Freedom for Catalonia?

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, and see where we ended up - Austria went Nazi, Czechoslovakia was raped and gutted, Hungary became a toy in hands of whoever was in charge in the region and Slovenia was joined with another multiethnic country - which itself suffered a terrible fate due to stupid nationalism

But, here signs through the very problem with your argument.
You can't complain that Austria went to the Nazis, because you're arguments lead to the point that Austria shouldn't have been independent in the first place, because seriously, if Catalonians aren't distinct, the Austrians certainly aren't (Czechoslovakia too), Hungary was doing the reasonable thing by helping the Germans bring the Czechoslovak state into a larger entity, etc. etc.

You'd think that all those decades of Communist rule, you'd pick up on the fact that tyrants more frequently emerge by denying other people their national character, rather hen affirming their own.

 

[Winner]

Frankly, I don't understand your point.

I don't say that Catalonians aren't distinct, that they don't have a real language, culture or any of that. I am saying that there is no reason why they couldn't stay a part of Spain. Simply put, I don't buy into this "every nation must have a country" crap. I understand that if there's some sort of accumulated hatred then separation become inevitable, but that's not the case in Spain, it wasn't the case in Czechoslovakia and at the beginning, it wasn't even the case in Yugoslavia.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And so far I haven't seen a single good reason why they shouldn't have their own country.

 

[Arwon]

What about all the people who live there who don't want it and think it's a bad idea?

 

[ParkCungHee]

What about all the people who live there who don't want it and think it's a bad idea?

Saying that the majority disagrees with a policy doesn't prevent me from expressing an opinion about what should be done, nor does the it contradict the belief in self-determination.

 

[Winner]

And so far I haven't seen a single good reason why they shouldn't have their own country.

If you back a motion, you should be able to provide some good arguments. Is Catalonia oppressed so much that it has to become independent in order to maintain its identity/freedom of its citizens? Can't any other solution lead to the same results, without formal independence?

What's up with the obsession with becoming formally independent? In reality, it's a pretty inefficient thing to do if you're not a really large nation state. Which is kinda the reason why the EU is moving in the opposite direction.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What's up with the obsession with becoming formally independent? In reality, it's a pretty inefficient thing to do if you're not a really large nation state.

I've heard this arguments over and over again and I've never seen it hold water. The low countries, Switzerland, Austria,, they all seem to do fine, and given the way the larger states in the EU seem to be doing (namely France and Germany) that method doesn't seem to work.
I support independence for Catalonia, firstly as a means to preserve their national identity, but second because sovereign, localized communities respond better to the wills of their people then vast multiethnic empires and states.

 

[nocho]

A silent majority doesn't seem to be interested at all in a seperate Catalunya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_separatism#Studies_on_social_support_to_separatism_in_Catalonia

Personally I think it would be an economical and political disaster.

 

[Winner]

I've heard this arguments over and over again and I've never seen it hold water. The low countries, Switzerland, Austria,

On a side note - do you think that Swiss cantons would do better if they threw off the shackles of federalist oppression?

, they all seem to do fine, and given the way the larger states in the EU seem to be doing (namely France and Germany) that method doesn't seem to work.

What are your criteria of "doing fine"? Momentary economic situation? The fact is that the smaller a country is, the more does it have to rely on relations with larger countries and the more money it wastes running it's own foreign service, embassies, administration etc., and I am not even counting the indirect costs caused by the trade barriers, different laws/rules, border checks, visas and so on and so forth. The smaller a country is, the more of a burden these things are.

Ergo, for smaller countries is makes more sense to be a part of larger bloc which takes care of these things. Local administration can be effectively handled under federation too. Isn't that how the US is supposed to work?

I support independence for Catalonia, firstly as a means to preserve their national identity, but second because sovereign, localized communities respond better to the wills of their people then vast multiethnic empires and states.

I am not arguing against subsidiarity and direct government, but these things and large states aren't mutually exclusive.

