Catalan parliament declares independence from Spain(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Catalan parliament declares independence from Spain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41780116
784 comments
>miss the true point:
This "conflict" is the fight between nationalist movements (Spanish and Catalan) which re-enforce each other in every turn for the worse of the majority and of the European Union.
To me, it seems your characterization of "true point" adds layers of abstractions such as "nationalists" and "right-wing movements". Sure, you're writing text that can be considered "correct" but it actually doesn't help people understand it better.
Would it be clearer for outsiders to look at it as a mostly economic independence? For example ... to use a (tortured) analogy, imagine that California wants to secede from the USA because citizens (especially the wealthy ones in Silicon Valley) feel too much of California tax dollars prop up poorer non-performing states like Mississippi and Alabama. Also, the corrupt USA federal government is spending too much $$ on unneeded military expenses like tanks and bailing out Wall Street. Therefore, California feels its unfair and wants independence to run their own affairs. To parallel a similar confusion of the "true point"... if we simply describe the independence movement as "State Secessionists fighting the Feds", it adds abstract labels to the opposing sides but doesn't really explain the situation.
Is there a more primary undercurrent to the Catalonia independence movement than the economic analogy above?
(One example of a Catalan pro-independence answer talking about economic grievances and corruption: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-Catalans-want-to-secede-fr...)
To me, it seems your characterization of "true point" adds layers of abstractions such as "nationalists" and "right-wing movements". Sure, you're writing text that can be considered "correct" but it actually doesn't help people understand it better.
Would it be clearer for outsiders to look at it as a mostly economic independence? For example ... to use a (tortured) analogy, imagine that California wants to secede from the USA because citizens (especially the wealthy ones in Silicon Valley) feel too much of California tax dollars prop up poorer non-performing states like Mississippi and Alabama. Also, the corrupt USA federal government is spending too much $$ on unneeded military expenses like tanks and bailing out Wall Street. Therefore, California feels its unfair and wants independence to run their own affairs. To parallel a similar confusion of the "true point"... if we simply describe the independence movement as "State Secessionists fighting the Feds", it adds abstract labels to the opposing sides but doesn't really explain the situation.
Is there a more primary undercurrent to the Catalonia independence movement than the economic analogy above?
(One example of a Catalan pro-independence answer talking about economic grievances and corruption: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-Catalans-want-to-secede-fr...)
There's a LOT of people in Catalonian independence movement (or nationalists).
I guess some are in for the economic advantages. Others are in because they feel culturally different. Others because Spain is too right wing. Or because they think its their historical right. Or because the new country would be better managed. Or because an independent Catalonia can better help the peoples of the world against the tyrants of capitalism and open their borders to immigrants (true story). And I guess some are in because they need to be in a team and relate to other people.
For most there will be a mixture of reasons (good and bad). The Spanish government torpedoed and blocked initiatives for more autonomy in the past fueling this feelings above the tipping point.
Many of the real problems behind were probably addressable within an evolved Constitutional frame which the defenders of the unity of Spain never cared to look at.
Note that independence does not necessarily mean economic advantage for Catalonia. In the EU they would have to help poorer EU countries. Outside of it they would not have access to the common market (they'd probably need to become a tax heaven).
I guess some are in for the economic advantages. Others are in because they feel culturally different. Others because Spain is too right wing. Or because they think its their historical right. Or because the new country would be better managed. Or because an independent Catalonia can better help the peoples of the world against the tyrants of capitalism and open their borders to immigrants (true story). And I guess some are in because they need to be in a team and relate to other people.
For most there will be a mixture of reasons (good and bad). The Spanish government torpedoed and blocked initiatives for more autonomy in the past fueling this feelings above the tipping point.
Many of the real problems behind were probably addressable within an evolved Constitutional frame which the defenders of the unity of Spain never cared to look at.
Note that independence does not necessarily mean economic advantage for Catalonia. In the EU they would have to help poorer EU countries. Outside of it they would not have access to the common market (they'd probably need to become a tax heaven).
> For most there will be a mixture of reasons (good and bad).
Are there objective criteria for figuring out whether a reason is good or bad? Or do you just mean your opinion?
Are there objective criteria for figuring out whether a reason is good or bad? Or do you just mean your opinion?
Just my humble opinion
On tangential note, California should secede from US.
Trump would impose a tariff on all goods coming in. And I would hope th Us govt would shut down all military and US govt aid and jobs in California if so, regardless of political party
Tariffs would hurt US more than it would California. Tariff is a cost paid by US citizens to benefit non-competitive US suppliers.
And assuming it happened, how would California protect its borders from its neighbor US?
No, that way lies madness.
No, that way lies madness.
California needn't have heavy border patrol if US-California relations are peaceful. For reference: see European borders. You can just walk over to another country most of the time.
[deleted]
Why do you call ‘nationalists’ and ‘right-wing movements’ abstractions?
You're misunderstanding what I wrote. I'm not calling nationalists (the people) an "abstraction" to delegitimize or dismiss them.
I'm saying alexandrerond's first attempted explanation of the "true point" isn't very effective because he used abstract labels such as "nationalists". The subsequent paragraphs in that post referred back to "nationalists" creating a circular explanation.
His later reply to me had more concrete examples and motives instead of abstract labels such as "right-wing". Concrete text is what more readers can identify with (especially readers who are not familiar with Catalonia's situation.)
I'm saying alexandrerond's first attempted explanation of the "true point" isn't very effective because he used abstract labels such as "nationalists". The subsequent paragraphs in that post referred back to "nationalists" creating a circular explanation.
His later reply to me had more concrete examples and motives instead of abstract labels such as "right-wing". Concrete text is what more readers can identify with (especially readers who are not familiar with Catalonia's situation.)
This mischaracterization is very common. The phallacy is framing the people against nationalism as nationalists. It's the same dirty trick as saying that atheism is just another kind of religion. Of course you add the "extreme-right" insult for good measure.
Most people in Spain are not nationalists of any kind. That's just a lie. Nationalist votes are, being most generous under 10% of national grand total. People opposing to nationalism are just refusing the tribal bs.
Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
This nonsense we've been hearing for years: let them do whatever they want to do or else they win. WHAT?
Most people in Spain are not nationalists of any kind. That's just a lie. Nationalist votes are, being most generous under 10% of national grand total. People opposing to nationalism are just refusing the tribal bs.
Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
This nonsense we've been hearing for years: let them do whatever they want to do or else they win. WHAT?
I didn't frame anyone. I just said that the people calling the shots in this conflict are nationalists.
In fact, I'm saying the majority of non-nationalistic people are just hostages in this fight, which are only good to convert more people to the cause.
In fact, I'm saying the majority of non-nationalistic people are just hostages in this fight, which are only good to convert more people to the cause.
No, the people in spanish gov are not nationalists. I have a lot of bad things to say against Rajoy but nationalist is not one.
And no, non-nationalists are not hostages. We are sick and tired of nationalism and most of us would have wanted the government to react much sooner to the abuses, specially the non-nationalists living in Catalonia that are the ones that have suffered this situation more directly.
And no, non-nationalists are not hostages. We are sick and tired of nationalism and most of us would have wanted the government to react much sooner to the abuses, specially the non-nationalists living in Catalonia that are the ones that have suffered this situation more directly.
I don't know under what prism you do not consider the PP party not nationalists, when they are the direct successors of the Spanish National Catolicism movement that ruled Spain under Franco's dictatorship.
Do you know what? I was there, I saw the transition, I saw the people and I saw the evolution. What you say is not even wrong. It's just nonsense.
PP is a standard conservative party, equivalent to Puigdemont's CiU (now PDCAT) and that has been in the government with the support of CiU for years, during Aznar times.
PP turned a blind eye to catalonian nationalists' abuses when they needed them to keep power. Now they're starting to see the consequences.
Rajoy must be the laziest prime minister the world has seen. He wouldn't move a finger without absolute need for it. Even in this dramatic situtation he has hold his breath until he was risking stiff penal prosecution for himself had he not acted!!
Suggesting he is promoting the escalating is not only untrue, it's ridiculous.
PP is a standard conservative party, equivalent to Puigdemont's CiU (now PDCAT) and that has been in the government with the support of CiU for years, during Aznar times.
PP turned a blind eye to catalonian nationalists' abuses when they needed them to keep power. Now they're starting to see the consequences.
Rajoy must be the laziest prime minister the world has seen. He wouldn't move a finger without absolute need for it. Even in this dramatic situtation he has hold his breath until he was risking stiff penal prosecution for himself had he not acted!!
Suggesting he is promoting the escalating is not only untrue, it's ridiculous.
You are confusing independence with nationalism. You can be pro-independence without being nationalist.
> Most people in Spain are not nationalists of any kind.
So, according to your point, the people who wants Catalans stay Spanish at any cost and tries to deny their right of a referendum are the "non nationalist". And the ones who are fed up of the BS of the Spanish government and just want to stop being Spanish are the Nationalist...
So, according to your point, the people who wants Catalans stay Spanish at any cost and tries to deny their right of a referendum are the "non nationalist". And the ones who are fed up of the BS of the Spanish government and just want to stop being Spanish are the Nationalist...
So, according to your point, the people who wants Catalans stay Spanish at any cost and tries to deny their right of a referendum are the "non nationalist".
Catalans that want to be Spanish, I'm OK they stay Spanish. The rest I don't give a rat ass. Actually there's nothing preventing them NOW to give up citizenship and become citizens of whatever unsuspecting country that accepts them as nationals.
If they want to steal a piece of my country to have their rave there, then we do have a problem
Catalans that want to be Spanish, I'm OK they stay Spanish. The rest I don't give a rat ass. Actually there's nothing preventing them NOW to give up citizenship and become citizens of whatever unsuspecting country that accepts them as nationals.
If they want to steal a piece of my country to have their rave there, then we do have a problem
theology: speech about god
atheism: speech about god
atheism has a theology and is a belief system, therefore it is a religion.
I'll reconsider my view when people routinely say 'oh reason' or 'oh science' while winning sport championships, hitting their knees in the dark, or having orgasms. in the meantime, my thesis is there is a reason something else comes out..
atheism: speech about god
atheism has a theology and is a belief system, therefore it is a religion.
I'll reconsider my view when people routinely say 'oh reason' or 'oh science' while winning sport championships, hitting their knees in the dark, or having orgasms. in the meantime, my thesis is there is a reason something else comes out..
"It's very hard to see a discussion on this topic that does not miss the true point: This "conflict" is the fight between nationalist movements (Spanish and Catalan) which re-enforce each other in every turn for the worse of the majority and of the European Union."
And I think it is very hard to discuss something, by starting with telling everybody else that they are wrong. Now while it is true, that the conflict is also a clash of different nationalist, it is simply oversimplification and plainly wrong to reduce it to that. And also missleading. As the catalan nationalism is of a very different kind, than the spanish one.
From my experience, the spanish nationalism is classical chauvinism - or plain open fascism. Spain is superior. Period. Spain also never had a denazification since Franco. There simply are still many people in spain who still refer positiv to fascism. Also in positions of power. And the catalans simply want to live their culture, free from spanish interference.
The catalan language was allmost forbidden for quite some time! And many died, were tortured or disappeared who did not bow their head low enough to the fascists. So one should not forget that long episode.
But yes, recently things were a lot different - thats why most catalans would have voted no - if spain would have granted them a referendum. But since spain did not talked to them, but acted again like a empire to their peasants - it seems to many, that spain once again has dropped their masks and showed how they really are and think - so now they want to leave.
And yes, I think it is very sad for europe indeed, if this kind of empire-thinking and chauvinism gets the support of the EU. And the right of self-determination only gets taken seriously if it is some geopolitical interest, like in Kosovo.
And I think it is very hard to discuss something, by starting with telling everybody else that they are wrong. Now while it is true, that the conflict is also a clash of different nationalist, it is simply oversimplification and plainly wrong to reduce it to that. And also missleading. As the catalan nationalism is of a very different kind, than the spanish one.
From my experience, the spanish nationalism is classical chauvinism - or plain open fascism. Spain is superior. Period. Spain also never had a denazification since Franco. There simply are still many people in spain who still refer positiv to fascism. Also in positions of power. And the catalans simply want to live their culture, free from spanish interference.
The catalan language was allmost forbidden for quite some time! And many died, were tortured or disappeared who did not bow their head low enough to the fascists. So one should not forget that long episode.
But yes, recently things were a lot different - thats why most catalans would have voted no - if spain would have granted them a referendum. But since spain did not talked to them, but acted again like a empire to their peasants - it seems to many, that spain once again has dropped their masks and showed how they really are and think - so now they want to leave.
And yes, I think it is very sad for europe indeed, if this kind of empire-thinking and chauvinism gets the support of the EU. And the right of self-determination only gets taken seriously if it is some geopolitical interest, like in Kosovo.
> And many died, were tortured or disappeared who did not bow their head low enough to the fascists. So one should not forget that long episode.
Note that this happened all over Spain, it was not just Catalonia suffering this.
> Spain also never had a denazification since Franco
Spain has had a low-speed consolidation of its democratic system. It is important to realize that, even though slow, it is miraculous that Spain got out of such regime without bloodshed and successful coups (though one was attempted). The slow process is the price Spain paid for that.
Believe me when I say Catalonia is not helping to get the fascists away from power.
> The catalan language was allmost forbidden for quite some time!
Resentment may fuel nationalist feelings, but makes a bad argument in the current setting. There are so many things to be resentful about in totalitarian regimes from 40 years ago...
Note that this happened all over Spain, it was not just Catalonia suffering this.
> Spain also never had a denazification since Franco
Spain has had a low-speed consolidation of its democratic system. It is important to realize that, even though slow, it is miraculous that Spain got out of such regime without bloodshed and successful coups (though one was attempted). The slow process is the price Spain paid for that.
Believe me when I say Catalonia is not helping to get the fascists away from power.
> The catalan language was allmost forbidden for quite some time!
Resentment may fuel nationalist feelings, but makes a bad argument in the current setting. There are so many things to be resentful about in totalitarian regimes from 40 years ago...
"Note that this happened all over Spain, it was not just Catalonia suffering this."
But they probably suffered much more than others. Definitely more than spanish thinking people.
"Resentment may fuel nationalist feelings, but makes a bad argument in the current setting."
It is not about resentment, but about the fear that those who suppressed the catalans still would do it, if they can. Openly or behind doors. And it seems that there is some truth to it, with police bashing unarmed people who just want to vote.
But they probably suffered much more than others. Definitely more than spanish thinking people.
"Resentment may fuel nationalist feelings, but makes a bad argument in the current setting."
It is not about resentment, but about the fear that those who suppressed the catalans still would do it, if they can. Openly or behind doors. And it seems that there is some truth to it, with police bashing unarmed people who just want to vote.
> they probably suffered much more than others
You must be joking... :-(
You must be joking... :-(
Do you know the history of spain and the civil war?
Even if not, don't you think it makes a difference for an area under spanish fascist rule, if most of the residents are pro spanish or if they are against it??
Even if not, don't you think it makes a difference for an area under spanish fascist rule, if most of the residents are pro spanish or if they are against it??
I know the history of Spain really well, being Catalan and with part of my ancestors assessinated by Franco's regime.
Being pro-Spanish did not mean shit for Franco and the fascist regime. The rebelled against a perfectly pro-Spanish republican government. The assassinated millions of socialist, communist, anarchist who were pro Spanish. Big majority of catalans were also pro Spanish and suffered prosecution.
But they supported a different Spain than the fascist/catholic nationalist Spain than Franco's side. They supported a plural, multinational Spain, where all national and regional feelings were respected and supported.
Being pro-Spanish did not mean shit for Franco and the fascist regime. The rebelled against a perfectly pro-Spanish republican government. The assassinated millions of socialist, communist, anarchist who were pro Spanish. Big majority of catalans were also pro Spanish and suffered prosecution.
But they supported a different Spain than the fascist/catholic nationalist Spain than Franco's side. They supported a plural, multinational Spain, where all national and regional feelings were respected and supported.
"They supported a plural, multinational Spain, where all national and regional feelings were respected and supported."
With pro-spanish I did not meant the "multinational Spain" variant. More pro spanish nation.
(And I also think that "anarchist who were pro Spanish" ... were a pretty rare type of anarchists. Unless you only meant pro spanish language. But that is pobably nitpicking, which I feel is a bit inappropriate in this topic)
So I still would think, that in general a spanish fascist would treat a spanish republican a bit better, than a catalan anarchist - but I don't think I should try to teach you your history.
So I just stop and say, that I am very sorry for your family, as well.
With pro-spanish I did not meant the "multinational Spain" variant. More pro spanish nation.
(And I also think that "anarchist who were pro Spanish" ... were a pretty rare type of anarchists. Unless you only meant pro spanish language. But that is pobably nitpicking, which I feel is a bit inappropriate in this topic)
So I still would think, that in general a spanish fascist would treat a spanish republican a bit better, than a catalan anarchist - but I don't think I should try to teach you your history.
So I just stop and say, that I am very sorry for your family, as well.
I know very well the history of my family, yes.
Please, take a look to this:
http://mapadefosas.mjusticia.es/exovi_externo/CargarMapaFosa...
Please, take a look to this:
http://mapadefosas.mjusticia.es/exovi_externo/CargarMapaFosa...
Well, then I deeply apologize.
My first reaction to your post was also thinking that you had emotional ties to it, but then I assumed you were just some internet guy with shallow knowledge. Well, wrong. I am the guy with shallow knowledge compared to you.
Anyway, I still want to state, that I did not said that the catalans suffered the most, just "more than other areas". But I don't think I should say more on this.
I am sorry for your family.
My first reaction to your post was also thinking that you had emotional ties to it, but then I assumed you were just some internet guy with shallow knowledge. Well, wrong. I am the guy with shallow knowledge compared to you.
Anyway, I still want to state, that I did not said that the catalans suffered the most, just "more than other areas". But I don't think I should say more on this.
I am sorry for your family.
Don't be sorry. At least my grandpa survived his death penalty and was finally released from jail, broken but alive, thus allowing my mother, (and therefore me and my brothers) a chance to born. It was close. Other people weren't so fortunate.
All this excited children in the streets acting like if they were playing Grand Thief Auto in their room, waiting hopeful for the arrival of their shiny independence war, are totally clueless about the real meaning of the term
All this excited children in the streets acting like if they were playing Grand Thief Auto in their room, waiting hopeful for the arrival of their shiny independence war, are totally clueless about the real meaning of the term
> On the Catalan side, the Nationalist movement is used by dubious politicians which belong to the richer statements of Catalan society to grab power and "make history".
In this case, though, these politicians do so at great personal risk. Many are already imprisoned. Even if Cataluña gains sovereignty, chances are that they will be held for high treason by the Spanish authorities.
The Spanish authorities are taking basically no personal risk. If they screw the country, they can just leave on a plane, move to Switzerland or some other nice place.
In this case, though, these politicians do so at great personal risk. Many are already imprisoned. Even if Cataluña gains sovereignty, chances are that they will be held for high treason by the Spanish authorities.
The Spanish authorities are taking basically no personal risk. If they screw the country, they can just leave on a plane, move to Switzerland or some other nice place.
> Many are already imprisioned
That's inaccurate, there are 2 civil society leaders (not politicians) imprisoned, and the alleged reason is not their support of the independence. That said, they should not be in jail (imho).
Note that greater risk is accompanied with greater personal, social gains (as a nationalist, I guess it is nice to have the chance to be a father of the nation). That doesn't give (or take from) them any legitimacy though, they just become sexier in the story that they are selling.
That's inaccurate, there are 2 civil society leaders (not politicians) imprisoned, and the alleged reason is not their support of the independence. That said, they should not be in jail (imho).
Note that greater risk is accompanied with greater personal, social gains (as a nationalist, I guess it is nice to have the chance to be a father of the nation). That doesn't give (or take from) them any legitimacy though, they just become sexier in the story that they are selling.
These two guys were the leaders of a crowd that kept under siege overnight a public building where a Catalonia court officer was making a search escorted by police.
The crowd vandalized several police cars and these two guys are caught in video on the roof of one car directing the vandals so you're right, the alleged reason is not their support of independence.
About the risk for all of these nice folks: wait and see.
The crowd vandalized several police cars and these two guys are caught in video on the roof of one car directing the vandals so you're right, the alleged reason is not their support of independence.
About the risk for all of these nice folks: wait and see.
Try to corner several FBI people and members of the justice system basically kidnapping them inside a building from 11 AM to 4:00 AM of the next day. Meanwhile vandalice and paint the FBI cars, fill the cars with garbage, steal weapons in the car and make selfies in the roof of the cars using a megaphone asking people to resist and not to leave.
What do you expect would happen next with your probability of facing some jail time?
What do you expect would happen next with your probability of facing some jail time?
Exactly. It seems that people from outside of Spain is so confused about what's happening here because they can't believe how lenient and forgiving our authorities are.
In any other country, included every single one of our close neighbours like France, UK or Germany, what we have seen here would have been inmediately stopped in the blink of an eye.
In any other country, included every single one of our close neighbours like France, UK or Germany, what we have seen here would have been inmediately stopped in the blink of an eye.
is High Treason punishable by death in modern Spain?
As I recall the EU does not allow countries that have the death penalty (even if only on the books).
Also, worth remembering, it is not High Treason if you win.
Also, worth remembering, it is not High Treason if you win.
There is no death penalty in Spain.
Also the longest sentence is 30 years. Even the worst criminals used to be released on parole after half sentence. So effective maximum penalty was really 15 years.
That was reformed a few years ago to make terrorists and serial rapers serve full term.
That was reformed a few years ago to make terrorists and serial rapers serve full term.
Not of course, we are proud of not having death penalty here.
There is a very similar dynamic in U.S. politics between extremists on the right and the left, both of whom need each other in order to remain relevant. The big difference is that in the U.S. leftist extremists have been all but eliminated, so rightist extremists need to invent all kinds of boogymen to replace them. Gays and Muslims and their supporters are currently being cast in this role.
There is a very similar dynamic in U.S. politics between extremists on the right and the left, both of whom need each other in order to remain relevant. The big difference is that in the U.S. true right wing extremists have been all but eliminated, so radical leftist activists need to invent all kinds of boogymen to replace them. "White supremacists" and their supporters are currently being cast in this role.
Right. That's why there's so much controversy about taking down all those statues of Lenin around the U.S.
As a general principle, I think Catalan independence is a question for the Catalans to decide. As a foreigner, it's not my place to have an opinion on another country's self-determination. I am troubled that Spain suppressed the referendum, because it seems out of step with the behavior of other liberal, democratic, Western states. For example, Scotland and Quebec were both allowed to have referendums, and while the leaders of the British and Canadian central governments definitely campaigned to remain unified, they allowed the people to have their say.
> Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
I look at the secessionist movements across Europe and wonder if that's really necessarily the case.
Historically, the benefit for ethnic nations like Croatia, Slovakia, Scotland, and Catalonia to remained within larger states is largely in order to enjoy the benefits of common markets and open borders, and partially to enjoy the benefits of common defense. Doesn't the EU make those motivations less compelling rather than more compelling? The EU already provides common markets and open borders and NATO provides common defense; why can't Catalonia be their own EU member state just like Croatia, Czechia, Ireland, Malta, Slovakia, or Slovenia--all of which separated from larger states in the past?
> Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
I look at the secessionist movements across Europe and wonder if that's really necessarily the case.
Historically, the benefit for ethnic nations like Croatia, Slovakia, Scotland, and Catalonia to remained within larger states is largely in order to enjoy the benefits of common markets and open borders, and partially to enjoy the benefits of common defense. Doesn't the EU make those motivations less compelling rather than more compelling? The EU already provides common markets and open borders and NATO provides common defense; why can't Catalonia be their own EU member state just like Croatia, Czechia, Ireland, Malta, Slovakia, or Slovenia--all of which separated from larger states in the past?
I'm not very sold on saying that Catalonia is an "ethnic nation" (or comparable to Kosovo like some claim), but I mostly agree.
I wish the referendum would have been legal, and that independence, with a support from the majority of the Catalan population, could happen orderly if need be, with Catalonia staying as a EU member state.
However, with a right-wing government in Spain, this path is not possible. More autonomy: possibly (now I'm not sure anymore), but independence? Not with this government.
A cool-headed approach would have waited longer, paved the way for the return of the left to power, forging the right alliances with the national parties in the left-spectrum in order to get an official referendum in a new Constitutional frame, rather than throw the Catalan and Spanish society into this spiral of non-sense.
The way the Spanish parliament works (with over-represented regional parties) and the raise of Podemos would certainly have provided considerable allies for this sooner or later. Right now, the government is re-inforced, and the Socialists (!) are in the end supporting it, after having been pushed into a corner by the Catalonian goverment actions.
I wish the referendum would have been legal, and that independence, with a support from the majority of the Catalan population, could happen orderly if need be, with Catalonia staying as a EU member state.
However, with a right-wing government in Spain, this path is not possible. More autonomy: possibly (now I'm not sure anymore), but independence? Not with this government.
A cool-headed approach would have waited longer, paved the way for the return of the left to power, forging the right alliances with the national parties in the left-spectrum in order to get an official referendum in a new Constitutional frame, rather than throw the Catalan and Spanish society into this spiral of non-sense.
The way the Spanish parliament works (with over-represented regional parties) and the raise of Podemos would certainly have provided considerable allies for this sooner or later. Right now, the government is re-inforced, and the Socialists (!) are in the end supporting it, after having been pushed into a corner by the Catalonian goverment actions.
The question becomes, then, to what extent a separatist movement should respect the wishes of a right-wing central government to deny self-determination. As a political calculation, maybe a coalition with liberals and other separatists could result in a central government amenable to a referendum; on the other hand, if this is the first time they’ve had a referendum, that would mean they’ve waited since at least the Spanish Civil War, and that’s a lot of patience.
"'Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU."
I could not disagree more. I think the subtext here, is that you believe is that you believe everyone favoring a nation state is some form of Trump supporter or right wing Brexiter. Being in favor of your own independent state does not make you anti other people.
There is something fundamentally undemocratic about world government style of thinking. If everybody lived under the same rule, there would be no choice in how you would like your society organized.
To just put an extreme example. As a Norwegian I like my universal health care, long paternity leave, long vacation, generous welfare benefits, humane prison policy, nice work life balance etc. If we were to become an American state in the name of erasing oh those horrible borders, we Norwegians would suddenly have to adapt to American values and ways of organizing society. Values we don't share.
I think the analysis of the worlds problems is fundamentally wrong. Wars don't start over too many borders but over too few borders. So many wars are caused by civil wars, because people who don't function well together are made to share a country.
Even bigger wars such as WWI and WWII is fundamentally about this. If Germany and Italy had not been united but had stayed as a collection of smaller countries, then these wars would never have been started.
Catalonia has as much right to independence as my home country Norway. Just like Catalonia we had autonomy and democracy. But that did not change the desire to be our own country. I think it would be nutty in retrospect to claim we would have been so much better off with Sweden.
There is a reason we never became full EU members. I do believe in the EU project but it is increasingly taking away too much sovereignty from individual nations. Had we been EU members we would have lost control over our natural resources such as fishing. The EU has proved itself utterly incapable of managing its fish stock in a responsible manner. As fishing is an important livelihood for many Norwegians along the coast it would have been detrimental to the country with EU rules.
It is just one of many examples of how, while countries should cooperate, it is naive to think it is a benefit for everybody that we all share the same rules and government.
I could not disagree more. I think the subtext here, is that you believe is that you believe everyone favoring a nation state is some form of Trump supporter or right wing Brexiter. Being in favor of your own independent state does not make you anti other people.
There is something fundamentally undemocratic about world government style of thinking. If everybody lived under the same rule, there would be no choice in how you would like your society organized.
To just put an extreme example. As a Norwegian I like my universal health care, long paternity leave, long vacation, generous welfare benefits, humane prison policy, nice work life balance etc. If we were to become an American state in the name of erasing oh those horrible borders, we Norwegians would suddenly have to adapt to American values and ways of organizing society. Values we don't share.
I think the analysis of the worlds problems is fundamentally wrong. Wars don't start over too many borders but over too few borders. So many wars are caused by civil wars, because people who don't function well together are made to share a country.
Even bigger wars such as WWI and WWII is fundamentally about this. If Germany and Italy had not been united but had stayed as a collection of smaller countries, then these wars would never have been started.
Catalonia has as much right to independence as my home country Norway. Just like Catalonia we had autonomy and democracy. But that did not change the desire to be our own country. I think it would be nutty in retrospect to claim we would have been so much better off with Sweden.
There is a reason we never became full EU members. I do believe in the EU project but it is increasingly taking away too much sovereignty from individual nations. Had we been EU members we would have lost control over our natural resources such as fishing. The EU has proved itself utterly incapable of managing its fish stock in a responsible manner. As fishing is an important livelihood for many Norwegians along the coast it would have been detrimental to the country with EU rules.
It is just one of many examples of how, while countries should cooperate, it is naive to think it is a benefit for everybody that we all share the same rules and government.
> Politicians are not focused on crushing poverty, judges are not working to end corruption, police is not busy catching terrorists.
Smaller states have fewer levels of hierarchy and are usually more efficient at what they're doing and less corrupt.
Also, people have it easier to exert pressure on their representatives, be it by throwing stones in their windows, not serving the prime minister at the local bakery or just voting with their feet.
Decentralization is often an improvement.
Smaller states have fewer levels of hierarchy and are usually more efficient at what they're doing and less corrupt.
Also, people have it easier to exert pressure on their representatives, be it by throwing stones in their windows, not serving the prime minister at the local bakery or just voting with their feet.
Decentralization is often an improvement.
This might be right. But also note that Spain already features a lot of decentralization and Catalonia is at the head of this.
This is very illustrative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_communities_of_Spai...
This is very illustrative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_communities_of_Spai...
Take that chart with a grain of salt. Notice the text above it:
> In some cases the autonomous community may have exclusive responsibility for the administration of a policy area but may only have executive (i.e.,carries out) powers as far as the policy itself is concerned, meaning it must enforce policy and laws decided at the national level.
There is no indication of which competences are only executive and which are legislative, whereas there's a huge difference between those in practice. Also, Spain can enact laws "overriding" the transferred competences at their will...
> In some cases the autonomous community may have exclusive responsibility for the administration of a policy area but may only have executive (i.e.,carries out) powers as far as the policy itself is concerned, meaning it must enforce policy and laws decided at the national level.
There is no indication of which competences are only executive and which are legislative, whereas there's a huge difference between those in practice. Also, Spain can enact laws "overriding" the transferred competences at their will...
> Spain can enact laws "overriding" the transferred competences at their will
So is Europe. Does not mean that Spain or Catalonia don't have powers on the topic.
So is Europe. Does not mean that Spain or Catalonia don't have powers on the topic.
Norway and Sweden was once in a union, and my home country Norway certainly had a lot of autonomy, yet independence brough a lot of advantages. I don't think anybody in Norway today would think staying with Sweden would have been a good idea. Nordic countries have all been together at some point, but I think we are much happier as independent countries. We do lots of cooperation anyway and have very open borders towards each other.
I don't get why it is so dam important for many people to retain huge political unions. What is so great about being big?
This idea that we will be so much happier, peaceful and friendlier if we are all just one country is easily proven wrong by the good relationship all nordic countries have with each other.
People try to perpetuate the idea that WWI and WWII started because people were too much into nation states. Quite the contrary, neither war would have started had not Germany and Italy been forged into bigger political units in the first place.
Ultimately all these wars is a result of the poisoned thinking that big is always better. It is the expansionist mindset which is at fault here, not a desire to be independent.
I don't get why it is so dam important for many people to retain huge political unions. What is so great about being big?
This idea that we will be so much happier, peaceful and friendlier if we are all just one country is easily proven wrong by the good relationship all nordic countries have with each other.
People try to perpetuate the idea that WWI and WWII started because people were too much into nation states. Quite the contrary, neither war would have started had not Germany and Italy been forged into bigger political units in the first place.
Ultimately all these wars is a result of the poisoned thinking that big is always better. It is the expansionist mindset which is at fault here, not a desire to be independent.
>I don't get why it is so dam important for many people to retain huge political unions. What is so great about being big?
Well the political leaders want to have more resources to play with, and financial elites want bigger unified markets. As to the populace they don't tend to be very pro integration. At least not until they've been bribed or convinced with beautiful visions of a prosperous future.
Well the political leaders want to have more resources to play with, and financial elites want bigger unified markets. As to the populace they don't tend to be very pro integration. At least not until they've been bribed or convinced with beautiful visions of a prosperous future.
As an observation, a fairly standard predator/military/combat tactic is to separate your prey/target from its protective group. eg isolate it so it's easier to overcome
Catalonia doesn't seem to be directly bordered (by land) to any hostile countries though, so that's probably not a worry.
Catalonia doesn't seem to be directly bordered (by land) to any hostile countries though, so that's probably not a worry.
I think in fact there is always a synergy effect to centralization and an efficiency effect to decentralization.
The synergy is quite obvious and explains why big companies and nations are able to survive in spite of the lack of efficiency.
The efficiency probably stems from a smaller (communication) distance between organization members.
The efficiency effect is IMO less well-known hence the comment but you're totally right. From that perspective the above-mentioned tactic amounts to a removal of synergy. If you look at it locally (and this point doesn't really apply to armies and companies but to, e.g., herds of animals), you also cut off the communication to the other herd members so it's a win-win from the predator side.
The synergy is quite obvious and explains why big companies and nations are able to survive in spite of the lack of efficiency.
The efficiency probably stems from a smaller (communication) distance between organization members.
The efficiency effect is IMO less well-known hence the comment but you're totally right. From that perspective the above-mentioned tactic amounts to a removal of synergy. If you look at it locally (and this point doesn't really apply to armies and companies but to, e.g., herds of animals), you also cut off the communication to the other herd members so it's a win-win from the predator side.
Well put. Was thinking over this in a similar way earlier today, but didn't have a word for the strength-in-numbers effect. "Synergy" is a decent word for it. :)
With the bit about it not really applying to armies... not sure why it wouldn't. If you cut the communication lines/avenues between units in an army, they'd generally be less effective at co-ordinating (less synergy). eg less able to mount effective defensive or attacks.
With the bit about it not really applying to armies... not sure why it wouldn't. If you cut the communication lines/avenues between units in an army, they'd generally be less effective at co-ordinating (less synergy). eg less able to mount effective defensive or attacks.
Well, while the Catalan politicians will indeed enjoy power and fame if they win, they face a very unpromising future if they fail, such as prison and asset seizure. I doubt it is a rational, cost-efficient choice to support the independence.
On the other hand, the Spanish/pro-union politicians are untouchable and the risks they take, much lower.
On the other hand, the Spanish/pro-union politicians are untouchable and the risks they take, much lower.
IMHO, nationalism in Europe is not a rational. If you listen to their discourses lately, there's hardly anything rational in them. I think their fight for independence could possibly be defended rationally, but they express themselves under the assumptions that 95% of people want it and that things are 100% legal. Real world is a bit more complicated.
This is weird point that gets repeated all the time - sure, Spanish politicians have lower risks, but their potential gains are also much lower -
best one seems "more political power", which is awfully short term (and the loses when they fail could be large). Catalan politicians are playing high risk / high gain game. You can't really say any side has it better.
No matter what you think Europe needs, how would you argue that the Catalonians shouldn't have a right to self determination? If, for the sake of argument, a clear majority of them want to be (fully) sovereign from Spain, do you think Madrid has a right to suppress that? And one step up, do you think Brussels has?
Do you have the same opinion about Kosovo?
Do you have the same opinion about Kosovo?
Let's just take it a step further. Now East Catalonia thinks they'd be better off as an independent state, and wait now Barcelona wants to be its own city state. I understand the thirst for democracy, but there's a reason we're collectively moving towards integration as Europeans, it does make us stronger in the long run and helps bring peace and stability.
And I'd say that would be fine. Your thinking betrays a certain authoritarian paternalistic streak. That somehow the plebs can't grasp what is best for them. It ought to be assumed that people would not automatically assume ever bigger divisions is an improvement.
You have to put faith in people's ability to think for themselves. In most of these independence referendums people DO end up staying. People are not stupid. They would have likely voted to stay in Catalonia, had Spain respected their desire for a referendum and not acted so authoritarian.
Remember lots of countries have voluntarily joined the EU despite the fact that that means giving up some sovereignty. So it is simply not true that people want ever smaller units. But these decisions should be allowed to move both ways. Those who want to forge political unions should be allowed to and those who want to split should be allowed to.
When you don't allow splits, what you eventually end up with is civil wars.
I'd say the US is an excellent example of the stupidity of insisting on large political units. The country is almost ungovernable, due to the huge political polarization. Lincoln should never have tried to maintain the union. It would have save many lives and avoided future political gridlock and political polarization.
You have to put faith in people's ability to think for themselves. In most of these independence referendums people DO end up staying. People are not stupid. They would have likely voted to stay in Catalonia, had Spain respected their desire for a referendum and not acted so authoritarian.
Remember lots of countries have voluntarily joined the EU despite the fact that that means giving up some sovereignty. So it is simply not true that people want ever smaller units. But these decisions should be allowed to move both ways. Those who want to forge political unions should be allowed to and those who want to split should be allowed to.
When you don't allow splits, what you eventually end up with is civil wars.
I'd say the US is an excellent example of the stupidity of insisting on large political units. The country is almost ungovernable, due to the huge political polarization. Lincoln should never have tried to maintain the union. It would have save many lives and avoided future political gridlock and political polarization.
Leaving Spain (and thus, the EU) is going to have severe consequences financially and in other ways (families that have someone working in another EU country who would suddenly not be a Schengen member etc.).
Yes, the UK followed this democratic way and voted themselves out of the EU and you could argue that Catalonia should be able to do the same but as with Brexit, it would mean that close to half of the population is going to see their life affected in a way that they never wanted.
The argument that the people should be allowed to decide i these matters is often made and it's easy to view the opposite stance as condescending but there are many philosophical and pragmatic arguments against direct democracy and I think these are situations where they apply.
Yes, the UK followed this democratic way and voted themselves out of the EU and you could argue that Catalonia should be able to do the same but as with Brexit, it would mean that close to half of the population is going to see their life affected in a way that they never wanted.
The argument that the people should be allowed to decide i these matters is often made and it's easy to view the opposite stance as condescending but there are many philosophical and pragmatic arguments against direct democracy and I think these are situations where they apply.
Is there any indication they’d like to leave the EU as well? Aren’t they very pro EU?
They are. And some argue that they would be allowed to stay but the European Commission stated that they would not (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-3626_en.ht...) and I don't think it's very likely that they would be able to. At best, it's a pretty reckless bet to make.
I wouldn’t say it’s more or leas democratic to let Catalonia leave, since Spain as a whole would vote no.
