Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday October 03 2017, @12:42PM   Printer-friendly

Police and would-be voters have clashed during a Catalan independence referendum held on Sunday:

Scenes of chaos and violence unfolded in Catalonia as an independence referendum deemed illegal by Madrid devolved quickly on Sunday. As police followed orders from the central government to put a stop to the vote, they fired rubber bullets at unarmed protesters and smashed through the glass at polling places, reports The Associated Press. Three hundred and thirty-seven people were injured, some seriously, according to Catalonia's government spokesman.

Spain's Interior Ministry said a dozen police officers were injured. NPR's Lauren Frayer reports from Barcelona that some people were throwing rocks down at officers from balconies. Yet the violence came from all directions.

"Horrible scenes," Lauren reports. "Police dragging voters out of polling stations, some by the hair."

Scuffles erupted as riot police forcefully removed hundreds of would-be voters from polling places across Barcelona, the Catalan capitol, reports AP. Nevertheless, many people, managed to successfully cast their ballots across the region after waiting in lines hundreds-of-people-deep, including the elderly and families with small children, says Reuters.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said that he did not acknowledge the vote and called it "illegal".

Also at NYT, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and BBC:

Catalan emergency officials say 761 people have been injured as police used force to try to block voting in Catalonia's independence referendum.

Update: Catalan referendum: Catalonia has 'won right to statehood'
Spain Vows to Enforce the Law in Rebel Catalonia
Catalonia Leaders Seek to Make Independence Referendum Binding

Previously: Spain Trying to Stop Catalonia Independence Referendum


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Unixnut on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:02PM (5 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:02PM (#576809)

    [ continuation ]

    Here is a full list of quasi statelets:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition [wikipedia.org]

    In all cases, you ended up with skirmishes (or worse), as the parent country tried to use violence to prevent secession, and/or the secessionists used violence to carve out the land they claimed as their own. Sometimes the secessionist movements are crushed, other times they is enough critical mass to carve out some land, and other times there is the support of secessionists by a third party, which provides arms, money, or sometimes intervenes for them.

    > I didn't cherry pick anything, and my examples were of official, sanctioned referenda. Do you have examples of official referenda which resulted in a victory for the secessionists, and then resulted in war?

    You cherry picked referendums that were blessed by all parties. That is really rare and paints a biased view of secession movements. The only time a referendum is "official" is when the parent country is sure of success for what they want, or they don't really care (or they rig it). Sudan/South Sudan comes to mind, as North Sudan wanted rid of the South (and even then, they had a war before the referendum). The Serbia / Montenegro referendum of independence in 2003 comes to mind (but those were federated republics, not regions), along with Czech/Slovakia referendum in 1993 (again a federal state).

    The only "good" outcome is if both sides are not that fussed about it. One side wants to leave, and the other doesn't care that much. So both sides have a referendum, and if it is yes, then "Adios". Spain isn't like that, it isn't a federation, with republics. It is a unitary kingdom, with a central authority and limited autonomy for regions. A kingdom/state that does not want to see another part leave, at least without the rest of the state having a say.

    > No, they should have had an official, fair referendum, just like Scotland and Quebec did. The polling beforehand didn't show majority support for independence; the secessionists most likely would have lost. The central government could have preceded the vote with plenty of PSAs about why unity is the better choice.

    Well, ignoring the outcry of the Scotland referendum being rigged (I have no idea if anyone claimed that with Quebec), Catalonia has had a desire for independence for decades, if not longer. They had 3 votes in the post millennium alone (2014, 2015 and 2017), all of which were for "yes" to independence, or support for independence parties.

    > As for "democratic", it's not democratic to refuse to allow secession when a clear majority of that region's population wants to leave. Self-determination is one of the very fundamentals of democracy.

    I agree, but that rule is not applied in this modern world of nation states. Taken to its logical conclusion, should individual households be able to declare independence? What about people? Realistically, you could go down to tribal/kingdom/city state type setups, but that is not how this world works. You would have to completely rewrite the world order, and basically abolish the nation state.

    In reality, it is limited to republics in a federation, an officially (at least) doesn't apply to regions within a unitary nation state. Fact is, to be sovereign state, you have to have the military means to force your reality on others against their wishes. Power comes from the barrel of a gun, at the end of it all. If Catalonia has the power to resist any attempts at forceful (re)integration with Spain, they will become independent.

