Slashdot Mirror
Catalonia Declares Independence; Spain Approves Central Takeover Of Region (npr.org)
Readers share a report: Lawmakers in Catalonia have declared independence from Spain in a historic vote that prompted protests and celebration. The government in Madrid, vowing to halt any would-be secession, has authorized the Spanish prime minister to take over direct rule of the previously semi-autonomous region. The vote in the Catalan Parliament comes nearly a month after the region held a referendum on independence, over Spain's objections. The regional president then declared his support for separation from Spain but also called for talks with Madrid, in an ambiguous speech. Spain's central government, promising to crack down harshly if the declaration was real, told the region's leaders to make up their mind: Yes or no? Independence or not? Now it's final: Independence, Catalonia said.
... and I'm not talking military protection. I don't think anyone is about to invade Catalonia (besides the Spanish). I'm talking about protecting citizen rights, protecting their economy, protecting their well being. There are certain economies of scale a country of Catalonia won't have on their side. It will be a lot more expensive to be independent. That extra money they spend in taxes to Spain will quickly be gobbled up by their new extra expenses.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
OHRLY? Well I declare my property to be sovereign and no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States of America. I will be its ruler and I will no longer pay taxes to the federal or state government. Thanks for the idea on this. I'm sure this will be the best decision I ever made.
That said, I think Catalonia is making a big mistake here. There is no way they will be better off without the protection of Spain and the European Union.
Protection from what? From countries that would take most of Catalonia's economic output and use it for themselves?
Or maybe you meant "protection" against police beating and arresting citizens for trying to vote.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While I generally support self determination for geographic regions the law in Spain does seem to make the declaration of independence illegal.
What I still don't understand is the heavy handed response to the referendum. Declare that it has no standing in law and ignore it; by interfering with it using unnecessary violence then refusing any dialogue the Spanish have given the Catalonians no options.
I can only see this one getting seriously violent from here. Either that or Spain is going to need a few thousand extra prisons to keep up with the sedition charges.
Sure, we all saw how well the EU "protection" worked in, e.g., Greece (or everywhere else).
IMO it's not so much Spain they depend on as the EU. So it really depends on whether the newly formed Catalonia can get membership into the EU and/or strike trade deals with the US/Japan/China.
IIRC, they resemble California a lot in this regard -- their economy depends on international trade and the rest of Spain is (in their view) holding them back.
We kind of have some experience with this in Canada... the problem will be the separatists who want full autonomy (fine) will not care if they drag non-separatists with them (not fine), and likely won't even respect the concept of parts of their region separating from them to stay with Spain (also not fine).
Spain kind of has a responsibility to the citizens of the region who DON'T want to go (even if there's only one of them, because they don't have a lot of responsibility for those who are at least technically traitors due to acts of sedition).
And if you magically get all that sorted out, there's still the endless bickering over how to divide up Spain - borders, debt share, citizenship rights, trade agreements, government pensions... every single item on the list (including bajillions of items I've likely overlooked) has the potential to bring the two sides to civil war.
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
Yes and no. I'm obviously against slavery and I'm glad the North intervened to stop slavery. With that said, yes, the South had the right to declare independence. It is probably turned out better for both the North and the South long term that the North won, but, yes, South had right to secede, even if they did it for an utterly despicable reason.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Is this "Spexit" or "Cexit"?
John
Greece was rolling downhill straight into a manure pile regardless of the EU.
The EU can't magically fix entrenched internal problems.
Why should they need to forgo the protection of the EU -- as a european entity, would their membership be rejected?
Their membership would almost certainly be rejected. For one thing, they would need approval of all member states. Spain isn't going to give their's. Not just to be vindictive cunts, but also because they wouldn't want to encourage independence movements in other regions like the basque country. Germany, Italy, etc, all have small independence movements in regions. They wouldn't want to help breakaway states by giving the safety net of the EU.
Catalonia won't get EU membership. Not right away and perhaps not for a long time if ever.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Personally, I think the Union was right to fight a war to end slavery. But the resolution of the war should have been to free the slave, ensure them safe passage to a destination of their choosing and to leave the rest of the South as a separate nation. With the advantage of hindsight, readmitting the South was a mistake.
What was it about then?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Stupid racist, the south's secession was illegitimate because they didn't let male slaves vote for or against it. The Civil War was the United States rescuing American citizens from traitors.
And even if they did, the US would have still been morally justified to invade and free the salves, and execute all the slavers. The only difference is it wouldn't have been a civil war.
The issue is that the EU will not likely accept Catalonia in to the EU. Spain will obviously try to block it, but other EU nations also don't like the precedent it could set by allowing a region to separate but still maintain ties to the EU.
Trade deals with other countries are far more likely.
> Spain kind of has a responsibility to the citizens of the region who DON'T want to go
Good point.
> they don't have a lot of responsibility for those who are at least technically traitors
It seems to me traitors support the enemy. Separately isn't treason, I don't think. If during World World II some people in California were trying to have California join the Axis, acting in unlawful ways to make that happen, they would be traitors. I don't know that voting to separate into two friendly nations is treason.
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
As their names imply, The Union was for a strong Union of States(Nations) while the Confederates was for a loose Confederation of States(Nations).
In this aspect, the Union was wrong to oppose them from leaving just as it would be wrong to oppose Texas or California or Hawaii from leaving today.
That being said, I would not be in favor of Texas leaving today if I knew that the plan upon leaving was to make a certain class of people second class citizens.
The Civil War should have been fought over Black Rights not on whether or not Nations (States) had a right to leave the United States(Nations).
Ironically, that is what is taught in public schools today that the Civil War was fought over Slavery.
*Sadly, since the Civil War, the meaning of State has been lost and no longer means Country/Nation like it once did.
right to secede
Am curious your thoughts, how far does that go? The state, the county, the city, the municipality, the property, the region (being made of potentially multiple jurisdictions).
Is there a limit to that right and if so what is it? If there is not a limit, can any jurisdiction with 50% +1 secede from a host? And does the host have to consent in order for secession be legitimate in the eyes of other sovereign states?
Only talking about peaceful secession for obvious reasons.
...Learn to be like her...
OK, But I'm gonna have to stuff the bra with a couple boxes of Kleenex...
Yes, I will take them out of the actual Kleenex box first...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
So these little breakaway regions would likely still depend on the EU, right? Between stuff like this and the UK/Scotland thing, are we witnessing the breakdown of the 'old' nations of the EU as they dissolve into something more like states are in the United States? The US federal government relative to the states is more powerful than the EU relative to its countries in my understanding, but if Spain breaks up then its constituent nations no longer form a voting bloc and are less powerful in swinging their weight in the EU, yes?
as a european entity, would their membership be rejected?
Spain is a member; Catalonia is not. If they were no longer part of Spain, they would have to become a member in their own right.