But with regards to integration, Soviet fell apart. So did Jugoslavia, and then Serbia fractured further. The UK almost fell apart, and they did vote to leave the EU. Many countries in Central Europe are very sceptical of Brussels, and I would say that decentralization is at least as strong a trend as “integration”.
In any event it definitely wasn’t “we as Europeans” that demanded integration, enormous amounts of money were spent by governments to get their respective populaces to vote yes to EU. It’s very much a top down thing, and I’m not so as convinced as you that it will last.
Especially a monetary union that includes both countries like Portugal and Greece on the one hand, and Finland and Germany on the other, seems pretty brittle.
But with regards to integration, Soviet fell apart. So did Jugoslavia, and then Serbia fractured further. The UK almost fell apart, and they did vote to leave the EU. Many countries in Central Europe are very sceptical of Brussels, and I would say that decentralization is at least as strong a trend as “integration”.
In any event it definitely wasn’t “we as Europeans” that demanded integration, enormous amounts of money were spent by governments to get their respective populaces to vote yes to EU. It’s very much a top down thing, and I’m not so as convinced as you that it will last.
Especially a monetary union that includes both countries like Portugal and Greece on the one hand, and Finland and Germany on the other, seems pretty brittle.
> If, for the sake of argument, a clear majority of them want to be (fully) sovereign from Spain
If this is the case, then they should have the right. That's my opinion.
But I'm also forced to acknowledge that there are other people with other opinions, that there's a shitty but standing legal system and that the current authorities and judges seem to not share the same view at the moment.
So engaging in "treason" is the fastest, but maybe not the best approach to self-determination in the long term.
It's also my opinion that self-determination does not and will not really solve the problems people face in their lives, but again, if they want to split, I wish they could do it orderly and smoothly.
If this is the case, then they should have the right. That's my opinion.
But I'm also forced to acknowledge that there are other people with other opinions, that there's a shitty but standing legal system and that the current authorities and judges seem to not share the same view at the moment.
So engaging in "treason" is the fastest, but maybe not the best approach to self-determination in the long term.
It's also my opinion that self-determination does not and will not really solve the problems people face in their lives, but again, if they want to split, I wish they could do it orderly and smoothly.
I think that it is unfortunate that this seems to be the consensus among a lot of people. While there is clearly nationalism in both sides, we can't generalize and state that both pro and against independence are basically nationalist movements. That's unfair, that is simply not true.
Catalan independence movement is highly diverse, with people from extremely different political views.
The core question here, and I haven't seen it exposed, is when and under which circumstances can a certain region of a current state be allowed to become independent. Spain defends that once a majority of Spanish people decides they can, while most catalans (according to polls) want to have that sovereignty. Up until now sovereignty has been decided by force; if you are strong enough you have it. Catalonia is pushing for changes on that respect, trying to execute that sovereignty even though Catalonia does not have currently the strength to defend it.
Whether the reasons for independence are or not legitimated, the real question is when and how a certain territory can execute self determination without the need of a war. As far as I know there are no cases where the independence has been accepted from the country where the territory wanted to split from. Spain has multiple examples where they didn't accept independence (their former colonies, for instance, or Kosovo more recently).
Catalan independence movement is highly diverse, with people from extremely different political views.
The core question here, and I haven't seen it exposed, is when and under which circumstances can a certain region of a current state be allowed to become independent. Spain defends that once a majority of Spanish people decides they can, while most catalans (according to polls) want to have that sovereignty. Up until now sovereignty has been decided by force; if you are strong enough you have it. Catalonia is pushing for changes on that respect, trying to execute that sovereignty even though Catalonia does not have currently the strength to defend it.
Whether the reasons for independence are or not legitimated, the real question is when and how a certain territory can execute self determination without the need of a war. As far as I know there are no cases where the independence has been accepted from the country where the territory wanted to split from. Spain has multiple examples where they didn't accept independence (their former colonies, for instance, or Kosovo more recently).
Even the word nationalist implies that Catalonia is a nation that was never true.
The same could be said of Estonia in the recent past, and it has done quite well as an independent nation.
What does “recent past” mean for you? Estonia became independent in 1920 (or 1918 if you count since the beginning of the war of independence) and was independent until the Soviet occupation in 1940.
Considering another relevant example posted elsewhere in this thread was the Swedish War of Liberation of 1521-1523, this is as recent as I could think of actually! The fall of the USSR lends a great look into many countries' beginnings (or re-beginnings) as independent nations, despite minimal cultural differences (similar to Spain vs Catalonia).
Do you really think the republics in the USSR had only minimal cultural differences? By the way, according to the 1977 Constitution of the USSR the republics had the right to secede (of course, they didn't really have it in practice... until it happened).
this was all brought about by Rajoy's current conservative government breaking tradition and taking away Catalonia's autonomous privileges
Are you referring to acts before or after the referendum? If the former, what were they?
> On the Catalan side, the Nationalist movement is used by dubious politicians which belong to the richer statements of Catalan society to grab power and "make history".
If by "used" you meant that the rich parties jumped on the independence train while it was running, then I have no objection. On the other hand if you mean they fabricated the independence movement just for their own glory and profit, IMHO you are misunderstanding the movement. The separatist movement has existed for an arguably long time, and I'd say the demographics have leaned to the worker-class, lefty ideology (ERC and CUP).
>The love of the flag and the dishonest approach to history and current socio-economics of the region are strategies followed by every other wannabe-patriot in the world.
How has the approach to history been dishonest? And what would have been the honest/objective approach to it? I'm frankly curious, you seem to be quite certain about this.
In my experience, many Catalan pro-independence supporters are hardly nationalist or patriotic. Probably due to the fact that they have close family ties to other parts of the Peninsula(eg. Andalucía, Galiza...). However they are all strongly souverainists, which I think is the key point of the Catalan pro-independence movement. A proof of this is that, had the Catalan parliament true power to make laws on most aspects of society, the independence movement would have a really small % support.
> Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
I believe this is a challenge for EU, and challenges are good to build resilience. Think of it as a "Chaos Monkey" approach to the Union. IMHO the EU is not reacting accordingly to the challenge, it's not even facing it tbh. This, as a European, it's disappointing to witness. Also, why is it sad for Europe that a region self-determines as a sovereign state within Europe? Why are re-arrangements within Europe sad? And alternatively, why is an arguably unstable territory(Spain, politically) better as "one", than as "two"(or three or four) nation states within Europe? If we're all sharing the same EU umbrella...
Bigger states inside EU do not imply stronger and better EU. I'd actually argue that bigger too-powerful states(see Germany, France) can have an uncomfortable power over other smaller states.
EU is still re-defining itself. I recommend you to read some Ulrike Guérot's work[1]. Europeans should be open to rethinking/re-designing.
EU it's starting to look like an elite bureaucrats club where only "richer statements of _EU_ society grab power and 'make history'" ;).
[1]: Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUpVcJvE3UE
If by "used" you meant that the rich parties jumped on the independence train while it was running, then I have no objection. On the other hand if you mean they fabricated the independence movement just for their own glory and profit, IMHO you are misunderstanding the movement. The separatist movement has existed for an arguably long time, and I'd say the demographics have leaned to the worker-class, lefty ideology (ERC and CUP).
>The love of the flag and the dishonest approach to history and current socio-economics of the region are strategies followed by every other wannabe-patriot in the world.
How has the approach to history been dishonest? And what would have been the honest/objective approach to it? I'm frankly curious, you seem to be quite certain about this.
In my experience, many Catalan pro-independence supporters are hardly nationalist or patriotic. Probably due to the fact that they have close family ties to other parts of the Peninsula(eg. Andalucía, Galiza...). However they are all strongly souverainists, which I think is the key point of the Catalan pro-independence movement. A proof of this is that, had the Catalan parliament true power to make laws on most aspects of society, the independence movement would have a really small % support.
> Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
I believe this is a challenge for EU, and challenges are good to build resilience. Think of it as a "Chaos Monkey" approach to the Union. IMHO the EU is not reacting accordingly to the challenge, it's not even facing it tbh. This, as a European, it's disappointing to witness. Also, why is it sad for Europe that a region self-determines as a sovereign state within Europe? Why are re-arrangements within Europe sad? And alternatively, why is an arguably unstable territory(Spain, politically) better as "one", than as "two"(or three or four) nation states within Europe? If we're all sharing the same EU umbrella...
Bigger states inside EU do not imply stronger and better EU. I'd actually argue that bigger too-powerful states(see Germany, France) can have an uncomfortable power over other smaller states.
EU is still re-defining itself. I recommend you to read some Ulrike Guérot's work[1]. Europeans should be open to rethinking/re-designing.
EU it's starting to look like an elite bureaucrats club where only "richer statements of _EU_ society grab power and 'make history'" ;).
[1]: Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUpVcJvE3UE
Let's be real for a minute. The reason this is as large of an issue is the same reason that there are very, very few peaceful secessions throughout history. Even then, "peaceful" is relative - there may not be full on war, but there are always "incidents". That reason is simple - there is no way to legally split from Spain. Things are specifically designed this way to always provide the ruling faction with the ability to claim a violation of the law has taken place and order must be restored. The same is true for the United States. There are defined rules for entities to become a member state. There is no mention anywhere in the US Constitution regarding whether or not a member state can leave the union, let alone what the process would be. An entire civil war was fought in the US over this issue.
Spain is clinging to the designed "lawlessness" that arises from any region wanting to leave it. Catalonia not being a part of Spain would substantially hurt Spain. Look at the numbers. 16% of the Spanish people live in Catalonia but they account for 19% of GDP. That 3% may not seem like a lot but when you do the math it comes out to mean that they are (((19/16)/(81/84))-1)*100=23.14% more productive than the rest of Spain in terms of GDP. That's massive. They also account for >25% of exports and 20% of foreign investment. Catalonia acts as a monetary boost to the rest of Spain. And they believe they are being taken advantage of in this regard by Spain.
Think about it this way - what options did the Spanish government have even once the court declared the original vote a few weeks ago to be unlawful? They could have allowed the vote to go on, and simply declared the results invalid/non-official/meaningless. Or they could have done what they chose to do - apply violence. Why did they make this choice? Simple - they didn't want to see the results of the vote because then the entire world would know, with certainty, what % of the Catalan people actually voted "yes". With the numbers we do have, it's a hefty percentage, certainly not some small minority that is somehow manipulating parliament.
Spain doesn't want to lose the economic boost, nor does it want to lose the land and resources. However, one must ask themselves whether or not a people have the right to choose their own government. Shouldn't people have the right to decide that their current government simply isn't working for them and they choose a new one? We already have this in democratic nations when you look at the country as a whole - the country can decide that there is change needed and take action. Why should anything change when you are simply talking about a region of the country that no longer wants to be part of the whole? Don't they still have the right to self-determination, for better or worse? This isn't really about nationalists, right wingers, left wingers, or anything like that. This is about a simple concept that has deliberately been ignored by both historical and modern governments. If a process were in place, this could be non-violent and remove much of the uncertainty.
Spain is clinging to the designed "lawlessness" that arises from any region wanting to leave it. Catalonia not being a part of Spain would substantially hurt Spain. Look at the numbers. 16% of the Spanish people live in Catalonia but they account for 19% of GDP. That 3% may not seem like a lot but when you do the math it comes out to mean that they are (((19/16)/(81/84))-1)*100=23.14% more productive than the rest of Spain in terms of GDP. That's massive. They also account for >25% of exports and 20% of foreign investment. Catalonia acts as a monetary boost to the rest of Spain. And they believe they are being taken advantage of in this regard by Spain.
Think about it this way - what options did the Spanish government have even once the court declared the original vote a few weeks ago to be unlawful? They could have allowed the vote to go on, and simply declared the results invalid/non-official/meaningless. Or they could have done what they chose to do - apply violence. Why did they make this choice? Simple - they didn't want to see the results of the vote because then the entire world would know, with certainty, what % of the Catalan people actually voted "yes". With the numbers we do have, it's a hefty percentage, certainly not some small minority that is somehow manipulating parliament.
Spain doesn't want to lose the economic boost, nor does it want to lose the land and resources. However, one must ask themselves whether or not a people have the right to choose their own government. Shouldn't people have the right to decide that their current government simply isn't working for them and they choose a new one? We already have this in democratic nations when you look at the country as a whole - the country can decide that there is change needed and take action. Why should anything change when you are simply talking about a region of the country that no longer wants to be part of the whole? Don't they still have the right to self-determination, for better or worse? This isn't really about nationalists, right wingers, left wingers, or anything like that. This is about a simple concept that has deliberately been ignored by both historical and modern governments. If a process were in place, this could be non-violent and remove much of the uncertainty.
> certainly not some small minority that is somehow manipulating parliament.
The Catalan nationalist parties won the elections. Everyone knows that they are a LOT of people (majority in most regions). There was no need send the police, unless you seek to look strong to your followers. Just like there was no need to declare the independence right now. Each party is forcing the other to the worst possible options.
The Catalan nationalist parties won the elections. Everyone knows that they are a LOT of people (majority in most regions). There was no need send the police, unless you seek to look strong to your followers. Just like there was no need to declare the independence right now. Each party is forcing the other to the worst possible options.
They nationalist parties got more seats in the parliament, but didn't get a majority of votes. They also had some kind of urgency to declare the independence, because shortly after the election (in November 2015) they said it would be done in 18 months.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11984...
Keep in mind that Barcelona (with 4 million people, many of them from other regions) is not as pro-independence as the rest. If you take it out of the equation, or look at results per county or town, the thing looks way different:
https://datos.elconfidencial.com/map1-independentismo-catalu...
This map shows yellow where pro-independence parties got more vote than the others.
The tragedy of Catalonia is that the most populated areas are way less pro-independence than the rest of the land. Thus, nationalists only got 48% of total votes, despite winning (clearly) in most counties.
https://datos.elconfidencial.com/map1-independentismo-catalu...
This map shows yellow where pro-independence parties got more vote than the others.
The tragedy of Catalonia is that the most populated areas are way less pro-independence than the rest of the land. Thus, nationalists only got 48% of total votes, despite winning (clearly) in most counties.
Yes, if you ignore the people who is not pro-independence, then the independentism is a clear majority. Maybe the situation would be less tragic if those nationalist counties had tried to declare independence from the Tarragona-Barcelona arc, the Aran Valley and the rest of Spain. For sure it would be more comic.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-catalonia-...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-catalonia-...
> there is no way to legally split from Spain
There is a relatively simple way and in fact people do it all the time: emigrate to your ideal paradise or model of country and ask to be accepted as citizen there. Is easy when you are rich.
There is a relatively simple way and in fact people do it all the time: emigrate to your ideal paradise or model of country and ask to be accepted as citizen there. Is easy when you are rich.
> Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
I presume it was also a 'sad day for Europe' when 'nationalism prevailed' and the Baltic states gained independence from the Soviet Union?
Catalonia, more so than Estonia, has a distinct culture, including a language which has, at points, been illegal to write, teach, or even speak publicly on their own land. Their ties to Spain are a result of a fascist dictator who managed to largely avoid WWII and continue his reign until he died of natural causes, with his formed empire still intact.
Why is their desire for independence some negative form of nationalism that must be stomped out? If they want to join the EU in the future, shouldn't it be on their own terms, or should they be forced to partake?
Your comments are otherwise accurate and unbiased on some points, but I don't see the problem with the whole of Europe not yearning for the same dream of a globalized, economically united continent void of national identity.
I presume it was also a 'sad day for Europe' when 'nationalism prevailed' and the Baltic states gained independence from the Soviet Union?
Catalonia, more so than Estonia, has a distinct culture, including a language which has, at points, been illegal to write, teach, or even speak publicly on their own land. Their ties to Spain are a result of a fascist dictator who managed to largely avoid WWII and continue his reign until he died of natural causes, with his formed empire still intact.
Why is their desire for independence some negative form of nationalism that must be stomped out? If they want to join the EU in the future, shouldn't it be on their own terms, or should they be forced to partake?
Your comments are otherwise accurate and unbiased on some points, but I don't see the problem with the whole of Europe not yearning for the same dream of a globalized, economically united continent void of national identity.
> Catalonia, more so than Estonia, has a distinct culture, including a language which has, at points, been illegal to write, teach, or even speak publicly on their own land. Their ties to Spain are a result of a fascist dictator who managed to largely avoid WWII and continue his reign until he died of natural causes, with his formed empire still intact.
I'm sorry, but those things are simply untrue. Estonia does have a completely different language than Russian, and Estonians are culturally also different than whatever the rest of the URSS was (indeed, one of the largest problems Moscow had in URSS times was keeping together such a collection of disparate cultures). Regarding Catalonian ties to Spain, they very much predate Franco, by several hundred years.
I'm sorry, but those things are simply untrue. Estonia does have a completely different language than Russian, and Estonians are culturally also different than whatever the rest of the URSS was (indeed, one of the largest problems Moscow had in URSS times was keeping together such a collection of disparate cultures). Regarding Catalonian ties to Spain, they very much predate Franco, by several hundred years.
>Catalonia, more so than Estonia, has a distinct culture
What makes you say that?
Estonia is a protestant country of Finnic people speaking a Finno-Ugric language that is completely unrelated to even the Indo-European language family.
Soviet, like Russia now, was a Eurasian empire mostly made up of Orthodox Slavs speaking a Slavic language. These are quite distinct cultures, at least as different as Germany and France (yes, both these are also patchworks like Spain but you get the point).
Catalonia is distinct, but they have a similar language, the same religion and much shared history. It's more like Sweden and Denmark.
What makes you say that?
Estonia is a protestant country of Finnic people speaking a Finno-Ugric language that is completely unrelated to even the Indo-European language family.
Soviet, like Russia now, was a Eurasian empire mostly made up of Orthodox Slavs speaking a Slavic language. These are quite distinct cultures, at least as different as Germany and France (yes, both these are also patchworks like Spain but you get the point).
Catalonia is distinct, but they have a similar language, the same religion and much shared history. It's more like Sweden and Denmark.
You're right that Estonia was not the best possible example in terms of lingual similarity, and Lithuania would've served the purpose better in terms of recent history.
Sweden and Denmark are a great choice, but I think the Swedish War of Liberation is too far back in history to be acknowledged as a relevant example today.
I was mostly attempting to point out our inconsistencies in supporting the independence of so many regions from world powers that we in the West dislike, but we seem very dismissive of cries for independence from within our own borders that seem to hold equal validity.
Sweden and Denmark are a great choice, but I think the Swedish War of Liberation is too far back in history to be acknowledged as a relevant example today.
I was mostly attempting to point out our inconsistencies in supporting the independence of so many regions from world powers that we in the West dislike, but we seem very dismissive of cries for independence from within our own borders that seem to hold equal validity.
You mean when Sweden left the Kalmar Union? I was just talking about the similarity of cultures actually, the brief period, one year?, when the Danish king ruled Sweden was just a blip...
But I agree about inconsistency. Just because politicians bring up ethical reasons for supporting some issue doesn’t mean that is the actual reason. Human rights abuses are only a problem when Russia or Iran commit them, not Saudi.
And I’m sorry but I don’t think Lithuania is a good example either, it’s a Catholic Baltic state with an imperial past of its own. Slightly more Russian perhaps than Estonia, but not by much.
But I agree about inconsistency. Just because politicians bring up ethical reasons for supporting some issue doesn’t mean that is the actual reason. Human rights abuses are only a problem when Russia or Iran commit them, not Saudi.
And I’m sorry but I don’t think Lithuania is a good example either, it’s a Catholic Baltic state with an imperial past of its own. Slightly more Russian perhaps than Estonia, but not by much.
Perhaps I am biased being Norwegian, but the obvious countries to compare to here is Sweden and Norway. Norway was until fairly recently (1905) part of Sweden, and like Catalonia we had great levels of autonomy, our own parliament and democratic elections. Like Catalonia we also are culturally very similar to Sweden. Certainly more so than Denmark.
Like Catalonia we had not been an independent country for a very long time. In fact Norway existed as an independent country so far back that Spain didn't even exist as a country then.
Like Catalonia, when Spain gained its independence it had not previously existed as an independent country. The same could be said about the Netherlands. Netherlands like Catalonia was also once part of Spain. Until it declared independence from Spain, it had never existed as a country.
In fact this has been a problem for dutch identity, in that there really is no clear way to identify dutch national identity before independence from Spain.
Which I thing brings me to the point, that ultimately it is about what people feel themselves.
Despite not having been independent for almost 600 years, Norwegians still felt like they were a different people than Swedes or Danes.
Like Catalonia we had not been an independent country for a very long time. In fact Norway existed as an independent country so far back that Spain didn't even exist as a country then.
Like Catalonia, when Spain gained its independence it had not previously existed as an independent country. The same could be said about the Netherlands. Netherlands like Catalonia was also once part of Spain. Until it declared independence from Spain, it had never existed as a country.
In fact this has been a problem for dutch identity, in that there really is no clear way to identify dutch national identity before independence from Spain.
Which I thing brings me to the point, that ultimately it is about what people feel themselves.
Despite not having been independent for almost 600 years, Norwegians still felt like they were a different people than Swedes or Danes.
> Their ties to Spain are a result of a fascist dictator who managed to largely avoid WWII and continue his reign until he died of natural causes, with his formed empire still intact.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the last Catalonian independence attempt was crushed by the left Republican government before Franco showed up.
It's so tiring to go back all the time to the historical arguments... there are no borders who have stayed the same through history. You can use the exact same argument to justify why Catalonia should be part of Spain and why it should not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the last Catalonian independence attempt was crushed by the left Republican government before Franco showed up.
It's so tiring to go back all the time to the historical arguments... there are no borders who have stayed the same through history. You can use the exact same argument to justify why Catalonia should be part of Spain and why it should not.
From my not so knowledgeable point of view we have:
It seems the Spanish government messed up massively here. Instead of embracing a referendum about independence they decided to flatly declare it illegal and attempt to ignore the problem.
If they initially embraced the referendum they could have won, I believe that a Yes vote to independence nearly always ends up failing. But instead what happened is, they blankly declared it illegal and hoped that would be the end of it. While parties who were against independence were telling people to boycott it and parties for it telling people to vote yes. It seems the only outcome there is a massive yes vote.
Once they had the massive yes vote, they have a democratic mandate for independence. Not only that, they get to say they have 90% mandate. The only way forward from that is for the Spanish government to back down and start negotiations or for indepence to be declared.
Here we are as Catalan declares independence, which it seems can either turn into a civil war, a flat-out failure with everyone arrested, Spain eating some humble pie to get them back to the table, or Spain just accepting Catalan is gone. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
It seems the Spanish government messed up massively here. Instead of embracing a referendum about independence they decided to flatly declare it illegal and attempt to ignore the problem.
If they initially embraced the referendum they could have won, I believe that a Yes vote to independence nearly always ends up failing. But instead what happened is, they blankly declared it illegal and hoped that would be the end of it. While parties who were against independence were telling people to boycott it and parties for it telling people to vote yes. It seems the only outcome there is a massive yes vote.
Once they had the massive yes vote, they have a democratic mandate for independence. Not only that, they get to say they have 90% mandate. The only way forward from that is for the Spanish government to back down and start negotiations or for indepence to be declared.
Here we are as Catalan declares independence, which it seems can either turn into a civil war, a flat-out failure with everyone arrested, Spain eating some humble pie to get them back to the table, or Spain just accepting Catalan is gone. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
The key point for me was when Spain announced that they were going to remove Catalonia's autonomy and dissolve its parliament. What did they expect Catalonia to do?
This seems like an iconic example of what NOT to do when faced with an independence referendum. Compare the situation in Scotland or Canada, where AIUI the central government grudgingly permitted the referendum, campaigned on the issue locally, and offered symbolic concessions to local autonomy while focusing heavily on the pragmatic risks and costs of independence. In Catalonia by contrast we have plenty of images of the police violently disrupting the referendum and independence protesters, then pledging to end local autonomy altogether.
This seems like an iconic example of what NOT to do when faced with an independence referendum. Compare the situation in Scotland or Canada, where AIUI the central government grudgingly permitted the referendum, campaigned on the issue locally, and offered symbolic concessions to local autonomy while focusing heavily on the pragmatic risks and costs of independence. In Catalonia by contrast we have plenty of images of the police violently disrupting the referendum and independence protesters, then pledging to end local autonomy altogether.
You summed it up really well.
I think the issue lies in that those central governments have become more tame over time, while Spain hasn't. They were largely united under a dictator where, in the very recent past, it was illegal for Catalans to teach their language or even speak it publicly.
Spain realizes the fragility of their position, and they're choosing to lash out in the same way Franco would have.
I think the issue lies in that those central governments have become more tame over time, while Spain hasn't. They were largely united under a dictator where, in the very recent past, it was illegal for Catalans to teach their language or even speak it publicly.
Spain realizes the fragility of their position, and they're choosing to lash out in the same way Franco would have.
> they're choosing to lash out in the same way Franco would have.
sigh... Again asking for the blood bath?
What really Franco would have done? Well, Franco would have killed hundred-thousands of people. Again.
How many Catalonian independentists has been killed by the current spanish government since october? ZE-RO?.
Wake-up. Zero is not equal to thousands. Talk seriously or don't talk but please, stop with all this Franco BS. This comparison is insulting for any people with more than two alive brain cells that endured the Franco regime.
sigh... Again asking for the blood bath?
What really Franco would have done? Well, Franco would have killed hundred-thousands of people. Again.
How many Catalonian independentists has been killed by the current spanish government since october? ZE-RO?.
Wake-up. Zero is not equal to thousands. Talk seriously or don't talk but please, stop with all this Franco BS. This comparison is insulting for any people with more than two alive brain cells that endured the Franco regime.
Sorry, you seem to have taken my words the wrong way.
The overall reaction of "we're going to assume direct control and remove your governmental power" is one of lashing out and entitlement, and an attitude that doesn't work as evidenced by the comment I was responding to concerning the methods other countries have chosen.
I meant that this reaction is in a Franco-like, dictatorial direction, not that their reaction is of the same magnitude (on the other side is the UK's replies to Scotland's desire for independence, for example).
The overall reaction of "we're going to assume direct control and remove your governmental power" is one of lashing out and entitlement, and an attitude that doesn't work as evidenced by the comment I was responding to concerning the methods other countries have chosen.
I meant that this reaction is in a Franco-like, dictatorial direction, not that their reaction is of the same magnitude (on the other side is the UK's replies to Scotland's desire for independence, for example).
This is probably because Spain is a sovereign state, and therefore is a different juridical entity.
Spain is not UK. Both situations aren't neither correlated nor comparable. In the same way that Londoners can't play with firearms in their backyards arguing than people in Texas can explode things all the time; Catalonians shouldn't enjoy the same level of independence than X merely by the argument than X exists somewhere.
The truth is that Catalonia would strongly reject a referendum to achieve the current Scotland status. They enjoy currently much more privileges and freedom to manage their resources at will, than scots can dream.
Spain is not UK. Both situations aren't neither correlated nor comparable. In the same way that Londoners can't play with firearms in their backyards arguing than people in Texas can explode things all the time; Catalonians shouldn't enjoy the same level of independence than X merely by the argument than X exists somewhere.
The truth is that Catalonia would strongly reject a referendum to achieve the current Scotland status. They enjoy currently much more privileges and freedom to manage their resources at will, than scots can dream.
It seems to me that Catalonia has put the rest of Spain in a "no win" situation. If Spain tries to prevent the (unconstitutional) vote, then Catalonia tries very hard to push to have the vote anyway, and Spain either has to enforce their ban on the vote (which means violence), or else back down. If Spain doesn't forbid the vote, then the vote gains legitimacy in public opinion. So either Spain's the bad guy (because violence), or they're a paper tiger, or they tacitly say that it's OK for Catalonia to vote on independence despite what the constitution says.
If the referendum has no legal weight, then going to such lengths to quash it instead magnifies its importance, since the Spanish government clearly views it as being more dangerous than it is.
I get the sense it's the tail wagging the dog now in Madrid. They scored political points with the rest of the country keeping "those Catalonians" in line.
Now that action is required, the rest of the country is so riled up there's little room for compromise.
Now that action is required, the rest of the country is so riled up there's little room for compromise.
Some people does not understand that the independence referendum is a MacGuffin here. Not the main goal.
Is just a symbol of power. Another step to bend the arm of the central government again, not the end of the agenda. Catalonian people had another referendum in 2016, plus one free elections in between. Is insane to keep asking for a referendum each 6 months until independence is forced
Is just a symbol of power. Another step to bend the arm of the central government again, not the end of the agenda. Catalonian people had another referendum in 2016, plus one free elections in between. Is insane to keep asking for a referendum each 6 months until independence is forced
That's not true. There was no referendum in 2016 and there is no "keep asking for a referendum" because the only referendum held was 1-O, and did not come from an agreement with Spanish government.
If Spain would have agreed on a referendum, the current situation would be very different.
If Spain would have agreed on a referendum, the current situation would be very different.
You are right, it was in november 2014, not 2016. My bad. Time flies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_self-determination_ref...
Thanks for the correction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_self-determination_ref...
Thanks for the correction
Not quite that simple from what I understand. A week before the vote the Catalan parliament passed two laws, one that a referendum should be held and one that if yes to independence won, regardless of turnout, independence would be unilaterally declared. No way that the spanish government could allow that to go ahead unchallenged. Its worth noting that they have allowed nonbonding votes previously, there was one in 2014 with similar results and turnout. Its the fact that this one was binding that caused the crisis. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/09/e...
>It seems the Spanish government messed up massively here. Instead of embracing a referendum about independence they decided to flatly declare it illegal and attempt to ignore the problem.
Did they? The EU doesn't support Catalan independence, the US doesn't support the movement, the Catalan independence has 0 backing from any outside source, while most countries see this as an internal affair within Spain. Madrid even loosened rules on Spanish companies, allowing them to easily move their headquarters to Madrid, triggering an exodus out of Barcelona. The response was certainly heavy-handed, but the table is definitely in Madrid's favor.
>Here we are as Catalan declares independence, which it seems can either turn into a civil war, a flat-out failure with everyone arrested, Spain eating some humble pie to get them back to the table, or Spain just accepting Catalan is gone.
Catalan has 0 outside support and the support within the region is fractured as well, with Barcelona split on opinion. Many major companies have already moved their headquarters from Barcelona to Madrid. Spain has constitutional powers vis-a-vis Article 155 to impose authority. All signs point to this independence movement being a flop.
Did they? The EU doesn't support Catalan independence, the US doesn't support the movement, the Catalan independence has 0 backing from any outside source, while most countries see this as an internal affair within Spain. Madrid even loosened rules on Spanish companies, allowing them to easily move their headquarters to Madrid, triggering an exodus out of Barcelona. The response was certainly heavy-handed, but the table is definitely in Madrid's favor.
>Here we are as Catalan declares independence, which it seems can either turn into a civil war, a flat-out failure with everyone arrested, Spain eating some humble pie to get them back to the table, or Spain just accepting Catalan is gone.
Catalan has 0 outside support and the support within the region is fractured as well, with Barcelona split on opinion. Many major companies have already moved their headquarters from Barcelona to Madrid. Spain has constitutional powers vis-a-vis Article 155 to impose authority. All signs point to this independence movement being a flop.
Countries will support the likely winner, or more specifically, whichever choice is advantageous to their national interests.
When Turkey's coup took place, for example, Western countries absolutely wanted Erdogan gone and Ataturk's values restored. It wasn't until the coup had clearly failed that the vast majority of countries expressed support for Erdogan and his regime.
Who supports who doesn't confer any moral validity to a people's right to democracy and independence, though I understand if you mean the practical advantages of support.
Either way, we may quickly see these international attitudes change as events progress, especially if Spain takes away autonomy in Catalonia.
When Turkey's coup took place, for example, Western countries absolutely wanted Erdogan gone and Ataturk's values restored. It wasn't until the coup had clearly failed that the vast majority of countries expressed support for Erdogan and his regime.
Who supports who doesn't confer any moral validity to a people's right to democracy and independence, though I understand if you mean the practical advantages of support.
Either way, we may quickly see these international attitudes change as events progress, especially if Spain takes away autonomy in Catalonia.
You dont need outside support to declare independence, it is of no concern to those in Catalan what the US or anyone else thinks. The best course of action for the Catalan parliament would have been to call an election and then if they won it with a decent majority used that as their mandate to declare independence. As it is they dont have a solid mandate so it is easier for Spain and the EU to ignore them, however all those Catalans who didnt support independence may well change their minds if the spanish army comes rolling into Barcelona.
"You don't need outside support to declare independence" is a philosophically pleasing but politically unsound idea. It's the sort of thing that leads to martyred revolutionaries instead of redrawn boundaries on a map.
> You dont need outside support to declare independence
You don't. But you do need it for anyone in the world to accept is as a fact. A region like that cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world.
You don't. But you do need it for anyone in the world to accept is as a fact. A region like that cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world.
If a group of people had enough military might to declare themselves independent and not fall to subsequent invasion, then it doesn't matter what the rest of the world "thinks", they are independent.
They may be independent in some sense but it still matters a great deal. If other nations don't accept your sovereignty you can't really have trade or diplomatic relations. Just ask South Ossetia, Novorossia or Transdnistria. These days it's pretty pointless to be independent if you can't have foreign trade.
I'm pretty sure most sub-regions wouldn't trade their political dependence for North Korean-style independence (but I admit to not knowing the hearts and desires of most people ;) ).
Well, there's the Abkhazia option where you become a weird pseudo-state with no recognition. It's not great, even if you have a big friend like Russia who does recognize you.
> You dont need outside support to declare independence, it is of no concern to those in Catalan what the US or anyone else thinks.
Good luck without being self-sufficient.
Good luck without being self-sufficient.
based on the figures, that they contribute 20% to spains GDP and get back 14% it would seem that they are on their way to being self sufficient
By the same logic NYC can be independent of the NYS and the rest of the United States, which is ridiculous considering that it won't be able to withstand a week without food and fuel supplies from outside the five boroughs.
Independence does not mean without trade.
When your trading partners do not recognize your independence you won't be trading with them.
I keep reading this in international media. The Spanish government didn't declare the referendum illegal. It was the top court, which is independent from the government. The government ensures that the law is applied once that is decided.
That said, I think Spain should have held a referendum (by changing the constitution). Everything would have been much easier.
In the US "the government" typically applies to either all three branches (courts, legislature, executive) or occasionally to the latter two only. The latter definition is typically only used in the case of a lawsuit involving the state. This is in contrast to parliamentary systems where the government is formed of the dominant political party or coalition in parliament, and also gets to act as the executive branch. The US almost always uses the first definition (all 3 branches are government), parliamentary systems almost always use the second (courts aren't government).
In the first (more common) US-style sense, the government certainly did declare the referendum illegal.
In the first (more common) US-style sense, the government certainly did declare the referendum illegal.
> more common
This doesn’t sound right. I’d like to see some proof of this. I’m from India and I only use government to refer to the legislature which happens to commingle with the executive branch. I’d love to join the mainstream if my usage is in the minority.
Also, Spain is a parliamentary monarchy so in a thread centered on Spanish politics, I feel you should use the word government as used by Spaniards.
This doesn’t sound right. I’d like to see some proof of this. I’m from India and I only use government to refer to the legislature which happens to commingle with the executive branch. I’d love to join the mainstream if my usage is in the minority.
Also, Spain is a parliamentary monarchy so in a thread centered on Spanish politics, I feel you should use the word government as used by Spaniards.
It's more common in the US for government to mean all three branches. It seems to be more common in parliamentary countries for government to mean just the legislative branch (and possibly, when present, the monarch's implied consent?).
This is a point of confusion here, because this is a US based discussion site. So US persons say 'the government suppressed the election', Spain persons say 'no, the government didn't do it, the courts did it'.
To the US person objecting, it doesn't make a huge difference if judicial, legislative, or executive is suppressing an election -- suppressing an election is bad. How can a vote be illegal? Certainly the referendum may not be legal, and that should be decided by the courts, but we're not used to that being decided before holding the vote.
But do you have a word for the whole of government in the US sense? I can't think of something that's not awkward.
Edit to add: In the US sense, government also includes military and police. In the US those are mostly part of the executive branch, but may act at the direction of the judicial or legislative branches. In some countries the military is an effectively separate branch of government.
This is a point of confusion here, because this is a US based discussion site. So US persons say 'the government suppressed the election', Spain persons say 'no, the government didn't do it, the courts did it'.
To the US person objecting, it doesn't make a huge difference if judicial, legislative, or executive is suppressing an election -- suppressing an election is bad. How can a vote be illegal? Certainly the referendum may not be legal, and that should be decided by the courts, but we're not used to that being decided before holding the vote.
But do you have a word for the whole of government in the US sense? I can't think of something that's not awkward.
Edit to add: In the US sense, government also includes military and police. In the US those are mostly part of the executive branch, but may act at the direction of the judicial or legislative branches. In some countries the military is an effectively separate branch of government.
"more common" may just mean "more common in US English". There are good reasons for the term to have a different meaning in the US and other English-speaking countries with parliamentary systems.
As an American, though it is absolutely true that I think of "the government" as including the courts, because the government of the US is established by the Constitution, which establishes all three branches. There's not even good reason to talk about a "governing party" most of the time, except for rare times such as now when the Republicans control all three branches of government.
US news media using the word "government" are of course going to use the word "government" in the American English sense. Reporters or copyeditors may not even realize there is a distinction to be made.
As an American, though it is absolutely true that I think of "the government" as including the courts, because the government of the US is established by the Constitution, which establishes all three branches. There's not even good reason to talk about a "governing party" most of the time, except for rare times such as now when the Republicans control all three branches of government.
US news media using the word "government" are of course going to use the word "government" in the American English sense. Reporters or copyeditors may not even realize there is a distinction to be made.
I suspect your usage of the term is much more common in India (and possibly other nations outside the US).
I'm really curious as to whether this difference in interpretation is just a linguistic fluke, or if it actually reflects some larger cultural difference in how we in the US view our government compared to how people in India and Spain view theirs.
Do you have a different word which encompasses all governmental bodies and organizations? The State, perhaps? Or would you not consider the courts to be part of the State either? Obviously the courts are involved in governing, since they interpret the law and they have legal authority granted by the constitution. How then are they not part of the government?
I'm really curious as to whether this difference in interpretation is just a linguistic fluke, or if it actually reflects some larger cultural difference in how we in the US view our government compared to how people in India and Spain view theirs.
Do you have a different word which encompasses all governmental bodies and organizations? The State, perhaps? Or would you not consider the courts to be part of the State either? Obviously the courts are involved in governing, since they interpret the law and they have legal authority granted by the constitution. How then are they not part of the government?
> The State, perhaps?
This is also confusing in nations where administrative regions are called states. I've seen some media refer to Catelonia as a state, although I believe the term used in Spain is autonomous community.
This is also confusing in nations where administrative regions are called states. I've seen some media refer to Catelonia as a state, although I believe the term used in Spain is autonomous community.