As Arwon explained, Catalonia already has everything it needs to maintain its identity and to effectively run its matters. So why on earth should it accept the burden of becoming a sovereign independent state?

The trend in Europe is opposite - countries are giving powers to Brussels, because they realize that some of their actions will only be effective if they're coordinated and centrally executed.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The trend in Europe is opposite - countries are giving powers to Brussels, because they realize that some of their actions will only be effective if they're coordinated and centrally executed.

Were you not just bemoaning the rise of seperatist movements in Europe?
We just saw Kosovo added, Belgium narrowly got their government working again...

On a side note - do you think that Swiss cantons would do better if they threw off the shackles of federalist oppression?

Considering the Cantons are already nearly functionally independent, I don't think it would make much of a difference.

What are your criteria of "doing fine"?

They seem to be perfectly economically viable on their own, and their economies are often competitive with and even superior to larger states.

The fact is that the smaller a country is, the more does it have to rely on relations with larger countries and the more money it wastes running it's own foreign service, embassies, administration etc., and I am not even counting the indirect costs caused by the trade barriers, different laws/rules, border checks, visas and so on and so forth. The smaller a country is, the more of a burden these things are.

Yet the Dutch managed to shoulder the tremendous burden of paying their own diplomats for centuries. As for trade barriers and different laws/rule, it occurs to me that perhaps these nations adopted these peculiar customs because they themselves found them preferable and/or advantageous. After all, if it was not, there would be no need for an E.U., people would just amend their legal systems themselves to all be identical and trade barriers would never arise between any nation, unless they were somehow attached to these concept of creating unique laws and trade barriers for some reason...

Ergo, for smaller countries is makes more sense to be a part of larger bloc which takes care of these things. Local administration can be effectively handled under federation too. Isn't that how the US is supposed to work?

Supposed does not mean it does.

So why on earth should it accept the burden of becoming a sovereign independent state?

If being sovereign states is such a tremendous burden, I wonder why the existing states are indeed so attached to them, or, why anyone invented them in the first place.

 

[Winner]

Were you not just bemoaning the rise of seperatist movements in Europe?

Yes - how's that contradictory to what I said about the EU?

We just saw Kosovo added, Belgium narrowly got their government working again...

Yes, the world is richer with one more failed state, woohoo. Belgium will hopefully hold together.

Considering the Cantons are already nearly functionally independent, I don't think it would make much of a difference.

Switzerland is a federal state - not a confederation (despite what the official name says). Cantons are simply the member states/provinces. So, if a country as diverse as Switzerland can hold together under a liberal federal constitution, why couldn't Spain?

They seem to be perfectly economically viable on their own, and their economies are often competitive with and even superior to larger states.

Yet the Dutch managed to shoulder the tremendous burden of paying their own diplomats for centuries. As for trade barriers and different laws/rule, it occurs to me that perhaps these nations adopted these peculiar customs because they themselves found them preferable and/or advantageous. After all, if it was not, there would be no need for an E.U., people would just amend their legal systems themselves to all be identical and trade barriers would never arise between any nation, unless they were somehow attached to these concept of creating unique laws and trade barriers for some reason...

Meh - the moment you create an independent state, it's laws/rules will inevitably start to differ. This increases the costs of investments and impedes free flow of people/goods/capital. It's one of the things EU has to fight on daily basis.

Supposed does not mean it does.

If being sovereign states is such a tremendous burden, I wonder why the existing states are indeed so attached to them, or, why anyone invented them in the first place.

You are aware of the fact that nation states were born after the 30 Years War to ensure that monarchs could terrorize their subjects freely and without foreign interference, right?

Nation state is a scam.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Meh - the moment you create an independent state, it's laws/rules will inevitably start to differ. This increases the costs of investments and impedes free flow of people/goods/capital. It's one of the things EU has to fight on daily basis.