They would have to petition for membership, negotiate terms, and persuade the current members of their suitability.
Plus, the EU would have to recognize them as independent nation in order to consider their application in the first place.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
News flash, it was never about slavery.
Slavery might not have been the only concern; certainly the South had other concerns such as the industrial North passing laws that hurt the mainly agricultural South, but the number one issue was slavery.
The slave owning South was about to become a minority of states to the non slave owning states. They were worried that slavery could be made illegal (and their entire economy tanking as a result).
Anyone that says the war had nothing to do with slavery is either being deceitful or has been duped by someone deceitful. It was a major factor. Maybe not the only factor but the single biggest factor.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Many of the driving forces involved were the same ones that started the Civil War in 1936. Just without the fascists this time.
The last thing Europe needs right now is civil war in any of their member countries. On the other hand I'm sure that Vladimir Putin is just thrilled to hear news like this, the more Western Europe is destabilized the better for him and his empire-building ambitions.
Are you a historically separate ethnic identity from your neighbors who has occupied your land longer than your government has existed? Then yes, I support you. (This means, of course, that I also support sovereignty for Native Americans and native Hawaiians.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If not EU, there are other world powers that could support their independence. And Catalonia has some territorial claims on France too. This could result in more diplomatic conflicts in the future. Having Catalonia in EU would lessen the possibilities for them. While not letting Catalonia go independent could result in a civil war on territory of EU.
You think Catalonia will have a hard time getting back into the Union? I bet they'd trade Spain for it in a heartbeat...
Spain without Catalonia is essentially Greece when it comes to how broke they are.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
To be specific, it was about power and the potential loss of such.
Stupid racist, the south's secession was illegitimate because they didn't let male slaves vote for or against it.
That is an excellent point! (that slaves didn't get a choice in it- not the part about being racist). Slaves made up a minority of the South, but still, a large enough number that they probably would have tipped the overall support into remaining with the union. I doubt every white man in the South wanted independence, but I bet almost every black man wanted it not to happen.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I grew up in rural Nevada and there's a few kooks that have done just that. There's an unofficial policy to just leave them alone if they don't cause any trouble. Instead of fighting them over taxes, it's easier just to put a lien on their property and wait for them to die.
Puerto Ricans don't pay US federal income tax, but they are citizens. Most US citizens are required to pay US income tax, even if living overseas.
Their 'state' government is a bankrupt disaster.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Am curious your thoughts, how far does that go? The state, the county, the city, the municipality, the property, the region (being made of potentially multiple jurisdictions).
I don't think there is an easy answer or a rigid answer for that. If a group of people can be recognized as a unit- an identifiable "people"; they have that right. That's a wishy-washy answer, I know; but, I don't think there is an easy hard-and-fast answer.
The group breaking away must be responsible for what they're doing and be ultimately self-governing. They would have to take on a fair share of the debt and obligations of their nation. You obviously couldn't have some guy on a ranch declare his ranch an independent nation; it wouldn't be self-supporting, he couldn't get by without getting a visa to leave his ranch to go to the suprtmarket, etc.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Existing EU member states can veto membership proposals for new countries, so there's no chance Catalonia would get in unless Spain withdrew. This won't even make it to that point though as Spain won't legally recognize the succession as it wasn't even close to legal and there aren't such an overwhelming majority of Catalonians who want to be independent to make a war possible.
However it works out, Spain is now broke. They can't afford a civil war, nobody can, but Spain can't even really get started.
Next step is 'general strike' in Catalonia, not extensive shooting.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe not the only factor but the single biggest factor.
According to the Confederacy, it was the only factor.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Whoa wait, I saw this on CNN and now AC is telling me it's not Fake News?!? Are the Russian hackers funding this with Ukrainian ransomware campaigns or not?
Often, CNN will present misleading aspects of real news to serve their agenda. Sprinkling in a healthy amount of truth is the best way to sell a lie after all.
If you want to look like Tomb Raider 1's Lara Croft, you might as well leave them in the box :-P
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Articles of Secession disagree with you. Maybe the original authors should have consulted you first?
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
As their names imply, The Union was for a strong Union of States(Nations) while the Confederates was for a loose Confederation of States(Nations).
In this aspect, the Union was wrong to oppose them from leaving just as it would be wrong to oppose Texas or California or Hawaii from leaving today.
That being said, I would not be in favor of Texas leaving today if I knew that the plan upon leaving was to make a certain class of people second class citizens.
The Civil War should have been fought over Black Rights not on whether or not Nations (States) had a right to leave the United States(Nations).
Ironically, that is what is taught in public schools today that the Civil War was fought over Slavery.
*Sadly, since the Civil War, the meaning of State has been lost and no longer means Country/Nation like it once did.
The States had quit being "States" in the true meaning of the word State long before the civil war though. By that point they were already more like provinces than independent nations that were loosely bound together. "States Rights" movements and trying to return to a more confederate group of States was a reaction to becoming a minority of states that allowed slaves. "States Rights" was not an issue until losing slaves was a threat. The only reason the South wanted a return to a confederation from the slow accumulation of power in the State capitol is because they wanted to keep slaves. The war was about slavery. "States Rights" was how they tried to justify seceding.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
If I want to look like Tomb Raider 1's Lara Croft I'm gonna have to make a trip to Costco first...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
The northern recruiting posters were about 'preserving the union'. Motivations varied, but most Northerners were still open racists, even most abolitionists.
Read what Lincoln wrote about the role of free blacks. Clearly he was a NAZI, deserved punching.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Their 'state' government is a bankrupt disaster.
So is our President -- literally and figuratively (lack of personal morality: lying, groping women, stiffing contractors, Charlottesville response, "pick a tweet", etc...)
Just sayin' ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The Democratic Party would never allow it.
You need 270 Electoral College votes to become President, California has 54 of those votes, so 20%. If California left it would mean that they would have to work a lot harder to get the votes for a Democrat to win, making it easier for a Republican Presidential candidate to win for quite a while.
According to "Lost Cause" revisionism, created by A. W. Pollard in 1866, it was all about tariffs; tariffs he conveniently failed to mention were passed AFTER the south seceded. It was his attempt at lionizing the Confederacy by erasing the stain of slavery from their "just" cause. And for 150 years of southern school children, it worked.
It's quite simple: thanks to the 3/5's compromise, Dixiecrats and northern allies enjoyed complete domination of all three branches of government for almost 50 years, and levied stiff tariffs to stifle the emergent industrial revolution in the north. However, after losing most of the so called "Slave Wars" out west, changing demographics handed the the reins of government to Republicans. And though Lincoln's pre-and-early war rhetoric was not abolitionist in nature, southerners paid keen attention to his earlier speeches, which were those of an ardent, firebrand abolitionist (and the basis of his opposition to the Mexican-American War). They knew what was coming, and tried to stop the only way they could.
