Given the sheer inertia in the status quo, it seems doubtful, at least at the time of this writing in early 2012, that Alex Salmond’s planned Scottish referendum on the question, set for 2014, would result in any dramatic change. Sensing an early advantage, the state legislature in London wants the vote earlier, and without Salmond’s planned second question: that on whether more authority should be devolved to the region if the Scots vote not to split off from Britain. As of early 2012, 64% of the Scots say they would vote in favor of more “devolution.” Fifty-eight percent say they would vote against seceding from Britain. This is only fully good news for London if the devolution question can be kept off the referendum. In arranging the referendum as he did, Salmond was hoping to get at least more authority for his region (by adding the devolution question) and maybe even see a swing in the secession number (by delaying the vote for two years). I suspect that in the end, London will end up placating Salmond’s regional Scottish party by throwing the Scots’ regional council a few more bones while keeping the region as part of the state. Devolution is firmly in league with the E.U. principle of subsidiarity (in American terms, the Tenth Amendment) and the European notion of “multilevel governance,” which itself is one of the many ways the Europeans use to avoid mention of the dreaded “federal government” term to refer to the E.U. Government.
I would tend to downplay the significance of the native tiff, or pissing contest, going on during the first few years of the 2010s between Salmond and Cameron on who gets to decide the when and what of the referendum.
Surprisingly, the significance of the issue could lie across the pond, in the “New World,” where the people are happily oblivious to their own federal system. Were the inhabitants to happen to notice “King on the hill” game being played out by Salmond and Cameron, it might dawn on a Californian, for instance, that maybe the long-standing governmental paralysis in Sacramento could be solved by shoving off Southern California (and I don’t mean into the Pacific Ocean, which nature will do in her own good time). Sunnyville could become the 51st American state just as Scotland becomes the 28th European state (assuming Britain’s statehood is renewed).
Also, Southern Illinois, or “Egypt,” has been wanting for decades to break off its political union with the big shoulders of Chicago in the north. Indeed, northern and southern Illinois can be reckoned as culturally- and politically-distinct regions of Illinois (to say the least). In economic terms (besides the issue of redistribution), the south is no Mecca for large corporate headquarters and financial exchanges, and, other than at a few bars, no oil wells operate in the Loop (downtown Chicago)—though maybe if oil were found at Wrigley Field the Cubs might manage to win, let alone be in, a series instead of collapsing in July or August in an apparent heat-stroke from a breeze off the lake. “Egypt” is a world away—perhaps more different from the north in Illinois than Scotland is from London in Britain (and, no, the “union” of Britain’s regions is not like that manifested by the U.S. and E.U.—Britain itself being a state in the latter). I think Cameron just stopped reading.
To those of you who are not ensconced in category mistakes, let me ask: How many other American or European states might benefit from shedding a “problem region”? How many regions are dreaming of statehood? These questions are rarely asked outside of a few trouble spots—the loud kids. To be sure, the inertia enjoyed by the status quo at both the state and the federal level is daunting. Life is too short for us mere mortals to waste time on futility. Still, we dare to dream, on both sides of the pond, of political systems that more closely match the will of the people wherein policies fit more like gloves than tents. In the end, state and federal officials would be better off letting the cards fall where they may—letting the people of a region decide as they will—rather than grasping so incessantly for control that must finally be found to be elusive anyway. This goes for the British people too, concerning their own state’s statehood in the union. It’s about freedom, baby (citing Austin Powers), or Freedom! (citing William Wallace in Braveheart).
Sources:
Ainsley Thomson and Cassell Bryan-Low, “Scotland, U.K. Grapple Over Autonomy,” The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577154200662014314.htmlRoddy Thomson, “UK Faces EU Re-Negotiation If Scotland Breaks Away,” AFP, January 15, 2012. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iajSMJN37uamGND6TquhcLqsJTkQ?docId=CNG.d5034f37cebe7fb3262d88d351279af2.161
11 comments:
Great article! To add to your point about a US state splitting in two, it would require approval by the legislature of the proposed new state, the legislature of the state that they would be leaving and congress then must vote to accept statehood. (Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1)
Your topic in this article is a fascinating one. It is one that has been dealt with numerous times through out history. There is much to be said about self-determination, Abraham Lincoln likened it to anarchy. Although I think that the most relevant would be the writings of the enlightenment thinkers. Montesquieu and Rousseau both believed that the best way to protect liberty was in small homogenous societies. I think they would support you in "letting the people of a region decide as they will." However Madison and Hamilton argued that liberty would be best protected in large societies full of faction. Which is better is hard to say. Examples for each side can be found through out history and still today (USA big and diverse, Iceland small and similar). So I guess the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the best defense for liberty lies in the hearts and minds of human beings and not necessarily in their states.