    > That's the risk you take. If you lose, then you either try to negotiate to appease the secessionists so they won't leave, or you figure out how to make the split as clean as possible. No good can possibly come of forcing a minority region to stay in your country when they want to leave, unless perhaps you don't mind being a brutal dictator a la Saddam Hussein.

    If you do that, what is to stop others from wanting the same? What if a bunch of people immigrate to an area, have kids there, and in 2-3 generations want independence. Ok, so you give it to them. Right of self-determination and all that. Then some of those people immigrate back to the main country, settle, have kids, and 2-3 generations another chunk of the country wants independence. What then? You give it to them again? Surely you can see that is a form of demographic warfare?

    What are the alternatives? You try to get "your" population to out breed the others? that is a recipe for poverty, social collapse and eventual war. It is literally the tragedy of the commons, as you breed people just so out breed the others, and it won't end well.
    You even the odds by killing as many of the other side as you can? Or mass deportation? You get labelled as a Hitler wannabe if you do that, and you probably end up having a war anyway (nobody likes someone trying to kill them)

    If you try to prevent immigration by race/origin/whatever, you are seen as discriminatory and/or anti-democratic, so you can't really do that either. People bring out the comparison with the Nazis again.

    I still don't see a good answer out of it. Spain is in a bind, and I suspect it will get worse before it gets better. We shall see if cooler heads prevail, and if they can do an amicable divorce or kiss and make up again.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday October 04 2017, @01:40AM (4 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday October 04 2017, @01:40AM (#576885)

    (continued...)

    The only time a referendum is "official" is when the parent country is sure of success for what they want, or they don't really care (or they rig it)

    This isn't what happened in Canada (Quebec) or UK (Scotland).

    I agree, but that rule is not applied in this modern world of nation states.

    Why not? The current thinking seems to be "we must maintain the borders at their status quo no matter what, for no good reason other than we just don't like change", even when the circumstances under which the borders were drawn were very much not ideal or in accordance with the best interests of the people. Just look at the borders in the Middle East: they were drawn by the British, seemingly to cause strife by sticking ethnic groups together who hate each other. But somehow people don't want to change these borders, even though there's absolutely no rational basis to why they were drawn that way in the first place.

    Taken to its logical conclusion, should individual households be able to declare independence?

    Reductio ad absurdum. But at a higher level, if for instance the eastern shore counties of Virginia held a vote and wanted to secede, and join Maryland next door, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed. Or if both the MD and VA counties wanted to secede, join Delaware, and have the entire Delmarva peninsula as a separate state, again I don't see the problem. Remember, here we're not even talking about completely sovereign nations, we're talking about EU members. Why should it matter that much whether a region is part of some EU nation, or becomes independent and a new EU nation on its own? Similarly, does it really matter that much if the eastern shore counties maintain their current state memberships? It would be much better from an administrative point of view if they left their states and had their own "Delmarva" state. And upstate New Yorkers would probably be happier if they had their own state separate from NYC too. Here in VA where I live (the non-eastern shore part), I know a lot of the state would be happy to see the northern VA counties leave.

    You would have to completely rewrite the world order, and basically abolish the nation state.

    That's already happening with the EU. Africa has a little bit of this too with the AU.

    Fact is, to be sovereign state, you have to have the military means to force your reality on others against their wishes.

    OK, but then you can't claim to be democratic, or support democratic ideals. Self-determination is the core of a democratic society, not military oppression. That's the mark of a dictatorship, or an empire.

    If you do that, what is to stop others from wanting the same?

    Nothing, besides the fact that there's real benefits to being part of some nation or union. Why do you think the Quebecoi voted (narrowly) against independence, as did the Scottish? Just because some people in a region want independence doesn't mean that everyone there does. People really do recognize the value in the current arrangement, not only because of economic issues, but also the value of stability; they want independence when they decide those things aren't worth the price they're paying, and are willing to risk it. Generally speaking, when things are good, and there's not too much to complain about, and you're not feeling like you're being shit on by some other group in power, then there's little reason to bother leaving. If people are really feeling like that, then violently putting them down isn't going to solve the problem. You could resort to genocide I suppose, but I thought that was frowned on these days.

