>I'm not one of them, ma sono nato a Padova ;)

Really? Where do you live?

carlo

Carlo Stagnaro wrote:
> By the way: I have asked a certain number of Padanian friends to join
> this list, and believe they did. Please, guys, introduce yourselves
> to our international fellows ;-)

I'm not one of them, ma sono nato a Padova ;)

--
Anton Sherwood

> Assume Quebec will hold a third referendum about independence. In case it
> was won, what would be happening? I don't know Canadian Constitution, but
> find hard to figure out a constitution in the modern, statist world which
> recognizes right to secession. I'm sincerely curious to see what's goin' on
> in Quebec.

If there were a third referendum, the following would likely occur: Quebec
would declare sovereignty, Canada would do nothing to stop them, and
Quebec would begin to negotiate an economic association with Canada.  This
is the route that the Parti Quebecois & the Bloc Quebecois set forth
during the last referendum campaign in 1995.  Canada's Constitution does
not guarantee the right to secession, but the Supreme Court of Canada has
ruled that if Quebec's provincial government declared independence, Canada
would have to negotiate with Quebec and could not use force.

> Another question. It is my guess that PQ is a nearly-socialist party;
> according to a friend of me, often they have loss lots of consent because of
> their preference to a statist, internal policy. In other words, it seems to
> me that they should endorse a free-market oriented policy (low taxes,
> limited government, non interventionism...) rather than a statist one. I
> don't believe in the People Republic of Quebec, and, if I was a Quebecois,
> would never help those who like it!!

Well, it is true that the PQ has always been to the left of its main
competitor at the provincial level, the Liberal Party of Quebec.  However,
the federal sovereigntist party in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois, is slightly
to the right of the federal Liberal Party and is made up mostly of former
Progressive Conservatives.  There are free-market caucuses in both the PQ
and the BC, and there are Marxist caucuses in both too!  The issue of
sovereignty seems to cut across other ideological lines.

> Of course, I may be wrong. But this would be a situation really close to
> ours. Even our former secessionist party, the Lega Nord, was in the past
> pro-market. However, a few years ago, it slightly moved toward extreme right
> policies, and day by day forgot it was secessionist. Now it is, with the
> former fascists (Alleanza Nazionale), among the more statists parties in the
> Parliament. They advocate public pension system, minimal wages, labor
> protectionism, and so...

Yes, and from what I gather the Lega Nord has not done well electorally
with its new strategy.  It's been losing votes among youth and businessmen
in cities like Milan.  These people would rather go with Forza Italia than
a racist party.  The situation in Quebec is different, as whatever their
views on economic policy, the PQ and the BC have not compromised their
pro-independence views one iota.

--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

Dear Jason,

Assume Quebec will hold a third referendum about independence. In case it
was won, what would be happening? I don't know Canadian Constitution, but
find hard to figure out a constitution in the modern, statist world which
recognizes right to secession. I'm sincerely curious to see what's goin' on
in Quebec.

Another question. It is my guess that PQ is a nearly-socialist party;
according to a friend of me, often they have loss lots of consent because of
their preference to a statist, internal policy. In other words, it seems to
me that they should endorse a free-market oriented policy (low taxes,
limited government, non interventionism...) rather than a statist one. I
don't believe in the People Republic of Quebec, and, if I was a Quebecois,
would never help those who like it!!

Of course, I may be wrong. But this would be a situation really close to
ours. Even our former secessionist party, the Lega Nord, was in the past
pro-market. However, a few years ago, it slightly moved toward extreme right
policies, and day by day forgot it was secessionist. Now it is, with the
former fascists (Alleanza Nazionale), among the more statists parties in the
Parliament. They advocate public pension system, minimal wages, labor
protectionism, and so...

Please, fellow Quebecois, be sure to learn from Italian experience, and be
the watchdogs of your freedom party!!

