Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Admiral Yi]

Anyone know how Czechoslovakia handled their break up?  Think it's considered a model, at least in terms of amicability.

[Barrister]

Anyone know how Czechoslovakia handled their break up?  Think it's considered a model, at least in terms of amicability.

Fairly unique because the two constituent parts were roughly the same size.  Most independence movements are a smaller region attempting to break away from a larger group.

[The Minsky Moment]

I certainly won't defend America's form of government in all matters, but I'll simply note we have never settled our important issues with referendum in America.
. . .In the United States we've never even entertained the idea of subjecting important government decisions to a referendum. By even accepting it as a legitimate procedure, the Brits have done serious harm to the long-term capacity of Britain to be governable

The Constitution contemplates the possibility of holding constitutional conventions for amendment.  To my knowledge that procedure has never been invoked.  But it is very different from a referendum.  The US system was intentionally set up so that any decision to fundamentally alter the governing structure not only had to be by super-majority, it also had to occur using a process that required deliberation and consideration.  That includes the fact that any "question" (proposed amendment) is itself subject to amendment or alteration before final submission.

The Brexit fiasco is a good demonstration of the virtues of the US system.  It was not a real choice between two coherent alternatives.  It was a choice between the status quo on the one hand, and an infinite variety of possible but unspecified alternatives, on the other.  I.e. leave and do what?  It was a vote between a concrete reality and a symbolic gesture, albeit a gesture that had profound implications TBD.  In a constitutional convention that wouldn't fly - you can't just vote for "change" or "the other thing".  The current health care debate in the US is a good example  - "Obamacare bad" might be a winner, but the need to provide a real, superior alternative enforces discipline on the politicians.  Most meaningful political questions can't be reduced to a simple yes/no

[Crazy_Ivan80]

those countries are essentially conceding they are not a country of one people.

that's not really something that needs to be conceded, as it is a plain and simple fact. There's not many countries that got to start from a near clean slate as the US did. For most of the world: history matters, even if the opposite is claimed.

Further, the opposite, to say that there is something special about living in Scotland that makes you a materially different type of Britain, is to tacitly accept the early 20th century nationalism, that lead to some of the worst excesses and destructions in human history.

that same nationalism allowed a great many people to order their state as they saw fit, instead of having to bow to a foreign overlord. Nationalism is neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. It can be all.

To me then, the only non-nationalist, liberally correct way to break up a country would be for the entire country and the constituent part in question, to agree on a break up. So not only is the Scottish referendum a bad idea, as are all referendums, it's also immoral and out of line with modern liberal values that seek to de-emphasize the dangerous nationalism of the past.

the wet dream of every imperialist trying to keep his subjects. And route with violence at its end. If two nations cannot find sufficient common grounds to live together is better to separate amicably rather than frustrating the usually smaller partner. Cause at some point the will to talk will be worn out. And then the shooting starts.

[Razgovory]

I'm cool with "the shooting starts".  If crazy Ivan wants to tear apart Belgium so he can massacre Muslims I have no problem with someone shooting him.  Not all grievances are legitimate.

[OttoVonBismarck]

that's not really something that needs to be conceded, as it is a plain and simple fact. There's not many countries that got to start from a near clean slate as the US did. For most of the world: history matters, even if the opposite is claimed.

In some places, yes. In Britain, not really. The reality of say, Scottish or say Welsh "national identity" is pretty weak in any real sense. Instead I think you simply have a region of the country that is politically much more liberal than the rest, and wants to exploit the facade of national self-determination to leave Britain. That isn't something to be encouraged.  The vast majority of people born in Scotland are not a distinct nationality from those born in England. They don't speak Gaelic or engage in many culturally distinct Scottish national behaviors. In fact the regions of Scotland that still retain some of that, the Shetland Islands for example, actually voted to stay with Britain at a higher rate than Scotland as a whole. This suggests to me that the actual remnant "nation of Scotland" is more amenable to remaining in Britain, and that most of the independent movement is urban liberals in Scotland who have minimal Scottish cultural identity.

that same nationalism allowed a great many people to order their state as they saw fit, instead of having to bow to a foreign overlord. Nationalism is neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. It can be all.

Nationalism doesn't map to those political compass sectors, no, but it's almost always for the worse in most situations. The world is a much better place when people aren't obsessed with the minutiae of differences between themselves. The nationalist argument is also reductivist and absurd, as most nationalist independence movements create countries that still have small minorities of other nationalities, and yet they are not often granted independence themselves. Nationalist independence movements has sometimes coincided with breakup of traditional imperialist anti-democratic powers, but not always, and it's usually created a new set of losers in the new countries. A more ideal solution would be for countries that are hundreds of years old to invest in the country not being optional, but a fixed reality that everyone needs to work on.

the wet dream of every imperialist trying to keep his subjects. And route with violence at its end. If two nations cannot find sufficient common grounds to live together is better to separate amicably rather than frustrating the usually smaller partner. Cause at some point the will to talk will be worn out. And then the shooting starts.

Nonsense, only a fool thinks a modern resurgence of nationalism is a good thing--and you appear to be one.
[/quote]

[celedhring]

Anyone know how Czechoslovakia handled their break up?  Think it's considered a model, at least in terms of amicability.

Fairly unique because the two constituent parts were roughly the same size.  Most independence movements are a smaller region attempting to break away from a larger group.

While certainly not as lopsided as in other separatist movements, the Czechs were undeniably the senior partners, demographically and economically.

