Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[garbon]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

First of all, no Transylvania doesn't get that by default, the still overwhelmingly Hungarian region of it (Szekelyfold) has had a significant autonomy movement for decades with no willingness from Bucharest to listen.

BUT thanks to your line of thinking if Hungary waged an aggressive and destructive war on Romania, the international community would require such a referendum.

And I'll ignore your Romanian false flag thing because it read odds in comparison to the Ukraine situation and I know you didn't mean it like that.

My charitable reading is he thinks everyone should have ability to have a referendum at any time and any other circumstances don't matter?

[Tamas]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

First of all, no Transylvania doesn't get that by default, the still overwhelmingly Hungarian region of it (Szekelyfold) has had a significant autonomy movement for decades with no willingness from Bucharest to listen.

BUT thanks to your line of thinking if Hungary waged an aggressive and destructive war on Romania, the international community would require such a referendum.

And I'll ignore your Romanian false flag thing because it read odds in comparison to the Ukraine situation and I know you didn't mean it like that.

My charitable reading is he thinks everyone should have ability to have a referendum at any time and any other circumstances don't matter?

Yes, but what if the host country doesn't let that happen? If his suggestion was to taken to heart, then the solution to that problem is foreign aggression against the host country to force an internationally-sanctioned referendum.

[Josquius]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

First of all, no Transylvania doesn't get that by default, the still overwhelmingly Hungarian region of it (Szekelyfold) has had a significant autonomy movement for decades with no willingness from Bucharest to listen.

BUT thanks to your line of thinking if Hungary waged an aggressive and destructive war on Romania, the international community would require such a referendum.

And I'll ignore your Romanian false flag thing because it read odds in comparison to the Ukraine situation and I know you didn't mean it like that.

When I say they have that right already I mean in terms of how things should work. I fully recognise a lot of countries, even respected democracies, fail here.

That Romania is blocking the Szekly self-determination movement is a problem and something the world should take action against. There should be international recognition of the right of self-determination. If a party that wants a referendum keeps winning elections in an area (assuming a democratic system...things are iffy in Scotland on this one), opinion polls consistently show there is a clear demand for this,  then an arrangement should be made for it to happen.

If Hungary decides to take matters into its own hands and attack... then fuck Hungary, it deserves to be punished, but the innocent people who were asking for self-determination shouldn't have their rights taken from them just because Orban drank too much paint. That Romania is in the wrong in denying them their rights would remain the case.
That the Nazis invaded the USSR doesn't absolve Stalin of all his wrongdoing likewise nor does it make the subsequent ethnic cleansing of eastern Germans totally fine (for a rather more extreme comparison).

[garbon]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

First of all, no Transylvania doesn't get that by default, the still overwhelmingly Hungarian region of it (Szekelyfold) has had a significant autonomy movement for decades with no willingness from Bucharest to listen.

BUT thanks to your line of thinking if Hungary waged an aggressive and destructive war on Romania, the international community would require such a referendum.

And I'll ignore your Romanian false flag thing because it read odds in comparison to the Ukraine situation and I know you didn't mean it like that.

My charitable reading is he thinks everyone should have ability to have a referendum at any time and any other circumstances don't matter?

Yes, but what if the host country doesn't let that happen? If his suggestion was to taken to heart, then the solution to that problem is foreign aggression against the host country to force an internationally-sanctioned referendum.

Oh I didn't mean to suggest I agree with it.

[garbon]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

First of all, no Transylvania doesn't get that by default, the still overwhelmingly Hungarian region of it (Szekelyfold) has had a significant autonomy movement for decades with no willingness from Bucharest to listen.

BUT thanks to your line of thinking if Hungary waged an aggressive and destructive war on Romania, the international community would require such a referendum.

And I'll ignore your Romanian false flag thing because it read odds in comparison to the Ukraine situation and I know you didn't mean it like that.

When I say they have that right already I mean in terms of how things should work. I fully recognise a lot of countries, even respected democracies, fail here.

That Romania is blocking the Szekly self-determination movement is a problem and something the world should take action against. There should be international recognition of the right of self-determination. If a party that wants a referendum keeps winning elections in an area (assuming a democratic system...things are iffy in Scotland on this one), opinion polls consistently show there is a clear demand for this,  then an arrangement should be made for it to happen.

