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 don’t think there is in the people either.
I misinterpreted something. I thought Zafar was talking about 80% (75% for me) approval on a secession referendum, not turnout. I am not a fan of high turnout elections, which seem to coincide with the existing or impending tyranny.
Zafar, what’s the turnout in a typical Australian election? I understand that voting’s mandatory.
Allow me to repeat at louder volume, since everyone seems to have missed it the first time:
The Loyalists Boycotted the Vote
So, yeah -I think it is quite reasonable to assume that this is pretty close to ceiling of support for Catalan independence.
Probably true.
In terms of language and culture, the Basques have an even better case for independence than the Catalans. Yet I feel like I haven’t heard anything about them at all in recent years. I wonder what their take is on the situation; they have to be watching closely.
Stephen Maturin lives!
Over 90%
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/election-2016-voter-turnout-lowest-since-compulsory-voting-began-in-1925-20160808-gqnij2.html
God bless Texas.
We call those troops the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Not to be harsh, but this is a just wrong. We all know that loyalists did not vote either at all or at least in very small numbers which is why there was 90% of votes in favor of leaving. However, @dlorentz math is not wrong.
First off, the math that says that 38% or so were actually able to vote to leave seems correct to me. Thus, we have a baseline of support for leaving.
Second, police involvement likely stopped both loyalists and secessionists from voting.
Third, it is fair to say that 38% of eligible voters is a majority of votes until turnout exceeds 76%.
Thus, the question isn’t whether there is a majority support for leaving, there is. The question is how much of the population would have to vote in order to make the vote significant. Do you need 100% turnout? Can you be sure only when 50% or 75% of total eligible voters vote to leave.
I think there is a good argument that to make such a large decision you would need a super-majority, anywhere from 60-75% of either a significant turnout or eligible votes.
It is true that they don’t have that this time. However, even if the loyalists boycotted, the police getting involved also significantly affected the leave votes as well.
Thus, to really make a decision, they would need a legitimate vote. However, if Spain won’t let them, then that alone is a problem.
Yeah Buddy! Come and take it, but you’d better bring your best or it ain’t happening!
First off, states can leave legally by votes in congress and/or state convention, I forget which. So, yes, states can leave, it is just really difficult under current law.
This brings me to point number two. Since states can leave, they must be able to argue for leaving. Arguing for leaving the union is not a traitorous act if done right. That is why I have a problem with Spain’s response to this vote. The vote should have been allowed in order to maintain the legitimacy of the government.
Back to the US. I recognize that we(USA) have decided that secession is “illegal”. However, this calls into question social contract theory. I would argue that when I cannot leave a social contract by my own/groups preference but instead must rely on other who are inherently not looking out for my best interest, then the idea that I “agree” to the social contract is very weak and looses much of the moral authority that it otherwise would have. After all, how can my great grandfather agree on my behalf that I am not permitted to leave?
Therefore, I think that secession must be something of a right. At least the ability to desire to leave must be protected.
Also, I think the lack of the ability to secede creates bad incentives. If Catalonia can’t succeed but the rest of Spain can still drain it of resources via unequal taxation and spending policy, then the system itself encourages the tyranny of the majority.
Since we have supremacy of the federal government, we must also have the ability for the states to back out if the system stops being regulated fairly. Otherwise, there is little incentive for a majority to not unfairly treat the minority.
Thus, from a practical standpoint, I think a right to secession may create a better system via improved incentives to treat all parties fairly.
Thanks for the info.
One of the organizations that assesses elections for how free and fair they are (I forget which) takes off points for countries that have compulsory voting. This may not apply to Australia but compulsory voting and turnout in excess of 80% is usually connected with despotic regimes. The reasons are self-evident.
It’s not quite analogous, but note that Brexit only required a simple majority, and a pretty slim one at that.
It’s a little odd that the departure of Vermont from the Union in order to form a socialist state is being exampled.
How many restrictions are there on creating a leftist dystopia in the US really? States are free to hike minimum wage rates, impose labor and environmental regs, spike income, corporate and property taxes to the stratosphere, and create vast public K-24 educational systems and mandate single payer.
In short, states are fully free to add to the liberty killing policies of Washington, often with generous tax subsidies and rarely with any federal court pushback.
States are restrained and forbidden from creating free markets in healthcare, agriculture, energy, communication and education, and always subject to federal court harpies.
It’s telling that 9% of Australians would rather pay $20 than vote. Just imagine how many wouldn’t vote if it were free.
The same proportion that would cheat on their taxes or avoid paying child support that they owed?