What was it about then?
Money and power. Slavery was an terrible byproduct
Or even read what the traitors themselves said they were rebelling about.
Yeppers.
Ultimately, it was about rich people in either the North or the South losing their influence and power.
Slavery was the proximate cause, of course. No doubt about that. And that radical in the White House...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
After 50 years of political domination, they could not conceive of living in a country where they weren't in control of the nation.
Well, Catalonia is very pro-EU, and as long as Spain still has a claim the EU has to defend the status quo. But if at some point Spain and Catalonia make a deal, then the EU would instantly welcome Catalonia.
They're not asking for anything that is opposed to EU values.
A Spanish Civil war?
Didn't we do that one already?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
No, because he supported the "rights" of German settlers who were attempting to take over neighboring countries by colonization. They had no such right to that land.
And Catalonia has some territorial claims on France too.
So, the newly independent nation of Catalonia is going to invade France to reclaim it's territory? Or maybe France will just give it up.
I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them (if decided by fair and free referendum).
All members of my census block have voted unanimously to succeed from the country and immediately cease any and all tax payments to local and national taxing authorities.
Thanks for your support.
The snag often comes down to who owns what. For instance, the US civil war essentially started after the south took over a military fort. There was also much much more dividing the country than simple things like language or regional culture. The South refused to give up slavery and was essentially expanding it by insisting that half of all new states be slave states. It certainly would have been better if this situation resolved itself, but it most certainly was not a war of northern aggression.
If one region was forcibly taken over in the past or has a history of being oppressed, then it's reasonable to allow them the right of self rule. However, seceding for the purposes of have a single distinct ethnicity or culture is wrong I think, since that leads to ethnic cleansing, second class citizens, and so forth.
If you look up those "laws that hurt the mainly agricultural South" you'll find out that that is just a rephrasing of issues regarding slavery; for example, the South was really mad that the Northern States didn't let them send cops up north to capture any black people they had papers claiming ownership of.
"States' Rights" actually meant the right to travel to other States and impose your own State laws on people physically in those other States if you claimed they were from your State. They wanted, for example, to take a bunch of slaves with them to a State where slavery was illegal, and to be able to force the locals to enforce not the local laws, but the laws of the State that the visitor was from. It is just a crazy idea that doesn't work if you think about it, but they demanded it all the same and went to war over it.
Don't hide behind a well-known veneer that doesn't even cover the shit.
This is an excellent example of why to avoid and diffuse geographic income concentration. When a high concentration of wealthy workers are gathered into one region, they'll soon want to secede so that they can live in a country free of poor people. The super-rich have options like Monaco, St. Bart's, and ships like The World and Utopia, but wealthy workers can't afford these so they go for secession.
You see similar secessionist urges coming from Silicon Valley for the same reason. No word on what they plan to do with their large homeless population though, perhaps they'd make it a law of their new country that anyone below a certain net worth would be exiled? No word on who will clean the toilets etc. either. Maybe they'll have very loose immigrant labor policies so that people can commute across the border?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
To be specific, that power was about slavery. Their political power derived from slavery (ie, they could count 3/5s of a slave for apportionment), and their economic power derived from slavery.
Hehehe I see what you did there ;-)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
After 50 years of political domination, they could not conceive of living in a country where they weren't in control of the nation.
Wait, are we talking about Democrats in 1861 or Democrats in 2017?
That is true in some ways. However the reasons for the war was about slavery. The south seceded because of slavery, this is clear from the statements made by the confederate leaders of the time. The political divide between north and south was entirely due to slavery. That the north only wanted to keep the country whole does not negate this.
The North did not attempt to stop slavery immediately, that's true. There was a feeling on both sides that the war could be ended quickly and things would go back to a distasteful stalemate.
Remember also, the US did not enter WWII in order to get rid of the evil Nazis; the US early on was quite intent on riding it out on the other side of the planet and let it blow over.
I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them (if decided by fair and free referendum).
All members of my census block have voted unanimously to succeed from the country and immediately cease any and all tax payments to local and national taxing authorities.
Thanks for your support.
Duely noted- you shall receive a demand for $100,000 as your share of the national debt; plus several million in legal work to separate our two countries. Expect to produce a visa when reentering the country, failure to do so will be seen as an invasion- we shall retaliate by taking your land and putting you in a military prison. Because we have no trade agreement with you- you shall pay a major tariff on any goods you move between our two nations.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
IMO it comes down to, did the people in question participate directly in deciding their fate already? Why are they part of what they want to separate from? If the political unit you're a part of was created without the consent of the community, then IMO they forever have the moral right of self-determination.
But if your ancestors made that choice and the political unit you're a part of was joined willingly by the community, and is largely intact, then your community has the right of self-determination because you already made that determination. Changing it is to strip away the prior legit determination from others.
Catalonia has never had freedom in the modern world, they're not a part of a place called "Spain" because they chose to be. So I think they should be allowed their choice. I feel the same way about Kurdistan; they never had their choice, so it is still out there waiting to be claimed.
Scotland should be allowed to choose again and again, because the system that they chose to be a part of allows them to review their decision. Americans can make this decision again too, but it requires a Constitutional Amendment. If you have the votes, you can secede legally, but without the votes you can't claim to have a stronger determination of the will of the People than was exercised in forming the Union in the first place.
It always requires a contextual analysis.
Also 3/5s of male slaves counted towards apportionment. That means the south had more members of congress that way than if they only counted free citizens of those states. This gave them a lot more clout which lead to several decades of stalemate about the slavery issue. When the south started losing this political tug of war they decided "screw this!" and seceded.
I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
Yes and no. I'm obviously against slavery and I'm glad the North intervened to stop slavery.
The Union did not intervene "to stop slavery." The USA Civil War began when Jefferson Davis commanded P.G.T. Beauregard to fire upon Fort Sumter, a Federal fort belonging to the Union. Abraham Lincoln responded by rallying troops to preserve the Union and to take back forts which were seized illegally.
This is not a minor point. Revisionist history has frequently claimed that the Civil War was the "war of Northern aggression," when in fact it was the opposite. Likewise, even though Lincoln was against slavery, he did not set out to actively end slavery in the South.
The parallel in Spain today would be if Catalonia begins to seize Spanish military or government assets. How would Spain respond?
Yes and no. I'm obviously against slavery and I'm glad the North intervened to stop slavery. With that said, yes, the South had the right to declare independence. It is probably turned out better for both the North and the South long term that the North won, but, yes, South had right to secede, even if they did it for an utterly despicable reason.
Couldn't agree more. Also I have the "right" to do whatever I want because I said so. You all are my slaves. Make me a sandwich.
It was legitimate enough throughout the history of the southern states in the Union so I can't imagine why that would be a valid argument against secession.