If Hungary decides to take matters into its own hands and attack... then fuck Hungary, it deserves to be punished, but the innocent people who were asking for self-determination shouldn't have their rights taken from them just because Orban drank too much paint. That Romania is in the wrong in denying them their rights would remain the case.

What happens to the minority group within larger pop that wants to leave? Can they have a referendum to go back? Where does it end?

[Josquius]

What happens to the minority group within larger pop that wants to leave? Can they have a referendum to go back? Where does it end?

As I've said there's no one size fits all solution, its all quite complex. I would say any referendum should have a solid plan for how things would workout written up before it goes ahead to give people a clear idea of what they're voting on rather than a brexit style more of the same vs. magical mystery box.

 Definitely however it should be possible for municipalities to opt out where it is practical (e.g. North Kosovo) and no matter what happens rights of citizenship of their original nation should remain for the various minority groups in a Good Friday Agreement sort of setup.

[garbon]

What happens to the minority group within larger pop that wants to leave? Can they have a referendum to go back? Where does it end?

As I've said there's no one size fits all solution, its all quite complex. I would say any referendum should have a solid plan for how things would workout written up before it goes ahead to give people a clear idea of what they're voting on rather than a brexit style more of the same vs. magical mystery box.

 Definitely however it should be possible for municipalities to opt out where it is practical (e.g. North Kosovo) and no matter what happens rights of citizenship of their original nation should remain for the various minority groups in a Good Friday Agreement sort of setup.

Or it might be easier to give up the notion that everyone has a right to a self-determination.

It appears in your last paragraph that you even highlight a place where states should be able to opt out of providing said 'right' for reasons of practicality.

[Tamas]

What happens to the minority group within larger pop that wants to leave? Can they have a referendum to go back? Where does it end?

As I've said there's no one size fits all solution, its all quite complex. I would say any referendum should have a solid plan for how things would workout written up before it goes ahead to give people a clear idea of what they're voting on rather than a brexit style more of the same vs. magical mystery box.

 Definitely however it should be possible for municipalities to opt out where it is practical (e.g. North Kosovo) and no matter what happens rights of citizenship of their original nation should remain for the various minority groups in a Good Friday Agreement sort of setup.

So if North Kosovo is practical, what is the practical plan for the Albanians living there who would be returning to a state that was actively genociding them just 23 years ago?

[Josquius]

So if North Kosovo is practical, what is the practical plan for the Albanians living there who would be returning to a state that was actively genociding them just 23 years ago?

Who are they? Where do they live? How many are there?
If there's enough of a disagreement then its perfectly possible municipalities on/around the border can be cut too.
If its one Albanian guy living right by the Serbian border surrounded by Serbs then that's unfortunate for him, he should be granted Kosovan citizenship anyway and his rights to full Serbian citizenship guaranteed and protected, but logic dictates his house would fall on the Serbian side of the border.

Or it might be easier to give up the notion that everyone has a right to a self-determination.

It appears in your last paragraph that you even highlight a place where states should be able to opt out of providing said 'right' for reasons of practicality.

I don't think recognising there's a myriad of different local conditions in any way alters the notion that on a broad scale everyone deserves self-determination.

I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph. The previous Northern Ireland situation was wrong.

[Tamas]

If its one Albanian guy living right by the Serbian border surrounded by Serbs then that's unfortunate for him, he should be granted Kosovan citizenship anyway and his rights to full Serbian citizenship guaranteed and protected, but logic dictates his house would fall on the Serbian side of the border.

So you are ignoring the wishes of a minority within a majority group.

[garbon]

Or it might be easier to give up the notion that everyone has a right to a self-determination.

It appears in your last paragraph that you even highlight a place where states should be able to opt out of providing said 'right' for reasons of practicality.

I don't think recognising there's a myriad of different local conditions in any way alters the notion that on a broad scale everyone deserves self-determination.

I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph. The previous Northern Ireland situation was wrong.

Because inevitably your idea that everyone should have self-determination runs into someone being unfairly treated.

Let's say that a majority of people in Montana decide that they want to join Canada and both the American and Canadian governments signs off. Let's put that split at say 60% pro-Canada and 40% wishing to remain in America.

