I’m not talking about secession in the United States, where the issue is linked to the ugliness of slavery (though at least Walter Williams can write about the issue without the risk of being accused of closet racism).
But what about Europe? I have a hard time understanding why nations on the other side of the Atlantic should not be allowed to split up if there are fundamental differences between regions. Who can be against the concept of self-determination?
Heck, tiny Liechtenstein explicitly gives villages the right to secede if two-thirds of voters agree. Shouldn’t people in other nations have the same freedom?
This is not just a hypothetical issue. Secession has become hot in several countries, with Catalonia threatening to leave Spain and Scotland threatening to leave the United Kingdom.
But because of recent election results, Belgium may be the country where an internal divorce is most likely. Here are some excerpts from a report in the UK-based Financial Times.
Flemish nationalists made sweeping gains across northern Belgium in local elections on Sunday, a success that will bolster separatists’ hopes for a break-up of the country. Bart De Wever, leader of the New Flemish Alliance (NVA), is set to become mayor of the northern city of Antwerp, Belgium’s economic heartland, after his party emerged as the largest one, ending about 90 years of socialist rule. …The strong result recorded by the Flemish nationalist is likely to have an impact across Europe, where the sovereign debt crisis, which has seen rich countries bail out poor ones, has revived separatist sentiment throughout the continent. Flanders, which is the most economically prosperous region of Belgium, has long resented financing the ailing economy of French-speaking Wallonia, and Sunday’s victory will strengthen its demand for self-rule. Lieven De Winter, a political scientist at Université Catholique de Louvain, said that Mr De Wever’s victory was a clear step forward for separatists who had long been campaigning for secession from the southern part of the country.
Purely as a matter of political drama, this is an interesting development. We saw the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia about 20 years ago. But we also saw a very painful breakup of Yugoslavia shortly thereafter.
Belgium’s divorce, if it happened, would be tranquil. But it would still be remarkable, particularly since it might encourage peaceful separatist movements in other regions of other nations.
I think this would be a welcome development for reasons I wrote about last month. Simply stated, the cause of liberty is best advanced by having a a large number of competing jurisdictions.
I’ve opined about this issue many times, usually from a fiscal policy perspective, explaining that governments are less likely to be oppressive when they know that people (or their money) can cross national borders.
Belgium definitely could use a big dose of economic liberalization. The burden of government spending is enormous, consuming 53.5 percent of economic output – worse than all other European nations besides Denmark, France, and Finland. The top tax rate on personal income is a crippling 53.7 percent, second only the Sweden. And with a 34 percent rate, the corporate tax rate is very uncompetitive, behind only France.
Sadly, there’s little chance of reform under the status quo since the people in Wallonia view high tax rates as a tool for extracting money from their neighbors in Flanders. But if Belgium split up, it’s quite likely that both new nations would adopt better policy as a signal to international investors and entrepreneurs. Or maybe the new nations would implement better policy as part of a friendly rivalry with each other.
So three cheers for peaceful secession and divorce in Belgium. At least we know things can’t get worse.
P.S. Brussels is the capital of Belgium, but it is also the capital of the European Union. Don’t be surprised if it becomes some sort of independent federal city if Flanders and Wallonia become independent. Sort of like Washington, but worse. Why worse? Because even though Washington is akin to a city of parasites feasting off the productive energy of the rest of America, Brussels and the European Union are an even more odious cesspool of harmonization, bureaucratization, and centralization, richly deserving of attacks from right, left, and center.
