Separatists win in Spain's Basque region

The prime minister faces growing separatism in the northeastern region of Catalonia as well.

B92

One just has to look at the regional map and he will see that it's extremely unlikely that Spain would let it happen from a strategic or economic point of view. Independent Catalonia and Basque countries will obstruct Spain's commercial routes into Europe.

I also cannot see France supporting either of these cross-border provinces -Basque province and Catalonia -because independence from Spain would lead to calls for independence from France too.Simply,Realpolitik says no.

True, Spain won't support it but it doesn't mean those regions won't attempt to gain independence much like the "Kosova"* precedent has set. They could become semi-recognised quasi "states" with limited support.

So if we have these problems in Spain, Cyprus and potentially Slovakia and Romania, I really cannot see how they will ever support "Kosova"* joining the EU. That will signal their own breakaway regions to continue following the set precedent.

Anyway, the EU will feel some fairly large shocks but that's not surprising considering the immaturity of the German government. We have seen it before and we will see it again. Nothing has changed with their childish demands and ultimatums.

(nik, 22 October 2012 11:44)

When it comes to national interest no EU country is bound by Schengen rules.I recall that back in 2001 when Denmark suspended the Schengen treaty and re-introduced controls at its borders with Germany and Sweden over illegals and refugee influx.The same applies to France suspending the rule in order to stop Arab refugees crossing into France from Italy.

I am not a fan of the single currency and I have said in my previous postings that I believe it cannot survive in its present form.The single currency ,contrary to popular belief,is not just a means of exchange but a measure of competitiveness in each Eurozone country.Northern EUrozone countries are more competitive than the South ones which generate surpluses in the former and deficits in the latter.This situation forces the Southern countries to borrow to finance their deficits leading to higher sovereign debts.The rest is history.

Back to the Spanish situation I cannot see how the EU can countenance the break-up of Spain knowing pretty well the same situation could occur in many countries in Europe-Belgium,Uk come in mind.The more EU countries the more difficult for the EU to arrive at a major decision.

Leonidas: "Independent Catalonia and Basque countries will obstruct Spain's commercial routes into Europe." The beauty of modern Europe is that nobody can block commercial roads. If We shall all live in a Schengen free travel zone and in a common currency Eurozone then no local federations are needed. Why should Londen stand between Edinborogh and Brusels, or Madrid between Barcelona and Brussles?

(nik, 22 October 2012 16:00)

The EU of six,nine, eleven and fifteen were pretty successful in comparison to the EU of twenty seven.They had their customs union which allowed the free flow of goods and people from one EU state to another,loosely-binding legislations,their own floating currencies and it was largely free from the crises that engulfed the EU since it decided to become a superpower (without the consent of its people).

Their biggest fallacy was the introduction of the single currency which is driving Europe apart,not bringing it together.One size fits all was a badly conceived scheme that has led to the present impasse.

I think one of the medicines that has to be tried to save the EU is ridding Europe of the euro.Countries now suffering with debt could return to their national currencies, devalue, and regain competitiveness more easily.Surely ,there will be pain along the way, but their freedom would allow them to chart their own course, negotiating debt restructuring that would bring about a more fair division of losses and probably put their economies on a stronger potential growth path.Would Europeans return to its bad old days of incessant wars and conflict because they weren’t all using the same coins?Anybody using this scaremongering is for propaganda purposes.Europe of 2012 is not Europe of 1914 or 1939.

Zoran, your comment mentions that Kosovo has set the precedent that separatist regions in Spain can use...

It does not apply in this case.

Only relevant international law that we are using in Europe is Helsinki Final Act, that does recognize right of ethnic groups to self-determination as long as they are authentic ethnic group of that state (with no state elsewhere).
Scots, Basques, Catalans, etc. are certainly that.
Helsinki Final Act forbids national minorities (nations with state) to claim part of other country, or to make second country for themselves.
That's the precedent Kosovo has created.
Scots, Basques, Catalans already have this right according to int. law.
Albanians outside Albania, Turks outside Turkey and Russians outside Russia shouldn't have this right.
Imagine if Turks in Kirdzali region vote independence from Bulgaria?
Or Russians rip away half of some neighboring countries such is Estonia?
Ukraine has 24 oblasts, half of them Russian speaking. Imagine if they vote for independence? As long as they do it as "oblast" (not as Russians , but as Crimeans, for example). That's more like Kosovo's case.
This would be contrary to Helsinki Act, but international law is just something for scholars to deal with today, and it has only entertaining value.