By the way: I have asked a certain number of Padanian friends to join this
list, and believe they did. Please, guys, introduce yourselves to our
international fellows ;-)

Cheers,
carlo




----- Original Message -----
From: Jason P Sorens
To: secession@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: [secession] News from Quebec



http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSQuebec0110/16_pq-cp.html

PQ to debate sovereignty plans

MONTREAL (CP) -- The Parti Quebecois will debate sovereignty for Quebec at
its next national council meeting in mid-November, the party's
vice-president said Monday.

Marie Malavoy said while the PQ is sensitive to the wishes of the public
following two recent byelection losses and a squeaker win in a third, it
would be wrong to jump to conclusions.

Polls have indicated that there is a significant drop in support for
sovereignty. Some have suggested the PQ stands a better chance for
re-election if they drop the subject.

Malavoy, who said she believes sovereignty is the best way for Quebec,
said the PQ will continue to discuss strategies to achieve independence.

She said while arguments to achieve sovereignty will be refined, the
objective of getting it will not change.

Members of the PQ caucus in the legislature discussed the sovereignty
question at a meeting last week. There were indications the party would be
encouraged to downplay talk of another referendum.

Premier Bernard Landry has said he would like Quebec to be sovereign by
2005.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSQuebec0110/12_referendum-cp.html

Landry ties referendum date to public opinion
By DONALD MCKENZIE-- The Canadian Press

LAVAL, Que. (CP) -- Premier Bernard Landry says the timing of the next
sovereignty referendum will be decided by Quebecers rather than his own
desire to have one by 2005.

"There will be a referendum at the pace and the step of the population,"
Landry said Friday during a joint Parti Quebecois-Bloc Quebecois caucus.

"Quebecers will be ready not only to have one (a referendum) but to have
one with positive results."

Landry said last month that he would love Quebec to be a full-fledged
country participating in the Summit of the Americas to be held in Buenos
Aires in 2005.

On Friday, he repeated several times that Quebecers will set their own
pace in determining the referendum timetable.

But that pace appears to be slow, if it's even moving at all.

The PQ fared poorly in recent byelections and opinion polls have steadily
suggested that Quebecers were weary of hearing about referendums.

Landry also knows that another referendum defeat would be a major setback
for the sovereigntist movement and could very well spell the end of his
own political career.

"I do not want to lose another referendum," he said Friday, again trotting
out the familiar line that the Yes side won 40 per cent of the vote in
1980 and climbed to 49.4 per cent in 1995.

Landry maintained that a referendum before 2005 is still a possibility.

He also took the occasion to remind Canadians in other provinces that
Quebec is not just any other province.

"Millions and millions of just and equitable people in Canada must think
the following: Quebec is a nation, just like Norway or Scotland or Sweden.

"We will never be satisfied with a provincial status within another
respectful and, in many points of view, fantastic other nation."

The PQ lost two party strongholds to the Liberals in byelections Oct. 1,
won another riding by about 50 votes and retained the fourth riding with a
reduced majority from the 1998 election.

Landry can wait until the fall of 2003 before going to the polls. He will
be hoping to emulate ex-PQ leaders Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard,
who led the party to victory in 1994 and 1998 respectively.

But Landry will also be up against recent history: no party has won three
consecutive mandates in Quebec since the 1950s.


--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
secession-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSQuebec0110/16_pq-cp.html

PQ to debate sovereignty plans

MONTREAL (CP) -- The Parti Quebecois will debate sovereignty for Quebec at
its next national council meeting in mid-November, the party's
vice-president said Monday.

Marie Malavoy said while the PQ is sensitive to the wishes of the public
following two recent byelection losses and a squeaker win in a third, it
would be wrong to jump to conclusions.

Polls have indicated that there is a significant drop in support for
sovereignty. Some have suggested the PQ stands a better chance for
re-election if they drop the subject.

Malavoy, who said she believes sovereignty is the best way for Quebec,
said the PQ will continue to discuss strategies to achieve independence.

She said while arguments to achieve sovereignty will be refined, the
objective of getting it will not change.

