End of Belgium should be a warning to Gordon

[Exeter]

End of Belgium should be a warning to Gordon

By Boris Johnson
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 20/09/2007


At the end of some office crisis, the late, great Bill Deedes had a way of turning to you - if you were lucky enough to have been through the crisis with him - and saying, in his conspiratorial way: "Well, old cock, I think we got through that one all right."

And that, I imagine, is the feeling in Downing Street today. The panic is over, apparently. The queues of frenzied depositors have died away. By the amazing expedient of nationalising Northern Wreck, and by offering unlimited sums of taxpayers' money to guarantee the liquidity of everyone else, Gordon Brown seems to have contained the damage caused by the first run on the banks since the collapse of Overend and Gurney in 1866.


So, before the next building society goes belly up, and before Gordon uses yet more of our dosh to protect the financiers from the consequences of their reckless deals, let me warn the Prime Minister of another crisis on the horizon; a problem that is more pregnant with risk for this country than any collapse of the housing market.

Once again the bad news comes from abroad, and no, I am not talking about American mortgages, or the terrifying prospect of a Bush-led bombing raid on Iran.


It is a sign of this column's complete indifference to fashion that this week I take my text from Belgium.


Yes, Belgium is the place that Gordon should be watching: because lovely, misty little Belgium, with its triste cobbled streets and Calpol-tasting beer, is now on the verge of a tragic disintegration. For 102 days, the country has been without a government. The Walloons can't abide the Flemings, and the Flemings want to maroon the Walloons, and there is now a real chance that they will call it quits.


It is a superb and suggestive irony that the people of Europe are now being forced to accept a new constitutional document intended to unify 25 different polities, and yet the desire for national self-government is so strong that Belgium itself - the very country that plays host to the EU institutions - is in danger of breaking up.


Belgium, that state de Gaulle claimed had been invented by the British to annoy the French, may be about to go the way of the Soviet Union, of Yugoslavia, and of Czechoslovakia; and if it does, my friends, I will be the first to mourn.


Anyone who has spent any time in Belgium will know that the country has its genius, and that there is far more to it than the sum of Flanders, Wallonia and the Brussels region.


There are those who say the Belgians have given the world nothing of cultural significance except chocolates, as though that were a trivial contribution.


There are still those who resent the Belgian refusal to give - or even sell - the British Army weapons during the first Gulf war, though that is now surely a distant memory.


There are those who say there are no famous Belgians except two fictional detectives, Tintin and Hercule Poirot, and one of those was invented by a British author - as though they had never heard of Magritte, or Simenon, or Brueghel, or Johnny Hallyday, the world's greatest Francophone rock star.
To all those who say Belgium is a non-country with a non-culture, I say come with me to the Grand Place and after our menu gastronomique let us sit under the stars with our coffee - and our speculoos biscuit and Nutroma milk substitute - and let our eyes wander over the lacy intricacies of the medieval stonework.


If you think that sounds a bit pricey, then we can just catch the ferry to Ostend and buy a hot waffle, and as we crunch away at this classic Belgian delicacy, we can study this peculiar port and reflect that, of all the resorts in the world, it was Ostend to which Marvin Gaye repaired for a period of recuperation and which inspired him to his greatest height of musical ecstasy, Sexual Healing.


Belgium has a sophisticated identity, based on compromise and a fusion of cultures; not only the battleground of Europe, but the place where two great linguistic traditions are preserved side by side, where a road diversion is a wegomlegging as well as a deviation.


Of course, there would be a sudden rush of energy in Flanders if the Flemings were detached from the Walloons, and perhaps the Walloons, like some chronically undervalued and put-upon spouse, might feel all liberated and renewed in the aftermath of the divorce, and perhaps the warring couple might find some way of sharing Brussels, the child of their union.
But something would be lost. Belgium would be gone, the Belgium that produced Belgian hens and Belgian horses and that bourgeois Belgian finicketiness about how to make steak tartare or moules frites. Belgian-ness would be over, and the many who feel neither particularly Flemish nor Walloon would be deprived of their portmanteau identity, and that would be sad.


If Belgium splits up, that fissure will not only make a mockery of Belgium's central role in the cause of European integration. It will be a huge boost to Europe's remaining separatist movements, the Basques, the Corsicans, the Welsh - and, above all, the Scots. If the Belgian creation of 1830 is capable of falling apart, why should we expect the union of 1707 to be imperishable?
It is one of the wonders of the Brown "bounce" that no one any longer sees fit to point out the infamy of the West Lothian problem. We have a Scottish MP Prime Minister, promulgating measures on health and education and other matters that have no effect on his own constituents, and while Scottish MPs are able to vote on English schools and hospitals, English MPs have no corresponding say in Scotland. The English seem utterly passive in the face of this injustice; and in spite of this passivity - or perhaps partly because of it - the Scots advance ever further on the path towards independence.


Alex Salmond now calls his executive a government, and Gordon can do nothing to correct him. Look at Belgium, Gordon, and tremble.


