How likely is the dissolution of Belgium?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I know this is a fairly standard Atlas question, but I think it's really not discussed enough in the wider media compared to, say, Scottish or Catalan independence.

Are the Belgian youth more invested in seperatism/confederalism than their elders?

[DavidB.]

Remains unlikely for now, because unlike in Scotland and Catalonia the number of Flemish that would actually vote for independence right now doesn't even come close to approaching 50%. N-VA+VB doesn't quite cut it, because a lot of N-VA voters would be wary of the consequences of immediate independence.

The gradual disintegration of the Belgian state, however, isn't all that unlikely. Confederalism probably will happen, sooner or later.

Are the Belgian youth more invested in seperatism/confederalism than their elders?

The youth mostly seem a lot more polarized (VB and Groen are both very popular among the youth). I don't get the impression that there's a significant difference when it comes to levels of support of Flemish nationalism compared to other age groups, but our Belgian posters will probably know more about this subject.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Remains unlikely for now, because unlike in Scotland and Catalonia the number of Flemish that would actually vote for independence right now doesn't even come close to approaching 50%. N-VA+VB doesn't quite cut it, because a lot of N-VA voters would be wary of the consequences of immediate independence.

The gradual disintegration of the Belgian state, however, isn't all that unlikely. Confederalism probably will happen, sooner or later.

Are the Belgian youth more invested in seperatism/confederalism than their elders?

The youth mostly seem a lot more polarized (VB and Groen are both very popular among the youth). I don't get the impression that there's a significant difference when it comes to levels of support of Flemish nationalism compared to other age groups, but our Belgian posters will probably know more about this subject.

This is a pretty good comment. Would agree. The marxist PVDA-PTB also popular among the youth. The christian democrats and especially the social democrats are very unpopular.

[Zinneke]

To add to David's comment, even VB voters don't necessarily vote on independence. VB always say that independence is on the horizon to satisfy the hardline traditional independence people but then they run lists in Brussels and even Wallonia* insisting their priority is migration policy. All the University of Leuven studies in the past have shown that only 5-10% N-VA voters vote solely on independence and institutional issues (that's just N-VA voters...who have no majority in Flanders).

I still think a huge part of the Flemish electorate is apathetic either way, so although they don't actually express any clamour for an independent state in polls, if N-VA+VB were to push forward with independence (highly unlikely) and try to convince them Brexiteer-style that no adverse effects would arrive (including retaining EU membership) then they might buy into it.

The issue remains Brussels of course. There is no easy solution to that. A lot of Flemish wealth is made here and brought back to their home, not to mention the Brussels Rand has a myriad of companies ranging from multinationals to 3 guys dealing in arms trade somewhere in Africa from their basement in Dilbeek that don't want the potential disruption of a péage at the Brussels border. They've been brought up on the assumption that Brussels is theirs anyway.


*although that's mainly for the government grants.

[urutzizu]

but then they run lists in Brussels and even Wallonia*
*although that's mainly for the government grants.

Some 18000 people in Wallonia actually voted for VB. Is there any indication on who these kind of voters are?

[CumbrianLefty]

Presumably at least some will be Flemish speakers?

[Zinneke]

but then they run lists in Brussels and even Wallonia*
*although that's mainly for the government grants.

Some 18000 people in Wallonia actually voted for VB. Is there any indication on who these kind of voters are?

In a similar vein to Lega's newfound popularity in Southern Italy, you get a lot of right-wing Walloons who nod along to Flemish nationalist assertions about their own region (mainly their political class). I don't know the precise demographic make up of them though, but their vote share is in depressed industrial sh**tholes where there are a lot People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front turfwars between tiny far right groupuscules, and VB just go in there, pick one of them as a head of list, and go to the electoral comission asking for more funds for running in 3 regions.

So VB just run in Wallonia officially because they protest the presence of Francophone parties in Flanders, most notably the six francophone majority communes. But also because they get this extra funding mechanism by doing so, its not a serious attempt to build a Walloon party. PTB/PVDA and Défi were afforded this mechanism when running in all 3 regions. VB don't invest a single euro into their Walloon campaign, but hope to get money from it.

Presumably at least some will be Flemish speakers?