Internationally “government” refers to either the monarchy in a strong authoritarian regime, or the ruling coalition in parliament. The US model of separate but equal powers in a federation is somewhat unique.. although it is more of clusters on a spectrum and many countries copied he US model (or had it forced upon them).
Most definitions of government include the judicial system as part of government. I don't know much Spanish, maybe they have different words for the different parts of government, but no word that describes all of government in general, so maybe it is just a translation issue.
All 12 of the members in the Spanish "top court" (Constitutional Tribunal) are appointed by the king himself.
8 of them are proposed by the legislative branch (parliament and senate), 2 by the executive, and 2 by the judicial.
Whether that makes the tribunal as a whole independent from the government or not is an opinion I leave to the reader.
8 of them are proposed by the legislative branch (parliament and senate), 2 by the executive, and 2 by the judicial.
Whether that makes the tribunal as a whole independent from the government or not is an opinion I leave to the reader.
Please don't bend the facts for your own bias. The king doesn't appoint those judges, will just ratify and is pretty much symbolical. They do have political influence but is kept balance traditionally. Just because everyone has political inclinations you cannot blame it of being controled by the government.
That probably would have been the better move as far as "optics" are concerned, but the Spanish constitution states that this kind of referendum is illegal.
In any case -- I think the ruling party in Spain wanted this to flare up so they could consolidate political support during the next election, since most of Spain is adamantly opposed to Catalan independence.
In any case -- I think the ruling party in Spain wanted this to flare up so they could consolidate political support during the next election, since most of Spain is adamantly opposed to Catalan independence.
As a Canadian kid, i never understood why they would let Quebec go through with a referendum. Seems insane to just "divorce" a country (for lack of better words). As i grew up, i thought it was pretty progressive to allow it. As an adult, it seems like the only logical tactical option.
A lot of people will claim that it isn't legal. They will be right. But their constitution wasn't written with modern times in mind. <b>Without violence</b>, how is Spain going to stop Catalan from succeeding? What if Catalan gets violent? How will Spain respond?
There are very few good moves left here for Spain.
A lot of people will claim that it isn't legal. They will be right. But their constitution wasn't written with modern times in mind. <b>Without violence</b>, how is Spain going to stop Catalan from succeeding? What if Catalan gets violent? How will Spain respond?
There are very few good moves left here for Spain.
> But their constitution wasn't written with modern times in mind.
1978 really wasn't that long ago. I'd call 1978 modern times!
1978 really wasn't that long ago. I'd call 1978 modern times!
It was coming out of a fascist dictatorship at the height of the Cold War. I’d say the context was pretty far removed from the modern EU, even if it was in living memory.
> Without violence, how is Spain going to stop Catalan from succeeding?
Empire of Law.
Empire of Law.
Not true. It states that this kind of a referendum is invalid.
I won't split hairs with you on that, but -- right or wrong -- Spain's Constitutional Court ordered the referendum stopped, and the Spanish government moved to enforce that order.
>>> If they initially embraced the referendum they could have won
The UK government thought like you.
It allowed the people to vote for Brexit, thinking it would never pass.
And here we are today.
The UK government thought like you.
It allowed the people to vote for Brexit, thinking it would never pass.
And here we are today.
The UK government did exactly that and got a no vote to the Scottish independence.
The Brexit vote was full-on farce, people literally had no idea what they were voting yes to. How could they, there was no plan.
The Brexit vote was full-on farce, people literally had no idea what they were voting yes to. How could they, there was no plan.
The plan was laid out clearly. The question asked of the electorate was also clear.
February 2016
The process for withdrawing from the European Union Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final. The Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision. The Prime Minister made clear to the House of Commons that “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away”.
The referendum question, June 2016 :
---
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
[ ] Remain a member of the European Union
[ ] Leave the European Union
---
Of the votes cast
51.9% Leave (17,410,742), 48.1% Remain (16,141,241)
Electorate 46,501,241
37.4% of the electorate voted to leave
34.7% of the electorate voted to remain
February 2016
The process for withdrawing from the European Union Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will be final. The Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision. The Prime Minister made clear to the House of Commons that “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away”.
The referendum question, June 2016 :
---
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
[ ] Remain a member of the European Union
[ ] Leave the European Union
---
Of the votes cast
51.9% Leave (17,410,742), 48.1% Remain (16,141,241)
Electorate 46,501,241
37.4% of the electorate voted to leave
34.7% of the electorate voted to remain
21 pages, is not a plan. The Scottish independence plan was 500 pages or something.
Also, that "plan" merely states they will trigger article 50. Not what they will do after that. Which is the important part of the whole process. There was no talk of soft or hard brexit. No talk of how much it would cost, no talk about anything other than "We'll trigger article 50". Which it actually turned out, the plan was flawed because they legally couldn't do it and had to create a new law.
Also, that "plan" merely states they will trigger article 50. Not what they will do after that. Which is the important part of the whole process. There was no talk of soft or hard brexit. No talk of how much it would cost, no talk about anything other than "We'll trigger article 50". Which it actually turned out, the plan was flawed because they legally couldn't do it and had to create a new law.
Notice that for all the Catalan low turnout has been hyped, they've actually got a higher proportion of the electorate than voted for Brexit:
43.03% * 91.96% = 39.57%
43.03% * 91.96% = 39.57%
And they had uniformed thugs trying to prevent the vote outside many of the polling sites. A 40% turnout is remarkable.
I don’t think it’s valid to claim the non voters in an aggregate 65%. Otherwise you could say 68% of the country didn’t vote to leave. Which presumably means it was a stronger position.
Edit - I see you removed that claim.
Edit - I see you removed that claim.
68% also didn't vote to stay. It always gets silly when you try to make arguments about vote percentages based on the entire population because they always work completely in reverse as well.
Agree entirely, that was my point.
Yes, I was copy pasting my post from elsewhere which was in response to the opposite claim :)
The UK public has historically been one of the most eurosceptic countries in europe and certainly the most eurosceptic in the EU. When given an actual chance to vote on the issue amazingly the British public followed through... who could possibly have seen that coming?
The farce is that people who should've known that were somehow shocked by it.
The farce is that people who should've known that were somehow shocked by it.
Only in recent history. Post-war through to the eighties, it was pro-Europe and influential in Europe (at least, the EC, etc.)
Firstly Spain is in no better a condition now than it would have been had it allowed a vote and campaigned and lost.
Secondly, a more accurate UK comparison would probably be with the Scottish referendum, which was won by those who wanted to remain part of the UK and so Scotland did remain part of the UK.
Secondly, a more accurate UK comparison would probably be with the Scottish referendum, which was won by those who wanted to remain part of the UK and so Scotland did remain part of the UK.
I don’t think that’s true. The violence that occurred on the day of the vote and the uncompromising attitude of the Spanish govenrment likely caused things to escalate more quickly than it would have otherwise.
Yeah, what a disaster that was. Time to take a step back and reconsider this whole "democracy" sham for what it is. All it does is let the clowns run the circus. And once commoners are voting, who knows what else they'll be doing.
Or you know - attribute malice and responsibility to the people spreading fallacies and fanning the flames of discontent for political gain?
Matter of fact this should be read as a win for direct democracy and responsibility- you believe that you can get away with your rhetoric ? Well sucks to be you. People liked what you are selling.
I think this calls for stronger links between claims and actions. A stronger more automatic contract between the people voting and the people making the claims.
I think brexit was a monumentally sad moment, the cross roads between the old world and the new connected world. The resulting decisions based on emotions and a super biased media system results in brexit.
The media helps spread junk for political points and as revenue, and the new political class believes that they can get away with it. A belief bubble that requires treatment - via holding people to task for the words they used.
Bah. Who am I kidding. If it was so easy - it would have been done already
Matter of fact this should be read as a win for direct democracy and responsibility- you believe that you can get away with your rhetoric ? Well sucks to be you. People liked what you are selling.
I think this calls for stronger links between claims and actions. A stronger more automatic contract between the people voting and the people making the claims.
I think brexit was a monumentally sad moment, the cross roads between the old world and the new connected world. The resulting decisions based on emotions and a super biased media system results in brexit.
The media helps spread junk for political points and as revenue, and the new political class believes that they can get away with it. A belief bubble that requires treatment - via holding people to task for the words they used.
Bah. Who am I kidding. If it was so easy - it would have been done already
And that’s great. People have a right to self determination. Not just who they vote for, but who votes with them. Without it democracy is a sham.
People also have the right to remain. It is not clear that a majority wants to secede, the percentages are close to 50% though. So want happens with the rest of the people. Besides the independent Catalunya movement does not apply that freedom to its regions and considers Catalunya indivisible (For instance they deny the right of Tarragona to secede an hypothetical Catalunya state https://youtu.be/3eS-j9Wx8lw?t=999).
But it's my understanding that most people didn't vote against seceding either, which does not mean that they want to stay.
I wonder what’s your take on Crimea and Russia in this case.
If an identifiable geographic region wants to secede, and there is sufficient support among the public, it should be able to do so. Crimea I think falls into that group: 93% voting in favor of joining Russia with 83% turnout.
How does it fall in that group? That's a referendum taken out of the blue, just weeks after Russian military takeover of the region.
> It allowed the people
Let's remember that it was not against the law of the EU or the UK...
So yes I think it should have.
Let's remember that it was not against the law of the EU or the UK...
So yes I think it should have.
> it seems can either turn into a civil war
When only one of the sides have weapons, there can not be a civil war, only a genocide. I am convinced that there is a limit on the violations of Human Rights that Europe will be able to tolerate from a state member.
When only one of the sides have weapons, there can not be a civil war, only a genocide. I am convinced that there is a limit on the violations of Human Rights that Europe will be able to tolerate from a state member.
"civil war", "genocide". Come on people, don't throw these words willy-nilly, leave that to bad news outlets.
Yes, the spanish government was quite brutal in its attempt to stymie the referendum (probably unnecessarily so) but we're not on the verge of a catalan genocide in any way, shape or form. If you keep abusing words they end up losing their meaning.
Yes, the spanish government was quite brutal in its attempt to stymie the referendum (probably unnecessarily so) but we're not on the verge of a catalan genocide in any way, shape or form. If you keep abusing words they end up losing their meaning.
Is it genocide to shoot at protesters if they are primarily a particular ethnicity?
Because that may be what Spain has to do to force Catalonia to comply.
Because that may be what Spain has to do to force Catalonia to comply.
I think they'll be shooting less because they're a particular ethnicity and more because they're rioting, protesting the decision, or directly fighting the government. Ethnic differences would be coincidental in such an occurrence.
"Quite brutal" by the standards of the ordinary course of civil society, yes. "Quite brutal" by the standards of governments facing an insurrection? Not so much.
Yes, the spanish government was quite brutal in its attempt to stymie the referendum
That's wrong. There were a handful of injured, don't believe the propaganda. Most international media that were fooled by that lies have acknowledged this much.
That's wrong. There were a handful of injured, don't believe the propaganda. Most international media that were fooled by that lies have acknowledged this much.
Regardless of the scale and strength of the repression I'm still of the opinion that it was unwarranted. Declare the referendum to be illegal, tell lawful spanish citizens to stay home then disregard the results. Maybe prosecute the people organizing the referendum if the law allows it.
Even though the referendum was illegal it didn't create any imminent danger. Therefore I think the use of force by Madrid was disproportionate. It also effectively backfired by making the independentists look more sympathetic even though their motive is for the most part rather selfish at the core.
Even though the referendum was illegal it didn't create any imminent danger. Therefore I think the use of force by Madrid was disproportionate. It also effectively backfired by making the independentists look more sympathetic even though their motive is for the most part rather selfish at the core.
It's true that it was a disaster but not because they tried to prevent it, but because they didn't the obvious thing and sent the police one day earlier. The videos that are in that page are not particularly violent, just what you would expect when people resist the police.
Oh FFS. We know what we saw on TV outside your little PP-controlled broadcast TV bubble. I was watching footage of your police beating the shit out of people all day long.
This particular argument -- "fake news, it didn't happen" -- is outside of Spain the most ridiculous Trumpish nonsense imaginable. "Lies"? I saw it with my own eyes in real time. Looking us right in the eye and insisting that black is white is offensive.
This particular argument -- "fake news, it didn't happen" -- is outside of Spain the most ridiculous Trumpish nonsense imaginable. "Lies"? I saw it with my own eyes in real time. Looking us right in the eye and insisting that black is white is offensive.
Are internet, Twitter and Youtube now controlled by PP? I don't think so.
I will just leave this here:
https://spanishpolice.github.io/
https://spanishpolice.github.io/
It's interesting to see how quickly people will downplay and deny the actions of the Guardia Incivil.
If the referendum is illegitimate, why suppress it? ;- )
If the referendum is illegitimate, why suppress it? ;- )
Because they were planning to spend millions of euro in an illegal thing. Money directly stolen from people like you and me.
Sending the cops in seems like throwing good money after bad. The ballots were already printed, etc.
The Spanish government regularly wastes Catalonian money, including sending in police to suppress this technically illegitimate vote. Whatever this vote cost to administer, it is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the people seem to be willing to bear the economic burden of attempting to gain sovereignty.
If their crime is misappropriating funds for the referendum, then surely the police should be arresting the politicians, not harassing the public at large.
If their crime is misappropriating funds for the referendum, then surely the police should be arresting the politicians, not harassing the public at large.
Because they were planning to spend millions of euro in an illegal thing, and use the results to try to legitimize the illegal thing in the eyes of the world.
Having 11.000 Spanish policemen in Catalonia, including the ones in the Lonely Tones ship, costs 33M EUR a day.
If the referendum is illegitimate, why suppress it? ;- )
If murder is illegitimate, why suppress it? Brilliant.
If murder is illegitimate, why suppress it? Brilliant.
If you could save murder victims retroactively by just not recognizing the murder, this analogy might land.
If the alternative is direct military intervention by the other member states, I suspect they're prepared to tolerate quite a bit.
They may not have much arms now, but they have money. There are certainly states that would not mind selling them arms for profit.
While secession will be troublesome, there are not many attempts at preventing secession that have not turned ugly violent in recent years because of attempts to prevent it.
I lived through a non-violent federation split and certainly hope for this outcome elsewhere. In the case of my country majority of the people didn't want the split either. Despite that it was possible to happen without violence.
While secession will be troublesome, there are not many attempts at preventing secession that have not turned ugly violent in recent years because of attempts to prevent it.
I lived through a non-violent federation split and certainly hope for this outcome elsewhere. In the case of my country majority of the people didn't want the split either. Despite that it was possible to happen without violence.
> When only one of the sides have weapons, there can not be a civil war, only a genocide.
Certainly an argument in support of the second amendment of the United States.
Certainly an argument in support of the second amendment of the United States.
I suspect the only reason the US government lets Americans think the second amendment would enable the population to forcibly remove an undesirable government, is because the weapons and strategic/tactical/leadership skills of the population are vastly out-classed by the armed forces.
What good is a semi-automatic against a supersonic jet that just fired an air-to-ground missile in your direction? Plenty of AK-47s in Afghanistan, they don’t even take on subsonic drones effectively.
What good is a semi-automatic against a supersonic jet that just fired an air-to-ground missile in your direction? Plenty of AK-47s in Afghanistan, they don’t even take on subsonic drones effectively.
In other asymmetric warfare situations, supersonic jets have done very little to end a conflict. No sane person would ever want to start a war with a civil militia containing nearly all able-bodied men in a region; it's bad enough when just a couple per cent are against you, all with small arms. Imagine how bad it would be with 20%, 30%, 40% of the able-bodied against you.
But most of those small arms suck.
In Vietnam and Afghanistan they had weapons being sent to them including stuff like artillery and mortars.
A bunch of militia with store bought guns(many pistols or hunting rifles) doesn't really compare to guys supplied with full automatics and RPGs.
In Vietnam and Afghanistan they had weapons being sent to them including stuff like artillery and mortars.
A bunch of militia with store bought guns(many pistols or hunting rifles) doesn't really compare to guys supplied with full automatics and RPGs.
Consider also that there are arms manufacturers and state militias all across the country. If it's California, they have (some of) Northrop Grumman. If it's Virginia, they have General Dynamics Mission Systems.
Both of which can get magically disappeared in hours with the superior weaponry and numbers in the hands of the federal government.
Yeah, it'll work out really well when the U.S. military uses their General Dynamics Mission Systems radios to order their General Dynamics Mission Systems drones to fire General Dynamics missiles at General Dynamics. While their General Dynamics M1 Abrams tanks and General Dynamics Stryker AFVs roll through the streets to kill the civilians.
This is not the way things would play out. The federal government would twiddle their thumbs and say that they are very cross with the separatists, and we'd all get on with our lives.
This is not the way things would play out. The federal government would twiddle their thumbs and say that they are very cross with the separatists, and we'd all get on with our lives.
I thought the implication was the tanks rolling up at General Dynamics offices and factories to “protect national security assets from terrorists”, and the General Dynamics CEO welcoming them with the closest one can get to open arms when you’re wearing heavy body armour.
“Disappeared” isn’t just destroying, it’s capturing, too.
“Disappeared” isn’t just destroying, it’s capturing, too.
Gotcha, sounded at first a lot like "attack General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman because lol we can".
> ...the closest one can get to open arms when you’re wearing heavy body armour.
Ironically, heavy body armour (depending on the width of the chest plate near the breast) is likely to force you to have open arms, not the opposite.
> ...the closest one can get to open arms when you’re wearing heavy body armour.
Ironically, heavy body armour (depending on the width of the chest plate near the breast) is likely to force you to have open arms, not the opposite.
You really think in a rebellion they would allow them to legally sell guns in mass quantities?
It takes very little for normal people to produce explosives and IEDs.
IEDs are cute compared to artillery or anti-aircraft.
When tyranny starts to come in there's a long period where the government can order the police / military to stand down, but doesn't have the power to order them to commit atrocities themselves.
So there's usually a violent group of government supporters who don't have any special arms or training. eg, Hitler's brown shirts.
The second amendment is very affective against them.
So there's usually a violent group of government supporters who don't have any special arms or training. eg, Hitler's brown shirts.
The second amendment is very affective against them.
If the alternative is genocide then I'll take my chances. Asymmetric warfare is a real option and with enough turned generals and armed forces you'd have access to the same high powered weapons and the people could form a militia as well.
Genocide isn’t the alternative but rather the escalation in the hypothetical where the 2nd Amendment is relevant. The US does have nukes, after all.
I don't imagine there would be popular support for the U.S. government nuking Americans in Seattle over a sovereignty dispute.
It would only come to nukes if the other side escalated to weaponry just below nukes. In that case, it's not "nuking Americans in Seattle", it's "nuking well organized terrorist cells using advanced weaponry, in order to save further loss of life."
The point is that no matter how much "power" the federal government has granted to civilians via the 2nd amendment, the federal government will ALWAYS have more.
The point is that no matter how much "power" the federal government has granted to civilians via the 2nd amendment, the federal government will ALWAYS have more.
Neither do I, but the US doesn’t currently have any serious independence movements and last time it did things went very badly indeed.
It would never be “over a sovereignty dispute”, it would be to stop what the rebels were imminently going to do in that sovereignty dispute. Nuking is extreme, but there will always be (at least, in the eyes of the government) a excuse to escalate to the level beyond what is available to the rebels to protect the innocent threatened by them.
Those weapons only win if you don't care about civilian losses (that is one way to win a counter insurgency, see Mandatory Palestine) - but by not caring about civilian casualties I mean you have to be willing to commit genocide (again, see the British actions in Mandatory Palestine).
If you do care about civilians (and I assume the US armed forces would be forced to care) a jet is probably not worth much against an AK-47, as long as that AK-47 is in the hands of a guy who is willing to hang out close to a bunch of civilians.
Again you can win a counter insurgency either by winning over the local population or by utterly destroying it (see manda, the Island of Melos).
If you do care about civilians (and I assume the US armed forces would be forced to care) a jet is probably not worth much against an AK-47, as long as that AK-47 is in the hands of a guy who is willing to hang out close to a bunch of civilians.
Again you can win a counter insurgency either by winning over the local population or by utterly destroying it (see manda, the Island of Melos).
Who is a civilian in a civil war in a nation which has a constitutional right to bear arms?
I wouldn't cite Afghanistan as an example of how well military high-tech works for suppression. If it did, it wouldn't be and wouldn't have been such a mess.
On the other side, if I remember correctly a few AK47 and bunch of men was pretty strong against USA army in Vietnam. How come?
Maybe the jungle had something to do with it. And also in the 60s and 70s USA did not had drones.
US army is not authorized to operate on US soil. I like how you want to drag this conversation into something totally else.
I’m not American, I didn’t know that, and given this is a hypothetical anyway I don’t really think that restriction matters.
Then what is the alternative? Wouldn’t you rather die with the honor of defending you and your families liberty than live under an oppressive regime?
The argument that “the government is too strong they’d beat you with your puny guns” is so incredibly short sighted. You’re discounting the power the rifle gives the people not only as a weapon but a symbol of freedom and revolution. An armed society is a deterrent at the very least.
Mozambique’s flag has an AK47 on it for a reason.
The argument that “the government is too strong they’d beat you with your puny guns” is so incredibly short sighted. You’re discounting the power the rifle gives the people not only as a weapon but a symbol of freedom and revolution. An armed society is a deterrent at the very least.
Mozambique’s flag has an AK47 on it for a reason.
I would flee a country if and when it looked like that country was too far down a bad path.
I am in the process of doing so now, as it happens — leaving the UK because of the Investigatory Powers Act, because the Home Secretary wants to ban unbreakable encryption without understanding it, and because Brexit removes one of the major obligations to follow international human rights laws which would allow me to sue the government to fix that law.
I’d rather pick my battles and live somewhere new, than die an unknown and unnamed victim of a remote death machine.
I am in the process of doing so now, as it happens — leaving the UK because of the Investigatory Powers Act, because the Home Secretary wants to ban unbreakable encryption without understanding it, and because Brexit removes one of the major obligations to follow international human rights laws which would allow me to sue the government to fix that law.
I’d rather pick my battles and live somewhere new, than die an unknown and unnamed victim of a remote death machine.
But the referendum was invalid because of the constitution, you can't ignore the constitution because you want, you need to change the constitution.
If the referendum is invalid, even more reason to let it happen if you can't make it go away. Ignore it, make sure those friendly to you promote the idea of participating especially if you are against it. If "leave" doesn't have a clear victory, you can point to it for why you are against them leaving. If they do, your position is at least not worse than it is now, and probably better since you haven't burned most of the goodwill people have towards the government.
(It's my understanding that the laws passed by the local catalonian parliament that said things would happen as a consequence of the referendum result were thoroughly voided before the referendum due to being against both spanish and catalonian rules. At that point, one should be able to treat the referendum as just a poll to inform future politics)
(It's my understanding that the laws passed by the local catalonian parliament that said things would happen as a consequence of the referendum result were thoroughly voided before the referendum due to being against both spanish and catalonian rules. At that point, one should be able to treat the referendum as just a poll to inform future politics)
Maybe you are right, but the scenario is this:
1 a group of people organizes a referendum or something similar
2 someone else complains at the Constitutional Court or whatever is the institution that has(by law) decide if the act is constitutional or not
3 if the thing was declared illegal the institution that has (by law) stop the illegal thing must act
My country has a similar constitution, a region can't separate unless the constitution is changed. Probably this is not fair for some regions but it is how it is, you can't decide to ignore constitution, not sure how this is in your country. I was hoping that in future EU would unite us and we get rid of the nationalistic views and finally borders.
My country has a similar constitution, a region can't separate unless the constitution is changed. Probably this is not fair for some regions but it is how it is, you can't decide to ignore constitution, not sure how this is in your country. I was hoping that in future EU would unite us and we get rid of the nationalistic views and finally borders.
This is really not a useful argument. Self determination is a natural right. The idea that it's against the law to seek it doesn't work when the people themselves are arguing they don't want to be under that law.
Then you should use the process laid by the constitution to change it, not unilaterally decide the law doesn't apply to you.
But then you can apply same logic when a city or a village vote to not pay taxes there, or have special rules, my opinion is that constitution is a very important law and there is a reason that changing it requires the majority to vote(probably differs by country).
I understand your point but to get the independence is something extreme in this case it should not be a simple process but something more complex otherwise bypassing the constitution can happen every month.
Poker doesn't define rules for deciding when to play hearts.
This referendum may have been 'illegal' according to the rules of one game, but that's the point - some folks want to play another.
(Not taking a side on the matter; not my country, I'm woefully under-informed.)
This referendum may have been 'illegal' according to the rules of one game, but that's the point - some folks want to play another.
(Not taking a side on the matter; not my country, I'm woefully under-informed.)
Referendums are a way of converting democratic mandates into decisions; but the democratic mandate doesn't go away just because the referendum isn't valid.
More than 50% (70 of 135) of the democratically elected local parliament voted for independence too.
More than 50% (70 of 135) of the democratically elected local parliament voted for independence too.
The referendum was not just illegal, it was clearly rigged. The local parliament lack the power the vote for independence, that's just a farce.
So Spain gets to keep Catalonia as a colony because it is the one with power to make the rules?
A colony of Spain? What is that based on?
The definition of the word colony
From google:
> a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
From wikipedia:
> In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign.
If Spain asserts itself as the ruler of Catalonia, without the will of the Catalans, it appears to me that the word is very apt.
From google:
> a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
From wikipedia:
> In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign.
If Spain asserts itself as the ruler of Catalonia, without the will of the Catalans, it appears to me that the word is very apt.
Except not one of the requirements is meet: Catalonia is part of Spain since Spain was created with the marriage of the Reyes Católicos. Catalonia is not another country, is just a part of the same country, in the same peninsula as the most part of Spain, is not occupied, hasn't been independent ever... Also it's one of the richest regions of Spain, demanding just to avoid to support with taxes to poorer regions.
I suppose the word colony is a matter of perspective. But I have a hard time equating Catalonia to the offshore territories the Europeans considered colonies in the past (and still to some extent). Especially considering that Catalonia was part of the European collonialism as part of Spain and profited from it as well. In which point in History Catalonia exactly was that distinct territory that was invaded by Spain?
Sure, but that’s not an unchangeanle fact. It’s totally legitimate, and a good constitutional and political move, to legislate for referenda where appropriate. It’s what happened in Scotland, and that was vastly more peaceful.
Everyone keeps talking about the constitution as if it is set in stone. The constitution was made by people, 50 years ago. It can and should be changed to reflect new realities.
Then change the constitution instead of blithely ignoring it and conducting an illegal election.
And those people probably put in rules on how to change it, e.g. two-third majority vote.
The new reality is that Spain is probably going bankrupt.
Nonsense. Most of the big companies have left Catalonia last month. Half of Catalonia population doesn't want independence. Rule of law will be restored in a few weeks and all the thugs that have promoted this idiocy will be jailed.
Edit: to the person responding, you only see what you want to see. Police acted according to judiciary orders and there were no deaths and just a handful of injured people. Try to resist police in any other civilized country and see what you get.
Edit2: did you see the idiot father charging against the police with a child in his shoulders? did you see the police reaction? or the man that knocked inconscious a policeman throwing a chair at him? or the one kicking a fallen policeman in the head without provocation? did you know that most of the charges footage are old from mossos, not spanish police, from Chile or other countries? Or the girl saying she was tortured and forgot in what arm were the fingers supposedly broken? Real injured numbers are literally a handful, even The Guardian had to admit they've been duped. Of course nothing near the 800 mentioned in propaganda.
Oh and keep downvoting, you can't downvote facts and they0re surfacing now.
Edit: to the person responding, you only see what you want to see. Police acted according to judiciary orders and there were no deaths and just a handful of injured people. Try to resist police in any other civilized country and see what you get.
Edit2: did you see the idiot father charging against the police with a child in his shoulders? did you see the police reaction? or the man that knocked inconscious a policeman throwing a chair at him? or the one kicking a fallen policeman in the head without provocation? did you know that most of the charges footage are old from mossos, not spanish police, from Chile or other countries? Or the girl saying she was tortured and forgot in what arm were the fingers supposedly broken? Real injured numbers are literally a handful, even The Guardian had to admit they've been duped. Of course nothing near the 800 mentioned in propaganda.
Oh and keep downvoting, you can't downvote facts and they0re surfacing now.
Please don't break the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Your comment is problematic because you crossed into incivility. Pugilistic comments on divisive topics produce conflagrations. Those are all the same on the internet and therefore they are all boring and therefore we don't want them here. Since this thread has managed to remain relatively civil despite people being on opposing sides of the issue, a comment like this does more relative damage even than it usually would. That's probably the reason for the downvotes.
The guidelines also ask people not to go on about downvoting, so please don't do that either.
Your comment is problematic because you crossed into incivility. Pugilistic comments on divisive topics produce conflagrations. Those are all the same on the internet and therefore they are all boring and therefore we don't want them here. Since this thread has managed to remain relatively civil despite people being on opposing sides of the issue, a comment like this does more relative damage even than it usually would. That's probably the reason for the downvotes.
The guidelines also ask people not to go on about downvoting, so please don't do that either.
The only thugs I saw were the police beating people up
Listen to yourself! So I didn’t see anyone getting beat up by the police? But if I DID see that then it was OK because they were ordered to?
[deleted]
> The Guardian had to admit they've been duped.
Link please?
Link please?
Lots of things can be morally right but also be illegal.
Look at the reverse: can the U.S. amend the constitution to say, "The U.S. is made up of the fifty states, plus Mexico"?
Certainly Mexico would hold a minority vote and not be able to influence the outcome. Does that mean that all the people of Mexico are "ignoring the constitution" if they don't want to be in the United States?
Certainly Mexico would hold a minority vote and not be able to influence the outcome. Does that mean that all the people of Mexico are "ignoring the constitution" if they don't want to be in the United States?
>you can't ignore the constitution because you want
Uh? Why not? This has been done countless of times in history.
Uh? Why not? This has been done countless of times in history.
If a government renders the government irrelevant they take away their own legitimation.
Sure in past that append a common term for that is "revolution" or "coup".
Sure in past that append a common term for that is "revolution" or "coup".
... and Catalan doesn't have a military position to enforce its influence.
The United States was an exception, but it was an exception borne of geographic distance and fighting against a parent already beset by its adjacent neighbors. Catalan will have no such military advantages if people try to settle this dispute via civil war.
The United States was an exception, but it was an exception borne of geographic distance and fighting against a parent already beset by its adjacent neighbors. Catalan will have no such military advantages if people try to settle this dispute via civil war.
> If they initially embraced the referendum they could have won
They could have also lost in that case. There has been a huge for-independance campaign spanning 20+ years and including indoctrination of former children that now can vote.
The last governments should not have ignored the problem, making instead an effort to provide objective information on what an independence entails. This is not something that you can level with a couple of months of "No" campaign.
My take on this is that we end up having to open a process to change the Constitution with an ensemble of unprepared politicians (on all sides of the table) that blocks the country for a couple of years (for reference, we have recently spent 18 months with a government in functions because we could not manage to vote the new president).
EDIT: It seems that some people didn't like "indoctrination". Ignore the word, my comment remains the same: education has been strongly focused on building a Catalan identity. It is not something that you level in a short term campaign. In Rajoy's shoes, this is something against his position.
They could have also lost in that case. There has been a huge for-independance campaign spanning 20+ years and including indoctrination of former children that now can vote.
The last governments should not have ignored the problem, making instead an effort to provide objective information on what an independence entails. This is not something that you can level with a couple of months of "No" campaign.
My take on this is that we end up having to open a process to change the Constitution with an ensemble of unprepared politicians (on all sides of the table) that blocks the country for a couple of years (for reference, we have recently spent 18 months with a government in functions because we could not manage to vote the new president).
EDIT: It seems that some people didn't like "indoctrination". Ignore the word, my comment remains the same: education has been strongly focused on building a Catalan identity. It is not something that you level in a short term campaign. In Rajoy's shoes, this is something against his position.
The counter protests and polling indicate that there was/is significant opposition to Catalan independence. Spain could've embraced and supported that opposition, or pushed for more negotiation, but instead they used violence and oppression to try stopping the vote. That kept most of the anti-independence voters away from the polls, and it also turned many moderates toward independence. Now the Catalan government has a huge mandate and even more support to push for independence.
The Spanish government fucked up massively, and I wish the EU had more power to step in and moderate the situation.
The Spanish government fucked up massively, and I wish the EU had more power to step in and moderate the situation.
The EU does have the power, they don't have the guts, because the governing institutions are set up to be run by spineless bureaucrats that 'know better than the citizenry'. The solution then is to procrastinate on doing anything difficult and hope it goes away like a bad dream, nobody's job is in danger anyways.
> They could have also lost in that case. There has been a huge for-independance campaign spanning 20+ years and including indoctrination of former children that now can vote.
By which you mean adults? Is indoctrination one of those irregular verbs?
* i convince * you indoctrinate * he is brainwashing
By which you mean adults? Is indoctrination one of those irregular verbs?
* i convince * you indoctrinate * he is brainwashing
Do you have any proof about indoctrination of children beyond mere anecdote, hearsay, or accusations from unionist organizations? The indoctrination argument is an argument that just got popular recently for usage by unionists, but was almost unheard before. As far as I know, it hasn’t been validated by court on any occasion.
Maybe this? http://www.ames-fps.com/adoctrinamiento_libros_sociales_5y6p...
Or maybe the many accusations of events like this one http://baluartedigital.opennemas.com/articulo/separatismo/vi...
Or maybe the many accusations of events like this one http://baluartedigital.opennemas.com/articulo/separatismo/vi...
The first link seems to be the most solid proof that unionist parties like Ciudadanos use to ask for investigating the Catalan school system for indoctrination (An investigation I think could be done, as long as there's enough guarantees that it will be impartial and not a witchhunt). It was made by a syndicate that seems to be pretty much nonexistent (see https://www.ara.cat/societat/denuncia-ladoctrinament-llibres... ; yes, I know Ara is a biased source), and has been criticized (see http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20170518/422719728704/s...).
Of course, this is just an argument by authority; but if you look at the content, it's pretty clear that many of the supposed instances of bias are just factual reports that the report argues are instances of bias, but the way to eliminate that bias seems to be that it should be reminding the kids about the existence and goodness of Spain at every turn.
For example, end of page 17, the textbook says: "On 1700, the spanish king Charles II died without sons. Charles of Austria and Philip of Bourbon were the two candidates at the throne. The two sides fought in Succession War (1702-1714), which Philip won. Then, Philip V promulgated, as the new king, the Nueva Planta decrees (1716), which suppressed the laws and institutions of Catalonia, banned the use of catalan, and imposed the laws of Castille."
The report then goes to argue that "this presents the king of Spain as an unjust person that hates Catalonia".
End of page 15, start of 16, the textbook says: "Barcelona is the capital of both the autonomous community of Catalonia and of the province with the same name".
The report argues that "this presents Barcelona as the capital of Catalonia, as if it were the capital of a state, not as a city in a state with another capital" [when the textbook clearly says "Autonomous community of Catalonia"]
And on and on and on...
The second link fits into what I consider anecdote - a single case, that cannot be extrapolated to be evidence of a general case. See my other comment in this thread for a more elaborated response.
Of course, this is just an argument by authority; but if you look at the content, it's pretty clear that many of the supposed instances of bias are just factual reports that the report argues are instances of bias, but the way to eliminate that bias seems to be that it should be reminding the kids about the existence and goodness of Spain at every turn.
For example, end of page 17, the textbook says: "On 1700, the spanish king Charles II died without sons. Charles of Austria and Philip of Bourbon were the two candidates at the throne. The two sides fought in Succession War (1702-1714), which Philip won. Then, Philip V promulgated, as the new king, the Nueva Planta decrees (1716), which suppressed the laws and institutions of Catalonia, banned the use of catalan, and imposed the laws of Castille."
The report then goes to argue that "this presents the king of Spain as an unjust person that hates Catalonia".
End of page 15, start of 16, the textbook says: "Barcelona is the capital of both the autonomous community of Catalonia and of the province with the same name".
The report argues that "this presents Barcelona as the capital of Catalonia, as if it were the capital of a state, not as a city in a state with another capital" [when the textbook clearly says "Autonomous community of Catalonia"]
And on and on and on...
The second link fits into what I consider anecdote - a single case, that cannot be extrapolated to be evidence of a general case. See my other comment in this thread for a more elaborated response.
I agree that some arguments of the report don't hold water. But others are more convincing to me. Note that they analyze textbooks that are sold in stores, not stuff made by random teachers.
About the anecdote, a single case... there have been at least a couple dozen reported. Who knows how many were unreported. Even if they're kind of isolated, they show what kind of environment may exist in some places.
Personally I don't care, I don't have any stake on the matters. I don't like either side.
About the anecdote, a single case... there have been at least a couple dozen reported. Who knows how many were unreported. Even if they're kind of isolated, they show what kind of environment may exist in some places.
Personally I don't care, I don't have any stake on the matters. I don't like either side.
Can you place this countries in the map? Catalonia, Spain, Portugal, France, England, and Germany. Colour each one in different shades and name their capitals.
http://elmunicipio.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/mapa-adoctr...
http://elmunicipio.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/mapa-adoctr...
That's exactly what I mean by anecdotes. It's easy to find random material that represents Catalonia in an unrealistic way relative to Spain, be it by outright manipulation by nationalist teachers, bias, or just incorrect beliefs.
What I'm asking is if there is any substantiated evidence that points to an effort by a sizable part of teachers, education departments, or the like. That's what I understand indoctrination would be. As far as I have been able to tell, there is none.
What I'm asking is if there is any substantiated evidence that points to an effort by a sizable part of teachers, education departments, or the like. That's what I understand indoctrination would be. As far as I have been able to tell, there is none.
(6) is misleading; the president of PP (the party of the central government) in Catalonia has himself asked for a secret vote recently[1], hoping for defections in the pro-independence groups. Yet a few hours later he calls them cowards for having a secret vote.
[1] https://twitter.com/elsmatins/status/923815123260772357 (you'll notice it was retweeted by Albiol himself)
[1] https://twitter.com/elsmatins/status/923815123260772357 (you'll notice it was retweeted by Albiol himself)
> indoctrination of former children that now can vote.
That's an odd way to refer to that thing parents do when raising their kids. We call it 'talking' to them.
You make it sound so sinister - almost like parents were passing on their religion or something.
That's an odd way to refer to that thing parents do when raising their kids. We call it 'talking' to them.
You make it sound so sinister - almost like parents were passing on their religion or something.
Well I am referring to public schools. Public schools are controlled by the local government, and there are lots of complaints that options for parents that want teaching in Spanish for their children, for example, are close to non-existing. The teaching language is mandatorily Catalan until age 12, and then onwards chosen by the teacher, which is appointed by the local government.
