Hi!

I study Journalism in Brussels and for one of my classes I would like to write an essay about foreigners' opinions of the current Belgian political situation.

If you are a foreigner living in Belgium, would you mind answering these three questions...?

-What do you know of the current political situation?
-What is your opinion about this?
-What do you think will happen in the future to Belgium?

Could you also add your name, age, nationality and function?

If you prefer, you can mail me the answers as well: ingeborg.lories@student.ehb.be

Thank you very much in advance!
Ingeborg

-What do you know of the current political situation?
Vague awareness of the issues without really knowing the details, views coloured no doubt by the fact that I live in Flanders with a Flemish partner. So - Frenchies want to be subsidised at the expense of Flanders (in the name of Belgian unity), Flemish want more seperatism. Frenchies can't be arsed to learn Dutch. Brussel Halle-Vilvoorde confuses me. But apparently it is against the law for Halle Vilvoorde to remain part of Brussels but the Frenchies are unhappy to follow the law and demanding language rights concessions from the Flemish before they agree to follow the law.

-What is your opinion about this?
Its all tedious. The whole system is madness - the whole system is built around reaching agreement - the end result will be nobody happy with the outcome. Flanders should hold a referendum on independence and vote to get rid of the dead wood (Wallonia). It seems Wallonia has a veto over the democratic choice of Flanders.

-What do you think will happen in the future to Belgium?
Not much - Probably 20 Years of growing resentment between the regions. Seperation finally - maybe.

Could you also add your name, age, nationality and function?
ventho, 33, British, I work for a pharmaceutical company.

What do I know about the current political situation and what's my opinion about it?

In 1970 Prime Minister Eyskens Sr. addressed to the Belgian Chamber of Representatives with the historic words: "The Belgian unitary State, with its consititutional institutions as we know them, has been outmoded by reality." It would mean the beginning of a never-ending story. Five successive reforms (1970, 1980, 1988, 1993 and 2001) transformed the old unitary Belgique de papa into a complex federal State, with two different kind of federal entities: 3 Communities (Flemish, French and German-speaking) and 3 Regions (Flemish, Walloon and Brussels Capital).

What has brought Belgium into the current existential crisis is, in my opinion, due to the fact that Belgian politicians, on either side of the linguistic border, have never come down to the core question: what future for Belgium? A federal State with maximum powers for the federal Belgian State? A loose "confederation" with maximum autonomy for the (con)federal entities, the (con)federal State being reduced to some kind of an "umbrella" (or an empty box). Or no future at all? Bye bye Belgium? Belgian politicians just don't seem to know it. It's astonishing to see that they have no vision whatsoever when it comes to the future of Belgium. The francophone politicians are convinced that behind every Flemish proposition to reform the State, there's a hidden agenda, a cunning plan to slowly dismantle Belgium from inside out until it collapses. Francophone top politician Laurette Onkelinx described the Flemings as fungus. "La mérule flamande, qui ronge l'Etat fédéral belge de l'intérieur jusqu'à le rendre inhabitable." (Flemish fungus which eats away at the Belgian federal State to make it inhabitable.). From their part, Flemish politicians don't seem to understand the francophone refusal to any further State reforms. It seems as if they no longer want to accept the Belgian consensus model. These days the Flemings are so full of themselves that they have become almost autistic to the francophone fears about the collapse of Belgium. Some of those fears being, by the way, quite just. The Flemings should ask themselves "What is it we want? Do we want to continue living in Belgium?" in stead of proposing reforms of which some would destabelise the Belgian State and then acting surprised when the francophones aren't digging it.

When it comes to Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde: the Constitutional Court of Belgium has ruled that the current division of Belgium into provincial constituancies, with the exception of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde and Louvain, is unconstitutional and must be solved. The Flemings now use (or abuse) this ruling to serve their cause into splitting the bilingual BHV constituancy. The francophones fiercely oppose this and point out that the Court has never ordered the split of BHV, but a "solution which takes the interests of the francophone minority in Hal-Vilvorde and the Flemish minority in Brussels into account."