Britain was leaving a supranational organization and asserting its rights as a nation. Britain has the infrastructure (government, military, diplomatic relations, etc) needed to survive without the EU.
Catalonia would be creating an entirely new nation where there was none before. They would have to form a new government, gain recognition from other states (some of whom might be wary of annoying Spain,) raise at least a capable self defense force…. In short, Catalonian secession would be much more disruptive than any British Remainers’ worst nightmares.
Yes, brexit was a revocation of a treaty, not forming a new nation. Also, the treaty explicitly gives the right to withdraw as well as specifically mandating an affirmative vote to join. I think it also required new votes to increase the EU’s power each time a new treaty was made right?
Secession is different. It is unilaterally breaking an old (super majority formed hopefully) social contract and making another. If you did not have large majority then the moral case for change becomes weak since the people who vote no would be having their rights violated on a very slim margin. Only when the moral weight of not changing is greater than the weight of staying the same. Changing necessarily has large costs to people who don’t want to change, having to move to stay in their original country for example. However, staying in the original nation has little cost as the people that want to leave still can if moving is worth while and there is less chaos involved. So, remaining has a much lower moral cost to it, so much so that a super majority is required a least.
Totally different in any case. In fact, I might argue that forming a nation or changing the fundamental rules under-which the nation runs (constitutional amendment) is one of the only cases where super-majorities are morally required, and should also always be required in such cases.
I think we’d all appreciate some more info on this…
I’d say “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya”.
What kind of a union do we have if it is maintained under threat of violence? In legal terms we would call that duress and thus declare whatever legal transaction made under such circumstances void. If we have answered the secession question once and for all in the 1860s, then ours is not a Union by any stretch of the imagination. It is a coerced centralization of authority and a revolution against the founding principles of this country. Conservatives must choose then, a Union predicated on the liberty to self-rule if union is no longer desired or authoritarianism where no such pretense of self-rule exists. Since becoming aware of the Liberty Movement in the past couple of years, I am inclined to think that Conservatives have made their choice and have sought to rationalize that choice by saying “it is decided” or there is no moral authority unless everybody agrees. These are false rationalizations of denying the simple answer which is liberty is our absolute aim and sometimes we have to allow liberty for those with whom we disagree. But in the need to be morally superior Conservatives have chosen the immoral path of authoritarianism.
Free Tibet! Free Ukraine! Free Catalonia! And Free Vermont!
The war would end up being a local civil war, no feds need be involved. You think the Central valley in California will want to go be part of the Coastal Socialist Utopia under Comrade Brown ?
It’s just the added anxiety and tension. The Barcelona terrorist attack happened a week after our student arrived. Now there’s all this political turmoil in her home country.
We’re not particularly worried about her family in Seville. We are waiting for the next shoe to drop, though.
This statement is not quite right. As I mentioned previously, the Catalans have not always been part of Spain. As part of the Crown of Aragon, Catalonia was one of several kingdoms confederated under one king, not the king of Spain. They have a distinct history and language. In this sense, there are parallels with the EU.
Furthermore, I wrote that it wasn’t quite analogous. You read that part, right? Perhaps a more useful analogy is Yugoslavia. All the things you mentioned applied to Yugoslav successor states:
I’m not saying it would be pretty. But it is doable. It’s been done.
So… The South will rise again? :)
Just trying to follow your logic….
A state should have the right to secede or the social contract is worthless?
But when a majority of individuals in a state does not want to secede, it is okay for the minority to coerce the majority to secede anyway?
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
You like the result of the American Revolution, so it does not matter to you that the minority of Americans were patriots. (Indeed, when looking across the colonies, this number was less than 50%.) Many Loyalists were forced to either accept a new power construct or get out.
So it seems you are arguing that a motivated minority can rip up the social contract for a larger group of people at any time, yet if American states are kept in perpetual union, Americans are suffering under a form of tyranny?
I am also happy that our country became what it is. I am part of the DAR! But I recognize this reasoning is… well… not about individual liberty. Or stability. And these are two things I value as a conservative.
Kozak makes a good point here as well. If only a minority of Catalans want to leave Spain, there could be war within as well as violence from Madrid.
But I don’t think their 21st century context is really comparable to that of Americans in the 1700s either.
(I also think the leavers are the majority.)
You might extend how you are thinking about this a bit. At the time of the War for Independence, the so-called Loyalists in the colonies should not be thought of as Americans when contemplating Union because their loyalty was to the Crown and they fought for the Crown, so they would hardly be potential voters in a newly formed state. Most returned to Great Britain, went to Canada or to the American frontier. Many of those who stayed converted eventually to the Patriot view.