Members of the PQ caucus in the legislature discussed the sovereignty
question at a meeting last week. There were indications the party would be
encouraged to downplay talk of another referendum.

Premier Bernard Landry has said he would like Quebec to be sovereign by
2005.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSQuebec0110/12_referendum-cp.html

Landry ties referendum date to public opinion
By DONALD MCKENZIE-- The Canadian Press

LAVAL, Que. (CP) -- Premier Bernard Landry says the timing of the next
sovereignty referendum will be decided by Quebecers rather than his own
desire to have one by 2005.

"There will be a referendum at the pace and the step of the population,"
Landry said Friday during a joint Parti Quebecois-Bloc Quebecois caucus.

"Quebecers will be ready not only to have one (a referendum) but to have
one with positive results."

Landry said last month that he would love Quebec to be a full-fledged
country participating in the Summit of the Americas to be held in Buenos
Aires in 2005.

On Friday, he repeated several times that Quebecers will set their own
pace in determining the referendum timetable.

But that pace appears to be slow, if it's even moving at all.

The PQ fared poorly in recent byelections and opinion polls have steadily
suggested that Quebecers were weary of hearing about referendums.

Landry also knows that another referendum defeat would be a major setback
for the sovereigntist movement and could very well spell the end of his
own political career.

"I do not want to lose another referendum," he said Friday, again trotting
out the familiar line that the Yes side won 40 per cent of the vote in
1980 and climbed to 49.4 per cent in 1995.

Landry maintained that a referendum before 2005 is still a possibility.

He also took the occasion to remind Canadians in other provinces that
Quebec is not just any other province.

"Millions and millions of just and equitable people in Canada must think
the following: Quebec is a nation, just like Norway or Scotland or Sweden.

"We will never be satisfied with a provincial status within another
respectful and, in many points of view, fantastic other nation."

The PQ lost two party strongholds to the Liberals in byelections Oct. 1,
won another riding by about 50 votes and retained the fourth riding with a
reduced majority from the 1998 election.

Landry can wait until the fall of 2003 before going to the polls. He will
be hoping to emulate ex-PQ leaders Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard,
who led the party to victory in 1994 and 1998 respectively.

But Landry will also be up against recent history: no party has won three
consecutive mandates in Quebec since the 1950s.


--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

>Yes, actually I read a BBC story on the matter which says that the
>new center-right coalition believes the referendum did not go far enough,
>and they promise to hold another referendum.  This made me skeptical of

Well, even this is not completely true. I mean, conservatives promise to
realize a further reform. The proposal Lega Nord made in the last, few
months is not much more "extremistic" than that we have voted on Sunday.
Actually, it gives to the regions more power, BUT also states those powers
are delegated FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO THE REGIONS, that is they are a
"privilege" rather than a real improvement toward a federalist system.

>Certainly a major qualifier.  Who has the right to interpret whether a
>region's decision is in the "national interest"?  The judiciary or the
>national parliament?  If the latter, then the new initiative really is so
>much wasted paper; if the former, there's a chance it could have real
>teeth.

It is not clear; anyway, most problems will be interpreted by national
government, and a few ones by the parliament. I don't believe any of them
will be matter for the judiciary, even though sth. could be ruled on by the
Constitutional Court (which, in the last decades, stopped lots of referenda
which might have strenghtened regions...).

Cheers,
carlo

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Carlo Stagnaro wrote:

> Actually, after the Italians voted the Sunday's referendum only a few things
> have changed.

Yes, actually I read a BBC story on the matter which says that the
new center-right coalition believes the referendum did not go far enough,
and they promise to hold another referendum.  This made me skeptical of
the LA Times' description, and I was hoping that you would take the bait
and jump in to enlighten us. ;)

> Particularly, it is abolutely NOT TRUE that "Sunday's referendum means the
> central government's powers will now be limited to foreign affairs, defense,
> public order, justice, electoral legislation, the environment and some
> education matters." In fact, central government still have much, much, much
> more power than regions, even in the fields which aren't specifically
> delegated to it. Government and bureacrats are still greatly powerful, and
> they can prevent and/or forbid regions to do virtually anything, because
> they should act... "in the respect of national interest," whatever it means.