A big factor is that they never had much of a history as a joint polity really.

[Barrister]

In some places, yes. In Britain, not really. The reality of say, Scottish or say Welsh "national identity" is pretty weak in any real sense. Instead I think you simply have a region of the country that is politically much more liberal than the rest, and wants to exploit the facade of national self-determination to leave Britain. That isn't something to be encouraged.  The vast majority of people born in Scotland are not a distinct nationality from those born in England. They don't speak Gaelic or engage in many culturally distinct Scottish national behaviors. In fact the regions of Scotland that still retain some of that, the Shetland Islands for example, actually voted to stay with Britain at a higher rate than Scotland as a whole. This suggests to me that the actual remnant "nation of Scotland" is more amenable to remaining in Britain, and that most of the independent movement is urban liberals in Scotland who have minimal Scottish cultural identity.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.  Scots do seem to have something of a "national identity".  I saw hardly any union flags, but thousands of saltires.  Their sense of national identity is build up in terms of a lot of 19th century romanticism rather than real historical links, but it's there nontheless.

The fact that the Shetlands voted to stay is probably more a sign of those areas extreme remoteness - for them Edinburgh is just as far away culturally as London is.

[viper37]

Aye, a Scottish generation is 3 years long it seems.

Promises made were not respected, ergo, the deal is invalid.

[The Larch]

The EU has clearly said that they'll only negotiate with the British government, not some regional government like Scotland. Spain for example would never allow that.

Yes, it's basically the same situation that the Catalonian government wanted, a "we don't need to reapply to the EU because we'd never leave it" argument, that Brussels repeatedly said that it had no basis in reality.

What Brussels says today may not be what Brussels says tomorrow. As for no basis in reality: given that the situation hasn't happened before Brussels doesn't know how things would go. It's answer is -basically- pandering.

In this particular issue they've been adamant throughout the years, AFAIK, and some of the member states wouldn't allow anything else least it gives some of their constituent parts naughty ideas.

[viper37]

Both of Quebec's independence referendums were not authorized by Ottawa (and as a result they had far weasily-worded questions than the Scots referendum).

The Feds organized the NO camp during both referendum, actively campaigned against the option, heavily (and illegally in the second one) financed the campaign.   That counts as validation of the process.  Otherwise, it's hypocrisy on the Trump level ("I will recognize the legitimacy of the election if I win").

[viper37]

and neither should Brexit have been.

Possibly.  But once you change the rules, you change them for everything.
If it ain't 50%+1 for Scotland independance, than it ain't for anything else. All MPs should be elected at 50%+1, so that means two turns.  All constitutional change, all change in the electoral map, all change in the powers or the rules of the House or Senate should then be at this new non-50%+1 level.  You just can't go back and forth and piece by piece abirtraly declaring "Oh, this is important to me, so this time it's gonna be a 67% vote or it won't pass".

[Zanza]

and neither should Brexit have been.

Possibly.  But once you change the rules, you change them for everything.
If it ain't 50%+1 for Scotland independance, than it ain't for anything else. All MPs should be elected at 50%+1, so that means two turns.  All constitutional change, all change in the electoral map, all change in the powers or the rules of the House or Senate should then be at this new non-50%+1 level.  You just can't go back and forth and piece by piece abirtraly declaring "Oh, this is important to me, so this time it's gonna be a 67% vote or it won't pass".

Why not? There are all kinds of different thresholds that can be valid for different decisions. You can even have blocking minorities.
You should read about qualified majority voting in the EU. 

[viper37]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

And so what?

Look, the SNP types have had a lot of contact with the PQ and other Qubec separatists.  In Canada we too have a Supreme Court ruling that Quebec can't unilaterally declare independence - that it would have to be negotiated with the rest of Canada.  But the PQs plan (which was not publicized, but learned of later) was that upon winning a yes vote they would unilaterally declare independence after perfunctory take-it-or-leave-it attempt to negotiate.

Would it have been a constitutional crisis?  Sure.  Would it have worked?  Probably.

All of which is me saying that just saying "you just had a referendum and lost, there will be no further discussion on the topic" may not be a winning strategy.

I think that the argument will be about the timing rather than a blanket refusal. From Westminster's pov it would be best to have a second Scotland referendum after brexit is complete. Then, at least, the Scots will have a better idea of what they are voting for. If a second referendum is held during the brexit talks it would both complicate matters and allow the SNP to call for a 3rd referendum (in less than 10 years) because "the goalposts have moved".

the problem I see, is if they declare independance now, they don't have to re-negotiate everything with the European Union, they can get the same deal the UK had, right?

While if they wait until Brexit is achieved, then they will suffer the negative financial consequences of the Brexit, they still won't have the promised max-devo, and they would have to re-apply as a totally new country to the EU, with that whole process.   I think in this scenario, post-Brexit independance, we're looking at a decade, a decade and a half of misery for Scotland until things can be reversed.  It makes sense for them to want to revisit the independance question before it's too late.

[Razgovory]

and neither should Brexit have been.

Possibly.  But once you change the rules, you change them for everything.
If it ain't 50%+1 for Scotland independance, than it ain't for anything else. All MPs should be elected at 50%+1, so that means two turns.  All constitutional change, all change in the electoral map, all change in the powers or the rules of the House or Senate should then be at this new non-50%+1 level.  You just can't go back and forth and piece by piece abirtraly declaring "Oh, this is important to me, so this time it's gonna be a 67% vote or it won't pass".

That's stupid.  You're stupid for saying it.