14 ms·

Nice catch 22 - between (2) and (8). You are allowed to secede if you vote for it ... but you're not allowed to vote to secede.

• narag 9y ago
  You are allowed to vote to parties that want the secession and promise to vote for Constitution reform. The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence. This question is presented over and over again as a Catalonia vs rest of Spain, when it's actually a debate that's not settled inside Catalonia. Parties that don't propose independence had less votes than the ones that do, the electoral system being the culprit that they have majority in regional parliament.
  • smcl 9y ago
    "The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence" - in your opinion perhaps. Many others have a different opinion. But this is something that could easily be settled by ... a vote on independence.
    • narag 9y ago
      Last election had a majority of votes to parties that didn't proposed independence, that's a hard fact, not an opinion. And as you will soon learn, there is no need to settle that question, it was settled long ago.
      • smcl 9y ago
        Carefully worded answer. To those who might take narag's words at face value, they're probably referring the 2014 referendum where voters were asked "do you want to Catalonia to be a state" and "and if so, do you want it to be independent". The result was 80% of the results were "yes" for both but the turnout was low (40-ish percent). I don't think that is exactly decisive for either side, but to claim it as a win for the "no" camp is a little bit disingenuous.
        • _Tev 9y ago
          If you want to be independent you go and vote. If you do not care you stay home. Such low turnout seems like a win for "no" camp, because people of Catalonia apparently do not care about independence from Spain.
          • smcl 9y ago
            I’m not convinced, it requires some impressive mental gymnastics to turn a 5% “No” (and 10% Yes/No) into a majority
            • _Tev 9y ago
              Again - read the GP. 2014: 20% No, 40something turnout. Independence has good support, but it is huge decision. Considering the gravity of the issue that's weak.
              • smcl 9y ago
                You have magically inflated 10% "yes/no" plus 5% "no" and saying that means 20% "yes" (which is a stretch) ... and then extrapolated that to a majority somehow? Given the turnout then if we were saying "this is a definitive mandate for independence" then yes that would be a ridiculous statement ... but suggesting the opposite is absolutely preposterous.
          • maksimum 9y ago
            Except in this case it was If you want to be independent you go vote. If you do not care, or are afraid of getting hammered by Spanish police you stay home. In that case 43% turnout is pretty impressive.
            • _Tev 9y ago
              Read the GP. What oppression was there in 2014?
              • deleted 9y ago
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • mvdwoord 9y ago
        I have heard this line of reasoning a lot, also in Dutch politics, but I disagree with it. General elections are too broad to pick any issue and simply state that the votes on the parties that hold a certain position on that issue are representative of the voters' position. If you want to know about x, hold a referendum on x, not a general election on the whole alphabet.
        • narag 9y ago
          Except it was them who stated it would be a referendum by other name.
          • gonvaled 9y ago
            Because the central government refuses to allow for a real referendum. But tell me, how do I vote for "yes" independence if, say, I only agree with the political program of the socialist party, not part of the "yes" coalition? Parliamentary elections are one thing, referendums another.
            • narag 9y ago
              Because the central government refuses to allow for a real referendum. This is tiresome. Central government has not the power to refuse or allow a referendum to decide to commit a crime. Exactly the same as police has not the power to declare drugs legal. Please, if you really really want to have a rational conversation, stop parroting politicians' excuses. There are the basics, like "sensible people doesn't riot and attack police for a marginally relevant tax complaint or alledged cultural peculiarity" and if you can understand that this is the foundation, you should consider the possibility that someone is fooling you.
              • gonvaled 9y ago
                Please stop playing semantics: the central government has the power to trigger a Constitution change to allow for referendums. So far it has refused. It has the power to send police to stop voting in a non-legal referendum, and it has done exactly so.
• fusiongyro 9y ago
  Is there a legal way for US states to secede?
  • zeveb 9y ago
    The 10th Amendment reads 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' The Constitution is silent on secession: it neither forbids it nor lays out procedures for it. Since the power to remove a State from the United States is not delegated to the United States, it is reserved to the respective States, or to the people.
    • cabaalis 9y ago
      It would seem that amendment has long been ignored. If a state votes to leave the union, it would likely be decided by a federal court as illegal, then go to Supreme Court for them to decide. The problem is that this will take too long, and things will escalate much sooner than they can review the case. For instance: If the people of the state in question refused to pay their taxes to the government they no longer recognize, the feds would attempt to arrest and prosecute. This could very quickly lead to armed conflict, first between those being arrested and the officers of the government, then would expand to include those who support secession. The government would then move to "preserve the union" with the only hammer they own (force) and there we will be. Source: history.
      • ryanlol 9y ago
        I think, given significant popular support, the congress would vote to allow a state to secede rather than sending in troops to intervene. The feds would leave this to the politicians to sort out, instead of attempting to arrest the population of an entire state.
      • dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If a state votes to leave the union, it would likely be decided by a federal court as illegal, then go to Supreme Court for them to decide. More likely, the declaration would be ignored by the federal government (oh, statements would be made, but no formal action over the declaration.) OTOH, any action to implement the declaration would be treated as if the declaration had never occurred; if, say, a state decided it's declaration of independence allowed it to seize federal property, interfere with federal agents, etc., well, we've seen that movie before. If less extreme acts of disobedience with federal laws result from declaration, then those acts will get into court, where (almost certainly) the declaration will again be treated as void and without effect except perhaps as demonstrating adverse intent. Then the state will be forced to escalate or fold.