Certainly a major qualifier.  Who has the right to interpret whether a
region's decision is in the "national interest"?  The judiciary or the
national parliament?  If the latter, then the new initiative really is so
much wasted paper; if the former, there's a chance it could have real
teeth.

--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

Dear Jason,

Actually, after the Italians voted the Sunday's referendum only a few things
have changed.

Particularly, it is abolutely NOT TRUE that "Sunday's referendum means the
central government's powers will now be limited to foreign affairs, defense,
public order, justice, electoral legislation, the environment and some
education matters." In fact, central government still have much, much, much
more power than regions, even in the fields which aren't specifically
delegated to it. Government and bureacrats are still greatly powerful, and
they can prevent and/or forbid regions to do virtually anything, because
they should act... "in the respect of national interest," whatever it means.

Even though the new constitutional law, just approved, recognizes EVERY
power belongs to the regions, except those who are delegated to central
government; it also delegate almost everything!! On the other hand, it has
eliminated some tyrannical institutions, such as the government officer who,
in the past, had to approve (or repeal) any regional law or act or bill or
whatever else. On the balance, this reform is a little step in the right
direction, but nothing more a little, little step.

Its main problem is that, while it gives lots of responsibilities to the
regions and give them the power to institute NEW and FURTHER regional taxes,
it firmly mantain the power to legislate and to impose taxes in Rome. In
other words, how to spend tax-payer's money still is central government's
responsibility (or should I say privilege?)

Therefore, we cannot say Italy has turned into a federal regime. And, that's
my opinion, it will not do it in the next, few years, unless citizens
(specifically in the North) get really, really angry and start a tax revolt.

Best,
carlo

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-000080584oct09.story

Voters Curb Powers of Federal Government

  Italians voted to overhaul the country's constitution, handing greater
autonomy and financial muscle to its regions, final results from a weekend
referendum show.

Sunday's referendum means the central government's powers will now be
limited to foreign affairs, defense, public order, justice, electoral
legislation, the environment and some education matters.

Italy's 20 regions will have responsibility for all other administrative
duties, giving them more power to raise taxes and decide how central
government cash should be spent. Italy has been a unified state only since
1870, and many Italians feel stronger allegiance to a town or region than
to their country.


--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

The following secession poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Which of the following nations do you
think is most likely to become an
independent nation-state eventually?

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Quebec, 1 votes, 33.33%
- Scotland, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Flanders, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Euskadi (Basque Country), 0 votes, 0.00%
- Padania (Northern Italy), 0 votes, 0.00%
- Corsica, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Montenegro, 1 votes, 33.33%
- Catalonia, 1 votes, 33.33%
- Wales, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Kurdistan, 0 votes, 0.00%

INDIVIDUAL VOTES
- Quebec
      - jason.sorens@...
- Scotland
- Flanders
- Euskadi (Basque Country)
- Padania (Northern Italy)
- Corsica
- Montenegro
      - manoelefernandes@...
- Catalonia
      - libertarian@...
- Wales
- Kurdistan


For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/secession

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 manoelefernandes@... wrote:

> What about:
>
>    o Aceh?
>    o Irian Jaya?
>    o Bouganville?
>
> and many others?

Yes, there are many others, possibly hundreds.  I arbitrarily limited the
options for ease of comparison.

Best,
Jason

--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

--- In secession@y..., secession@y... wrote:

  Which of the following nations do you
  think is most likely to become an
  independent nation-state eventually?

    o Quebec
    o Scotland
    o Flanders
    o Euskadi (Basque Country)
    o Padania (Northern Italy)
    o Corsica
    o Montenegro
    o Catalonia
    o Wales
    o Kurdistan

What about:

    o Aceh?
    o Irian Jaya?
    o Bouganville?

and many others?

