In my mind it's a project that could take several decades though..

The EU makes the distinction between national borders pretty irrelevant, wouldnt you say? For what reason would you want to unite two countries that are both member? So that they elect the same PM? So that they have the same royal house? All symbolism if you ask me. The real important things are what De Wever mentions in the interview: less competition between harbours, deeper cooperation. But even if the EU isnt enough, the Benelux treaty has recently been renewed and is still on the vanguard in terms of integration and economic cooperation. Making it a formal union is a whole lot of hassle with a mighty modest payoff.

Where do you see Wallonia and Brussels go? Also in this new united country?

Hey TMOW, I'll be back later cause I'm really busy, but just this: we'd probably become permanent G20 members if we did this. I'll answer the other questions later.

Yep. But I don't give a shit about politics.

Interesting idea. Unfortunately I'm about 4 generations removed from the low countries since my great-grandfather came to the U.S. from Belgium when he was a child, so my last name is Flemish but that's about it.

@redhouse, for when you come back, chew on this: skip the middleman, go for European unification instead! :-)

As my name suggests, I am Flemish, but unfortunately the connection lies far away in the past. My people may have left their homeland as early as 1066 for England, then Scotland, and finally the colonies in the early 1700's. But I am all for unification with the low countries. Eventually the EU will collapse and a union of low countries will provide a stronger balance against Germany and France.

@EvW. Lol okay.
@TMOW.
The EU makes the distinction between national borders pretty irrelevant, wouldnt you say?
- I wouldn't, in the slightest, no. Look at the UK, they're still very much the UK.

For what reason would you want to unite two countries that are both member? So that they elect the same PM? So that they have the same royal house? All symbolism if you ask me. The real important things are what De Wever mentions in the interview: less competition between harbours, deeper cooperation.
-To question 2 re PM, no, that doesn't really interest me. 3. Royal house doesn't really interest me. The symbolism in general is not interesting. The two ports cooperating seems like a fine idea. I think there are advantages of scale in uniting Dutch-speaking continental Europe. We could make our foreign service cheaper due to scale effects, and more powerful at the same time (G20).
The Dutch and Belgian government have had to do a lot of business together because of the ING and Fortis episodes. I think it's annoying that Dutch people who have a lot of money go live just accross the boarder in Flanders just because they pay a little less taxes there, we could introduce a common taxing system..

I could go on and on.

http://www.tns-nipo.com/tns-nipo/nieuws/van/meerderheid-nederlanders-ziet-samenvoeging-nederla/

Alright, so I exaggerated a bit about the redundancy of lines. But the UK being the UK is quite relative if you know that EU law is above UK law.

But anyway, if you make it one country, people will hop to France to avoid taxes (though if you want to talk tax avoidance, look up the Dutch sandwich tax evasion. Those few people moving across some line are peanuts).

I agree, economies of scale are good. But our competitors are not France, Germany, UK. In fact, they are our close allies against mainly Asian (Chinese) producers, transporters and service-providers. You may feel like Dutch now, but I live in Asia now and I can tell you that the difference between Europeans is mainly in the the of accent they speak English in. Cultures are incredibly alike, which I think is a good thing.

Economies of scale, great! Think big. So skip low countries, unite EU and be part of the G3.

Not Flemish, but I have I coworker who sits nearby who constantly hacks up phlegm and spits it in to his garbage can in a very loud and disgusting manner....

To be clear, I would count myself among supporters as in the study you post. But it's all so theoretical, so unfeasible, with a staggering amount of obstacles. And if we ever get there, the relevance of it all will be overshadowed by the relevance or irrelevance of the EU in the Chinese century.

Not flemish, but spend 20-30% of my time in Oost Vlanderen. I think the port cooperation and shared taxation benefits are pretty compelling, but what are you going to do with Wallonie?

I love how far west in Flanders east Flanders is.

Don't blame me ... I dod not name the provinces. At least it is east of west flanders. :)

Why unify when you could balkanize?

Re: what are you going to do with Wallonie?
I don't know, I'm not so interested in Wallonie, different language, different culture, different economy etc. They'll probably seek integration with France when the time comes.

Dat funny. You playing around with imaginary scenarios of unifying countries, but you don't know what to do with the remaining parts?

Reminds me of this brilliant map of What The Middle East Should Look Like, by a retired US Lieutenant Colonel. He redrew all of the lines according to his own fantasy, but look what he did with Westbank: Status Undetermined. Riiight.

http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/.imaging/stk/tegenlicht/zoom/media/tegenlicht/2007/May/34533168/original/34533168.jpeg

Well, tha Walloon region would be the successor state to Belgium, I presume. As a sovereign state they could determine their own destiny. I'd imagine they'd move toward a close cooperation with France. The geographical and population size as well its administrative subdivisions are similar to those of France's regions and France could take an active interest in this more industrial part of Belgium. Economically, culturally, linguistically and politically such a union could also work. But I feel the Flemish are our natural partners for the reasons mentioned earlier.