The Catalonian government has shown that they do not care so much about the rule of law, so they would not be let into the EU in the mid term future. There is simply no trust for it, not from any other member state.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
The south seceded and also took US property with them; shots weren't fired until the south attacked and took Fort Sumter.
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
Did the US take a vote in the entire British empire before seceding? Fact of the matter is that the US couldn't be the nation it is without both being the rebellious region and quelling a rebellious region. Nation-building is also a wonderfully asymmetric process, if Catalonia was a sovereign state would you force it to merge with Spain, because a majority in the united territories wanted it? Hell no. But if you want to leave, you can't.
The "consent of the governed" is a funny concept that lead to extreme results whether you think power flows upwards or downwards. Do the people in Washington DC delegate power to the states and counties, or do the counties and states grant power upwards? If it's the latter, they should at every level be able to withdraw their support. In fact, in the extreme *you* should be able to withdraw your support to be one of the "governed" and be the literal king of your castle. I doubt the FBI or the army agrees.
In the other extreme where you say no, California can't just leave without the rest of the US having a say you're tumbling down the hill towards a world government where you can't just hog Earth's resources just because they're where you live, pollute the whole world and so on. I think it's natural to separate those two points, did the Confederacy have a right to secede? And if an independent nation wanted to re-introduce slavery, should other nations intercede on the population's behalf?
If you condition the former on the latter, you're basically saying "you can have your independence if I like what you plan to do with it" which is a bit like saying you can have free speech if I like what you say. Either you support people's right to unilaterally secede for better or for worse or you think it's a collective decision that should be made by the whole. It's not a particularly complicated principle, even though the results get pretty complicated in practice.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Small European countries seems to prove you wrong. There isn't that much economies of scale when a country get larger than a few millions. And the added bureaucracy offset any gain.
Scandinavian countries are doing just fine with low population. Even smaller countries such as Luxembourg are doing fine, but we could argue it's only artificial since they are stealing companies from their neighbors.
I agree that they should try to join the EU however, and they want it. Spain will obviously oppose, if it ever gets there.
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
So to be clear you think the US was wrong to declare independence from the UK? Each situation is different and if we look at historical situations where this has happened nobody will think that those declaring independence were always wrong or always right: the context matters.
They knew proper process
What proper process? They tried to talk with Spain for years to organize a referendum that both sides would be happy with. Spain always refused.
There is no way out. The "proper process" you talk about is to ask Spain to agree with Catalonia to leave. With that logic, we should bring back the USA into the UK and ask the UK if it's ok for the USA to leave.
Step 0: let the country develop your region for the benefit of every citizen.
Step 1: when you're satisfied with what has been done for you, start unrest (populism 101)
Step 2: declare independence so your resources stays with you and cannot be used to develop other regions.
By the way, most of street wants to secede too, as we don't want to pay for all the plebe around us.
Yes, the right of self-determination is a basic human right. When a geopolitical group wants to have their own government, why shouldn't they? I find it obtuse at best when I hear things like "it's illegal" or "Spain's constitution doesn't allow it". That's not how this works. Pretty sure England's government didn't allow us to succeed and that it was "illegal". It comes down to willpower and then eventually force of arms if needed. What's "legal" or "right" doesn't really enter into it all that much.
the Catalan leaders must be changed criminally
Why am I not surprised that Spain doesn't understand that A Clockwork Orange was a dystopia?
Whatever power that supports Catalonia could do the heavy lifting, if that power is not EU..
I hear this economic statement a lot, but my understanding is Catalonia is 20% of the population and 25% of the economy. It's not the end all of Spain if that separates? They still likely have a lot of commerce together even if separate... But yes, Spain as a whole is broke, and so is Catalonia to a large extent too.
If the EU canâ(TM)t fix it, which in the cases of Greece and Turkey were both argued as reasons to include them even though they didnâ(TM)t have the prerequisite economy and freedoms respectively required of other states, then it can only make them worse.
Catalonia has a decent enough economy if it werenâ(TM)t for the Spanish and EU burden. They have some pretty exclusive products like the majority of Southern EU that are legally entrenched (eg you canâ(TM)t sell Bordeaux or Champagne in Europe if they didnâ(TM)t originate from the region).
It also has the largest percentage of all foreign (non-EU) companies in Spain compared to any other Spanish regions.
They could be another Luxembourg or Monaco, only bigger and with lots of sheep and goat.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Greece was taking out stupendous loans, on top of fudging their books. They landed in a mess of their own making.
Catalonia would get into the EU easily. They are already in so it would be more hassle to come out than to simply continue. Also, there will be huge pressure on Spain because the EU doesn't want a random hole of independence in the middle.
Spain will likely get something out of it, but won't be able to block it for long.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Catalonia is to Spain and the EU as Luxembourg is to the BENELUX. They have a great deal of foreign commerce due to favorable business laws. If they go, then itâ(TM)s bad news bears for the entire EU since theyâ(TM)ve already lost Britain.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Portugal exists, which destroys your argument.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning at all on this one. This almost sounds like the kind of thing one would normally follow up with the cheeky "checkmate atheists!" remark.
Another option would be to have a war first, and then for Spain to stay in the EU, and also agree to welcome Catalonia.
That seemingly requires Catalonia to win the war, which is quite unlikely to happen if it came to open war, which itself is unlikely.
What was it about then?
Same as always. Power (facilitated by money, facilitated in large part for the South by slavery).
Bible thumper.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Spain won't create a hard border with Catalonia. It would screw them just as much - jobs, financial services etc. based out of Catalonia that Spain relies on.
Same reason they ultimately won't close the border permanently with Gibraltar. Spain will use it as leverage, but no more.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
ooooooooooooooooooooooh sick burn
In context though, slaves were not kept nor the war created for the sake of slavery.
Slavery was already on its way out due to automation and industrialization.
Slavery was to them as the AI and H1B fears are to us, itâ(TM)s a great rally cry but the reasons behind it are expressed in money and economy. If the north had offered to replace slaves by subsidizing the machines that allowed the north to go without, the war may never have been.
Additionally, the war was in the Southâ(TM)s favor, they had a better military and a more stable economy, yes, due to slavery.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I'm going to assume you're just a troll, but the Puerto Rican government has not historically been Republican: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Puerto_Rico#Governors_under_the_Constitution_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Puerto_Rico. The legislation hasn't been quite as one-sided, but the PPD (closest analog to the Democrats in mainland U.S. politics) has had more control historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Puerto_Rico#After_the_constitution.
That seemingly requires Catalonia to win the war, which is quite unlikely to happen if it came to open war, which itself is unlikely.
That being the situation where Spain's position would have changed, that is naturally the requirement for the EU's position to change since it is based on nothing other than the status quo.
It hardly seems worth the effort to do an analysis of Spain agreeing to Catalonia seceding after winning the war! Seems to me to be obvious that if they were willing to go war over it, they'd feel strongly enough that they'd insist on getting their way after also winning. But European civics sometimes produce surprising results.
