Hacker News Reader

Comment by iagooar | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty sad to see how weak some of the recent democracies are. At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many thought an independent Scotland would be a huge mistake.

Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog.

Now, there is no going back. I wish the best of luck to my friends in Catalonia. Shall they be allowed to express their desire to leave or stay in Spain in peace. I wish no one to get hurt during these turbulent weeks.

View on HN

Playing devils advocate: Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s. It's the constitution which prevents the referendum from happening. (I believe for a referendum to be constitutional, Spain's "federal" parliament would have to agree to it and the whole country would have to vote).

Personally I feel this whole comparison between the 2 situations highlights the cultural differences: consensus seeking anglo-saxons, conflict/imposition-driven Hispanics/Latins. (non-hispanic latin here)

> Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s

Totally agree. Yet, the 70s were different times. Getting out of a dictatorship and moving into a democratic state takes a lot of compromises on all sides. Back then, there was the sense of urgency to agree on common terms, for the time being, to allow the country and the people to transition into a modern democracy.

It's been 40 years now. Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country, yet it should not be used as a license to oppress people.

Many Catalonians requested to change some parts of the constitution to better represent Catalonia's cultural and political differences, as compared to Spain. Yet Spain would not even consider talking about anything that challenges the status quo.

We will see where this is heading.

> Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country

There are legal ways to change a constitution. In all cases, it starts by changing public opinion.

I wonder how some of these posters would feel if this was a California referendum requesting independence.

Hopefully, they would get a good chuckle at the idea

Texas vs White established unilateral secession is unconstitutional. Other states would have to support California's wish to leave the Union.

Having said that, the US is a beast very different from Spain, affording its states far more autonomy than the norm.

So, it's illegal in US because a court said so, but it's opression in Spain because a court said so?.

Government rule by the consent of the governed. It looks like Catalonia is revoking that consent.

"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many thought an independent Scotland would be a huge mistake."

That referendum was restricted to two options, what the UK government wanted and what they thought was too extreme a position to win. By excluding the middle way option, which polling suggested would win they hoped to get their own position rubber stamped.

The fact that it came so close us a testament to how badly they played their hand.

See also Brexit.

Not really.

The wording of the question was decided by the Scottish Parliament and reviewed for intelligibility by the Electoral Commission, an independent body.

The number of questions/answers was decided in an agreement between the Scottish and UK parliaments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement_(2012)

It was openly known that the nationalists wanted the option, and the unionists didn't. Perhaps it was negotiated away for something else the nationalists wanted, but still the point stands, they wanted it, and didn't get it.

What was this 'middle way' option? Scotland already has its own Parliament, legislation and such. I always thought they were already in a 'middle way'?

I'm not trying to be provocative, just trying to understand what else could Scotland get without going full-on independent?

More control over taxation could be something on the table. Devolution of welfare & benefits. A reevaluation of how much input Scotland gets in UK-wide decisions. A reevaluation of how things like NHS Scotland are funded, in the face of NHS England being gradually drained of cash (since the amount of money given to Scotland to spend on various things depends on the amount of money England spends on them). There's a few big things, and a bunch of little specific things, that could all be on the table.

In practice, some of this has happened, but perhaps not as much as would've been if the debate were more public.

Staying in the EU would be nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_fiscal_autonomy_for_Scotl...

popularly known as Devo-max.

Technically both sides were proposing more powers, it was a difference of degree in what was being offered. At the last minute more power was offered when it seemed like full independence had a chance of winning.

It's hard to try to explain the true here when secessionists are brigading but you aren't serious, really.

Since 1977, Catalans had participated in 35 free elections, and in 3 referendums. The Catalans have their own government, and there are politicians born in Catalonia successfully in the Spanish Parliament, and in the European Parliament.

Where you don't see freedom?

If someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.

Catalans will never amount to the number of votes you need to start such a change. This position amounts to prohibiting the exercise of the right to self-determination all peoples have.

