The shit in Spain falls mainly in the fan

[Razgovory]

Viper, what is the point of this?

[The Minsky Moment]

General rule: if you support a secessionist movement, anywhere in the world - DO NOT analogize to the South in the ACW. it was a horribly unjust society pursuing separatist ends for the basest of reasons. It is a terribly unsympathetic example.

[dps]

If you don't see a difference between not being terribly concerned with late 20 century/early 21 century ideas about human dignity and being willing to fight to preserve the institution of chattel slavery, I don't think you are going to find much common ground with many posters here.  The Union didn't have to be perfect to be better than the Confederacy.

But the Union did not go to war because it war better than the South.  Had the South not seceeded and accepted that slavery would not be allowed in new States, at the condition that slavery would be maintained in existing States, there would have been no war.

It's hard to pretend the North entered the war to end slavery.  That was only an afterthought.

Voting for something is not the same as risking your neck for something.  Lots of people vote for lower taxes or better social justice.  Waging war over it is another matter.

The Union didn't "enter" the war.  The Confederacy rebelled and attacked the Union. 

And for that matter, the US didn't enter WWII because it was better than the Axis powers;  we entered because we were attacked by Imperial Japan.  That doesn't mean that we weren't better in a lot of measures than the Axis powers--we were--but we didn't enter the war because we were better. 

And the fact that the North initially was fighting to preserve the Union instead of fighting to end slavery doesn't change the fact that the South wouldn't have been trying to leave the Union at all if they hadn't been seeking to preserve slavery.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I will support any secessionist movement if two qualifiers are met:

1. The human rights of the people in the seceding territory are being abused in some way.

2. The population overwhelmingly supports it.

Hency why South Sudan I support, Scotland and Catalonia I do not.

This is actually a good criteria and I'd support as well. Scotland and Catalonia both are just obstinate idiots who can't get along with others, and who dream of sketchy immense financial benefits if they separate. These aren't principled movements.

[OttoVonBismarck]

that is not your call.  Nor mine.  It's up to the people in these territories on how they feel.

Catalonia showed the world that Franco's Spain isn't too far behind.  Scotland showed that England's colonial past is definately over.

And what if after Catalonia or Scotland achieve independence, sub-regions of those wish to have their own independence referendum? What if they wish to have a referendum to rejoin the parent country? If those pass, what if the new sub-national units also want to have referendums? At what point does the absurdity of this suggest to you that the core idea is stupid.

I was against Brexit, but if the UK democratically decided to leave the EU, so be it. It's up to them.  There was no referendum elsewhere in the EU about it, nor did I hear anyone here clamor for it.

The European Union isn't a state but a treaty organization, between the governments of the member countries. Very different than a secession. Ethically I'd have been fine with the British Parliament withdrawing from the EU with no referendum at all. I think it'd be bad politics and upset people, but I don't think it'd be ethically invalid.

[Iormlund]

The mechanism used by the UK to withdraw was indeed approved by every other member when they ratified the Treaty of Lisbon.


BTW Viper, the Francomodín is a tired and laughable "argument". No, rejecting the supremacist whines of nationalists doesn't mean the Generalissimo is back.

[grumbler]

that is not your call.  Nor mine.  It's up to the people in these territories on how they feel.

Catalonia showed the world that Franco's Spain isn't too far behind.  Scotland showed that England's colonial past is definately over.

And what if after Catalonia or Scotland achieve independence, sub-regions of those wish to have their own independence referendum? What if they wish to have a referendum to rejoin the parent country? If those pass, what if the new sub-national units also want to have referendums? At what point does the absurdity of this suggest to you that the core idea is stupid.

Yours is pretty much my position, too.  If each group gets to "make the call" on what higher-level organizations they belong to at any given time, you will eventually see children declaring that their bedrooms are seceding from the family house to get out of being grounded, then joining again in time for dinner.