That doesn't really work, either, because they either don't live there, or have been completely ethnically assimilated by the invaders for centuries. Either way, no grievance.
Lynch mob?
Apart from the fact that they were a nation of their own once, have a separate cultural identity and language that was suppressed via fascist dictatorship, your correct, it's just a group of rich people gathering together to screw the poor.
Portugal is a bad example since it's been independent for centuries. The Czech-Slovak split is probably more to the point.
You do have to put it in context though. Slaves were sub-human machines to most of the US (both North and South) back then.
Take away the slaves is like taking away the H1Bs from a tech company or machines from a factory, itâ(TM)s not about the concept of slavery but the money and economy it represents.
It can be hard to conceptualize but the facts of those days were a bit different than our interpretation of it. To the south, the end of slavery meant the end of cheap labor and they feared the majority of their labor force migrating north to work in the factories.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It's worse than that: San Diego and LA would vote to secede, and the right-leaning farmers in the countryside would vote to stay. California wouldn't leave; a portion of it would. There is precedent for this: West Virginia didn't want to secede with Virginia, so DC made a state of it and significantly altered the balance of power in the senate.
What "powers" support Catalonia? Answer: none, or none significant enough to help. No nation state wants it's wealthy regions succeeding. And no nation state is going to support Catalonia because that legitimizes the action.
The South had feeble military industrial capacity and a weak Navy. That's how they lost the war.
This is main point about the independence of Catalonia, mixed with a lot of selfishness, believe of being better than others, and outdated nationalism.
Are they even trying to be a tax haven?
The last thing Europe wants is more tax havens. Would be good for them though.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
But if your ancestors made that choice and the political unit you're a part of was joined willingly by the community, and is largely intact, then your community has the right of self-determination because you already made that determination.
Not you, your ancestors. That is a critical distinction. You did not make that determination, someone else did. There are limits to the degree to which parents can consent on behalf of their children. In general, a parent's prior consent counts for very little once the children enter adulthood.
At any rate, even if one did personally consent to join, remaining a member of a community is an ongoing process. If you personally joined of your own free will there may be obligations and responsibilities related to your time in the community which you cannot simply abandon, but you nonetheless retain the right to leave; and the others who remain in the community have no claim on you for choices made and actions undertaken after you've left.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
South had no legal rights, same in Spain. Human rights... they have those... South: despite the incredible irony... but with the slaves getting those rights too (to avoid contradiction, using the same rights argument) would they have had enough votes to leave? Probably.
It is all about JOBS. People will kill for jobs.... their "way of life" is often heavily linked to the jobs. Losing psychologically has more impact than gaining, so LOSING jobs and the lifestyle and security that affords is MOST IMPORTANT. It comes BEFORE their religion (especially when Jesus is such an extreme socialist and anti-capitalist it boggles the mind how much mass cognitive dissonance goes on in this area. think about it.)
It really was about slaves... because their whole economy was based upon the need for slave labor; it supported their jobs and their way of life. The NEED to believe that slavery was proper had to be part of the culture and unquestioned since their economics revolved around it. It's a vicious cycle. Sure academics can say it wasn't about slavery; but it literally was about slavery - all the rest is just background analysis... like explaining what makes a serial killer. YOU will kill to defend your life and your family's life... it doesn't take much to extend that primal drive and that is the true nature of evil; the stuff that makes the good do bad (for good, often righteous reasons.)
Letting them split to avoid a war... which THEY STARTED being the inbred fools they were was the best option. I don't know if Lincoln might have allowed that but they forced a fight. The real way to fight is economically. Economics drove their motives and beliefs. One could have invested less money into technology and made the cotton gin come out faster... hell, give them away free to the south. One could have planned an attack and won the war in months by doing what Lincoln did win the war with: banking. Lincoln won by burning up all the South's money. literally! The north used GOLD. The south used cotton instead!!! Lincoln burned it.
Spain: they are officially separatists now. If they attack Spain then they are traitors, just like our southern traitors. Hard to avoid being traitors in that situation especially when it is easy to throw that label around. Sedition laws are almost entirely against human rights; we have them in the USA.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In context though, slaves were not kept nor the war created for the sake of slavery.
Perhaps you should mention this to the confederacy. They seem pretty sure the right to keep slaves was worth seceding and fighting a war over.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
There's more to Spain than that. The Basque nation and Madrid also have high density industrial facilities and healthy economies.
Perhaps it is an excellent example of my point and was selected precisely because it's been independent for centuries?
Often when we want to correct other people's statements it just means we didn't understand them. ;)
Right, right, you're just all caught up in "ME ME ME ME ME" even though "self determination" is not "personal determination," it is already talking about a group. So, no.
It took a war for Portugal to become independent again. With support from foreign military powers. Are you ready for that?
LA to SF west of the coast range would go. San Diego is a tossup. Where the line would fall on the north coast is another question. Marin would go for sure.
The USA would keep the currently useless ports of West Sac and Stockton, ruining CA's plan of taxing commerce to the USA.
You can also bet the USA would keep its military bases in 'new CA'. Also water...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
News flash, it was never about slavery.
It wasn't about slavery on the Northern side, no. But the motivation to secede absolutely was all about slavery on the Southern side.
Oh, the proximate causes were a couple of generations of increasing tension and disagreement with the North, but the root of nearly all of that tension was slavery, especially the ongoing efforts of the North to ensure that new states entering the union were not slave states, thus gradually eroding the power of the slaveholding bloc. The final straw was the election in 1860 of Abraham Lincoln and the associated rise of the Republican party, which was founded as an anti-slavery party (not necessarily an abolition party, since a lot of the party was Free Soiler, rather than abolitionist). That made it clear that the slaveholding states were on the path to being a permanent and decreasing minority in both houses, and that eventually the abolitionists would be powerful enough to abolish slavery.
The South's economy and culture were built on and around the institution of slavery, so accepting the big political change was tantamount to accepting the eventual elimination of slavery and the concomitant destruction of Southern economy and culture. They also realized that the North was becoming more populous and more economically powerful than the South (which hadn't been true for most of the history of the United States up to that point!) and that that trend was going to continue and even accelerate. So, if they were going to secede before slavery was abolished and their slave-based way of life destroyed, they had better do it right away while they still had a prayer of being able to make it stick.
Of course, all they ultimately succeeded in doing was accelerating the destruction of their economy and culture, and getting a lot of people killed. And for that matter, the Northern abolitionists didn't really succeed at ending slavery, either. That would take most of another century (though some would argue it's still not done, though I think that's stretching the definition of "slavery" beyond the breaking point).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Catalonia is the richest region in Spain.
One of the reasons why they want to separate.