[…] More federalism and decentralization would help ease divisions in nations such as Belgium and […]
[…] Congratulations to Belgium. According to the new edition of Taxing Wages, average Belgian workers have the dubious honor of surrendering the biggest chunk of their income to government. No wonder part of the country is interested in secession. […]
[…] Congratulations to Belgium. According to the new edition of Taxing Wages, average Belgian workers have the dubious honor of surrendering the biggest chunk of their income to government. No wonder part of the country is interested in secession. […]
[…] me sympathetic to regional secession. See, for example, Scotland, Liechtenstein, California, Italy, Belgium, and […]
[…] but not least, I’m a giant fan of decentralization and a partial fan of secession (done properly and for good reasons), but you don’t automatically get […]
[…] but not least, I’m a giant fan of decentralization and a partial fan of secession (done properly and for good reasons), but you don’t automatically get […]
[…] This is a big reason why I’m sympathetic to independence movements in place such as Sardinia, Scotland, and Belgium. […]
[…] I’ve favorably written about secessionist movements in Sardinia, Scotland, and Belgium, largely because the historical data shows that better policy is more likely when there are many […]
[…] to domestic policy. In other words, a version of the advice I offered on Ukraine, Scotland, and Belgium basically applies in this part of the world as well. Call it one nation with three or four […]
[…] to domestic policy. In other words, a version of the advice I offered on Ukraine,Scotland, and Belgium basically applies in this part of the world as well. Call it one nation with three or four […]
[…] In addition to much smaller government, I suspect Belgium also needs to split into two different […]
[…] That why I think secession or radical decentralization is/was the right approach in Ukraine, Belgium, and Scotland. And as Walter Williams points out, secession can be peaceful, such as when Norway […]
[…] why I think secession or radical decentralization is/was the right approach in Ukraine, Belgium, and […]
[…] what it’s worth, I’ve already suggested that Belgium should split into two nations because of linguistic and cultural differences. So why not the same in […]
[…] what it’s worth, I’ve already suggested that Belgium should split into two nations because of linguistic and cultural differences. So why not the same in […]
The terrible irony of what has happened with the European Community is that it began as an effort with a very conservative goal–to create free markets in Europe, in which goods and services could cross borders, and companies could expand across borders, without government interference. But the mistake of the Common Market was in giving too much authority to its Commission. Gradually, socialists took it over and changed it from the Common Market into the European Community.
[…] This story helps to explain why I want Belgium to split apart. If it became two nations, one Dutch and one French, I suspect we’d get better policy because […]
[…] […]
The Belgians and the EU needs to reinvent their federation. To be successful, all you need to do is to copy the successful!
The Swiss Federation is very peaceful, despite the four national languages and their very different cultures. Their money is sound and the whole country is enormously prosperous. The Swiss federation has limited central powers, and each region runs its own affairs. Direct democracy ensures their politicians can’t run roughshod over the wishes of their voters. See:
http://www.lifestrategies.net/switzerland
I will do an article or a podcast on this because it is pretty interesting. Actually, Spain is near a civil war, Greece already “lost” Cyprus, as you mention Scotland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps we have all become too large and we are moving back into tribes. The secret appears to be economic. If times are good (like a bad marriage, but plenty of money) things seem to just “move along.” However if financial times get tough, husband loses his job, then the daggers come out (in a bad marriage). Seems similar for countries.
Speaking of European secession, Scotland’s been eyeing a vote for independence, and signed a referendum with England to ask the people of Scotland whether they want independence (secession) in 2014. So Belgium’s got potential company.
http://news.yahoo.com/cameron-signs-deal-scottish-independence-vote-124329342.html
I am not advocating any thing. However I would like to challenge your logic on a purely hypothetical basis. If we used your thinking “countries who are not quite as ‘benevolent’ as we are may take advantage of the ensuing conflict to all our detriment.” as a reason not to form a new nation, would we ever have created this nation? Spain and France were powers, they had holdings in the “new world.” The Indian Nations at that time were, not individually strong, but still a military power to deal with. France decided to ally with us at the time. I believe there were many “non benevolent” countries when this nation was formed. I think about this (a little) and it occurs to me, that just because Guam or other parts of the nation go their own way, doesn’t mean they would not become strong trading partners and ally military. I mean depending, they are neighbors. I question your logic.
We are quickly reaching the point of no return in terms of common identity, which is the only true basis for a country to exist. I believe that 50-75 years of progressive propaganda have had an effect that does not lend itself to compromise, since both sides are talking two different languages in terms of their views of the social structure. However, I do not advocate secession but I do reserve the right to do so in the future. The reason I do not advocate secession at this time lies in the very real danger that other countries who are not quite as ‘benevolent’ as we are may take advantage of the ensuing conflict to all our detriment.
“I’m not talking about secession in the United States, where the issue is linked to the ugliness of slavery (though at least Walter Williams can write about the issue without the risk of being accused of closet racism).”
But what about modern issues? Our country is very divided and some suggest its size is making it harder and harder to manage. We agree on little. Our government recognizes others peoples right to peacefully separate, do you feel this is a valid question for states like Texas and other parts?
Ronald Richards is correct. Why is secession associated more with the civil war than the war for independence? The colonies explicitly seceded from Britain.
I did not know about this movement in Belgium but I will keep an eye on any news about it now. Thanks for the interesting post Dan!
All People have a right to secede. Though the wrong people tried to secede the first time (Civil War), our right is spoken about in the Declaration of Independence and in a number of other documents written by the “Founding Fathers”. While many citizens deride this viewpoint, the truth is that nothing guarantees our rights and freedoms other than those who are “the government”. If those people refuse to acknowledge the People’s rights then secession is, in the end, the only viable option.