Leonidas, I agree with you that the Euro was ill-conceived. And the Schengen rules are non-binding, and indeed create tension. If the living standards in some of the countries are far superior than in others, uncontrolable immigration will follow. The only way to keep comparable living standards in countries with defferent levels of competitivness is by subsidies and borrowings. But what is the alternative? To break up Europe back on fully sovereign countries with closed boredrs, import duties and visa requirments? The same tensions are seen within different European nation states. Federations could not be kept by force. So the only way to preserve the peace and the security is to allow unwanted local "federations" to be desolved in larger European confederation!

Is a good sign from these regions.
Soon we can have a free independent Sandzak, and a Hungary Vojvodina.
Also east serbian Bulgaria can join with mother country.

Sreten, what if the Kosovars declare that they are not Albanians but a separate nation? Will that give them more right to secede? As history shows new nations could be invented. You don’t have to go very far: Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosnians… When the political borders drastically differ from the ethnic borders, no political mambo-jumbo can make them last. There are only tow ways out of the predicament: Change of borders, or change of the ethnic composition of the respective regions.

When it comes to national interest no EU country is bound by Schengen rules.I recall that back in 2001 when Denmark suspended the Schengen treaty and re-introduced controls at its borders with Germany and Sweden over illegals and refugee influx.

I meant 2011 and not 2001

"Sreten, what if the Kosovars declare that they are not Albanians but a separate nation?"

And you give some examples - Macedonians, Montenegrines...

Sure, that's specified in international law, too. One has to have separate language to be considered a separate nation. That's why we have Macedonian language (?) and Montenegrine language (?) although recent census in Montenegro showed that most of the country speaks Serbian.
And so it is in Kosovo too. They are not Albanians, but "Kosovars" today. Your country supports Kosovars, and Bosnians and Montenegrines, doesn't it? Not Macedonians, though???!!! How come?
Why not have 20 Russias then, only under name "Crimeans" etc. etc. ?

(Reader, 22 October 2012 23:43)

Certain countries, like Greece, should not have been accepted as they did not meet those criteria.

How many Eurozone countries met the Maastricht criteria?

http://research.nordeamarkets.com/en/2012/10/18/all-eur-countries-in-violation-of-their-own-convergence-criteria/

Did Greek governments take advantage of the Euro?

Greek governments took advantage of the Euro the same way that Germany took advantage of the crisis.That is borrowing at 1% and lending to Greeks,Spanish,Portuguese and Irish at 6 or 7%.

Greeks bought feta cheese in Bulgaria at very cheap bulgarian prices, put their EU stamps on the product and sold it worldwide for much more.

Italy bought and still buys Greek olive oil in bulk and sell it in bottles as Italian olive oil.What's new?

Asking for the destruction of the Euro and EU after all it did for Greece in the last 20-30 years is just irresponsible and disgraceful.

The Euro will be destroyed without my help.It's just a matter of time.Three years ago Germany was totally against the idea of stability funds.Since then they've increased it from 100 billion to 200 then 400 and now 1 trillion euros.In addition the ECB will buy unlimited Eurobonds. They just buy time nothing more.

I know exactly what the EU did for Greece.Taking our debt from $22 billion in 1981 to 350 or 370 billion euros in 2012 not to mention the 340 billion we've paid in interest alone since .Do you wonder who benefited from Greece's EU membership?

