As a “fill-in-the-blank political persuasion”, I kinda wish that the other side would just take their politics and form their own country. Problem solved.
So I was wondering…under the US Constitution any amendment can be added on so long as it meets the appropriate ratification requirements. So does this mean that hypothetically a supermajority can kick out a state?
Has there ever been a country that kicked out a portion of its citizenry and told them to form their own country against the will of those kicked out? (not talking about ethnic cleanings/whatnot).
UK/English/Scottish/Welsh devolution kinda counts but in that case the quasi-separation was mutual.
The Balkans are notorious for discharging minorities, but not their land.
Haiti and Cyprus have had one side declare the other side a separate country. But I guess that’s not quite your definition.
Well, if you can keep a secret, let me tell about the Am-r-cans.
You see, in the 1600’s and 1700’s, we Europeans had a problem with a lot of low class people hanging round the place. Talked funny, and couldn’t spell properly.
So, we persuaded them to ship over the Atlantic. Told them they were going to colonise a New World. The Golgafrinchans, sorry, the Am-r-cans fell for it, hook line and sinker, and left Europe in their thousands.
Then in the 1770’s, we managed to con them into forming their own con-federation, and got them out of our way completely. Pretending to fight them was the hardest part, but they wouldn’t believe us if we didn’t object a bit. The British kindly offered the use of their army, as they still had some Golgafrinchans to use up.
The whole thing worked pretty well. I don’t think they have guessed yet. But keep it a secret. Sshh…
Before the 1982 Falklands War, it was widely thought that the British government wouldn’t particularly object if the islands wanted to either become independent or become part of Argentina by mutual consent. The Argentine junta got grabby, though, and now it’s more unlikely than ever that it’ll happen.
Well, not just any amendment. Under Article V of the United States Constitution:
(Emphasis added.)
Because dissociating a state from the Union would seem to entail removing its delegation from Congress (and, thus, “its equal suffrage in the Senate”), no state can be thrown of the Union without its consent.
When the USSR broke up I think some of the countries like Uzbekistan may not have minded staying with Russia but I don’t think they were given the option. Some of them like Latvia were thrilled to be on their own.
I came in here to mention the “Bantustans” as well. In addition to several other partially autonomous “homelands”, South Africa declared four regions to be independent: Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana, and Ciskei. No country other than South Africa ever recognized these regions as independent, though.
Ah, thanks for the links. I had tried to look up Lesotho, but it turns out that they have their own history, and were not one of the Bantustans. I couldn’t remember any of the others.
Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965. There was a lot of political conflict between the city and the rest of the country in the few years they were together, but the Singapore government didn’t want to declare itself independent. I believe I’ve even read that its president was in tears when he had to declare the independence of the city.
All I know about it was what I saw in the movie Gandhi, but wasn’t Pakistan formed because India kicked out its Muslim population and had them form their own country?
Also the Acadians, kicked out of Canada, the descendants of whom we call Cajun: Expulsion of the Acadians - Wikipedia (Everything you need to know you can learn by watching Good Eats).
