[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.

[vkou]

You can stop paying taxes to the country you live in, when you leave it.

[close04]

> but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons.

So you can find a limit. What if Barcelona does not want to be in that new country (and they don’t)? Will the borders of that new country inside which you start counting votes include Barcelona against their will? What freedoms do people who want to stay with the "original" country get? They suddenly become the oppressed minority. How many splinters is too many?

You object to the “dictatorship” of democracy in Spain but the plan is do do the exact same at a smaller scale in the new country to a newly created minority. The reason we’ve had the longest period of peace and prosperity in Europe’s history is that the rules are as they are now and they're the best compromise. Any “improvement” you want to get for yourself comes at a major cost for everyone.

[squiggleblaz]

That's not a fair response, since the two sides are not "Catalonia should be independent" vs "Catalonia should be part of Spain"; rather, the two sides are "Catalonia should have a right to discuss terms of independence with its own people and the rest of Spain" vs "Catalonia should not have the right to discuss terms of independence with its own people and the rest of Spain".

Catalonia should have a right to poll its people about whether to engage in negotiations, and to discuss terms with Spain (who, naturally, should represent coherent minority interests in Catalonia who do not want to depart).

Spain should have a right to say "Well, look, the border should not include Barcelona since 60% of them (or whatever the figure might be in a just and fair plebiscite) have expressed a desire to remain".

Once fair negotiations have taken place and each side has accepted that they have won some and lost some, Catalonia could have another referendum, and it might turn out that no-one wants independence from both Madrid and Barcelona.

Spain says it's illegal to start, middle and end the process. If the Catalans don't really want to separate, then starting is free. It will almost certainly increase the order and decrease the tension if they let a plebiscite go forward.

(The last paragraph is an irrelevance, since there's no evidence that a European Union of many smaller states, incapable of independently sustaining a modern armed force, will be any more likely to go to war than a European Union of fewer larger states, capable of independently sustaining modern armed forces. In fact, even putting the argument down in black on tan really brings out its ridiculousness.)

[close04]

> the two sides are not "Catalonia should be independent" [...but] Catalonia should have a right to discuss terms of independence

Polling someone about something implies one of the results is perfectly possible. I considered that as being the final result for the purpose of the discussion because that's the crux of the matter. So yes, that is the only side that matters. There are no "fair" negotiations to be had. Spain has nothing to gain. It would not only show willingness to let illegal activity go unpunished and worse, it encourages it by negotiating.

What happens next time someone wants something illegal according to country laws and constitution? Negotiate every time? There is no negotiation that will please everybody and at best you'd end up with a random collection of patches where 100% of the population wants independence (since you don't want to oppress anyone).

> Spain should have a right to say "Well, look, the border should not include Barcelona since 60% of them (or whatever the figure might be in a just and fair plebiscite) have expressed a desire to remain".

What about the 40% (just to fit the math) that want the independence in Barcelona? Aren't they to Barcelona what Catalonia is to Spain? Should they splinter from Barcelona? How many times do you splinter? How long until you say "well I think we have enough"? And when you do isn't that arbitrary and hypocritical?

[vkou]

> Polling someone about something implies one of the results is perfectly possible.

Both results of asking Catalonia whether or not it should start negotiating with Spain as to what independence would look like are completely possible. It's up to Spain to accept that possibility, though, not Catalonia.

> There are no "fair" negotiations to be had. Spain has nothing to gain.

Internal stability, an end to social unrest, and doing the right thing, by letting people govern themselves, is not something to gain?

You shouldn't block your spouse from divorcing you in a broken marriage, and you should generally not keep people who want to leave, in your country.

> What happens next time someone wants something illegal according to country laws and constitution? Negotiate every time?

Generally speaking, when there's a large demand in a democracy for an unjust law to be changed, the correct thing to do is to, in fact, change the law.

> What about the 40% (just to fit the math) that want the independence in Barcelona? Aren't they to Barcelona what Catalonia is to Spain? Should they splinter from Barcelona? How many times do you splinter? How long until you say "well I think we have enough"? And when you do isn't that arbitrary and hypocritical?

That's the whole point of going to the negotiating table, in good faith. To discuss the options, to figure out how edge cases will work. If Barcelona wants to remain in Spain, I see no reason for why Catalonian secession should have to include it. Catalonia can then make the choice of whether or not it wants to secede without Barcelona. It will probably choose to not do so, and you will solve your problem without turning to violence and repression.

Of course, this requires negotiating in good faith, which seems to be anathema.