    What if a bunch of people immigrate to an area, have kids there, and in 2-3 generations want independence. Ok, so you give it to them. Right of self-determination and all that. Then some of those people immigrate back to the main country, settle, have kids, and 2-3 generations another chunk of the country wants independence. What then? You give it to them again? Surely you can see that is a form of demographic warfare?

    Immigration isn't a right; if you don't want this, then it's your responsibility to limit immigration. Once those people are there and citizens, they have the right of self-determination. You can't complain 3 generations later; you should have had different policies in the past.

    The function of nation-states is to serve the people living in them, not to be an end unto themselves. If people are emi/immigrating around and popular opinions are changing, then it's only correct for the political borders to change to suit them.

    What are the alternatives? You try to get "your" population to out breed the others?

    If you're worried about demographic changes from immigration, then you strictly limit immigration. That's what Japan does. You don't *need* constant growth in population. There's drawbacks to this approach too, so there's no way to really say what's "correct". I guess it depends on what you value more: cultural homogeneity and preservation, economic success, cultural vibrancy (/lack of stagnation), etc.

    If you try to prevent immigration by race/origin/whatever, you are seen as discriminatory and/or anti-democratic

    WTF? No. Discriminatory, perhaps; anti-democratic, definitely not. People outside your nation don't get a say in your internal policies, including immigration. "Democratic" doesn't mean giving an equal vote to everyone on the planet; that's ridiculous.

    People bring out the comparison with the Nazis again.

    I've read criticism of Japan's immigration policies, but never comparisons with Nazis. Japan is rather isolationist with immigration; the Nazis were expansionist, and even conscripted non-Germans into their army. Modern Japan isn't expansionist in the slightest.

    I still don't see a good answer out of it.

    I do, but I don't expect the Spaniards to agree with me: the answer is simple: hold a serious referendum, allowing both sides to make their case beforehand as they did in Scotland. Then see what happens. And make a 60% requirement too, as I've said before. If they really want to leave, then let them leave, and let them join the EU. As you said, they've had secessionist feelings for decades. Spain hasn't even been a singular nation for *that* long. Catalonia was an independent principality up until 1714, when they lost a war to Spain. Many European nations are like this: Italy and Germany weren't countries until the 1800s.

    • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:02AM (3 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:02AM (#577256)

      >> The only time a referendum is "official" is when the parent country is sure of success for what they want, or they don't really care (or they rig it)
      > This isn't what happened in Canada (Quebec) or UK (Scotland).

      No idea about Quebec, but complaints about rigging the Scotland vote abound in the UK, in fact some people use that as a reason for re-running the independence vote, along with Brexit being a reason. However that is neither here or there, as those two are outliers in a system where the majority don't have such setups.

      >>I agree, but that rule is not applied in this modern world of nation states.
      > Why not? The current thinking seems to be "we must maintain the borders at their status quo no matter what, for no good reason other than we just don't like change", ....

      It isn't applied because ... well tbh I don't know. I guess it would add a lot of instability, countries would form, reform, split up really often. I guess the cartographers would get tired of it all? :-P

      In seriousness, I suspect it is because of WWII. I seem to remember that the borders of all nations were "fixed" after WWII, because they didn't want a repeat of annexations, merging, etc... to be used as a pretext for empire building. Basically, the alternative is worse, at least according to the people who run the world and past history.

      Also, power tends to concentrate. Those who seek power do not want their power diminished by the splintering of their domain. So the people most likely to be in positions of power are most likely to be the ones most against their power being splintered off in the first place.

      > Reductio ad absurdum. But at a higher level ...

      Well yes, but the USA is different to the EU, in that the USA is far more united. The US "States" are not that independent really. They can make some laws, but pretty much everything is dictated by the federal government. The EU is nowhere near as united. It isn't a federation, so EU states have far more power, they are still "sovereign". Also, my American history is rusty, but it was the refusal to hand over this Sovereignty which was one of the reasons of the unionist vs confederate war? The unionists won, and that case is settled. The EU never had such a war, the states are still sovereign countries, with their own seats at the UN. Having one part split off, join another country, or form a new country is a far bigger deal.

      Now you can argue whether it should be a big deal or not, but in this world we inhabit, it is a big deal.