[crazy canuck]

What do you mean "eventually".  You have described most teens at some point of those years. 

[Josquius]

There's definitely a lower limit. The difficult point is deciding where. I doubt it will be something we can scientifically define.
I think it's certain a country like Monaco wouldn't be allowed to come into existence but would a Luxembourg be fine?
Why? What are the criteria?
Wherever things stand on this lower extreme though certainly self determination for places as big and culturally distinct as Catalonia can't be denied purely because of the slippery slope argument, providing the is a clear majority in a referendum and not merely 50%+1 once in a blue moon

[Valmy]

Funny you mention Luxembourg because I always point to that as the smallest a country should be

Well...besides islands because islands are weird politically.

[viper37]

General rule: if you support a secessionist movement, anywhere in the world - DO NOT analogize to the South in the ACW. it was a horribly unjust society pursuing separatist ends for the basest of reasons. It is a terribly unsympathetic example.

True.  But anywhere in the world, most unionists/federalists see the independantist movement as some kind of US South/Nazi state in becoming and will support the use of force to prevent secession.  I just read it again last week-end about Quebec, where we are apparently worst than the US South.  Coming from an proud Liberal support of english-canada, that was probably the worst insult he could think of, as the Nazis are marginally better than Americans in their eyes

I just disagree that secession should be warranted only when your basic security needs are in extreme danger.  And I disagree that even in extreme cases, the use of unilateral force is warranted to prevent people from seceding, discussion secession, or holding a vote on the issue. 

As I said, the most mature way to deal with it was Scotland/UK and Brexit talks.  No one in France or Germany voted if they wanted to break their European Union, only British citizens voted if they wanted to leave, and they regretably chose so.  So be it.  That is how democracy works.  Sometimes we like the result, sometimes we don't.

I'm not Catalan.  I do not know what is to live as a Catalan in a Spanish state, surrounded by Spanish speakers.  Maybe they're all a bunch of racists who want to close their borders and idolize Donald Trump.  I don't really care, because it is totally irrelevant.  They are an identifiable group in a indentifiable territory, they wish to obtain more autonomy, that has been promised but never really implemented and now they wish to leave.  So be it.  Let them vote on the issue, sit with them before, establish ground rules, and let it play.  Maybe they will split from Spain.  Maybe they won't.  Maybe there are other steps to take before it comes to that.  But threatening them with jail sentences is stupid.  Or talking about the courage of launching an invasion of their territory.  That is equally stupid.  No, I think it's worst.  Probably the stupidest thing I've read here in since I joined.

[Razgovory]

If your home country bothers you, you can pack up and leave.  You just can't force other people to leave with you.

[dps]

I don't think Brexit is really relevant to the discussion.  It didn't involve a section of a country leaving, but rather an already sovereign nation withdrawing from a treaty in accordance with provisions for withdraw included in the treaty to start with.

[viper37]

The European Union isn't a state but a treaty organization, between the governments of the member countries. Very different than a secession.

similar to our most countries began.  Who knows where it would have led in 200 years?  They've done a lot of integrations since the 50s.

And:

The union maintains permanent diplomatic missions throughout the world and represents itself at the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the G7 and the G20. Due to its global influence, the European Union has been described as an emerging superpower.[22]

Certainly not a country, but much more than a simple economic treaty like Canada-US-Mexico.

[viper37]

You just can't force other people to leave with you.

Really?  'Cause I seem to remember how this discussion started: send in the army to prevent them leaving.

There's this thing call democracy where people vote.  It's almost never unanimous.  When the 13 colonies seperated themselves from the mighty and glorious British Empire, lots of people didn't want to leave.  Yet, you forced them to.  And to make sure no one would pest you with silly ideas like rejoining the British Empire when things turned sour, you a) expelled many of them from the country, and b) made sure to add a provision that the presidency could only be claimed by someone born in the newly independant territory.  Just to make sure, again, no one would have silly ideas to rejoin the Empire.