The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The right to secession (Quebec, Bosnia, Belgium, The Southern US)
Rufus_Shinra
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So I was reading the NYT article and came across this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/world/europe/21belgium.html?hp
So under what circumstances is it OK for a country to secede? Different language? Economic situations? Ethnic groups? Popular opinion? Old boundaries? Political make-up?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/world/europe/21belgium.html?hp
Now there are similar movements in Quebec, which are generally greeted with disdain by Canada at large. Similarly, even though Americans may joke that we should just split into two nations, no one is seriously considering it. At the same time, the dissolution of Czechslovakia and Yugoslavia are generally seen as productive for those countries.But the back story of this flat, Maryland-sized country of 10.4 million is of a bad marriage writ large — two nationalities living together that cannot stand each other. Now, more than three months after a general election, Belgium has failed to create a government, producing a crisis so profound that it has led to a flood of warnings, predictions, even promises that the country is about to disappear.
“We are two different nations, an artificial state created as a buffer between big powers, and we have nothing in common except a king, chocolate and beer,†said Filip Dewinter, the leader of Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Bloc, the extreme-right, xenophobic Flemish party, in an interview. “It’s ‘bye-bye, Belgium’ time.â€
So under what circumstances is it OK for a country to secede? Different language? Economic situations? Ethnic groups? Popular opinion? Old boundaries? Political make-up?
Rufus_Shinra on
0
Posts
If it arises that a truly significant portion of the population - say, Flanders, or East Timor or even the Confederate States (Not counting the slaves who were a significant proportion of that population) - finds itself inadequately represented, it follows that the governance of that region is no longer legitimate, therefore secession follows.
Of course, that's entirely a matter of pure principle.
And I agree.
S3cr3t Clanz.
In yur threds.
Ruln yur forems.
More devil's advocate: what are the economic ramifications of secession? Can small break-away republics maintain stable economies? If a larger* state like Quebec secedes, can it throw the regional economic into disarray?
*I'm thinking more in terms of economic power and developed nation-ness; I know Quebec's not that big in the grand scheme of things, but its secession could have large economic ramifications.
The examples given, like Yugoslavia, were areas embroiled in civil war. I'd say shooting people is a good reason to start talking secession. Quebec'll never do it because it's not economically viable, despite the mewlings of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois. Also, the Conservatives are making inroads because they suck less than the Liberals.
And that is enough, seriously. Anyway it usually takes a huge crisis for states to secede, there is rarely a chance to build a good consensus on a lot of important stuff otherwise: like the exact borders for example.
Of course, things changed in the past 12 years, and sovereignty is not as popular as it was then. But in the future, who knows? Things might change again.
Or, as in the case of Iraq, all of the above.
I don't think it should be done frivilously, but if you've got a solid 2/3rds in a nation that wants it, it's best to part amicably than via civil war.
Margaret Thatcher
In the case of the Southern States, the Federal Gov't would attempt to stop them on the grounds that Secession was declared unconstitutional in 1869 in the case of some guy I don't recall V. Texas.
50%+1 is the threshold sovereignists are always talking about. And while there has of course been a lot of federalist counter-talk against sovereignist talking points and legal challenges to various sovereignist ploys, as far as I know, no one ever challenged the 50%+1 value in particular. So it really seems to be what we need.
I was under the impression that since the vote was a referendum, and not a special "lets succeed" vote, a 51% vote was only needed since thats what is required for a referendum to work. Regardless, Quebec will never be allowed to seperate unless the Bloc can gain a majority government in the House, if they ever did manage to get a 51% vote the government could stop it dead saying it would require a change in the constitution.
SAW gunner:"She does Ducks"!
Yup.
There's a couple reasons I oppose secession on general principals. First off, for a lot of them (Quebec, Basque, first I've heard of the Belgiums having a problem but I'd bet it's true for them too) the people wanting secession aren't actually bad off as far as I can tell. It just sounds like attention whoring in which case, you know, fuck them. Second is the reason above - what's the point in creating a nation that can't support itself? It's not like the colonial days when there was new territory to expand into, or the main part of your country was months travel away anyways. If you hate your countrymen that much, join a neighbor instead, but why write yourself into obscurity as a tiny nation that'll never accomplish anything more than making snacks?
Shit, Belgium's got it tough enough as it is. Maryland size? I could practically throw a rock over Maryland from my house here and hit Pennslyvania.
Thirdly, I think we should be moving towards less borders, not more. Yea, I'm one of those who looks forward to there being a single nation in a few hundred years.
for example, can i secede my property from the u.s.? why not? what principle applies to, or what rights does a group of people have, that doesnt apply to me individually?
Taht's an interesting point. I mean, if say Quebec leaves, can the city of Montreal say "Fuck, we want outta this" and secede from Quebec and rejoin Canada? If they get a majority vote, it's the same thing isn't it?
You certainly are right, however, while it's not much simpler, the guidelines are a bit more defined.
I think it comes down to state governments. It can't be that one person wants to secede, but the population of the state can, that's not it. For what if all but one wanted to secede? Or just two? You run into this old debate about when exactly does a pile of sand turn into just some sand? Or when does just some sand turn into a pile? Can it ever be that a single grain is the difference between a collection, or a heap?
However, when the government desires secession, it's much easier. The government is only the speaking voice for the entire population, but it still is the institution which has at least that artificial state of power.