"Only relevant international law that we are using in Europe is Helsinki Final Act, that does recognize right of ethnic groups to self-determination as long as they are authentic ethnic group of that state (with no state elsewhere). "

The part about "no state elsewhere" is out of Yugoslav law, which recognized "nations" and "nationalities." International law doesn't clearly define what a "people" with a right to self-determination is, or how self-determination should be exercised. In any case, international law is a work in progress - a new treaty can change definitions. (This is what Europe may be faced with doing.) There might have been progress toward a workable definition if Serbia had asked the ICJ to decide whether Kosovo had a right to self-determination, but Jeremic tried to be cute and win on the lesser matter of whether they even had the right to declare independence, and then lost on that. There are a lot of countries in the world with a legal claim to rule over people who don't want them, and as the idea of democracy spreads, so will the idea that the "consent of the people" takes precedence over historical and emotional claims.

Amer is eight. It was Yugoslav law, which recognized "nations" and "nationalities." International law doesn't clearly define what a "people" with a right to self-determination is…
Indeed the international law gives right of secession not to peoples but to “countries”. If a country is not allowed to rule itself - that is imperialism. If one ethnic group wants to exclude others – that is apartheid. It is not clear however what constitutes a country? Is the Basque country a country? Scotland certainly is. What about Catalonia? New countries and new languages have been created since times immemorial and that is not a process that will stop soon. Of course a separate language is not a requirement. There are many nations that speak English, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. In the Balkans most nations do support the break up of their neighboring nations and that is a huge problem…

Most of the countries in Europe are the result of military conquests or dynastic marriages (or forced marriage, in the case of Yugoslavia) and have been held together for what the component parts saw as mutual protection against potential external enemies. But within the EU, there's really no reason for the various regions to fear their neighbors - not as long as all the units remain within the EU.

This is not a good time for the EU to have to sit down and consider its policy toward regions that want to secede from their multiregional state - in particular, will the regions be allowed to retain their membership in the Union, or to rejoin it, or be blocked forever by a negative vote by the former metropolitan state? The answer isn't obvious, but the EU was originally designed as a means for keeping the peace, not for boosting the economy, and allowing central governments to retain control over regions that wish to depart simply by blocking their future may not work in the interest of the rest of the continent. If, after hundreds of years, a region still has not been convinced it is an integral part of the state it is a formal part of, finding a way to allow it to leave without bloodshed and massive destruction will be in keeping with the original and most important purpose of the Union. It would also prompt the central states to become more responsive to the aspirations of regions that are unconvinced of the desirability of the existing arrangement.

"International law is a work in progress - a new treaty can change definitions."
True, but until then we should stick to what we have, right?

As for "minorities" and "nations"...it's true that it was in Yu-constitution, but not only there. There is some disagreement as to what constitutes the nation, but in general, formulation of authentic ethnic group is used.

http://www.cetim.ch/en/documents/bro12-auto1-A4-an.pdf

Question is what constitutes "the people"?
In the case of East Timor, for example, it was ruled that "...East Timor has population of distinct culture, language...and therefor, meets definition of people in every way. "
"It has a right to become independent.... despite the lack of consent of a State."
"...right to self-determination beyond the domain of decolonization," It mean it should apply to all, according to UN Charter.
Some countries don't recognize that.
In fact, Supreme Court of Canada in "Reference re Secession of Quebec" recognize right of French-speakers to "internal self-determination" but not separation, claiming that only American Natives ("Red Indians") are authentic ethnic group.
UN documents also recommends "internal" one. "Nonetheless, for any given people, the best way to enjoy its right to selfdetermination
is not necessarily to establish an independent state, for it is obvious that if each of the peoples speaking one of the 6,000 languages were to chose this option many mini-states would be created without any real sovereignty."

"..their own floating currencies and it was largely free from the crises that engulfed the EU since it decided to become a superpower (without the consent of its people).