Boris Johnson is MP for Henley



End of Belgium should be a warning to Gordon - Telegraph

[Kernunnos]

All he can say to keep belgium alive is low level vaporous tourist guide rethoric.

Good for a travel agency, not for serious politics.

What a shameful bunch of dim-witted politicians we have.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Breha

What a shameful bunch of dim-witted politicians we have.

Democracy tends to select mediocrity.

[Dr Fred]

I am sick of hearing from ignorant Brits that Belgium has no history, as if the soil we call Belgium and the people we call Belgians appeared magically in 1830 out of nowhere. Of course, Belgium as a factice nation is no significant and has no history since it is barely two centuries old, but Belgium is an ARTIFICIAL country (and the people inhabiting it are no BELGIANS) made up of centuries old cultures... and this is hard for Brits to figure out, since their countries are naturally delimited by sea and cannot technically be "artifical", they have no notion of what is an "artificial nation"... (Great Britain didn't suddenly merge from the sea, if you know what I mean)... you can't say to a inhabitant of Wallonia, whose ancestors took part to the history of Godefroid de Bouillon, Napoleon, Charlemagne, Pepin le bref, Jules Cesar, Adolph Hitler, Pepin le Bref, Charles the Bold, various French kings, you can't tell him that he has no history.

The people known as Belgians, the Flemish and the Walloons have one of the heaviest history of Europe, and like most part of the world with a heavy history, it has been consequently war-torn, and their historical relics destroyed(see Japan). Let alone the periodical hijacking of "belgian" inventors or artists by either Netherlands or France (many so-called "american dutch" were Flemish or Walloons, and many so-called "french inventors" were Walloons).

Afterwards, we hear British journalists compulsively telling us that Belgium has no history. They keep on saying "tell us 10 famous belgians" with a sarcastic smile, but can they tell us 10 famous Swiss, or Finns, or Slovaks? so why Belgians? I believe there is a subconscious Belgian-bashing propaganda among Brits, as if they wanted to kill what they created.

[Exeter]

Nation-states are human constructs. Italy is also modern.

I don't think the average "Big Brother" watvching Brit will know much about Belgium except the production of good chocolates and beer. Brits may have heard of pommes frites. More educated Brits will know EU institutions are located in Brussels. A few may have heard Antwerp is world's largest centre of diamond trade. I almost forgot. There is also Tintin.

[Dr Fred]

Originally Posted by Exeter

Nation-states are human constructs. Italy is also modern.

More or less. There are human contructs and nations made out of natural/ethnic boundaries. England (or Japan, or Ireland or Spain) is the opposite of Belgium in this matter, there is a geographical reality in the existance of England, since it is delimited naturally by sea except the border to Scotland (I am not sure what made the scottish border) and Wales, which is a natural reality too (mountains). Belgium is completely artifical. Italy might be modern but there is still a geographical reality for the existence of Italy. It is no hasard that the most nationalistic people in the world are insular people (naturally defined by sea) and nations naturally defined by mountains.

[Exeter]

You make some good points.

Geographical realities such as islands, rivers and mountainous are indeed important in the formation of nation-states. Nation-states are of course different from the multi-ethnic historical states. The latter were merely political entities. Nation-states have an ethnic and cultural component. Could we say states preceded nation-states?

I think insular people tend to be more xenophobic.

Other than that the ideas behind nationalism was spread to the rest of Europe with Napoleon.

Originally Posted by Dr Fred

More or less. There are human contructs and nations made out of natural/ethnic boundaries. England (or Japan, or Ireland or Spain) is the opposite of Belgium in this matter, there is a geographical reality in the existance of England, since it is delimited naturally by sea except the border to Scotland (I am not sure what made the scottish border) and Wales, which is a natural reality too (mountains). Belgium is completely artifical. Italy might be modern but there is still a geographical reality for the existence of Italy. It is no hasard that the most nationalistic people in the world are insular people (naturally defined by sea) and nations naturally defined by mountains.

[Laocoon]

Let alone the periodical hijacking of "belgian" inventors or artists by either Netherlands or France (many so-called "american dutch" were Flemish or Walloons, and many so-called "french inventors" were Walloons).

Interesting. Like who?

[Dr Fred]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Interesting. Like who?

I heard many frenchmen claiming, for instance, George Lemaitre the creator of the Big Bang theory, or Etienne Lenoir the creator of the first automobile as one of their own (even though the latter took the french citizenship), if they are not, it's the brits or americans who make the confusion, before telling everyone how little the Belgians contributed to the world.
Not an inventor, but Charles Martel, who allegedly saved western europe from islamization is often called a male version of Jeanne D'arc... incidentally, the French version of Wikipedia is the only version where his birth on present day Belgium is not mentionned... It's a Jacobinist mentality, everything is "French washed" or "Paris washed".