Andrew Herkenhoff
@rationalworld on twitter
Thanks for reading and for the commenting.I particularly appreciate your mention of Montesquieu and Rousseau in contradistinction to Hamilton and Madison.
Madison in particular argued in the U.S. constitutional convention that in a large republic, enough factions exist that no single one can tyrannize the others.
Considering the influence of Wall Street in Congress--Sen.Durbin said the banking lobby owns Congress--I would say that one faction can indeed have its way if it has enough money behind it. The U.S. at the beginning of the twenty-first century had a population of about 300 million, whereas the U.S. population in 1786 was about 7 million. Even that amount constituted an "extended republic," so that Wall Street can dominate a Union of now over 300 million suggests that Madison was wrong.
You compare Iceland and the U.S. In so doing, you are comparing a "kingdom-level" polity with an "empire-level" polity. An empire consists of kingdoms. The U.S. and E.U. are both republics of republics--the latter being on the scale of the early-modern European kingdoms (e.g., the Netherlands, UK, Switzerland, and modern Germany and France).
Therefore, whereas one would expect Iceland to be homogenous, the U.S. (and E.U.) are inherently diverse (consisting of early-modern kingdom-scale polities). In other words, Iceland and the U.S. are not comparable.
One thing I have wondered is whether the present American republics, which are states in the U.S., are themselves of the scale that the U.S. itself was in Madison's day in terms of population. If so, then Madison might say that the typical state is itself a large republic wherein no one faction could dominate. Montesquieu and Rousseau would perhaps favor federalism within a state because regions or provinces, rather than a state or country, would better capture the will of the people.
In other words, the kingdom level may now be that which Madison and Hamilton, rather than Montesquieu and Rousseau, favored. Considering the influence of the financial sector in Congress, and perhaps even at the state level, this might be an argument for semi-sovereign states within an American (or European) state.
I didn't get beyond your first line before I was spitting feathers: "A region of one of the large E.U. states may split off to become a new state".
It's very hard for us to see ourselves as others see us. The majority in Britain consistently want out of the EU when asked in polls. We don't see ourselves as a satellite member-state of 'nations and regions'. We deny reality.
Adding insult to injury, England itself, the Mother of Parliaments, has no devolved Assembly of its own, as do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. We therefore have no dedicated voice as such in the UK Westminster Parliament like the other parts of the Union.
You're right in your summation that devolution and localism down to the lowest level is in line with EU policy but, unfortunately, most people this side of the Pond don't seem to realise that yet.
Nice article, thank you for posting your perspective. One thing I can tell you is that it will all end in tears. We won't sit back.
One of the best comments I have enccountered! Truly.
Your statement, "It's very hard for us to see ourselves as others see us," is amazing both for its honesty and humility. I for one have been extremely harsh on what I view as the denial in Europe concerning what the E.U. itself if. Cameron, for example, referred to it as "a network" that Britain just happens to be in. Talking about spitting feathers--I was throwing them as darts (or would have been had I had a poster of Cameron on the wall). The European Parliament, whose members are directly elected by E.U. citizens, is a creature of "a network"? Sarkozy and Merkel must have been shaking their heads in utter disbelief. Speaking French and Germany has its advantages, je crois.
I for one am a fan of Britain. I am proud to have many ancestors from there (and elsewhere in Europe). If you guys want a looser union at the EU level, then I think it should be loose for you. I don't view "multi-track" as a bad thing, unless taken to the extreme and thus to confusion. I do not think Cameron should get in the way of the other tracks, such as in the "euro states" enforcing state debt and deficit rules more strongly at the E.U. level. Just last week, the E.U. sent a message to Belgium, which froze spending as a result. That is federalism at its best! American federalism pales in comparison to that. We are nearly to consolidation, which at the empire-scale is unwise considering the innate diversity. At any rate, "ever closer union" in the E.U. for some states is not in my view a threat to member states such as Britain, the Czech Republic, and Hungary that might prefer to go with what in American terms is called the "anti-federalist" position. One size does not fit all, and the overall view of the majority of the British people should be respected in the E.U., just as those people should respect different stances holding the majority in other states with respect to the E.U. You guys can have it both ways--that's one of the beauties of federalism!
