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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
> 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]
[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?
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.
>What happened with the Estatut should not be a carte blanche to secede
Nobody took a "carte blanche" to secede. The succession of pro-independence governments were put in there by voters. These governments exhausted all possible avenues with the spanish goverment, which refused to even talk about the topic.
Catalan people were then asked explicitly whether they wanted it, in the referendum that's famous for the violence of the spanish police that were sent to prevent it. And even after that, the Catalan government tried again and again to establish dialogue with Spain, to no avail.
Spain then went on to suspend catalan government, put everybody they could in jail, and to force an election in Catalonia. An election from which yet another pro-independence government was formed.
And to date, Spain has refused any and all dialogue, and the politicians in Jail have been given a judgement that most people in Catalonia cannot agree with, by a trial that independent international observers found outrageously biased and unfair.
This is why we are where we are. The people have taken to the streets because that's what's left.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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”.
> Anyway, they level of independence that Catalonia has had in the last decades is much higher that before that “annexion”.
I am sorry to say, but this is the misleading part. You can't compare the situation hundreds of years ago with today's standards. Politically, Catalonia has less level of independence than 300 years ago. After all it had its own political institutions, courts, laws and coinage of money; all of them separated from the Kingdom of Castile.
The annex I was referring to was political, economical, legal and monetary unification after Catalonia defended a different candidate for the crown. And this is the level of autonomy that some Catalans wanted to regain.
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.