[cfv]

It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. The fascist dictator who formed modern Spain made it so its constituent lands can expel a part of it but no one part of it can choose to leave.

This is the root of why the procés is illegal, and why they are being charged as violent agitators. They are seen as young kids trying to leave their parent's house and taking their bedrooms and console with them.

If they amended the constitution, changed the rules, THEN left, that would change things. Problem is, that's even harder to do, in a country where the aforementioned military dictator died free, of old age, and he and his legacy are greatly revered by a whole lot of people.

[romaaeterna]

Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule. Plato's Crito has Socrates make the point that, even sentenced to death, he was bound to respect the laws of Athens as he was someone who had made the voluntary choice to remain in the city all of his life until then and under those laws.

[xyzzyz]

Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule.

For individuals, sure, and I'm quite sure Catalonians are free to leave Spain and go somewhere else.

[romaaeterna]

Good, I'm glad that we're agreed on the individual right.

Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from?

The answer to each question will have a lot to do with how much you love each one.

Someone who hates Spain and the Spanish would certainly suggest that their course is to be a grubby landlord, trying to get every cent out of a tenant before kicking them out the door. Someone who loves them would hopefully never think of them as the sort of nation that would wish to impose on a free people or steal anything from a people, especially not land or property.

Lovers of Spain, properly, will think of their rights as rights of attraction, and free association, and from the governors to the governed. Haters will think of the Nation's rights as something to be imposed, and their duties as something to be extracted from their subject peoples.

What do you think of Spain? Is it love or hate?

[xyzzyz]

Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from?

The nation of Spain certainly is sovereign on the territory it occupies, so it is bound only by the rules it imposes on itself (and of course, external powers which might impose other rules upon it). The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people.

Look, I'm not a lover or a hater of Spain, but what I learned so far about how the world works is that it is divided into countries, which set the rules, called law, on their territories, and get to enforce it. If you don't like the rules, usually there's a mechanism to change those, but if you can't make it work through that mechanism, your only option is to assert your own sovereignty, and hope to prevail over the existing contender. So far, the separatists in Catalonia hasn't been successful neither the former nor the latter. I might sympathize with them, but certainly I do not think that they have any right whatsoever to secede.

[romaaeterna]

> The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people.

Interesting. I belong to a country where we think of ourselves as telling our rulers what our rights are -- deriving from God, some say -- and certainly not coming down to us from those rulers in any way. Sometimes we have to fight for these rights. It has been violent sometimes. Other times the process has been used. Some of our rights have yet to be asserted.

But try telling an American that George Washington and company gave us our rights, and you'll see who far that gets you. We love our country.

I hope that the people of Spain can love their country too.

[xyzzyz]

Note that I said "[t]he nation of Spain", not the "rulers" of Spain. It's exactly the same as in US: in both cases, the nations codified the rules through the constitution they made the law. If anything, it is more of the case with Americans who are given down rules from above: the American constitution was created and voted into the law by the representatives of the people, while in Spain, the people themselves voted the current constitution into the law through public referendum.

[rndgermandude]

>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving.

Why do they need the approval of people living elsewhere?

[yiyus]

For the same reason they include Barcelona in their hypothetical new country when most people there do not want independence or the same reason a state with 80% of democratic vote has to accept a republican president voted by people "living elsewhere". That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.

[vkou]

> That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.

What's wrong with self-determination?

[close04]

You still do it within the context of existing laws. Democracies rely on leadership by majority so you have to operate within that system.

If it worked the way you imply what would be the limit to what you can justify with “self determination”?

[vkou]

> You still do it within the context of existing laws.

Existing laws may be undemocratic and unjust. If your bar for secession is legality, I will have to point out that the United States should still be part of the British Empire (The revolution was illegal), Hong Kong should pipe down, and stop protesting (They are bound by CPC laws, which have ruled the protests illegal), and most of Africa should still be governed from London and Paris (Most of it did not leave in the context of existing laws.)

> what would be the limit to what you can justify

There really isn't one, but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons. When you secede, you lose a lot of benefits, including economic, military, etc, protection from neighboring states.

[squiggleblaz]

> There really isn't one, but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons. When you secede, you lose a lot of benefits, including economic, military, etc, protection from neighboring states.

I don't think that's really the right reason for saying a house isn't valid. Catalonia is a well defined, self-governing region of Spain. That means the Spaniards have already admitted that they're basically a sensible territory for being an independent state.

You could probably argue, in a case like the US, that New York isn't a valid territory for independence since it was created a long time ago prior to much settlement in the area - but the self government isn't revokable under the US constitution.

Catalonia has no such problem, since its autonomy is a relatively recent gift and is constantly revokable, so the fact that the Spanish haven't done it is proof that they think it's reasonable.

