European Microstates

[PC66]

Re: European Microstates

Think about it - how can a group of islands be part of the British Isles but not part of the United Kingdom?

British Isles is really a geographical term, not a definition of political boundaries and national status. It's like referring to North America which includes the U.S.A., Canada, Mexico, plus a good few smaller Caribbean countries, or to Europe, which consists of France, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, etc.

So if you take your car there you need a GB sticker to show you're from the mainland, yet if you're from the UK you don't need a passport to go there. It all seems strange and daft to me, but that's life.

Those things are largely down to politics, and there are hundreds of examples of things which make little or no sense when it comes down to rules and regulations drafted by bureaucrats. If you're a British citizen you don't need a passport to go to the Republic of Ireland (and Irish citizens don't need one for the United Kingdom) - That's just down to the history of our two countries and the agreement between the U.K. government and the new Irish government in the 1920's that there would continue to be free movement for both Irish and British citizens as had existed when the whole of Ireland was part of the U.K.

I don't see the argument that just because one small country is geographically adjoining or very close to a larger country that it automatically makes sense for it to be a part of that larger country. Many small countries fought to gain independence from a larger, more dominant nation.

What would you do about Malta? Historically it was British territory until gaining independence in the 1960's and then becoming a fully independent republic a decade or so later. But by the criteria you're using, wouldn't it be a candidate for being absorbed into the territory of some larger country? Its population is a little less than that of Luxembourg, and its area considerably smaller. So if you think Luxembourg is too small to be an independent country, what would you do about Malta? Make it a geographically separated part of the U.K. because of the historical connection? Make it part of Italy because of the latter's proximity?

[sweep]

Re: European Microstates

There are five European microstates. In alphabetical order they are Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City. Just one question: is it really worth having such small areas of land as countries in their own right?

Vatican City
Let's start with Vatican City. It's the smallest officially recognised independent state in the world by both area and population. According to Wikipedia, its area is just 44 hectares (110 acres). That's equivalent to 0.44 square km (0.17 square miles) and its population is just over 800.

How can such an infinitesimal plot of land justify being a country in its own right? It's a mickey taker really, the joker in the pack. Vatican City must be smaller than some English villages (possibly even hamlets). It's certainly only a fraction the size of Alton Towers 800 acres (3.2 square km), and Thorpe Park 500 acres (2.0 square km). Although you have to pay to go in them they're not countries in their own right separate from the UK.

Being as Vatican City is situated in the heart of Rome, and thus surrounded by Rome, why not just make it part of Rome? I'm aware that Rome is divided into administrative areas called municipi (singular municipio). Why don't they just make Vatican a municipio of Rome?

Is it true that, as I've been led to believe, you don't need a passport to cross from Rome to Vatican City or vice versa? Someone told me that it's difficult to tell exactly where the border is even. Is that true?

Monaco
The second smallest country in the world. On Google Maps, you have to zoom in close to find it! According to Wikipedia, its area is 2.02 square km (0.78 square miles), and population is 36,371, making it the most densely populated country in the world. The Franco-Monacoan land border is just 4.4 km (2.7 miles), its coastline is 4.1 km (2.5 miles). It would probably take me less than an hour to walk its entire coast length, and about an hour to walk the said land border. Monaco is long and narrow, its width ranges from 1.7 km (1.1 miles) at the widest point to 349 metres (382 yards) at the narrowest point. What a comical joke it is to call that a country!

It's hardly surprising the Monaco Formula 1 Grand Prix takes place on a road circuit, requiring road closures, not a race track circuit like most other F1 venues. It must take most of Monte Carlo's roads, if not the entirety of Monaco! I doubt if Monaco has enough land space there to build a permanent racing circuit like some other countries have. Likewise, when Monaco won the 1971 Eurovision Song Contest, it's no wonder the 1972 ESC came from Edinburgh, UK instead of Monaco.

To be an independent country, Monaco needs its own Government and economy, and has its own prince. Is it really worth having all that just to be a separate country? Do you need a passport to cross the border from France into Monaco and vice-versa?

Monaco has its own TV service TMC (Télé Monte Carlo). Apart from being a prerequisite to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, does such an infinitesimal country really need its own TV service? Surely it must be broadcast from a very low power terrestrial transmitter to cover such a tiny area and not leak too much into France; just like a low power relay transmitter here in the UK. I bet most Monacoan residents are also able to get French TV from a French transmitter even if that needs a second aerial.

Monaco doesn't have its own train service, all trains running along its 1.7 km (1.1 miles) of track, and calling at Monte-Carlo station, are provided by SNCF (French Railways).