Warm regards,

MF

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, miami wrote:

> "The Federal government in Washington would simply not permit it. If
> any part of Florida, say, or Texas looked like seceeding the result
> would be bribery and threats in the first instance and an
> overwhelming military response if that failed."
>
> I agree with the first part but if they repond with full military
> action and suffer heavy casaulties.  The American public will make
> the governemnt back down.  Plus they will face heavy global
> opposition.  If a part of a state or a state votes for independence
> the US will have it's hands tied.  If they use military force and are
> stopped or suffer heavy casaulties the US loses.  I think what is
> happening in Chechnya is close to what would happen in the US and the
> US will not stand taking 25,000 casaulties now adays for any part of
> the US.

On the other hand, if the US govt. were to threaten force, I don't see any
part of the US willing to risk any loss of life for secession.


--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

-----Messaggio Originale-----

Da: David JK Carr

A: Secession

Data invio: domenica 22 luglio 2001 1.33

Oggetto: [secession] Possibilities of

An interesting new forum for a subject of much-underestimated importance

 

For what it's worth I canot see any part of the existing USA seceeding any time soon. The Federal government in Washington would simply not permit it. If any part of Florida, say, or Texas looked like seceeding the result would be bribery and threats in the first instance and an overwhelming military response if that failed

 

I just cannot see Washington sitting back and allowing the USA to disintegrate

 

Europe is a different matter because it's an 'entity' made up of hundreds of different cultural, ethnic and linguistic tribes that have no common heritage. Unlike the USA I think 'Europe' will never be one country

 

David JK Carr

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
secession-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

"The Federal government in Washington would simply not permit it. If
any part of Florida, say, or Texas looked like seceeding the result
would be bribery and threats in the first instance and an
overwhelming military response if that failed."

I agree with the first part but if they repond with full military
action and suffer heavy casaulties.  The American public will make
the governemnt back down.  Plus they will face heavy global
opposition.  If a part of a state or a state votes for independence
the US will have it's hands tied.  If they use military force and are
stopped or suffer heavy casaulties the US loses.  I think what is
happening in Chechnya is close to what would happen in the US and the
US will not stand taking 25,000 casaulties now adays for any part of
the US.
>

David Davis wrote:
> have strong opinions about "Europe" - an entity which is trying
> to create itself, and which has deliberately not provided an[y]
> means of "leaving the EU" -

Deliberately, as in the idea was considered and rejected?
Or perhaps an explicit `means' was thought redundant.

I find it interesting, by the way, that the American Articles of
Confederation (1778) say twice that "the union shall be perpetual"
but no such notion is evident in the Constitution of 1787.

--
Anton Sherwood  --  br0nt0@...  --  http://ogre.nu/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree with both your suppositions. Unable as I am to comment upon the
situation in the USA with regard to the States or parts of these, I do
have strong opinions about "Europe" - an entity which is trying to
create itself, and which has deliberately not provided and means of
"leaving the EU" - just like the Roman Empire was before about AD 411.

There was no constitutional means of leaving that either, until the
Province of Britain wrote to Rome (under the personality of its
Magistrates who gathered in London for the purpose) and asked the
Emperor for a letter which would say that "Britain has been de-colonised
with the permission of the Roman Authorities that subsist at the date of
such letter".

There will be problems with "Europe". England will produce some, but I
would not be surprised if some other, quite surprising, countries, were
to cause problems for it too.

DD

In message <00cf01c1123d$8b42cb40$7c0e7ad5@mdvclwsm>, David JK Carr
<theobjectivist@...> writes
>    An interesting new forum for a subject of much-underestimated
>    importance
>     
>    For what it's worth I canot see any part of the existing USA
>    seceeding any time soon. The Federal government in Washington would
>    simply not permit it. If any part of Florida, say, or Texas looked
>    like seceeding the result would be bribery and threats in the first
>    instance and an overwhelming military response if that failed
>     
>    I just cannot see Washington sitting back and allowing the USA to
>    disintegrate
>     
>    Europe is a different matter because it's an 'entity' made up of
>    hundreds of different cultural, ethnic and linguistic tribes that
>    have no common heritage. Unlike the USA I think 'Europe' will never
>    be one country
>     
>    David JK Carr
>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    secession-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>    .

