10 ms·

>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. Why do they need the approval of people living

>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. Why do they need the approval of people living elsewhere?

SiempreViernes 7y ago
It's a tightly integrated part of the economical and political system, the people elsewhere would also be severely affected. Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally?
- not2personal 7y ago
  >Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally? Thomas Jefferson I believe explained this best: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Without the consent of the governed you do not have a legitimate government, what you have is despotism, no matter if you held a vote or not. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  The UK is tightly integrated into the EU economical and political system. They are breaking away unilaterally. The reason they can do so is that they wouldn't have entered in the first place if there was no instrument to leave again like this (Article 50). The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. And yet Spain says they have to stay no matter what. This doesn't sound right to me.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Article 50 was retrofitted: at the time of joining the EC (as it was then) in 1973, there was no defined mechanism for leaving.
    - rndgermandude 7y ago
      The EC was hardly the same as the EU. But sure, the EC not having had a defined process there was an oversight. But it was clear that the EC would not prevent the UK or any other member from leaving should they have chosen to do so. They wouldn't have arrested the Queen and replaced the UK members of parliament with EC people. Article 50 really is just about establishing a procedure for an orderly withdrawal from the union (well, not that orderly in practice it would seem).
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    > The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. When did that happen?
    - tassl 7y ago
      Most regions on Spain had independent laws up to ~1700. While they belonged to the same Kingdom, they kept some independence. That level of independence was erased after a secession war that started on 1700, and ended with some decrees (Nueva Planta decrees, 1716 for Catalonia) that removed some "furs" and constitutions (not only in Catalonia, but everybody that supported the Hamburg's successor). And this was done using the term "derecho de conquista" (right of conquest). Since then. I think that the source of conflict is that, for multiple reasons, catalans wanted to be part of a bigger political reality, but in "their" terms. And Spain, as a centralized system, didn't like that, doesn't like that and will not like that. To Spain, Catalonia is a property, why would they let it go? After all, it's their right (of conquest) to keep it.
rtkwe 7y ago
It's just the way nation-states are setup, as part of being in the union constituent states give up part of their autonomy. This happens all the way down the governmental ladder. The other states (or regions I'm not sure how Spain is divided so I'll just say states) also definitely have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the whole nation. Over the years money has flowed both ways both from the other states to Catalan and from Catalan to the other states.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  That's all fine and dandy, but it presumes the participating states actually want to be part of the union. Otherwise it's tyranny in my humble opinion.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    I think it depends massively on the situation involved and the state we're talking about. Without suppression beyond "you don't get to just leave" I really hesitate to call it tyranny. It also seems like if we follow that all the way down where does the fracturing stop and how do you maintain a larger society? Does every sub division of administration have that same right to just say screw the rest of you I'm going home? Allowing it all the way down seems like a ticket straight to fractious setup of loosely associated towns and cities. There's reasons we built up the larger groups over time and part of accessing those benefits requires gluing those partisan impulses together to resist tribal urges.
  - yiyus 7y ago
    We have a constitution that was voted in referendum in 1978. Most people in Catalonia voted in favor of these constitution, and Catalan parties have been an essential part of the governments we have had since then. Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence.
    - snvzz 7y ago
      >Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence. The results of the elections and the independence referendum strongly disagree. >Most people in Catalonia (1978) voted in favor of these constitution, Unlike those that voted the Estatut d'Autonomia (see below), many of these people are dead. There was no alternative to this constitution as it happened in a very unstable climate after the death of the dictator, where the constitution was seen as the one way to stabilize the country and advance towards a democracy. And the fact people want this is in no way unrelated to what happened to the Estatut d'Autonomia, which defines the relationship between Catalonia and Spain. The current version of the document was written in Catalonia, revised and cut several times until Spain was OK with it, then voted in a referendum in Catalonia and put into effect, only to be cut down dramatically shortly after by the constitutional court, acting on the behalf of a Spanish nationalist political party which gets almost no votes at all in Catalonia. This was perceived as a massive insult to Catalan people. Not only the situation was not repaired, but Spain's attacks on Catalonia's self government continued. This is the main reason why independence took a hold, perceived as the only option going forward.
yiyus 7y ago
For the same reason they include Barcelona in their hypothetical new country when most people there do not want independence or the same reason a state with 80% of democratic vote has to accept a republican president voted by people "living elsewhere". That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.
- vkou 7y ago
  > That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections. What's wrong with self-determination?
  - close04 7y ago
    You still do it within the context of existing laws. Democracies rely on leadership by majority so you have to operate within that system. If it worked the way you imply what would be the limit to what you can justify with “self determination”?
    - vkou 7y ago
      > You still do it within the context of existing laws. Existing laws may be undemocratic and unjust. If your bar for secession is legality, I will have to point out that the United States should still be part of the British Empire (The revolution was illegal), Hong Kong should pipe down, and stop protesting (They are bound by CPC laws, which have ruled the protests illegal), and most of Africa should still be governed from London and Paris (Most of it did not leave in the context of existing laws.) > what would be the limit to what you can justify There really isn't one, but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons. When you secede, you lose a lot of benefits, including economic, military, etc, protection from neighboring states.
      - ErneX 7y ago
        Taxes are unjust, let's try not paying taxes and see how it goes.
logfromblammo 7y ago
Generally, it's so that the national polity can invest in specific regional polities without fear that they'll take the money and run, or abscond with strategic assets critical to the development of other regions. It's basically a checklist item for a negotiated diplomatic withdrawal, to avoid triggering a knee-jerk military suppression of the unlawful rebellion. If "the rest of the country" does not agree, and won't negotiate, secession is still possible, it just means winning the civil war.

