
Venice votes 89% to secede from Italy - stefan_kendall3
http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/03/venice-votes-to-secede-from-italy-2/
======
alex-g
This was not a referendum, nor even a proper opinion poll - just a partisan
petition. The figure of 89% is completely meaningless. Both the Daily Mail,
and this article, prefer to make their own political point (we hate government
and taxes) rather than engage in real news reporting or analysis.

~~~
mxfh
Is someone from Italy here, who can give his views on this?

Tried to understand what's going on and this looks more like some scammy
online lottery cashing in on some diffuse dissenting and secessionist moods,
getting overexposed by Russian foreign news channels than anything resembling
a proper referendum.

It's nearly impossible to find some independent non-italian news-sources that
not just reproduce the PR of the secessionists or RT "news".

[All following sources are Italian so google translate is your friend]

Found this video which seems to make fun of the foreign press thinking that
good-who-knows-what happened in Italy (Like that guy who tries to sell the
Trevi Fountain to some gullible American-Italian Tourist). [1]

This one is quite sceptic and seems to paint the picture of this just an
embellished online poll, pompously relabeled as "referendum", run by a local
businessmen, Gianluca Busato, with connections to some fringe secessionist
parties. [2]

Even if this article written after the referendum ended strikes a different
tone, the pictures and the crowd look quite orchestrated [3]

After all this whole issue says more about the sorry state of journalism than
about the actual likelihood of the Veneto region seceding from Italy any time
soon.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfhV3J3b1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfhV3J3b1c)

[2] [http://www.vice.com/it/read/indipendenza-veneto-
referendum-m...](http://www.vice.com/it/read/indipendenza-veneto-referendum-
marzo-2014)

[2 in proper english translation, worth a read]
[http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/veneto-would-like-to-be-
italy...](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/veneto-would-like-to-be-italys-
crimea)

[3] [http://www.vice.com/it/read/referendum-indipendenza-
veneto-t...](http://www.vice.com/it/read/referendum-indipendenza-veneto-
treviso-marzo-2014)

~~~
Camillo
It's just some fringe movement organizing an online petition. Almost nobody in
Italy had even heard of it until the foreign press (apparently the Telegraph
from the UK) started spreading the "news".

------
ekianjo
By the way, as the article mentions, Italy was almost never unified as a
country in History. It's a VERY recent creation (just before WW1) and during
more than 1000 years it was actually a jigsaw puzzle of small states. Germany
has a longer History of federation, though.

EDIT: You can actually see this very clearly in the video showing the
evolution of borders in Europe (that was shared last week on HN).

~~~
jerf
I think one of the lessons we'll take away from the 19th and 20th centuries is
that just smashing some things together and calling it a "country" by fiat
from people hundreds or thousands of miles away doesn't do anybody any good.

~~~
brownbat
I'm not sure there's any workable alternative.

Self-determination breaks down just as easily. You get regions seceding from
countries, but nothing stops cities from seceding from that region, or blocks
seceding from that city, creating an ungovernable patchwork where everyone is
a king trying to extort taxes from neighbors.

Permanently fixing borders based on a population's will at one moment assumes
demographics are held constant for all time. (And how do you pick how large of
a population gets to vote?) Re-voting every time anyone calls for a referendum
destroys any certainty that the state will exist for more than ten years, and
creates little wars of demography, where populations try to pack supporters
into a territory for political control.

As you noted, borders drawn according to pure whimsy aren't much of a prize
either.

All of these systems are basically terrible for different reasons.

~~~
jerf
"I'm not sure there's any workable alternative."

Me neither, but this tends to lead into some very politically incorrect
territory when you start analyzing why.

However, I'd be willing to try letting the artificially created countries
break themselves back down into some smaller units, then letting themselves
voluntarily reassemble at a later date if they see the advantages. While it's
easy to forget, since it hasn't happened in my lifetime, and our Federal
government keeps getting larger and getting more of the attention, but the
United States really _are_ the United States; there are procedures for
voluntarily joining it. The EU is a larger organization that provides another
model for voluntarily joining a larger union. I agree the initial states might
break down quite small, but if there are sufficient advantages to reforming
into larger units there are models for this. This has been a _relatively_
peaceful process. (Though history suggests that some procedures for
voluntarily and legally disassociating _may_ be a good idea. That's certainly
debatable at length, but I'm not sure the one-way door model is entirely the
best idea, though I'd suggest it also ought to take a supermajority of some
sort.)

------
blaze33
The article doesn't mention that it was an Internet vote with no legal value.

> It will be interesting to see what Rome does. Will they send an army to take
> their tax money?

They'll still have to pay there taxes, this is either misinformed or following
some agenda.

This is more factual:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtl.fr%2Factualites%2Finfo%2Finternational%2Farticle%2Fitalie-
les-habitants-de-venise-votent-a-89-pour-leur-independance-7770649879&act=url)