I have no idea how any portion of a nation (and I'm particularly thinking of the US here) might get around to becoming independent. Or if it even should. What if a portion does, and petitions to another country to help it? What if it doesn't petition, but another country invades and establishes the individuality of that portion anyway?
We need a Planetary AC for this kind of shit.
Personally, I feel that you should be able to do so, yes. However, it is certainly true that the issue is more complex than that, and the first thing that comes to mind is that it wouldn't work. The reasons for that seem fairly self-evident.
Essentially, though, I suppose the most important element of this is the question is "what defines a country?". And I probably wouldn't consider one person a country, although I'm not sure where I'd draw the line.
Wheee. Rambling. And, of course, this is just an immediate reaction. Certainly something I'm open to opinions on.
what im saying is you can't just avoid the question. a state becomes a state, a government becomes a government because people make it so. can 100 people be a state? can 1000? what about the vatican (.25 square miles, 770 ppl)? what about tuvalu (9 square miles, 9,700 ppl)?
any line you draw is going to be arbitrary. unless we want to have a world full of millions, possibly billions of tiny little countries with their own little laws, it's not enough to just say "as long as democracy is maintained, go for it".
a democracy run by the 5 people in my household is still a democracy. it's not necessarily the kind of nation state we believe should exist though.
but a group of people could certainly make it work.
corporations could definitely make it work and that's more worrying than just a group of individuals banding together.
Exactly the problem I mentioned. How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile? Is it still a pile with one less? Could/Should we set this arbitrary limit to how many people want a secession? Would it be valid with one less?
But there are lines. When you're 17 years and 364 days old, you still can't smoke, and you're not legal, but no rational person can argue you're going to change almost at all in the next 24 hours, barring some radical event.
Likewise, I think the state, the actual and recognized government of the state is the best, if not only, option you have for establishing a desire to secede. After that, if it ever occurs, I have no idea.
Like I said, Planetary AC.
do you recognize 800 people in new york buying a skyscraper together and making their own nation / government?
why or why not?
isnt it just custom and history? that's the answer we came to in my international law class. it's just custom and history and whether or not the world is willing to recognize you. there is no concept. there is no principle. there is money and there are people and there is government and some kind of combination of everything makes it work for most of the world.
shitty answer i know. but i think it's probably the right one, if not the best one.
No, no. Don't be sorry. That's about it. My solution wasn't really meant to be the answer. Just my impression of the best way to go about it here. I wouldn't recognize a building in New York, because, as I understand the scenario, it exists in the private sector and as part of the population of the state. Were the state itself to propose... I... I really just don't know.
Maybe one world government might solve all these problems. Engineers and technicians can develop ships and machines capable of pulling the continents together, and we can reform Pangaea.
This strikes me as the biggest one. And, really, it's a side-effect of customs, isn't it? The entire concep of a state is certainly a complex one, and in some ways it seems built around the very issues (coercion, for instance) that a significant proportion of the society wants to get rid of.
i wonder sometimes though, if a majority of the world (or even all of the world) got together and agreed that china wasn't a nation, would it be a nation?
i have no idea.
We actually did that We gave China's vote in the Security Council to Taiwan because China no longer "represented" China.
That type of stuff doesn't work for too long.
really? the un did that? sounds like a risky and weirdly awesome thing to do. i'm going to look that up but if you've got a link handy that would be great.
My immediate response is "of course it would". The second is "no, that's stupid".
So, whilst it would certainly be possible to define nation to exclude China, it would still presumably possess all the power it does at present. So, nationhood could illustrate the capabilities of a group of people. Are there two concepts in the same word here? Interesting...
That would be AWESOME. I'd love to go back to London, or visit New Zealand, but I can't afford such a long plane flight.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
The Belgium situation reminds me of a somewhat bitter divorce more than a secession. Of course, I have to admit that I don't know much about Belgium at all.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
When the first referendum for separation occurred in 1980, the Québécois had much more reason to secede, as a large part of our businesses were owned by English-speaking people, while the French-speaking people tended to be at the bottom of the ladder. This has evolved gradually in the last 25 years or so, to the point where Québécois don't feel "oppressed" anymore.
But there remains all this constitutional stuff that started in 1982 when our constitution was ratified (I hope I'm using that term right) by all the provinces, EXCEPT Québec. So, technically, Québec is already separate, simply because it's not part of the Constitution! How fucked-up is that?
So, the main reason I'm a separatist is that I feel like a Québécois, but Canada is not an important part of my life. I don't feel patriotic about it the way I do about Québec, I don't like how it's been governed in the last 15 years or so (first, by the corrupt Liberal government, and now, with the Conservatives who lean way too far to the right for my taste) and I really believe Québec could stand alone.
I think that, instead of trying to convince more Québécois of the need to secede, separatists should be working harder at convincing the rest of Canada that we're not worth staying with. That would facilitate things to no end.
Check out my new blog: http://50wordstories.ca
Also check out my old game design blog: http://stealmygamedesigns.blogspot.com
Technically thats not true, while Quebec did not, and has not signed the constitution (despite many attempts including a provision that Quebec is "special") they are obligated to follow it since the constitution applies to the whole of Canada and not to each province individually.
SAW gunner:"She does Ducks"!