If you want education that resembles what is taught in public schools of the rest of the country, you need to pay for it.
If you want education that resembles what is taught in public schools of the rest of the country, you need to pay for it.
That seems reasonable enough. If you're going to live in Catelonia, then it seems right that you should learn Catalan.
How exactly is learning a language "indoctrination"? Are children indoctrinated when they're taught through Spanish?
How exactly is learning a language "indoctrination"? Are children indoctrinated when they're taught through Spanish?
It's not limited to that. I agree that you should be able to learn in Catalan (but have the option of Spanish too). Visit the Catalan wikipedia, and you'll see how History is changed there with respect other Wikipedias. Read their books to see the bias in the way History is told. Indoctrination is a message with a "them and us" message that polarizes society, and has successfully done so. We all know words can be used in ways that can build a way of thinking of a generation. Well, those words are in the education system.
Once again, vague accusations with no concrete examples. I'm not convinced. Sounds like you just have a bias against Catalonia.
Here you have a hint of the indoctrination: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/world/europe/spain-catalo...
“We are not even allowed to wear a bracelet to school with the Spanish flag’s colors, but you can wear one with the independence colors,” Ms. Camina said.
Ollala de Mora, 16, said: “People in school are really against Spain. Our teachers try to influence us. They say the Spain steals from us and the government is bad. If you think differently from that, they try to change your mind.”
That is indoctrination, and there are constant examples of this in daily life for decades. Only the thought of hating Spain is encourage, and less often the thought of coexistence. No wonder that things are like they are now.
And NY Times is one the biased media I see, clearing the supporting more the Catalonian side.
“We are not even allowed to wear a bracelet to school with the Spanish flag’s colors, but you can wear one with the independence colors,” Ms. Camina said.
Ollala de Mora, 16, said: “People in school are really against Spain. Our teachers try to influence us. They say the Spain steals from us and the government is bad. If you think differently from that, they try to change your mind.”
That is indoctrination, and there are constant examples of this in daily life for decades. Only the thought of hating Spain is encourage, and less often the thought of coexistence. No wonder that things are like they are now.
And NY Times is one the biased media I see, clearing the supporting more the Catalonian side.
You can actually check my previous claims. They are not vague. Is just too extent, so if you want to dig deeper feel free to read both sides of the story, and not just what your particular media tells you.
I do have a bias against independentism/nationalism because I've lived through it. I cannot give concrete documents about this because there aren't such. Contrary to police violence of which there are.
You don't have to be convinced, I'm just trying to express my opinion, not trying to convince anyone of who is better or worse here. But I can confidently assert that there are no "good and bad" in this story, just a war between two different stories with lots of falsehoods in both sides.
Should I infer from the downvote that the general consensus is that there are a good and a bad sides in this story then?
I'm interested in knowing if that's the case.
I have a hard time otherwise understanding the downvote, unless is someone downvoting anything that doesn't defend the Catalonian independentist movement downright.
Sorry, there are social circumstances which are very difficult to see and document, believe it or not.
I have a hard time otherwise understanding the downvote, unless is someone downvoting anything that doesn't defend the Catalonian independentist movement downright.
Sorry, there are social circumstances which are very difficult to see and document, believe it or not.
Only the other side indoctrinates, didn´t you know that!?
It’s one of those irregular verbs, isn’t it? I pass on my values, you tell fairytales, they indoctrinate their young.
Excellent! Do you have more irregular verbs?
How about:
* I am religious, you are holier-than-thou, they are extremist fundamentalists
* I am sexually experienced, you are kinky, they are being charged under section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
* I write self-documenting code, you need more comments, their code is unreadable
* I am religious, you are holier-than-thou, they are extremist fundamentalists
* I am sexually experienced, you are kinky, they are being charged under section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
* I write self-documenting code, you need more comments, their code is unreadable
Hey, that sounds like the sort of thing an indoctrinated othersider would say...
Because "national pride" and "duty to fight for (economic) freedom" can be taught by your parents, schools and local culture as noble, absolute values and goals unrelated to any reason and discussion.
That's not how referendums work. Are you saying that if tomorrow you and few buddies decided to set up a new country, on a land you own, via a "referendum", the government should just go with it?
More like you and a couple millions of buddies?
Why does the number matter? Lots of people here (including the person I was replying to) talk about the "right thing" to do, not about military power. If it's the right thing to allow for millions of peoples to secede, why isn't it the right thing for me and few buddies to secede? Are we inferior in some way? Where is the cutoff? Is it ok to secede if we are 1000 people? 10K? 100K?
At exactly which number does democracy allow a group of people to secede?
A government doesn't declare things "illegal", judges are the ones that do it. According to our constitution, Spain is not divisible, plus regions can't decide something like that in a referendum because national sovereignty belongs to all Spanish citizens. I.e. regions aren't sovereign. Same as most if not all federal governments out there, by the way.
Sounds illegitimate to me.
Why would the Spanish government let the Catalans declare independence regardless of the outcome of the illegal referendum?
Because the alternative is forcible oppression and denial of the right of self-determination.
Read more about the right of self-determination here: http://www.unpo.org/article/4957
Read more about the right of self-determination here: http://www.unpo.org/article/4957
Would self-determination have argued in favor of the secession of the south?
> Would self-determination have argued in favor of the secession of the south?
Perhaps, if that is what the people in the South (and not just those in positions of relative legal privilege) wanted.
But I doubt that, for example, the 55% of Mississippi's population that was in slavery was particularly energized about secession to preserve the right of their masters to keep them in slavery, though.
Perhaps, if that is what the people in the South (and not just those in positions of relative legal privilege) wanted.
But I doubt that, for example, the 55% of Mississippi's population that was in slavery was particularly energized about secession to preserve the right of their masters to keep them in slavery, though.
That right is only for colonies or genocide, not the case of Catalonia at all. They're one of the richest spanish regions.
Edit: they've neve been independent, that's more of the bs that we're hearing these days.
Edit: they've neve been independent, that's more of the bs that we're hearing these days.
I believe that's a common misconception. UN charter makes no mention of colonies Art 1.2(http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.htm...). Although a UN-charter-based document is applied to colonies, which is what you might be referring to.
There's no definition there, it's just mentioned and of course there's a complete definition elsewhere.
What is the fundamental difference between a colony and any other patch of territory?
Are you serious?
Yes, I am. While people displaced by a colony are obviously disadvantaged, the colony itself and its residents are not.
> While people displaced by a colony are obviously disadvantaged, the colony itself and its residents are not.
I think you may be confusing the pattern of colonization in British North America with colonization more generally; the pattern elsewhere was more often of subordination to an imported elite rather than displacement.
I think you may be confusing the pattern of colonization in British North America with colonization more generally; the pattern elsewhere was more often of subordination to an imported elite rather than displacement.
Good answer, but you’ve made me realise I made an even deeper error — I was thinking like Civilization: cities as the fundamental unit, not the productive capacity of the nearby land they control.
They can’t really claim a mandate for leaving when those who wanted to stay boycotted the vote. That said, it would have been much less divisive if a proper referendum had been sanctioned.
They have a better mandate than UK leaving the EU:
92% pro, from a 43% turnout = 39.56% of the electorate in favour of Catalan independence.
Compare to 52% of 72% = 37.44% of the electorate in favour of Brexit.
92% pro, from a 43% turnout = 39.56% of the electorate in favour of Catalan independence.
Compare to 52% of 72% = 37.44% of the electorate in favour of Brexit.
I see I have been down voted.
As someone born in Barcelona, with dual Spanish/British nationality, all I can say with certainty is that I’m deeply saddened to lose not one, but possibly now two connections to my European neighbours.
As someone born in Barcelona, with dual Spanish/British nationality, all I can say with certainty is that I’m deeply saddened to lose not one, but possibly now two connections to my European neighbours.
Looking at the silver lining, you gain a new citizenship, being Barcelona born. :)
Crazy. Even just expressing my own feelings on the matter is worthy of someone down voting. So very peculiar.
Someone doesn’t agree I am deeply saddened?!
Someone doesn’t agree I am deeply saddened?!
These comments are breaking the site guidelines. Would you please read them and follow them when commenting here?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There’s one seriously pathetic lone down voter out there.
Politically active get to decide. I'm not sure why expect it to be otherwise.
Those who wanted to stay would (I suspect) also believe that the referendum was illegal, as per the court order saying so.
Why bother showing up to an illegal referendum, especially when the very fact of it being illegal means no result can be trusted as accurate?
Why bother showing up to an illegal referendum, especially when the very fact of it being illegal means no result can be trusted as accurate?
But people didn’t because it was not a vote recognised by their own country.
The full context for this decision includes Brexit.
I cannot imagine that it ends in a civil war. Civil wars happen when you have
1) a lot of young men,
2) who have little to lose, and
3) who are used to living a life with not much more comfort than that of a soldier (maybe even less)
The young generation in Catalonia is small, they have a lot to lose, and they live very comfortable lives.
I don't see them taking up arms. Maybe they will take to the streets for a few days, but they are not willing to fight in great numbers, or give up studies or jobs.
In the last civil war in Spain or the one in America or the ones in the Middle East, those conditions were present.
1) a lot of young men,
2) who have little to lose, and
3) who are used to living a life with not much more comfort than that of a soldier (maybe even less)
The young generation in Catalonia is small, they have a lot to lose, and they live very comfortable lives.
I don't see them taking up arms. Maybe they will take to the streets for a few days, but they are not willing to fight in great numbers, or give up studies or jobs.
In the last civil war in Spain or the one in America or the ones in the Middle East, those conditions were present.
I agree, civil war is very unlikely. I think we're in for a period of unrest much more like the Irish Troubles, with organized acts of political terrorism.
Isn't political terrorism just another word for asymmetric warfare? How wouldn't that be a civil war?
Doesn’t Catalonia have a 13% unemployment rate? And a ~40% unemployment rate among young people? Seems like that fits those criteria pretty well...
There is a huge difference between the well educated but for now unemployed Catalan, 28 year old, only child (or with one or two siblings), always well fed, always warm, maybe living with his parents, maybe sharing a flat somewhere, all his life feeling safe, spending his days playing Xbox, surfing the Internet, chasing girls, hanging out on cafes or bars or going to Camp Nou to watch games, going skiing in January, to the beach in the Summer
and then your young, angry Arab man, third son in a family of 5, little education, no girls, no fun, no safety, no future.
and then your young, angry Arab man, third son in a family of 5, little education, no girls, no fun, no safety, no future.
It actually sounds like you’re describing the leadup to wwi. These conditions lead to war, not against it.
I’d love to hear a contrary opinion for the downvote I got: gross economic disparity and a large populace that has forgotten war sounds a lot like the early twentieth century.
I’d love to hear a contrary opinion for the downvote I got: gross economic disparity and a large populace that has forgotten war sounds a lot like the early twentieth century.
People here downvote all the time once discussions are political. Don't bother.
What I wrote applies more to civil war than to war between nations (where citizens can be forced to war by governments). Of course, in reality the line between war between nations and internal civil war is often blurred - civil wars and wars are often mixed up and neighboring nations often support one side with money, weapons, troops etc. Furthermore realities of war can force people to take side once the conflict is ongoing, if nothing else, then to survive.
Now, with that in mind, prior to WWI you had a large generation of poor young German and Austrian men, and a large generation of poor young French, Russian, and British men. Today you don't.
Also, visit a European house or apartment from 1850-1900, which most people still lived in around WWI. One that is used as a museum so that it hasn't been renovated. You'll see that they were significantly less comfortable than today. No AC, no radiators, often no toilets (but a loo outside), usually no showers. Heat was from coal briquettes in a stove near the center of the house which meant constant draft and bad air. Cooking happened from gas, briquette or wooden fueled stove. There was no fridge or freezer but usually a small room that was cooler and where food would be stored. The house had little or no insulation, the windows had one layer of glass. There would often be electricity, but it would only be for the light bulbs. Radios or phones were still not common, hot water was still not a thing everybody had. There might be hens in the yard and milk was delivered in bottles. Most of this, except the radios and telephones, was true for 1939 as well.
Having been in the army myself, it always strikes me how much closer life before modern conveniences was to army life. Take 25 year old Hermann, a single guy from 1914, and put him in a military camp. He would not experience such a huge drop in comfort as you or I would before the fighting begun. He would eat, drink, sleep, keep warm etc. much in the same way as if he was home. He would entertain himself with books, songs etc. much in the same way. He would be surrounded by men just as he likely would at home or work or university. This was in the beginning of woman's emancipation so he would probably not miss out on a dating scene, going out with girls, male/female social life etc. For many, life meant long hours of hard manual labor in factories or farms, not less hard than the manual work in military. No vacation, no weekends (but a Sunday). His life outside of military was not that much better. Until the fighting begun, of course.
Today, joining a primitive militia/guerrilla group would mean a huge decline in quality of life of an 18 year old from Barcelona. Take 25 year old Jordi from Barcelona. He graduated as a graphical designer some months ago and spends 2 hours a day playing Counter Strike and 3 hours on his iPhone7 swiping left and right. Sometimes he looks for jobs online. He has female friends, and a dating life. He is used to walking to the metro, but otherwise doesn't get much exercise. He still lives with his parents and will likely do so for a few years more unless he gets himself together and turn that computer interest into something useful. Life has its challenges, but it sure isn't that tough. He has never killed anything he ate. He has never done much manual labor. Right now he's concerned if he will have enough money to join his friends skiing in the Pyrenees in a few months and what he's going to tell the date tonight about his job situation. He sure isn't worried about food on the table.
Might Jordi join the protest on Placa Catalunya? Yes.
Would he take up arms and hide in a forest in the low mountains west of Zaragoza waiting to ambush the approaching castellano troops? I wouldn't say never, but I just can't see it happening. Jordi loves the idea of Catalonia but he also loves his life and camping is not really for him. Plus he has a date tonight.
There is simply a greater difference between Western "working class" or middle class life and the outdoor, offline, off dating manual labor life of a soldier, than there was before.
What I wrote applies more to civil war than to war between nations (where citizens can be forced to war by governments). Of course, in reality the line between war between nations and internal civil war is often blurred - civil wars and wars are often mixed up and neighboring nations often support one side with money, weapons, troops etc. Furthermore realities of war can force people to take side once the conflict is ongoing, if nothing else, then to survive.
Now, with that in mind, prior to WWI you had a large generation of poor young German and Austrian men, and a large generation of poor young French, Russian, and British men. Today you don't.
Also, visit a European house or apartment from 1850-1900, which most people still lived in around WWI. One that is used as a museum so that it hasn't been renovated. You'll see that they were significantly less comfortable than today. No AC, no radiators, often no toilets (but a loo outside), usually no showers. Heat was from coal briquettes in a stove near the center of the house which meant constant draft and bad air. Cooking happened from gas, briquette or wooden fueled stove. There was no fridge or freezer but usually a small room that was cooler and where food would be stored. The house had little or no insulation, the windows had one layer of glass. There would often be electricity, but it would only be for the light bulbs. Radios or phones were still not common, hot water was still not a thing everybody had. There might be hens in the yard and milk was delivered in bottles. Most of this, except the radios and telephones, was true for 1939 as well.
Having been in the army myself, it always strikes me how much closer life before modern conveniences was to army life. Take 25 year old Hermann, a single guy from 1914, and put him in a military camp. He would not experience such a huge drop in comfort as you or I would before the fighting begun. He would eat, drink, sleep, keep warm etc. much in the same way as if he was home. He would entertain himself with books, songs etc. much in the same way. He would be surrounded by men just as he likely would at home or work or university. This was in the beginning of woman's emancipation so he would probably not miss out on a dating scene, going out with girls, male/female social life etc. For many, life meant long hours of hard manual labor in factories or farms, not less hard than the manual work in military. No vacation, no weekends (but a Sunday). His life outside of military was not that much better. Until the fighting begun, of course.
Today, joining a primitive militia/guerrilla group would mean a huge decline in quality of life of an 18 year old from Barcelona. Take 25 year old Jordi from Barcelona. He graduated as a graphical designer some months ago and spends 2 hours a day playing Counter Strike and 3 hours on his iPhone7 swiping left and right. Sometimes he looks for jobs online. He has female friends, and a dating life. He is used to walking to the metro, but otherwise doesn't get much exercise. He still lives with his parents and will likely do so for a few years more unless he gets himself together and turn that computer interest into something useful. Life has its challenges, but it sure isn't that tough. He has never killed anything he ate. He has never done much manual labor. Right now he's concerned if he will have enough money to join his friends skiing in the Pyrenees in a few months and what he's going to tell the date tonight about his job situation. He sure isn't worried about food on the table.
Might Jordi join the protest on Placa Catalunya? Yes.
Would he take up arms and hide in a forest in the low mountains west of Zaragoza waiting to ambush the approaching castellano troops? I wouldn't say never, but I just can't see it happening. Jordi loves the idea of Catalonia but he also loves his life and camping is not really for him. Plus he has a date tonight.
There is simply a greater difference between Western "working class" or middle class life and the outdoor, offline, off dating manual labor life of a soldier, than there was before.
Civil war is unlikely but it's certainly on the table. If it does end up like that, it'll probably be a "terrorist" war of attrition. Which the EU will want to have none of.
Is this not true of the young on both sides? Is it safe to assume that the part of the Spanish military from Catalan will not side with Catalan?
Those factors make war of any kind more likely, but are not necessary for it, civil or otherwise.
> Instead of embracing a referendum about independence they decided to flatly declare it illegal
Not, this is a lie. Was not the government that declared it illegal. Were the judges of the hightest spanish tribunal, because in their opinion this is a disguised coup against constitution.
> Once they had the massive yes vote the only way out to the evil government is to surrender and negociate...
Another thousand times repeated lie. Because 2 million of votes (including X people voting n>1 times) is now the 90% of 46 million of people (including 7,5 million of catalonian people).
Lets suppose, for example, that some people would want to reinstall the slavery to Louisiana, or to bring comunism to Nebraska. "Would be good for the economy" they say. So they require to ask people for "blah blah blah democracy". Let suppose that they declare that if the referendum is positive, all black people will lose their properties and be slaves again, "because blah blah blah, pacifism". And they want you to pay this circus with your tax money, because their shamelessness is infinite.
And then some people ask that government should allow this, because voting is good.
Should the government "embrace" this spoiled children acts and let them to steal millions of dollars in their face?.
Everybody can promote a referendum to ask people their opinion about anything, but with their money, without using public buildings and resources and without shamelessly declaring that the results from the poll will trigger a chain of illegal abuses and changes for most of the people in the zone.
Not, this is a lie. Was not the government that declared it illegal. Were the judges of the hightest spanish tribunal, because in their opinion this is a disguised coup against constitution.
> Once they had the massive yes vote the only way out to the evil government is to surrender and negociate...
Another thousand times repeated lie. Because 2 million of votes (including X people voting n>1 times) is now the 90% of 46 million of people (including 7,5 million of catalonian people).
Lets suppose, for example, that some people would want to reinstall the slavery to Louisiana, or to bring comunism to Nebraska. "Would be good for the economy" they say. So they require to ask people for "blah blah blah democracy". Let suppose that they declare that if the referendum is positive, all black people will lose their properties and be slaves again, "because blah blah blah, pacifism". And they want you to pay this circus with your tax money, because their shamelessness is infinite.
And then some people ask that government should allow this, because voting is good.
Should the government "embrace" this spoiled children acts and let them to steal millions of dollars in their face?.
Everybody can promote a referendum to ask people their opinion about anything, but with their money, without using public buildings and resources and without shamelessly declaring that the results from the poll will trigger a chain of illegal abuses and changes for most of the people in the zone.
Not sure why you feel the need to use slavery or communist as an example here, instead of, for instance, secessionist.
Maybe you expect to elicit a sense of horror in your readers?
Maybe you expect to elicit a sense of horror in your readers?
Well, some of the ingredients here are the comrades of the self claimed anticapitalist party Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP) asking for some veeery peculiar things, (i.e. proposing to expropriate the Cathedral of Barcelona to make a market and a school of music there), and there was also a larvate (and sometimes not so larvate) racism and harassment against non indepentendist spaniards that last for years.
Taking all of this in mind and much other things, I think that can be taken as a fair example. Not equal, but much closer than you could expect.
Taking all of this in mind and much other things, I think that can be taken as a fair example. Not equal, but much closer than you could expect.
I checked.
CUP, 8% of the votes. The other pro-independence parties mostly from the right.
There goes the communism thing, what about the slavery thing?
It seems to me that you are trying again the same trick.
CUP, 8% of the votes. The other pro-independence parties mostly from the right.
There goes the communism thing, what about the slavery thing?
It seems to me that you are trying again the same trick.
Is a mix between extreme leftists and conservative elites trying to save themselves from corruption charges. Is a curious mix, I admit it.
In any case, again, was an example. Not meant to be taken literally.
In any case, again, was an example. Not meant to be taken literally.
larvate -> latent
Despots rarely give up without a fight. I question whether Catalans are willing to pay with their blood to gain their freedom. Clearly Rajoy is happy to shed their blood in order to keep them in thralldom.
The senate in Madrid just voted to trigger article 155 of the Spanish constitution, which allows them to cancel the regional government.
That should stop tax money flowing...
I could only find an article in Spanish as it only happened a few minutes ago: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=http...
Edit: Looks like the BBC has updated the article to include this now.
That should stop tax money flowing...
I could only find an article in Spanish as it only happened a few minutes ago: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=http...
Edit: Looks like the BBC has updated the article to include this now.
If they just declared independence, why would they expect tax money from the government they just separated from?
The cynic in me says “because humans are like that”. For example, one elected UKIP official expected the EU to pay for a road in the UK after brexit.
Wouldn’t be surprised if either Spain or Catalonia now acts confused when someone puts an armed customs inspector on the border roads between them.
Wouldn’t be surprised if either Spain or Catalonia now acts confused when someone puts an armed customs inspector on the border roads between them.
Not sure what you mean by "after Brexit", but the UK is a full member of the European Union. If the EU has current obligations to finance that road project, whatever that may be, then of course it has to fulfill them.
That would be far too sensible. I mean this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38153180
Which seems to refer to this: http://gov.wales/topics/transport/roads/schemes/m4/corridor-...
Which is currently “planned” and won’t start until next summer at the earliest.
Which seems to refer to this: http://gov.wales/topics/transport/roads/schemes/m4/corridor-...
Which is currently “planned” and won’t start until next summer at the earliest.
Ha, thanks. To give the guy the benefit of the doubt, he did seem to be talking about Ireland more specifically, and about basically defrauding the EU (which he presumably doesn't like much). But yes, more likely he's just an idiot.
Was this David Rowlands, one of seven Ukip MPs in the Welsh National Assembly? Who, specifically, did he ask to pay for the road?
It was. The BBC reports he wanted to explore the “Trans-European highways fund” to pay through the Republic of Ireland.
I did a bit of looking, and it looks like that fund is also used for projects in non-EU member states. Further, if the UK has been paying into the fund, directly or indirectly, it would make sense for them to explore ways to get funding for their own projects before or even immediately after withdrawing from the EU, especially considering that the fund is already used in non-member states.
Hm, interesting.
I still doubt that fund would pay up, as my gut feeling says that in the event of UK leaving the customs union (current stated goal), then it would make more sense to divert shipping around the UK rather than use the UK as a bridge between two shipping ports for faster RoI-Continent transit.
But that’s just speculation on my part, I don’t know the rules by which it operates.
I still doubt that fund would pay up, as my gut feeling says that in the event of UK leaving the customs union (current stated goal), then it would make more sense to divert shipping around the UK rather than use the UK as a bridge between two shipping ports for faster RoI-Continent transit.
But that’s just speculation on my part, I don’t know the rules by which it operates.
Also, aren't they richer than the rest of Spain and don't need their money?
No one ever went broke acting on politicians not being the sharpest people around.
Tax money will still flow, but it will b administered by other people.
Actually, that is one of the central demands by catalans: money should not "flow" to Catalonia via Spain.
Actually, that is one of the central demands by catalans: money should not "flow" to Catalonia via Spain.
The New York Times has it now https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/europe/spain-catalo...
What does this even mean: "declared independence"?
Have they ordered borders to be closed? Bank accounts to be frozen until new currency is introduced? Have people started throwing their Spanish passports and their euros into the trash?
It just sounds like a lot like pure political manoeuvre without any kind of practical consequence.
Have they ordered borders to be closed? Bank accounts to be frozen until new currency is introduced? Have people started throwing their Spanish passports and their euros into the trash?
It just sounds like a lot like pure political manoeuvre without any kind of practical consequence.
I think for them it's only about having their own constitution and sovereignty. Another one of their goals might be to stop using the Spanish language, which a big part of the population has done already.
They are perfectly fine with open borders, being a part of the European Union, using the Euro as currency, and even with keeping their Spanish passports (i.e. double nationality).
They are perfectly fine with open borders, being a part of the European Union, using the Euro as currency, and even with keeping their Spanish passports (i.e. double nationality).
I'm sure they would, but once they are independent, they can't legally use the Euro. Would they even continue to be Spanish citizens and be able to travel freely in the Schengen area? A new state takes years to join the EU (assuming the EU would accept). How about sovereign debt?
All these (really important) issues that should be part of an extensive debate so that people could understand better what is expecting them on the other side.
Also, I don't know any country that allows constitutional changes to be done via a simple majority in parliament (they had 3 votes above simple majority).
The only reasonable exit at this point, I believe, is to have new elections.
All these (really important) issues that should be part of an extensive debate so that people could understand better what is expecting them on the other side.
Also, I don't know any country that allows constitutional changes to be done via a simple majority in parliament (they had 3 votes above simple majority).
The only reasonable exit at this point, I believe, is to have new elections.
Of course they can continue to use the euro. They wouldn't have any control over it, but a country can use whatever currency their population will accept. IIRC there are a few small nations that don't really have their own currency and just use USD instead.
You are right, I oversimplified it in my comment. People could still trade using euros. But I guess the only way to get more currency in the country would be via foreign trade. Banks would not have access to EU QE, deposit guarantees might be no longer valid and the state could no longer print currency to replace old ones.
Zimbawe did exactly that after their hyperinflation reached a point where they had to print 100 trillion Zimbabwean dollar banknotes.
Canadian perspective here. We also had our troubles with separatism.
Back from the 60's till the late 90's Quebec had very good and valid reasons to separate from Canada, mostly because of prejudice against their language and culture. They came very close to separating from Canada in 2 referenda.
A few things decreased these tensions: compromise, increased economic dependence, immigration and cultural change within Quebec. Canada conceded a lot of rights to Quebec and increased the use of French within the English speaking part of the country. The immigrants that arrived in Quebec didn't have the memory of past grievances. The Quebecois culture changed becoming more cosmopolitan and less Catholic (we call it "The Quiet Revolution").
After these changes, separatism is today a political liability in Quebec. Their separatist party only succeeds when they disguise their separatism.
Back from the 60's till the late 90's Quebec had very good and valid reasons to separate from Canada, mostly because of prejudice against their language and culture. They came very close to separating from Canada in 2 referenda.
A few things decreased these tensions: compromise, increased economic dependence, immigration and cultural change within Quebec. Canada conceded a lot of rights to Quebec and increased the use of French within the English speaking part of the country. The immigrants that arrived in Quebec didn't have the memory of past grievances. The Quebecois culture changed becoming more cosmopolitan and less Catholic (we call it "The Quiet Revolution").
After these changes, separatism is today a political liability in Quebec. Their separatist party only succeeds when they disguise their separatism.
Hi, Québécois here.
> very good and valid reasons to separate from Canada, mostly because of prejudice against their language and culture
It's rare to see this acknowledged outside of Quebec, so, thanks.
> increased the use of French within the English speaking part of the country
It's important to note for the comparison that this has been eroded extremely quickly. Supreme court judges don't have to speak French, and the Supreme Court ruled (6-3) two years ago that provinces are not obliged to translate laws into French. The lesson here is don't take things for granted that aren't in the constitution. (I don't know how much language is an issue for Catalonia but I can only assume it's a part of it.)
> The Quebecois culture changed becoming more cosmopolitan and less Catholic (we call it "The Quiet Revolution").
I don't think you meant to misdirect here, but the Quiet Revolution happened in the 60s, and is therefore not a consequence of the modern sovereigntist movements which lead up to the first referendum in 1980.
> After these changes, separatism is today a political liability in Quebec. Their separatist party only succeeds when they disguise their separatism.
It is still an issue, in the sense that some people will vote for the party most "likely" to hold a referendum. In practice, we all know the status quo is too profitable for any powerful party to attempt real change.
It is also important to note that Quebec still very much feels like a different nation, to me at least, and we often diverge strongly on political issues related to culture. See this map from 2011: https://imgur.com/gallery/w3uoK9W
As long as this "two solitudes" phenomenon persists, the separatist movement will continue to exist. It is doubtful to me that there are any concessions on the part of Canada that could bridge this gap, but I'm certain that Spain is different, in that it could effectively have killed the whole affair with simple financial negotiations. In hindsight, the lack of openness to compromise was quite obviously a shortsighted decision.
> very good and valid reasons to separate from Canada, mostly because of prejudice against their language and culture
It's rare to see this acknowledged outside of Quebec, so, thanks.
> increased the use of French within the English speaking part of the country
It's important to note for the comparison that this has been eroded extremely quickly. Supreme court judges don't have to speak French, and the Supreme Court ruled (6-3) two years ago that provinces are not obliged to translate laws into French. The lesson here is don't take things for granted that aren't in the constitution. (I don't know how much language is an issue for Catalonia but I can only assume it's a part of it.)
> The Quebecois culture changed becoming more cosmopolitan and less Catholic (we call it "The Quiet Revolution").
I don't think you meant to misdirect here, but the Quiet Revolution happened in the 60s, and is therefore not a consequence of the modern sovereigntist movements which lead up to the first referendum in 1980.
> After these changes, separatism is today a political liability in Quebec. Their separatist party only succeeds when they disguise their separatism.
It is still an issue, in the sense that some people will vote for the party most "likely" to hold a referendum. In practice, we all know the status quo is too profitable for any powerful party to attempt real change.
It is also important to note that Quebec still very much feels like a different nation, to me at least, and we often diverge strongly on political issues related to culture. See this map from 2011: https://imgur.com/gallery/w3uoK9W
As long as this "two solitudes" phenomenon persists, the separatist movement will continue to exist. It is doubtful to me that there are any concessions on the part of Canada that could bridge this gap, but I'm certain that Spain is different, in that it could effectively have killed the whole affair with simple financial negotiations. In hindsight, the lack of openness to compromise was quite obviously a shortsighted decision.
The lesson here: allow the Chinese to create a real estate bubble, so your country can have the economic resources to placate and pay off places you've colonized.
Within a decade of the Canadian real estate bubble pop, Quebec will be an independent nation. Mark my words.
Within a decade of the Canadian real estate bubble pop, Quebec will be an independent nation. Mark my words.
Would you please stop posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We have enough trouble with flamewars as it is, and you've unfortunately been doing this quite a bit. If you'd read the guidelines and stick to them when commenting here, we'd appreciate it: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
And by far the least substantiated and most insulting comment in many threads is you saying "flame" and "flamebait" all the time. This term does not have a very good definition. It's very hard for anyone to know what exactly it is that you're trying to regulate when you use such a vague and condescending colloquialism. And you do it in like half of your posts.
If you don't see what's wrong with what you posted above, read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take them to heart. It's not hard to use this site as intended if you want to.
I presume this is just you and me talking right now, right? So, just man-to-man, how have I provided less substance than the comment I replied to? That comment was 100% opinion about causality, and that opinion left out an extraordinarily salient facts about other conditions with the Quebecois Separatist Movement and Canada in general.
I understand if you dislike my tone, and if you want to purge this place of people who aren't as docile as you'd prefer, and that's obviously your decision. But I'm not trolling. I am like this. Prior to hitting post, I turned to a colleague who was reading that comment and called the previous commenter names that I did not include in my post. But that's what you get with me. I'm quite possibly the best participant on this board when it comes to fintech, and my job is to think out of the box. That may mean that I act outside of the box, too, and if you want this place to not include people like me, so be it.
I understand if you dislike my tone, and if you want to purge this place of people who aren't as docile as you'd prefer, and that's obviously your decision. But I'm not trolling. I am like this. Prior to hitting post, I turned to a colleague who was reading that comment and called the previous commenter names that I did not include in my post. But that's what you get with me. I'm quite possibly the best participant on this board when it comes to fintech, and my job is to think out of the box. That may mean that I act outside of the box, too, and if you want this place to not include people like me, so be it.
It's not true, they haven't declared independence. This is a resolution proposal, which means it's not a law and it has no legal value (I mean, not even from the point of view of a pro-independence judge/lawyer). It's a proposal asking the Catalan government to declare independence.
But it's fulfilling its purpose, which is to escalate things in a political sense while maintaining the status-quo in the legal realm: it's a provocation to the Spanish government, seeking an over-reaction from the Spanish government, with the aim to maintain the moral victory over Spain in the matter of independence.
But it's fulfilling its purpose, which is to escalate things in a political sense while maintaining the status-quo in the legal realm: it's a provocation to the Spanish government, seeking an over-reaction from the Spanish government, with the aim to maintain the moral victory over Spain in the matter of independence.
My understanding from these articles is that the referendum was that -- a resolution proposal. But the most recent vote (70 for, 10 against, 2 abstains, out of 135 representatives) is a direct declaration of independence.
I don't speak Spanish and I can't find any primary sources on it, but this is what all the news sources that I have seen are saying. If you have more information or citations, I'd love to see them.
Here are some sources saying it was a declaration of independence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/spanish-governmen...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-day-of-fireworks-in-c...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41771294
Also, (sigh), the twitter-based declaration from the government of Catalan itself:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/923908635520053248
I don't speak Spanish and I can't find any primary sources on it, but this is what all the news sources that I have seen are saying. If you have more information or citations, I'd love to see them.
Here are some sources saying it was a declaration of independence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/spanish-governmen...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-day-of-fireworks-in-c...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41771294
Also, (sigh), the twitter-based declaration from the government of Catalan itself:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/923908635520053248
It's a declaration of independence, approved in a resolution proposal, which means it's a petition to the Catalan government, not a law or anything like that. Which means it hasn't changed the legal body at all. The Catalan government could also ignore the petition, as it's not a binding mandate, just a petition.
My sources? I am Spanish and I have friends who are lawyers.
EDIT: You mention the Catalan Gov's twitter. Well, of course, they will say whatever they want. Their aim is to provoke the Spanish government.
My sources? I am Spanish and I have friends who are lawyers.
EDIT: You mention the Catalan Gov's twitter. Well, of course, they will say whatever they want. Their aim is to provoke the Spanish government.
I'm unclear on who exactly you're saying the players are here. I though that this vote was undertaken by the Catalan Government -- namely, the parliament. Are these distinct organizations? Who, exactly, are you saying the Catalan Parliament is petitioning?
The Catalan Parliament and the Catalan Government are very distinct bodies. The Catalan Parliament is just like congress in the US: it also includes representatives of the opposition. They are the lawmakers. The Catalan Gov is the body that applies laws and it includes no member from the opposition.
Yes, the Catalan Parliament is petitioning. At least in the formal legal realm.
Yes, the Catalan Parliament is petitioning. At least in the formal legal realm.
So legally, does the Catalan Government have to comply with that petition? And if not, wouldn't that mean the Catalan Parliament doesn't actually have any real authority? Or is there some other legal mechanism they could use to force the Catalan Government to comply?
The executive branch, the "Catalan Government", doesn't have to comply with that petition, because resolution proposals are non-binding. The Catalan Parliament _does_ have real authority, because they have the legal authority to pass/approve laws (which a resolution proposal is not), and those laws are of course legally binding.
It's just that the parliament, in this case, has decided not to approve a law but a resolution proposal. Of course, they chose so to cover themselves and reduce the personal legal risks/repercussions for congressmen of approving this so-called "declaration of independence". Also the vote was secret because of that reason.
It's just that the parliament, in this case, has decided not to approve a law but a resolution proposal. Of course, they chose so to cover themselves and reduce the personal legal risks/repercussions for congressmen of approving this so-called "declaration of independence". Also the vote was secret because of that reason.
I'm confused. A petition to the Catalan government, by the Catalan parliament? They're petitioning themselves?
“government” here seems to mean roughly what, in the American system, would be called the “administration” or “executive branch”.
From the procedural descriptions, this looks less like what Americans would think of as a “request” or “petition” than passing a bill and sending it for the assent of the executive (which might be given or withheld), as is the typical mode of legislation in the US system (both at the federal level and in the states.)
From the procedural descriptions, this looks less like what Americans would think of as a “request” or “petition” than passing a bill and sending it for the assent of the executive (which might be given or withheld), as is the typical mode of legislation in the US system (both at the federal level and in the states.)
The parliament and the government are distinct bodies. The parliament are the lawmakers, they are directly elected, and it includes the opposition. The Catalan Gov is not directly elected: it's elected by the parliament, and they don't make laws, they apply them.
So I found [1] which appears to contain the actual text used in the resolution.
> CONSTITUÏM la República catalana, com a Estat independent i sobirà, de dret, democràtic i social.
Which Google translates as
> WE CONSTITUTE THE Catalan Republic, as an independent and sovereign State, of social and democratic law.
It certainly sounds like a declaration of independence. Since the very act of making the declaration is de jure illegal, it's not clear to me that there's a formality that must be observed for this to be made more "official".
[1] http://www.elpuntavui.cat/politica/article/17-politica/12696...
> CONSTITUÏM la República catalana, com a Estat independent i sobirà, de dret, democràtic i social.
Which Google translates as
> WE CONSTITUTE THE Catalan Republic, as an independent and sovereign State, of social and democratic law.
It certainly sounds like a declaration of independence. Since the very act of making the declaration is de jure illegal, it's not clear to me that there's a formality that must be observed for this to be made more "official".
[1] http://www.elpuntavui.cat/politica/article/17-politica/12696...
It's inside a preamble/preface of what is basically a non-law proposal. If a preamble inside a law has no normative effect, a preamble in a non-law proposal (asking the Catalan government to "please" do something) has the legal effect of a letter to the Three Wise Men.
Nothing that they do has legal value. The Catalan government has been acting outside the law for several weeks already.
Let's see how long this very post-modern independence declaration stays (mostly) peaceful. If non-violence is maintained, even in the context of the adversarial positions (unionists VS non-unionists) we may have a situation of overlapping sovereignties in same (or mostly same) territory.
I disliked the populist and the un-democratic tone set by both sides on this matter since the referendum, but if this works out peacefully it may set a precedent for future group sovereignty movements.
Overall, I think this is another nail in the still open coffin of westphalian-nation-states.
I disliked the populist and the un-democratic tone set by both sides on this matter since the referendum, but if this works out peacefully it may set a precedent for future group sovereignty movements.