      >> You would have to completely rewrite the world order, and basically abolish the nation state.
      >That's already happening with the EU. Africa has a little bit of this too with the AU.

      Not sure about the AU, but with the EU, as mentioned above we are a long way from abolishing the nation state. The USA is far closer to it, as its "states" do not have individual seats at the UN, and are not recognised as independent countries. I doubt the EU countries would be willing to abolish themselves, we shall see if the EU survives, and whether we have our own unionist/confederate crisis in future.

      > Fact is, to be sovereign state, you have to have the military means to force your reality on others against their wishes.
      >> OK, but then you can't claim to be democratic, or support democratic ideals. Self-determination is the core of a democratic society, not military oppression. That's the mark of a dictatorship, or an empire.

      By your definition then, every single country on this planet is not democratic. That really makes it a useless definition, because it doesn't define anything in this reality we live in. Sure, we can define a theoretical "ideal" democratic state, but it would have little relevance to this world. I mean, even North Korea claims to be democratic ( Real name PDRK = Peoples democratic republic of Korea) ,so really, everyone can claim to be democratic, and in really nobody is. That is the reality we live in.

      >> If you do that, what is to stop others from wanting the same?
      > Nothing, besides the fact that there's real benefits to being part of some nation or union. Why do you think the Quebecoi voted (narrowly) against independence, as did the Scottish? Just because some people in a region want independence doesn't mean that everyone there does. People really do recognize the value in the current arrangement, not only because of economic issues, but also the value of stability; they want independence when they decide those things aren't worth the price they're paying, and are willing to risk it. Generally speaking, when things are good, and there's not too much to complain about, and you're not feeling like you're being shit on by some other group in power, then there's little reason to bother leaving.

      But you only need a minority to demand it, and attempt to achieve it by violent means. If we take Catalonia. If roughly 2.3 million people voted "yes" as they are saying (roughly 30% of Catalonia) for whatever reason, including feeling disenfranchised by the current setup, that is quite a large pool of people to cause all kinds of problems, and even if only 10% were willing to form an army and use violence, that would be 230,000 soldiers. More than enough for a prolonged, bloody conflict.

      My point is you don't need everyone to be a separatist in a region for it to happen. There may be many people who do will under the current system, or just want stability, their pension, whatever. Those people could even be in the majority. You just need to have a strong enough "core" radicals, and a "mandate" of some kind, and off you go. Even if you end up worse off otherwise.

      > If people are really feeling like that, then violently putting them down isn't going to solve the problem. You could resort to genocide I suppose, but I thought that was frowned on these days.
      Agreed.

      > Immigration isn't a right; if you don't want this, then it's your responsibility to limit immigration. Once those people are there and citizens, they have the right of self-determination. You can't complain 3 generations later; you should have had different policies in the past.

      I guess, but what if it is beyond your ability to do so? e.g. your government is a dictatorship and they decided to let the immigrants in. Nobody ever asked you, and if you protested you were "silenced" in any myriad of ways. It is a really tough question for me, because there seems to be no right answer.

      People talk about it now in the EU with Angela Merkals "Refugees welcome" policy that has well, welcomed loads of refugees. People protest, but are relatively impotent as to what they can do about it. If in future the descendents of refugees all congregate in a region and demand independence, I can't see the parent countries people being happy about it. Arguably they would say it isn't the best thank you to being welcomed in the first place.

      > The function of nation-states is to serve the people living in them, not to be an end unto themselves. If people are emi/immigrating around and popular opinions are changing, then it's only correct for the political borders to change to suit them.

      I am not sure about it being "correct", but it is a lot easier to change the borders, rather than forcably deport the population ( a bit like the events between Greece and Turkey after WWII). However by and large, forced deportations are the method used.

      [ Continued (Seriously, screw this lameness filter) ]

      • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:07AM (1 child)

        by Unixnut (5779) on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:07AM (#577259)

        [ Contd...]

        >> If you try to prevent immigration by race/origin/whatever, you are seen as discriminatory and/or anti-democratic
        > WTF? No. Discriminatory, perhaps; anti-democratic, definitely not. People outside your nation don't get a say in your internal policies, including immigration. "Democratic" doesn't mean giving an equal vote to everyone on the planet; that's ridiculous.