Looking back on the history of BHV, one will notice that the consituancy was the result of a delicate compromise between Flemings and francophones. In 1962, the francophones gave up upon their dreams of le très grand Bruxelles (the very big Brussels) and accepted the restriction of the Brussels Capital Region to the current 19 communes. In return, the Flemings agreed to (1) grant linguistic facilities to the francophone citizens of 6 very "frenchified" but Flemish communes in the outskirts of Brussels and (2) to maintain a bilingual constituancy... BHV. Since the Flemings now want to come back upon their previous promises (BHV), it's only natural that the francophones want to rediscuss the limits of Brussels again. However, the Flemings find that undiscussable and have now used (or abused) their majority to push their demands through the francophones' throats. That's what makes today's Flemings-against-francophones-vote on BHV such a dramatic event. The Flemings have ignored every elementary form of federal decency. In a federal State it is unacceptable that a majority abuses its majority position to outnumber the minority.

And that brings us back to the original question: What do the Flemings want? Do they still wish to live in the Kingdom of Belgium? If the answer is yes, then they should accept that in Belgium one Community cannot unilaterally impose its ways on the other Community. With 40% of Belgian citizens, the French Community is a minority in Belgium which is constitutionally protected and, more importantly, which deserves to be protected. A Belgium where 60% Flemings would constantly be able to impose their ways on the 40% francophones just because they are the majority is unbearable. Belgium can only survive if both Communities are willing to treat eachother with respect and find common, negotiated solutions to the problems that they find themselves confronted with (like BHV or State reforms). If Flemings are no longer prepared to negotiate with the francophones, if they are no longer prepared to invest into the Belgian consensus model then they should draw their conclusions and declare themselves independent. The francophones from their part will have to realise that they cannot just simply block every Flemish demand. Sure, they deserve to be protected as a minority, but at some point they will have to engage in a dialogue. There's no other option. I totally agree with the francophones that a democracy should not be reduced to a dictatorship of a (Flemish) majority against a (francophone) minority. But on the other hand, neither is it a dictatorship of a (francophone) minority against a (Flemish) majority. Constantly saying "no" to every Flemish demand has no added value. Because a Belgium where Flemings impose their ways on francophones (or the other way around) is an illusion. La Belgique sera un compromis ou elle ne sera pas. Belgium will be a compromise or it will not be at all.

Personally I would sincerely regret a possible end of Belgium. I think Belgium definately has an added value. It might not be perfect, the consensus model might sometimes be a source of frustration, but in the end I think the Belgian compromise has shown how two different cultures (germanic Flemings and latin francophones) can peacefully live together. Belgium is an example for Northern Ireland, Spain, Corsica, Yugoslavia, etc... Being South African a Belgian collapse worries me. If the Belgians cannot live together, then what's the future for my own country? Civil war? A bloodshed? All whites fleeing the country like white Zimbabweans have been forced to do? 'Cause believe me, differences between Flemings and francophones are PEANUTS when compared to the differences between the different ethnicities and cultures of South Africa.

What do I think will happen? I hope you'll somehow overcome this crisis and find a way to get along. I wish Belgium a long and happy life everafter. For another 177 years... At least! :wink:

Quickie, 31, South African, I'm a lawyer and work for a Belgian law firm based in Brussels. I have been living in Belgium for 13 years now.

Democracy in Belgium?

1) Democracy then (the original sin):

It started off as the result of so-called constituante comprising less than 1% of the population, of course all francophone deciding for a primarily Flemish population. First thing they voted was the abolishment of Dutch as an official language in Flanders and the unilingual French regime in education, civil service, court rooms....

Next they started making fun of those backward Flems with their patois... pretty easy if you started off by blocking any linguistic standardization to begin with.

The upshot was that the first official Ducth version of the constitution was voted in the 1960ies. It talked about "democratie", good thing the Flems don not understand Dutch.

2) Democracy now:

Democracy (ie 50% +1 vote) will only count in Flemish communes when it comes to obliging local civil servants, teachers, etc. to serving new residents in French.

Democracy will not count at the national level.

Democracy will not count outside the Flemish communes.

Democracy will only concern the possible frencification of Flemish soil.

This way we can stop democracy being applied to accept arabic in Molenbeek or Turkish in Schaarbeek or English in the Schuman area as official languages. That would clearly be an abuse of democracy.

Democracy at national level would be an abuse to as it would lead to splitting the now "unified" labour market. This "unified" labour market has implied that for decades West-Flanders and Vlaams-Brabant import labour from abroad whereas the adjoining regions of le Hainaut and Brussels have seen unemployment figures roaring up to 30%. Thanks to the "unified" labour market none shall be obliged to make efforts to find a job as learning Dutch and commuting 30km daily cannot be manadatory for generations of people in a same family living off dole money paid for by the fascist Flems.