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Dr Fred

More or less. There are human contructs and nations made out of natural/ethnic boundaries. England (or Japan, or Ireland or Spain) is the opposite of Belgium in this matter, there is a geographical reality in the existance of England, since it is delimited naturally by sea except the border to Scotland (I am not sure what made the scottish border) and Wales, which is a natural reality too (mountains). Belgium is completely artifical. Italy might be modern but there is still a geographical reality for the existence of Italy. It is no hasard that the most nationalistic people in the world are insular people (naturally defined by sea) and nations naturally defined by mountains.

Actually ital hosts diverse parties whose political orientation is similar to the old vlams' Blok's one: as for a starter, the Lombard league and its many little rivals in the north, the Sardinian independentist is Sardiania.

In Sicily immediately after the war a powerful pro-independence party was created ex-nihilo in a short time, even if the mafia decided negatively about its existence pretty soon.


Don't forget that Italy stretches for more than a thousand miles, so an ihabitant of Milan would be closer to Innsbruck than to Rome.

The difference between our parties and the Vlams blok lies in the better leadership the Vlams has and in the lack of a serious unitarian past in Belgium, at least from a rethorical point of view: after unification generations of italians were told they descended from the Romans and that hey were the legitimate heirs to the roman empire.

The latter idea, which was not born out of fascism but out of the pen of the pre-unitarian apologists of a united Italy, did deny te reality of an Italy made of so many peoples as one can count in a not so big territory: that past was still evident in different languages that were spoken in every province, with even surviving pre-roman languages as in the South, where some tiny villages were still speaking homeric age greek until a few decades ago.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Dr Fred

I am sick of hearing from ignorant Brits that Belgium has no history, as if the soil we call Belgium and the people we call Belgians appeared magically in 1830 out of nowhere. Of course, Belgium as a factice nation is no significant and has no history since it is barely two centuries old, but Belgium is an ARTIFICIAL country (and the people inhabiting it are no BELGIANS) made up of centuries old cultures... and this is hard for Brits to figure out, since their countries are naturally delimited by sea and cannot technically be "artifical", they have no notion of what is an "artificial nation"... (Great Britain didn't suddenly merge from the sea, if you know what I mean)...

That's a very good point.
For a "British" person of all people to brand another country as "artifical" is irony taken to the extreme. This is the nation which somehow manages to have four national football teams.

What a bizarre little oddity it is, and for it to brand anywhere else as "artificial" can only be attributed to that peculiar English sense of humour.

[Laocoon]

Originally Posted by Dr Fred

I heard many frenchmen claiming, for instance, George Lemaitre the creator of the Big Bang theory, or Etienne Lenoir the creator of the first automobile as one of their own (even though the latter took the french citizenship), if they are not, it's the brits or americans who make the confusion, before telling everyone how little the Belgians contributed to the world.

Well, I wouldn't know. What I know for sure is that more famous Walloons like Hergé for instance are not considered French by people in France, or at least I'm not aware of it. However I've heard about Johnny Hallyday being claimed as one of ours despite his Flemish lastname. This is the real catastrophe! Johnny sucks!

Jean-Joseph Étienne Lenoir (Mussy-la-Ville, Belgique, 12 janvier 1822 - La Varenne-Saint-Hilaire, 4 août 1900) est un ingénieur belge, qui réalisa notamment le premier moteur à combustion interne en 1860 et le premier moteur quatre temps en 1863.

Jean-Joseph Étienne Lenoir - Wikipédia

Georges Lemaître( Monseigneur ) (Charleroi, 17 juillet 1894 – Louvain, 20 juin 1966) était un chanoine catholique, astronome et physicien belge.

Georges Lemaître - Wikipédia

On the other hand I can understand how some French may feel close to Wallons. I've myself always considered them close to Northern French and Lorrains.

Not an inventor, but Charles Martel, who allegedly saved western europe from islamization is often called a male version of Jeanne D'arc... incidentally, the French version of Wikipedia is the only version where his birth on present day Belgium is not mentionned...

Hmm, isn't it an anachronism in this case? At Charles Martel's time it was in exitence yet Wallonia?

It's a Jacobinist mentality, everything is "French washed" or "Paris washed".

Paris, it's Paris... La province aux provinciaux, les jacobins à Paris!

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Breha

where some tiny villages were still speaking homeric age greek until a few decades ago.

South Italian Greek is hardly Homerica Greek, but a Byzantine dialect.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Exeter

You make some good points.

Geographical realities such as islands, rivers and mountainous are indeed important in the formation of nation-states. Nation-states are of course different from the multi-ethnic historical states. The latter were merely political entities. Nation-states have an ethnic and cultural component. Could we say states preceded nation-states?

The did. Kingdoms, for example, are a form of state.

And so did nations precede nation-states.

I think insular people tend to be more xenophobic.

Something along those lines.

Other than that the ideas behind nationalism was spread to the rest of Europe with Napoleon.

That's debatable. Modernist Nationalisms were. Traditionalist Nationalism, on the other hand, was not.