Venice votes 89% to secede from Italy
bastiat.mises.org
bastiat.mises.org
Usually a person supports secession because of perceived oppression. "Part of my taxes on average might go to another area" doesn't seem to be a major reason, unless you believe that territory is somehow making your life worse.
Tried to understand what's going on and this looks more like some scammy online lottery cashing in on some diffuse dissenting and secessionist moods, getting overexposed by Russian foreign news channels than anything resembling a proper referendum.
It's nearly impossible to find some independent non-italian news-sources that not just reproduce the PR of the secessionists or RT "news".
[All following sources are Italian so google translate is your friend]
Found this video which seems to make fun of the foreign press thinking that good-who-knows-what happened in Italy (Like that guy who tries to sell the Trevi Fountain to some gullible American-Italian Tourist). [1]
This one is quite sceptic and seems to paint the picture of this just an embellished online poll, pompously relabeled as "referendum", run by a local businessmen, Gianluca Busato, with connections to some fringe secessionist parties. [2]
Even if this article written after the referendum ended strikes a different tone, the pictures and the crowd look quite orchestrated [3]
After all this whole issue says more about the sorry state of journalism than about the actual likelihood of the Veneto region seceding from Italy any time soon.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfhV3J3b1c
[2] http://www.vice.com/it/read/indipendenza-veneto-referendum-m...
[2 in proper english translation, worth a read] http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/veneto-would-like-to-be-italy...
[3] http://www.vice.com/it/read/referendum-indipendenza-veneto-t...
It is translated into English; you can search for the other Vice articles, if you like.
Here's Melanie Philips, one of the Mail's regulars, talking about Scotland and vilifying Scots for having the temerity to call a legal and planned referendum.
She bases this decision to have a referendum on the tired old "the Scots hate the English" trope. This person is way out of touch with the reasons why Scotland is deciding its future via the ballot box. Sadly she gets away with it unchallenged on non-UK current affairs programmes. If she were to try and pull this stunt off on a BBC broadcast such as Newsnight or Question Time, or on Sky News she'd be laughed out of the studio, even by English folks.
EDIT: You can actually see this very clearly in the video showing the evolution of borders in Europe (that was shared last week on HN).
(I think a democracy can only work when you've got shifting alliances that need to continually compete for the voters, as the stable democracies have. Most countries have lots of parties whose fortunes ebb and wane, the US does it slightly differently with its two major coalitions but the effect is the same as the coalitions positions have to shift over time to compete for the middle. When you've got ethnic blocks that vote in solid blocks for their ethnic candidate regardless of anything else, you don't have a functioning Democracy; you've got an Ethnocracy, disguised as a Democracy, and that's not the same thing.)
Self-determination breaks down just as easily. You get regions seceding from countries, but nothing stops cities from seceding from that region, or blocks seceding from that city, creating an ungovernable patchwork where everyone is a king trying to extort taxes from neighbors.
Permanently fixing borders based on a population's will at one moment assumes demographics are held constant for all time. (And how do you pick how large of a population gets to vote?) Re-voting every time anyone calls for a referendum destroys any certainty that the state will exist for more than ten years, and creates little wars of demography, where populations try to pack supporters into a territory for political control.
As you noted, borders drawn according to pure whimsy aren't much of a prize either.
All of these systems are basically terrible for different reasons.
Me neither, but this tends to lead into some very politically incorrect territory when you start analyzing why.
However, I'd be willing to try letting the artificially created countries break themselves back down into some smaller units, then letting themselves voluntarily reassemble at a later date if they see the advantages. While it's easy to forget, since it hasn't happened in my lifetime, and our Federal government keeps getting larger and getting more of the attention, but the United States really are the United States; there are procedures for voluntarily joining it. The EU is a larger organization that provides another model for voluntarily joining a larger union. I agree the initial states might break down quite small, but if there are sufficient advantages to reforming into larger units there are models for this. This has been a relatively peaceful process. (Though history suggests that some procedures for voluntarily and legally disassociating may be a good idea. That's certainly debatable at length, but I'm not sure the one-way door model is entirely the best idea, though I'd suggest it also ought to take a supermajority of some sort.)
However, the video appears to have been killed a day after it was posted.
(Germany's technically younger, by the way. Their Constitution was written in 1949, and arguably Germany became a new state after reunification in 1990. Does that mean it's okay for it to be dissolved again on a whim?)
In short, and disregarding the loaded word "whim", yes I do. Do you not believe that people have the right to self-determination? If so, what is the cut off when a population no longer is eligible?
The concept of nation usually revolves around having a common cultural background. In less than a century, I'd argue there may still be significant differences in the fabric of the country, and what may have been true 100 years ago when they creating the State may not be true anymore (i.e. people may want to break free from it again).
Sure but the idea that "nations" ought to be coterminous with sovereign governments ("states") is a fairly novel one that's never been all that well followed (except that since it became popular, states have tried really hard to create the idea of a coterminous nation as a means of inspiring loyalty.)