        I agree, but within the EU, the majority have agreed to accept migrant quotas, but a minority of countries have refused to do so, so are violating the democratic choice, which is the majority decision has to be applied by all, hence they are called anti-democratic. Even if said countries that are rejecting the quotas had democratic votes on whether to accept the quotas or not. I don't agree with that view, but I can understand their train of logic.

        > I've read criticism of Japan's immigration policies, but never comparisons with Nazis. Japan is rather isolationist with immigration; the Nazis were expansionist, and even conscripted non-Germans into their army. Modern Japan isn't expansionist in the slightest

        I've heard them referred to as Nazis countless times here in the EU, or racists, or all kinds of insults pertaning to their immigration policy, and their "inward looking, non progressive culture", usually by those most welcoming to refugees and immigrants here. I guess the Japanese don't have that specific political thread running in their systems, nor do they care much about others opinions, especially as they are a core industrial power in the world and nobody is going to sanction them for it.

        I have also heard the east european countries that are rejecting the "migrant quotas" being labelled Nazis, racists, etc... it is pretty common round these parts as a slur. They are not Japan though, hence are being threatened with fines, or suspensions or other sanctions. We have to wait and see what happens there.

        >> I still don't see a good answer out of it.
        > I do, but I don't expect the Spaniards to agree with me: the answer is simple: hold a serious referendum, allowing both sides to make their case beforehand as they did in Scotland. Then see what happens. And make a 60% requirement too, as I've said before. If they really want to leave, then let them leave, and let them join the EU. As you said, they've had secessionist feelings for decades. Spain hasn't even been a singular nation for *that* long. Catalonia was an independent principality up until 1714, when they lost a war to Spain. Many European nations are like this: Italy and Germany weren't countries until the 1800s.

        I actually agree with you. I believe you should let people who want to secede do so, and try to be good neighbours. Those who leave peacefully are more likely to reintegrate peacefully in future if they change their mind, and if not you end up with mutual benefit and trade/growth, etc... While a bloody war burns bridges and the time taken to heal could take centuries, and you end up with neighbours who would rather see each other dead than work together for everyones benefit.

        However the reason I say I don't see a good answer out of it, is because your "good answer" has about as much chance of happening as me seeing Unicorns fly across the sky as I look through the window. A world where everyone is just free to split, or merge, etc... based on a vote just isn't going to happen, so that idea is non valid in this reality. It ignores those hungry for power and empire building, who just happen to be the ones in control of such centralised power structures in the first place.

        I guess I should have been more clear "I see no good answer out of it, that has a realistic chance of happening". Not that there are not better ways to handle the situation.

        Also, I still don't know where to draw the line. Ok it is absurd to think about the individual as a sovereign nation, but what about towns? How about city-states? How do you define a minimum size that is "allowed" to secede? There are states out there that are smaller than an average size city, have little to no army and are completely unsustainable on their own, so you can't use sustainability or population to define a cut off point. Where would you draw the line?

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:31AM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:31AM (#577284)

          I agree, but within the EU, the majority have agreed to accept migrant quotas, but a minority of countries have refused to do so, so are violating the democratic choice, which is the majority decision has to be applied by all, hence they are called anti-democratic.

          Yeah, that's a complicated issue there. After all, those countries do still have a high level of sovereignty they haven't completely relinquished. Also, the "democratic" thing can be argued many ways: should Germany, for instance, get more votes than Lithuania, because it has FAR more population? Or should countries each get equal votes, even though borders are somewhat arbitrary? We have this question in the US, where in the Senate (upper chamber of legislature) each state has two senators, but the states vary in population dramatically between Wyoming (500k) and California (30+M I think). Why should someone in Wyoming get more power in the federal government than someone in California? There's reasons it was designed that way, but there is an element of non-democraticness to it, where citizens should all be equal. But no democratic system is perfect, and they all have mechanisms built in to try to make them work better since a pure democracy (Athenian-style) is unworkable and democracies can devolve into mob rule easily.