I can relate to your taking issue with wording yet continuing to read nonetheless. Considering that "Union" tends to be used nowadays to refer to the empire-level (e.g., US and EU)--combinations of many states, I must admit to bristling at your reference to "parts of the Union" in respect to the UK, but I too must take my lumps and recognize that "union" is also used in Europe to refer to a few of the member states (the UK and the Netherlands). Althusius would not have a problem with it, each level of a federal system being ideally isomorphic in his 1604 theory. I would really spit feathers if Britian's "parts of the Union" were a reference to a United States of Britain. In my view, that involves a category mistake, as Britain is itself a member (better?) of the EU, which I contend is of the same level/genus as is the US. This I know is hotly debated, with fierce emotions on both sides--lots of feathers flying.
In reading your comment, I was particularly struck by your reference to England not having a devolved parliament. An excellent point, in my view. I like the symmetry (Althusius would too).
Thinking "out loud" here, I wonder what would happen if the regions of the states, rather than the states themselves, belonged to the EU. Radical,yes, but what if you guys got rid of the Bundestags and Houses of Commons, or divided power equally (or with a bias toward subsidiarity) between the three levels? Currently, the member-state level has too much power, relative to those of the regions/provinces and the federal level.
As for your reading my essay, I suspect that most Brits who glance at my wording instantly get the message behind it and move on. That you were willing to read on and even engage with me is worthy of great respect and admiration. Whether it knows it or not, Europe stands in great need of people like you as a reality test of sorts. "The truth hurts but I read it anyway," evinces tremendous maturity. Believe me, there is A LOT of "truth hurts" needed on my side of the pond!
Thanks for your comment! I do hope that the British people reach a level of comfort by achieving the desired level of integration in the E.U., even if that means seceding.
Thank you, I think you're flattering me but I'm not sure... (who the heck is Althusius?) I meant no disrespect to the USA - I was merely talking about the European Union. You seem to have something that's worked well for more than 300yrs and it's not my place to try and re-write history. For what it's worth, I think you did the right thing. I view the American War of Independence as a Civil War and something to live up to. You did well.
As for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - we're under the hoof at the moment. 75-80% of our laws come from the EU with most of them being Statutory Instruments and therefore not subject to a vote by the House of Commons, our elected MPs. These SIs are just nodded through, without a vote, because that's the way the EU wants it.
Scotland is being premature, in my view. First of all we should deal with the EU and *then* the issue of independence for Scotland and the break-up of Great Britain. Salmond and the SNP are sniffing the air while Cameron sees it as a way to divert public interest from what's happening in the EU.
Salmond, like Cameron, is also in the EU's pocket and that's why we have only two options: surrender or rise up. It sounds melodramatic but this is what history has taught us. Sad days all round.
Just to clarify my comparison of Iceland and the USA was not meant to be a general one. I chose these two countries because they represent two different philosophies. The only comparison that I was trying to make was that they are both relatively free societies despite their inherent differences. As far as your judgement about Madision being wrong, I agree that the current situation in the USA does not bode well for his theory however I am not yet ready to declare him wrong.
I appreciate your hesitancy in joining me in refuting James Madison on his "big political territory" theory. I do agree with him on localities being subject to a tyrannical and corrupt faction or dominant coalition. One need only think of the "Chicago machine." The question is perhaps whether Illinois is big enough not to be dominated by the big city. One could ask the same thing about Belgium being dominated by Brussels and France by Paris. One of the benefits of federalism is that the U.S. or E.U. Government could provide its state governments with a bit of leverage in dealing with an otherwise dominating big city (at the state level). Ironically, both in the U.S. and E.U., additional federal power could be used specifically as a check on local (and even state) corruption, even as the principle of subsidiarity is retained in terms of competencies (or domains) of policy.