Highly unlikely given its places like Charleroi, Borinage, etc. and the fact that the heads of list are almost always Francophones. Most Flemish speakers in Wallonia are pensioners in the Ardennes or Gaume (likely voting MR/cdH/PS in that order), with maybe a few in the "sleeping" facility zones on the border regions (e.g. Enghien has language facilities for Dutch-speakers).

[John Dule]

Hopefully very.

[Indy Texas]

It doesn't seem like something that would work unless Wallonia could join France and Flanders could join the Netherlands. Neither (especially Wallonia) would be able to stand as an independent state.

And would the Netherlands or France really want them? (Plus the problem of mostly Francophone Brussels ending up in the Netherlands.)

[Lord Halifax]

It doesn't seem like something that would work unless Wallonia could join France and Flanders could join the Netherlands. Neither (especially Wallonia) would be able to stand as an independent state.

And would the Netherlands or France really want them? (Plus the problem of mostly Francophone Brussels ending up in the Netherlands.)

Flanders is wealthy and wouldn't be a particularly small state by European standards. They would have no reason to join the Netherlands (apart from instant EU membership).

There are Francophone suburbs in between Brussels and Wallonia and since it would be Flanders that seceded Brussels would either stay in a reduced Belgium with Wallonia or become a city state and the francophone districts in between Wallonia and Brussels would be added to the city after a referendum. The UN and EU would intervene if Flanders denied such a referendum, there is no realistic way the Flemish could block it, and Flanders would be the breakaway state that needed to apply for EU membership.

There would be a referendum in the yellow areas, and probably also the pink.

[Lord Halifax]

I think it's important to remember two things

1. Flemish nationalists want a Flemish state and the only realistic scenario where Belgium dissolves is Flanders seceding.

2. If Flanders secedes then Wallonia and Brussels would be the continuity state under internatonal law. They would remain "Belgium" and retain its EU and NATO memberships, whereas the new Flemish state would have to apply for membership of international organizations.

If Brussels then secedes from the much poorer Wallonia to become a city state Wallonia would remain "Belgium" (since Brussels is the capital of the union the EU would then have to find a way to make Brussels an instant EU member, and the same goes for NATO as its HQ is in Brussels).

[Zinneke]

Its worth noting after those two excellent posts by Halifax that the reason why the Flemish nationalist establishment, particularly the N-VA, are so averse to referenda (compared to their Scottish and Catalan counterparts) is precisely because of those french-speaking communes.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Its worth noting after those two excellent posts by Halifax that the reason why the Flemish nationalist establishment, particularly the N-VA, are so averse to referenda (compared to their Scottish and Catalan counterparts) is precisely because of those french-speaking communes.

What do you mean? Because they would hold referenda and leave an independent Flanders?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Are the Belgian youth more invested in seperatism/confederalism than their elders?

This is something i don't know in specific. I thought no, but recent experiences make me lean towards yes, but still not a majority.

I think if they held a referendum and campaigned for it, 20-25% would vote for Flemish independence. There is a majority though for a confederation though. And the popularity of the Belgian sport teams will help to increase support among Belgian unionists. Without our football and hockey teams, support for Flemish independence, would be far, far, far higher.

I'm undecided about Flemish independence, used to be in support of it. And i'm in support of Catalan and Scottish independence. Now more likely to support Flemish independence, because it would mean that we would create a Flemish republic instead of a Belgian monarchy, and i'm in favour of a republic. Would probably still vote for Yes. But Flemish independence has been too much associated with the right, to get wide popular support (partly because of Flanders being richer than Wallonia).

But you can say that not the monarch but that football is what hold us together.

[Zinneke]

Its worth noting after those two excellent posts by Halifax that the reason why the Flemish nationalist establishment, particularly the N-VA, are so averse to referenda (compared to their Scottish and Catalan counterparts) is precisely because of those french-speaking communes.

What do you mean? Because they would hold referenda and leave an independent Flanders?

Because Flemish nationalists are against the idea of linguistic censii to determine the legal character of administrative entities due to the way Brussels was expanded on numerous occasions (communes with francophones majorities being awarded to Brussels to ensure the minority protection of francophones in the context of being in a Flemish enclave), and holding referenda opens that can of worms again. Hence why the Flemish parties were the ones to actually push for taking out referenda from the constitution (alongside Walloons disgruntled with the result and divisiveness of the Royal Question referendum...the results of which Nanwe posted way back in the thread).   