>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. Why do they need the approval of people living elsewhere?

SiempreViernes 7y ago

It's a tightly integrated part of the economical and political system, the people elsewhere would also be severely affected. Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally?

not2personal 7y ago
>Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally? Thomas Jefferson I believe explained this best: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Without the consent of the governed you do not have a legitimate government, what you have is despotism, no matter if you held a vote or not. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
rndgermandude 7y ago
The UK is tightly integrated into the EU economical and political system. They are breaking away unilaterally. The reason they can do so is that they wouldn't have entered in the first place if there was no instrument to leave again like this (Article 50). The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. And yet Spain says they have to stay no matter what. This doesn't sound right to me.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Article 50 was retrofitted: at the time of joining the EC (as it was then) in 1973, there was no defined mechanism for leaving.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    The EC was hardly the same as the EU. But sure, the EC not having had a defined process there was an oversight. But it was clear that the EC would not prevent the UK or any other member from leaving should they have chosen to do so. They wouldn't have arrested the Queen and replaced the UK members of parliament with EC people. Article 50 really is just about establishing a procedure for an orderly withdrawal from the union (well, not that orderly in practice it would seem).
- kgwgk 7y ago
  > The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. When did that happen?
  - tassl 7y ago
    Most regions on Spain had independent laws up to ~1700. While they belonged to the same Kingdom, they kept some independence. That level of independence was erased after a secession war that started on 1700, and ended with some decrees (Nueva Planta decrees, 1716 for Catalonia) that removed some "furs" and constitutions (not only in Catalonia, but everybody that supported the Hamburg's successor). And this was done using the term "derecho de conquista" (right of conquest). Since then. I think that the source of conflict is that, for multiple reasons, catalans wanted to be part of a bigger political reality, but in "their" terms. And Spain, as a centralized system, didn't like that, doesn't like that and will not like that. To Spain, Catalonia is a property, why would they let it go? After all, it's their right (of conquest) to keep it.

rtkwe 7y ago

It's just the way nation-states are setup, as part of being in the union constituent states give up part of their autonomy. This happens all the way down the governmental ladder. The other states (or regions I'm not sure how Spain is divided so I'll just say states) also definitely have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the whole nation. Over the years money has flowed both ways both from the other states to Catalan and from Catalan to the other states.

rndgermandude 7y ago
That's all fine and dandy, but it presumes the participating states actually want to be part of the union. Otherwise it's tyranny in my humble opinion.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  I think it depends massively on the situation involved and the state we're talking about. Without suppression beyond "you don't get to just leave" I really hesitate to call it tyranny. It also seems like if we follow that all the way down where does the fracturing stop and how do you maintain a larger society? Does every sub division of administration have that same right to just say screw the rest of you I'm going home? Allowing it all the way down seems like a ticket straight to fractious setup of loosely associated towns and cities. There's reasons we built up the larger groups over time and part of accessing those benefits requires gluing those partisan impulses together to resist tribal urges.
- yiyus 7y ago
  We have a constitution that was voted in referendum in 1978. Most people in Catalonia voted in favor of these constitution, and Catalan parties have been an essential part of the governments we have had since then. Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence.
  - snvzz 7y ago
    >Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence. The results of the elections and the independence referendum strongly disagree. >Most people in Catalonia (1978) voted in favor of these constitution, Unlike those that voted the Estatut d'Autonomia (see below), many of these people are dead. There was no alternative to this constitution as it happened in a very unstable climate after the death of the dictator, where the constitution was seen as the one way to stabilize the country and advance towards a democracy. And the fact people want this is in no way unrelated to what happened to the Estatut d'Autonomia, which defines the relationship between Catalonia and Spain. The current version of the document was written in Catalonia, revised and cut several times until Spain was OK with it, then voted in a referendum in Catalonia and put into effect, only to be cut down dramatically shortly after by the constitutional court, acting on the behalf of a Spanish nationalist political party which gets almost no votes at all in Catalonia. This was perceived as a massive insult to Catalan people. Not only the situation was not repaired, but Spain's attacks on Catalonia's self government continued. This is the main reason why independence took a hold, perceived as the only option going forward.

yiyus 7y ago

For the same reason they include Barcelona in their hypothetical new country when most people there do not want independence or the same reason a state with 80% of democratic vote has to accept a republican president voted by people "living elsewhere". That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.

vkou 7y ago
> That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections. What's wrong with self-determination?
- close04 7y ago
  You still do it within the context of existing laws. Democracies rely on leadership by majority so you have to operate within that system. If it worked the way you imply what would be the limit to what you can justify with “self determination”?
  - vkou 7y ago
    > You still do it within the context of existing laws. Existing laws may be undemocratic and unjust. If your bar for secession is legality, I will have to point out that the United States should still be part of the British Empire (The revolution was illegal), Hong Kong should pipe down, and stop protesting (They are bound by CPC laws, which have ruled the protests illegal), and most of Africa should still be governed from London and Paris (Most of it did not leave in the context of existing laws.) > what would be the limit to what you can justify There really isn't one, but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons. When you secede, you lose a lot of benefits, including economic, military, etc, protection from neighboring states.
    - ErneX 7y ago
      Taxes are unjust, let's try not paying taxes and see how it goes.

logfromblammo 7y ago

Generally, it's so that the national polity can invest in specific regional polities without fear that they'll take the money and run, or abscond with strategic assets critical to the development of other regions. It's basically a checklist item for a negotiated diplomatic withdrawal, to avoid triggering a knee-jerk military suppression of the unlawful rebellion. If "the rest of the country" does not agree, and won't negotiate, secession is still possible, it just means winning the civil war.