The so-called "right to self-determination" doesn't exist in the Spanish Constitution, nor in the International Law, nor in Comparative Law.

https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...

Perfect, as everybody can say anything for the "right" of this new thing, the "self-determination all people have" I require you to free the oppressed people of Ohio, quit the area right now, and anexionate the state to, for example, France. And if you do not agree to do what I want then I will shout loud that "this is not a democracy and all of you are nasty fascists". Happy?

Yes, is exactly like that.

Last year the catalan goverment spent 5 millions euro (stolen) from taxes of all spaniards in a similar "referendum" show. Money used against the interests of the same people that give it. Instead to pay schools and hospitals they bought cardboard urns, candies and fireworks and make a wonderful theater full of passion, and drama. Do we understand the meaning of the term "diversion of public founds and prevarication"?

This year trying the same dirty trick again and take the freedom that all spaniards have by law to decide about their country.

And of course they are the "victims" in a world that do not understand their uniqueness and fantasy extravaganza.

Also, no one had said here that the actual Catalan government didn't completely won the popular vote. They were quite benefit by the D'Hondt method.

Uh, you remember how indyref was Cameron gambling the cohecion of his country for the opportunity to steal a policy issue from the opposition? The idea that indyref was allowed out of respect of popular will is utterly deluded, Cameron never cared for the scots as they are too left to vote for him.

"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves"

The problem here in Spain/Catalonia is that Catalonian politicians only want Catalonians to vote. I feel that, being a Spanish citizen of legal age, I have the same right to vote on whether I want a part of my country to separate from it. But they won't let us vote, so, why should "we" let them vote? (Also, as per the constitution, it is illegal)

Only Scotland voted on their referendum. The rest of the UK didn't nor couldn't vote.

Would you let, let's say, France vote on your general elections to chose the next MP? Would you let a stranger choose the colour of the walls for your living room?

Only Catalans can decide their own fate. It's up to them and no one else whether they stay or leave. I don't care which side wins but there must be a vote.

You can change your last sentence to say: "Only spanish can decide their own fate".

Only Scotland voted on their referendum, as agreed by the whole United Kingdom. USA did not allow southern states secede, Germany did not allow Bavaria secede, etc.

What do you mean? in the scottish referendum only scots voted, not all brits. Are you saying that all spaniards (not only those living in Catalonia) should vote in the referendum? I don't see how this makes any sense.

Actually it was people living in Scotland. As a Scot living in Spain I wasn't allowed to. "Fair enough" I though, until we got completely screwed over with the English and Welsh voting for Brexit.

Lets face it the lead up to both referendums were based on packs of lies (on both sides probably - but it can only be proven for the winning sides).

Spain is for all the spaniards. All have the same basic rights as the right to move freely inside the entire country, to work and live when they want inside its frontiers and to decide together about the destiny of their country. With logical exceptions (like requiring granted access to private areas); this super-basic concept is in use in all free and democratic countries of the world.

New York people can't wake up some day, like a single man, and decide that Texans (or Floridians, or afroamericans), can not enter in the state anymore, their basic rights are expired and they have 48 hours to quit the place leaving its properties behind. Some people would point to the fair "self-determination right" from Newyorkers. Some even would shamelesly call this situation democracy, but it isn't. Would be a huge scam. NY are only a small part of the people that are USA citizens, and the other people have the f*ing right to express their opinion about that. No matter how peculiar, colorful, or different than other places is the city.

In the same way Barcelona can not wake up some day and decide that people from Sevilla aren't allowed anymore to decide about the future of Barcelona and must quit the place. Unless of course we would aim to happily nuke the basic rights of 39 millions of citizen that are non-catalonian spaniards (to improve the chances for the 1-2 million of people than want Catalonia out of Spain). Is also a scam. Is a riged game. Democracy is the rule of the majority, and this constant actitude of I'm holier than thou so I must be allowed to speak but you can't is incredibly upsetting.