Even then, you still have places like Monaco and San Marino, which are very small. It's hard to argue they're minimally viable countries, just places history forgot, but they are independent.

[yiyus]

It's curious how every example you mention refers to colonies. But Catalonia is not a colony.

Also, in every case you mention, there were international support for the secession, while the Catalan independist movement, in spite of its strong efforts, has got almost zero support. By the way, this is the same international community who thinks that Spanish laws are not undemocratic or unjust.

[ErneX]

Taxes are unjust, let's try not paying taxes and see how it goes.

[tassl]

All independence movement start with laws that are not existing.

[pvaldes]

And then there is always an independence war

[rtkwe]

It's just the way nation-states are setup, as part of being in the union constituent states give up part of their autonomy. This happens all the way down the governmental ladder. The other states (or regions I'm not sure how Spain is divided so I'll just say states) also definitely have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the whole nation. Over the years money has flowed both ways both from the other states to Catalan and from Catalan to the other states.

[anigbrowl]

This is a general state problem, to be sure. It always ends up as an older generation imposing rules on a younger generation that lacks the political autonomy to change them.

[rndgermandude]

That's all fine and dandy, but it presumes the participating states actually want to be part of the union. Otherwise it's tyranny in my humble opinion.

[rtkwe]

I think it depends massively on the situation involved and the state we're talking about. Without suppression beyond "you don't get to just leave" I really hesitate to call it tyranny.

It also seems like if we follow that all the way down where does the fracturing stop and how do you maintain a larger society? Does every sub division of administration have that same right to just say screw the rest of you I'm going home? Allowing it all the way down seems like a ticket straight to fractious setup of loosely associated towns and cities. There's reasons we built up the larger groups over time and part of accessing those benefits requires gluing those partisan impulses together to resist tribal urges.

[yiyus]

We have a constitution that was voted in referendum in 1978. Most people in Catalonia voted in favor of these constitution, and Catalan parties have been an essential part of the governments we have had since then. Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence.

[snvzz]

>Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence.

The results of the elections and the independence referendum strongly disagree.

>Most people in Catalonia (1978) voted in favor of these constitution,

Unlike those that voted the Estatut d'Autonomia (see below), many of these people are dead. There was no alternative to this constitution as it happened in a very unstable climate after the death of the dictator, where the constitution was seen as the one way to stabilize the country and advance towards a democracy.

And the fact people want this is in no way unrelated to what happened to the Estatut d'Autonomia, which defines the relationship between Catalonia and Spain. The current version of the document was written in Catalonia, revised and cut several times until Spain was OK with it, then voted in a referendum in Catalonia and put into effect, only to be cut down dramatically shortly after by the constitutional court, acting on the behalf of a Spanish nationalist political party which gets almost no votes at all in Catalonia. This was perceived as a massive insult to Catalan people.

Not only the situation was not repaired, but Spain's attacks on Catalonia's self government continued. This is the main reason why independence took a hold, perceived as the only option going forward.

[rtkwe]

> The results of the elections and the independence referendum strongly disagree.

The turn out in the 2017 one was 43% and iirc at the time those against the referendum were encouraged to and did sit out as a way of saying 'this is not legitimate' which kind of muddies the water a bit on the actual numbers. [0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe...

[0] Of course this is the problem with any low turn out election, how do you account for the people that don't turn out? Are they protesting, happy with either choice or something else?

[ErneX]

What happened with the Estatut should not be a carte blanche to secede, it was bad? yes it was pretty bad. But to drag probably half the people in Catalonia through this ordeal is just as bad as what happened with the Estatut. We need politicians doing politics again, change whatever it needs to be changed but inside the current framework.

[rndgermandude]

I was speaking more generally and not specific to the Catalan situation.

[xeromal]

You could use this argument for the South (US) in 1800s

[SaberTail]

You could, but I doubt the 40% of the population of the south that were slaves would supported secession.

[SiempreViernes]

It's a tightly integrated part of the economical and political system, the people elsewhere would also be severely affected. Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally?

[rndgermandude]

The UK is tightly integrated into the EU economical and political system. They are breaking away unilaterally. The reason they can do so is that they wouldn't have entered in the first place if there was no instrument to leave again like this (Article 50).

The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. And yet Spain says they have to stay no matter what. This doesn't sound right to me.

[pjc50]

Article 50 was retrofitted: at the time of joining the EC (as it was then) in 1973, there was no defined mechanism for leaving.

[rndgermandude]

The EC was hardly the same as the EU.

But sure, the EC not having had a defined process there was an oversight. But it was clear that the EC would not prevent the UK or any other member from leaving should they have chosen to do so. They wouldn't have arrested the Queen and replaced the UK members of parliament with EC people.