~~~
ekianjo
> The article doesn't mention that it was an Internet vote with no legal
> value.

Even if it were NOT on Internet, it would not have any legal value as long as
the Italian State does not recognize its validity. Which they would surely
never agree to.

------
jkldotio
The effect of the EU being on a federal trajectory, albeit increasingly
contested, is interesting here. The independence movement in Scotland, and I
expect this applies to Catalonia and Venice, paints a picture of independence
within the EU. Scottish nationalists regularly talk about moving away from the
UK model and towards a Scandinavian model, which is probably not what the
average reader of mises.org has in mind when they think about secession.

Of course it's very complex as it seems the weight of legal opinion is that
Scotland will have to leave the EU if they leave the UK. There are a few legal
academics that dispute that legal point but their case doesn't sound very
convincing to me and the EU institutions have more or less said they will have
to reapply. However Scotland does have the advantage of having a fairly good
faith partner in the rest of the UK if they do leave. If the current disputes
over the pound and the debt don't turn vicious then a huge stack of treaties
being signed all in one day to make it all legal becomes imaginable. I think
Barcelona-Madrid and Venice-Rome relations might take a somewhat different
path.

~~~
teh_klev
"Of course it's very complex as it seems the weight of legal opinion is that
Scotland will have to leave the EU if they leave the UK"

Citation please. Please stop recycling UK Mainstream Media "fag packet legal
opinion" about whether Scotland would or would not have to leave the EU before
being re-admitted via a lengthy application process.

And before you cite Barossa, that was one man's incorrect personal opinion.
Thus far the EU has not ruled in any sort of legal way as to whether Article
48 (method of treaty amendment) or Article 49 (applications to join the EU) of
the Treaty of Union would apply to Scotland.

Thus far the Scottish Government would like to use Article 48 rather than
Article 49. Because there as never been a precedent of a new state seceding
from an existing member state within the EU the whole position is untried.

edit: Disclosure, I am campaigning for Scottish Independence.

------
TrainedMonkey
"Campaigners say that the Rome government receives around 71 billion euros
each year in tax from Venice - some 21 billion euros less than it gets back in
investment and services." [0]

There does appear to be significant economical imbalance, however it would
take blood being spilled before powers that be would let any kind of secession
stand.

[0] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586531/Venice-
votes...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586531/Venice-votes-split-
Italy-89-citys-residents-opt-form-new-independent-state.html#ixzz2wvv3Ls20)

~~~
jmspring
Given California gets about $0.80 per $1 of taxes sent to the Federal
government back in terms of Federal spending, I can understand the Venetians
in this desire.

~~~
jessaustin
I mean this in the most generous possible way: good luck and please go. One of
the best possible outcomes for all Americans and humans would be the the
breakup of the USA as it currently exists. California could probably get that
party started in the best possible way.

~~~
jmspring
As a native Californian, I'd love to break from the union more than the
idiotic "6 Californias" currently scheduled for the next election. Yes there
are differences in the state, but as a whole it is way more suited to be self
sustaining than a lot of states sucking on the Federal largess.

~~~
dragonwriter
"Six Californias" isn't scheduled for any election, its approved to begin
gathering signatures for a petition to put it on the ballot -- and it would be
on the ballot the election after next if it gets enough signatures.

~~~
jmspring
Sorry, I meant the ballot initiative. Given the money behind it, I suspect it
will qualify and basically figured it is a given to be on the ballot.

------
ekianjo
> Given that Obama recently declared all secession movements illegitimate
> (except those supported by the US Government, of course) it’s unknown how
> much support Venice can expect from the international community.

