Divorce, the European way
25/3/14 16:22![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn September there'll be an independence referendum in Scotland. And a couple of months later, another one in Catalunya. Secessionist movements are usually full of emotion and a desire for self-determination, but they're mainly driven by economic motivations - as is exactly the case with Catalunya and Scotland.
It seems the more prosperous regions are usually more prone to wanting independence. It's true that seceding could bring a drastic increase of social expenditure and extra taxes as a side effect, but the scope of that increase largely depends on the capital flows between the seceding region and the metropoly. There's nothing surprising in the fact that the presence of natural resources is often an important triggering factor for secession aspirations. If these resources occupy a relatively significant share of a region's exports, the probability for a secessionist push increases respectively. For example in Scotland the independence movement has gained momentum after the 60s when large oil deposits were found in the North Sea.
Of course there are differences as well. While Barcelona has met the staunch resistance of Madrid, London apparently isn't trying to stop Edinburgh. In this sense, Scotland could become a model for realizing the secessionist aspirations of other communities in a civilized way. Under the common umbrella of the EU, the processes of regionalization and the decentralized decision-making should be able to be realized more easily when there's no connecting link, or institution. That's been a pipe dream for the fans of that unrealized proposal of a Federalized Europe for quite a while.
The official stance of the leaders of the European Commission, however, sounds a bit differently: the region that wants to secede from a member state, automatically ceases to be part of the EU. Obviously there are concerns about emerging uncontrollable processes that would threaten the integrity of the EU behind this. The UN treats this problem differently, though. It's a fact that the position of the EC is not stipulated in the European treaties, but the Vienna Convention which deals with international legislation, says that newly formed states can inherit bilateral and multilateral treaties without a legal obstacle. The problem is that this document has only been ratified by a few countries.
From a political and economic standpoint it's understandable that the representatives of the supranational organizations would advocate for the advantages of political centralization and integration. They want to preserve the status quo at any cost, after all. Besides, the European institutions usually feature representatives of the central governments of the respective member states, which perpetuates the model of centralization, which in turn has no interest in undermining itself.
But meanwhile for both the EU itself and the member states it would be better to allow such referenda, and thus counter the populist separatist rhetoric which never misses a chance to criticize the central governments for being too afraid to allow a popular poll that should reflect the real moods among the public.
The real problem may emerge when there's a wide gap between what the political elite and what the populace of a country or region is thinking or expecting. Taking the independence decision itself should be followed by negotiations with the remaining parts of the respective country, and based on the results, the factual secession should then be voted. The Scottish example shows that even a "civilized" secession could bring a lot of problems: the currency issue, the structure of the financial sector, the distribution of national debts, the splitting of national resources (particularly the oil revenue in Scotland's case), the payment of infrastructure expenses, etc. But in any case, a clearly defined "European-style divorce" that's carried out along certain rules and principles, and in the conditions of full openness and transparency, is definitely preferable to the method of threats and pressure, or outright blackmailing at gunpoint that we've been witnessing in places like Crimea, or worse, through civil war, as has been the case with Sudan.
It seems the more prosperous regions are usually more prone to wanting independence. It's true that seceding could bring a drastic increase of social expenditure and extra taxes as a side effect, but the scope of that increase largely depends on the capital flows between the seceding region and the metropoly. There's nothing surprising in the fact that the presence of natural resources is often an important triggering factor for secession aspirations. If these resources occupy a relatively significant share of a region's exports, the probability for a secessionist push increases respectively. For example in Scotland the independence movement has gained momentum after the 60s when large oil deposits were found in the North Sea.
Of course there are differences as well. While Barcelona has met the staunch resistance of Madrid, London apparently isn't trying to stop Edinburgh. In this sense, Scotland could become a model for realizing the secessionist aspirations of other communities in a civilized way. Under the common umbrella of the EU, the processes of regionalization and the decentralized decision-making should be able to be realized more easily when there's no connecting link, or institution. That's been a pipe dream for the fans of that unrealized proposal of a Federalized Europe for quite a while.
The official stance of the leaders of the European Commission, however, sounds a bit differently: the region that wants to secede from a member state, automatically ceases to be part of the EU. Obviously there are concerns about emerging uncontrollable processes that would threaten the integrity of the EU behind this. The UN treats this problem differently, though. It's a fact that the position of the EC is not stipulated in the European treaties, but the Vienna Convention which deals with international legislation, says that newly formed states can inherit bilateral and multilateral treaties without a legal obstacle. The problem is that this document has only been ratified by a few countries.
From a political and economic standpoint it's understandable that the representatives of the supranational organizations would advocate for the advantages of political centralization and integration. They want to preserve the status quo at any cost, after all. Besides, the European institutions usually feature representatives of the central governments of the respective member states, which perpetuates the model of centralization, which in turn has no interest in undermining itself.
But meanwhile for both the EU itself and the member states it would be better to allow such referenda, and thus counter the populist separatist rhetoric which never misses a chance to criticize the central governments for being too afraid to allow a popular poll that should reflect the real moods among the public.
The real problem may emerge when there's a wide gap between what the political elite and what the populace of a country or region is thinking or expecting. Taking the independence decision itself should be followed by negotiations with the remaining parts of the respective country, and based on the results, the factual secession should then be voted. The Scottish example shows that even a "civilized" secession could bring a lot of problems: the currency issue, the structure of the financial sector, the distribution of national debts, the splitting of national resources (particularly the oil revenue in Scotland's case), the payment of infrastructure expenses, etc. But in any case, a clearly defined "European-style divorce" that's carried out along certain rules and principles, and in the conditions of full openness and transparency, is definitely preferable to the method of threats and pressure, or outright blackmailing at gunpoint that we've been witnessing in places like Crimea, or worse, through civil war, as has been the case with Sudan.
(no subject)
Date: 25/3/14 17:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/3/14 13:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/3/14 15:51 (UTC)