- --
David Davis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBO1s1GpH4ZrDJy8hJEQLQaQCfeTj9ActiPLsN+jEa744b7kNefeYAoMi2
TWgpmzLfc0W5rRQTvhZjh9IK
=lJzw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, David JK Carr wrote:

> An interesting new forum for a subject of much-underestimated importance
>
> For what it's worth I canot see any part of the existing USA seceeding any
time soon. The Federal government in Washington would simply not permit it. If
any part of Florida, say, or Texas looked like seceeding the result would be
bribery and threats in the first instance and an overwhelming military response
if that failed
>
> I just cannot see Washington sitting back and allowing the USA to disintegrate

I don't think that will happen.  Quebec nearly voted to secede from Canada
six years ago, and Canada never threatened military force.  In fact, the
US went to war against Yugoslavia for not allowing (violent!) secessionist
movements to flourish.  How bad would it look if the US went Milosevic on
some poor state?  Now, if some group of "Freemen" in Montana try to secede
from the Union, you can expect a police response.  But if an elected state
government tries it, I think it would be a different matter.  On the other
hand, I don't see any state attempting to secede from the US any time
soon, with the possible exception of Alaska (where the Alaska Independence
Party elected a governor in the 80s).

--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

An example of a community attempting to secede & form its own state.  In
democratic countries, wealthier regions secede from poorer ones.

JPS



Donor town may revolt

By Jesse J. DeConto, jdeconto@...

NEWINGTON  Frustrated by heavy taxation, some residents here are ready to
secede from the state of New Hampshire.

The Newington Board of Selectmen voted this week to hold a public hearing
on Tuesday, July 31. Residents will have a chance to comment on Article 10
of the state constitution, which gives New Hampshire residents the right
to revolt.

Article 10 states: "Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and
public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are
ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or
establish a new government.

"The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is
absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind,"
reads the constitution.

Resident Guy Young said the state has used the constitution to oppress
property-rich towns like Newington. "We found something we could use
against them," he said.

Article 10 justifies the town to secede from the state, Young said, and
more than 50 townspeople showed they agreed by signing a petition Young
presented to selectmen this week.

"I've heard it kicked around for the past year or two," said Selectman
Jack O'Reilly. "I was not caught totally surprised."

O'Reilly said Newington residents are frustrated that the Coalition
Communities have been unable to convince either the state Legislature or
the court system to repeal the statewide property tax and replace it with
a different tax structure.

"That just seems to have stalled out," said O'Reilly.

As a waterfront town, Newington has property values that range into the
millions of dollars. This year, the town paid $1.9 million in state
education taxes, and next year's bill is $2.1 million.

"Over half of our tax money is going out of the town," O'Reilly said.

He said a town revaluation next year will drive property taxes up even
further. "You won't see a reduction in what you're paying."

Expressing his own frustration with the statewide property tax at a
previous meeting, O'Reilly himself suggested Newington should dissociate
itself from New Hampshire.

"Based on the lack of sanity, fairness and righteousness in Concord, I
move that the town of Newington stop displaying the state flag commencing
immediately until a fair school funding method is legislated," he said.

Selectmen tabled that motion, but O'Reilly said it may come up again at
Tuesday's meeting.

"They wanted to wait a couple weeks and see what things transpired," he
said.

If residents support secession at the public hearing, the selectmen will
seek counsel regarding the legal basis for invoking Article 10.

"Whether that means we form a new government within the government we
have, or separate and form a new one, we don't know," said Young. "I'm not
a lawyer."

Young said he hopes other Seacoast donor towns will join Newington in its
constitutional battle with the state.