Overall, I think this is another nail in the still open coffin of westphalian-nation-states.
What I do not understand is how the EU can stand by and watch as one of its member countries limits citizen freedom? Anybody should be able to hold a vote on anything they like. You should not be able to declare a referendum "illegal" (it might turn out that the results have no legal standing, but that doesn't make the vote or the voting itself "illegal").
I am worried that the EU doesn't hold true to its core values.
I am worried that the EU doesn't hold true to its core values.
This gets into a deeper philosophical conversation of what is _legal_. Legality is a social construct. After the America civil war, the the succession of the South was declared illegal.
http://khanism.org/security/legality/
It was also once legal to own slaves and legal for merchants to deny sales and service to blacks. Homosexuality was once illegal. If there is enough moral outrage and enough of the population backing a movement, the legality can change since it is a pure social construct based the belief of the people.
For example, people in Texas who want a succession movement. It will never happen because although there are some very loud people for it, less than 2% of the entire population actually supports such an idea. If it one day changes to 60% ~ 70% .. or even up to 80%, what's legal at the Federal level simply won't matter. At that point we'll see the David Graeber argument play out; namely that States work because of their monopoly on violence.
We see this today when it comes to American states with recreational cannibals, illegal at the Federal level, yet socially and morally accepted within the states that have legalized it (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, etc.)
Personally, I hope I see Cascadia succeeded in my lifetime. I think that would be awesome.
http://khanism.org/security/legality/
It was also once legal to own slaves and legal for merchants to deny sales and service to blacks. Homosexuality was once illegal. If there is enough moral outrage and enough of the population backing a movement, the legality can change since it is a pure social construct based the belief of the people.
For example, people in Texas who want a succession movement. It will never happen because although there are some very loud people for it, less than 2% of the entire population actually supports such an idea. If it one day changes to 60% ~ 70% .. or even up to 80%, what's legal at the Federal level simply won't matter. At that point we'll see the David Graeber argument play out; namely that States work because of their monopoly on violence.
We see this today when it comes to American states with recreational cannibals, illegal at the Federal level, yet socially and morally accepted within the states that have legalized it (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, etc.)
Personally, I hope I see Cascadia succeeded in my lifetime. I think that would be awesome.
> American states with recreational cannibals, illegal at the Federal level, yet socially and morally accepted in Washington, Oregon, California...
Wow. You guys are very strange sometimes... XDDD ;)
(Halloween is coming. Yup. Definitely. I can feel it in the air).
Wow. You guys are very strange sometimes... XDDD ;)
(Halloween is coming. Yup. Definitely. I can feel it in the air).
Contrary to what some Brexiter's make out, the EU really has quite limited powers over member countries. There's not much it can do in these kind of disputes.
Inaction has always been the EU's prefered MO. Only when the shit really hits the fan will they act.
Because one of the core tenants of the EU is rule of law. And secession is illegal .
This comment does not address the question the parent post asked, which explicitly was about "voting", not "secessing".
The problem is that this independence movement is not really an independence movement. In the modern world, no political entity can truly be independent. All are dependent on their neighbors.
True independence became extinct when people stopped living subsistence agricultural lives.
So the Catalan issue is more about how the EU is structured and whether nation states are the appropriate level of division for the different territories in the EU.
Even outside the EU, nation states like Ukraine cannot be independent because they have too much dependency on Russia, the USA, China, Turkey and so on.
Sovereignty is another question, but confusing it with independence is wrong.
True independence became extinct when people stopped living subsistence agricultural lives.
So the Catalan issue is more about how the EU is structured and whether nation states are the appropriate level of division for the different territories in the EU.
Even outside the EU, nation states like Ukraine cannot be independent because they have too much dependency on Russia, the USA, China, Turkey and so on.
Sovereignty is another question, but confusing it with independence is wrong.
Just in case this converges into normality (if it becomes), how do you think this could affect to investment of tech startups in Barcelona area?
Startups should take this question very seriously, if in their future plans are expecting to sell anything, the tiniest of their products or services, to the rest of Spaniards.
Tech people working for the regional government to promote the independence of Catalonia were basically fired a few hours ago by the president Rajoy. They have a problem now (but are available again).
Tech people working for the regional government to promote the independence of Catalonia were basically fired a few hours ago by the president Rajoy. They have a problem now (but are available again).
I do hope this announcement will not turn into a civil war or something similar.
Our startup has been selected to start NUMA winter batch next week, and the last thing we want to have is blood on the street.
Our startup has been selected to start NUMA winter batch next week, and the last thing we want to have is blood on the street.
Hard to predict. Not looking good on the short term, but who knows what the Catalan government might do to change that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how this has affected the economy and real estate market in Barcelona?
So far it is life as usual here.
Since October 1st, 2017, more than 800 companies have moved their official address to outside of Catalunya. They tend to be larger firms. To be fair, a few have moved TO Catalunya during that same period.
Tourism bookings are down 20% on this time last year. Tourism is a significant part of the Catalan economy.
Real estate - too soo to tell. I think real estate prices probably trail events by some months.
Since October 1st, 2017, more than 800 companies have moved their official address to outside of Catalunya. They tend to be larger firms. To be fair, a few have moved TO Catalunya during that same period.
Tourism bookings are down 20% on this time last year. Tourism is a significant part of the Catalan economy.
Real estate - too soo to tell. I think real estate prices probably trail events by some months.
Maybe it's time to come visit. :)
Looking for a flat in Barcelona right now and I can tell you prices haven't moved in the slightest. Maybe that will change now, though.
I was in BCN a few days ago, and one year prior, as well. Everything seemed very normal, both in the touristic and non-touristic areas. The former was full of foreigners, just as it was a year ago. As for the latter area, I went to a large mall on the outskirts where seemingly only locals were, and it was also super full.
Around 1600 companies had left the area since 1 octobre. If i'm not wrong recession index are defined as two consecutive trimesters of economical decline, so we'll need to wait until June 2018 to answer correctly how (and if) this was affected the economy.
Yeah, as a native North American English speaker, I will say that the courts are definitely part of what I understand government to be, and it would be very confusing to think of the government as only consisting of the legislature.
You mean as an American (or I guess Mexican) English speaker. All parliamentary systems (including Canada) do not have an independent judiciary or executive. The Westminster system is founded on parliamentary sovereignty -- that is parliament can basically do as it pleases.
I don't have a lot to contribute to this relatively serious topic and development in world politics.
What I can contribute, though, is that if you want a fun perspective on the history surrounding the creation of Spain, then I recommend picking up Europa Universalis IV next time it's on Steam sale and starting a campaign as either Castile or Aragon. You can create Spain after you conquer Granada and if you enter into a royal marriage with your other half.
Game isn't 100% historically accurate, but it's got enough that you may spend as much time reading wikipedia on various regions, events, people as you do playing the actual game.
What I can contribute, though, is that if you want a fun perspective on the history surrounding the creation of Spain, then I recommend picking up Europa Universalis IV next time it's on Steam sale and starting a campaign as either Castile or Aragon. You can create Spain after you conquer Granada and if you enter into a royal marriage with your other half.
Game isn't 100% historically accurate, but it's got enough that you may spend as much time reading wikipedia on various regions, events, people as you do playing the actual game.
You can not just ignore the right of 2M people to self-determination, and that is exactly what Spain has been doing for many years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendu...
The "Yes" side won, with 2,044,038 (92.01%) voting for independence and 177,547 (7.99%) voting against, on a turnout of 43.03%
Calls for dialogue and negotiation, which lasted until the very last minute, failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendu...
The "Yes" side won, with 2,044,038 (92.01%) voting for independence and 177,547 (7.99%) voting against, on a turnout of 43.03%
Calls for dialogue and negotiation, which lasted until the very last minute, failed.
You also can't just ignore the Constitutional rights of the 3M Catalans who didn't vote yes and move forward unilaterally with a declaration of Independence. The Constitution holds the entire government accountable—there is no "dialog" to be had outside of changing it.
The Catalan Parliament didn't even have the votes to change their own Statutes of Autonomy!
The Catalan Parliament didn't even have the votes to change their own Statutes of Autonomy!
This was just a rhetoric declaration as they knew that the government would trigger the 155 article moments after this declaration.
In practical terms, it means nothing. At least nothing for Catalonia as a region. The Catalonian government, however, will face rebellion charges on Monday. They can get up to 30 years in prison.
Why did they do this ? No idea. I hope someday we can get to know the intrahistory of all this.
In practical terms, it means nothing. At least nothing for Catalonia as a region. The Catalonian government, however, will face rebellion charges on Monday. They can get up to 30 years in prison.
Why did they do this ? No idea. I hope someday we can get to know the intrahistory of all this.
Because they feel they have a mandate?
Or said differently, what would you do? You campaigned for it, organized a referendum, won it and now you do not follow through? What would your voters say?
Or said differently, what would you do? You campaigned for it, organized a referendum, won it and now you do not follow through? What would your voters say?
>>> Because they feel they have a mandate?
This is basically what they say, but this only appeal the people's emotions, making them appear as altruist servants of the Catalonian people. Sorry, I am too old to believe in fairytales. No offense.
This is basically what they say, but this only appeal the people's emotions, making them appear as altruist servants of the Catalonian people. Sorry, I am too old to believe in fairytales. No offense.
Don"t follow you. Are you are too old to believe in the fairy tale of honestly implementing your campaign promises, so you prefer the proven method of lying to the ellectorate?
What honest politicians you old realists aspire to: those in the respectable business of doing whatever they want to, completely disregarding any promises made?
I bet you also welcome corruption since, you know, how would anyone believe in, or even aspire to, the "fairy tale" of uncorruptible polititians!
You are certainly a sensible realist!
What honest politicians you old realists aspire to: those in the respectable business of doing whatever they want to, completely disregarding any promises made?
I bet you also welcome corruption since, you know, how would anyone believe in, or even aspire to, the "fairy tale" of uncorruptible polititians!
You are certainly a sensible realist!
>>> I bet you also welcome corruption
Don't be a jerk. You seem to be a clever person. This is not what I meant. And you know it.
My position in quite simple. I do not believe in politician's altruism. They are all going to prison and I do no think they are doing it for the Calalonian people. That's all. Time will tell.
Don't be a jerk. You seem to be a clever person. This is not what I meant. And you know it.
My position in quite simple. I do not believe in politician's altruism. They are all going to prison and I do no think they are doing it for the Calalonian people. That's all. Time will tell.
It's not about altruism. It's about doing what they promised. I do not care about their hidden motives (they are hidden, by definition, so who the hell knows what they really want to achieve). I care about politician X doing Y, as he said in the campaign. People elected him for Y, so if he does it, that's fine.
Now, you can wonder why people find Y so important, but it's not up to me to judge them: it is not important for me, but it's important for the majority, and as such I must respect it.
Now, you can wonder why people find Y so important, but it's not up to me to judge them: it is not important for me, but it's important for the majority, and as such I must respect it.
I just think that Y is a masquerade and the meat is in the hidden motives.
If the referendum is illegitimate, why suppress it?
There is a book, "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell. (Yes, the same one who wrote "1984" which is all about Big Brother).
He writes of his times as a soldier in the Spanish Civil War.
I recommend reading it as there seems to be quite a lot of similarities between what happened then and what is happening now. Much of the fighting takes place in Barcelona.
I recommend reading it as there seems to be quite a lot of similarities between what happened then and what is happening now. Much of the fighting takes place in Barcelona.
Here is a nice podcast on the history of the matter: http://www.historyhitpodcast.com/catalonia-tim-rees/
It's worth listening to to get a solid unbiased opinion on what is going on. In the media and forums like this opinions are often very biased.
It's worth listening to to get a solid unbiased opinion on what is going on. In the media and forums like this opinions are often very biased.
Spain is different. Spanish regions control big chunks of the public budget and Spanish parties rule everything. It was a matter of time that the population of the richest region and its own cultural stuff went nuts because of their rulers. Spain is broken, has suicided itself with this stupid regime.
That was the last chance for them, right? Interesting times... Rajoy is the Spanish Cameron.
The problem is not so much about Catalonia and Spain. There are plenty of such regions and ethnic groups in pretty much every country on the continent. If the ball starts rolling, it can mean going back a few centuries.
Or going forward? What's wrong with smaller States? What if Catalonia is recognized as it's own country, yet still decides to be an EU member State?
They gain autonomy, and they function the same way they have been. I don't see the issue at all. Let people be free. Smaller governing/sovereign regions can have huge benefits, especially in Europe since they sill have the solidarity of EU backing.
It's not like they're separating because they want to keep slavery.
They gain autonomy, and they function the same way they have been. I don't see the issue at all. Let people be free. Smaller governing/sovereign regions can have huge benefits, especially in Europe since they sill have the solidarity of EU backing.
It's not like they're separating because they want to keep slavery.
I think a Europe of Regions is exactly where we should be going. The nation state has had its day; nationalism is a deeply divisive ideology, responsible for so much war.
The EU acting as a leveller and lowest common denominator between states weakens the divisions between nation states, deliberately - precisely because of the dangers of nationalism. And with a weakened nation state, regionalism is relatively more important.
As for tax, defence, etc.; IMO these will sooner or later migrate to the EU level. I don't think regionalism is either unexpected or avoidable the way the EU has been going.
The EU acting as a leveller and lowest common denominator between states weakens the divisions between nation states, deliberately - precisely because of the dangers of nationalism. And with a weakened nation state, regionalism is relatively more important.
As for tax, defence, etc.; IMO these will sooner or later migrate to the EU level. I don't think regionalism is either unexpected or avoidable the way the EU has been going.
How would what you describe be any different from a large European 'nation'?
Suppressing people wanting self-determination has costs too. Thousands of people are killed every month because some group wants to keep it's rule over some territory or group of other people. Millions are reduced to poverty and stripped of their former living space every year.
Good? There is a scale in play here. Either the centralization of nations is good or bad, on a case by case basis.
For union - Centralization means more bargaining power in international negotiations because your economy is just physically larger. More tax revenue means the central government can do more ambitious things. Centralization is good for business because trade barriers are lower between providences and states than between countries.
By far, however, the greatest historic argument for large countries has been for militaristic purposes. Having a nation of a hundred million men spanning half a continent could historically walk all over smaller neighbors. This historic basis for centralization of power has fallen way by the wayside in the modern era of global communication and more importantly nuclear arms. It doesn't matter if France is smaller than Germany when France has hundreds of nukes and could remove humanity from the Earth a dozen times over.
For division - Minority cultures, groups, and people who simply do not agree with the majority opinions in a country but have solidarity in their region / culture are oppressed by the central government.
The arguments basically come down to an economic rationale for big centralization or a social desire for self determination and liberty. Now of course dissidents could want secession for good or ill - Indian independence from Britain was by almost any account a moral good, but the desire to secede from the US by confederates just to persist their industry of owning human beings was not. But fundamentally we should all be able to at least agree that righteous revolutions we agree with are justified and worth the economic cost to obtain liberty.
The debate over Catalonia shouldn't be along the lines of economic consequences from seceding because if Catalan is justified in what they are doing the freedom of its citizens has to supersede economic arguments to stay without liberty. Freedom has to come first before profit, and the debate should be if the Spanish governments has been legitimately oppressive of Catalan, and if you agree they have been, and you believe in liberty and self determination, you have to support their secession no matter the economic cost.Hygiene works by attaching an invisible "syntax context" value to all identifiers. When two identifiers are compared, both the identifiers' textural names and syntax contexts must be identical for the two to be considered equal.
It is probably very romantic an ideology, but democracy has always been rooted in romanticism.
For union - Centralization means more bargaining power in international negotiations because your economy is just physically larger. More tax revenue means the central government can do more ambitious things. Centralization is good for business because trade barriers are lower between providences and states than between countries.
By far, however, the greatest historic argument for large countries has been for militaristic purposes. Having a nation of a hundred million men spanning half a continent could historically walk all over smaller neighbors. This historic basis for centralization of power has fallen way by the wayside in the modern era of global communication and more importantly nuclear arms. It doesn't matter if France is smaller than Germany when France has hundreds of nukes and could remove humanity from the Earth a dozen times over.
For division - Minority cultures, groups, and people who simply do not agree with the majority opinions in a country but have solidarity in their region / culture are oppressed by the central government.
The arguments basically come down to an economic rationale for big centralization or a social desire for self determination and liberty. Now of course dissidents could want secession for good or ill - Indian independence from Britain was by almost any account a moral good, but the desire to secede from the US by confederates just to persist their industry of owning human beings was not. But fundamentally we should all be able to at least agree that righteous revolutions we agree with are justified and worth the economic cost to obtain liberty.
The debate over Catalonia shouldn't be along the lines of economic consequences from seceding because if Catalan is justified in what they are doing the freedom of its citizens has to supersede economic arguments to stay without liberty. Freedom has to come first before profit, and the debate should be if the Spanish governments has been legitimately oppressive of Catalan, and if you agree they have been, and you believe in liberty and self determination, you have to support their secession no matter the economic cost.Hygiene works by attaching an invisible "syntax context" value to all identifiers. When two identifiers are compared, both the identifiers' textural names and syntax contexts must be identical for the two to be considered equal.
It is probably very romantic an ideology, but democracy has always been rooted in romanticism.
Actually when visiting Spain I was really surprised how much of a federation it is vs a single unified country. If Spain is a federation, and Europe is a federation, dies it make sense to keep both?
This federation is only an outside appearance, though. Spanish gvt has the tools (and is willing to, and already did many times) to bend the laws from any of its regions' local governments.
And the cancelled laws were not all about independence. They were about protecting the people who can't pay for energy in winter or banning bullfights, among others.
And the cancelled laws were not all about independence. They were about protecting the people who can't pay for energy in winter or banning bullfights, among others.
That is incorrect. It might be your impression, but Spain is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. Catalonia has something around 5% of their state workers depending on the central government.
To me, it doesn't matter. If the Catalan government doesn't have freedom to create their own laws, and all the money goes through the main government, it matters very little who do those 95% people work for.
They do have plenty of freedom, own embassies, own top-level domain, lots of local laws, complete control over education (that is basically the foundations of the strategy of independentist movements during at least 20 years). It is basically the money what drives all this, you are spot on. I wonder what is your reference for regional freedom exactly? I think the next step really is total independence, which is what part of the society wants there.
I'm gonna clarify that I actually want the independence of Catalonia, because I think that's the only possible resolution, but I just disagree with that. It's a fact that Spanish autonomies have a lot of freedem in how to apply even the centrally decided laws.
[deleted]
People that are raising the red flag of a civil war aren't that far away from reality, but that would not be a civil war in Spain, but a civil war in Catalonia.
Catalonian independent politicians representing only a minority of the people voting have gone way far on their responsibilities and have caused huge damage to the Catalonian economy with hundreds of mid-large sized companies leaving their jurisdiction to other regions. It is only needed now that one of these huge companies closes (e.g. Seat) their factories to cause huge riots within the region.
Man, so messed up, so many interests. These idiots are playing with the lives of many people and they do not give a dime about it...
Catalonian independent politicians representing only a minority of the people voting have gone way far on their responsibilities and have caused huge damage to the Catalonian economy with hundreds of mid-large sized companies leaving their jurisdiction to other regions. It is only needed now that one of these huge companies closes (e.g. Seat) their factories to cause huge riots within the region.
Man, so messed up, so many interests. These idiots are playing with the lives of many people and they do not give a dime about it...
'Declares independence' or 'votes to declare independence'? The article offers two conflicting explanations of what happened. Does anybody know?
Nobody knows because they have never expressed their intention clearly (the most clear statement was the president of the local government saying "I declare the independence but suspend it for the moment"). So there it goes.
Well, quite - ambiguity all the way, so far. That should be reflected in the coverage, though. It wouldn't be the first time major news organisations have declared Catalonian independence.
"Laws change depending on who's making them. Cardassians one day, Federation the next – but justice is justice."
– Odo, 2369 ("A Man Alone")
How much representation does Catalan has in the central government and high court?
As Catalan has been operating independently, surely with its own police force and Catalan people in the army, can the central government force the Catalan to release power?
How much representation does Catalan has in the central government and high court?
As Catalan has been operating independently, surely with its own police force and Catalan people in the army, can the central government force the Catalan to release power?
I still don’t understand, which problem independence it’s going to solve for Catalonian people
Not having independence?
Regardless, if 90% of a population wishes to be independent, then they should be allowed to have that independence as long as both sides are prepared to adhere to sensible law and order, humane rights and decency.
regarding .cat domain TLD, will they be reclaimed?
I want to make a very clear claim here, as a Spaniard who lived in Menorca (one of the so called "Paixos Catalans", what the expansionist independentists call "their territories"). I used to speak Catalan (or rather, their local dialect). I was raised there, and I had a lot experiences that well, I think it's not the point of this.
What I want to say is: many, if not most, Spaniards (non-catalans) do actually support the idea of holding a referendum, me included. The problem is that it's constintuationally illegal, and we should have changed the Constitution for that. And we should have. However, is not that clear who should be allowed to vote there. The land of the Catalans belongs in theory to all the Spaniards, in the same way that the rest of the lands of Spain belong to the Catalans. Who is Catalan is also hard to define, since we all have Spanish passport. If I live there for 5 years, am I Catalan? Well, considering that a big majority of catalans do actually have family from other parts of Spain, is hard to argue there is any kind of pure genetic lineage. In theory, we should have allowed all Spaniards vote first on holding a referendum or not. And then also ask "the Catalans" under a clear definition of _who_ is Catalan and has the exclusive right to vote on the right to rule that land. Perhaps also we should have voted on different regions, since there are parts that don't want to be independent, or perhaps just want to be independent of Catalonia altogether (such is the case of Vall d'Aran).
Many people seems to have a very easy time blaming Spain of being an authoritarian country, without understanding the depth and complexity of the problem, or that what a government does doesn't represent what all the people want. They were not voted in to do this, they were voted because the other alternatives failed to deliver in many ways in previous mandates. It was a reactionary voting. There are many people in Spain claiming for referendums. And also many people in Spain that see the independence of Catalonia the only way to keep advancing as a country where other less favoured regions could also prosper.
Honestly, I wish people from other countries would double-check facts and go deeper in understanding the situation. While I'm very ashamed of what the police did in the votings, there is a longer story behind all this that has been sadly summarized by videos and pictures of that violent day. That was a terrible mistake from a government I don't feel identified with. I'm both ashamed of Spain and of Catalonia. I whish we knew how to live together. We are both going to do worse now. We are a fractured society. Both sides. Both sides lied, both sides manipulated.
Spain is a country of many cultures and languages. We could be an example of the world. But we are not. No Catalonia is not the only region with historical differences. Andalusia was the cultural center of Europe in the 10th century. Euskadi is an industrial powerhorse. Galicia has celtic roots. Canary Islands is a beautiful mix of Latin American culture, Africa and south Spain. And so it goes for many other regions.
As a Spaniard, I believe the best course of action is to split the country (sorry, I still don't buy that Spain conquered Catalonia, that just never happened, so yes, split a 500-years old country is the accurate definition).
‘I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success’ - Otto von Bismark
Well, actually maybe is time to try to start all over again. But please, check all historical facts and try to read both sides of the story. Don't buy that the Spaniards "are retrograde, old-fashined, stubborn, imperialistic, etc...", and the Catalans represent all good that happen in Spain, because that's unfair and untrue.
What I want to say is: many, if not most, Spaniards (non-catalans) do actually support the idea of holding a referendum, me included. The problem is that it's constintuationally illegal, and we should have changed the Constitution for that. And we should have. However, is not that clear who should be allowed to vote there. The land of the Catalans belongs in theory to all the Spaniards, in the same way that the rest of the lands of Spain belong to the Catalans. Who is Catalan is also hard to define, since we all have Spanish passport. If I live there for 5 years, am I Catalan? Well, considering that a big majority of catalans do actually have family from other parts of Spain, is hard to argue there is any kind of pure genetic lineage. In theory, we should have allowed all Spaniards vote first on holding a referendum or not. And then also ask "the Catalans" under a clear definition of _who_ is Catalan and has the exclusive right to vote on the right to rule that land. Perhaps also we should have voted on different regions, since there are parts that don't want to be independent, or perhaps just want to be independent of Catalonia altogether (such is the case of Vall d'Aran).
Many people seems to have a very easy time blaming Spain of being an authoritarian country, without understanding the depth and complexity of the problem, or that what a government does doesn't represent what all the people want. They were not voted in to do this, they were voted because the other alternatives failed to deliver in many ways in previous mandates. It was a reactionary voting. There are many people in Spain claiming for referendums. And also many people in Spain that see the independence of Catalonia the only way to keep advancing as a country where other less favoured regions could also prosper.
Honestly, I wish people from other countries would double-check facts and go deeper in understanding the situation. While I'm very ashamed of what the police did in the votings, there is a longer story behind all this that has been sadly summarized by videos and pictures of that violent day. That was a terrible mistake from a government I don't feel identified with. I'm both ashamed of Spain and of Catalonia. I whish we knew how to live together. We are both going to do worse now. We are a fractured society. Both sides. Both sides lied, both sides manipulated.
Spain is a country of many cultures and languages. We could be an example of the world. But we are not. No Catalonia is not the only region with historical differences. Andalusia was the cultural center of Europe in the 10th century. Euskadi is an industrial powerhorse. Galicia has celtic roots. Canary Islands is a beautiful mix of Latin American culture, Africa and south Spain. And so it goes for many other regions.
As a Spaniard, I believe the best course of action is to split the country (sorry, I still don't buy that Spain conquered Catalonia, that just never happened, so yes, split a 500-years old country is the accurate definition).
‘I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success’ - Otto von Bismark
Well, actually maybe is time to try to start all over again. But please, check all historical facts and try to read both sides of the story. Don't buy that the Spaniards "are retrograde, old-fashined, stubborn, imperialistic, etc...", and the Catalans represent all good that happen in Spain, because that's unfair and untrue.
Spanish here, I have family and home in Catalonia.
1) You need to read history to understand the situation. But not the history of the last 100 years, but of the last 1000. Catalonia was never independent, it was part of the Kingdom of Aragon. The kingdom of Aragon and the castle kingdom allied in a dynastic way and created what is known today as Spain. There is no
2) Voting is illegal, it is not illegal to vote but it is illegal to vote for independence from Spain. The illegality of their vote is supported by the judicial system, not political.
3) Despite being illegal, the Catalan people mobilized to express their opinion on 1-O. This was a popular expression, but not a democratic mandate since the votes were not supported by any international body and were not conducted in a public or transparent manner. Only 38% of Cataluá citizens voted, the remaining 62% did not participate in this vote.
4) Catalonia is a very strong autonomous region, with many economic links with Europe and the rest of Spain. Catalonia wants to receive more money and contribute less to the whole of Spain, which has led to certain tensions and a very unsympathetic attitude. Spanish politicians are particularly incompetent and corrupt, as are Catalan politicians who are accused of various flagrant corruption processes.
5) Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, have more arguments for independence, but they chose coexistence within the democratic framework. The government usually negotiates
6) The independentistas have voted secretly, they have not stood up to those who vote for them. The declaration of independence is temporary and ineffective. It will not provoke any conversation or dialogue, by the points expressed above.
7) Spain will apply Article 155, which will replace all the political, administrative and social structures of Catalonia's autonomy. Catalan politicians face criminal charges and high treason and will be tried by them. Independence fighters will argue for love, equality, brotherhood and happiness, while trying to shield themselves from the European Union and universal values. The world cannot understand their will, as they have been executed outside the democratic framework. On the contrary.
8) The republic has been proclaimed to conceal acts of corruption and incompetence on both sides. the solution is to dissolve the parliament and call elections. But democratic elections, not using the tools of any banana republic.
1) You need to read history to understand the situation. But not the history of the last 100 years, but of the last 1000. Catalonia was never independent, it was part of the Kingdom of Aragon. The kingdom of Aragon and the castle kingdom allied in a dynastic way and created what is known today as Spain. There is no
2) Voting is illegal, it is not illegal to vote but it is illegal to vote for independence from Spain. The illegality of their vote is supported by the judicial system, not political.
3) Despite being illegal, the Catalan people mobilized to express their opinion on 1-O. This was a popular expression, but not a democratic mandate since the votes were not supported by any international body and were not conducted in a public or transparent manner. Only 38% of Cataluá citizens voted, the remaining 62% did not participate in this vote.
4) Catalonia is a very strong autonomous region, with many economic links with Europe and the rest of Spain. Catalonia wants to receive more money and contribute less to the whole of Spain, which has led to certain tensions and a very unsympathetic attitude. Spanish politicians are particularly incompetent and corrupt, as are Catalan politicians who are accused of various flagrant corruption processes.
5) Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, have more arguments for independence, but they chose coexistence within the democratic framework. The government usually negotiates
6) The independentistas have voted secretly, they have not stood up to those who vote for them. The declaration of independence is temporary and ineffective. It will not provoke any conversation or dialogue, by the points expressed above.
7) Spain will apply Article 155, which will replace all the political, administrative and social structures of Catalonia's autonomy. Catalan politicians face criminal charges and high treason and will be tried by them. Independence fighters will argue for love, equality, brotherhood and happiness, while trying to shield themselves from the European Union and universal values. The world cannot understand their will, as they have been executed outside the democratic framework. On the contrary.
8) The republic has been proclaimed to conceal acts of corruption and incompetence on both sides. the solution is to dissolve the parliament and call elections. But democratic elections, not using the tools of any banana republic.
>> The illegality of their vote is supported by the judicial system, not political.
However it came about, that's a really political situation to be in. It sounds to me like Spain has set up a legal framework in which war is the only way to leave a democracy. I'm not familiar enough with Catalonia's motive's here to judge their decision, but that's a shitty situation in which to make that decision. And to be clear, I think that's a problem with a lot democracies. You end up with tyranny of the majority, and you either "pay the price for living in a civilized society" or you end up in an armed battle. There's no, "oh okay - I'll stop using nationally-funded roads and you can stop taking my money to start wars elsewhere." I think this is subconsciously part of why the 2 parties in the US seem so irrational to each other - there's only a need to get 51% (or in very few cases 67%) and then protect your existing supporters - there's no need to make a system that works for almost everyone. So people feel alienated and defensive, but basically do the same thing that was done to them the second they get their foot in the door.
>> the votes were not supported by any international body and were not conducted in a public or transparent manner >> Only 38% of Cataluá citizens voted, the remaining 62% did not participate in this vote.
Huh - sounds like elections in the US too. #twins
However it came about, that's a really political situation to be in. It sounds to me like Spain has set up a legal framework in which war is the only way to leave a democracy. I'm not familiar enough with Catalonia's motive's here to judge their decision, but that's a shitty situation in which to make that decision. And to be clear, I think that's a problem with a lot democracies. You end up with tyranny of the majority, and you either "pay the price for living in a civilized society" or you end up in an armed battle. There's no, "oh okay - I'll stop using nationally-funded roads and you can stop taking my money to start wars elsewhere." I think this is subconsciously part of why the 2 parties in the US seem so irrational to each other - there's only a need to get 51% (or in very few cases 67%) and then protect your existing supporters - there's no need to make a system that works for almost everyone. So people feel alienated and defensive, but basically do the same thing that was done to them the second they get their foot in the door.
>> the votes were not supported by any international body and were not conducted in a public or transparent manner >> Only 38% of Cataluá citizens voted, the remaining 62% did not participate in this vote.
Huh - sounds like elections in the US too. #twins
The Catalan election was declared illegal before it started, with fairly heavy handed measures taken by the central government.
Whether you think that's reasonable or not, it's not really comparable to low turnouts in general elections.
Whether you think that's reasonable or not, it's not really comparable to low turnouts in general elections.
You mention democracy and the "tyranny of the majority", but that's exactly what a democracy is, a doubly edged sword. At this point Spain's citizens have the right to determine Catalonia's fate, just as the people living there.
Not saying that democracy is an end goal and should be protected against all odds, but if you don't like how democracy works, you're free to propose an alternative.
> "pay the price for living in a civilized society" or you end up in an armed battle
But that's how it has always been. In general the state has sovereignty over its territory, which is in general considered to be indivisible. And this is a civilized society, because in such a case people would hang for treason only a couple of hundred years ago.
If I can proclaim my own bedroom to be independent, making up my own flag, then what's the point of having countries with borders and a Constitution?
> "oh okay - I'll stop using nationally-funded roads and you can stop taking my money to start wars elsewhere."
Well, that would be nice, except that you're also occupying a land that belongs to all citizens of that country, being your "property" only because the country's constitution allows it. If you're no longer willing to uphold that constitution, if you want to be free from the state's rule and laws, then it's no longer your land, unless you're able to defend it.
So unless you have an army at your disposal, your only choice is either to bend over, or to move to another country, as people are in general free to seek their happiness elsewhere — unless you live in an isolated country that has closed its borders completely, like what happened in the Soviet block, in which case you're fucked, so I'm personally happy with the status quo.
> "pay the price for living in a civilized society" or you end up in an armed battle
But that's how it has always been. In general the state has sovereignty over its territory, which is in general considered to be indivisible. And this is a civilized society, because in such a case people would hang for treason only a couple of hundred years ago.
If I can proclaim my own bedroom to be independent, making up my own flag, then what's the point of having countries with borders and a Constitution?
> "oh okay - I'll stop using nationally-funded roads and you can stop taking my money to start wars elsewhere."
Well, that would be nice, except that you're also occupying a land that belongs to all citizens of that country, being your "property" only because the country's constitution allows it. If you're no longer willing to uphold that constitution, if you want to be free from the state's rule and laws, then it's no longer your land, unless you're able to defend it.
So unless you have an army at your disposal, your only choice is either to bend over, or to move to another country, as people are in general free to seek their happiness elsewhere — unless you live in an isolated country that has closed its borders completely, like what happened in the Soviet block, in which case you're fucked, so I'm personally happy with the status quo.
> If I can proclaim my own bedroom to be independent, making up my own flag, then what's the point of having countries with borders and a Constitution?
That's actually a very good question. If Catalonia can claim itself to be independent and make up it's own flag, then what's the point of having Spain include it within its borders and govern it with it's Constitution?
I think there are some very obvious answers to "why we need government", and "why Spain should exist". But if the costs start outweighing the benefits of those answers, and the people stop being able to answer that question to themselves, the government either needs to check itself, or the people should be free to leave.
>> if you want to be free from the state's rule and laws, then it's no longer your land, unless you're able to defend it.
And that's why we have civil wars, and they're horrible and should be avoided at all costs. If Spain chooses civil war over finding a peaceful way to satisfy Catalonian separatists (if that's what they're being called? Not sure), I call that a failure.
> if you don't like how democracy works, you're free to propose an alternative
On HN, yes, and I've been a part of good conversations along those lines. If Catalonia doesn't like how democracy works, are they free propose an alternative? Their vote's not perfect either, but they're not seeing many good, peaceful alternatives.
That's actually a very good question. If Catalonia can claim itself to be independent and make up it's own flag, then what's the point of having Spain include it within its borders and govern it with it's Constitution?
I think there are some very obvious answers to "why we need government", and "why Spain should exist". But if the costs start outweighing the benefits of those answers, and the people stop being able to answer that question to themselves, the government either needs to check itself, or the people should be free to leave.
>> if you want to be free from the state's rule and laws, then it's no longer your land, unless you're able to defend it.
And that's why we have civil wars, and they're horrible and should be avoided at all costs. If Spain chooses civil war over finding a peaceful way to satisfy Catalonian separatists (if that's what they're being called? Not sure), I call that a failure.
> if you don't like how democracy works, you're free to propose an alternative
On HN, yes, and I've been a part of good conversations along those lines. If Catalonia doesn't like how democracy works, are they free propose an alternative? Their vote's not perfect either, but they're not seeing many good, peaceful alternatives.
this is true for many countries.
as an example, the US constitution does not allow secession either.
many countries had civil wars for unification long time ago, hence why secession is not allowed constitutionally in a bunch of them.
as an example, the US constitution does not allow secession either.
many countries had civil wars for unification long time ago, hence why secession is not allowed constitutionally in a bunch of them.
You have to keep in mind that the civil war was over 150 years ago and the mood is quite different now. As a US citizen, I couldn't really tell you whether a state seceding would be met with war as in the past or if they would be allowed to quietly leave the union. There is always one state or another where some people think about it, and it seems like these discussions are never met with the hostility that Spain has shown to Catalonia.
I've wondered about this a lot lately. I had family in northern Colorado when this was going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Colorado#Potential_st.... It's relatively common there for people to identify more with the state than the nation, and for people to support the idea of state sovereignty (which is uncomfortable, since the Civil War was catalyzed by slavery, an instance in which every reasonable person would agree that individual sovereignty was already being grossly violated in a way that would justify war if that's what it took). But despite that feeling, many supported a motion to secede from the state and form a new one. It was quite popular within some of my social circles, but then it just fizzled out. Most of the anecdotal accounts of it I've heard indicate it fizzled out just because the governor planned to reject the idea and everyone saw that as a dead-end, so that was that.
Very fascinating, I think.
Very fascinating, I think.
How to solve voter turnout? free donuts?
Rajoy solved the problem of high voter turnout by having the federal police assault voters. Not exactly democratic.
Make elections legitimate and meaningful.
Turnout is low in Catalan independence referenda and US elections for different reasons. The former are viewed by opponents of independence as illegitimate: they are not approved by the central government and voting in them gives them the appearance of legitimacy. They're political tactic by the independence movement, and its opponents won't participate. The Spanish government could solve this by allowing an election, pledging to take the result seriously, and thereby answer the question for at least a generation.
A significant factor in low turnout in US elections can be explained by the non-competitiveness of elections (correlation coefficient between turnout and margin by state was -0.4 in the last presidential election). If more states were competitive or the president were elected by popular vote (or Congress by proportional representation), turnout might be very different.
Turnout is low in Catalan independence referenda and US elections for different reasons. The former are viewed by opponents of independence as illegitimate: they are not approved by the central government and voting in them gives them the appearance of legitimacy. They're political tactic by the independence movement, and its opponents won't participate. The Spanish government could solve this by allowing an election, pledging to take the result seriously, and thereby answer the question for at least a generation.
A significant factor in low turnout in US elections can be explained by the non-competitiveness of elections (correlation coefficient between turnout and margin by state was -0.4 in the last presidential election). If more states were competitive or the president were elected by popular vote (or Congress by proportional representation), turnout might be very different.
Haven't looked at the problem much, but I suspect it's a feeling of futility. If the problem in Spain is half the possible votes are illegal, I'd probably feel like whatever's going to happen through diplomatic channels is going to happen because that doesn't feel like a real election. In the US, most people live in either a red state or blue state and it'd take a heck of an upset to change that - and no one feels like a heck of an upset is coming. There are swing states where a tiny difference makes a huge difference nationally - and I suspect turnout is better in those states. But I haven't looked at it much - I could be wrong, and that would blow my theories to hell.
