Should “people” (loosely defined by the examples in the title) have the right to self determination / independence?
There are other examples I can think of too: Scotland, Quebec, Puerto Rico, etc.
The USA is in the weird position of having been started by a revolution for the right to govern themselves and then morphing into opposing it in the cases of the Conferederate States and, more recently, Californians. Were we wrong then or are we wrong now?
What about the Spanish kicking Catalonians in the teeth? Is Britain right with Brexit and respecting the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum (presumably, if the decision had been to go, the UK would have let them.
The more people that there are in a given society, the more resources and the more land, the more that society will flourish.
The downside is that the more people you have in a society, the more opinions on how that society should be run there are, and the more people disappointed that it will not run the way they would like it to be.
If we can learn to get along, we will be better together for it, the more the merrier. But, I suppose if we cannot, then a divorce is sometimes the least bad option.
A balance of sovereignty and codependency is a tough one to find, especially when there are differing opinions on where that balance should be.
There is not going to be a once size fits all solution, and not just for different populations, but also for different times.
I figure the USA was built around the idea that we would govern ourselves if we were able to win a war to do so, and I figure that the CSA was built around the idea that they would do likewise if they could do likewise.
If so, then I guess we – weren’t wrong either time? Huh. Math checks out.
A brief excerpt from a very comprehensive 2017 report from the Center for American Progress on Putin’s attempts to sell European nations on the idea of “self-determination” (hahahaha!):
That’s a reasonable explanation for Calexit and the Civil and Revolutionary wars. I’m curious what course you think the Catalonians should pursue. Would you encourage them to take up arms and fight for their independence? Should Spain have allowed the referendum to go forward peacefully and gone along with the outcome?
In practical terms, Spain might have been better off letting the vote be held, while maintaining, very firmly, that it had no legal basis. It’s little different from an internet poll, or any other public opinion poll. Banning it only inflames opinion.
(I know they were bound by law. But it was, as Napoleon once said, worse than a crime: it was a blunder.)
I agree that firing rubber bullets at people trying to vote has “bad optics” written all over it, but what do you think about the broader question of the right to self-determination? Should places like Quebec, Scotland, and Catalonia be permitted to secede, if they want? Should those questions be up to just the people in the secessionist territory? Should the parent country have a say in the matter, or a veto?
The problem with self-determination is, how do you define a people? Are Californians a people, or are they just part of the people of America? How about Orange Countians? Or Angelenos? Or Hollywoodites?
If they think they can win, and they think it’s worth it, yes.
That said, I figure part of the question of whether “it’s worth it” probably includes the question of “can we, by peacefully working within the system, get them to agree to let us go our separate way?” Because, if so, then it’d maybe be stupid to take up arms and fight, with people unnecessarily dying on both sides, right?
I’m not sure I know enough about the particulars to say for sure. I do, though, like what Trinopus said, which at first blush seems eminently sensible.
Judging by today’s news I think Madrid handled this vote the worst way they could short of suspending the Generalitat de Catalunya & declaring martial law (and they may end up doing that anyway). :smack:
How do you maintain a functional country if you follow the full self-determination logic? Calexit proponents are real big on ‘oh yes, we should be able to leave and go our own way!’ but don’t seem to even acknowledge that conservatives live in the state. Around 1/3 of CA’s votes cast went to Donald Trump, so it’s not like there’s only a handful of people who might be opposed to ‘we want to leave and become super left-wing’, and that chunk of voters are sitting on the majority of the land and food-producing areas. If Calexit is morally sound, why isn’t Calexitexit? If it is, how is Calexitfornia going to function when immediately after voting to leave the US, a large chunk of it’s population votes to leave Calexitfornia (maybe to stay in the US, maybe to make their own country) and it’s not even a net food producing country any more?
Just to be clear, there is no Calexit beyond some fringe loonies. Calexit is not like the US Civil War or Brexit. It’s a nutty idea that has no real traction with actual Californians. That’s why the whole idea is dead, dead, dead.
Okay, overall, I’m going to go with a firm NO. Peoples “should” assuredly NOT be seen to have the right to straight up self determination. At least, not in any of the exact contexts referred to, or in the manner referred to in particular.
The biggest element or factor in this discussion which has so far been overlooked or ignored, is that it isn’t ever JUST the people who are involved with the ‘to leave or not to leave" idea. There is also the territory the people live on to consider, as well as the entire structure of the existing states’ defense system, their economic considerations, their natural resources, and the geographic and ecological integrity of the region involved.
If individual states are allowed to secede at will, it becomes impossible to calculate a national budget, any national policies, and international trade systems, or even road building plans.
Should California be able, by itself, to take away one of the primary port cities of the entire United States? The majority of the entire nations’ access to the Pacific Ocean? Just because they happen to live there this week? To overnight, remove the entire tax base of the largest state economy of the nation, including the headquarters of a number of national businesses?
Again, I have to say no. That would entail empowering small groups of people to decide the fate of the larger nation itself, which is absurd, and goes against the concept of…this idea of self-determination thing.
Why would you call any secession agreement ‘bilateral’? There are at least three major groups involved - the existing country, the secessionists, AND the anti-secessionists within the region seceding. People who argue in favor of secession for a region tend to completely ignore that there’s basically nowhere with 100% of people in favor of secession, it’s at best majority or rarely a super-majority, there are still large numbers of people in the possibly seceding region who don’t want to be a part of the new country. I don’t think you get to use talk of individual rights against a distant regime if you’re going to ignore the voices of individuals in the seceding region.
The attitude of ‘well, if Texas secedes, screw them!’ ignores that there are a LOT of minorities in Texas who are American citizens and expect the US government to protect them (the protection certainly isn’t perfect, but is miles ahead of what a Texas unchecked by the US Constitution, Supreme Court, and Department of Justice would do). Do the rights of those American citizens just not matter enough that a 51% or 66% vote of people near them completely negate their rights?
You’ll never get that with any secessionist movement.
Should the 13 colonies have not seceded from the British crown just because there were Loyalists in their midst? How high does the bar have to be set? Is 90% secessionists, 10% Loyalists good enough?
Brexit is not a secession movement. The UK was a member of the European Community by virtue of an international treaty it agreed to, as a sovereign state. A sovereign state always has the power to renounce a treaty it has signed, which is exactly what the UK is in the process of doing.
I don’t think that secession is ever justified purely on a percentage of population basis unless you’re talking about 100% of a large area. You don’t get to use self-determination as an argument if you’re denying another set of people self-determination at the same time. Note that the 13 colonies never expressed the sentiment that a percentage of support justified their secession, their justification was that Britain was not respecting their rights.
Let’s flip your argument around. Should any smaller-than-the-whole-US area with a majority (or whatever percentage justifies secession) of Loyalists have seceded from the new US and gone back to British Rule? And then should any smaller part of the Loyalists seceded also, either to join back with the US or to make even more countries? When does the process stop? If we accept a simple percentage as justification, it seems that the only just result is a set of countries with all kinds of neighborhood-sized enclaves and exclaves within each other, which is dramatically unworkable. Oh, and who determines what area counts for a vote - gerrymandering could be a big problem here?
One of these things is not like the others