Their biggest fallacy was the introduction of the single currency which is driving Europe apart,not bringing it together.One size fits all was a badly conceived scheme that has led to the present impasse. "

The one size fits you talk about are the Maastricht criteria. They are good and at the basis of the stability of the system. They define what a country should look like before entering the EU. The way they were applied was not good though. Certain countries, like Greece, should not have been accepted as they did not meet those criteria. You can go back and forth on who is to blame, did Greece governments lie on the parameters they reported to the EU (yes), did the EU really get fooled (I don't think so) or did it close one eye (yes) and let Greece in anyway. Did Greek governments take advantage of the Euro? Oh yes, borrowing with Euro, i.e. German interest rates, while being a much riskier country. Did they take advantage of the EU standards? Oh yes they did, just one example about a world famous (supposedly greek) product, Greeks bought feta cheese in Bulgaria at very cheap bulgarian prices, put their EU stamps on the product and sold it worldwide for much more. What a great thing that EU stamp is. You can lie on the quality of your products, if you only get your hands on some of those stamps.

The rules that are there are good. They just needed to be applied to the letter. That is what politicians did not do.

Asking for the destruction of the Euro and EU after all it did for Greece in the last 20-30 years is just irresponsible and disgraceful.

While there is some questioning of right to self-determination, there is none when it comes to minorities.
Perhaps, the best answer to your dillemas will be given if you examine Aaland Islands case (google it and you'll find it).
Population of those islands is almost entirely Swedish (92.4% Swedish speaking, 5% Finnish speaking), but islands are in Finland.
In 1920 they tried to use self-determination to either join Sweden or form their own independent coutnry.
In 1921 League of Nations ruled that Swedes as a minority in Finland are not entitled to right of self-determination. Islands are to remaind under Finland's sovereignty. Finland was obliged to ensure the residents of the Aaland Islands the right to maintain the Swedish language, as well as their own culture and local traditions (as it was customary right of minorites at that time, later to become one of international laws). One small note here, Albanians had schools and University in Albanian language (but boycotted because they did not agree with the curriculum). Croatia banned Cyrrilic letters or "Serbian" language (use of "Serbian" words) when Tudjman came to power. But, nevermind that now.
"...population's demand for self-determination was not met..." because they were minority. Having Sweden as their "domicile" country their right to self-determination was considered "consumed" (term used by League of Nations).

Is a good sign from these regions.
Soon we can have a free independent Sandzak, and a Hungary Vojvodina.
Also east serbian Bulgaria can join with mother country.

True, Spain won't support it but it doesn't mean those regions won't attempt to gain independence much like the "Kosova"* precedent has set. They could become semi-recognised quasi "states" with limited support.

So if we have these problems in Spain, Cyprus and potentially Slovakia and Romania, I really cannot see how they will ever support "Kosova"* joining the EU. That will signal their own breakaway regions to continue following the set precedent.

Anyway, the EU will feel some fairly large shocks but that's not surprising considering the immaturity of the German government. We have seen it before and we will see it again. Nothing has changed with their childish demands and ultimatums.

Leonidas: "Independent Catalonia and Basque countries will obstruct Spain's commercial routes into Europe." The beauty of modern Europe is that nobody can block commercial roads. If We shall all live in a Schengen free travel zone and in a common currency Eurozone then no local federations are needed. Why should Londen stand between Edinborogh and Brusels, or Madrid between Barcelona and Brussles?

Most of the countries in Europe are the result of military conquests or dynastic marriages (or forced marriage, in the case of Yugoslavia) and have been held together for what the component parts saw as mutual protection against potential external enemies. But within the EU, there's really no reason for the various regions to fear their neighbors - not as long as all the units remain within the EU.

This is not a good time for the EU to have to sit down and consider its policy toward regions that want to secede from their multiregional state - in particular, will the regions be allowed to retain their membership in the Union, or to rejoin it, or be blocked forever by a negative vote by the former metropolitan state? The answer isn't obvious, but the EU was originally designed as a means for keeping the peace, not for boosting the economy, and allowing central governments to retain control over regions that wish to depart simply by blocking their future may not work in the interest of the rest of the continent. If, after hundreds of years, a region still has not been convinced it is an integral part of the state it is a formal part of, finding a way to allow it to leave without bloodshed and massive destruction will be in keeping with the original and most important purpose of the Union. It would also prompt the central states to become more responsive to the aspirations of regions that are unconvinced of the desirability of the existing arrangement.

