Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This Doesn’t Look Good
Almost a week ago, Catalonia held a referendum to separate from the Spanish state. Madrid declared this referendum illegal and sent police in to try to stop it by interfering with the voting and seizing ballots. There appears to be overwhelming support for independence. Unlike some other separatist movements (e.g., Scotland), this one is going to stick: maybe not right away but soon.
Regardless of the merits of the Catalan case, the optics here are terrible. Take it from an optical physicist.
.
Published in Politics
I cheer Vermont on.
Supposedly this was why Spain opposed Scottish independence, because it would set a precedent that Catalonia would take advantage of.
It just from wiki, but Catalan language and culture is not limited to Catalonia’s borders:
And Catalonia’s borders encompass more than Catalan language and culture:
So the results of a referendum where more people voted and fewer people boycotted might be different.
90% of a 42% turnout voted for independence – so about 38% of the total electorate.
That’s not really a majority – perhaps Madrid’s most rational response would be to turn 180 degrees and insist on a referendum with a turnoutof >80% for the outcome to be valid?
That seems reasonable (although I’d make the threshold 75%; three out of four is pretty decisive), but I doubt it will happen. It seems Madrid doesn’t believe a provision for a referendum on separation exists.
It’s always easier to counsel rationality from a distance – in the midst of things one tends to be swept up. But sheesh, what an unfortunate and completely avoidable thing:
Honestly, Constitutions should enable people’s liberty, not constrain it.
The reasoning here is deeply fallacious. First, it unrealistically assumes that all those who didn’t vote would have voted no. Second, it also assumes that somehow all the registered voters would ever turn out for any election. For the Brexit vote, which was reported as having high turnout, only 72% turned out. If the Catalan voter turnout had been 72% and all those who didn’t turn out had voted against (unreasonable), the result would still have been 53% in favor. That is a majority. More realistically, some who failed to turn out or were intimidated by police (cf. the video) or counting the ballots that were confiscated, the majority would have been higher than 53%.
Insisting on >80% turnout is a sneaky way of making sure that the referendum will never be valid since >80% turnout is rarely achieved, except in totalitarian states where elections are for show. However, such a requirement would certainly be consistent with the antidemocratic bureaucracies like the EU who can’t stand it when the people have the temerity to voice an opinion that does not comport with the views of the political class.
It seems to me that whether it was a strictly legal act doesn’t matter. The response will only make it worse.
It also brings up an interesting question about the moral authority of governments and whether secession should be a right. I have argued that since social contract theory seems to be the best source of government authority, when a group like Catalonia no longer thinks the social compact is worth it, they must be allowed to leave, morally speaking.
To those who bring up the civil war, my response is that even if secession is a right, the north had independent moral reasons to conquer the south. Of course, since the north allowed things like Jim Crow laws even after that I get a little skeptical about it.
However, it seems to me that Spain has no right to keep Catalonia if they really wish to leave. The people own the government, not vice versus. The land of Catalonia is only part of Spain because the people are as well.
As to the question of current US states seceding, I would argue that any state that truly believes that being part of the US is no longer a good deal should be allowed to leave. I would, however, agree that a simple majority isn’t enough. A strong majority is needed to be sure of the outcome. In fact, lets just use he same rule as our founding. Wasn’t that a 3/4 majority for our current constitution? Of course, just because California leaves the union doesn’t mean they get to take the people who don’t want to leave, they would have to be able to retain citizenship in the US and the USA would be able to retain ownership of things like military bases unless California payed for them. Other federal land would go with though. It also should be that the federal government shouldn’t invest so much in any one state that it would be unfair to the rest if they left. But that is just about having small government.
Good for them, if they want out that is fine by me. I am definitely not for going to war over it.
It doesn’t assume either way.
38% is not a majority.
There is no reason to assume that the people who didn’t turn out would vote in the same pattern as those who did – and in fact it’s arguable to believe that they wouldn’t. Independence supports campaiged for the referendum. Opposers argued that the referendum was illegal and invalid – ie don’t take part in it.
