Suppose a group of soldiers who have voluntarily joined the army decide one day, when they are on an important mission, that they want to leave the army then and there. They have had enough of the desert, and they want to set up their own private mercenary unit to get more lucrative deals in other parts of the world. Actually, not everyone takes the same view. But in the unit in question, they have a slim majority on their side. So although there are others who prefer to stay in the army, they declare that the will of ‘their’ unit is to leave. When the army asks them to discuss the terms of their withdrawal so as not to jeopardise the current mission or undermine the work of other units in the army, they demand to be given what no one else in the army has ever been granted, and threaten to walk away immediately if they don’t get the deal they want.
Many will feel that it is not concessions, but a court-martial, that should be handed to these people. After all, why should they get away with putting their selfish interests above the safety and wellbeing of everyone else?
When it comes to demands to withdraw from an even larger unit – a nation, a transnational union – we will encounter similar issues. Let’s be clear from the outset that we are talking about secession from what a group has voluntarily joined. Cases where people have been placed under the jurisdiction of a regime as a result of an invasion, for example, would have to be dealt with quite differently.
If we focus on regions and states that have through formal decisions of their respective ruling regime or peaceful community-level integration become part of a wider union, we will see that such a development carries social and political responsibilities that cannot be legitimately brushed aside by unilateral declarations. Having become part of a larger regime, thereby securing greater benefits and security, and earning the trust and support of others in that regime, one must accept that any attempt to discard the needs of others will provoke negative reactions.
Since the marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragon (whose domain covered the Principality of Catalonia) and Isabella I of Castile in 1469, a united Spain has evolved, notwithstanding internal tensions (especially during Franco’s dictatorship over the period 1939-1975). The union of Scotland and England was initiated by James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England in 1603, and consolidated by the formal agreement by both the Scottish and English parliaments in 1707. In addition to the original 13 former British colonies that voluntarily joined forces in 1776 to become the United States of America, others subsequently applied and were accepted as members of that country. In 1973, the UK joined the European Economic Community, and agreed to the EEC’s development into the European Union.
In none of the above cases were the changes in question brought about by force, and the membership of a larger union led to co-dependence that underpinned the wellbeing of all members. The notion that one member can just unilaterally secede without reaching an agreement that is satisfactory to others who would be adversely affected by the secession is morally dubious and politically absurd.
Not surprisingly, when some of the southern states tried to secede, the US refused to accept their move, and the dispute led in 1861 to civil war breaking out. Yet despite that historical lesson, there is still the misconception that any member of a nation or transnational union can simply declare its intention to withdraw and thus create a cast-iron obligation on others to accept it.
The issue is not whether one can point to a referendum that only gives voice to those in the area potentially seeking secession, to justify any demand. If others in the union are treated as irrelevant and denied any say at all, then any demand for secession is inherently flawed. Why should Britons living outside Scotland see the fate of the United Kingdom decided exclusively by people in Scotland? Why should the EU accept damaging changes as a result of a decision taken by UK residents alone? Why should Spain agree to Catalonia leaving to become an independent country when the views of the rest of Spain have not been taken into account?
People at any level in an established political union may have legitimate grievance against those in power. But what would be a justified course of redress cannot be left solely to the complainants to determine. If the rule of law can be set aside by any sub-group within a union, then all kinds of militia or separatist movement can be advanced with no regard for the harm they bring to others. And when that happens, it is not going to end well.
1 comment:
The analogy of a majority of a group of soldiers with a majority in a nation state seems to me a false one in that the rules of a military force, that individuals signing up for swear to, is of obedience to orders; and indeed that court martial could be, under the law, the response. The rules of a nominally democratic state though can allow for majority decisions be legitimate.
With respect to legitimacy of such a majoritarian view in respect to Brexit and the point you make that it’s not truly democratic in that it takes no account of the well-being of the nations with which it had entered into legal agreement and who get no voice in the matter, it seems to me that this is a matter of opinion. For the outcome of any legislation is unlikely to be totally predictable and there needs to be an ability to amend or revoke it if unforeseen and unacceptable harms are felt by any group. In the case of the European Union and the point that the perceived disadvantages motivating the Brexit vote ignore harms of the decision to other nations, your advocacy that the latter should nullify the former seems to me an unacceptable restraint on the freedom of a nation for two reasons.
One is that in my view individuals or groups who perceive themselves in a disadvantaged position in a legal contract, such as a marital partner, an employee with a business, a tenant with a landlord, or of the UK with the European Union, should be free to remove themselves from that contract. It might well be that the other side is harmed by the secession of the other, and so the law allows for damages to be claimed from the seceding party. In the case of individuals deciding to secede from the obligations of state laws, they might even find themselves in jail on the grounds of the social harm that their secession causes. In modern society we don’t physically force people to do things they don’t want to do but we may punish them for this if it harms others. My understanding is that the European Union is indeed being financially punitive with regard to the UK’s secession, as I understand it has the right under law to do.
Secondly, the notion of the lack of democracy with respect to Brexit and its adverse consequences for the other member states of the European Union, seems to me disputable because the European Parliament makes decisions taking into account the effects on all the member states; and there seems no reason why any particular nation shouldn’t democratically come to a decision that on the whole it would prefer to make its own decisions about its welfare in negotiation with other states – and take the adverse consequences of secession.
Post a Comment