Catalonia is a well-defined region, redefine the borders and be done with it. Seems easy enough.
If these people don't want to be part of Spain anymore, why force them to stay ? There is no point to any of it.
Surely you can see the flaw in your line of reasoning.
If a group of people doesn't want to be governed by a certain body they should have the right to secede.
A government derives it's right to rule by the people accepting this rule.
Obviously this is a really hard problem and it opens up the door for all kind of abuses, but ultimately democracy demands that. Democracy first needs a demos. A group of people who feel connected by whatever reason they like and agree to form a community. If the borders of the community are not drawn by the community itself, it's not democratic. Just look at all the wars being fought about borders which were drawn by colonial forces and didn't respect the locals.
In this I also see the power of parliament's and federal states - even if your vote don't win the election, you are still represented in parliament and you have the local gov. Without that, it would be hard to keep regions where a majority voted different than the whole nations majority.
Globalism, neo-liberalism, individualism - all that severely reduced the solidarity people have which each other. The internet then connected us with people that we share much more with than just area. All nations, democracy as a whole will have to face this tremendous challenge. And I have no idea how.
If you follow this principle to the extreme then laws become essentially voluntary, which contradicts the whole meaning of law.
I think democratic principles can never be applicable to decisions about the existence of the entity as a whole in the same way they apply to governing an existing entity.
Surely you can see the flaw in this new line of reasoning as well?
There is two simple truths. 1. If a group decides that it doesn't want to be ruled by a certain body, it's hard to legitimize the continuation of that rule. 2. If any group, especially very small ones can refuse the ruling body, all big groups will ultimately split down to individuals with no rules at all.
Democracy only works when balancing these truths. Trough opposition in parliament, minority rights, local and regional governments, regional independence and so on.
I.e. the whole situation in Catalan is blowing up because the reginal independence wasn't granted (or not enough in the opinion of the Catalans). Look at South-Tyrol in Italy for an example where things are working better. Even the American states are a good example - liberal, rich California wouldn't accept Republican rule without the independence the states have.
Surely you can see the point I'm trying to make?
It's weird that everyone wants a large monopoly not a lot of smaller competing governments.
I dont think a "town", regardless of their richness, would be able to handle that.
Now, I could see the eastern seabed, with the bounds of the Appalachian mountains as a "country". I could also see the northern and southern areas between the 2 mountain ranges being their own countries as well. But not a "town".
I'm trying to soften the blow, what do you think I should tell them?
You say this like it's a bad thing.
> Different provinces and regions are united into a country because this way they have more military power to defend themselves.
Exactly. So there are many benefits for people to form larger groups, but please let them decide that for themselves. This kind of negates your first point, if there are obvious benefits then there won't be thousands of states, because people would recognise they are better off together.
I don't believe for a second that people will. There are groups of people who don't give a crap about "being better off" - they care about showing those damn Spanish/British/French/German/Polish/<insert group name here> what they think and being able to "finally decide for themselves" which is complete nonsense. If people could so easily see the benefits of staying together then Brexit wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be seeing nationalist movements all over Europe nowadays. The problem is that the benefits are not obvious and you have to actually educate yourself a bit about them - but if someone is unwilling to put the energy into it, then it's not going to happen.
Already after Brexit I've heard quite a few reports of 1) young Brits elsewhere in Europe becoming much more engaged with politics because 'now it matters', and 2) Brexit voters who now regret their decision because it affects them negatively (or is likely to).
Again, I agree with you and I don't think it's ideal, but part of me feels letting people make decisions like this, even if I personally think they're (often) stupid decisions prompted by populism, might be better than jamming 'the educated choice' down their throats.
But I'm not expert on the matter. Are there any historical analogues that might provide some insight here?
It sounds mean, but as you are saying - we have to allow that at least sometimes, so people are ok with listening to more educated people next time. Because when even such fragmented group as economists agreed universally that Brexit is bad, it just is bad, and people should accept it.
That line of thinking is very unpopular, at least in the US since that time.
That said, if any state or group of states did overwhelmingly want to breakaway from the US, it seems unlikely that there would be meaningful support for the federal government to go to war to stop them.
Given that states rights are far less than they were in the 19th century, I expect the US government to be even more likely to prevent succession in the infinitesimal chance it would happen.
[1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements
Your point about the erosion of states rights is certainly fair. In any case, it's hard to say what "prevent secession" means without the context of the circumstances.