This "unified" labour market is a good thing, as unemployed people will vote PS.


etcetera.... la Belgique sera latine ou elle ne sera pas....

Quote:

Looking back on the history of BHV, one will notice that the consituancy was the result of a delicate compromise between Flemings and francophones. In 1962, the francophones gave up upon their dreams of le très grand Bruxelles (the very big Brussels) and accepted the restriction of the Brussels Capital Region to the current 19 communes. In return, the Flemings agreed to (1) grant linguistic facilities to the francophone citizens of 6 very "frenchified" but Flemish communes in the outskirts of Brussels and (2) to maintain a bilingual constituancy... BHV. Since the Flemings now want to come back upon their previous promises (BHV), it's only natural that the francophones want to rediscuss the limits of Brussels again. However, the Flemings find that undiscussable and have now used (or abused) their majority to push their demands through the francophones' throats. That's what makes today's Flemings-against-francophones-vote on BHV such a dramatic event. The Flemings have ignored every elementary form of federal decency. In a federal State it is unacceptable that a majority abuses its majority position to outnumber the minority.

Yeah yeah Mr Afrikaander. The Flemings indeed agreed to grant some linguistic facilities to francophones in 6 Flemish municipalities close to Brussels. What you (probably purposely) do not explain is that these facilities were a " temporary measure". meant to give francophones time to learn Dutch and to integrate in their new Flemish community. Of course, they did NOT ADAPT and even demanded more facilities (AND MORE MUNICIPALITIES WITH FACILITIES!). The Flemish, being rather good natured, did nothing much. Now, after more than 50 years, they think rightly it's time to close the books. In fact the problem is very simple: the francophones want to expand Brussels at the cost of Flanders and the Flemish don't want to loose any more municipalities! Flanders has never been the Agressor, never forget that!

Hi ingeborg L,
If you would like to get more response, we can post this in our weekly newsletter. Let me know and we're happy to help.

Jami Davis
Expatica Community Relations Manager

1. I strongly advise you to actually read article 129 § 2 of the Belgian Constitution. It just mentions that in some municipalities in the Brussels outskirts and along the linguistic border citizens have the right to use "the other" national language. Full stop. Nowhere in the Constitution there's even the slightest hint as if the linguistic facilities were to be a temporary measure. The Constitution doesn't say that the facilities are there to give the francophones time to learn Dutch, integrate or "adapt". It merely says that there are facilities and that they can be used. Unconditionally. What does "adapt" mean anyway? Does it mean that francophones should forget about their language and culture and become little Flemings? Flemings and their advocates should learn to stick to the words of the Constitution in stead of fantasising terms and conditions that aren't there. The linguistic facilities are enshrined in the Constitution. Since the Constitution doesn't explicitaly mention an expiry date for them, they are here to remain until the relevant constitutional article is explicitaly revised. And since constitutional articles can only be revised with a "special majority" (both Flemings and francophones agreeing), this means that the linguistic facilities will never be revoked. Because the francophones will NEVER agree with their revocation. And thus the linguistic facilities are here to stay. Forever.

2. In any case, the linguistic facilities have nothing to do with BHV anyway. Even if the BHV constituancy were to be split, that wouldn't change a thing about the linguistic status of the facility municipalities. Francophones would still be able to use French with their local administration.

your answer demonstrates a few things. Firstly, you are not from South Africa, but a rabiate Francophone! Secondly, the Belgian Constitution has nothing to do with the problem of Francophones trying to colonise more municipalities of Flanders. "Normal"(good willing) people would have spoken Dutch already a long time ago without any problem. It is the disdainful refusal of the Francophones to speak Dutch that's the only problem, not only in these 6 municipalities but in all the 19 municipalities of Brussels. They will grab all "legalistic" handles they can to hold on but in the end they will not prevail...

This is just so easy: questioning my personal integrity Just because I happen to have well-founded opinion on Belgian politics based on legal arguments doesn't mean I'm a Belgian francophone in disguise. Yes, I am South African. Yes, I have been living in Brussels for 14 years now. Yes, I have a Belgian law degree. So yes, I know all too well about the successive State reforms and what Belgian constitutional law says about the so to speak "temporary character" of the linguistic facilities: nothing. It just says that the citizens of these municipalities have the unconditional right to use French in their dealings with the administration, full stop. There is no sell by date foreseen. Any talk about them being temporary measures is a fantasy aimed at suiting a certain Flemish radical political agenda.