So your points are moot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
pretty exclusive products like the majority of Southern EU that are legally entrenched (eg you canÃ(TM)t sell Bordeaux or Champagne in Europe if they didnÃ(TM)t originate from the region).
You lost mee somehow. How would that change if Catalonia separates from Spain (considering that Bordeax and La Champagne are in France anyway)?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The most famous case of this was George Washington's household slave Ona Marie Judge.
Pennsylvania law allowed a slave to gain their freedom after six months of continuous residence. Learning of this nearly too late, Washington began moving his slaves in and out of the state to reset the clock.
Ona Judge eventually ran from the Washingtons when Martha decided to transfer her as a gift to her daughter. She spent her life in New Hampshire, where she died in poverty. The sister that Martha gifted in her place ironically did far better.
"self determination" is not "personal determination,"
And yet when it comes to enforcement, it is you, personally, and not some group, who will be on the receiving end of someone else's idea of "self-rule". So, no. They only way a group can consent to anything is if every single member of the group consents. If you don't have "personal determination" then you don't have "self determination".
Democracy is not inherently "good". It can easily devolve into "tyranny of the majority" and partisan politics. The 51% imposing their will on the 49% is not "self determination"; that's just the "power in numbers" version of "might makes right". To get self-determination you need not just the support of the majority, but also the consent of the minority. The way to get that consent is via compromise and consensus-building. It also helps to avoid extreme and/or polarizing proposals which are very good for some and very bad for others, or more generally treating a subset of your population primarily as a source of income to pay for others' benefits.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Do you know much about the history if Spain and Catalonia....Catalonia would be better off on it's own. Spain is pissing itself because all the money is in Catalonia.
Wow so voters are now a lynch mob.
Duely noted- you shall receive a demand for $100,000 as your share of the national debt; plus several million in legal work to separate our two countries. Expect to produce a visa when reentering the country, failure to do so will be seen as an invasion- we shall retaliate by taking your land and putting you in a military prison. Because we have no trade agreement with you- you shall pay a major tariff on any goods you move between our two nations.
All I care about in life is that you support my census block having voted unanimously to succeed from the country.
But if at some point Spain and Catalonia make a deal, then the EU would instantly welcome Catalonia.
Very unlikely. Approval for admission would have to be unanimous, and several other countries have their own issues with separatists. They would not want to set a precedent of easy admission.
There have been countless wars over Catalonia. Catalonia was always an autonomous region that got swept up into one country or another trying to control it. Study the history of Catalonia and Spain before you post your inane blather jackass.
That is your point of view.
However you could take the opposite point of view: Catalonia is already 'part of the EU'. And it does not matter if it is as a sovereign state or as a region of Spain. Considering that all legal documents in Europe get translated into Catalonian already, that it is surrounded by EU countries etc. would be a strong point.
Most of the Catalonians will have an EU driving license and perhaps an EU passport (noting the nation of Spain as issuer, of course)
Plus, the EU would have to recognize them as independent nation in order to consider their application in the first place. Why?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The Southern secession was clearly about slavery. The Civil War started due to Southern aggression. It was fought primarily over secession. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, but most of the Union didn't care that much about it. The Emancipation Proclamation was largely about establishing the Confederacy as pro-slavery and the Union as anti-slavery, which made it politically impossible for countries like Britain to intervene on the Confederate side.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Civil War was about states rights and slavery represented just one of those rights. The southern states wanted to limit the power of the federal government.
This is absolutely incorrect. During the 50 years of democratic hegemony prior to to 1860, they constantly used the power of the federal government to abrogate the rights of "free" states to refuse the recognition of, or the extradition of slaves in their respective states.
I repeat: the south was not upset at the powers of centralized government; they were throwing a hissy-fit because those powers no longer belonged to *them*.
There is NO provision in the constitution for secession, it's legally a one-way-trip to join the union and they had no legal right to declare independence. CGP Grey did an excellent explanation of how this pertained to Texas's recent exploration of the option https://www.youtube.com/watch?... while also commenting in passing on the confederate secession. "Could they succeed? Yes. Is it legal? NO!"
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
democracy == two wolves and a sheep deciding dinner.
What keeps citizens from voting away your rights (or anyone sufficiently unpopular)? Yes, voters are a mob and if there isn't any check or balance to the people they become a lynch mob or as GP said "it's legal if the people say it's legal". IOW, "it's legal to take away your rights if the people say it's legal".
Just because 'the people' say it's legal doesn't mean it is. There are limits to the peoples power just as there are limits to the governments power. At the very least there should be. That is one (of many) reason for representative government over direct democracy.
Note, I wasn't commenting on the voters of Catalonia but more on the generality of the OPs statement.
if how they handled stopping the referendum is what you call civil then we are in for a civil bloodbath
Leaders (even member States) are increasingly expected to be capable of restoring trust without spilling blood. I still don't trust they're able.
At the time of the US civil war, most of the modern western world had agreed that slavery was abhorrent. France and the UK had some leanings toward supporting the Confederates for various reasons, but backed off once the war became about slavery since they did not want to be seen as pro-slavery.
The form of slavery in the south was particularly brutal, it was hereditary, and it was chattel slavery (slaves not considered to be people but personal property), and this form was unlike most other historical forms of slavery. It was not just a "cheap labor" form of slavery or indentured servitude. If the south feared the loss of their brutalized free labor, then screw them!
It is nothing like taking away H1Bs or undocumented immigrants. Those workers are allowed to move around, you cannot kill or beat these workers, you cannot maim them to prevent them from running away, you cannot take their children away and sell them for a profit; it is legal to teach them how to read and write, they can improve their position in life, they can decide to take off and go back to a different country if they wish. Not so with civil war era slaves. If the south was basing their economy on the ground up bones of the innocent, then that economy deserved to utterly collapse.
There is no defense for such an economy. This is the shame of the Southern states. This is also the shame of the Northern states, both for their own earlier slavery, and their tacit acceptance of the slavery situation.
Catalonia's S&P rating is currently B+/B and S&P are talking about downgrading it. Spain's is BBB+/A-2, also potentially heading for a downgrade. But Catalonia is more broke than Spain.
Because A Clockwork Orange plays in the UK?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Portugal exists, which destroys your argument.
Yep you completely destroyed his argument by ignoring 2000 years of history. What a great debater you are.
Popular sovereignty was not an established principle when Portugal last became independent.Catalan independence is likely to be accepted internationally.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Well duh. They were paying the taxes Ireland wouldn't get from Apple.
Spain is a drag on the EU economy. Britain wasn't.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I get what you are saying BUT, what if those "people" you are talking about only count the land owners as people. And only people that own brandy distilleries are allowed to own land. Then your argument is just so much manure. Just the same way the South's was in the Civil War. Caution is the take-away here.
