That article was a thought experiment—although I pointed out that there "would be practicalities to iron out" if anyone were to indulge in individual secession. But the whole thrust of IanB's article is that people are not allowed to do so. As such, I didn't speculate on those practicalities because it would be utterly pointless.
However, since Indigomyth has raised the issue in the comments, I thought that I'd take time to answer some of them. However, it is worth pointing out that my comments are even more pointless than the original speculation since any country that allowed individual secession would probably be very different from that which we currently inhabit—in fact, such a country would probably be considerably freer and thus no one would have the desire to leave (after all, if you wanted collectivism then you could indulge in it voluntarily).
Still, I've never been put off by fruitless speculation, so on we go...
I like the ideas, but there are a number of issues I can think of.
What about things that affect the macrocollective, directly or indirectly?
For example, say someone is murdered in a house that has seceded from the UK. The murderer is the home owner. Under whose jurisdiction does that fall? Presumably not the UK's since the seceded territory is no longer part of UK land, outside its region of control. But, what if the murdered person has relatives that wish to bring the perpetrator to justice? Would they have to go through international courts in order to get approved sanctions? Would every territory need extradition agreements established?
Fuck knows. Bilateral treaties would probably be made, I suspect. This is, actually, the answer to most of the points raised...
What about fuel, electricity etc? In reality, it would not be easy for a person to secede, because of all the utilities supplied by the collective. Electricity, water, oil, gas etc, are almost all derived from collective establishments. In most cases of small scale secession, production of these utilities would be difficult or impossible.
Fuel and electricity are not supplied by the collective: they are supplied by private companies—and they would most definitely continue to sell to those who succeed in seceding.
The only things supplied by the collective are roads and (in reality) trains. The National Grid is owned and operated by a private
I cannot see any of these companies refusing to serve any seceder—no, not even the train companies. And, provided you are paying your road tax (and conform to the British laws when on the roads in Britain) then I don't see why the British state should object to your use of the road. They may do, of course—never underestimate the spitefulness of British bureaucrats—but that's just a point of negotiation.
Trade agreements would be required between each individual enclave and the larger collective. So, whilst in theory, Number 13 could secede their property, would they in reality be able to?
Yep. Treaties again.
What about waste disposal? If you have a small territory, how do you get rid of waste, without disposing of it in the surrounding collective?
Treaty agreements and private companies, again.
Would every owner of every seceded enclave need to be an expert in trade agreements, international law etc, in order to be able to negotiate terms of passage with the surrounding collective?
No. They would hire a lawyer, as anyone would do.
And, would such people, if they did walk in the UK, have diplomatic immunity, because they are the head of sovereign nations? If so, how would this work with the laws of the collective?
First off, I severely doubt that any seceder would be seen as a separate country: there are a few, far bigger countries that have not been formerly acknowledged as countries, so I doubt that No.13 Acacia Avenue would be.
But, once again, all of this would be down to whatever was negotiated by the treaties. However, were I the collective negotiating, I would say, for instance, that the seceder should waive their right to diplomatic immunity in return for a lowered tariff on rubbish disposal, etc. But every seceder would probably negotiate different terms, depending on what is important to them.
Basically, almost nothing can be known until it happens. And since no state allows it to happen, we don't even have to speculate. What is obvious, however, is that there are, actually, very few real practical hurdles—since most of our infrastructure is owned and operated by private companies and not any kind of collective.
* UPDATE: my apologies. The National Grid is a London-based company.