I do want to try to unpack your statement, "I chose these two countries because they represent two different philosophies." Actually, just as in the E.U., there are many different philosophies in the U.S. Both of these unions covers nearly a continent, and is thus what I would call "empire-scale" (and the type of governance at that level being "empire-level," or imperial). In other words, you are using "countries" to refer to two qualitative and quantitatively different political entities.
To give just one example, the philosophy that gave rise to a law of universal health-care in Massachusetts (including subsidies for the poor) is VERY different than the philosophy we would find in Oklahoma or Texas (where even the Democratic Party is pro-life). To treat Massachusetts and Texas as if they were regions in Britain (e.g., Scotland and Wales), provinces in France (e.g., Normandy and Province), or lander (lands or regions) in Germany (e.g., Bremen and Bavaria) is to conflate political levels drastically. France is a bit smaller than Texas, and Germany is about the size of Montana. Moreover, like France and Germany, Massachusetts and Texas are semi-sovereign and were at one point completely sovereign. To label everything from Wales to the U.S. as a country is too vague--and even misleading for it assumes a certain likeness or commonality between the vastly different "manifestations."
That said, I do take your point concerning different philosophies, irrespective of the examples you selected. I understand that you were not ignoring the inherent differences between an independent state and a union of semi-sovereign states. I am writing this comment more as an opportunity to flesh out or elaborate on my theory than to correct you. I do think the language of comparison typically used hints at a category mistake concerning the U.S. (and the E.U. as somehow an international organization or "network"). The language used can even imply things that the writer does not intend.
You made several good points, some of which I never thought of. For example you pointed out that it is not always accurate to label everything "from Whales to the US a country." this is an interesting point and this is something that most people do. If we are to take your advice about using "empire level" and kingdom level classifications many people including my self will have to re-assess our world views. I'll have to ponder this one some more. Finally speaking to your last point about wording, I mistakenly used the word "philosophies" when I meant "theories. " I was meaning that the US generally represented Madison's "big politcal territory" theory and that Iceland roughly represented the "small political territory" theory. Sorry for the confusion. Also I have a tendency to look at the big picture to the exclusion of some important details (it makes things simpler) I appreciate you pushing "details" like the differences between the US, EU and states like Iceland, Poland etc. back into my thinking. Keep up the good work.
I see now I pivoted from the Madison vs. Jefferson debate on big vs. small republic to liberal vs. conservative debate on social policy. My mistake.
In terms of Madison's philosophy or theory that can I think be called "big republic preferrable to a small one," there were differences in the constitutional convention--much by state. The delegates from South Carolina and New Jersey, for example, argued against the Virginia Plan because it was feared not only that the big republics would have too much power, but also because the "extended republic's" proposed government would have too much power. In other words, some states were mostly "federalist" while others were mostly "anti-federalist," and still others were in between.
The U.S. today, particularly as it is so consolidated at the "empire scale," can admittedly be used as an example of that which Madison advocated. Small republics like Iceland are examples of what Jefferson (and the anti-federalists who opposed the U.S. constitution) urged. I take it that's what you meant (rather than that the U.S. and Iceland are comparable).
(cont)
In one of the other comments above, the writer asks about Althusius. He was a German jurisprud whose "Political Digest" in 1604 applied federalism to the local, province, kingdom and empire levels. His theory is one of the sources of my application of the early-modern kingdom and empire scales to the states and unions, respectively. A complicating element is that in Europe some medieval international confederations were themselves at the kingdom-scale by the early-modern period. I have in mind here the Netherlands, England/the United Kingdom,Switzerland, and Germany. That is why I stress the early-modern default scale for kingdoms as that which matches what we call member states or states.
You hit the nail on the head in observing, "many people including my self will have to re-assess our world views." My own world view shifted as I was studying Althusius and applied his theory to George Bancroft's 10 volumes of the History of the U.S. since 1614 or so. I learned that the colonies were both in scale and level (in the British empire) comparable to European countries at the time. Indeed, Ireland and Pennsylvania were both considered members of the British Empire. The members were on the same level as Britain, which was also called the "host kingdom." Also, in selecting powers for the proposed U.S. Govt, the delegates looked to the imperial powers in the British Empire. It occurred to me that both the E.U. and U.S. must be on the empire-scale and level.
Thanks for your insightful comments and especially for being open to my theory.
Post a Comment