"Maybe they're just waiting for someone to lead the way," he said.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/7_19b.htm


Subscribe:  libertarian-alliance-forum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:  libertarian-alliance-forum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

NB - The Libertarian Alliance does not necessarily approve of the above message.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

miami wrote:
> Plus the US has another 30 years of life as we know it today.

Après nous la Singularité?

--
Anton Sherwood  --  br0nt0@...  --  http://ogre.nu/

Well I know that secession for Miami-Dade means independence from the
US, not forming a new state.  The state of Florida would never allow
it.  Plus the US has another 30 years of life as we know it today.

Hi guys!

You might want to send a card from Genoa, after the G-8 meeting...

http://forces.org/stagnaro/card.jpg

Cheers,
carlo

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, miami wrote:

> Actually if any part of the USA secedes it might be a county.  Such
> as Miami-Dade county in South Florida.  They have a high secessionist
> sentiment amongst the Cuban-Miamian population which is 51% of the
> population.  Plus there is precedent for a county to secede.  The
> first part of the thirteen original colonies to secede was a county
> in North Carolina in 1775.  And the Western counties of Virginia
> secede from Virginia during the Civil War to form West Virginia with
> other counties in both the north and South Seceding fromt heir states.

I could see a county or groups of counties attempting to secede & form
their own states (Long Island, upstate New York, Miami-Dade), but would
they really secede from the U.S. altogether?  It seems farfetched.  Are
there any elected officials currently advocating the secession of Miami
from the US?

--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

Actually if any part of the USA secedes it might be a county.  Such
as Miami-Dade county in South Florida.  They have a high secessionist
sentiment amongst the Cuban-Miamian population which is 51% of the
population.  Plus there is precedent for a county to secede.  The
first part of the thirteen original colonies to secede was a county
in North Carolina in 1775.  And the Western counties of Virginia
secede from Virginia during the Civil War to form West Virginia with
other counties in both the north and South Seceding fromt heir states.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Anton Sherwood wrote:

> > Actually, there were several impetuses (impeti?). . . .
>
> Fourth declension: nominative plural is -us (with long `u').
>
> --Ped-Anton

Ah, that makes sense; second declension didn't sound right. ;)

--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

From Stratfor.com
This article argues that separatism will surge during times of recession.
My intuition is the reverse: during times of economic difficulty voters
will become less interested in constitutional issues like secession or EU
integration and more interested in bread-and-butter issues.  On the other
hand, the discontent with the current order that bad economic times
produce will be outweighed by the lack of confidence voters will have
about their region's viability as a separate state.