You have subtley sidestepped around the point. Nations would not "inevitably" start to differ and the cost of transit of goods would not increase if people did not want that to happen in the first place. If people honestly preferred or even cared if someplace had different laws then them, they'd change their laws to match on their own, but evidently, most people don't care.

Yes - how's that contradictory to what I said about the EU?

How can you have a trend towards greater centralization and greater localism at the same time.

You are aware of the fact that nation states were born after the 30 Years War to ensure that monarchs could terrorize their subjects freely and without foreign interference, right?

You are also aware that Parliaments were created so that Nobles wouldn't have to bear the burden of actually fulfilling their feudal bonds with their monarchs, democracy in Europe was created so that the middle class could become the upper class, and take over the role of abusing the lower class, freedom of religion was introduced so monarchs could better increase their power, and the nation state was born in the French Revolution, while you are thinking of the sovereign state.

 

[Winner]

You have subtley sidestepped around the point. Nations would not "inevitably" start to differ and the cost of transit of goods would not increase if people did not want that to happen in the first place. If people honestly preferred or even cared if someplace had different laws then them, they'd change their laws to match on their own, but evidently, most people don't care.

False. It's a side-effect of independence, not something the people do just because they really want it. In order to maintain a compatible set of laws/rules, you need some sort of sovereign oversight.

How can you have a trend towards greater centralization and greater localism at the same time.

One's happening on the level of nation states and the other is happening inside them.

You are also aware that Parliaments were created so that Nobles wouldn't have to bear the burden of actually fulfilling their feudal bonds with their monarchs, democracy in Europe was created so that the middle class could become the upper class, and take over the role of abusing the lower class, freedom of religion was introduced so monarchs could better increase their power, and the nation state was born in the French Revolution, while you are thinking of the sovereign state.

In English, the term nation state is somewhat ambiguous, but that's not the point.

Nationalism is a fairy tale, a social construct invented to (partially) replace religion and provide legitimacy for various movements demanding a share on power. The notion that nation state in the modern sense is the ultimate product of political evolution is totally baseless.

 

[ParkCungHee]

False. It's a side-effect of independence, not something the people do just because they really want it. In order to maintain a compatible set of laws/rules, you need some sort of sovereign oversight.

You're attaching animistic properties to laws. Lets say we locked the laws on Netherlands and Belgium in a safe for a few years, the people don't get to change them as they will. Now, presumably, safe from sovereign oversight, yet separate from the people who change them, according to your theory, when we open up the safes, the laws will be more divergent then when they put them in there. Or, in my theory, where laws are made by popular will, they will be exactly the same.

If what you're saying is really true, then the world you live in must be topsy turvey, because popular democratic rule is NEVER possible. It doesn't matter what people vote for, laws and constitutions will act as they themselves wish.

In English, the term nation state is somewhat ambiguous, but that's not the point.

Nationalism is a fairy tale, a social construct invented to (partially) replace religion and provide legitimacy for various movements demanding a share on power. The notion that nation state in the modern sense is the ultimate product of political evolution is totally baseless.

Well of course it's not the ultimate product of political evolution. Does anyone but Marxists and Neo-cons thinks there's an ultimate product of political evolution?

You know, for someone who makes the argument that nationalism is a fairy tail, you certainly seem to be a firm supporter of it in the thread with the minarets.

 

[Winner]

You're attaching animistic properties to laws. Lets say we locked the laws on Netherlands and Belgium in a safe for a few years, the people don't get to change them as they will. Now, presumably, safe from sovereign oversight, yet separate from the people who change them, according to your theory, when we open up the safes, the laws will be more divergent then when they put them in there. Or, in my theory, where laws are made by popular will, they will be exactly the same.

Oh gosh, let's stop this before we get stuck in absurdity.

I am saying that whenever you create redundant units, the laws and rules will inevitably begin to diverge. Even the laws with the exact same function will be worded differently, put under different categories, refer to different norms and the inevitable result will be a mess, which is not good for anybody except the lawyers.