De Wever and even a lot of VBers want a velvet divorce à la Czechoslovakia. The hardline nationalist strategy (in broad strokes) is to push the socio-economic Federal institutions and Flemish political discourse so far right, and block as many federal or Francophone majority institutions (such as Brussels) that Wallonia especially wants the velvet divorce. Its not out of the question that that happens.

As Laki says there isn't actually that much appetite to bring the whole thing to an exhausting referendal exercise. People in Belgium are on the whole more individualistic. Our motto of "Strength in Union" has nothing to do with the convergence of Flemish, Walloon or Brussels identities around romantic notions of "Catholic solidarity" or "Anti-Dutch Colonialism". The DNA of this state is the Catholic and big Industry "Liberal" pillars - that previously had a lot of power under the Hapsburg Netherlands - putting aside their differences to rid themselves of an Enlightened Despotic Dutch King that wanted to change things too quickly. The original Constitution is about preserving the rights of the Church and the Family, as well as local bourgeois interests. Our state isn't so much ineffective and non-interventionist because of its multilayered mess, its just that Belgians on a whole have never had a strong sense of patriotism or the state as an actor even amongst elite circles, and it shows in how segregated and forgotten parts our society can sometimes be, as opposed to say the Netherlands.

The mistake of genuine Flemish nationalists is to think that by somehow creating a more authentic nation they can get rid of this mentality. De Wever wrote a decent book (bar a few populist passages) about "failed" Belgian identity, and lamenting it, and how a new Flemish identity could be built on several civic nationalist parameters. I don't think De Wever realises how his electorate really think though. They are voting for him and gradualist state dissolution as a means to an end. 

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I think it's important to remember two things

1. Flemish nationalists want a Flemish state and the only realistic scenario where Belgium dissolves is Flanders seceding.

2. If Flanders secedes then Wallonia and Brussels would be the continuity state under internatonal law. They would remain "Belgium" and retain its EU and NATO memberships, whereas the new Flemish state would have to apply for membership of international organizations.

If Brussels then secedes from the much poorer Wallonia to become a city state Wallonia would remain "Belgium" (since Brussels is the capital of the union the EU would then have to find a way to make Brussels an instant EU member, and the same goes for NATO as its HQ is in Brussels).

There were talks between Wallonia and France to unite, or Wallonia to be even incorporated by Germany (Magnette had that idea once). Brussels is indeed a big problem, but in the case a dissolution happens, it would be a good idea to create Brussels D.C. as the capital of Europe and under juridisiction of the EU, but Wallonia probably can't survive alone so they would to France and Germany to incorporate them (most likely France).

De Wever and even a lot of VBers want a velvet divorce à la Czechoslovakia. The hardline nationalist strategy (in broad strokes) is to push the socio-economic Federal institutions and Flemish political discourse so far right, and block as many federal or Francophone majority institutions (such as Brussels) that Wallonia especially wants the velvet divorce. Its not out of the question that that happens.

That's true. De Wever has said it openly. When polls indicated that PTB had 20%, he said that if Wallonia wants to be a communist state, it would be without them, but how much more they vote for the right in Flanders, how much more Wallonia will vote to the left, basically all right-wing and traditional parties who work together with N-VA will be punished for that in next electoral elections. It's complicated and a difficult country.

[arevee]

Dissolution I would say unlikely. Confederalism like e.g. Switzerland? Could be on the table for the next couple of years now that the southern (Francophone) part of Belgium and the Northern (Dutch) part, voted pretty different, the first one voting more and more towards the (extreme) left side of the political spectrum, the second one doing the opposite and voting more and more towards the (extreme) right side of the political spectrum. So that's reality, and something that isn't easily solved.

Could confederalism be a solution? Don't know really now for certain. I would dare to say in theory yes but there are a lot of questions to be asked. Main thing being Brussels, I would say. What do you do with that? You can't "give" it to either the Dutch people or the French people. I'm also not that keen on splitting an already small country into even smaller bits (splitting is not really the correct term I know).