> Spain is for all the spaniards. All have the same basic rights as the right to move freely inside the entire country, to work and live when they want inside its frontiers and to decide together about the destiny of their country. With logical exceptions (like requiring granted access to private areas); this super-basic concept is in use in all free and democratic countries of the world.

Think that has nothing to do with a part of an state voting their secession and not the whole country.

A question to all of the people that say that the whole country should vote.

What would you do if more than 70% of the population of a part of the state would be independent? Allow them the independence and start the negotiations or don't allow>

As said before, this 70% of the local population would represent, lets say, a mere 10% of the total population.

So if one of each ten people voted for "yes to A", and the other nine people voted for "no to A". What should happen in a democratic system?.

Well, the idea here is that you has the freedom to choose among two nice options: "yes to A" and "repeat the process until yes to A is achieved" or "start negociations to circumnavigate what people really wanted". But this is not a dictatorship, of course; we are a democratic modern society unlike the spaniards, those savages.

And talking about semi-naked savages, this reminds me that extra-nice 2008 campaign launched by Catalonian independentists: "support a spanish child with more money from Catalonia". It seems that this is how they see the other spaniards. Nice image. It isn't?.

http://img.rtve.es/imagenes/apadrina-nino-extremeno/12174362...

Because poor children is a perfectly fine theme to make some good laughs (They are poor, ha-haa!).

To finish, and taking in mind several harassments and repeated BS like this in the last decade, I think that a lot of people in Spain would vote enthusiastically about sending this people out of Spain, even better, why not to Mars?, to build the New Castelldefells and live their futuristic utopia happy forever in the red planet.

I repeat the question, because it seems that you have not understood it.

If a 70% of the population of a territory (and I'm not talking about Catalonia, because there is no majority for independence) wants to secede, what the State should do?

> it seems that you have not understood the question.

I did, and have provided a very clear answer to the question in fact.

What the government of a country should do if a group of people declare themselves on sedition, start refusing to pay taxes, wants to steal all public resources, harass and drive out of the place the people that think different, take their properties and piss generously on the constitutional rights of the majority of the citizens?

Enforce the law, obviously

"But, but, I want to ignore and twist the law in my benefit!. I should be allowed to do it, because I'm special!, my mom told me!"

You can violate the laws everytime that you want, as long as you accept the consequences, and repair the damage caused to other members of the society.

No, you have not understood the question. I'm not talking of what is happening in Catalonia this days. Because in Catalonia there is no majority of people defending independence.

I'm asking what happens if in a part of a territory the vast majority of population doesn't want to be part of that country.

If you want to talk of Catalonia, I can ask what the Central Government can do when 82% of the population (and this includes half of people that wants independence and half of people that doesn't want independence) would defend a LEGAL and proper done referendum.

Ok, enough of running in circles chasing our tails.

The answer to your deliberately ambiguous question is the same. Enforce the law.

> What if a lot of people do not want to remain in this country?

They will pack, leave and try to migrate and be accepted under the umbrella of other countries typically. It is happening a lot in the last decades, by good (and sad) reasons.

> What if the majority of people would hate their country (but want to remain in it).

They could use the tools specified in the law to change the bad parts and improve their country democratically. As they are a majority, they are probably doing this yet since years. They must have in mind still that there are international laws and treaties.

> What would happen if 100% of USA demand the independence from themselves and require to be called "Pantsdemonium, the land of the pants-free" from now on?

Just a change of name (and interesting parties, like the national day of the duck and so). On the other hand, if you can't stand to be in the same room with yourself, go to see a doctor as soon as possible.

> and if it was the 90%?

A change of name plus a 10% of people driven off their own country, typically by violent means, if we study the human history.

> and if it was the 85.45342%?

the same... and more people in exodus.

And you still don't answer.

My question is not ambiguous.

And looking at your "hate", I think that you prefer what happened in Jugoslavia and not what happened in Czechoslovakia

Enforce the law

everytime that -> as many times as

Only residents of Scotland were able to vote in the Scottish referendum, so it’s the same situation as this.

