Talk:Treaty of London (1839)

message: The article should explain why Dutch-speaking Flanders and Brabant did not remain as part of the Netherlands, given that linguistic divides seem to have motivated border-drawing at this time of history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Flanders, Dutch-speaking Belgium

message: I take exception to the last sentence of the intro, that "Article VII ... by implication committed the signatory powers to guard that neutrality in the event of invasion". The citation doesn't say as much. And I don't think that most reasonable people would be able to read that kind of commitment into article seven, extremely brief as it is. There is a body of opinion that sees the Treaty of London as placing all its obligations on the Belgians and almost none, besides diplomatic recognition and access to trade, on the other signatories. Opinion includes those of both brothers Hitchens, one of the few things the two political authors agreed on. 80.5.23.215 (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A big factor in the outbreak of WW1 was the ambiguous wording of the treaty, allowing different interpretations. Valetude (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: War Commitment

message: I splitted the section "significance" into two parts, the existing part became "historical significance" and I added a part with regards to the Iron Rhine controversy under "modern day significance" as in 2005 the Permanent Court of Arbitration used the 1839 treaty to decide a dispute between Belgium and the Netherlands (in favor of Belgium). -- fdewaele, 19 April 2007, 15:22.
More should be definitely be said about modern significance. If the treaty was deemed to give Belgium rights in the Iron Rhine dispute, why has no one kicked up a fuss about Belgium's distinct lack of neutrality these days, something the treaty bound it and other European powers on? This is the country that hosts the headquarters of NATO! 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance

message: Why this article doesn't talk about the Treaty of Maastricht (1843) ?--Io Herodotus (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Maastricht (1843) 

message: I would like to see a section that expands a bit the background leading to the treaty, especially the negotiation behind the treaty. For example, who came up with the ideas behind the treaty? What motivated them to suggest what became part of the treaty? For example, from what I've read elsewhere in the Wikipedia, it appears that Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary at the time treaty was signed or at least being negotiated, made the guaranteed neutrality of Belgium part of the treaty in the name of British security interests. Hence the British involvement in Lower Countries from to time, particularly that French invasions of Austrian Netherlands (which Belgium once was part of before being incorporated into Netherlands before 1830) led to Britain being dragged into war with Revolutionary France (it appears that Britain is more interested in securing that flank than in internal affairs of France at that time). Anyway I digress but I would like to at least see the background behind the treaty expanded a bit. --Legion (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Started a Background section with text and cites from International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919). More can be added. Whizz40 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: A section on lead-up to the treaty's creation 

message: "Belgium's de facto independence had been established through nine years of intermittent fighting culminating in the Belgian Revolution. "
This statement is obscure.   Which 9 years are being refered to, here ?  1830-1839 ?   1821-1830 ?   If it is supposed to mean the 9 years prior to the making of the 1839 treaty,   well that 9 year period started with the "belgian revolution",  it did not "culminate" with it,  not in the English language at any rate.Lathamibird (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're exactly right. I'll remove the words after "fighting" from the sentence involved. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure statement