Wallonia must be part of FRANCE

Tiste   Tuesday, January 18, 2005, 20:44 GMT
that's true...
Flemish Queen Fabiola   Tuesday, January 18, 2005, 21:10 GMT
Long live our Kingdom!!!Vive la België!!!!!!!!
bellatyty   Tuesday, January 18, 2005, 21:38 GMT
je suis d'accord avec les francophones, c vraiment chiant d'apprendre une langue qui s'utilise que dans 2 pays et demi franchement vaudrais mieux apprendre l'anglais, l'espagnole, l'arabe, l'hindi qui nous servirais beaucoup plus et qui sont vraiment de plus belles langues!!!

de plus on ne peux pas diviser la belgique en deux car ce sont les flamands qui valorise l'économie du pays!!!
on n'a qu'a annexé la flandre avec les pays bas et la wallonie avec le luxembourg et faire un pays qui s'appellerais Bellux!!!!

vive le français et ce n'est pas que j'aime pas les flamans, parce que je les aime bien mais j'aime pas la langue!!!

sorry, tot ziens
Fredrik from Norway   Tuesday, January 18, 2005, 21:41 GMT
If Belgium splits, what will happen to Bryssel (as it is called in Norwegian)? As a mostly French-speaking city in Flanders as suppose none of you can claim it. Could it become a city directly under the EU?
Jellywoman   Tuesday, January 18, 2005, 23:21 GMT
I hope Brussel/Brussels becomes a Washington DC of the European Union.

District of Brussels or something like that...
Louvain-la-neuve   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 09:30 GMT
85% of the inhabitants in Bruxelles are NATIVE french-speakers!!!

Bruxelles is just separated from wallonia because of the flemish powers.
But it's just separated from 3km (2 miles)!!!!! Can you imagine, just 3km!!!
Moreover the city which links Bruxelles to Wallonia (called Rhode-Saint-Genèse) is mainly francophone although it's administrated by flanders governement!!!!

So, if this kind of cities called "communes à facilités" were given back to us (it should because they are francophones), Bruxelles wouldn't be an enclave in flanders but would be linked to Wallonia.

I hope the union with France for us!!!!!!!!
Jordi   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 12:21 GMT
Since Brussels is historically a part of Flanders could you please tell me which is the capital city of Wallonia?
Jurgen von günther Ja   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 12:26 GMT
The capital city of Wallonia is really Paris.
Jordi   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 13:19 GMT
Very bright of you and I think many of the Walloons would agree about Paris but somewhere, a few generations ago, when the Walloons hadn't invaded or frenchified the local people of Brussel (many of the Walloons have got Flemish names) I'm sure they must have had somekind of historical Walloon capital. If I were from that historical 100% Walloon city I would be horrified about Brussel (a Flemish newcomer) trying to steal my first rank.
By the way, since Spanish is spoken by more than 50% of the people of Los Angeles (or other such places in the US), why don't they give California and Texas back to the Mexicans? After all, if invasion is an argument it should be an argument for everybody. You might find Turkey asking for Berlin one of these years.
Tiste   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 13:50 GMT
Louvain-la-neuve ,

Brussels wasn't originally francophone and towns like St-Genius-Rode never belonged to Wallonia . So don't tell these people lies, k ?

long lives to flamands and wallons
Tiste   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 13:55 GMT
Here's some more info about Brussels/Brussel/Bruxelles

Flemish Brabant encloses Brussels

Of all the Belgian provinces Flemish Brabant is, together with Walloon Brabant, the only one which does not touch one of the country’s external borders. However, this very centrally located province does have a ‘different’ sort of border, the language border. This is the boundary between the two main language communities, as laid down in the laws of 8th November 1962 and 2nd August 1963. This language border, running from east to west, divides the Flemish from the French speakers, and Flemish Brabant from Walloon Brabant, with the exception of the Brussels conurbation which, with its 19 boroughs, is a bilingual enclave surrounded by the territory of Flemish Brabant. The origins of this national border remains a disputed point, though it was probably settled by the extent of the attacks made by the Franks during the 5th century. After all, at that time the north of present-day Belgium, where the Roman influence was less tangible, was populated by a Frankish majority that contiunued to speak Middle Dutch, a Germanic Language. By contrast, the southern part has definitively absorbed Roman culture and retained the Roman language.
Easterner   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 13:57 GMT
Reading all these posts, I realise a difference in attitude between the Flemish and the Walloon/French posters here (essentially this is a Belgian "internal affair", but opinions don't bite). I hope nobody will be offended, but I realise a negative bias towards Flemish from certain French speakers here (I am trying to understand the attitude of both sides). It may be true that French is a more universal language (one I personally adore, mind you), but it does not take much to accept that your country consists of two distinct regions and language communities. If the French don't want to speak Flemish, why should the Flemish be expected to speak French (or vice versa)? I don't really like the way Dutch sounds, either (this has nothing to do with Dutch people), but if happened to live in The Netherlands or Flanders, or even if I lived in the French-speaking part of Belgium, I would feel it useful to get at least a basic knowledge of Vlaams/Dutch.

An absurd result of this linguistic division is a train accident I heard of some years ago, which happened because the Flemish and the Walloon railwayman did not understand each other (acording to the recorded conversation). So this is why I think both groups should appreciate the fact of knowing the other's language, without being obliged to like it (however repulsive the excesses of Flemish nationalism may seem to Walloons, or the fact of Brussels becoming French-speaking to the Flemish - it is wise to make a distinction between the practical use a language and the attitude to the group that speaks it). If this doesn't work, the introduction of a third, "neutral" language (English?) may be an option, or Flanders and Wallonie could go separate ways, but even in the latter case they will be two adjacent regions which share a lot culturally (regardless of language) and linked by close economic ties...

Of course, I do not claim to be right in everything, and my opinions are strictly personal, without the intent of judging anybody.

By the way I am curious about the proportion of Flemish-Walloon mixed marriages in Belgium, and as to which is the "official" language in such families. :)
Tiste   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 14:21 GMT
The best thing we should do with Brussels if Flanders and Wallonia splitt is making it something like a bi-country metropole ( Am I saying it right ? )...
IO   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 14:22 GMT
A neutral language is OUT OF THE QUESTION !
Jurgen von günther   Wednesday, January 19, 2005, 14:34 GMT
But English is spoken by over 90% of the people of Los Angeles. It is clearly the established language. In Wallonia, French is the recognized established language.

Turkey might ask for Berlin to follow charia law when it has enough Muslims to make it the majority population and if the majority of people speak Turkish why not? Maybe Turkey will ask for Berlin but this progression will happen in Nederlands and France before Germany. Languages and cultures change you know so what?