I think your idea is much better than everything else's, sadly. Yes, some form of tax return bonus would probably be the most effective mechanism.
Make individuals feel their votes matter. Tricky, because obvious math says they don't.
Mandatory voting, with real but minor punishments for not filing a ballot (but no requirement to actually vote for a candidate, to allow for cases where none of the above appeal).
Of course, this will never happen with the current political structure of the US, as the Republican Party works to aggressively reduce total voter turnout everywhere it can.
Of course, this will never happen with the current political structure of the US, as the Republican Party works to aggressively reduce total voter turnout everywhere it can.
How would you implement mandatory voting without doing what Republicans want to do to verify right-to-vote in the first place? Requirements to vote have been associated with racism in the past, sure, and the ideas are often stupid and pointless, but talking to foreigners, myself included, the opposition to having to show ID to vote seems stupid too.
If the law also made IDs free then I’d be ok with it. Pay to vote seems like a horrible system.
And “free if you spend hours on the phone and mailing forms back and forth to prove you’re poor” doesn’t count.
I would also need funding for sending out educational advertising in areas where there are high numbers of eligible voters without valid ID.
I don’t see Republicans making a good faith effort here though.
And “free if you spend hours on the phone and mailing forms back and forth to prove you’re poor” doesn’t count.
I would also need funding for sending out educational advertising in areas where there are high numbers of eligible voters without valid ID.
I don’t see Republicans making a good faith effort here though.
Voter ID, but getting a Voter ID is free, and every district has to have the same opening hours and the same number of voter ID registration places per 1000 citizen.
The issue is that certain actors in the US want to make voter ID mandatory, only registration places in the rich districts, and ensure the poor can never get one via cost/availability, etc.
In other countries, where this disenfranchisement never happened, say, Germany, mandatory ID for every human are laws few object to.
The issue is that certain actors in the US want to make voter ID mandatory, only registration places in the rich districts, and ensure the poor can never get one via cost/availability, etc.
In other countries, where this disenfranchisement never happened, say, Germany, mandatory ID for every human are laws few object to.
Use existing voter registrations.
If they make voting day a national holiday, and they make the ID free and easy to get, then maybe. I believe it's mandatory in Australia, would be interesting to learn how they've felt about it.
>Mandatory voting, with real but minor punishments for not filing a ballot
Exactly what they did in Catalonia. If you don't vote then your voice will not be heard.
Exactly what they did in Catalonia. If you don't vote then your voice will not be heard.
"You need to read history to understand the situation."
That is true if we want to analyze the question of whether or not Catalan "should" be independent from Spain, a question so murky and shot through with political philosophy, theory, and pragmatics that even two sides that stipulate all the same facts can come to different conclusions.
But for what johnnyfaehell was really getting at, which is a tactical and/or strategic analysis of the effectiveness of the moves the various sides have been making, we don't really need all that, we just need an understanding of human nature, with at best some slight elaborations for the slight deviations in local conditions.
I personally have no great opinion about whether Catalan should or should not be independent. Distinctly from that, though, it is fair to observe that Spain has handled this quite badly. While there is probably no solution in which they completely smooth things over, they have certainly taken multiple moves that are very clearly the simple, intuitive things that our genetically-imposed tribal political sense tells us to take when people challenge our rule, and which work (to some degree) in a tribal context of 100-ish people [1], but which at this scale were basically guaranteed to massively inflame the situation.
[1]: Albeit in a way that many people here would probably find generally unjust. The Big Man in the Tribe basically just telling a couple of rabble-rousers to shut up, and if necessary, getting some of his supporters to rough them up a bit to remind them who is in charge, "works", but a lot of us would find that fairly distasteful, because while our genetics tell us to do that, civilization requires other tactics in order to hold together. Scaling up that Big Man's action to a region breaks in multiple ways; for instance, if Catalan perceives itself as a separate tribe, then the "rough them up a bit" phase doesn't register as an internal tribe spat with our genetically-programmed politics, but warfare between two tribes, and that prompts a radically different response.
That is true if we want to analyze the question of whether or not Catalan "should" be independent from Spain, a question so murky and shot through with political philosophy, theory, and pragmatics that even two sides that stipulate all the same facts can come to different conclusions.
But for what johnnyfaehell was really getting at, which is a tactical and/or strategic analysis of the effectiveness of the moves the various sides have been making, we don't really need all that, we just need an understanding of human nature, with at best some slight elaborations for the slight deviations in local conditions.
I personally have no great opinion about whether Catalan should or should not be independent. Distinctly from that, though, it is fair to observe that Spain has handled this quite badly. While there is probably no solution in which they completely smooth things over, they have certainly taken multiple moves that are very clearly the simple, intuitive things that our genetically-imposed tribal political sense tells us to take when people challenge our rule, and which work (to some degree) in a tribal context of 100-ish people [1], but which at this scale were basically guaranteed to massively inflame the situation.
[1]: Albeit in a way that many people here would probably find generally unjust. The Big Man in the Tribe basically just telling a couple of rabble-rousers to shut up, and if necessary, getting some of his supporters to rough them up a bit to remind them who is in charge, "works", but a lot of us would find that fairly distasteful, because while our genetics tell us to do that, civilization requires other tactics in order to hold together. Scaling up that Big Man's action to a region breaks in multiple ways; for instance, if Catalan perceives itself as a separate tribe, then the "rough them up a bit" phase doesn't register as an internal tribe spat with our genetically-programmed politics, but warfare between two tribes, and that prompts a radically different response.
If you'll look at our history, there is no separation that happened peacefully.
Historically speaking, an independence declaration is equivalent to a declaration of war.
And Catalonia will receive no international support because all countries have regions with minorities that wished for independence at some point — well, except maybe from Russia, or other countries that want instability in the region.
Historically speaking, an independence declaration is equivalent to a declaration of war.
And Catalonia will receive no international support because all countries have regions with minorities that wished for independence at some point — well, except maybe from Russia, or other countries that want instability in the region.
The international/European response is not set in stone and could wildly vary based on the Spanish response. If they send in troops, and should those troops fire on civilians, the Spanish may well lose international support. They were heavily condemned just for their police actions around the referendum.
There also aren't that many countries that have serious internal strife in the western world anyway, that point is always wildly overstated. The UK has independence movements but they've already allowed a referendum so they may not care. Belgium and Russia have some serious internal trouble, but the importance of their support may be too small to matter (and indeed Russia may encourage discord). France and Italy? But are their minorities really serious enough? What else is there? The vast majority of Europe will swing towards what has the best optics, as will the US. Sure they may pick stability first, but if that's out because of civil war, it becomes anyones guess.
There also aren't that many countries that have serious internal strife in the western world anyway, that point is always wildly overstated. The UK has independence movements but they've already allowed a referendum so they may not care. Belgium and Russia have some serious internal trouble, but the importance of their support may be too small to matter (and indeed Russia may encourage discord). France and Italy? But are their minorities really serious enough? What else is there? The vast majority of Europe will swing towards what has the best optics, as will the US. Sure they may pick stability first, but if that's out because of civil war, it becomes anyones guess.
The international/European response is not set in stone and could wildly vary based on the Spanish response.
That's absolutely wrong. And thinking that Spain will need to fire on civilians is ridiculous. Either wishful thinking or you are ridiculously misinformed.
That's absolutely wrong. And thinking that Spain will need to fire on civilians is ridiculous. Either wishful thinking or you are ridiculously misinformed.
It's very difficult to predict what will happen and there has been considerable restraint so far, but Spain also had an armed separatist group for years (ETA), and crowd management can go very wrong very quickly.
The 2011 London riots were extremely severe and lasted three days, despite not really having any political basis or leadership, and there were plenty of rightwing politicians calling for military intervention.
The 2011 London riots were extremely severe and lasted three days, despite not really having any political basis or leadership, and there were plenty of rightwing politicians calling for military intervention.
I have no crystal ball, but most of this people are just entitled rich kids. There are a few gangs in the movement that are used to organized violence, but most of the people shouting in the streets will not stand real mambo for five minutes. I do fear Russia involvement. Putin sent a messenger from South Osetia.
How are people supposed to take you seriously if you call us entitled rich kids. How ignorant. Care to explain what this real mambo is supposed to be? Sending the military?
You don't need to take me seriously and I couldn't care less. The "mambo" is an expression that CUP and the like have used to define violence in the streets. So if you want any further definition ask your friends.
What I think will happen? Apart from what they themselves will do, nothing. Public officers, including regional police, won't resist since their payroll depends on them obeying orders. Politicians might play some games but they know that a single death will trigger the rebellion prosecution and get them jailed for 30 years.
So it will most likely amount to some unrest, demostration, vandalism and all the noise we're used to.
What I think will happen? Apart from what they themselves will do, nothing. Public officers, including regional police, won't resist since their payroll depends on them obeying orders. Politicians might play some games but they know that a single death will trigger the rebellion prosecution and get them jailed for 30 years.
So it will most likely amount to some unrest, demostration, vandalism and all the noise we're used to.
They are not my friends, thank you.
This 'Russians did it' meme is becoming prevalent. Is there evidence or just rumour?
Well, I never thought I'd see police in an EU member state physically attacking their fellow citizens in an attempt to prevent them from voting FFS, but that doesn't change the fact it happened. If they were willing to go that far, why not further?
We've seen police/military fire into people in many places during protests recently. The Ukranian Maidan protests, in Egypt, Turkey and of course Syria. Why would Spain be immune to events like these while the people are easily as riled up as they were in Ukraine? Spain happens to have a history of civil war too.
All it takes is for armed police/military to meet large angry crowds that won't back down. If Spain sends the military to arrest the Catalonian government, we may end up with both of the ingredients. Perhaps a new Syria is unlikely, but is something on the scale of Euromaidan really that hard to imagine?
All it takes is for armed police/military to meet large angry crowds that won't back down. If Spain sends the military to arrest the Catalonian government, we may end up with both of the ingredients. Perhaps a new Syria is unlikely, but is something on the scale of Euromaidan really that hard to imagine?
We've seen police/military fire into people in many places during protests recently. The Ukranian Maidan protests, in Egypt, Turkey and of course Syria.
I know nothing of Maidan protests. Spain has nothing to do with Egypt, Turkey or Syria. If Spain was remotely similar, every separatist would be jailed and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Why would Spain be immune to events like these while the people are easily as riled up as they were in Ukraine? Spain happens to have a history of civil war too.
This is terribly unfair. Worse. It's wrong. Not that our grandparents hadn't a civil war (they had) but the fact that this is any indication of environmental violence. Actually it's a disgusting unwarranted attack on an entire country.
All it takes is for armed police/military to meet large angry crowds that won't back down.
Police did meet angry crowds that won't back down last october 1st. There weren't shots or deads.
If Spain sends the military to arrest the Catalonian government, we may end up with both of the ingredients.
Spain would not send military to arrest someone. It would send police like any other regular country. If rogue regional police will shoot them, then we're not talking about an arrest, but about a full-blown armed rebellion. So please, stop spreading confusion.
I know nothing of Maidan protests. Spain has nothing to do with Egypt, Turkey or Syria. If Spain was remotely similar, every separatist would be jailed and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Why would Spain be immune to events like these while the people are easily as riled up as they were in Ukraine? Spain happens to have a history of civil war too.
This is terribly unfair. Worse. It's wrong. Not that our grandparents hadn't a civil war (they had) but the fact that this is any indication of environmental violence. Actually it's a disgusting unwarranted attack on an entire country.
All it takes is for armed police/military to meet large angry crowds that won't back down.
Police did meet angry crowds that won't back down last october 1st. There weren't shots or deads.
If Spain sends the military to arrest the Catalonian government, we may end up with both of the ingredients.
Spain would not send military to arrest someone. It would send police like any other regular country. If rogue regional police will shoot them, then we're not talking about an arrest, but about a full-blown armed rebellion. So please, stop spreading confusion.
The Scottish Government might support them - it's not much (we're only a semi-autonomous nation within the UK, so not exactly an international heavyweight) but they're not completely alone
This is what they did actually say:
'Commenting on referendum on Catalonia’s constitutional position, Scottish Cabinet Secretary said:
“The decision over Catalonia’s future direction is a matter for the people who live there, and the Catalan and Spanish Governments are perfectly entitled to take positions for and against independence.
“However, all peoples have the right to self-determination and to choose the form of government best suited to their needs, a principle which is enshrined in the UN Charter.
"The Edinburgh Agreement was an example of how two governments, with diametrically opposed views on whether or not Scotland should become independent, were able to come together to agree a process to allow the people to decide. It is essential that democracy and civil rights are respected in all countries.” '
https://news.gov.scot/news/statement-on-catalonia
'Commenting on referendum on Catalonia’s constitutional position, Scottish Cabinet Secretary said:
“The decision over Catalonia’s future direction is a matter for the people who live there, and the Catalan and Spanish Governments are perfectly entitled to take positions for and against independence.
“However, all peoples have the right to self-determination and to choose the form of government best suited to their needs, a principle which is enshrined in the UN Charter.
"The Edinburgh Agreement was an example of how two governments, with diametrically opposed views on whether or not Scotland should become independent, were able to come together to agree a process to allow the people to decide. It is essential that democracy and civil rights are respected in all countries.” '
https://news.gov.scot/news/statement-on-catalonia
This is more in line with what I expected
Who is "our" here? Have we forgotten Czechslovakia?
Speaking about Russia. It is funny that those who just start to remind that Russia is a federation are being detained.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/pro-federalism...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/pro-federalism...
So then, what tactics does civilization require in order to hold together?
The US constitution has worked quite well (despite our penchant for drama) for a couple centuries. Oversimplified: recognize states as semi-autonomous, localize governance as much as possible, balance voting power to prevent "tyranny of the majority", emphasize individual rights & liberty. Too much of bossing around others does not end well.
The US did have a civil war during those couple of centuries, though.
Largely because "50.1%", living hundreds or thousands of miles away, took to bossing the "49.9%" secessionists around.
It also involved imposing a massive moral change with enormous economic consequences, which people understandably had some objections to. Ending slavery as a primary institution was costly.
It also involved imposing a massive moral change with enormous economic consequences, which people understandably had some objections to. Ending slavery as a primary institution was costly.
Right, but that's essentially saying the US Constitution is great as long as it's not really put to the test. The pro-independence Catalonians also say that the central Government has been bossing them around.
Besides, maybe the Civil War was inevitable, but the war itself caused a major shift of in the balances of power. The Constitution may not have changes, but the country did, and it's dubious that you can consider the pre and after periods as a continuous link.
Besides, maybe the Civil War was inevitable, but the war itself caused a major shift of in the balances of power. The Constitution may not have changes, but the country did, and it's dubious that you can consider the pre and after periods as a continuous link.
yeah, its crazy how people just dont get that anymore.
'the majority (50.1%) of people feel the way I do, everyone else should have to do as I do because that's how democracies work. we live in a society after all'.
'the majority (50.1%) of people feel the way I do, everyone else should have to do as I do because that's how democracies work. we live in a society after all'.
> The US constitution has worked quite well (despite our penchant for drama) for a couple centuries
If you ignore the simmering dispute present at the founding that exploded into general crisis in the mid-19th Century and then into civil war, sure, you could maybe argue that it worked well for a couple of centuries.
But even so you'd have to ignore that the Constitution before and after that crisis are fairly radically different. (Though some of the significant differences saw no substantive effect until the 20th Century.)
If you ignore the simmering dispute present at the founding that exploded into general crisis in the mid-19th Century and then into civil war, sure, you could maybe argue that it worked well for a couple of centuries.
But even so you'd have to ignore that the Constitution before and after that crisis are fairly radically different. (Though some of the significant differences saw no substantive effect until the 20th Century.)
Well, that sounds like a book.
But despite the failure, I'd point to Brexit as an example where there was a conflict that was still broadly speaking handled in a civilized manner. If I recall correctly, the EU never said that if the UK left, they would take steps to liquidate Parliament. It was (and is!) an acrimonious debate, but still a civilized one (contrary to apparently popular belief, "nice" and "civilized" are not synonyms and are at times diametrically opposed; at best "nice" is what can result from civilization, it is not the cause of civilization). And despite the fact Brexit narrowly passed, I guarantee that had the EU gone the route that Spain did, Brexit would not have narrowly passed, but passed by a wide margin.
Contrariwise, even with all of Spain's errors and provocations, by numbers it seems like Catalonian independence just barely has something like a majority, or narrowly misses a majority, despite the superficial voting numbers, and that I would imagine includes a lot of very squishy support. Let's call real support in the 40-60% range. Some emotional sweet talk in attempt to emphasize solidarity, combined with some threats about what "could" happen (both in terms of bad things that may happen economically and vague threats of retaliation from Spain) but with no actual violence threats, along with emphasizing that it is their choice ultimately, would probably have resulted in as much as a 2-1 defeat for the independence. If nothing else, even just an appeal to the status quo rather than the dangers of such a radical change has had some success as a political campaign ("don't change horses midstream" - relection slogan for Abraham Lincoln [1]). Convert that "squishy support" into "squishy rejection", and the numbers change a lot. I hope what I'm writing here makes it clear just how much of a wild-ass guess that is, rather than some sort of principled analysis; if your mileage varies, more power to you. My big claim is that it would have made the situation better moreso than the precise numbers.
That is an example. There were other approaches that would have done better. I'd also observe that the approach I'm proposing here strikes me as fairly European, with the emphasis on solidarity and such. I'm pretty sure I'd recommend a substantially different approach if we were discussing Texas secession.
I'd also point out that I'm not viewing successfully keeping Catalan in Spain as the end of history. The issues would still be there. "Something" would really have to be done about that. But all countries have stresses, and Quebec remains part of Canada to this day, for instance. The stresses don't have to explode.
(I've also read some analysis that suggests these actions would have been politically untenable for Spain's current leadership. So I'm talking about what Spain as a whole "should" have done, not what Spain's leadership necessarily could do. I still don't know where I fall in the "forces of history" vs. "big actors in history" debate, but I tend to think the answer is "yes, both by a lot".)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_camp...
But despite the failure, I'd point to Brexit as an example where there was a conflict that was still broadly speaking handled in a civilized manner. If I recall correctly, the EU never said that if the UK left, they would take steps to liquidate Parliament. It was (and is!) an acrimonious debate, but still a civilized one (contrary to apparently popular belief, "nice" and "civilized" are not synonyms and are at times diametrically opposed; at best "nice" is what can result from civilization, it is not the cause of civilization). And despite the fact Brexit narrowly passed, I guarantee that had the EU gone the route that Spain did, Brexit would not have narrowly passed, but passed by a wide margin.
Contrariwise, even with all of Spain's errors and provocations, by numbers it seems like Catalonian independence just barely has something like a majority, or narrowly misses a majority, despite the superficial voting numbers, and that I would imagine includes a lot of very squishy support. Let's call real support in the 40-60% range. Some emotional sweet talk in attempt to emphasize solidarity, combined with some threats about what "could" happen (both in terms of bad things that may happen economically and vague threats of retaliation from Spain) but with no actual violence threats, along with emphasizing that it is their choice ultimately, would probably have resulted in as much as a 2-1 defeat for the independence. If nothing else, even just an appeal to the status quo rather than the dangers of such a radical change has had some success as a political campaign ("don't change horses midstream" - relection slogan for Abraham Lincoln [1]). Convert that "squishy support" into "squishy rejection", and the numbers change a lot. I hope what I'm writing here makes it clear just how much of a wild-ass guess that is, rather than some sort of principled analysis; if your mileage varies, more power to you. My big claim is that it would have made the situation better moreso than the precise numbers.
That is an example. There were other approaches that would have done better. I'd also observe that the approach I'm proposing here strikes me as fairly European, with the emphasis on solidarity and such. I'm pretty sure I'd recommend a substantially different approach if we were discussing Texas secession.
I'd also point out that I'm not viewing successfully keeping Catalan in Spain as the end of history. The issues would still be there. "Something" would really have to be done about that. But all countries have stresses, and Quebec remains part of Canada to this day, for instance. The stresses don't have to explode.
(I've also read some analysis that suggests these actions would have been politically untenable for Spain's current leadership. So I'm talking about what Spain as a whole "should" have done, not what Spain's leadership necessarily could do. I still don't know where I fall in the "forces of history" vs. "big actors in history" debate, but I tend to think the answer is "yes, both by a lot".)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_camp...
I'd cite the Scottish independence referendum as an example of how to do it with the minimum of acrimony and near-zero violence. Although we don't know what would have happened exactly if Yes had won.
It seemed pretty acrimonious and left scars that haven't healed to this day.
I mean, I grant that in the grand scheme of things (and certainly in comparison to how Spain bungled this), you are correct, the UK handled it as well as possible.
I mean, I grant that in the grand scheme of things (and certainly in comparison to how Spain bungled this), you are correct, the UK handled it as well as possible.
I don't think Brexit is a good example because the EU never was a Sovereign, united state in the same way that, say, the US is. The UK already has its own independently functional institutions, separate from the EU, and an international recognition and identity outside of EU. Not the same as Catalan province.
I'm citing it just as a similar debate that was handled without the same drastic errors that Spain made, not that it parallels Catalan's debate in any other particular way. At least as of this writing, peaceful secessions involving voting for secession is still a rare enough thing that they are all unique snowflakes. (Ask me again in 10 years.) I'm sure the EU made errors; I mean, that's almost a vacuous statement because there are always errors. (Pro-Brexit made errors too; also equally a nearly vacuous statement.) But there were nowhere near this drastic.
There is one important difference: The "Brexit" has a legal foundation in the Treaty of Lisbon that sets out a mechanism, the infamous article 50 (written by a Brit, it transpires). Similarly, the independence referendum in Scotland had a legal foundation, an Order in Council. The division of Czechoslovakia was done by making constitutional law. Catalonian independence has no such legal foundation to rely upon, albeit that constitutional reforms aimed at providing one have been attempted. The U.S. constitution lacks a secession mechanism, too, some of the consequences of which are well known.
> If I recall correctly, the EU never said that if the UK left, they would take steps to liquidate Parliament.
it had no ability to, and never has
even without Article 50 the UK could have unilaterally withdrawn from the treaties, and the EU would have no recourse whatsoever
it had no ability to, and never has
even without Article 50 the UK could have unilaterally withdrawn from the treaties, and the EU would have no recourse whatsoever
Those are all valid points. But why didn't Spain support a referendum like Canada supported Quebec twice and the UK with Scotland? Like the OP said, this could all have been stopped if Spain had supported the vote and campaigned for the no. How could Catalonia get a 'legal' vote?
I'm under the impression the only way an independence vote could be legal is if the Spanish Constitution was changed to allow that. The current constitution declares Spain "indivisible", with no more specific details. That would seem to pretty clearly exclude any possibility of a part of Spain legally separating from Spain. The UK's legal system is a little slipperier. UK doesn't have a hard and fast Constitution. If Parliament allows something, it's basically legal (less hard checks on legislative power than your typical constitution).
It's interesting how this stems from a cultural difference. In very general terms, the UK is based on common law, in which we decide the truth as we go, based on the decisions of parliament and court cases. Spain and France are based on civil law, which are much more rigid and top-down, but also more clearly defined. In civil law, if it's not explicitly declared illegal, you can do it. In common law, it's a little murkier. This even seeps into the language (The French say they "have the right" to do something, the English say they are "allowed" - active vs. passive).
Of course there is great overlap between the two in reality, but at their core the two legal systems have different philosophies. Hence why you end up with situations where the UK may be more flexible about things like separation.
Of course there is great overlap between the two in reality, but at their core the two legal systems have different philosophies. Hence why you end up with situations where the UK may be more flexible about things like separation.
Actually our Constitution states that Spain is indivisible for a reason. We had some rebel "cantons" in XIX century and a few revolutions in XX, so when we voted a new Consitution in 1978, it was decided to secure the union in the highest law. Of course you can modify the Constitution and there are legal ways to reach a consensus for that. It's just more difficult than holding an illegal, rigged referendum because some rogue regional politicians think they're entitled to it.
The UK is a mix of legal systems, Scotland is different from the other parts of the Union, so there is already some expectation of flexibility.
Well it is not so easy.
First, they will need to modify the constitution, which requires being approved a qualified majority not a simple one in parliament, in this case, is 3/5 of the parliament this reform might need to be approved by referendum (all the country not just Catalunya) in case a tenth of the parliament requires it.
Second, the government has no desire to modify the current regional system, which is in line with its voters. Anyway the Canada case is not the norm and similar legislation are in use in other countries, for instance in Germany.
https://www.thelocal.de/20170103/bavaria-must-remain-part-of...
Except, Germany previously did allow regions to leave.
There was a huge political situation after WWI about that, but in the end 5 countries agreed to allow the counties in the north of Germany to choose if they want to belong to Denmark or Germany.
There was a huge political situation after WWI about that, but in the end 5 countries agreed to allow the counties in the north of Germany to choose if they want to belong to Denmark or Germany.
Second, the government has no desire to modify the current regional system,
Sorry, I need to correct that. Not just the govern, an overwhelming majority of citizens in this country have no desire to modify the current regional system. At least in the direction that separatists want.
Sorry, I need to correct that. Not just the govern, an overwhelming majority of citizens in this country have no desire to modify the current regional system. At least in the direction that separatists want.
Stage one would be amending the Spanish constitution to get rid of the notion of Spain as being indivisible, and that's where it becomes really tricky, as you then need to get consensus from all of Spain to allow that.
Well, good luck with that. Spain was a fascist country for 40 years.
And why is that relevant to this discussion?
There’s always the risk that you don’t get what you want, like the UK’s referendum on membership of the EU.
Who didn’t get what they wanted?
David Cameron? It's perhaps fair to say he called the referendum expecting to win, continue his political career and quell the infighting within the Tory party and achieved none of those.
While Madrid's handling of the more recent Catalan independence campaign has been pretty inept the Brexit vote sets a pretty strong counterexample to "just call a referendum, you'll win, it'll be over for 20 years". Scottish independence is a good example too, that's hardly gone quiet...
While Madrid's handling of the more recent Catalan independence campaign has been pretty inept the Brexit vote sets a pretty strong counterexample to "just call a referendum, you'll win, it'll be over for 20 years". Scottish independence is a good example too, that's hardly gone quiet...
> Who didn’t get what they wanted?
Scotland.
Scotland.
How's that? There was a referendum to find out what Scotland wanted. It was hold in Scotland IIRC. Didn't Scots vote? Wasn't the result honored?
Nice catch 22 - between (2) and (8). You are allowed to secede if you vote for it ... but you're not allowed to vote to secede.
You are allowed to vote to parties that want the secession and promise to vote for Constitution reform. The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence. This question is presented over and over again as a Catalonia vs rest of Spain, when it's actually a debate that's not settled inside Catalonia.
Parties that don't propose independence had less votes than the ones that do, the electoral system being the culprit that they have majority in regional parliament.
Parties that don't propose independence had less votes than the ones that do, the electoral system being the culprit that they have majority in regional parliament.
"The thing is people, even in Catalonia don't want independence" - in your opinion perhaps. Many others have a different opinion. But this is something that could easily be settled by ... a vote on independence.
Last election had a majority of votes to parties that didn't proposed independence, that's a hard fact, not an opinion. And as you will soon learn, there is no need to settle that question, it was settled long ago.
Carefully worded answer. To those who might take narag's words at face value, they're probably referring the 2014 referendum where voters were asked "do you want to Catalonia to be a state" and "and if so, do you want it to be independent". The result was 80% of the results were "yes" for both but the turnout was low (40-ish percent).
I don't think that is exactly decisive for either side, but to claim it as a win for the "no" camp is a little bit disingenuous.
I don't think that is exactly decisive for either side, but to claim it as a win for the "no" camp is a little bit disingenuous.
If you want to be independent you go and vote. If you do not care you stay home. Such low turnout seems like a win for "no" camp, because people of Catalonia apparently do not care about independence from Spain.
Except in this case it was
If you want to be independent you go vote. If you do not care, or are afraid of getting hammered by Spanish police you stay home. In that case 43% turnout is pretty impressive.
If you want to be independent you go vote. If you do not care, or are afraid of getting hammered by Spanish police you stay home. In that case 43% turnout is pretty impressive.
Only if you think "not caring" means being against independence. I think it means not caring either way, i.e. they're neither in favour of it nor against it.
I think it is reckless to change borders just because few people want to. This is not your standard political issue, it's freaking tearing the country apart.
This is not a few people mucking around on a map for fun. Although for an example of that, see Britain and France carving up the middle east with a ruler last century. This is people voting for their own future, it is vastly different.
Why is a border so sacred for you? A border is there to serve people, not the other way around.
I’m not convinced, it requires some impressive mental gymnastics to turn a 5% “No” (and 10% Yes/No) into a majority
Again - read the GP. 2014: 20% No, 40something turnout. Independence has good support, but it is huge decision. Considering the gravity of the issue that's weak.
You have magically inflated 10% "yes/no" plus 5% "no" and saying that means 20% "yes" (which is a stretch) ... and then extrapolated that to a majority somehow? Given the turnout then if we were saying "this is a definitive mandate for independence" then yes that would be a ridiculous statement ... but suggesting the opposite is absolutely preposterous.
I have heard this line of reasoning a lot, also in Dutch politics, but I disagree with it. General elections are too broad to pick any issue and simply state that the votes on the parties that hold a certain position on that issue are representative of the voters' position.
If you want to know about x, hold a referendum on x, not a general election on the whole alphabet.
If you want to know about x, hold a referendum on x, not a general election on the whole alphabet.
Except it was them who stated it would be a referendum by other name.
Because the central government refuses to allow for a real referendum.
But tell me, how do I vote for "yes" independence if, say, I only agree with the political program of the socialist party, not part of the "yes" coalition?
Parliamentary elections are one thing, referendums another.
But tell me, how do I vote for "yes" independence if, say, I only agree with the political program of the socialist party, not part of the "yes" coalition?
Parliamentary elections are one thing, referendums another.
Because the central government refuses to allow for a real referendum.
This is tiresome. Central government has not the power to refuse or allow a referendum to decide to commit a crime. Exactly the same as police has not the power to declare drugs legal. Please, if you really really want to have a rational conversation, stop parroting politicians' excuses. There are the basics, like "sensible people doesn't riot and attack police for a marginally relevant tax complaint or alledged cultural peculiarity" and if you can understand that this is the foundation, you should consider the possibility that someone is fooling you.
This is tiresome. Central government has not the power to refuse or allow a referendum to decide to commit a crime. Exactly the same as police has not the power to declare drugs legal. Please, if you really really want to have a rational conversation, stop parroting politicians' excuses. There are the basics, like "sensible people doesn't riot and attack police for a marginally relevant tax complaint or alledged cultural peculiarity" and if you can understand that this is the foundation, you should consider the possibility that someone is fooling you.
Please stop playing semantics: the central government has the power to trigger a Constitution change to allow for referendums. So far it has refused.
It has the power to send police to stop voting in a non-legal referendum, and it has done exactly so.
It has the power to send police to stop voting in a non-legal referendum, and it has done exactly so.
[deleted]
Is there a legal way for US states to secede?
The 10th Amendment reads 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'
The Constitution is silent on secession: it neither forbids it nor lays out procedures for it. Since the power to remove a State from the United States is not delegated to the United States, it is reserved to the respective States, or to the people.
The Constitution is silent on secession: it neither forbids it nor lays out procedures for it. Since the power to remove a State from the United States is not delegated to the United States, it is reserved to the respective States, or to the people.
It would seem that amendment has long been ignored. If a state votes to leave the union, it would likely be decided by a federal court as illegal, then go to Supreme Court for them to decide. The problem is that this will take too long, and things will escalate much sooner than they can review the case. For instance: If the people of the state in question refused to pay their taxes to the government they no longer recognize, the feds would attempt to arrest and prosecute. This could very quickly lead to armed conflict, first between those being arrested and the officers of the government, then would expand to include those who support secession. The government would then move to "preserve the union" with the only hammer they own (force) and there we will be. Source: history.
> If a state votes to leave the union, it would likely be decided by a federal court as illegal, then go to Supreme Court for them to decide.
More likely, the declaration would be ignored by the federal government (oh, statements would be made, but no formal action over the declaration.)
OTOH, any action to implement the declaration would be treated as if the declaration had never occurred; if, say, a state decided it's declaration of independence allowed it to seize federal property, interfere with federal agents, etc., well, we've seen that movie before.
If less extreme acts of disobedience with federal laws result from declaration, then those acts will get into court, where (almost certainly) the declaration will again be treated as void and without effect except perhaps as demonstrating adverse intent. Then the state will be forced to escalate or fold.
More likely, the declaration would be ignored by the federal government (oh, statements would be made, but no formal action over the declaration.)
OTOH, any action to implement the declaration would be treated as if the declaration had never occurred; if, say, a state decided it's declaration of independence allowed it to seize federal property, interfere with federal agents, etc., well, we've seen that movie before.
If less extreme acts of disobedience with federal laws result from declaration, then those acts will get into court, where (almost certainly) the declaration will again be treated as void and without effect except perhaps as demonstrating adverse intent. Then the state will be forced to escalate or fold.
I think, given significant popular support, the congress would vote to allow a state to secede rather than sending in troops to intervene.
The feds would leave this to the politicians to sort out, instead of attempting to arrest the population of an entire state.
The feds would leave this to the politicians to sort out, instead of attempting to arrest the population of an entire state.
That may be your interpretation of the constitution, but it is not the precedent established by the American Civil War, and it is not the interpretation of the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
> Since the power to remove a State from the United States is not delegated to the United States, it is reserved to the respective States, or to the people.
Alternatively, since secession would obviate the requirements Constitutionally binding on the State, it could only be done through Amendment, and, because it would remove it's equal representation in the Senate, not even by that means.
Alternatively, since secession would obviate the requirements Constitutionally binding on the State, it could only be done through Amendment, and, because it would remove it's equal representation in the Senate, not even by that means.
If a state seceded then none of the constitution would apply in that jurisdiction, therefore secession very much violates the terms of the Constitution.
If you vote in a state government that claims to secede and then abridges my right to bear arms, then you have violated my rights under the Constitution. I don’t particularly care what state parliamentary procedure you think supersedes that right.
If you vote in a state government that claims to secede and then abridges my right to bear arms, then you have violated my rights under the Constitution. I don’t particularly care what state parliamentary procedure you think supersedes that right.
It's not really defined. Presumably if the US Congress approved, it could happen, but nobody really knows for sure.
We had a war about this. No.
What does the 1000 year history have to do with anything? If the people want independence now, that's all that matters.
What about the whole of the country subsidising the more wealthy region by things like brain-drain and leanier taxation?
What would happen if California were to separate from the US? Who would afford their army? What about billions invested by the whole of US in the industries there?
By your logic I may just reply that "if the people want independence now - then all that matters if I have enough military power to keep them in the saddle". Because the laws are changeable.
What would happen if California were to separate from the US? Who would afford their army? What about billions invested by the whole of US in the industries there?
By your logic I may just reply that "if the people want independence now - then all that matters if I have enough military power to keep them in the saddle". Because the laws are changeable.
> all that matters if I have enough military power to keep them in the saddle
That's pretty much how most declarations of independence have worked historically. But even if you have enough military power, how much blood are you willing to shed if a full blown civil war breaks out? If there are civilian deaths, it's likely that there would be condemnation and support for the separatists from the international community. What matters is how badly people want their independence and how far they are willing to go for it.
That's pretty much how most declarations of independence have worked historically. But even if you have enough military power, how much blood are you willing to shed if a full blown civil war breaks out? If there are civilian deaths, it's likely that there would be condemnation and support for the separatists from the international community. What matters is how badly people want their independence and how far they are willing to go for it.
Please see the parent comment. My opinion here is in regards to "what matters to what happened 1000 years ago? what matters is what they want now!" - by making a point that what happened years ago does indeed have some value.
Rich regions typically subsidize poor areas, not the other way around. Also, industry in Spain is largely private.
Poor areas are subsidized for a number of reasons, one is to be in control of the area.
Give it up and someone else will happily take it: what about deregulated toxic disposal at the state level? what about coca leaf production in deserted areas? arms production with no oversight?
Well, here we are.
Give it up and someone else will happily take it: what about deregulated toxic disposal at the state level? what about coca leaf production in deserted areas? arms production with no oversight?
Well, here we are.
> ? What about billions invested by the whole of US in the industries there?
I would say they got what they paid for. Satellites and computers have been delivered. Investment paid off.
I would say they got what they paid for. Satellites and computers have been delivered. Investment paid off.
Satellites and computers have been delivered. Now get back us all of our specialists and the infrastructure.
I don't think this is a particularly valid viewpoint.
For one thing it would destroy half the countries in the world, and most of them aren't highly developed nations that can vaguely cope with it.
For another, how do you set limits, why is Catalonia special but any random town or city isn't?
There's also the point that (probably) irreparably destroying countries based on slim margins and changing whims probably isn't smart.
Now that's not to say I wouldn't support a (legal) referendum in Catalonia, but you do need to treat it with some nuance.
For one thing it would destroy half the countries in the world, and most of them aren't highly developed nations that can vaguely cope with it.
For another, how do you set limits, why is Catalonia special but any random town or city isn't?
There's also the point that (probably) irreparably destroying countries based on slim margins and changing whims probably isn't smart.
Now that's not to say I wouldn't support a (legal) referendum in Catalonia, but you do need to treat it with some nuance.
I think that begs the question though, how would you set limits? Was the colonies forming America wrong, it certainly wasn't a peaceful/legal revolution.
The usual claim for independence has historical roots.
The claim that matters is that people want independence at all. Why isn't important, self-determination is.
The context in which things have been happening matters. Catalonia asked for fiscal special treatment like the one that other regions have for historical reasons (whereas they don't have such history). So the context is important.
Catalonia could have obtained a similar system when the constitution was written, but declined to do so.
Plenty of counterexamples, including the joint independence movement among 13 English colonies in North America (which, unlike decolonialization in, say, India, wasn't the historically independent subjugated locals revolting against the foreign colonizers, but largely the imported ruling class revolting against the homeland that set them up and displaced the locals.)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
> Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi, have more arguments for independence, but they chose coexistence within the democratic framework.
Except that Euskadi had a pro-independence armed group that killed 829 people from 1975 to 2011. Other than that, doesn't Euskadi have its own tax system, distinct from the Spanish one? I think it's not fair to compare both situations.
Except that Euskadi had a pro-independence armed group that killed 829 people from 1975 to 2011. Other than that, doesn't Euskadi have its own tax system, distinct from the Spanish one? I think it's not fair to compare both situations.
Apart for the (unfair) advantage, the salient point of a separate tax collection is that our administration can't investigate violations inside that region for taxes or public spending. There are virtually no corruption cases there. That doesn't mean there is no corruption there, but that we can't know because the people in charge of investigation is the same that could be investigated. This seems to be the reason they've been so quiet lately.