          I've heard them referred to as Nazis countless times here in the EU, or racists

          Interesting. I've heard them called racist here in the US, but we don't toss around the word Nazi in the same way. The Japanese are isolationist; they don't have Nazi Germany's history of mass genocide.

          and their "inward looking, non progressive culture"

          If they want to believe that, that's fine. But there's a lot of countries in the world that are far more "non-progressive" than Japan: also all of Africa and the Middle East for starters. Japan has its problems to be sure (namely its workaholic culture IMO), but they're no less "progressive" than the US overall, and in some ways more so I think. They certainly don't have the problems with religious nuttery that we have. No one there thinks the Earth is 6500 years old, or that vaccines are bad because of their religion, etc. And I'm pretty sure not many there buy into that homeopathy nonsense that's so popular in Germany. Also, I remember a flap about a decade ago where German automakers had problems because their German male customers complained about the navigation systems because "they wouldn't take directions from a woman", referring to the female voices used. I'm quite sure the Japanese don't have this backwards, sexist hang-up. Europeans should look at themselves first before calling anyone "non-progressive". Germany still has the government taking money out of people's paychecks to give to churches! WTF is that?

          A world where everyone is just free to split, or merge, etc... based on a vote just isn't going to happen

          Remember also that I don't advocate making it extremely easy. I think a serious referendum, or even series of them, should happen, with each side getting time to make their case, and I think any secession referendum should need a bare minimum of 60% to qualify as a success for the secessionists. Raise the bar so that only really serious and determined secession movements succeed and I think you'll avoid having too many happen for more frivolous reasons. Many democratic bodies and elections require a 60% vote to do really significant things for a good reason, so this isn't without precedent. I really do think the secessionist fears are overblown: if you really let people vote on it, you'll find that usually the majority doesn't want it, unless there's really serious, long-standing issues at work (where having them be united really was never a great idea in the first place).

          Ok it is absurd to think about the individual as a sovereign nation, but what about towns? How about city-states? How do you define a minimum size that is "allowed" to secede?

          Well one idea is: how viable is a geographical region as a political entity (whether you're talking about a state/province, or a nation)? In the US, a town can't become a state for many reasons, but one really good one is they just aren't viable as one. They don't have the size needed to have a government capable of doing all the things a state government does these days. Even moreso for nations.

          There are states out there that are smaller than an average size city, have little to no army and are completely unsustainable on their own, so you can't use sustainability or population to define a cut off point. Where would you draw the line?

          You're probably referring to micronations like Andorra. You have a point there; those were established long ago, and honestly only work because their neighbors allow them to exist that way due to history, and more recently, the way Europe works politically. But going forward, I'd say that you'd have to make the determination on a case-by-case basis, and by comparing to other similar places. With Catalonia, as I pointed out before, they're actually larger by themselves than 16 other full-fledged EU members (which doesn't include the microstates, they have some weird special status according to Wikipedia and are not full-fledged members). If Lithuania, Denmark, and Ireland are large enough to be viable EU nations, then Catalonia certainly is too. But one little region with Andorra's population really isn't.

          (As an aside: personally I think it'd be better if Catalonia got independence, then got the Catalan-speaking regions of France to join it, and also Andorra which I believe also speaks Catalan. This would eliminate one pesky microstate and bring them under a more viable government, while uniting Catalan people in a full-fledged EU member, and making things in the EU a bit more equitable by reducing the size of two of its largest members, Spain and France. It'd also make the border situation a lot more sane: there's a Catalan-speaking exclave of Spain inside France close to the Catalan/Spain border.)

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:55AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:55AM (#577276)

        Also, power tends to concentrate. Those who seek power do not want their power diminished by the splintering of their domain. So the people most likely to be in positions of power are most likely to be the ones most against their power being splintered off in the first place.

        Exactly: this is why various powers poo-poo the idea of independence and secession, even when their own country was formed that way. Extremely hypocritical, and not a justification for opposing the concept of self-determination.

        They can make some laws, but pretty much everything is dictated by the federal government. The EU is nowhere near as united.

        This isn't really true, despite how much the "states' rights" advocates would have you believe. So many legal things in a person's life are extremely variable by state: marriage laws (e.g. community property vs. non), gun laws, vehicle code, employment law, etc. Many things don't even make sense to be state-based, like vehicle code (why should it be legal to have X% tint on your windows in state A, then drive over the border to state B and get a ticket because your tint is illegal?). And the EU seems to be moving slowly towards more unity. It's hard to have an effective union without the central government having enough power to enforce its rules; the US learned that lesson with the Articles of Confederation. I believe there's a happy medium there somewhere, and it's probably different between the EU and the US due to their extremely different histories and cultures (i.e., EU cultures vary hugely across the union, US culture does not).

