Of course French is the dominant language in the Flemish communes à facilités around Brussels: the share of their inhabitants being French-speakers who are either from Brussels originally or from Wallonia, and of inhabitants working in Brussels in a mainly French-speaking job, is often around 50% or higher. The fact that this share is rising, and has been rising for many years, is evidence of that dominance.

The error many people make is that because the number of French-speakers in the region is rising and sometimes above 50%, there should be more facilités to accommodate the French-speaking majority. It is the other way round: because the number French-speakers is rising, French does not need more protection. Dutch does.

An understanding of democratic principles. This does not mean majority rule under all circumstances, but instead allows minorities a fair (larger than proportional) say on issues that matter to them as communities. Neither the vote in the Flemish parliament on splitting the Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde constituency, nor the (French-speaking nationalist) wish to have referendums in the Flemish communes around Brussels on becoming part of the Brussels region, fulfill such criteria (which is not to say that threatening to use these means cannot be acceptable tools during negotiations).

There has been such a vote in Flemish parliament, but your audience doesn’t know that. They’ll think your meddle up with the vote in the “commission” of the federal parliament.

This is the case in Québec (where French is protected against English) and on the federal level in Belgium (where French and Dutch are protected against each other), but not in the region around Brussels (where French-speakers demand more rights despite the fact that French locally is the dominant language).

Please clarify… How can French be the dominant language if they live in Flanders (they might be a majority in some municipalities, where they have faciliteiten/facilités/special privileges, but local government is in Dutch…