> but not a democratic mandate since the votes were not supported by any international body
> The world cannot understand their will, as they have been executed outside the democratic framework.
So they need permission from other countries to make decisions about their own country? I don't get what you're saying here other than they "messed with the status quo and should get in line". Which is a questionable basis to make such an argument.
Of course other countries are not going to risk destroying their relationship with Spain to back some independence movement. There will never be initial international "support" unless they were clearly being repressed and there were human rights violations.
But not all democratic movements depend on repression to be right, nor should they require that to determine the direction of their own political futures.
> The world cannot understand their will, as they have been executed outside the democratic framework.
So they need permission from other countries to make decisions about their own country? I don't get what you're saying here other than they "messed with the status quo and should get in line". Which is a questionable basis to make such an argument.
Of course other countries are not going to risk destroying their relationship with Spain to back some independence movement. There will never be initial international "support" unless they were clearly being repressed and there were human rights violations.
But not all democratic movements depend on repression to be right, nor should they require that to determine the direction of their own political futures.
How many countries got independent legally?
This is an excellent point I've struggled to put across. Furthermore people act like laws are set in stone and are always objectively Good. "It is illegal" is in some cases not a good argument against something.
Laws are usually there for a reason.
You could apply your whole argument to public opinion and referendums - public will change mind a lot, why make such drastic moves based on it?
You could apply your whole argument to public opinion and referendums - public will change mind a lot, why make such drastic moves based on it?
Usually laws are there for a reason. Then sometimes we have to repeal "slavery is OK" or "black people count for 3/5 of white people" or "women can't vote" laws. Because they're obviously wrong.
There never was a black people count for 3/5 of white people.
It was “states that have slavery get to count 3/5 of their enslaved population when determining the representation the free population gets in Congress (and, hence, also it's voting power in Presidential elections.)”
It's actually worse than black people counting as 3/5 of a white person; its more like slaveholders counting as 1 + (slaves held × 3) / 5 people.
It was “states that have slavery get to count 3/5 of their enslaved population when determining the representation the free population gets in Congress (and, hence, also it's voting power in Presidential elections.)”
It's actually worse than black people counting as 3/5 of a white person; its more like slaveholders counting as 1 + (slaves held × 3) / 5 people.
Thanks for clarifying - my knowledge of US history is bad. But the point stands - bad laws exist and "it is the law" does not necessarily mean "it is right"
Ok that's a good point. I guess I am too spoiled by modern mostly-making-sense laws and annoyed by the neverending "government is bad" rants.
On the other hand, public supported all those "bad" laws at the time ... But yeah, I was wrong, illegality on its own is wrong argument.
On the other hand, public supported all those "bad" laws at the time ... But yeah, I was wrong, illegality on its own is wrong argument.
Plenty. India, Kenya, Australia, Canada and various ex-SSRs all spring to mind. Not many without violence on the run-up, I'll grant you, but in many cases, the actual process of independence was performed entirely legally.
Saying that India got her independence legally is quite a stretch. There were plenty of mutinies, bloodshed, violent and non-violent movements before the British (massively weakened by the WWII) decided that they had enough. While it is true that India did not declare unilaterally declare independence (some leaders did, but they did not gain widespread public support) and start a civil war, the independence movement itself was not legal and most leaders were branded terrorists and incarcerated.
Yes, often quite a bit of violence in the run up. Whether the imperialist side wants to try and look good at the point of capitulation or not has little to do with how “legal” the effectual parts of fighting for independence are.
To suggest that, e.g. Gandhi didn’t have a meaningful role in achieving India’s independence, because the British considered his actions illegal, is very silly.
To suggest that, e.g. Gandhi didn’t have a meaningful role in achieving India’s independence, because the British considered his actions illegal, is very silly.
From my own short experience, FYROM from Yugoslavia and Montenegro from Serbia.
Let’s say you’re black in the American south before 1868, or South Africa before 1993. Voting or any sort of civic duty is illegal for you. Does that mean that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
I am NOT saying Catalonians are oppressed the way blacks were in the American south or South Africa. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m purposefully using a more extreme example to illustrate that this is a moral, not legal question.
Self-determination is a fundamental human right, by the philosophy of the Enlightenment at least. And this remains true whether or not it happens to be codified in law. If the Spanish constitution blocks reasonable paths to self determination, then the constitution is wrong—morally, not legally, of course.
And why should we support an immoral law? There are good reasons for doing so in fact — preventing anarchy in the pejorative sense — but only if a constructive alternative is provided to fixing the law within the system in a reasonable amount of time. Surely there is a process for modifying or amending the constitution? Spain didn’t try.
I am NOT saying Catalonians are oppressed the way blacks were in the American south or South Africa. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m purposefully using a more extreme example to illustrate that this is a moral, not legal question.
Self-determination is a fundamental human right, by the philosophy of the Enlightenment at least. And this remains true whether or not it happens to be codified in law. If the Spanish constitution blocks reasonable paths to self determination, then the constitution is wrong—morally, not legally, of course.
And why should we support an immoral law? There are good reasons for doing so in fact — preventing anarchy in the pejorative sense — but only if a constructive alternative is provided to fixing the law within the system in a reasonable amount of time. Surely there is a process for modifying or amending the constitution? Spain didn’t try.
Self-determination is a fundamental human right, by the philosophy of the Enlightenment at least.
That's very misleading. Persons have rights. Countries haven't. United Nations chart acknowledged collective right to self determination in the case of colonized countries as a way to give freedom to millions of individuals living in countries that were controled by western rich countries by force. But by no means a country has claimed ever that there's a general right for an arbitrary territory to secede if its inhabitants decide so by voting. There is overwhelming evidence against that alledged "right". No country would accept that. What about yours? What do you think will happen if a region of your country decides to hold a vote to leave the rest?
That's very misleading. Persons have rights. Countries haven't. United Nations chart acknowledged collective right to self determination in the case of colonized countries as a way to give freedom to millions of individuals living in countries that were controled by western rich countries by force. But by no means a country has claimed ever that there's a general right for an arbitrary territory to secede if its inhabitants decide so by voting. There is overwhelming evidence against that alledged "right". No country would accept that. What about yours? What do you think will happen if a region of your country decides to hold a vote to leave the rest?
Forget 9) In the last days, Puidgemont refused to declare if he had or not declared independence. Even though he publicly called for negotiation, his refusal practically prevents the Spanish government to do just that. "Suspended Independence" was maybe the biggest egotistical move by that guy. It was pure self-preservation.
Regarding history you just skipped over the part in 1640, where we were lucky that Filipe IV could not fight two rebellions at the same time and decided to send the troops just to Catalonia, allowing Portugal to regain independence.
I have relatives who live in Catalonia, though they aren't ethnic Catalans. One of them works as an education official in the region, so her view may be skewed, but she also has a view of the situation that others don't necessarily see. She believes there's a systematic attempt by the government in Madrid to minimize Catalan culture and assimilate its people into a single Spanish culture. The Catalan education system has repeatedly had funding and other support denied for Catalan language, history and culture programs.
It may all tie back to money, but painting it as "rich Catalonia wants to not pay to support the rest of Spain" is a 1-sided view of the subject. It's also possible to see it as "powerful Madrid trying to protect its golden goose by actively trying to stamp out Catalan culture." Both have some merit.
What's interesting is that my relatives believed there was very little support for independence before the response from Madrid. But now with their heavy-handed tactics (they witnessed the violence first-hand...I saw their cell phone videos), more people support the idea. Before the violence, as a non-Catalan Spaniard and an American she married who both chose to live in Barcelona for work, they both thought independence was a stupid idea. But now, as she put it, "I now feel that the government in Catalonia is incompetent and the government in Madrid is evil. If I have to choose between the two, I choose incompetence."
It may all tie back to money, but painting it as "rich Catalonia wants to not pay to support the rest of Spain" is a 1-sided view of the subject. It's also possible to see it as "powerful Madrid trying to protect its golden goose by actively trying to stamp out Catalan culture." Both have some merit.
What's interesting is that my relatives believed there was very little support for independence before the response from Madrid. But now with their heavy-handed tactics (they witnessed the violence first-hand...I saw their cell phone videos), more people support the idea. Before the violence, as a non-Catalan Spaniard and an American she married who both chose to live in Barcelona for work, they both thought independence was a stupid idea. But now, as she put it, "I now feel that the government in Catalonia is incompetent and the government in Madrid is evil. If I have to choose between the two, I choose incompetence."
> Catalan politicians face criminal charges and high treason and will be tried by them.
The trial and subsequent execution of Patrick Pearse et al for treason in 1916 was the event which turned Irish independence from controversial in Ireland to a virtual certainty.
Trial even without execution of the Catalan leaders is going to create martyrs for the movement, and their names will be invoked in the subsequent terrorist bombing campaign.
The trial and subsequent execution of Patrick Pearse et al for treason in 1916 was the event which turned Irish independence from controversial in Ireland to a virtual certainty.
Trial even without execution of the Catalan leaders is going to create martyrs for the movement, and their names will be invoked in the subsequent terrorist bombing campaign.
Spain has extensive experience with that though (see: ETA). The ETA lost in the end. Catalans may well turn to terrorism, but that will only cause them to lose international support.
Point #1 trails off, can you finish it?
Sure: There is no... reason why a country that in every way (culture, language, its own flag, etc) is its own country outside of the fact that it has been ruled over by other countries shouldn't be allowed autonomy if the people will it.
I'll finish 2 as well: Such a vote will always be called illegal by the occupying country. The creation of Catalan, despite being voted on, will be called illegal by Spain. That's their perspective of it, not Catalan's.
I'll finish 2 as well: Such a vote will always be called illegal by the occupying country. The creation of Catalan, despite being voted on, will be called illegal by Spain. That's their perspective of it, not Catalan's.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You need to read history to understand the situation. But not the history of the last 100 years, but of the last 1000. Catalonia was never independent, it was part of the Kingdom of Aragon. The kingdom of Aragon and the castle kingdom allied in a dynastic way and created what is known today as Spain
That's (very) interesting and useful information, on a certain intellectual level.
But you know, sending legions of paid goons (clad head-to-toe in black, comic-book style, no less) to randomly beat people in the streets (and in stairways, hallways... wherever they felt like it, apparently) has a way of nor only more or less completely delegitimizing your position, within the EU and on the international stage -- but in getting those affected put aside their differences, and take a stand to protect themselves, once and for all, against further abuses.
Which, as a directly result of the national government's actions, is apparently what is now happening. And the fact that you aren't even mentioning the recent violence in your 8-point summary goes a long way to explain what's increasingly driving so many people to the the pro-independence side in the first place.
And BTW on the history front, there was also this guy named Francisco Franco, and certain extremely unpleasant events in the 20th century you're also very conspicuously not mentioning. And all the bodies being dug up and forensically analyzed, in all those unmarked graves, even today.
But let's not go there.
That's (very) interesting and useful information, on a certain intellectual level.
But you know, sending legions of paid goons (clad head-to-toe in black, comic-book style, no less) to randomly beat people in the streets (and in stairways, hallways... wherever they felt like it, apparently) has a way of nor only more or less completely delegitimizing your position, within the EU and on the international stage -- but in getting those affected put aside their differences, and take a stand to protect themselves, once and for all, against further abuses.
Which, as a directly result of the national government's actions, is apparently what is now happening. And the fact that you aren't even mentioning the recent violence in your 8-point summary goes a long way to explain what's increasingly driving so many people to the the pro-independence side in the first place.
And BTW on the history front, there was also this guy named Francisco Franco, and certain extremely unpleasant events in the 20th century you're also very conspicuously not mentioning. And all the bodies being dug up and forensically analyzed, in all those unmarked graves, even today.
But let's not go there.
> You need to read history to understand the situation.
If the people read history the way you propose, USA would never be a free country.
If the people read history the way you propose, USA would never be a free country.
Your opinion on what Catalonia will actually need to do to gain independence.
Is civil war (however unlikely) the only way?
Is civil war (however unlikely) the only way?
Stop talking of Catalonia as if there were only one opinion. At least half of catalans don't want independence.
Why "half" is often said:
- 2015 elections were considered "plebiscitary", i.e. in absence of a referendum, pro-independence parties ran together as one "yes to independence" vote. They obtained 39.6% of the vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_regional_election,_201...
- Added together to radical left (anti-capitalist, pro-independence) parties, it adds up to 47.8% of the vote. With ~75% turnout. ~35% of census
- The "illegal referendum" this month resulted in 90.18% pro-yes with 43.03% turnout. ~38% of census. However, because of how it took place (not your normal election), the correctness of these results is often questioned, in one way or the other. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_de_independenc...
Well, the "half" is a way of simplifying. Next elections will show an updated numbers. The reason I say half is that it's nonsense to pretend that approximately half of a population should be enough to bully the other half into a revolution that could cause a blood bath and creating millions of extrangers in their own country.
> it's nonsense to pretend that approximately half of a population should be enough
I think that's why rhetoric isn't enough to actually stop the half that want a revolution.
What number is high enough in your estimation then?
I think that's why rhetoric isn't enough to actually stop the half that want a revolution.
What number is high enough in your estimation then?
It's funny because it seems "half" of Spain is bullying the other "half" of Spain to stay part of... Spain.
*Half here is an approximation
*Half here is an approximation
In Catalonia, secessionists feel free to talk about their political stance, and secessionists do not. This is probably caused by the sheer amount of demonstrations (rather aggressive in tone as well) by a demographic that cannot exceed 50% in any election.
You could argue that "half of Catalonia" is bullying the other "half" of it. One with massive demonstrations and government-sponsored strikes, the other one, with law and courts?
You could argue that "half of Catalonia" is bullying the other "half" of it. One with massive demonstrations and government-sponsored strikes, the other one, with law and courts?
And by bully you mean enforce the law that applies to the whole country?
Non nationalists in Spain are like 85% to be conservative.
I don't understand how people can keep repeating this? With out citing specific data? Based on wikipeida's article on election data in the 2008 the average voter turnout was 73.9% of the population. During the Catalan referendum some were between 38.5% and 42.5% percent turnout. For simplicity lets say 100 people voted in the referendum which resulted in a 90/10 split in favor of independence. The turnout numbers suggest that in an a normal election maybe as much as 192 people might have voted or 92 more then did. Even if you assume %90 of the "likely" voters that did not vote would have voted against independence it seems to me that the independence side would have still won.
1. One would think there is a big correlation between people that think that the referendum was not valid, and people who did not vote.
2. Ballots were only overseen by proindependence people, and questions regarding tampering have been raised. A small number of radicals* should suffice to widen the gap with a normal voting process.
* I define "radical" here as someone that seems justifiable to create fake vote or vote multiple times, gaming the election process, for the "greater good"
2. Ballots were only overseen by proindependence people, and questions regarding tampering have been raised. A small number of radicals* should suffice to widen the gap with a normal voting process.
* I define "radical" here as someone that seems justifiable to create fake vote or vote multiple times, gaming the election process, for the "greater good"
I'm asking a question, not making a statement or "talking of" as you say.
Stop telling people what to do.
Stop telling people what to do.
They should have voted then.
Why legitimize a non-constitutional process you disagree with? I would stay home too.
The catalan parliament has approved the "independence" resolution (despite the parliament lawyers warning about the illegality of the voting) with 70 "yes" (out of 135 seats).
Which is, essentially, a repeat of the same pattern as the election. To me, it's starting to smell like trying to manufacture a "mandate" when you really don't have one.
No, they shouldn't and they didn't. The referendum was a farce and clearly rigged.
"Catalonia was never independent" - it was indeed, and in the 20th century. George Orwell wrote a first hand account of his observations while fighting for their independence called "On Catalonia". Worth a read if you're looking for historical context.
That’s true. Catalonia was independent for three days in 1931 and one night in 1934.
Citation needed
"This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2014"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Republic_(1931)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_State_(1934)
Maybe you could explain what are your reservations about what I wrote? I could give you more precise references if needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_State_(1934)
Maybe you could explain what are your reservations about what I wrote? I could give you more precise references if needed.
Circular citations of Wikipedia articles do not prove that Catalonia existed for the very short period of time you claim. I would suggest reading about the revolutionary period.
I have cited a well regarded first hand account of the period.
Your claim that Catalonia has no history of independence is simply wrong.
I have cited a well regarded first hand account of the period.
Your claim that Catalonia has no history of independence is simply wrong.
Ok, maybe you can give an indication of what is the period of independence of Catalonia and a reference.
You mentioned Orwell’s “On Catalonia” but I’m not aware of such a book. I guess you mean “Homage to Catalonia” but I don’t know what makes you think that the region was independent during the Spanish Civil war. Orwell clearly thought he was in Spain.
(Edit: by the way, I don’t know where do you see the circularity of the references in the wikipedia links. Are you suggesting that these proclamations didn’t happen?)
You mentioned Orwell’s “On Catalonia” but I’m not aware of such a book. I guess you mean “Homage to Catalonia” but I don’t know what makes you think that the region was independent during the Spanish Civil war. Orwell clearly thought he was in Spain.
(Edit: by the way, I don’t know where do you see the circularity of the references in the wikipedia links. Are you suggesting that these proclamations didn’t happen?)
You're right, I am referring to Homage to Catalonia. The title itself would seem to suggest he was writing about Catalonia, wouldn't it?
To be clear, I have never suggested that Catalonia didn’t exist. But what about those references on Catalonia being independent apart from these short-lived attempts in 1931 and 1934?
(Edit: Orwell also wrote “The road to Wigan pier”. Do you think that Wigan was a city-state?)
(Edit: Orwell also wrote “The road to Wigan pier”. Do you think that Wigan was a city-state?)
During the last couple of months I have been following this situation very closely, reading a lot of history, reports and even the Spanish constitution, but I'm obviously not an expert, so please feel free to correct me if there are any mistakes here:
1) What I understood from reading various sources is that Catalonia was completely independent between the years 987 (death of Louis V of France) and 1137 (Marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV and Petronila of Aragon) [1][2]. Although in my opinion that is not relevant for the current independence movement.
2) The act of voting is not illegal: there is no single article in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 that prohibits citizens to vote something specific. The Catalan independence referendum though was, of course, unauthorized (referendums requires the participation of the King, the PM, and the Congress [3]). I wanted to point out that this idea of voting as something "illegal because of the content of the referendum" probably originates from the Spanish newspaper El Pais, with articles like "Mitos y falsedades del independentismo" which is full of false citations of the constitution (check for instance the articles cited in the paragraph starting with "Además, la ley del referéndum es ilegal por su contenido [...]").
3) This is a valid point actually, although it would be fair also add that the Gurdia Civil, the National Police, and at some level the Mossos d'Esquadra, did everything they could (including violence in some cases) to stop people voting in this referendum.
4) Catalonia have a budget surplus [4], so I would argue that what "they" want is to contribute less.
5) Do you mean because of things like the Fueros of Pais Vasco and the Reino de Navarra? In any case, as you probably know, not everybody in Euskal Herria wanted/wants to coexist with the Spaniard state... I wouldn't be surprised if after Catalunya some other autonomic regions look for independence too.
6) True. The institutional situation in the Generalitat and Parlament is chaotic and unfortunate, and from what I heard from friends even most independentistas think so.
7) Well, this is a very opinionated point. If any generalization can be made about what "the world cannot understand" is why did the Spanish government handle this situation so poorly.
8) I personally agree with you that elections are necessary, but that will not solve the issue: the Catalans and the rest of Spain needs to know what every part wants and then start building some solution from there. And a review of the Constitution of 1978 would be useful too.
---
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia#Orig...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#The_rise_...
[3] - http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/ar...
[4] - http://www.minhafp.gob.es/es-ES/CDI/Paginas/OtraInformacionE...
1) What I understood from reading various sources is that Catalonia was completely independent between the years 987 (death of Louis V of France) and 1137 (Marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV and Petronila of Aragon) [1][2]. Although in my opinion that is not relevant for the current independence movement.
2) The act of voting is not illegal: there is no single article in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 that prohibits citizens to vote something specific. The Catalan independence referendum though was, of course, unauthorized (referendums requires the participation of the King, the PM, and the Congress [3]). I wanted to point out that this idea of voting as something "illegal because of the content of the referendum" probably originates from the Spanish newspaper El Pais, with articles like "Mitos y falsedades del independentismo" which is full of false citations of the constitution (check for instance the articles cited in the paragraph starting with "Además, la ley del referéndum es ilegal por su contenido [...]").
3) This is a valid point actually, although it would be fair also add that the Gurdia Civil, the National Police, and at some level the Mossos d'Esquadra, did everything they could (including violence in some cases) to stop people voting in this referendum.
4) Catalonia have a budget surplus [4], so I would argue that what "they" want is to contribute less.
5) Do you mean because of things like the Fueros of Pais Vasco and the Reino de Navarra? In any case, as you probably know, not everybody in Euskal Herria wanted/wants to coexist with the Spaniard state... I wouldn't be surprised if after Catalunya some other autonomic regions look for independence too.
6) True. The institutional situation in the Generalitat and Parlament is chaotic and unfortunate, and from what I heard from friends even most independentistas think so.
7) Well, this is a very opinionated point. If any generalization can be made about what "the world cannot understand" is why did the Spanish government handle this situation so poorly.
8) I personally agree with you that elections are necessary, but that will not solve the issue: the Catalans and the rest of Spain needs to know what every part wants and then start building some solution from there. And a review of the Constitution of 1978 would be useful too.
---
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia#Orig...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#The_rise_...
[3] - http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/ar...
[4] - http://www.minhafp.gob.es/es-ES/CDI/Paginas/OtraInformacionE...
In the U.S., no one disputes that secession is legal. The whole country was founded by secession. It is, however, well-established by precedent that if any states do secede, the remaining states will then be able to launch a war of conquest against them, and re-annex their territory back into the union as a new entity with exactly the same name, borders, and government structure as before the secession occurred. If you want to secede, you must prepare to fight for it.
As of 1775, no English colony in North America had ever been independent. It had always been subject to the king of England. This was not sufficient reason for the colonists to remain loyal subjects of the crown.
The colonists took it upon their own initiative to secede from England. Any votes that may have been cast were taken mainly among those who wanted independence, and those who wished to remain loyal were likely not even informed that a vote was taking place. It isn't really there for a democratic mandate, but a means of gauging support among the uncommitted for any war that may follow.
In the ideal case, the result of the vote is strong enough that the war is a foregone conclusion, and it never actually happens. The WOPR concludes that the only way to win is not to play. Or it may be a means of the parent entity tactfully trying to shed a non-performant territory. Or it may be because people are genuinely trying to decide a course of action based on the will of the people. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, for instance, may one day hold a referendum to determine whether the island should apply for statehood, petition for independence, or remain in the status quo. It is likely that the remainder of the U.S. would honor the results of any such vote, though probably with the U.S. retaining sovereignty over any territory the military already directly controls.
It is not necessary for any national or international body to recognize the vote. It is purely for the secessionists, to determine if they could win a war if the parent entity invades after the split.
The secessionists don't have to pay any attention whatsoever to other regions with an equally strong or stronger case for secession.
If you are voting to secede, you don't care whether or not the vote is legal or binding. The explicit wording is regarding secession, but implicitly it is about whether people will take up arms for Catalonia, or at least not take up arms for Spain, if there is a war for independence. The percentages don't really matter, only the raw numbers. If 10000 people vote "yes", you know that there are potentially 10000 armed rebels out there, waiting for the signal to join the fight.
I think Spain is handling this in the worst possible manner, diplomatically. Viral videos of people getting beaten by police is only going to increase the number of people willing to fight to make it stop.
As of 1775, no English colony in North America had ever been independent. It had always been subject to the king of England. This was not sufficient reason for the colonists to remain loyal subjects of the crown.
The colonists took it upon their own initiative to secede from England. Any votes that may have been cast were taken mainly among those who wanted independence, and those who wished to remain loyal were likely not even informed that a vote was taking place. It isn't really there for a democratic mandate, but a means of gauging support among the uncommitted for any war that may follow.
In the ideal case, the result of the vote is strong enough that the war is a foregone conclusion, and it never actually happens. The WOPR concludes that the only way to win is not to play. Or it may be a means of the parent entity tactfully trying to shed a non-performant territory. Or it may be because people are genuinely trying to decide a course of action based on the will of the people. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, for instance, may one day hold a referendum to determine whether the island should apply for statehood, petition for independence, or remain in the status quo. It is likely that the remainder of the U.S. would honor the results of any such vote, though probably with the U.S. retaining sovereignty over any territory the military already directly controls.
It is not necessary for any national or international body to recognize the vote. It is purely for the secessionists, to determine if they could win a war if the parent entity invades after the split.
The secessionists don't have to pay any attention whatsoever to other regions with an equally strong or stronger case for secession.
If you are voting to secede, you don't care whether or not the vote is legal or binding. The explicit wording is regarding secession, but implicitly it is about whether people will take up arms for Catalonia, or at least not take up arms for Spain, if there is a war for independence. The percentages don't really matter, only the raw numbers. If 10000 people vote "yes", you know that there are potentially 10000 armed rebels out there, waiting for the signal to join the fight.
I think Spain is handling this in the worst possible manner, diplomatically. Viral videos of people getting beaten by police is only going to increase the number of people willing to fight to make it stop.
> Viral videos of people getting beaten by police is only going to increase the number of people willing to fight to make it stop
More lies. The 90% of this videos were proven fake
More lies. The 90% of this videos were proven fake
As an American, I am automatically suspicious of any claim that video of a cop beating someone has been faked.
While we do tend to think that our cops are the best in the world at being unnecessarily violent against suspects, especially minorities and pet dogs, we are aware that cops in other countries are also capable of lesser brutality. Except in Scandinavia, where suspects are ordered into the comfy chair, offered the hot tea, told they have been very naughty, and given actual help towards not repeating their crimes--and that somehow actually works for them.~
We have a nationwide protest movement organized entirely around the suspiciously-high number of black men dying during police encounters or while in police custody. And every time, the video comes out, and the police say, "That isn't what it looks like. It was entirely justified use of force. We investigated ourselves thoroughly, and cleared ourselves of all wrongdoing. Thoroughly."
If an American cop can kill someone for "taking a fighting stance" and "moving a hand toward his waistband," I can consider that maybe Spanish cops might punch someone in the face for committing an overt and obvious act of rebellion against their national government, participating in an event that could sunder the political tranquility of the entire country. It might even be a really strong punch--like, enough to leave a bruise for a few days.~
Half of the U.S. is horrified at the idea of people getting physically attacked for the act of voting. The other half is sorely disappointed at the lack of blood in the streets. There may be some overlap.
Anyway, in the U.S., the police tell blatant and obvious lies whenever they get caught on camera doing something terrible. The cop-cheerleaders believe the lies without hesitation, and the cop-haters don't believe anything a cop says, regardless of the subject. So the only way to really counter video evidence is with more video evidence, from a different angle. All referees and umpires are blind when the call is against our team, but we will grudgingly accept video review of the play. All I have seen is the original video. I haven't seen the video showing how they faked those videos. In the absence of any such evidence, my default assumption is that the official government story is deliberately crafted prevarication.
While we do tend to think that our cops are the best in the world at being unnecessarily violent against suspects, especially minorities and pet dogs, we are aware that cops in other countries are also capable of lesser brutality. Except in Scandinavia, where suspects are ordered into the comfy chair, offered the hot tea, told they have been very naughty, and given actual help towards not repeating their crimes--and that somehow actually works for them.~
We have a nationwide protest movement organized entirely around the suspiciously-high number of black men dying during police encounters or while in police custody. And every time, the video comes out, and the police say, "That isn't what it looks like. It was entirely justified use of force. We investigated ourselves thoroughly, and cleared ourselves of all wrongdoing. Thoroughly."
If an American cop can kill someone for "taking a fighting stance" and "moving a hand toward his waistband," I can consider that maybe Spanish cops might punch someone in the face for committing an overt and obvious act of rebellion against their national government, participating in an event that could sunder the political tranquility of the entire country. It might even be a really strong punch--like, enough to leave a bruise for a few days.~
Half of the U.S. is horrified at the idea of people getting physically attacked for the act of voting. The other half is sorely disappointed at the lack of blood in the streets. There may be some overlap.
Anyway, in the U.S., the police tell blatant and obvious lies whenever they get caught on camera doing something terrible. The cop-cheerleaders believe the lies without hesitation, and the cop-haters don't believe anything a cop says, regardless of the subject. So the only way to really counter video evidence is with more video evidence, from a different angle. All referees and umpires are blind when the call is against our team, but we will grudgingly accept video review of the play. All I have seen is the original video. I haven't seen the video showing how they faked those videos. In the absence of any such evidence, my default assumption is that the official government story is deliberately crafted prevarication.
> how they faked those videos.
1) challenge police for two or three hours
or directly harass them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VochqAemgP0
2) keep the challenge until triggering a reaction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0GwYEfTgzw
3) Good job, now film it
4) Upload the parts that support your discourse to internet, carefully hiding half of the history
1) challenge police for two or three hours
or directly harass them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VochqAemgP0
2) keep the challenge until triggering a reaction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0GwYEfTgzw
3) Good job, now film it
4) Upload the parts that support your discourse to internet, carefully hiding half of the history
So you are not disputing that the people who appear to be police are genuinely police, or that they actually engaged in violence against people engaged in a (nominally) peaceful protest against the authority of the national government? If a real cop really hit a person, and that resulted in real injury, that's not a fake video.
I think it's impressive that a Spanish cop can hold out for two hours of continuous abuse before breaking, but again, I'm used to American cops. Quite a lot of ours can maintain a professional demeanor for an entire shift of continual public abuse, maybe even for several days in a row, as might occur in a G20 protest or similar, but we also have some who will retaliate for frowning at them, or giving them "dehumanizing looks". Sometimes all it takes is just being there while black, or pointing a camera in their general direction.
The international--or at least Western European--expectation for police, as I understand it, is that a cop never breaks down and assaults a person who is not already violent or otherwise endangering the public, regardless of how unpleasant they may be in their non-violence. I'm pretty sure that would never work here. If you can't occasionally gun down a man in the streets just for looking at you funny, how can you expect to generate that pervading aura of absolute terror that keeps everyone nervously polite and law-abiding the rest of the time you're around?~
I'm sorry to tell you that cutting out the three hours of tension prior to the most-viewed portion of the video does not actually debunk it. You'll need to show one of the following:
I think it's impressive that a Spanish cop can hold out for two hours of continuous abuse before breaking, but again, I'm used to American cops. Quite a lot of ours can maintain a professional demeanor for an entire shift of continual public abuse, maybe even for several days in a row, as might occur in a G20 protest or similar, but we also have some who will retaliate for frowning at them, or giving them "dehumanizing looks". Sometimes all it takes is just being there while black, or pointing a camera in their general direction.
The international--or at least Western European--expectation for police, as I understand it, is that a cop never breaks down and assaults a person who is not already violent or otherwise endangering the public, regardless of how unpleasant they may be in their non-violence. I'm pretty sure that would never work here. If you can't occasionally gun down a man in the streets just for looking at you funny, how can you expect to generate that pervading aura of absolute terror that keeps everyone nervously polite and law-abiding the rest of the time you're around?~
I'm sorry to tell you that cutting out the three hours of tension prior to the most-viewed portion of the video does not actually debunk it. You'll need to show one of the following:
- The police in the videos were not real police.
- The apparent victims became violent prior to the start of the video.
- The apparent victims were not as injured as they appeared to be.
> The apparent victims were not as injured as they appeared to be
"Policemen broke deliberately all my fingers one to one and throw me down the stairs".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYl054MItd8
Video shows later that policemen grab her by the right hand. For some reason the bandage is in her left hand. Hospital report explained later that one finger was "sored", I don't know the exact term for capsulitis in english but is not "broken". The other nine were, fortunately, fine. I let you to decide how to calificate the stairs part claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zBwNifMxYg
"Policemen broke deliberately all my fingers one to one and throw me down the stairs".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYl054MItd8
Video shows later that policemen grab her by the right hand. For some reason the bandage is in her left hand. Hospital report explained later that one finger was "sored", I don't know the exact term for capsulitis in english but is not "broken". The other nine were, fortunately, fine. I let you to decide how to calificate the stairs part claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zBwNifMxYg
Well done. That's the type of counterargument I was looking for. I already suspected the "broke all my fingers, one by one" claim to be a gross exaggeration, at the least. The video itself did not support the claim, and it would seem easy enough to establish or disprove after the fact with hospital records.
From what I saw, "they threw me down the stairs" is also obvious exaggeration. While it is not a preferred manner of descent, I think "they dragged/forced me down the stairs" would have been more accurate.
It is still clear that police used force. It is not clear to me whether it was an appropriate use of force by Spanish or European standards.
This is the sort of thing that is commonly accepted from American cops during protests, even though it is nominally unconstitutional for them to deprive people of their right to petition the government for redress under color of law. So I genuinely don't know whether that is the sort of thing that gets Spaniards angry at their government.
From what I saw, "they threw me down the stairs" is also obvious exaggeration. While it is not a preferred manner of descent, I think "they dragged/forced me down the stairs" would have been more accurate.
It is still clear that police used force. It is not clear to me whether it was an appropriate use of force by Spanish or European standards.
This is the sort of thing that is commonly accepted from American cops during protests, even though it is nominally unconstitutional for them to deprive people of their right to petition the government for redress under color of law. So I genuinely don't know whether that is the sort of thing that gets Spaniards angry at their government.
> 5) Other regions of Spain, such as Pamplona or Euskadi,
yeah...not sure how well informed your are...Pamplona is NOT a region, but the capital of a region.
yeah...not sure how well informed your are...Pamplona is NOT a region, but the capital of a region.
He meant Navarra.
It's been a bit of bad luck what happened. On the Spanish side, the party at the Government did not have enough votes to freely apply their own policies. By helping provoke a polarizing crisis, they hugely improve their chances for an absolute majority to improve their power position should there be an election in Spain. Had they negotiated with Catalan Government, their future chances for a huge win would be a lot lower.
On the Catalan side, there was not enough votes to morally claim for independence. By provoking a polarizing crisis, they hope to greatly improve their future chances for an absolute majority that helps legitimate their position.
In short, both parties ruling on both sides believe that they benefit greatly from confrontation so trying to reach agreements is pretty much out of the question, marketing is all that matters.
On the Catalan side, there was not enough votes to morally claim for independence. By provoking a polarizing crisis, they hope to greatly improve their future chances for an absolute majority that helps legitimate their position.
In short, both parties ruling on both sides believe that they benefit greatly from confrontation so trying to reach agreements is pretty much out of the question, marketing is all that matters.
In short, both parties ruling on both sides believe that they benefit greatly from confrontation
No, that's wrong. The reason we have the current clusterf* in place has been the conflict-avoiding actitude of 40 years of spanish governments.
We have a proportional voting systems and regional parties have been the "hinge", the small parties that helped ruling parties to reach absolute majority, in national parliament. This allowed them to get away with actually enjoying unfair privileges over the rest of the country and advancing the regionalist agenda.
Did you know you can't have your children study in Spanish in Spain? Even with several Supreme Court and "supremer" Tribunal Constitutional rulings backing you. Regional government refused to apply the sentences and national government did nothing to force their hands. Public schools have been instrumental to what we have today in the streets. I'm surprised that half the population has resisted 40 years of brainwash, makes me keep my faith in Humanity.
If the article 155 had been applied months, years ago, when the first farce of referendum took place, or even a week before the vote simulation, we had not needed to see the bs that we see in the news everyday.
No, that's wrong. The reason we have the current clusterf* in place has been the conflict-avoiding actitude of 40 years of spanish governments.
We have a proportional voting systems and regional parties have been the "hinge", the small parties that helped ruling parties to reach absolute majority, in national parliament. This allowed them to get away with actually enjoying unfair privileges over the rest of the country and advancing the regionalist agenda.
Did you know you can't have your children study in Spanish in Spain? Even with several Supreme Court and "supremer" Tribunal Constitutional rulings backing you. Regional government refused to apply the sentences and national government did nothing to force their hands. Public schools have been instrumental to what we have today in the streets. I'm surprised that half the population has resisted 40 years of brainwash, makes me keep my faith in Humanity.
If the article 155 had been applied months, years ago, when the first farce of referendum took place, or even a week before the vote simulation, we had not needed to see the bs that we see in the news everyday.
Surely, you have your own brand or brainwashing in mind when it's you who want to control the education.
> On the Catalan side, there was not enough votes to morally claim for independence
Fair enough. How much % census would you consider enough? Catalan pro-independence had higher % than say for instance Brexit vote. And a good chunk of the % was lost to Spanish Police "raids", quite violently boycotting the peaceful vote.
Fair enough. How much % census would you consider enough? Catalan pro-independence had higher % than say for instance Brexit vote. And a good chunk of the % was lost to Spanish Police "raids", quite violently boycotting the peaceful vote.
For instance, the Catalunya Parliament has a requirement of 2/3 of the votes to changes its 'statut' (kind or regional constitution). But they will secede with a simple majority.
In my opinion if the Catalan 2015 election had had more votes pro-independence (in particular for the "Junts pel Sí" party votes, but I can accept CUP votes as well although at the time I was not that sure), it would have been morally claimable.
Or, if they had chosen to go for elections next December where votes unequivocally pro-independence parties where higher than votes for the rest of parties, in my opinion it would have been morally claimable.
In other words, I'm a lot more comfortable with some clear means to count unequivocal Yes votes against unequivocal No votes. If a party has "Independence" in the election program is an unequivocal Yes. If a party does not have "Independence" in the election program is an unequivocal No.
I voted in the referendum but I'm not comfortable with the huge "No show" of No votes on the 1-O referendum. To me, the results of the referendum are not conclusive for such a decision.
Or, if they had chosen to go for elections next December where votes unequivocally pro-independence parties where higher than votes for the rest of parties, in my opinion it would have been morally claimable.
In other words, I'm a lot more comfortable with some clear means to count unequivocal Yes votes against unequivocal No votes. If a party has "Independence" in the election program is an unequivocal Yes. If a party does not have "Independence" in the election program is an unequivocal No.
I voted in the referendum but I'm not comfortable with the huge "No show" of No votes on the 1-O referendum. To me, the results of the referendum are not conclusive for such a decision.
FTA The Catalan government said that of the 43% of potential voters who took part in the referendum, 90% were in favour of independence.
In a referendum where people who wanted to vote "no" didn't show up, because of fears of violence.
This just isn't a reflection of the will of the population.
In a referendum where people who wanted to vote "no" didn't show up, because of fears of violence.
This just isn't a reflection of the will of the population.
Not true. People came to the polls wearing Spanish flags. No violence. The Catalan process has thankfully been extremely peaceful.
People did not vote in the referendum because it was not officially recognized as such. Because the Spanish government refused to agree on the terms.