> I feel that, being a Spanish citizen of legal age, I have the same right to vote on whether I want a part of my country to separate from it. But they won't let us vote, so, why should "we" let them vote?

If a son or daughter of legal age wants to move out of their parents' house, does the rest of the family get to stop them from moving?

That has nothing to do with what I said.Totally different analogy.

> The problem here in Spain/Catalonia is that Catalonian politicians only want Catalonians to vote.

The same was true of the Scottish referendum. And the Quebec referendums.

I'm not really for or against anything here, but it doesn't make any sense to have everyone vote in a secession referendum. It should be a referendum among the people attempting to secede.

I could see there being a universal referendum on the wording of the referendum and the terms of secession though.

States vote for secession alone. Where they secede from has no say in the matter, hence secession. How do you think the crown would have voted when the US colonies declared independence?

You seem to agree with the way it went in the UK/Scotland. And yet as far as I can remember, only Scottish citizens voted in that referendum... Why would Catalonia's be different than any other self-determination referendum?

Do you honestly believe this is a logical demand? If so, what % of "pro-independence" of Spanish census would be enough for you, 51% of whole Spain?

Yes, if more than half of Spain voted yes, it would be a yes. Happens all the time with presidents, every 4 years, right?

A nice analogy I saw in the Scottish referendum was a divorce. Would it really make sense that both parties had to agree if one felt unfairly treated?

Is a nice analogy because... they were married before!

In the Spanish case, there's only one part, so a nice analogy here is body amputation.

>At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves

This isn't really true. You can get arrested for "offensive" social media posts in the UK.

Never heard of a case where someone has been arrested for saying anything that isn't aimed at causing vioelnce. The UK government _do_ allow a lot of open debate on political topics (and every other type of topic) as long as it doesn't threaten peoples health.

A couple was arrested for simply burning some religious books a while ago.

This was a huge issue last year.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/01/man-who-filmed-dog-doing-nazi-...

What's funny is that the original youtube video is still up.

Edit: Might as well include the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus

Well, well, well, well... You should read the constitution and compare it to what the catalonian establishment is doing.

The rule of law applies also to politicians.

The democracy is weak because of the constitution. It should be amended.

is it not the law based on the popular will, theoretically?

Because it seems to me that these people are asking to vote.

They asking to vote outside the Law, not only European, or Spanish Law, but the Catalan Law too.

Oh, you are from Gijón.

Using the constitution as some sort of shield / holy bible that can't ever possibly be changed IS what show the weakness of Spanish democracy.

In the end, governments are there to serve their people. They don't make sense as entities on their own. They represent a group of people who chooses to be represented by their government. If the government attacks the people and refuses to hear to what people have to say, you need to resort to not following the dogma.

Thank you. It's quite surprising how hard it is for a lot of people to understand this. Listening to the Spanish president say that what's going on in Catalonia is anti-democratic and that democracy is following the constitution is the most frustrating thing you can hear, and I'm surprised people use that argument against the pro-independence movement.

Democracy requires the rule of law. The law says the vote should not take place, therefore either the vote doesn't take place or the law (the constitution, in this case) is changed.

Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, this is not possible and pushing for it is not constructive.

The Spanish constitution is violating one of the basic rights: the right of self-determination. To me, right now, it doesn't matter what the constitution says. We will ignore it. The constitution won't be changed because it's in their interest to not change.

Basic right for whom? Are you talking basic human right? A random bunch of people right? Who?

When defining a right, you must show who is the subject of that right.

I'm not completely sure what you are trying to say, but this is what I'm referring to: http://www.unpo.org/article/4957

That's not an impartial source.

Anyway, when that site states "All peoples have the right to self-determination" Is there a minimum number of people to aim for 'this right'? V.g. if 259 persons in Els Hostalets de Balenya say the want 'the right to self-determination', are they a nation from then?

I answered this same question in another comment. Copy pasting:

As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).