Definitely not true. Their situation is a direct result of manipulation by Goldman Sachs and membership of the EU, with all the financial surplus unbalance as a result.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
That's a nice trick. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Constitution was created September 17, 1787, ratified June 21, 1788, and became effective March 4, 1789
It can be well argued that the Declaration of Independence named rights that promoted the Revolution.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Gnignigni...
Americans and geography...
"Belgium, isn't that the capital of Holland?"
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The Constitution specifies the powers of the federal government, and the powers are explicitly limited to those specified. The power to prevent secession is not specified, nor is secession prohibited. Therefor secession is legal.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Slavery was the ultimate cause. Without slavery, not only would the Civil War never happened, but without slavery the idea that the war would have happened is preposterous. The proximate cause of secession was the election of Lincoln, the proximate cause of the war was firing on Fort Sumter.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The United States of America is a union of states. It says so in the name. When the government of a state secedes in accordance with its own laws, it's done. The vote of its populace is irrelevant unless the state law requires such a vote. You might as well claim that the South's secession was illegitimate because pre-teens and women didn't vote.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Years before the Civil War, there was an abortive attempt in the New England states to secede. Implicit in that attempt was a recognition of state's rights.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You probably should secede instead of succeed if you want those taxes to go away.
Belgium is another country in the process of splitting in two.
Stupid Flanders.
The USA allows dual citizenship in certain circumstances, and you would not automatically lose your citizenship by declaring your home an independent country.
The illegality of entering the United States from your country would come from not entering the US via a legal border crossing location. Maybe not even then; you could claim diplomatic immunity. It probably gets even messier than that, but we're building castles in the sky here.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Switzerland is one such "random hole."
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Catalonia is bordered by Spain, France, and the Mediterranean Sea.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
LMOL uh no Potsy. Goldman Sachs helped them big time.
That's downright silly. Goldman Sachs are no angels, but blaming them for the Greek crisis is similar to a bad craftsman blaming his tools. All Goldman Sachs did was enable multiple incompetent and dishonest Greek governments to screw all pooches they could get their paws on. It was not Goldman Sachs that was deciding Greek policy. It was consecutive Greek governments from all parties. They chose to cook the books, they enabled and enjoyed massive corruption, they stole and wasted money like it was going out of style. And it was the Greek people that cheerfully and repeatedly voted those characters in, because they liked the populist give-aways, and thought the rest of Europe has a duty to pay for their lifestyle. So, sorry, I'm not at all buying into the Greek victimhood narrative.
Greece had a golden opportunity to get loans at a very low interest rate, because lenders saw "Germany" on the EU credit card Greece was using. Had the Greeks had even a smidgen of vision, they'd have used this to invest, modernize their economy and infrastructure, increase their productivity. Instead, they wasted all the money on corruption, on give-aways, on the most inefficient and bloated public sector in the EU (jobs for the boys!), on the earliest retirement age in the EU, and so on. And when the brown and smelly hit the fan, what was the Greek reaction? Do you think any of them - politicians, or population, say "we fucked up, we need to fix it somehow"? No, they hurled insults at the EU and Germany, they demonstrated in the streets, they ran referendums trying to blackmail Europe into keeping paying for their undeservedly high quality of life. And I still don't see concerted effort to fix the problems - even now, five years or more after the beginning of the issues, Greece is still almost at the bottom of the EU countries in the Corruption Perception Index published by Transparency International; only Bulgaria scores worse.
The EU had no interest in helping Greece.
First, that's bull. The EU went overboard in helping Greece - they got hundreds of billions in bailouts and bank recapitalization, creditors were forced to accept "haircuts", and so on. Second, why would the EU prioritize Greece for help? If it's about helping the quality of life of the population, there are many other countries in the EU that make do with much less money than Greece. For example, the average Bulgarian's annual income is only about one third of the average Greek's. If anybody has a claim on European help, it's the poorest countries, not Greece.
You would do well to look at the restrictions placed on people in the American colonies leading up to the Revolutionary War. Britain was dedicated to the principle of keeping the colonies economically crippled and subservient. That principle acted to the substantial disadvantage of both the colonies and Britain, excepting only certain favored organizations such as the (British) East India Company.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There are 2 ways this might go: 1-The Spanish army moves in and brutally suppresses any dissent. The Catalons get upset over this, and you get a long running uprising (think IRA). 2-The Spanish government says the Catalons didn't get a fair vote because making the vote illegal prevented anyone opposed to independence from voting, so they offer a fair vote with international supervision to guarantee a fair vote combined with a huge add campaign to convince the Catalons to vote no. Combined with ongoing negotiations with the Catalon government to set conditions of independence if they win. And hope the Catalons discover things about independence sufficient to spike the vote to no.
Ramifications for the Mobile World Conference, held every February in Barcelona - the valley's biggest Mediterranean junket?
The American civil war started over states rights. The federal government wanted a strong federal government and weak state governments, where the south wanted the opposite. Slavery only became an issue (after the war started) because the feds (north) wanted to block European countries from supporting the south, and claiming the war was about slavery achieved that.
How, precisely, do you propose to diffuse income over everywhere? Rivers and coasts have been the rich places throughout human history. Getting a UBI to keep the poor afloat is hard enough, without some cockamamie scheme to demand that the Smythe-Worthingtons live in whatever empty place on top of that.
Perhaps offer tax incentives to companies based on their geographical spread. Being packed into one campus like Google would be the most heavily taxed scenario, and being spread thinly everywhere would be ideal and offer the greatest tax advantage. I'm not asking wealthy people to move to the boonies, I'm asking companies to offer employment in the boonies so that there might be more wealthy people there and less where all the other wealthy people are. Otherwise you get the runaway positive feedback loop that's turned San Francisco into what it is today.
You yourself note the presence of a significant poor population in California itself. Maybe the secessionists are more worked up about rural theocrats using their greater voting power to impose draconian bullshit? Marijuana would have been legal decades ago if it wasn't for the effort to make being a hippie a criminal offense.
I could buy that if the calls for secession were coming from the hippies instead of the hipsters. I haven't seen nearly as much talk about marijuana legalization surrounding the Calexit debate as talk of immigration & labor policy and tech regulation. The spokesmen for it aren't exactly a bunch of free-spirited longhairs either.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Except Spain will absolutely try to block that, and several other countries will support them for fear of lending support to independence movements in their own countries.
It's a great theory, but in practice I bet they wouldn't be successful.
I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them (if decided by fair and free referendum).
Does that position also applies to Crimea and Donbass?
There is no way they will be better off without the protection of Spain and the European Union.
They need protection FROM Spain, and the EU isn't helping.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't. Explain.
You are joking right?
I guess if your wife wants a divorce you will tell her that she can't unless you both agree?
The South started the war, dumbass. And at the time, only property owners were allowed to vote - it's not like the majority of renters, slaves and women voted to leave the Union. Dumbass.