I don’t really follow your maths, but sure – however it still lacks the authority a higher turnout would have given it. Brexit is grudgingly accepted but not really respected by the Remainers. I don’t think they’ve totally given up hope of reversing that decision. Or escaping it, even. If turnout had been higher it would have more authority.
Perhaps.
Certainly if Catalonia consisted just of Catalans the Spanish State’s actions would have sealed their support for independence.
As it is, however, there are more people who have a vote in Catalonia than Catalans, and the non-Catalans may be less than ethused by possibility of living in a state which privileges (by definition) another language and culture.
Which is exactly what drives Catalonian nationalism, btw. It is not a matter of small government of free markets or different religions or what have you – it’s tribal.
Fair comment, but don’t you think that having no requirement for turnout to enact major changes like this gives undue weight to fringe opinions on either side (ie ‘the base’ that turns out to vote for Quebec Libre or whatever)? That doesn’t seem like a good thing either.
Liberty requires that we allow people to self-rule even when we disagree with how they shall rule themselves. If we are truly a Liberty minded people, then we must be willing to advocate for the liberty of those with whom we disagree, even socialists. Otherwise our professed fealty to Liberty and freedom ring hollow. This is why we should support seccession, nullification, decentralized general authority, and the private economy, i.e. trade amongst private individuals.
Secession?
Haha! I just woke up, sorry.
And all the street signs in Catalan notwithstanding, Barthelona is not heading anywhere Madrid doesn’t want it to go.
Would you have been more impressed with the authority of the vote if it had been 53% in favor on 72% turnout? The point is simply this: if 38% of the electorate voted for exit (your number), a total of 72% of the electorate had turned out, and all the others had voted against, then the final result would have been 38/72=53% in favor. Given that it is unlikely that the bolded statement is true, the actual result would have been more that 53% in favor.
So, you see, it is not necessary to hold the referendum again to obtain a majority result under very conservative assumptions. I can prove just using only mathematics and logic that a majority favor leaving for any turnout <76%. Since this is a political matter, and since many people are weak on math and logic, such arguments carry little weight. Nevertheless, based on this reasoning, I can confidently predict that any fair referendum with realistic turnout in the near future would give the leave result.
I think the political leadership in Madrid understand the math quite well. That is why they are afraid, very afraid.
@modecon, slavery was the cornerstone of the US Civil War–absolutely–but the truth is that the question of secession loomed much larger at the beginning.
In other words, Slavery was a horrible institution that would have been perpetuated by the Confederacy, but Lincoln did not make ending slavery within the South a war aim until long after the war had started.
My only point is that like all big historical events, that one is exceedingly complicated, but the big question on the table when armies first formed was, “Can states secede?” (There was no other moral element, even though the reason some wanted to secede was because of their desire to *expand* an immoral institution.)
Americans decided that question a long time ago *for Americans.* Whether right or wrong, states do not have the right to secede from our union. That included Vermont and California. And even though I wouldn’t give a fiddler’s fart if Vermont left and named Bernie king, we would go to war again over the secession of either Bernie bros or The Left Coast. They can’t leave. Ever.
Regardless, it seems to me the US Civil War– and concepts about American federalism–have wholly different contexts. So our past does not offer a useful guide for Spain, *especially* since I’m pretty sure if US States in 1860 had been told they could leave if just 80% of the citizens voted for leaving, South Carolina would have achieved that mark.
Furthermore, if South Carolina had been allowed to go peacefully, I’m not sure states like Virginia would have followed them out at all.
Who knows?
I hope that Catalonia and Spain figure out a way to move forward that does not erupt into something horrible. Interesting questions are on that table, but I don’t think Spain can afford to lose Catalonia, whatever the cost to keep her.
I just followed that link, which dates from 2014 btw: long before the Brexit vote. That piece is the most hilarious example of magical thinking I’ve read in quite a while. No, London will not be declaring its independence from Britain anytime soon.
More broadly, though, there are centrifugal forces at work in the world. The former Yugoslavia is now, what, like five countries now? Czechoslovakia is rent in twain. The Scottish question is settled for now but I can imagine it coming back in a few years if oil prices rise and post-Brexit. And let’s not forget all the states of the former Soviet Union.