        The US federal government does indeed have a lot more power than the EU one, that's true. But it also tends to enforce many of its laws by controlling how some tax money is distributed to states, rather than any actual force. It's not *that* powerful. And states still have their own military units (National Guard, and also state guards).

        Also, my American history is rusty, but it was the refusal to hand over this Sovereignty which was one of the reasons of the unionist vs confederate war?

        The civil war was over the question of whether states could secede. It was complicated by the slavery issue, since that was the main reason they wanted to secede (there were other economic issues, but those probably traced back to the other states trying to force them to drop slavery). Personally I'm not sure the Union made the right choice there in going to full-fledged war, instead of perhaps holding off on that a bit and attempting to use economic sanctions to force their hand; at the time, the Southern economy was already doing very badly.

        Having one part split off, join another country, or form a new country is a far bigger deal.

        Sure, so it complicates things at the UN a bit. But surely the UN is used to that by now: lots of changes have happened since the UN was formed. The USSR broke up, several European nations changed their borders (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Germany), in recent history Sudan split in half.

        I doubt the EU countries would be willing to abolish themselves

        Abolish themselves? No one's asking any country to abolish itself. If Catalonia leaves Spain, Spain will still exist, it'll just be a bit smaller. Even if Basque Country and Galicia and Andalusa leave, Spain will still be a country, just a lot smaller. But probably bigger than their close neighbor Portugal, and Portugal is a full-fledged country and UN and EU member. Spain (what's left of it) can remain so also. And look at it this way: the Iberian people, collectively, will now have more votes at the UN! (They'll probably vote alike on most UN issues after all.)

        By your definition then, every single country on this planet is not democratic.

        You make this assertion, but you say nothing to back it up. The entire concept of democracy is that the people have the ultimate power. If they don't even have the power to decide how to organize themselves into political units, and this is instead forced on them by some elites from elsewhere, then they don't have any true power. North Korea is irrelevant. There's a big difference between someone claiming to be democratic, and the actual definition of the word.

        My point is you don't need everyone to be a separatist in a region for it to happen.

        No, you don't, but if the opposing power (the larger government that opposes secession) refuses to even recognize the separatists and let them air their grievances, this is what happens. The UK and Canada showed that you don't have to do that: just have a referendum to show that the separatists are actually a minority and don't have enough true popular support, and this takes the wind out of their sails.

        e.g. your government is a dictatorship and they decided to let the immigrants in.

        I don't see how this is relevant. We're talking about supposed democracies here (democratic republics), not dictatorships.

        People talk about it now in the EU with Angela Merkals "Refugees welcome" policy that has well, welcomed loads of refugees. People protest, but are relatively impotent as to what they can do about it.

        People protesting doesn't prove majority support in any way. We have actual neo-Nazis with swastikas protesting here in the US, but they're not even remotely close to a majority, just a few loons. Germany is a federal democratic republic: people there can vote for their representatives in Parliament, which then chooses a Prime Minister (if I understand their system correctly). If the people really didn't want Merkel's policy, they should be electing different representatives, or complaining to the existing ones, to change the policy. As I understand it, in parliamentary countries, the PM has much less power than our President, and can be removed quickly by Parliament through a vote of no-confidence. Honestly it seems like a much better system than ours. So if the PM is continuing a policy and Parliament isn't stepping in to stop it, then it's hard to see how it can really be that unpopular.

        If in future the descendents of refugees all congregate in a region and demand independence, I can't see the parent countries people being happy about it.

        As I said before, the people should have thought about that before. Maybe in the future, Germans will come to regret that they didn't object more strongly to Merkel's policy. But it's their responsibility to make sure their government serves them.

        I am not sure about it being "correct", but it is a lot easier to change the borders, rather than forcably deport the population ( a bit like the events between Greece and Turkey after WWII). However by and large, forced deportations are the method used.

        Historically, but after the mid-20th century that seems to have mostly become very frowned on, for good reason. Deportations are a form of genocide (though obviously not as bad as gassing them I suppose). Changing borders isn't that hard; it's been done many times even in the last 10 years.

        [ Continued (Seriously, screw this lameness filter) ]

        You have my complete, 100% agreement on that.