Article 50 really is just about establishing a procedure for an orderly withdrawal from the union (well, not that orderly in practice it would seem).

[kgwgk]

> The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago.

When did that happen?

[tassl]

Most regions on Spain had independent laws up to ~1700. While they belonged to the same Kingdom, they kept some independence. That level of independence was erased after a secession war that started on 1700, and ended with some decrees (Nueva Planta decrees, 1716 for Catalonia) that removed some "furs" and constitutions (not only in Catalonia, but everybody that supported the Hamburg's successor). And this was done using the term "derecho de conquista" (right of conquest).

Since then. I think that the source of conflict is that, for multiple reasons, catalans wanted to be part of a bigger political reality, but in "their" terms. And Spain, as a centralized system, didn't like that, doesn't like that and will not like that. To Spain, Catalonia is a property, why would they let it go? After all, it's their right (of conquest) to keep it.

[kgwgk]

It’s a bit misleading to say that Catalonia (along with other regions) was “essentially annexed” by Spain three centuries ago when it had been already be part of Spain for two centuries already. Since the very creation of the Kingdom of Spain. (It’s true that it tried to secede in 1640-1652 but the result was the loss of its northern territories to France. By the way, Napoleon would actually annex Catalonia to France later.)

Anyway, they level of independence that Catalonia has had in the last decades is much higher that before that “annexion”.

[pmontra]

Actually Article 50 is quite new, it's from 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...

[logfromblammo]

Generally, it's so that the national polity can invest in specific regional polities without fear that they'll take the money and run, or abscond with strategic assets critical to the development of other regions.

It's basically a checklist item for a negotiated diplomatic withdrawal, to avoid triggering a knee-jerk military suppression of the unlawful rebellion. If "the rest of the country" does not agree, and won't negotiate, secession is still possible, it just means winning the civil war.

[maximente]

it would be ridiculous to expect a colony of a monarchy to be expected to overthrow the government in order to "legally" split off. i'm not sure why this is any different - if they win, then the new country obviously won't be held to whatever rules the old one had. this is sort of the nature of the game - successful nations splitting off get to "live to tell the tale".

[JetSpiegel]

Not to mention the current Prime Minister (he's only PM because the support of the pre-independence parties) dragged his feet for months instead of start discussing a federal Spanish state or some other solution. Radio silence until the procés.

[droithomme]

> they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving

I wonder if the American colonies which seceded from Great Britain in 1776 received the agreement of King George or of the people of Great Britain in general. Secession without consent of the sovereign was not part of their law, so the action was clearly illegal and unethical and the colonists simply in the wrong, do you think? Also there is the matter of them using violence and acts of terrorism as part of their secession process. Clearly wrong, correct?

[david-gpu]

The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process.

In contrast, the US was a colony of the UK with no direct representation. Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that.

The potential independence of Catalonia is a complex matter and these simplistic comparisons are unhelpful.

[tassl]

> The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process.

That's irrelevant for minorities; it's the tyranny of the majority.

> Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that.

That's false.

[droithomme]

> the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede

This is completely untrue. The US Constitution has no such clause. Let's have a wager. We both transfer $10,000 to an independent bookie. Then we each submit our evidence that the US Constitution prohibited secession in 1861. An independent panel of judges rules and winner takes all. I'll give you 30 minutes to accept the wager and transfer your contact info.

The War between the States was an illegal war. Because the Northern Aggression won and wrote the textbooks of course they justify their illegal actions, just as the US currently justifies its illegal war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Disagree? Under what legal theory does the US have the right to seize Syrian oil fields as it is currently doing? That's the latest action this week. There are similar absurd and illegal claims of the US government going back centuries. What legal theory do you think the US claims for their seizure of native american lands and parallel mass genocide? Are you aware it's not the Doctrine of Conquest, but the Doctrine of Discovery that the US Supreme Court cited as legal justification? That the first Christian to eye lands held by non-christians permanently and irrevocably has sovereign ownership of the lands, as well as the right to enslave and kill the "pagan" populace. Do you believe this Doctrine of Discovery is a valid legal principle? Or do you agree the US has no legitimate legal claims whatsoever over the much of its territory, which it seized through genocide and deceit and spurious insane pseudo-legal principles. The Doctrine of Discovery has as much validity as the spurious claim that there was anything questionable or illegal or especially unconstitutional about southern secession, and as much rational basis as the european and puritan claims that witches can be detected by attempting to drown them, pile stones on them until they asphyxiate, or that werewolves are responsible for crop failure.

[t_rope]

Well, talking about the US, a group of states tried to secede from the union and there was quite a large war to stop them.

It's not legal for a state to secede from the US at all without other states agreeing to it.

[xyzzyz]

Catalonia is free to try to win the war of independence, of course, just like the US did.