Why don't they just merge Monaco into France? Such a pathetically infinitesimal country is way too small to be a standalone country! If it wants to retain its name, and remain the land unit it is, within its current land borderline as part of France, make it a French department, but even then it would surely be the smallest department in France. Monte Carlo would then be just another French Riviera town.

If all or any of these states where forcibly annexed (cant imagine any of them would do it willingly) it would create a breeding ground for terrorists as we had in Ireland and to a lesser extent Spain with the Basque separatists, as for Vatican city although it has been independent for a relatively short time you have to remember that it is a holy city and as such is sacred not just to the billion so Catholics around the world but to the Christian faith in general, wars have started for much less.

[PC66]

Re: European Microstates

If all or any of these states where forcibly annexed (cant imagine any of them would do it willingly)

A certain Herr Hitler tried that a while back, albeit with larger countries. Any such attempt at taking over a small nation state by force would be an act of war.

[PC66]

Re: European Microstates

Re-reading this thread and picking up on a couple of other points.....

Monaco has its own TV service TMC (Télé Monte Carlo). Apart from being a prerequisite to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, does such an infinitesimal country really need its own TV service? Surely it must be broadcast from a very low power terrestrial transmitter to cover such a tiny area and not leak too much into France; just like a low power relay transmitter here in the UK. I bet most Monacoan residents are also able to get French TV from a French transmitter even if that needs a second aerial.

Does Monaco need its own television service? Possibly not, and as you surmise, it's certainly possible to receive French TV easily there. But couldn't you extend the same broadcasting argument to a larger scale even within a single country? Does the U.K. actually need the many regional BBC radio stations, for example? Or look at the many local community TV services in the United States which are sometimes carried on just one cable network which serves only a single town. Aren't they rather comparable in some ways?

For whatever reason, certain smaller communities decide that they want a service which is more localized to their specific interests - Whether that's a particular town, county, or small country.

Liechtenstein tried to enter the Eurovision Song Contest in 1976 {.....} Unfortunately Liechtenstein could not take part as it didn't have its own TV broadcaster.

Isn't that reasonable enough considering the whole idea of the Eurovision system as it was conceived in the 1950's?

You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the presence or absence of a national broadcaster and on the Eurovision Song Contest being somehow significant to whether a small nation state should exist in its own right or not.

Obviously there has traditionally been something of a link between national boundaries and broadcasting, not least because throughout most of Europe governments - always eager to exercise control - were quick to regulate broadcasting within their borders as the technology was emerging, typically with an official state-sponsored broadcaster.

But don't you think it was rather natural that in many cases it was the smaller states, with more limited resources, which often did not consider it a priority to set up their own TV stations when residents could receive adequate coverage from an adjoining, larger nation? I don't see that as being any sort of indication of a lack of desire to maintain political independence, merely a convenience. Canadians have turned their antennas toward U.S. TV transmitters for decades, either because in some areas in the early days of television it was the only practical way to obtain service at all, or in later years simply to get more choice.

Closer to home, as you noted already, the Channel Island jurisdictions of Jersey & Guernsey are linked into both the BBC & ITV networks, and a similar situation exists with the Isle of Man. It doesn't mean the islands don't want to remain politically independent though.

The Irish Republic was quite late in getting its own TV service, with Telefis Eireann not going on air until the very end of 1961. But many people living in the border areas had already turned their aerials toward Northern Ireland transmitters in order to receive British TV, and many others in Dublin and along other parts of the east coast had aerials turned toward English transmitters already. Again, there were no political implications there (after all, the 26 counties had only been independent from the U.K. for around 40 years at that time), merely a desire of people to receive TV of some sort at a time when there were no TV broadcasts from within the R.o.I. whatsoever.

I could just as easily mention situations in my own field of telecommunications in which a small country is reliant upon a larger neighbour, or is even effectively integrated with the system of a larger nation. In fact the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are examples of this again, since they are all part of the U.K. telephone numbering plan, despite not being part of the U.K. itself. North America is another example where a single, integrated numbering system serves the U.S.A., Canada, and many Caribbean countries.

And to mention some of your small European countries, at one time Andorra was reached internationally using the French country code 33 before it was assigned its own separate code, Monaco was similarly accessed via France with 33, and Liechtenstein was reached via Switzerland with the latter's 41 country code. But that was all for technical convenience, nothing to do with any sort of political statement or with any notion that, for example, just because Liechtenstein was assigned a code within Switzerland's numbering plan that it should be regarded as politically part of Switzerland. (That's not to say that politics haven't gotten involved sometime: There was a ridiculous telephone situation which dragged on for years regarding Gibraltar and Spain, but that's another story.)