The prime minister faces growing separatism in the northeastern region of Catalonia as well.

B92

One just has to look at the regional map and he will see that it's extremely unlikely that Spain would let it happen from a strategic or economic point of view. Independent Catalonia and Basque countries will obstruct Spain's commercial routes into Europe.

I also cannot see France supporting either of these cross-border provinces -Basque province and Catalonia -because independence from Spain would lead to calls for independence from France too.Simply,Realpolitik says no.

"..their own floating currencies and it was largely free from the crises that engulfed the EU since it decided to become a superpower (without the consent of its people).

Their biggest fallacy was the introduction of the single currency which is driving Europe apart,not bringing it together.One size fits all was a badly conceived scheme that has led to the present impasse. "

The one size fits you talk about are the Maastricht criteria. They are good and at the basis of the stability of the system. They define what a country should look like before entering the EU. The way they were applied was not good though. Certain countries, like Greece, should not have been accepted as they did not meet those criteria. You can go back and forth on who is to blame, did Greece governments lie on the parameters they reported to the EU (yes), did the EU really get fooled (I don't think so) or did it close one eye (yes) and let Greece in anyway. Did Greek governments take advantage of the Euro? Oh yes, borrowing with Euro, i.e. German interest rates, while being a much riskier country. Did they take advantage of the EU standards? Oh yes they did, just one example about a world famous (supposedly greek) product, Greeks bought feta cheese in Bulgaria at very cheap bulgarian prices, put their EU stamps on the product and sold it worldwide for much more. What a great thing that EU stamp is. You can lie on the quality of your products, if you only get your hands on some of those stamps.

The rules that are there are good. They just needed to be applied to the letter. That is what politicians did not do.

Asking for the destruction of the Euro and EU after all it did for Greece in the last 20-30 years is just irresponsible and disgraceful.

Leonidas, I agree with you that the Euro was ill-conceived. And the Schengen rules are non-binding, and indeed create tension. If the living standards in some of the countries are far superior than in others, uncontrolable immigration will follow. The only way to keep comparable living standards in countries with defferent levels of competitivness is by subsidies and borrowings. But what is the alternative? To break up Europe back on fully sovereign countries with closed boredrs, import duties and visa requirments? The same tensions are seen within different European nation states. Federations could not be kept by force. So the only way to preserve the peace and the security is to allow unwanted local "federations" to be desolved in larger European confederation!

(nik, 22 October 2012 16:00)

The EU of six,nine, eleven and fifteen were pretty successful in comparison to the EU of twenty seven.They had their customs union which allowed the free flow of goods and people from one EU state to another,loosely-binding legislations,their own floating currencies and it was largely free from the crises that engulfed the EU since it decided to become a superpower (without the consent of its people).

Their biggest fallacy was the introduction of the single currency which is driving Europe apart,not bringing it together.One size fits all was a badly conceived scheme that has led to the present impasse.

I think one of the medicines that has to be tried to save the EU is ridding Europe of the euro.Countries now suffering with debt could return to their national currencies, devalue, and regain competitiveness more easily.Surely ,there will be pain along the way, but their freedom would allow them to chart their own course, negotiating debt restructuring that would bring about a more fair division of losses and probably put their economies on a stronger potential growth path.Would Europeans return to its bad old days of incessant wars and conflict because they weren’t all using the same coins?Anybody using this scaremongering is for propaganda purposes.Europe of 2012 is not Europe of 1914 or 1939.

Zoran, your comment mentions that Kosovo has set the precedent that separatist regions in Spain can use...

It does not apply in this case.