[parochial boy]

On a bit of a digression, and I may be missing someone obvious - but I can't think of a single instance of an established democracy actually breaking up? I think the sheer force of inertia, and underlying understanding of quite how disruptive a secession would be tends to keep them together.

 Without some sort of major disruptive event that changes the deal completely - even Flanders would have a very hard time economically in the even of such a split. Just as an example of this, a hingeing on what has already been said - there is a huge degree of economic integration across the BHV area; both between Brussels and the surrounding communes of Flanders; and in connecting that region to the rest of Europe and the world. For example, Brussels airport is actually in the commune on Zaventem.

Putting a border between Brussels and Flanders; even within the EU, would have a massive impact on the region's economy.

And adding to that, this may be anecdotal - but I have never met a Walloon who has even the slightest desire to be French.

Dissolution I would say unlikely. Confederalism like e.g. Switzerland?

Despite the name, Switzerland is not a Confederation - since the 1848 constitution it has been a federation. Part of the problem Confederalism, is that no-one has a very good picture of what it would even look like. The term implies things like separate monetary policies, internal customs, foreign policy, even restricted freedom of movement between entities... Given the nature of modern states, I think that would not be a particularly profitable road to travel down.

[urutzizu]

Come to speak of it, are there even any real working confederations in the World? The closest I would say is the EU, but that still is more of a Political Organisation than a Confederation. Maybe Serbia and Montenegro was? But they dont exist anymore. Confederation seems to be a buzzword, but in reality hardly workable. N-VA probably hide behind "Confederalism" like the Quebec Seperatists hid behind "A new Economic and Political Partnership", while in reality they want a fully fledged independent State with nothing more than normal State to State relations with Wallonia.

[Zinneke]

I think it's important to remember two things

1. Flemish nationalists want a Flemish state and the only realistic scenario where Belgium dissolves is Flanders seceding.

2. If Flanders secedes then Wallonia and Brussels would be the continuity state under internatonal law. They would remain "Belgium" and retain its EU and NATO memberships, whereas the new Flemish state would have to apply for membership of international organizations.

If Brussels then secedes from the much poorer Wallonia to become a city state Wallonia would remain "Belgium" (since Brussels is the capital of the union the EU would then have to find a way to make Brussels an instant EU member, and the same goes for NATO as its HQ is in Brussels).

There were talks between Wallonia and France to unite, or Wallonia to be even incorporated by Germany (Magnette had that idea once). Brussels is indeed a big problem, but in the case a dissolution happens, it would be a good idea to create Brussels D.C. as the capital of Europe and under juridisiction of the EU, but Wallonia probably can't survive alone so they would to France and Germany to incorporate them (most likely France).

Not sure Germany wants Wallonia, but Walloons do not want to be a part of France, whether its the political elites or the common person. Because the French have a way different governance model and Walloons want autonomy...which will not be afforded by any French government.

Brussels becoming DC...with no voting rights? And just an empty shell of institutions. No thanks. Half of Brussels citizens are probably still oblivious to the entire institutional debate.

De Wever and even a lot of VBers want a velvet divorce à la Czechoslovakia. The hardline nationalist strategy (in broad strokes) is to push the socio-economic Federal institutions and Flemish political discourse so far right, and block as many federal or Francophone majority institutions (such as Brussels) that Wallonia especially wants the velvet divorce. Its not out of the question that that happens.

That's true. De Wever has said it openly. When polls indicated that PTB had 20%, he said that if Wallonia wants to be a communist state, it would be without them, but how much more they vote for the right in Flanders, how much more Wallonia will vote to the left, basically all right-wing and traditional parties who work together with N-VA will be punished for that in next electoral elections. It's complicated and a difficult country.

I think Walloons generally vote Left, and indeed vote in general, without thinking about the repercussions on the federal level though. MR lost a little but not that much. Its perhaps a bad thing but I don't think they vote left as an expression of Walloon regionalism. They are a bit oblivious of what happens in the north, and struggle to comprehend separatism. They were shocked at the VB result for example when everybody in Flanders saw it coming.  

