that the north of Belgium was ruled by the Dutch and the south by the French, which isn't the case. The whole of the Southern Netherlands (with the exception of the Prince-Bishopric of Liège) have been ruled by the the same leader since Philip the Good. I also don't think it's a good idea to rely on the Brussels Journal, an openly separatist website, for information as the information provided by it is likely to be POV. These are just some concerns I have.--Ganchelkas (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that Brussels Journal was a biased source. I will fix that problem very soon - I too feel that whenever I read a passage, it comes across as if Belgium's partition is obvious. I don't know how to correct it, but as Spawn Man suggests that a complete rewrite is in order, I will do my best to solve the problem. K a r n a (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I share exactly the same concerns as Ganchelkas. Citing the King is always difficult because it is a tradition in Belgium that the King's private talks may not be published. When the King gives a talk this is always a private talk or an official talk which must be co-signed by a minister. Vb 10:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)