Only relevant international law that we are using in Europe is Helsinki Final Act, that does recognize right of ethnic groups to self-determination as long as they are authentic ethnic group of that state (with no state elsewhere).
Scots, Basques, Catalans, etc. are certainly that.
Helsinki Final Act forbids national minorities (nations with state) to claim part of other country, or to make second country for themselves.
That's the precedent Kosovo has created.
Scots, Basques, Catalans already have this right according to int. law.
Albanians outside Albania, Turks outside Turkey and Russians outside Russia shouldn't have this right.
Imagine if Turks in Kirdzali region vote independence from Bulgaria?
Or Russians rip away half of some neighboring countries such is Estonia?
Ukraine has 24 oblasts, half of them Russian speaking. Imagine if they vote for independence? As long as they do it as "oblast" (not as Russians , but as Crimeans, for example). That's more like Kosovo's case.
This would be contrary to Helsinki Act, but international law is just something for scholars to deal with today, and it has only entertaining value.

"Only relevant international law that we are using in Europe is Helsinki Final Act, that does recognize right of ethnic groups to self-determination as long as they are authentic ethnic group of that state (with no state elsewhere). "

The part about "no state elsewhere" is out of Yugoslav law, which recognized "nations" and "nationalities." International law doesn't clearly define what a "people" with a right to self-determination is, or how self-determination should be exercised. In any case, international law is a work in progress - a new treaty can change definitions. (This is what Europe may be faced with doing.) There might have been progress toward a workable definition if Serbia had asked the ICJ to decide whether Kosovo had a right to self-determination, but Jeremic tried to be cute and win on the lesser matter of whether they even had the right to declare independence, and then lost on that. There are a lot of countries in the world with a legal claim to rule over people who don't want them, and as the idea of democracy spreads, so will the idea that the "consent of the people" takes precedence over historical and emotional claims.

(nik, 22 October 2012 11:44)

When it comes to national interest no EU country is bound by Schengen rules.I recall that back in 2001 when Denmark suspended the Schengen treaty and re-introduced controls at its borders with Germany and Sweden over illegals and refugee influx.The same applies to France suspending the rule in order to stop Arab refugees crossing into France from Italy.

I am not a fan of the single currency and I have said in my previous postings that I believe it cannot survive in its present form.The single currency ,contrary to popular belief,is not just a means of exchange but a measure of competitiveness in each Eurozone country.Northern EUrozone countries are more competitive than the South ones which generate surpluses in the former and deficits in the latter.This situation forces the Southern countries to borrow to finance their deficits leading to higher sovereign debts.The rest is history.

Back to the Spanish situation I cannot see how the EU can countenance the break-up of Spain knowing pretty well the same situation could occur in many countries in Europe-Belgium,Uk come in mind.The more EU countries the more difficult for the EU to arrive at a major decision.

When it comes to national interest no EU country is bound by Schengen rules.I recall that back in 2001 when Denmark suspended the Schengen treaty and re-introduced controls at its borders with Germany and Sweden over illegals and refugee influx.

I meant 2011 and not 2001

Sreten, what if the Kosovars declare that they are not Albanians but a separate nation? Will that give them more right to secede? As history shows new nations could be invented. You don’t have to go very far: Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosnians… When the political borders drastically differ from the ethnic borders, no political mambo-jumbo can make them last. There are only tow ways out of the predicament: Change of borders, or change of the ethnic composition of the respective regions.

While there is some questioning of right to self-determination, there is none when it comes to minorities.
Perhaps, the best answer to your dillemas will be given if you examine Aaland Islands case (google it and you'll find it).
Population of those islands is almost entirely Swedish (92.4% Swedish speaking, 5% Finnish speaking), but islands are in Finland.
In 1920 they tried to use self-determination to either join Sweden or form their own independent coutnry.
In 1921 League of Nations ruled that Swedes as a minority in Finland are not entitled to right of self-determination. Islands are to remaind under Finland's sovereignty. Finland was obliged to ensure the residents of the Aaland Islands the right to maintain the Swedish language, as well as their own culture and local traditions (as it was customary right of minorites at that time, later to become one of international laws). One small note here, Albanians had schools and University in Albanian language (but boycotted because they did not agree with the curriculum). Croatia banned Cyrrilic letters or "Serbian" language (use of "Serbian" words) when Tudjman came to power. But, nevermind that now.
"...population's demand for self-determination was not met..." because they were minority. Having Sweden as their "domicile" country their right to self-determination was considered "consumed" (term used by League of Nations).