What? Obama is clearly off track here. The right to secede is in the American
constitution from its very beginning. Any State in the US can decide to become
independent if their population really wants to. Whether it makes sense is
another story, but it certainly would not regarded as illegitimate.

~~~
hristov
There is nothing in the US constitution that actually allows secession. Some
people try to imply a right to secede from the declaration of independence or
from the history of the US (i.e., the revolutionary war) but there is not
actual text in the US constitution that gives anyone the right to secede.

If you disagree, please provide a quote.

~~~
ekianjo
> There is nothing in the US constitution that actually allows secession

True, but there is nothing that forbids it either explicitly. And I could
argue that from the History of the US, of how they were formed, and the
Declaration of Independence, Secession is very much considered to be a
cultural Right.

Even Lincoln said that:

> Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to
> rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits
> them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we
> hope and believe is to liberate the world.

This is further observed by foreign observers such as Tocqueville after the US
were established:

> The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in
> uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they
> been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the
> States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to
> disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no
> means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.

~~~
mpyne
The actual written Constitution has far more text about handling the cases of
treason, rebellion, and domestic violence than it does about individual states
seceding.

And if you would read the Declaration of Independence you'd see that the
"tyranny test" (such as one was ever conceived in American jurisprudence) is
very strict indeed. Even from the first days of the American Revolutionary War
we were claiming that the government deserved a great deal of "benefit of the
doubt" and that it would take a very severe set of circumstances to cast off a
government.

------
lelandbatey
I'm a little confused by this part of the quote:

> 'Although _history never repeats itself,_ we are now experiencing a strong
> return of little nations...`

I've never heard the phrase "history never repeats itself", I've only ever
heard "history repeats itself."

Is this a saying that comes out of Italy, or am I just grossly uninformed?

~~~
arg01
Some of the common quotes:

"History never repeats itself, but it rhymes"

-Mark Twain

Split enz also has a popular song with "History never repeats. I tell myself
before I go to sleep".

The other quote you're your probably thinking of

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

-George Santayana

So all in all I'd say you're right on the thrust of the generally popular
quotes but not necessarily on their wording.

------
rsynnott
I assume it will be adopting Dogecoin as its currency.

------
ebbv
A klaxon goes off in my head whenever I see phrases like "Italy is a made-up
country." All countries are made-up. How else would they exist?

What's objectionable is when an outside empire comes in and says "You guys are
all one country now." But that's not the case with Italy, or Europe in
general, who are the ones who generally did that to others.

~~~
logicchains
>What's objectionable is when an outside empire comes in and says "You guys
are all one country now."

Didn't the Roman Empire do something like this to Europe?

~~~
bitkrieg
Nations / Nationalism didn't really exist back then.

------
chrismcb
" Italy is a made-up country," uhm, aren't they all just made up? Granted
Venice used to be its own country, but still all countries are made up.

~~~
pliny
Some countries are more made up than others. Most of the countries in Africa
and the Middle East were not formed by popular movements for self
determination, but rather the result of foreign (mostly West European)
political considerations, the people living in many of those countries - in
aggregate - have no common ground, they associate with some ethnic group that
does not identify with the state and are often seriously opposed to their
union with other ethnic groups (Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda are one extreme
example of this; Sunnis, Shias and Christians in most Arab states are
another).

Most European states are less made up than almost all non-European states, but
Italy is much less a result of a group of people who chose to unite (or
secede) than, say, the Balkan states in their current form.

------
raldi
Why don't more cities secede from their surrounding areas? For example, New
York State takes so much more from New York City (in the form of taxes,
mostly) than it gives back, and it prevents the city from things that are in
its own interest (e.g., congestion pricing or a commuter tax).

So why didn't the city break away a long time ago?

~~~
dec0dedab0de
If they tried to break away from the USA they would have the military knocking
on their door. If they somehow managed to operate as an independent city like
DC, they would lose the right to vote for senators and president.

~~~
raldi
Actually, I was thinking about why they don't become their own state. It seems
to be completely in their own interest, except I think the US constitution
forbids them from doing it without their parent state's permission.

------
tim333
I guess having free trade and free movement of people within the EU makes this
kind of thing practical. I'm not sure Venice will happen but Scotland may.