How new a state is has no relation to whether the state corresponds to a nation; there's plenty of nations that have never had a state, and states that have been around a long time that don't correspond particularly well with a single nation.
> It will be interesting to see what Rome does. Will they send an army to take their tax money?
They'll still have to pay there taxes, this is either misinformed or following some agenda.
This is more factual: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
Even if it were NOT on Internet, it would not have any legal value as long as the Italian State does not recognize its validity. Which they would surely never agree to.
Of course it's very complex as it seems the weight of legal opinion is that Scotland will have to leave the EU if they leave the UK. There are a few legal academics that dispute that legal point but their case doesn't sound very convincing to me and the EU institutions have more or less said they will have to reapply. However Scotland does have the advantage of having a fairly good faith partner in the rest of the UK if they do leave. If the current disputes over the pound and the debt don't turn vicious then a huge stack of treaties being signed all in one day to make it all legal becomes imaginable. I think Barcelona-Madrid and Venice-Rome relations might take a somewhat different path.
Citation please. Please stop recycling UK Mainstream Media "fag packet legal opinion" about whether Scotland would or would not have to leave the EU before being re-admitted via a lengthy application process.
And before you cite Barossa, that was one man's incorrect personal opinion. Thus far the EU has not ruled in any sort of legal way as to whether Article 48 (method of treaty amendment) or Article 49 (applications to join the EU) of the Treaty of Union would apply to Scotland.
Thus far the Scottish Government would like to use Article 48 rather than Article 49. Because there as never been a precedent of a new state seceding from an existing member state within the EU the whole position is untried.
edit: Disclosure, I am campaigning for Scottish Independence.
I also has it's weaknesses: the ‘Europe of the Regions’ project has the same dangers of underestimating the continuing economic importance of the state, overestimating the coherence of most regions, and conceding too much ground to the dominant neo-liberal ideology which would weaken the state's intervention and redistributive capabilities. Indeed, in some richer regions (for example, in northern Italy), regionalisms have been partly motivated by opposition to transfers from themselves to despised poorer regions, and nationalism has no monopoly on supremacist racist attitudes. Contrary to the benign vision, some regionalisms can be very parochial, even xenophobic, as well as progressive – they are not inherently either one or the other. [1]
In contrast to that the current political climate seems to like to challenge the very idea of a unified Europe; the future is very unclear in every aspect.
∗The Committee of the Regions just turns 20 this year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Regions
Here is is map of western European regions with seperatist movements from the 70s: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people...
[1] http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people...
There does appear to be significant economical imbalance, however it would take blood being spilled before powers that be would let any kind of secession stand.
[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586531/Venice-votes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_b...
Good thing Minnesota and Florida are so far away from each other. Ya, you betcha!
Shaking up the state borders might give a few states pause, though.
It's difficult to understand what blood would be spilled within the EU. The UN constitutionally stands for the right to self-determination and that needs to be respected.
For now, that's difficult within the EU is because several states are in danger of losing their integrity: UK, Spain, Belgium, Italy, perhaps even Germany. No country wants to let the others split up because of the potential consequences for themselves, so they make political statements supporting the others (but not more than statements).
In the end, one properly official referendum falling on this side will force some fair rules of secession to be drawn up: I don't see any option but to respect these movements.
What? Obama is clearly off track here. The right to secede is in the American constitution from its very beginning. Any State in the US can decide to become independent if their population really wants to. Whether it makes sense is another story, but it certainly would not regarded as illegitimate.
However, I do wish there were a US state separated from the federal government.
In fact the Constitution included many regulations and prohibitions regarding the power of individual states, so it can't be claimed that the Constitution wasn't the ultimate arbiter of power within the federal framework of government.
So with that in mind a unilateral decision by a single state to change the Constitutional government for all of the states can hardly have been legal. And even the parts of the Constitution talking about the territorial integrity of a single state all include the clause the Congress must approve the change in addition to the state itself.
If a state really wanted to secede it would have to have come up with some legal procedure at the national level from which to even make that change possible. Probably by using the Constitutional Amendment process (which is, after all, the built-in designed mechanism for altering the federal framework of government).
How it actually happens and whether or not different commenters find it "legal" will not matter. If I deny your jurisdiction and have the military force to defend myself, your laws do not apply to me.
Sure, this is how some sovereign states formed in the first place. But even these were made "legal" under international jurisprudence.
Don't confuse exercise of power with legal aspects though. It can certainly be against a nation's laws to secede, and secede anyways if you can prevent the state from effectively exercising power (e.g. Algeria in the 1950s). But that didn't make it "legal", either under domestic or international law.
Even in international law if you want to secede you have to form a separate state, have it exercise effective control over a territory, and do so long enough to have "enough" other nations recognize that control. If you can do that then it doesn't matter what your parent nation's domestic laws were, but until you can do that it's shaky legal ground indeed.