"Sreten, what if the Kosovars declare that they are not Albanians but a separate nation?"

And you give some examples - Macedonians, Montenegrines...

Sure, that's specified in international law, too. One has to have separate language to be considered a separate nation. That's why we have Macedonian language (?) and Montenegrine language (?) although recent census in Montenegro showed that most of the country speaks Serbian.
And so it is in Kosovo too. They are not Albanians, but "Kosovars" today. Your country supports Kosovars, and Bosnians and Montenegrines, doesn't it? Not Macedonians, though???!!! How come?
Why not have 20 Russias then, only under name "Crimeans" etc. etc. ?

(Reader, 22 October 2012 23:43)

Certain countries, like Greece, should not have been accepted as they did not meet those criteria.

How many Eurozone countries met the Maastricht criteria?

http://research.nordeamarkets.com/en/2012/10/18/all-eur-countries-in-violation-of-their-own-convergence-criteria/

Did Greek governments take advantage of the Euro?

Greek governments took advantage of the Euro the same way that Germany took advantage of the crisis.That is borrowing at 1% and lending to Greeks,Spanish,Portuguese and Irish at 6 or 7%.

Greeks bought feta cheese in Bulgaria at very cheap bulgarian prices, put their EU stamps on the product and sold it worldwide for much more.

Italy bought and still buys Greek olive oil in bulk and sell it in bottles as Italian olive oil.What's new?

Asking for the destruction of the Euro and EU after all it did for Greece in the last 20-30 years is just irresponsible and disgraceful.

The Euro will be destroyed without my help.It's just a matter of time.Three years ago Germany was totally against the idea of stability funds.Since then they've increased it from 100 billion to 200 then 400 and now 1 trillion euros.In addition the ECB will buy unlimited Eurobonds. They just buy time nothing more.

I know exactly what the EU did for Greece.Taking our debt from $22 billion in 1981 to 350 or 370 billion euros in 2012 not to mention the 340 billion we've paid in interest alone since .Do you wonder who benefited from Greece's EU membership?

"International law is a work in progress - a new treaty can change definitions."
True, but until then we should stick to what we have, right?

As for "minorities" and "nations"...it's true that it was in Yu-constitution, but not only there. There is some disagreement as to what constitutes the nation, but in general, formulation of authentic ethnic group is used.

http://www.cetim.ch/en/documents/bro12-auto1-A4-an.pdf

Question is what constitutes "the people"?
In the case of East Timor, for example, it was ruled that "...East Timor has population of distinct culture, language...and therefor, meets definition of people in every way. "
"It has a right to become independent.... despite the lack of consent of a State."
"...right to self-determination beyond the domain of decolonization," It mean it should apply to all, according to UN Charter.
Some countries don't recognize that.
In fact, Supreme Court of Canada in "Reference re Secession of Quebec" recognize right of French-speakers to "internal self-determination" but not separation, claiming that only American Natives ("Red Indians") are authentic ethnic group.
UN documents also recommends "internal" one. "Nonetheless, for any given people, the best way to enjoy its right to selfdetermination
is not necessarily to establish an independent state, for it is obvious that if each of the peoples speaking one of the 6,000 languages were to chose this option many mini-states would be created without any real sovereignty."

Amer is eight. It was Yugoslav law, which recognized "nations" and "nationalities." International law doesn't clearly define what a "people" with a right to self-determination is…
Indeed the international law gives right of secession not to peoples but to “countries”. If a country is not allowed to rule itself - that is imperialism. If one ethnic group wants to exclude others – that is apartheid. It is not clear however what constitutes a country? Is the Basque country a country? Scotland certainly is. What about Catalonia? New countries and new languages have been created since times immemorial and that is not a process that will stop soon. Of course a separate language is not a requirement. There are many nations that speak English, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. In the Balkans most nations do support the break up of their neighboring nations and that is a huge problem…