There are more countries today than there were 30 years ago. The trend is up. Get used to it.
As I have said once before, a war cannot negate the right of a people to seek self-determination. If the people of California or Vermont desire to go a different direction independently, then that is their right. The ball would be in the general government’s court as to whether to allow a peaceful separation or to attempt “unity” through force–what an oxymoron in my eyes. The only question the Civil War answered in my estimation was the question of slavery. As a movement that “prides” itself on freedom to choose, “Conservatives” ought to be front and center in supporting any people of any state who contemplate going their own way, even if the direction they seek to go is not one with which we would agree. Freedom should not be predicated on whether we agree with what will be done with that freedom.
You are free and we will defend your liberty…so long as you do with that freedom what we want.
Signed: The Modern American “Conservative” Movement.
In fact during many of the former Soviet states’ secession from Mother Russia, many opponents to these movements were point to……you guessed it, Saint Abe, to make their arguments against it. I feel comfortable saying that the states are better off following the lead of the South than succumbing to the will of Saint Abe.
This is not the 19th century. There would be little stomach for a new civil war if Vermont, California, or whatever decided to get out. The reasons that are going to keep states in the Union are practical, at least in the short-to-intermediate term. I doubt you could get even 1/3 of any state to vote to leave. Probably more like 10%. They are just a very noisy minority.
What’s missing in the US is the tribal/cultural aspect. Language and culture separate the Quebecois, the Walloons, the Basques, the Scots, the Catalans, the half-dozen former Yugoslav parts. In the longer term, language/cultural divisions could cause problems in the US too, e.g., Mexican revanchism.
And the Basques hold the key. Basque country is virtually independent because of ETA and putting a stop to it. The Basques got 75 percent of what they wanted. Catalons can get the same if they are smart.
Unfortunately I think you are correct in your diagnosis. However, I think that is room to build a movement within states to rekindle the doctrine of nullification. Building on the marijuana movement and the pro-gun movement in states like Wyoming and Texas. There are numerous examples of states standing up to the general government, and I think that is something that we could nurture and build upon. Hence my support for Brown in California as it relates to civil immigration detainers.
I think this is closer to any actual reality existing in the US. We don’t have in any significant way the kinds of separatist attributes found historically or around the world today. What we do have is an individualist/collectivist, small/big, rural/urban, religious/secular divide that a better version of federalism and some innovative ideas to apply some distinctive treatment to large cosmopolitan population centers within existing states would yield a better political environment for Americans.
And it won’t.
Except that in this case the election was declared illegitimate by Madrid which means it is reasonable to assume that loyalists would be underrepresented among the electorate.
Consider the US Constitution’s provision on splitting states. Both parts have to consent.
@robertmcreynolds, when did I say that I personally believe states should not be allowed to secede? I’m very much a federalist. I’m not betraying any conservative ideology by noting the secession question was decided in the US. Our history has taken secession off the table forever hence, especially since you will never have such disparate cultures as those that existed in the 19th century again.
As you said, the question is never what people do with their independence–even if that’s to maintain peculiar institutions–but we have to consider if questions have been answered for any particular nation. That question *was* answered for us, and while Vermont would not at this point really want to leave our union, I do not think they could, even if they did want to leave. I wouldn’t care, but the federal government would not let them go.
As for Catalonia, that is a different place with a different history, different people, different context.
American history does not inform that situation.
That was my only point.
I didn’t say it was unreasonable to assume that loyalists be underrepresented. I wrote that it was unreasonable that every single person who did not vote is a loyalist, especially since there was intimidation by police (mentioned above).
Review the math. Even assuming that every single non-voter was a loyalist (still unreasonable), separation gets >50% (53% in the example above). If even 80% of non-voters are loyalists (hence 20% for leaving), it would be a strong majority for leaving: (0.38+0.2*0.34)=62% under the assumptions made in the quoted passage.
Edit: You understand that if loyalists and separatists had been equally represented among the non-voters the result would be 90% for separation, right? Even the most favorable assumptions about the loyalist fraction among non-voters still produce a majority for separation.
I’m with drlorentz on this. I don’t think there’s the stomach in the feds to fight another civil war.