I'd agree an easy equitable thing would be letting that 40% retain their American citizenship. However, what that 40% doesn't get is to continue to live in their 'home territory' inside America. They would suddenly be expatriates.

If we go with the idea that everyone has a right to self-determination, should those 40% be entitled to a refereundum as to whether their areas (lets say counties) can remain as American soil? And if so, what happens if individual cities in those counties would like to stay in America?

It feels like you'll inevitability end up at a point where not everyone actually gets a right to self-determination. Someone will always lose out.

[Josquius]

Because inevitably your idea that everyone should have self-determination runs into someone being unfairly treated.

Let's say that a majority of people in Montana decide that they want to join Canada and both the American and Canadian governments signs off. Let's put that split at say 60% pro-Canada and 40% wishing to remain in America.

I'd agree an easy equitable thing would be letting that 40% retain their American citizenship. However, what that 40% doesn't get is to continue to live in their 'home territory' inside America. They would suddenly be expatriates.

You seek to accommodate those who differ from the majority as much as is practical.
As said a good lesson is in the side of the GFE which gives people in that area the option of citizenship of both, and the pre-existing anglo-Irish situation of mutual recognition of each others citizens as if they were your own.

If we go with the idea that everyone has a right to self-determination, should those 40% be entitled to a refereundum as to whether their areas (lets say counties) can remain as American soil? And if so, what happens if individual cities in those counties would like to stay in America?

Yes. I believe I already said as much a few times.
You seek to accommodate them as much as is remotely possible.
As said, a random village of 5 houses in the middle of clear Canadian territory right near the old border...yeah no, that's not going to be practical.
A big city right on the state border however? Then that's pretty clear-cut.

It feels like you'll inevitability end up at a point where not everyone actually gets a right to self-determination. Someone will always lose out.

Yes. You're indulging in the Nirvana Fallacy here however- perfect is the enemy of good.

If its one Albanian guy living right by the Serbian border surrounded by Serbs then that's unfortunate for him, he should be granted Kosovan citizenship anyway and his rights to full Serbian citizenship guaranteed and protected, but logic dictates his house would fall on the Serbian side of the border.

So you are ignoring the wishes of a minority within a majority group.

Not at all.
I wonder if you're being serious here or just playing gotcha?
As said before, saying one believes in democracy doesn't mean you can only be an anarchist. The real world doesn't work in purest black and whites.

[garbon]

So everyone has a right to self-determination that should be satisfied unless the group is too small.

Who determines what is small?

[grumbler]

Where does this group right to self-determination come from?  In normal societies, we recognize that individuals have rights (inherent in their existence as humans) and groups have powers.

We sometimes refer to legislatively or legally granted group powers as "rights" (e.g. the "right" of unions to represent their workers in negotiations with management), but since those "rights" are given and can be taken away, they are only rights in the sense in the vernacular sense of the word "rights" not the legal or ethical senses.  In any case, these sorts of "civil rights" type rights are explicitly granted by some authority.

If we are going to suppose that groups have rights, then how are the groups determined, and how are their rights determined? 

I think that the normal-society concept of rights is probably the one we should stick to.  A philosophy that grants and self-declared group their self-declared rights is a philosophy of anarchy.

[Berkut]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

First of all, no Transylvania doesn't get that by default, the still overwhelmingly Hungarian region of it (Szekelyfold) has had a significant autonomy movement for decades with no willingness from Bucharest to listen.

BUT thanks to your line of thinking if Hungary waged an aggressive and destructive war on Romania, the international community would require such a referendum.

And I'll ignore your Romanian false flag thing because it read odds in comparison to the Ukraine situation and I know you didn't mean it like that.

My charitable reading is he thinks everyone should have ability to have a referendum at any time and any other circumstances don't matter?

Yes. This is an absolutely ridiculous idea that he cannot even defend with his own words when you take about 30 seconds to think about what that would actually mean in any real sense.

Like if you had a referendum, and Quebec seceded  based on the outcome, what do you do then? Have another referendum in the English language parts of Quebec to see if they want to secede back? How far down do you go?

But its one of those things were people start with their conclusion (people in Quebec and Scotland ought to be able to secede!) then try to create foundational principles to support that conclusion (ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION!) so you can avoid hard arguments about the practical reality, and then suddenly find yourself arguing for how the Southerners were right and maybe Putin has a point....