Even smaller than that, native american's have autonomous governments even in a small subset of the jurisdiction population, but draw along ethnic bounds and they become a majority. All depends on where you draw the lines.
It also specifies that the Federal government only has the right to govern interstate commerce, yet the FDA can prevent a drug manufacturer in a state from producing and selling only within that state. And the DEA can legally bust a farm that grew pot EVEN IN STATES WHERE POT IS LEGAL, and only for personal use (i.e. doesn't cross state lines). Unfortunately there's this thing called the "Necessary and proper" clause that since Andrew Jackson has been interpreted to mean the federal government can do whatever the fuck it wants.
Of course the Constitution could be changed pretty quick (either way) if a super majority of States decided to.
Personally (and my countries Supreme Court agrees) I think succession is a constitutional level change and should not be decided by 50%+1, but rather a clear super majority (we can argue what super-majority). It's not a decision to take lightly and easily reverse in 4 or so years with another election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It's like a divorce. No one says divorce shouldn't be allowed, but they still get messy. How do the assets get split? What about the debt? Dependents like the natives who signed treaties with the Federal government?
America is weird too as many (most?) of the States were formed from Federal territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
And when today it is 50%+1 with tomorrow being 50%-1? Or like America where they had to chase a good chunk of the population from the colonies to even get close to a majority?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I see, that can also get into protection rackets, loan shanking and gambling, oh and drugs
Sounds like an organized crime not a country thou
Great dream of a united Europe? Please. Germany wanted Greece to be able to pay for the submarines they bought from them. Why do you think the whole "austerity" package cut payments for everything from domestic development to retirement money, but oddly expenses for unnecessary war material (seriously, who needs submarines when they are effin' broke?) had to be served?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As a EU member, I wonder if it's possible to kick someone out of the club...
Could we trade them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Catalonia is only "more broke" because S&P doesn't expect the EU to pick up their tab.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nobody puts tariffs on exports, you dofus.
Switzerland has some common market membership and crucially freedom of movement. There is no hard border, you can just walk/drive in, no passport needed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The ONLY one who decides what country he belongs to, in that person HERSELF.
So a statement like that requires a sex change? Well, I guess at least it would show dedication.
Ezekiel 23:20
They actually had a vote about it a few years ago and a huge majourity (of both ethnic groups) was against a split.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Existing EU member states can veto membership proposals for new countries, so there's no chance Catalonia would get in unless Spain withdrew.
Not necessarily. Catalonia produces about 20% of Spain's total GDP. Spain can certainly send military police or even its army to try and take over the Catalan government, but Catalonia can also fight back by not taking responsibility for its share of the Spanish debt (currently at a bit over 100% of Spain's GDP). This would cause the Spanish economy to collapse if it actually happened.
Spain has options, but almost everything they do will meet a lot of resistance from the Catalan population. Remember that this isn't just a couple guys in government declaring independence: about half of the Catalans voted for it (probably more, but we won't know for sure because Spain didn't allow for a proper vote). Hostility from Spain will most likely result in another general strike in Catalonia such as the one we saw on October 3rd protesting against police brutality during the October 1st referendum.
The next few days will be critical. I don't really know what's going to happen, but I really hope things don't become violent. So far all the Catalan actions have been peaceful, unlike the response we're seeing not just from the Spanish government, but also from some ultra-right-wing, pro-Spain groups in Catalonia.
For the record, I'm Catalan and pro-independence. My views can be biased (they probably are), so take everything I say with a grain of salt and verify by yourself everything you read/hear. There's a lot of manipulation on both sides.
My site
This is a misrepresentation of what the parent said. Slaves are not an end, slaves are a means. The confederacy had a culture and lifestyle which was dependent on slavery to exist, but which was not about slavery.
They did feel that keeping slaves, and thus preserving their lifestyle, were worth seceding over, but this certainly does not mean that the war or the slaves existed for the sake of slavery.
Replying to myself (because I don't like misleading statistics):
That said, the parent's claim that "Slavery was already on its way out due to automation and industrialization." is false. Slavery, in number of slaves, was at its peak just prior to the civil war. In percentage of total population slavery had been declining over time, but this was due to large numbers of European immigrants, not due to any decline in slavery.
but this certainly does not mean that the war or the slaves existed for the sake of slavery.
If that's the case, they should have been a little more verbose with their original declaration, no?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Obvious FlyOverLander is obvious.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Bleh, it's already annoyingly verbose. I'm not sure what you're expecting them to add though: "We're doing this because you won't let us have slaves. But having slaves isn't the point, of course, it's all of the money that we make from slaves that we really want. But you're not letting us have that, because you're not letting us have slaves. So we're seceding. Not because we really want slaves, you understand, but because we really want money. And it's not really the money either - it's all of the things that you can buy with money. And it's not really the things either - it's the happiness that we feel from owning things. Let's make that clear so that in the future Captain Splendid won't misunderstand what we're saying here."
I'm not sure what you're expecting them to add though
I'm not, but you appear to want it to say more than it does.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Virtually the entire planet is becoming "flyover country" at this rate. BTW, you know that term was made up by an American right-wing think tank as a strawman putdown with which to villainize leftists, right?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I want nothing. It says that they're seceding because of the slave thing. This does not mean that slavery is the objective. Is that clear? I don't know how I can say this any other way: slavery is not a goal, it is a means.
I don't live in any of those places so I don't need to be "ready" for any of it.
If you ever find a history book or encyclopedia, you can discover that Portugal exists next door to Spain without being part of Spain. They're even smaller, and have a related language.
The difference between Portugal and Catalonia so far is that Catalonia has never gone to the field to fight for their independence. Events are spiraling out of control, it is a very uncertain time.
If one person can't get out on its own, then it's a prison, not a marriage.
There are certain economies of scale a country of Catalonia won't have on their side. It will be a lot more expensive to be independent.
There are pluses and minuses. What we know is that at some point the benefits of scale get eaten by the costs of complexity. So there's no right or wrong answer, but Catalonia is similar is size and population to Belgium which is doing better economically than Spain.
they had a better military and a more stable economy, yes, due to slavery.
Sweet. So all we need to make life better is more slaves? As long as you're not the slave, but how do we decide?
All members of my census block have voted unanimously to succeed from the country and immediately cease any and all tax payments to local and national taxing authorities.
Thanks for your support.
Right, so where you getting your water and electricity from?
For reasons like this I doubt your claim that you could get anyone outside your parent's basement to sign your petition.
It says that they're seceding because of the slave thing. This does not mean that slavery is the objective
Truly some fantastic mind-reading powers you have there.
slavery is not a goal, it is a means.
That makes it so much better.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
we pretty much established, via a long and bloody civil war, that unilateral secession is not in fact legal.
all law is essentially conflict resolution.
war is the ultimate conflict and resolution.
its essentially the highest form of legal precedent.
non-unilateral secession however stands a chance of passing muster.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.