Basque and Irish
                                             Separatists
                                 Ruffle EU's Future
2200
                                             GMT, 0100716
By
                                             George Friedman
Summary
The European experiment of the new century cannot be declared a success
until it has weathered a massive economic downturn. Individual European
states today are prepared to subsume their national aspirations for economic
gain. But with recent economic decline in Europe, the question of what or
who can hold the European Union together remains unaddressed.
Analysis
Over the weekend, Basque nationalists of the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA)
separatist movement killed two officials in a well-planned strike at
separate targets 12 miles apart. At the same time, Britain's MI-5 broke up
an operation of the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) to secure weapons and
sponsorship from Iraq.
These two incidents, part of persistent Basque and Irish insurgencies, are
in many ways more significant to the long-term prospects of European
unification than the disintegration of southeastern Europe into feuding
ethnic states. They challenge a widely held view that long-term economic
growth will end nationalist friction and marginalize the internal dissidents
who could create future conflict.
The creation of a trans-European entity after the massive European
bloodletting in the first half of the 20th century has been an extraordinary
event.
The founders of the European Community, later the European Union, explained
it as a rational response to that bloodletting, based on two assumptions:
First, leaders on the Continent agreed that another round of fighting could
annihilate European civilization.
Second, they assumed Europe is an inherently prosperous region. If the
Europeans succeeded in building institutions to exploit their resources,
they could create unprecedented and lasting affluence.
As the European Community demonstrated the success of the trans-national
experiment, more and more states would wish to join in the prosperity and
the relationship would deepen. More important, as the price for membership
required that minor nationality issues, both internal and external, be set
aside, it was assumed that nationality issues plaguing individual states
would subside.
Whether this theory has been confirmed or not is more than a theoretical
question. It goes to the heart of the European question and in turn to the
future of the world. Recent signs of economic downturn in the economies of
Western Europe indicate the long-term viability of the EU will be tested
sooner rather than later.
The ongoing nationalist insurgencies such as the Irish RIRA and Basque ETA
stem from internal ethnic and political struggles more than from the
economic prosperity that has defined most of the past decade.
But the indirect connection is still relevant: If it was the prosperity
facilitated by EU membership that helped marginalize these groups, a
significant economic downturn could lead to their resurgence.
Indeed, recent events in Italy, a member nation, and in Ireland and Austria,
EU observer nations, suggest that both economic and political pressures are
building against the EU goals of monetary and political integration.
In Italy, the election of the conservative "Home of Freedom" coalition added
a partner to the group of EU nations (particularly the United Kingdom, Spain
and Ireland) who oppose the German-Franco move toward a formal, federalized
Europe.
It is also increasing the likelihood of continued challenges to the euro as
a common currency. Likewise, Ireland and Austria have come under EU
criticism for budgetary and political decisions that challenge the concept
of European federalism.
Individual European states today are prepared to subsume their national
aspirations for economic benefit. But if those benefits cease to exist, what
will hold the union together?
When the monetary policy being pursued by the European Central Bank imposes
austerity, as likely will happen sometime, that austerity will not be
equally distributed. A monetary policy that benefits one European nation
need not benefit others, and it is unlikely that it would.
That will be the point at which European nationalism - currently limited to
policy disagreements between national governments and the EU headquarters in
Brussels - will become significant again.
History shows that secession is the natural tendency during times of
economic stringency. It will be at that moment that the ETAs and RIRAs of
Europe will blossom again, combining primordial national sentiment with
economic policy.
The European Union is unprepared to deal with a system in crisis. Indeed,
there is no institution on the Continent capable of preventing secession by
current members, nor has this potential problem been addressed or even
debated.
When the North American Union faced the same issue in the late 1850s, the
question of secession was not settled until the Army of the Potomac seized
the strategic initiative at the Battle of Gettysburg. Within the European
Union, who will raise and command a force to protect the European Union? An
Army of the - Rhine?
George Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR.

> Actually, there were several impetuses (impeti?). . . .

Fourth declension: nominative plural is -us (with long `u').

--Ped-Anton

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, David Davis wrote:

> I do not know a lot about current thinking on this matter and would like
> to learn more. I presume it was prompted by thought appearing in the
> media regarding the theory of how a State of the USA could secede from
> the Union; or I may have been reading too much stuff put out by Lew
> Rockwell...? (grin)
>
> Is it proposed that we might discuss the secession of England from the
> United Kingdom? This would solve many of our politico-economic dilemmas
> at one stroke.

Actually, there were several impetuses (impeti?).  First, my dissertation
project is on the political economy of secession.  I'm very interested in
explaining the new wave of separatism, in Europe and around the world.
Second, I find the discussion of state secession from the U.S. an
intriguing one on a sort of "potential libertarian strategy" level.
Third, I was stimulated by some of the discussions on this group about
Scotland, Wales, and Padania - whether and to what extent these movements
should be cheered.  I think interest in the topic of secession has been
rising, especially in the U.S., and I thought this might be a good time
for setting up a forum explicitly dedicated to an issue that has been
discussed recently in countless decentralized fora all over the Internet.

--
Jason P Sorens
jason.sorens@...
Department of Political Science
Yale University
124 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
USA

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
secession group:

Which of the following nations do you
think is most likely to become an
independent nation-state eventually?

   o Quebec
   o Scotland
   o Flanders
   o Euskadi (Basque Country)
   o Padania (Northern Italy)
   o Corsica
   o Montenegro
   o Catalonia
   o Wales
   o Kurdistan


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/secession/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!