There is nothing in the Constitution about secession (including the Amendments).
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
This clause was made null and void by the Thirteenth Amendment that you've mentioned, which further makes me wonder...
Anyways, the word "slavery" was deliberately not used by the Framers, as even at that time the concept was morally distasteful, so the Framers talked around the issue by referring to "Service" and "Party" instead of "slave" and "master".
You also missed the part in the Constitution where importation of slaves could not be forbidden until 1808 (Art. I, §9).
Source for this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/crimea-votes...
Over the Crimean situation.
No source there either, if so. And seems quite a leap if only based off the Crimean situation.
I'm pretty sure Lincoln would argue with you there.
EDIT: this is directly from the Declaration of Independence:
> whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government
Note the any form of government.
But what is not going to happen is that a state gets to take it's ball and go home just because the nation had the sheer audacity to vote for the wrong President.
Which one are we talking about? Frankly, all the ones I've had the misfortune of living through, blur together for me. It's not like any of them have had any different policies. How could they, possibly?
If any area secedes, it might be because of "The President", but it won't be due to any particular one.
I think this is exactly what would happen in the modern day.
I.e. not mere "wah wah the government raised my taxes" but actually despotic, as Jefferson explains in the rest of the Declaration of Independence.
There's a reason the Declaration of Independence happened more than a year after the first spurts of military action (and was very controversial in the colonies even then).
the right to secede is, unfortunately, given or taken by force only. As US Revolution and Civil War, or Kosovo or Crimea among others show.
Most African decolonisation was also peaceful.
No, the article is pretty clearly off track. Obama hardly said that all secession movements are illegitimate. He said that the secession vote in the Crimea was illegitimate.
"The available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held. Many Western and Ukrainian commentators argued that both choices would result in de facto separation from Ukraine."
Certainly, I'm not saying it's simple. I'm just saying that it should not be called illegitimate, because even if it's not feasible technically speaking, it would still be legitimate based on UN principles.
If you knew the history of this region (or at least last 20+ years) you'd not spent any effort typing the word "sham". Decorating the vote with all the bell and whistles that would supposedly make the vote "legitimate" (as if anything could make such a vote "legitimate" in the western eyes :) would change nothing in the vote's result, so Putin just didn't bother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Crimea (very democratic elections result of which was nixed by Ukrainian troops an year later :)
Don't get me wrong, i don't support the annexation. My point here is that trying to play the "sham" card leads nowhere in that situation because it is immaterial.
exactly. He plays for internal market. And internal audience eats him. 25 years ago, back in USSR, we laughed watching a criminal asking Arnold in Red Heat "Kakie vashi dokazatelstva?" (what are your evidences?) Western mentality is so logical, evidences-shmevidences :) Such an easy target for a showman in Russia performing for Russian audience...
"Yes, i want to be in Russia"
and
"No, i want to be in Russia"
and that point is that it doesn't matter. You come to the polls, you don't come to the polls - it wouldn't change anything, including the poll results to the 7th digit after the point :) (i'm not saying that this referendum results was cheating - it just happened that no need to cheat here, though Putin wouldn't have any issue with cheating if it was needed - again it just doesn't matter, 90% or whatever would be in any case) It just makes an overall gray routine just a little bit fun.
If you disagree, please provide a quote.
True, but there is nothing that forbids it either explicitly. And I could argue that from the History of the US, of how they were formed, and the Declaration of Independence, Secession is very much considered to be a cultural Right.
Even Lincoln said that:
> Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.
This is further observed by foreign observers such as Tocqueville after the US were established:
> The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.
And if you would read the Declaration of Independence you'd see that the "tyranny test" (such as one was ever conceived in American jurisprudence) is very strict indeed. Even from the first days of the American Revolutionary War we were claiming that the government deserved a great deal of "benefit of the doubt" and that it would take a very severe set of circumstances to cast off a government.
When in the course of human affairs, it becomes necessary...
> 'Although history never repeats itself, we are now experiencing a strong return of little nations...`
I've never heard the phrase "history never repeats itself", I've only ever heard "history repeats itself."
Is this a saying that comes out of Italy, or am I just grossly uninformed?
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=history+never+...
Looks like "history repeats itself" is clearly the more frequent formulation.
"History never repeats itself, but it rhymes"
-Mark Twain
Split enz also has a popular song with "History never repeats. I tell myself before I go to sleep".
The other quote you're your probably thinking of
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
-George Santayana
So all in all I'd say you're right on the thrust of the generally popular quotes but not necessarily on their wording.
What's objectionable is when an outside empire comes in and says "You guys are all one country now." But that's not the case with Italy, or Europe in general, who are the ones who generally did that to others.
Didn't the Roman Empire do something like this to Europe?
Most European states are less made up than almost all non-European states, but Italy is much less a result of a group of people who chose to unite (or secede) than, say, the Balkan states in their current form.
So why didn't the city break away a long time ago?