That's not enough though. There are people who have tried to declare an independent country of their land, or their house, or their bedroom[1]. Clearly one person declaring their bedroom to be independent is silly and not allowable, but a large reason is. So somewhere there's a line, right?
Clearly states are silly and not allowable, but here we are.
Spain has chosen to be governed by the current government. Democracy doesn't mean that you always get the way you want if the majority wants something else...
Did they now ?
Let's say Russia is having an election and the people in Crimea are allowed to vote. Let's assume the majority of Russians voted for Putin but hardly any of the people in Crimea did. Did Russia suddenly become the legitimate government of Crimea just because 'the people voted for it' ?
I think the first step would be for the people to agree to have an election over who governs them first.
AFAIK Catalonia didn't voluntarily join Spain, they got annexed.
This is how most countries were formed in the Middle Ages. You either are big enough to defend yourself or become a part of big enough country.
And if they pool money to form an army - how will be the funding determined? Some states will want more defence, some less, some will prefer naval power, some airpower . . .
if those people can't agree on anything to such extent that they want to be entirely separate, how would they agree on anything when they would have even less incentive to cooperate? See how dysfunctional EU seems at times today, and this would be way worse . . .
Especially when you start considering other forms of warfare, like trade. Solving all problems leads right back to something resembling either superstate or close coalition of large states.
Also good luck with making an army from nothing just in time before invasion.
Edit: and you are still ignoring weakness of such states on economic level.
Economics is not a problem in a modern world with a free trade. Small city-states, that embrace free trade, fare well. There is even an possibility, that trade liberalization leads to political disintegration: https://www.nber.org/papers/w6163
I mean, sort of yes, but also Catalonia was annexed within living memory.
Just because it happened a few hundred years ago, doesnt mean they lost their own heritage, their language, and their self-determination.
Look no further than Ireland. That battle goes back to Grace O'Malley and Elizabeth in the 16th'c. In reality, it went further back, to this structure called the Hadrian Wall, but that's in 1st c.
"Living memory" indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#Republic_...
Thank you.
This is probably not the the way the national government wanted their actions to be seen, nor is overwhelming popular disobedience the outcome they desired.
States in spain are incapable of declaring independence from the national government. This was a democratic process. A democratic process inside one state, just to get that state to say it is separate, doesn't change that.
So the parent's question still standards. If the referendum is illegal, why does the national government bother at all? It can ignore the referendum.
Are you sure the same people who voted for that constitution are the ones doing the protesting ? I'm not sure about Spain, but I know for a fact that I didn't vote for the constitution of my country, in fact it was written about 160 years before I was even born.
Not sure if that changes your opinion
and it also doesn't answer the question of why the national government is bothering anyway
It's a package deal. I either join the club, benefit from being a member, and have to play by the clubs rules or I don't.
If you allow a referendum on such topic in a part of Spain, it doesn't matter the result because you're accepting implicitly that a part of Spain can rule over the whole.
Let's boil it down to the basics: an election decides who is going to be leader of a group of people. For that leader to be legitimate every member has to voluntarily decide they want to be part of the group and thus the election.
The problem here is not that Catalonia doesn't accept the government because they didn't like who won the elections. The problem here is that they never agreed to even be part of those elections.
If we have a group of 10 people who decide to democratically pick a leader, and the majority chooses Steve. That's fine. What is not fine is taking 2 random people of the street and tell them they have to now do what Steve tells them because he was voted leader 10 against 2. They never agreed to take part in the election and respect its results.
So ten people decide to bow at Steve's now-royal feet. His rule involves property. The two who didn't vote for him might be living within the boundaries of that property. Or it might not be economically feasible for them to survive without entering Steve's kingdom. And unfortunately all the other land is rules by Dave and Jared, who would require their submission just as much as Steve.
I just don't see a practical way, within the framework of (pretty much?) then entire world at this point, where it is possible to not agree to take part in an election, and to realistically disrespect its results.
Catalonia and the real world is more complicated, so perhaps there is a future where Catalonia succeeds at seceding. Personally I'm not as much against that as most people seem to be.
But I guess I'm just pointing out that there's no simple anything that this situation can be reduced to.
How can they be illegal ?
A democratic government derives it's legitimacy from the fact the people they govern choose to be governed by them. If the people obviously do not want this government, then isn't it the government that's obviously illegitimate ?
'The people' are the source of power, they just outsource it to a smaller group of people through democratic elections for practical purposes. If 'the people' decide their government's services are no longer needed, then there is nothing the government can do. It's not their call.