And it's not nearly just about the laws. In Europe, there are 27 militaries, 27 different commands with thousands of redundant officers and bureaucrats ensuring the communication between them. It's terribly inefficient and wasteful. The same goes to many other things.

Certain amount of flexibility is of course necessary to ensure that local conditions and situations are taken into consideration, but again - you don't have to be independent to have that.

Well of course it's not the ultimate product of political evolution. Does anyone but Marxists and Neo-cons thinks there's an ultimate product of political evolution?

Is that what I said? No, so let's not stray here. Many people insist that national sovereignty is implicitly a good thing. I disagree and say that it's only good when it leads to good consequences. When national sovereignty becomes detrimental to country's future, then let's get rid of it.

You know, for someone who makes the argument that nationalism is a fairy tail, you certainly seem to be a firm supporter of it in the thread with the minarets.

What... on earth does my position regarding minarets have to do with nationalism, that's beyond me.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Oh gosh, let's stop this before we get stuck in absurdity.

I am saying that whenever you create redundant units, the laws and rules will inevitably begin to diverge. Even the laws with the exact same function will be worded differently, put under different categories, refer to different norms and the inevitable result will be a mess, which is not good for anybody except the lawyers.

And it's not nearly just about the laws. In Europe, there are 27 militaries, 27 different commands with thousands of redundant officers and bureaucrats ensuring the communication between them. It's terribly inefficient and wasteful. The same goes to many other things.

Certain amount of flexibility is of course necessary to ensure that local conditions and situations are taken into consideration, but again - you don't have to be independent to have that.

But the very point is that while they may be wastefull, they are still created because people want them that way. If they didn't, they'd just pass a bill that says "Our laws are just like nation Y" and that would be it.

Is that what I said? No, so let's not stray here. Many people insist that national sovereignty is implicitly a good thing. I disagree and say that it's only good when it leads to good consequences. When national sovereignty becomes detrimental to country's future, then let's get rid of it.

Well of course, I never said that it's always the best thing, and it's certainly not to be done when done in an improper manner, just like any political idea. There is not universal best. But my point is that in general, localization is prefferantial to centralization.

What... on earth does my position regarding minarets have to do with nationalism, that's beyond me.

It's an expression of nationalism, at least on a different (European) level. If you were truly as cosmopolitan and anti-national as you claim, you'd welcome Muslims in as members of the brotherhood of man, and leave the clash of those national entities to the past.


And for the record, I'm not a nationalist, I'm a localist. I support nationalist independence movements because they bring political power closer to the people. But I'd be perfectly fine if the world saw a few more city-states, microstates, and the like.

 

[warpus]

In the end the more countries in Europe we have, the less efficient the EU becomes.

 

[ParkCungHee]

In the end the more countries in Europe we have, the less efficient the EU becomes.

In the end, the more EU we have, the less efficient the EU becomes.

 

[Pangur Bán]

In the end the more countries in Europe we have, the less efficient the EU becomes.

Most pro-EU thinkers believe precisely the opposite. The very thing that stands in the way of EU unity are large [often multi-national] states like the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and so on. A "Europe of the regions" is hence, as far as they are concerned, the way forward.

 

[Pangur Bán]

But the very point is that while they may be wastefull, they are still created because people want them that way. If they didn't, they'd just pass a bill that says "Our laws are just like nation Y" and that would be it.

Scotland is a case where membership of a larger state is definitely wasteful. The Scots are unable to set the policies, economic and demographic, they know would be beneficial because London has this power. UK economic policy is dedicated to helping "the City" (the London financial institutes), at the expense of everywhere else (and that includes the rest of England), and immigration policies are set to limit an expanding population, whereas Scotland needs policies that check a declining population. Meanwhile billions of dollars in oil revenue, that could have made Scotland more prosperous than Norway, are channeled into UK spending priorities like nuclear weapons.

And the only waste needed to stop all that waste are setting up embassies, which ironically enough would probably be cheaper for the Scots than paying for a tenth of the cost of UK embassies. So there's not even waste there.