By the way, are you implying that the francophone Bruxellois aren't allowed to use French in the 19 Brussels municipalities either? My goodness, one would almost begin to think that les flamingants have been doing their own missionary work in the Congo!

Foul play Quickie! But what could one expect from a person calling Flemish people "les flamingants" which, as everybody knows, has a very negative connotation in the eyes of the francophones? And to continue in that vein, where did I imply in any way that a French speaking inhabitant of Brussels would not be allowed to use French in the 19 Brussels municipalities? That would be ridiculous! However, I insist that a "good Brussels citizen" should be bilingual, i.e. capable of talking reasonably well in both languages, as probably 100% of the Flemish speaking inhabitants of Brussels do, contrary to their French speaking counterparts who actively refuse to speak Dutch (there are a few exceptions)!

Coming back to the topic: you see nothing in the Constitution. As I said, ((maybe here I have to give you some benefit of the doubt because you say you are a lawyer)) you consider only some words in a Law, the "letter"of the law really, but not the "spirit"of the Law! When the Linguistic Laws were voted (1962/1963) it was very clear to everybody in Flanders that the "facilities" were a transitory measure. Maybe you were not even born then! Please do not only read the arid Constitution, but read the newspapers and magazines of thast period and you'll see I'm right!

Btw, I do not understand your remark about the missionary work of the Belgians in Congo... Please elaborate.

[quote name='quickie' date='Nov 8 2007, 12:50 AM' post='753494']
Quite some fine observations on why Flemings and Walloons are so opposed on the political field, whereas culturally, they're so close.

Nevertheless, I was surprised by some of your comments, especailly for someone who's trained in law!

1. You state that politicians have no vision of what belgian state they want. I've met many, and also intellectuals from both sides. I found many with clear ideas, especailly those you came from grass-root movements. The Flemish Movement also has very clear and democratic ideas (see also on www.vvb.org, and www.woordhouden.be and their report on 'média mensonges).

2. You wonder why "Flemish politicians don't seem to understand the francophone refusal to any further State reforms.' Well the reason is very clear: they refuse that their plans for the future can not find their way into (national) policy, whereas the national state still controls > 90% of all taxation and publix expenditure (where the Flemings already since 1999 unanimously favor massive transfers of competencies AND fiscal/fianncial responsibilities to the communities!

3. You appear t think Flemings "no longer want to accept the Belgian consensus model". Well, that might be an excellent remark; ON CONDITION that you correctly define the belgian model: its so-called consensus is something where the French power-positions, established in 1830 still weight more then the current democratic majority.

4. You way of describing things (e.g. 'Flemings are so full of themselves that they have become almost autistic" is very biased!

5. Francophone fears about the collapse of Belgium are ONLY the result of the fact that they tend to stick with their ethnic privileges. One might say that they should indeed fear for that!

6. ALL should ask themselves "What is it we want? Do we want to continue living in Belgium?" . For the Walloons, the key question is: can we still expect that belgium looks mostly as we want it and where Flemish prefeences are so blocked? Should we not follow the subsidiarity principle, and, always when the Walloon and Flemish majorities do not agree anymore, give the disputed competeny to the lower level.
Only that way, Belgium can still be governed!

7. BHV: Why disregard that th Flemish are fed up with the discrimination they still suffer (as acknowledge, for the Brussels hospotals by the Walloon PS-minister un charge of public halth, Rudy Demotte). Second example: Flanders funds French-speaking schols in Flemish municipalities with +- 10 M€ /yr. Wallonie has never accepted ANY Ducth-school in ITS municipaliies with facilities for the Flemish!

8. Your account of how the linguistic facilities came about is factually WRONG. Your account pretends that the only exist around Brussels, which is factually wrong. They were established in ALL municipalities in the nborders between the 4 linguistic areas with a minority then standing at between 30 and 50% of the population. The rationale behind it is then linked with the minority status as such! Of course, French-speakers LIKE to link this with their territorial claims, but this is only ONE point of view. And you appear to be just the advocate of this single POV!

9. Your wording "The Flemings have ignored every elementary form of federal decency. In a federal State it is unacceptable that a majority abuses its majority position to outnumber the minority." indeeds is pure political militancy. Legitimate, for sure, but partisan. As a lawyer, you should know better!

10. Why duck the question for the Walloons and the French-speakes about their refusal to grant eual rights to Flemings?

11. In EVERY democracy, accepting a state does NOT imply having to accept any ethnic privileges it might know! This is a gross shame that a lawyer discussing constitutional and democratic questions, neglects that!