The referendum was a sad exercise of democracy, in which the voice of lots of Catalans was not heard. But it was the only one that could be organized due to the ferocious opposition of the Central Government.
I would prefer the Referendum to be repeated, in better conditions and properly organized, with all parties exposing their arguments, and all citizens interested enough to vote having their voices heard.
Sadly, this might now never happen.
People did not vote in the referendum because it was not officially recognized as such. Because the Spanish government refused to agree on the terms.
The referendum was a sad exercise of democracy, in which the voice of lots of Catalans was not heard. But it was the only one that could be organized due to the ferocious opposition of the Central Government.
I would prefer the Referendum to be repeated, in better conditions and properly organized, with all parties exposing their arguments, and all citizens interested enough to vote having their voices heard.
Sadly, this might now never happen.
I guess the point is that given that the spanish government considered the referendum illegal, people not in favor of independence would probably not have wanted to caution it by participating. Clearly in these conditions the results can't be trusted.
It's more like "90% of the people who thought the referendum was legitimate are in favor of independence". There's obviously a big selection bias.
As for the question of whether the referendum was legitimate or not, the problem in my opinion is how can you consider a referendum democratic if only a tiny portion of the country's population gets to take the decision? Catalunia becoming independent would have consequences throughout the country, shouldn't everybody get to vote?
And if not, where do you draw the line? Paris and its region generate about 1/6th of the total GDP of France, what if Parisians decided to declare independence? What about the Lega Nord in Italy? And let's not even talk about the historical economic divide between eastern/western Germany or the variations of GDP between states in the USA.
What if all the rich people in Japan decided to all move to an inhabited island and declare independence with 100% of the vote? Would that be legitimate?
It's more like "90% of the people who thought the referendum was legitimate are in favor of independence". There's obviously a big selection bias.
As for the question of whether the referendum was legitimate or not, the problem in my opinion is how can you consider a referendum democratic if only a tiny portion of the country's population gets to take the decision? Catalunia becoming independent would have consequences throughout the country, shouldn't everybody get to vote?
And if not, where do you draw the line? Paris and its region generate about 1/6th of the total GDP of France, what if Parisians decided to declare independence? What about the Lega Nord in Italy? And let's not even talk about the historical economic divide between eastern/western Germany or the variations of GDP between states in the USA.
What if all the rich people in Japan decided to all move to an inhabited island and declare independence with 100% of the vote? Would that be legitimate?
> Catalunia becoming independent would have consequences throughout the country, shouldn't everybody get to vote?
That's a strange argument. Should the other member states of the EU have gotten to vote on Brexit?
That's a strange argument. Should the other member states of the EU have gotten to vote on Brexit?
Brexit was made possible by article 50 of the treaty on european union[1]. This article was introduced by the treaty of Lisbon[2] which was approved by the european parliament and ratified by all EU members.
So while only UK citizens got to vote on brexit the legal possibility to exit the union was actually approved by all the EU members. If there was an article in the spanish constitution that allowed for a region to secede under certain conditions we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Furthermore the UK always remained a sovereign state, with its own currency, army etc... It's hardly comparable to Catalunya. The scottish referendum would be a better comparison.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_Eu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
So while only UK citizens got to vote on brexit the legal possibility to exit the union was actually approved by all the EU members. If there was an article in the spanish constitution that allowed for a region to secede under certain conditions we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Furthermore the UK always remained a sovereign state, with its own currency, army etc... It's hardly comparable to Catalunya. The scottish referendum would be a better comparison.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_Eu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
And that is exactly the problem. A state constitution which is unable to adapt to a changing society is destined to irrelevance.
Authority emanates from people, not from papers.
Authority emanates from people, not from papers.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you think the majority of spaniards would support amending the constitution to allow for a region to declare independence? Seems really dubious to me. And if not, then why blame the constitution?
I mean a Constitution is not, and must not be, respected if it goes against the will of a big part of the population.
A state constitution must offer a framework which is interesting for all of its peoples and territories: if big groups of people do not see the point of it, it looses its validity.
A state constitution must offer a framework which is interesting for all of its peoples and territories: if big groups of people do not see the point of it, it looses its validity.
No dude, authority emanates from armies, which are never irrelevant. And the writing is on the wall.
I hope the Catalans that voted to leave have really good reasons to do it, because if the situation isn't defused somehow, there are some tough times ahead.
I hope the Catalans that voted to leave have really good reasons to do it, because if the situation isn't defused somehow, there are some tough times ahead.
That is true for primitive societies. Modern, civiliced societies do not resort to violence when they lose the war of words and persuassion.
It is not clear we are in a modern era.
It is not clear we are in a modern era.
The people of Catalonia vote on whether they are willing to fight for their independence. The people in the rest of Spain can vote on whether they are willing to force that fight to take place.
An EU vote on Brexit would make no sense, as one or more of the countries would have to withdraw from NATO in order for a war to occur. The unlikelihood of war among NATO members is probably one of the reasons why exit procedures exist in the first place--the other notable reason being that some countries never would have joined in the first place, if they thought they would have to fight their way out.
Spain, on the other hand, has apparently never been shy about fighting Spaniards. It might be appropriate for Spain to hold a vote, but only to show Catalonia what it may be up against, and a "no" vote gives the national government a mandate to be brutal. They can, of course, be just as brutal after a "yes" vote, but the propaganda budget would be higher.
An EU vote on Brexit would make no sense, as one or more of the countries would have to withdraw from NATO in order for a war to occur. The unlikelihood of war among NATO members is probably one of the reasons why exit procedures exist in the first place--the other notable reason being that some countries never would have joined in the first place, if they thought they would have to fight their way out.
Spain, on the other hand, has apparently never been shy about fighting Spaniards. It might be appropriate for Spain to hold a vote, but only to show Catalonia what it may be up against, and a "no" vote gives the national government a mandate to be brutal. They can, of course, be just as brutal after a "yes" vote, but the propaganda budget would be higher.
> An EU vote on Brexit would make no sense, as one or more of the countries would have to withdraw from NATO in order for a war to occur.
No, it might be that, if a war occurred either NATO would cease to exist as a credible alliance or one or more countries would be expelled from it and find themselves at war with it, but certainly withdrawal from NATO isn't a necessary precondition for war.
No, it might be that, if a war occurred either NATO would cease to exist as a credible alliance or one or more countries would be expelled from it and find themselves at war with it, but certainly withdrawal from NATO isn't a necessary precondition for war.
Self determination would be meaningless if entire country or entity needs to vote to allow its parts to become independent.
There are many examples of self determination in 20th and 21st century, and normally only region/area that wants to become independent votes. Most recent example is independence referendum in Scotland. Entire UK did not vote, only Scotland voted.
There are many examples of self determination in 20th and 21st century, and normally only region/area that wants to become independent votes. Most recent example is independence referendum in Scotland. Entire UK did not vote, only Scotland voted.
The next Catalan elections will be a referendum by another name, no? Obviously without legal force, but if the parties for independence win big, it'll be hard to claim it's for any other reason - and the same for the parties against it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't any more Catalan elections or the independence parties were banned from standing in them.
Mmmm, that would degenerate rapidly into civil disobedience. It is hard to see how the central Spanish government can change the opinions of a big part of Catalan society by playing hard ball. I would say that the harder they go, the most people they antagonize.
And therein lies the problem: 15 years ago the amount of pro-independence was relatively low, but the Central government has refused to take the demands of the Catalan government seriously.
The current political class ruling in Spain is completely overwhelmed on how to deal with a changing society, and the structure of the Spanish State is inflexible, to the point of having to argue that in order for a region to push for the changes they feel they are entitled to, first they need to reform the Constitution, something that is impossible to achieve since the reforms they want to implement are blocked by exactly the same people that would block a reform of the Constitution. Go figure.
And therein lies the problem: 15 years ago the amount of pro-independence was relatively low, but the Central government has refused to take the demands of the Catalan government seriously.
The current political class ruling in Spain is completely overwhelmed on how to deal with a changing society, and the structure of the Spanish State is inflexible, to the point of having to argue that in order for a region to push for the changes they feel they are entitled to, first they need to reform the Constitution, something that is impossible to achieve since the reforms they want to implement are blocked by exactly the same people that would block a reform of the Constitution. Go figure.
That's a coup of the Spanish State, isn't it?
True, and this already happened in the last elections to the Catalan Parliament (Generalitat). But it's sad to fake referendums by hijacking elections, which exist for completely different reasons. This just mixes and confounds lots of different issues, and makes parliamentary elections meaningless.
The question of independence is complex enough that warrants a dedicated vote.
The question of independence is complex enough that warrants a dedicated vote.
I don't have a strong position one way or the other, but it seems to me that the Spanish government completely botched their response to the referendum by trying to get by with a raw power play which basically guaranteed that the referendum would pass (which by no means was guaranteed had the referendum but allowed to proceed without interference), leaving Spain with no choice but to use force. Now Catalonia has called their bluff.
Spain is going to be left with the choice between letting Catalonia go or attempting to use force to keep them in the state. I don't think Spain is prepared to fight a civil war over this, personally, nor should it. Let them go, keep them in the EU, keep the borders open.
With the EU there, it seems like breakups like this don't need to go any worse than splitting up North and South Carolina, for example.
Spain is going to be left with the choice between letting Catalonia go or attempting to use force to keep them in the state. I don't think Spain is prepared to fight a civil war over this, personally, nor should it. Let them go, keep them in the EU, keep the borders open.
With the EU there, it seems like breakups like this don't need to go any worse than splitting up North and South Carolina, for example.
> Let them go, keep them in the EU
They won't be automatically in the EU, and actually, this is going to be a serious political problem - the EU will have (rightfully) troubles accepting a country with strong separatist sentiments.
On top of this, it will have very serious financial problems - Catalonia economy may look good in a Spanish context, but compared to the European countries in the mid/upper "class", it's very poor, and will be worse once it will have to pay the administrative bills for setting itself up as a country.
They won't be automatically in the EU, and actually, this is going to be a serious political problem - the EU will have (rightfully) troubles accepting a country with strong separatist sentiments.
On top of this, it will have very serious financial problems - Catalonia economy may look good in a Spanish context, but compared to the European countries in the mid/upper "class", it's very poor, and will be worse once it will have to pay the administrative bills for setting itself up as a country.
> With the EU there, it seems like breakups like this don't need to go any worse than splitting up North and South Carolina, for example.
This isn't really a great example, as North and South Carolina weren't really ever a single entity (even when there was a Province of Carolina, North and South Carolina were separate within it). They were both original US states.
This isn't really a great example, as North and South Carolina weren't really ever a single entity (even when there was a Province of Carolina, North and South Carolina were separate within it). They were both original US states.
That's the funny thing with the situation. Both sides screw up so bad there is literally no-one to support here. Whatever comment you make in favor for one will be immediately counter by comments that are equally reasonable for the other one.
Well, if you were the Catalonian government and you wanted to push for independence, what would you do instead? Or are you saying that pushing for independence itself is a screw up?
As usual people are missing part of the story. Both side screw up. BOTH.
E.G: there is a strong racism culture among Catalonia independentists, even against other Spaniards. They even invented part of their cultural heritage to sound more credible (look up their "ancestral cultural dance" origin, it is kinda funny). If you want your independence, not alianating the rest of your neighbors for decades can be a good start.
Those events are never unfolding in an instant, but are the consequences of years of complex shenanigans.
E.G: there is a strong racism culture among Catalonia independentists, even against other Spaniards. They even invented part of their cultural heritage to sound more credible (look up their "ancestral cultural dance" origin, it is kinda funny). If you want your independence, not alianating the rest of your neighbors for decades can be a good start.
Those events are never unfolding in an instant, but are the consequences of years of complex shenanigans.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but is there any reason at all to believe that the rest of Spain would have allowed the referendum if only Catalonia had been very nice to everyone else? Seems like an excuse to me.
[deleted]
That's assuming a side already.
Again, nobody is right here. They bkth screw up in many ways.
Again, nobody is right here. They bkth screw up in many ways.
Or they could have a proper referendum which might be in their favor.
The real catch is more "In a referendum where people who wanted to vote "no" didn't show up, because they didn't want to legitimize a referendum they considered illegal".
> people who wanted to vote "no" didn't show up, because of fears of violence.
that is just false. They did not show up because they did not want the referedum to take place.
that is just false. They did not show up because they did not want the referedum to take place.
Then it sucks to be them. You can't blame everyone else for making a decision when you refuse to voice your opinion on said decision.
Yeah, maybe because it was not legal, anyway, it does not show in an accurate way the opinion of the Catalans.
Funny that I got downvoted for saying that, I will say it again, it was not legal, and therefore because the lack of participation is not representing the opinion of the Catalans.
Obviously there is no legitimacy on declaring the independence in an unilateral way considering that the referendum was illegal. What is happening is pure "picaresca española" ;)
To add to that, the validity of the votes are questionable in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendu...
> Due to the many irregularities and to the actions taken by the national police and civil guard, the international observers, invited by the Generalitat, declared that the referendum results could not be considered valid as the process failed to meet the minimum international standards for elections.
IMO the Catalan government just lost any legitimacy they might have hoped to have by declaring independence prematurely.
> Due to the many irregularities and to the actions taken by the national police and civil guard, the international observers, invited by the Generalitat, declared that the referendum results could not be considered valid as the process failed to meet the minimum international standards for elections.
IMO the Catalan government just lost any legitimacy they might have hoped to have by declaring independence prematurely.
I'm guessing "national police" referrs to Spanish police and their brutal suppression of the voting, not Catalan police.
You say "brutal suppression" based on the images you saw in the media, right?
Pictures are easy to manipulate.
Videos, not so much:
https://spanishpolice.github.io/
Videos, not so much:
https://spanishpolice.github.io/
Videos are taken mostly by those out in the streets, so there are obviously biased towards one side. Is it so hard to believe that both sides exert some kind of violence? Do you really believe that one side is entirely pacifist and the other is aggressive? That kind of narrative should be hard to believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_g4-4fMoMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ak9224HG_E
Of course, the Catalan police is the regional police.
True enough. Although this is a problem of Madrid's own making. By suppressing the referendum, they virtually guaranteed these results. It seems to me the political situation there is worse than if there has been a peaceful referendum, under protest by Madrid, and Catalans had narrowly voted for independence. They could probably have defused that with some sort of marginal concession to increase the region's autonomy (as they have in the past). But the problem they have now may not be solved so easily.
This is incorrect. I saw a few people with Spanish flags and everyone cheered them for voting.
Can't use that excuse when it's the side supporting "no" perpetrating the violence.
Are you saying it's fine if the vote doesn't represent the democratic will of the people as a whole because the government was using violent means to ensure the rule of law? So a minority group should be able to unilaterally dismantle a country contrary to the democratic wishes of the occupants?
As presented you appear to stand firmly against democracy, is that so?
If the vote has been carried out properly then there would be a leg to stand on.
As presented you appear to stand firmly against democracy, is that so?
If the vote has been carried out properly then there would be a leg to stand on.
> the government was using violent means to ensure the rule of law
Beating up people for trying to put a piece of paper into a box is not "the rule of law".
The rule of law would have been to let people put pieces of paper into boxes, then go out the next day and arrest the organizers of the referendum.
Beating up people for trying to put a piece of paper into a box is not "the rule of law".
The rule of law would have been to let people put pieces of paper into boxes, then go out the next day and arrest the organizers of the referendum.
The rule of law would have been letting people put pieces of paper in boxes, then laughing when they vote no anyway. From what I've seen, they would probably have voted against independence if Spain hadn't tried to stop the referendum.
Had they voted for independence anyway, the Spanish government could then refuse to recognize it because it was unconstitutional.
Had they voted for independence anyway, the Spanish government could then refuse to recognize it because it was unconstitutional.
I think it's actually a tougher call than you suggest, allowing the referendum to resolve could easily foment more unrest and a greater more violent outcome.
I would not have ordered such action, FWIW.
I would not have ordered such action, FWIW.
> I think it's actually a tougher call than you suggest
No. "Police should only beat people as a last resort to keep them from causing direct, immediate bodily harm to others" is not a tough call at all.
Even if having police present was a good idea (it wasn't), they should have had the strictest orders to, you know, not hit people with sticks.
> allowing the referendum to resolve could easily foment more unrest and a greater more violent outcome
You are arguing for punishing people, by causing them physical harm, without court orders, for things others might possibly do in the future. You are arguing for the exact opposite of the rule of law.
No. "Police should only beat people as a last resort to keep them from causing direct, immediate bodily harm to others" is not a tough call at all.
Even if having police present was a good idea (it wasn't), they should have had the strictest orders to, you know, not hit people with sticks.
> allowing the referendum to resolve could easily foment more unrest and a greater more violent outcome
You are arguing for punishing people, by causing them physical harm, without court orders, for things others might possibly do in the future. You are arguing for the exact opposite of the rule of law.
OK, AIUI the law in Spain means that only central gov can order a referendum. The vote was declared illegal and those party to it were thus breaking the law, conspiring to harm the constitutional standing of the country.
If you were voting, supporting voters, etc., you were breaking the law, refusal to stop is contravening the law and the police should then act accordingly, using force if people refuse to stop supporting the vote.
Imagine it was an illegal march of white supremacists in USA, or National Front in UK.
It devolves into violence when people choose to ignored the rule of law and give no other option to maintain the law than to apply violence.
Unless the separatists want to negotiate then violence is literally the only recourse that Spain has to defend its constitution. Perhaps it shouldn't, but anything else is just letting an undemocratic action force an unwanted change.
If you were voting, supporting voters, etc., you were breaking the law, refusal to stop is contravening the law and the police should then act accordingly, using force if people refuse to stop supporting the vote.
Imagine it was an illegal march of white supremacists in USA, or National Front in UK.
It devolves into violence when people choose to ignored the rule of law and give no other option to maintain the law than to apply violence.
Unless the separatists want to negotiate then violence is literally the only recourse that Spain has to defend its constitution. Perhaps it shouldn't, but anything else is just letting an undemocratic action force an unwanted change.
> OK, AIUI the law in Spain means that only central gov can order a referendum. The vote was declared illegal and those party to it were thus breaking the law, conspiring to harm the constitutional standing of the country.
My understanding is the same. Which is why I wrote above that they should have gone out and actually arrested the separatist leaders who organized all this. This could have played out in the courts (up to the Court of Justice of the European Union, I would guess).
But sending a few thousand (or tens of thousands?) police against millions of voters was not about this. Whatever they thought they were trying to do, it was not possible with these numbers. And as far as I can tell, they did not try to arrest people. They did not try to get people's personal data to get them before of a court at some other point. They did not show up in time to simply barricade the doors of polling stations. In short, they were not enforcing or upholding the law in any meaningful sense.
My understanding is the same. Which is why I wrote above that they should have gone out and actually arrested the separatist leaders who organized all this. This could have played out in the courts (up to the Court of Justice of the European Union, I would guess).
But sending a few thousand (or tens of thousands?) police against millions of voters was not about this. Whatever they thought they were trying to do, it was not possible with these numbers. And as far as I can tell, they did not try to arrest people. They did not try to get people's personal data to get them before of a court at some other point. They did not show up in time to simply barricade the doors of polling stations. In short, they were not enforcing or upholding the law in any meaningful sense.
No, he's just saying that parent's excuse that "no" voters didn't show up because of fear of violence is invalid, because the only perpetrators of violence were Spanish police (i.e. the pro-"no" force), so if anything "yes" voters were discouraged.
The people who thought the referendum was illegal and didn't matter, didn't show up. In part because of fears of violence from police (shall we say) "enthusiastically" enforcing the law.
The people who wanted the referendum to go through were motivated to show up despite the violence. Because they believed in their cause.
So no, the "yes" voters were likely not discouraged from showing up. Or, the "soft" yes votes were discouraged.
The people who wanted the referendum to go through were motivated to show up despite the violence. Because they believed in their cause.
So no, the "yes" voters were likely not discouraged from showing up. Or, the "soft" yes votes were discouraged.
Democratic will is the will of voters, by not voting you choose to let others decide for you.
You can’t reward people for not voting, that’s just utterly insane.
You can’t reward people for not voting, that’s just utterly insane.
In the minds of the Spanish people of Catalonia the referendum was completely illegitimate, why would they vote in it?
My mistake, I thought demos was the people not the "voters". /s
Not voting in an illegal ballot seems reasonable. The rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy as too are free and fair elections.
Not voting in an illegal ballot seems reasonable. The rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy as too are free and fair elections.
And self-determination is the cornerstone of international rights, up there in Article I of the Charter of the UN.
For me, 70 out of 135 elected representatives is a more democratic mandate than the referendum. Not a fan of referendums.
For me, 70 out of 135 elected representatives is a more democratic mandate than the referendum. Not a fan of referendums.
Cornerstone? Isn't recognition of nation states the cornerstone?
Art 1.2 talks of maintaining peace amongst the nation's through respect for "equal rights and self-determination of peoples". To me that puts self-determination below democratic process, reversing them would not respect equal rights.
http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.htm...
Art 1.2 talks of maintaining peace amongst the nation's through respect for "equal rights and self-determination of peoples". To me that puts self-determination below democratic process, reversing them would not respect equal rights.
http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.htm...
What you can't do is to reward people voting on a poll that the majority does not want to vote in.
Why not? If the majority doesn't want to make their opinion known, that's fine, but I don't see how they can blame others for continuing on despite their silence.
Because then every minority can vote whatever they want. A few of your neighbours can vote to kick your family out of your house. A few rival supporters can vote to kick your team out of your favourite league. Some students can vote to kick your kids out of college because they do not like them. If we let anyone to invent polls and votes that affect the majority of people then nonsense happens.
> Because then every minority can vote whatever they want.
I don't see why that would be a problem. In fact, we already do that all the time. Look at the voting turnout for a large number of elections. Are you seriously suggesting that >50% of voters have to vote on something (that they may or may not be properly informed about) to make it legitimate?
I generally don't vote on my local school and education laws, because I don't have kids, and don't follow that system enough to be properly informed. My city has a low percentage of parents, so I'm assuming that a lot of other people don't either. If the choice is between everyone voting on stuff that they don't understand, or only those who care enough vote, I'll take the later every time.
I don't see why that would be a problem. In fact, we already do that all the time. Look at the voting turnout for a large number of elections. Are you seriously suggesting that >50% of voters have to vote on something (that they may or may not be properly informed about) to make it legitimate?
I generally don't vote on my local school and education laws, because I don't have kids, and don't follow that system enough to be properly informed. My city has a low percentage of parents, so I'm assuming that a lot of other people don't either. If the choice is between everyone voting on stuff that they don't understand, or only those who care enough vote, I'll take the later every time.
The side supporting "yes" perpetrates equal amounts of violence. Is just the propaganda machine is much more developed on that side (with the money from all Spaniards...)
I’m not there, so I can’t say for sure, but those I know in Catalonia have been pretty clear that this isn’t the case.
The side supporting "yes" perpetrates equal amounts of violence.
Really? I didn't see the footage of the Mossos throwing people who weren't in favour of independence down stairs or dragging them around by their hair. Where do I find it?
Really? I didn't see the footage of the Mossos throwing people who weren't in favour of independence down stairs or dragging them around by their hair. Where do I find it?
Is just the propaganda machine is much more developed on that side
Thus supporting the case that Catalonia is being dragged down by Spain - even their propaganda machines are better! :D
Thus supporting the case that Catalonia is being dragged down by Spain - even their propaganda machines are better! :D
Thank you for polarizing into "better and worse" humans.
This breaks the HN guidelines. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I apologize for my interpretation and response. It wouldn't be the first time that I read or hear comments of Catalans being superior to the rest of the Spanish.
It's called a joke. I'm a descendant of Galicians myself.
No times for jokes when the whole country is a mess due to a nationalist movement.
Show examples.
https://spanishpolice.github.io/
https://spanishpolice.github.io/
Interesting that this page title is "Videos of the Repression lived in Catalonia by the Spanish Police" while the video shows in most cases professional work of the force, especially considering the behavior of crowd. I don't want to take any sides, but know this - crowd plus emotions might turn into something dangerous. We should put emotions aside and then consider the situation. I am not telling that what happened was good, but sometimes you must choose the lesser eveil.
As I said, the propaganda machine is more developed in one side. The story is related by those who have a stronger interest. I've indeed seen videos of violence against those who don't think like the independentist. And I've lived in the region for 6 years, there are many other forms of violence as well. But you can look it up on the internet. You won't find a web index with hundreds of videos though, that doesn't surprise me.
"I've indeed seen videos of violence against those who don't think like the independentist."
Do you have any links to specific videos?
Do you have any links to specific videos?
Source?
You can keep downvoting me for thinking differently from what is seen is media. No, I admit it, there was shameful violence that day. But there is also daily violence against those who think differently and don't support the nationalist and xenophobic ideas behind the independentist movements. Of course, that's not admitted openly.
It is a bit hard to vote when the police doesn't let you reach the places where it is taking place.
Donald Trump was elected with a smaller mandate then 38% of the voting population. Brexit was done with a smaller mandate then 38% of the voting population.
Can we get a do-over on those?
Can we get a do-over on those?
Sure, but the question is, which population?
A referendum conventionally happens country wide, surveying a % of the whole population. Not in a self-selected population subset.
Otherwise there's this icky question of what subset, what "social unit", is allowed to claim independence? Spain? Catalunya only? Barcelona only? La Rambla? Jose down the street, as an individual, in his own referendum-of-one?
This ad-absurdum may sound extreme, but there's really no fundamental difference there. The government astutely identified this as a "slippery slope", with brute power as the primary differentiator in practice.
A referendum conventionally happens country wide, surveying a % of the whole population. Not in a self-selected population subset.
Otherwise there's this icky question of what subset, what "social unit", is allowed to claim independence? Spain? Catalunya only? Barcelona only? La Rambla? Jose down the street, as an individual, in his own referendum-of-one?
This ad-absurdum may sound extreme, but there's really no fundamental difference there. The government astutely identified this as a "slippery slope", with brute power as the primary differentiator in practice.
> A referendum conventionally happens country wide, surveying a % of the whole population. Not in a self-selected population subset.
In the recent Scottish independence referendum, resident Scottish people voted.
In the recent Scottish independence referendum, resident Scottish people voted.
This was to be discussed while organizing the referendum. Sadly, the Spanish government refused to even consider the idea.
I know and agree! But that's completely orthogonal to my point.
The new Catalan government (or any other government) may find itself presented with the same question, in the future. The writing is on the wall, in this all-or-nothing, binary age (cf. libertarians).
The new Catalan government (or any other government) may find itself presented with the same question, in the future. The writing is on the wall, in this all-or-nothing, binary age (cf. libertarians).
In my opinion the referendum was not lawful because:
1- Was not legal, so the participation was low.
2- There were serious irregularities in the voting system.
I'm against the violence and I think that the independence of a region is something morally right, but I don't consider that the referendum 1-O legitimizes that the Govern of Catalunya declares the independence of Catalunya in an unilateral manner. I think the Catalan Govern is cheating in its own benefit.
I'm against the violence and I think that the independence of a region is something morally right, but I don't consider that the referendum 1-O legitimizes that the Govern of Catalunya declares the independence of Catalunya in an unilateral manner. I think the Catalan Govern is cheating in its own benefit.
90% of 43% is still nearly 40% That's a better result in favour of independence than Brexit.
True, Catalans factual issues are understandable, but this was an improper way to change things. It's nicer than fixed elections with fake votes, but it's almost as biased.
How else should they have done it?
What about:
- no threats to non pro-spain - more time before actual vote so people had time to actually come
a rushed vote is bad
- no threats to non pro-spain - more time before actual vote so people had time to actually come
a rushed vote is bad
- Which threats has the Catalonian government issued?
- Sure, but it's kinda hard to have an orderly vote when you have the National Guard descending on you and trying to stop it.
- Sure, but it's kinda hard to have an orderly vote when you have the National Guard descending on you and trying to stop it.
Reports of threats from Catalonians themselves.
It's true Spain did wrong too.
It's true Spain did wrong too.
You mean, from regular citizens? That's an impossible bar to meet; even the systemd change in Debian had people sending death threats.
70 out of 135 elected representatives. That's a better reflection than referendums, the typical tool of populists.
The only violence to be feared was committed by Spanish police, there specifically to suppress the vote.
> The only violence to be feared was committed by Spanish police
This is not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_g4-4fMoMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ak9224HG_E
This is not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_g4-4fMoMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ak9224HG_E
You offer not a shred of evidence to back up your claim. Why would anyone believe it?
This will end badly...
Eh, I think it depends. If the Spanish government now takes over the Catalonian government and schedules new elections, and the anti⁻independence parties win by a reasonable margin, it may deflate the whole thing.
If there's actual major popular support for independence, then yeah, I don't see how the Spanish government can defuse that grenade without major concessions, which I don't see Rajoy accepting, so it could get very messy.
(Don't take my opinion very seriously, though; while I have close ties to Spain I don't have any particular knowledge about this situation)
If there's actual major popular support for independence, then yeah, I don't see how the Spanish government can defuse that grenade without major concessions, which I don't see Rajoy accepting, so it could get very messy.
(Don't take my opinion very seriously, though; while I have close ties to Spain I don't have any particular knowledge about this situation)
If Catalonia somehow cedes from Spain/EC then there will probably be repercussions around Europe.
I was extremely surprised the other day to see a Welsh person who I'm acquainted with calling for civil war against the English. I sincerely hope there are not enough with such madness to make any thing viable in that respect, but the do seem to be substantial communities in other regions of the EC where things could kick off too.
I was extremely surprised the other day to see a Welsh person who I'm acquainted with calling for civil war against the English. I sincerely hope there are not enough with such madness to make any thing viable in that respect, but the do seem to be substantial communities in other regions of the EC where things could kick off too.
It could, but let's remember that the Catalan process to independence has been extremely peaceful for over 40 years.
Like Norway and Sweden?
I guess Spain is hoping that power still comes from the barrel of a gun, judging by the violence employed on referendum day - but interested to see what the hell Spain thinks it can do if the whole of Catalonia goes on strike. I guess it's a battle of wills now. How much of the population of Catalonia really want independence, and what sacrifices are they willing to make to get it?
So I am not following this especially closely, but my understanding is that the vote represented a minority of the population and was done outside of legal channels. Your last question is really the most pertinent issue as far as what happens next—does the citizenry really care about this, and deeply? Or is it more of a power play drummed up by local political leaders?
It was done “outside of legal channels” in the sense that it’s not possible to do it “within legal channels”.
I have no particular view on the outcome of this, but the fact that upwards of half a million protestors turned out in Barcelona suggests that it’s an important issue.
I have no particular view on the outcome of this, but the fact that upwards of half a million protestors turned out in Barcelona suggests that it’s an important issue.
> outside of legal channels
My understanding is that the polls were not universal, but only ran in the Catalonia areas with strong support for independence. And there was no vote security and verification, in fact, people were encouraged to vote multiple times in the same referendum.
So the referendum could not be construed as legal.
My understanding is that the polls were not universal, but only ran in the Catalonia areas with strong support for independence. And there was no vote security and verification, in fact, people were encouraged to vote multiple times in the same referendum.
So the referendum could not be construed as legal.
I was in Barcelona the three days before Spain's ultimatum on October 19. And fwiw I saw hundreds of Catalonian flags hanging from the balconies, and very few (less than 5) Spanish flags. It doesn't mean much, but at least in Barcelona it seems that citizens are concerned.
That's interesting, I was also in Barcelona last week and I saw slightly more Spanish flags than Catalan.
I think the real problem is that Spain have consistently blocked a peaceful referendum. I don't believe Catalonia would vote to leave in a fair vote, but I do feel that the repressive actions of the Kingdom of Spain on this matter are the kind of thing that could justify declaring independence unilaterally.
I think the real problem is that Spain have consistently blocked a peaceful referendum. I don't believe Catalonia would vote to leave in a fair vote, but I do feel that the repressive actions of the Kingdom of Spain on this matter are the kind of thing that could justify declaring independence unilaterally.
Again, what is the repression of the Kingdom of Spain exactly? Not allowing the referendum? It was ruled illegal by the high courts. Catalonia should push for a change of that, but not blame the government for applying the Constitution.
Yes, not allowing the referendum. It was ruled illegal because the Spanish constitution does not allow secession, effectively preventing self-determination for Catalonia.
Denying people a right that's commonly understood to be fundamental to international law and then using violence to enforce it is repression in my book. Spain has consistently escalated tensions rather than offering a path to a real democratic decision. They're going to have to accept the repercussions of that decision.
Denying people a right that's commonly understood to be fundamental to international law and then using violence to enforce it is repression in my book. Spain has consistently escalated tensions rather than offering a path to a real democratic decision. They're going to have to accept the repercussions of that decision.
You are probably reading biased media. Spain has not consistently escalated tensions, it's been done by both sides. I disagree that something like this is commonly understood as fundamental. Referendums need to meet some conditions and be agreed. Disagreement happened in both sides, it wasn't an authoritarian decision in spite of what some international media seem to enjoy saying. What is illegal in the referendum is: - it asks something that is not allowed to happen by the constitution (thus the need to change it first) - there is no clear definition of who is allowed to vote (who is Catalan by which definition) - the right to vote on the ownership of that land belongs to all Spanish just like any other region belongs to those voting there. - What's the level at which we do the referendum? Not all areas might want to leave in the case of a hypothetical "yes" (which is not a majority at the moment by any poll). What if certain areas want independence from Catalonia?
Most importantly: the referendum is illegal even by the autonomic law of Catalonia. They should have had 2/3 of the chamber to push it, and they did it with less than half (48% IRCC).
Most importantly: the referendum is illegal even by the autonomic law of Catalonia. They should have had 2/3 of the chamber to push it, and they did it with less than half (48% IRCC).
Indeed, there are plenty that say it's only a minority of Catalans that want independence. I have no idea. But I do think the idea of legitimacy is questionable - those against independence point to the constitution, but it's not like those are tablets of stone is it? Constitutions are a work of man, and states come and go, along with their laws. At what point does Madrid's rule become tyrannical? Just interested from a philosophical point of view, though certainly I'm thankful I'm not one of the ones in danger of a Spanish baton to the head.
At least the independistas seem to care about this issue deeply, there’s been much less interest on the other side.
This is a highly emotional issue. Little of what is said regarding History or economics is remotely solid. In an age with particularly low bar for checking facts, I think this independentist movement has basically been sheppered by a few ones interested in manipulating the uninformed population.
> judging by the violence employed on referendum day
It was not as much as it seemed: "That woman who had all her fingers broken. She hadn’t. That six-year-old boy, paralysed by police brutality? It didn’t happen. Serious injuries on the day: just two." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo...
It was not as much as it seemed: "That woman who had all her fingers broken. She hadn’t. That six-year-old boy, paralysed by police brutality? It didn’t happen. Serious injuries on the day: just two." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo...
The video I saw on the news was enough evidence for me. Are you saying that was faked? And in any case, as far as I'm concerned any level of violence is unacceptable. Madrid made itself look like a tin-pot dictatorship, which is particularly unfortunate given its history. It would have been far better to let the referendum happen and say 'and'? Reacting with violence demonstrated fear, not strength, and if anything seemed to strengthen the case for independence.
For better or for worse, there will be no independent Catalonia in the foreseeable future. About 40-50% of Catalans don't support this. The EU doesn't support this, no Western nation supports this (save maybe Russia if you consider them Western -- and even their position is unclear). Furthermore, Spain won't allow it, and they're the main actor in a position to do something about it.
Even if Catalonia somehow manages to enforce its declaration, the economic consequences will be so devastating that they will reverse course in due time.
Even if Catalonia somehow manages to enforce its declaration, the economic consequences will be so devastating that they will reverse course in due time.
I can't name a single secessionist movement that got distracted by economy.
If anything, economic troubles reinforce the determination.
Once people take independence as a question of pride, they're extremelly reluctant of considering selling their independence for money.
If anything, economic troubles reinforce the determination.
Once people take independence as a question of pride, they're extremelly reluctant of considering selling their independence for money.
There have also been few successful secessionist movements that weren't backed by force of arms.
Anyway, I think the calculus is unique in this case. We are already seeing major companies move their headquarters out of Catalonia. Catalonia's independence would mean disruption of access to EU common market benefits and Schengen. Also they couldn't stop smaller provinces from voting to rejoin Spain.
Anyway, I think the calculus is unique in this case. We are already seeing major companies move their headquarters out of Catalonia. Catalonia's independence would mean disruption of access to EU common market benefits and Schengen. Also they couldn't stop smaller provinces from voting to rejoin Spain.
Local militia is often sufficient after you manage to anger locals.
Not sufficient to win maybe, but definitely to mandate some sort of peacekeepers.
Not sufficient to win maybe, but definitely to mandate some sort of peacekeepers.
Pardon my ignorance, but why would Russia support Catalan independence?
They see it as "payback" for the EU/Nato's support for Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. Interestingly, Spain is probably the only Western nation that doesn't recognize Kosovo's independence.
Same reason they supported Brexit - it causes instability and weakens the EU.
If I had to guess: (1) Because they feel that it would add legitimacy to the "referendum" they held in Crimea, if only by comparison and (2) just generally to cause trouble in the EU.
Russia seems to like Europe destabilized, in all possible ways.
Divide and conquer.
Mostly they have declared independence from reality.
When can we start blaming Putin?
[deleted]
Any government that states, “voting is illegal” should be abolished IMO.
This "conflict" is the fight between nationalist movements (Spanish and Catalan) which re-enforce each other in every turn for the worse of the majority and of the European Union.
On the Catalan side, the Nationalist movement is used by dubious politicians which belong to the richer statements of Catalan society to grab power and "make history". The love of the flag and the dishonest approach to history and current socio-economics of the region are strategies followed by every other wannabe-patriot in the world. The illogical approach to their goals and the complete divorce from reality will likely hurt any further attempts for autonomy or proper independence in the long term.
On the Spanish side, the winners of this conflict are ruling right wing and all the until now minoritary extreme-right movements. Thanks to Catalonia, Spanish nationalism of the worst kind can resurface and perpetuate itself in power. It is not casual that Spanish rulers have been completely deaf to the long standing demands of a large part of the Catalonian population.
The only way the Spanish nationalists win is by having the Catalonians take the most confrontational of the paths: declaration of independence.
The only way the Catalonian nationalists win, is by having the Spaniard ones repress and provide a moral ground which supports their otherwise futile aspirations: break the law.
Whoever the winner of this fight is, it will be a sad day for Europe, because nationalism and national borders will have prevailed and this goes against everything we need to build a stronger and better EU.
The tragedy here is that, in the end, everyone loses. Politicians are not focused on crushing poverty, judges are not working to end corruption, police is not busy catching terrorists. The majority is just watching this sad show, hoping it's over soon, so they can go back to their lives which, by the way, are exactly or worse than before.