Calls to revive the centuries-old idea of unifying Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have resurfaced in recent weeks, following strong endorsements from Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever and Flemish Minister-President Matthias Diependaele.
Both leaders argue that deeper integration could strengthen Europe’s geopolitical resilience and position the region as an economic powerhouse.
Speaking in Amsterdam earlier this month, De Wever described the 16th-century split of the former Netherlands as “the greatest disaster that ever befallen us.” He urged the formation of an “intimate union” of the three countries—an entity he believes could become the “beating heart of Europe.”
Diependaele echoed his party leader’s conviction, emphasising the strategic advantages of cooperation in a world marked by shifting global power dynamics. He pointed to challenges such as US trade policies, China’s growing dominance and the ongoing threat from Russia as incentives for deeper regional alignment.
Flanders and the Netherlands already collaborate closely, especially in innovation.
Diependaele highlighted the synergy between Leuven’s IMEC, a leader in chip research, and Dutch giant ASML, which dominates the chip-machine industry.
Combined, Belgium and the Netherlands would form a bloc of 30 million people, rising to 30.7 million if Luxembourg joined. Such a union would create the EU’s fourth-largest economy—a prospect Flemish leaders see as a major opportunity.
Yet experts warn that political reality tells a different story. Caroline Sägesser, political analyst at CRISP, believes the idea enjoys support primarily in Flanders, not in French-speaking Belgium. “Reinforcing cooperation makes sense,” she said. “Actually merging states is a whole different animal.”
She noted that Belgium’s historical fragility as a nation, combined with a long-standing sense of under-recognition among Flemish speakers, helps explain why Flemish nationalists are drawn to a project where Dutch would be the dominant language.
Economic motives also play a key role, including the potential consolidation of Antwerp and Rotterdam—two of Europe’s largest ports. But Luxembourg, she warned, is unlikely to be enthusiastic.
Despite its prosperity, Luxembourg has difficult historical memories from the 19th century, when it shared a king with the Netherlands. Its economic orientation today leans more toward Germany, making a Benelux merger less appealing.
Meanwhile, Wallonia’s response has been muted. Sägesser suggests that, hypothetically, Wallonia might look toward France rather than a Dutch-majority union—leaving the unresolved future of Brussels.
Brussels remains the central obstacle in all Flemish nationalist plans due to its bilingual status, international role and symbolic weight. “They can neither take it nor leave it,” Sägesser explained. “It complicates everything.”
Despite the renewed debate, she believes Belgium will endure in its current form.
Past government crises have shown that, despite tensions, the country ultimately stabilises.
Still, Diependaele refuses to rule out a future union. “You never know,” he said. “The context has to be right.”