Dissolution I would say unlikely. Confederalism like e.g. Switzerland? Could be on the table for the next couple of years now that the southern (Francophone) part of Belgium and the Northern (Dutch) part, voted pretty different, the first one voting more and more towards the (extreme) left side of the political spectrum, the second one doing the opposite and voting more and more towards the (extreme) right side of the political spectrum. So that's reality, and something that isn't easily solved.

Could confederalism be a solution? Don't know really now for certain. I would dare to say in theory yes but there are a lot of questions to be asked. Main thing being Brussels, I would say. What do you do with that? You can't "give" it to either the Dutch people or the French people. I'm also not that keen on splitting an already small country into even smaller bits (splitting is not really the correct term I know).

The thing about confederalism (which is hard to define as parochial said) is that it already de facto "exists" through the mechanism of seperate electoral districts in the regions, that are themselves legally on equal standing to the federation. So unlike in Spain and the UK the regional parliaments cannot be suspended, and indeed are the most powerful organs due to their fixed parliaments. If the country still runs without a federal government its also because a lot of competences are already regional.  

N-VA probably hide behind "Confederalism" like the Quebec Seperatists hid behind "A new Economic and Political Partnership", while in reality they want a fully fledged independent State with nothing more than normal State to State relations with Wallonia.

Hmmm, I genuinely think some of the more soft-line nationalists (including potentially De Wever, who is a realist and a Burkean conservative above a chest-pumping nationalist) see the lack of integration of EU competences like Foreign Policy, and especially Defence, as a sign that the Belgian state still has its usefulness, so confederalism would allow them for example to not have to re-organise the military or our UN representation, and of course, EU membership and the considerable normative clout Belgium has a a small country. They wanted the EU to come in and cover those areas of competence but that looks dead in the water.

(Not to mention the Belgian national team and football league, but I imagine the BeNeLeague would be formed by then.)

[Lord Halifax]

I think it's important to remember two things

1. Flemish nationalists want a Flemish state and the only realistic scenario where Belgium dissolves is Flanders seceding.

2. If Flanders secedes then Wallonia and Brussels would be the continuity state under internatonal law. They would remain "Belgium" and retain its EU and NATO memberships, whereas the new Flemish state would have to apply for membership of international organizations.

If Brussels then secedes from the much poorer Wallonia to become a city state Wallonia would remain "Belgium" (since Brussels is the capital of the union the EU would then have to find a way to make Brussels an instant EU member, and the same goes for NATO as its HQ is in Brussels).

There were talks between Wallonia and France to unite, or Wallonia to be even incorporated by Germany (Magnette had that idea once). Brussels is indeed a big problem, but in the case a dissolution happens, it would be a good idea to create Brussels D.C. as the capital of Europe and under juridisiction of the EU, but Wallonia probably can't survive alone so they would to France and Germany to incorporate them (most likely France).

My point was that it matters how the dissolution takes place and that Flemish secession doesn't in itself dissolve Belgium under international law, just as Catalan secession doesn't dissolve Spain, with the important consequences I outlined.

It would be foolish of Wallonia and Brussels to throw the continuity state advantage away by accepting a velvet divorce without big concessions on the border, national debt and asset distribution.

Whether the francophone Belgic continuity state later joined Germany or France is another - and from a legal point of view unrelated - matter.

[Indy Texas]

Come to speak of it, are there even any real working confederations in the World? The closest I would say is the EU, but that still is more of a Political Organisation than a Confederation. Maybe Serbia and Montenegro was? But they dont exist anymore. Confederation seems to be a buzzword, but in reality hardly workable. N-VA probably hide behind "Confederalism" like the Quebec Seperatists hid behind "A new Economic and Political Partnership", while in reality they want a fully fledged independent State with nothing more than normal State to State relations with Wallonia.

It never works because it's basically impossible to have two separate centers of political power without (1) one of them overtaking the other, or (2) them both feeling their authority was too threatened and mutually agreeing to end the relationship.

This is one of the reasons that the various iterations of Arab federalism that were tried in the 1950s-1970s never lasted more than a few years. They had the benefit of ethnic, religious and linguistic homogeneity and still couldn't make it work!

[Flyersfan232]

but then they run lists in Brussels and even Wallonia*
*although that's mainly for the government grants.

Some 18000 people in Wallonia actually voted for VB. Is there any indication on who these kind of voters are?

right wing populist types who have no other options.