12. Fkmeings, as far as I understood, do NOt want to impose their vews. They just want to play their fair role AND if no agreement can be reached, isn't it a democratic obligation, when faced with a national level that doesn't function anymore, to transfers powers down to communities?

13 You indeed correctly state that "The francophones from their part will have to realise that they cannot just simply block every Flemish demand. Sure, they deserve to be protected as a minority, but at some point they will have to engage in a dialogue. There's no other option."

14. But then you go, for the real life application in the complete opposite, and you suggest there is an treat of a "dictatorship of a (Flemish) majority against a (francophone) minority". Plain rubbish!

15. Because indeed "neither is it a dictatorship of a (francophone) minority against a (Flemish) majority."

Problem is that dispute hating each other both created unique Belgian life style which is far from being either Dutch or French for corresponding group. And dispute all the tension they wil not be able to successfully go ahead if country desintegrate. So they have no other option but staying in Blegium

Only thing that surprises me is that while France is generally indifferent about their vallon relatives Netherlands or at least some part of dutch political elite and media seem to actively pupm up separatism in Flanders... Without even thinking of consequence for such action.

And by the way I agree that Dutch speaking people are discriminated in Belgium. Majority of Brussels stores don't even bother trying to hire Dutch speaking personeel while almost everyone in Flanders speaks French.

I tend to disagree. Linguistic regulation only applies to public institutions (STIB/MIVB, Belgian railways, post offices, town halls, CPAS/OCMW), not to private shop owners. If a shop owner decides to not hire bilingual staff then that's his own choice. Is this discrimination? No, it's not. It's very rude towards Flemish customers, but it is not State organised discrimination. In fact, there's nothing the State can do about it, since the State doesn't have the right to interfere in private linguistic relations. Shop owners have the right to refuse to speak Dutch to their Flemish customers. They have the right to behave like morons. Just like these Flemish customers have the right to go shop somewhere else where they do have the decency to speak their language. Chances that I can speak my mothertongue in a South African shop are relatively small, though my mothertongue is an officially recognised national language in South Africa. But is this discrimination? From a legal point of view, it's not. It is at most one of the inconveniences of life.

I agree that Brussels citizens for their own good should be able to speak the other official language reasonably well (Dutch/French). However, this is not enforceable. Everyone is free to choose as he wants. I find it regrettable that many francophone Bruxellois don't bother to learn Dutch, but nevertheless it's their choice. Just like they will have to undergo the consequences of their choice to remain unilingual (e.g. not having acces to the well sought after jobs in Brussels, which all require bilingualism, if not multilingualism).



It might have been clear to the Flemings that the facilities would be temporary measures, yet it was never perceived that way by the francophones. On the contrary, the francophones considered (and they still do) the facilities unalienable rights recognising the presence of a francophone minority in Flanders. In any case, if you claim the facilities to be temporary then you need a legal ground to support that claim, otherwise you're just gratuitously trumpeting nonsense. I'm sorry, but there is no such legal ground. Newspaper articles from the 1960s will not do as a sufficient legal ground for the claim that the facilities would be temporary. Both the Constitution and the 1966 Use Of Languages Act (the only legally relevant sources) are tacit on this point. Since the law doesn't mention anything about the facilities being temporary, for me as a lawyer the only legally correct conlusion is to assume that they are permanent. Both francophone and Flemish constitutionalists share my opinion (or actualy it's the other way around: I share their opinion ). Even Flemish politicians know that the facilities are permanent, yet it is taboo to say that out loud in political Flanders...



Your profile says that your country of origin is the Congo. Nevermind, it was just a silly remark After what's been going recently on in my own country of origin I have no right to speak anyway

Now to make my position clear I am trying my best to learn French as fast as i can but it takes time. I don't want to be part of this cleavage while in Belgium, and honestly in all other aspcts of life French speaking community sems much nicer and less xenophobic compared to Dutch.
However let me just share my epereince as a dutch speaking person about intitutions you've mentioned

The places where officials or clerqs refused to speak Dutch and demanded that I shouwd either speak French or bring someone to translate include
-The municipality of St Jost ten Node
-Most of rail station in Vallonia including Liege
-Post office in Brockerie Brussels where only ONE employee is dutch speaking
-Police agents in Chaleroi when I aksed for directons
-Bus drivers anywhere outside Flanders

I f I can make a small effort and learn a bit of French how come this people can not make one step and learn a bit of dutch?