Responding a copypasta with another copypasta:

The so-called "right to self-determination" doesn't exist in the Spanish Constitution, nor in the International Law, nor in Comparative Law.

https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...

If a supposedly democratic nation banned free speech, then I would proudly break the law.

If a sufficient number of people in a geopolitical area wish to govern themselves, broadly, it should be seriously considered by any ethical government.

Like in the case of the Islamic State, for example? Hemmm...not.

Like Catalonia, Britain, Scotland, South Sudan, the United States, or India?

The circumstances matter. I can't draft a workflow for "ethical independence" on a Friday morning on HN. I can say there is a difference between self-determination and the desire for liberty vs. mass murder, conquering territory and waging guerrilla warfare against multiple nations.

War is Peace,

Freedom is Slavery,

Ignorance is Strength,

Trying to organize a Referendum is Antidemocratic.

There's a legal way to change the Spanish Constitution.

What people can't do is play outside the Law in a Democracy.

> There's a legal way to change the Spanish Constitution.

Changing how when the two main parties are against this change?

That argument is just an excuse.

Articles of the Estatut d'Autonomia where denunced by present the ruling part declared invalid by the TC but that same party wrote carbon copies of them in other Estatutes it say how the situation can change.

Oh, I see, the observance of the Law is just an excuse.

If you state "that same party wrote carbon copies of them in other Estatutes" you have to give us sources.

https://elpais.com/diario/2007/07/05/espana/1183586424_85021...

http://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/politica/Estatuto-artic...

http://www.jlprieto.es/paradojas-constitucionales-sobre-el-e...

That constitution was written and signed under Military watch. Let's not forget Franco, a genocidal dictator, died of old age while still in power, he was not ousted by democratic forces. And no one ever went to jail for the dictatorship. Many in power during the dictatorship remained in power for a long time after it "ended". The current constitution is a reflection of that time, where Spain was a nascent democracy but the military and judiciary (and oligarchies) were still controlled by Franco people. Times change, so do societies, and constitutions can be amended to reflect that. In fact Spain recently amended it's constitution overnight. They could also amend the constitution to allow for a vote, but they don't want to.

Thank you.

People forget, democracy is a process, it doesn't just stop some time in the past.

It's a continuous, ongoing process of transforming societies. It's delicate and must be protected and cherished.

"That constitution was written and signed under Military watch."

You're just lying.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_para_la_ratifi...

That link doesn't confirm or deny parent's statement.

A lot of people were killed under Franco's mandate, but he wasn't genocidal, Hitler was (Jews, Gipsies, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Yeah, well, every time we dig a ditch on a road we find more corpses, women and kids too. What do you call a lot, by the way?

> Historians of the Spanish Civil War concur that the death toll of the White Terror (~58 000–400,000), because of its extent and duration,[12][12][13][14][1][2] was greater than the death toll of the Red Terror (38,000 – ~172,344 ).[15][16][17] The political repression of the White Terror was formal policy of the Nationalist forces during the Spanish Civil War, and of the government of Gen. Franco until 1945 — six years after the war's end in 1939.[18][19] In 2015, the government of Spain refused Spanish historians access to the pertinent government archives, open to foreign historians, which would allow determining the physical whereabouts and political fate of victims of the White Terror.[20]

> The main goal of the White Terror was to terrify the civil population who opposed the coup,[88][89][90] eliminate the supporters of the Second Spanish Republic and the militants of the leftist parties,[91][92][93] and because of this, some historians have considered the White Terror a genocide.[94][95] In fact, one of the leaders of the coup, General Emilio Mola said:[96]

> "It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do. There can be no cowardice. If we hesitate one moment and fail to proceed with the greatest determination, we will not win. Anyone who helps or hides a Communist or a supporter of the Popular Front will be shot."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain)

This is completely false. The Spanish Constitution was an agreement between every party, including the Communist Party (PCE).

And Spanish people supported the Constitution with their vote on a large scale.

Did I say it wasn’t voted by a majority?

EDIT: I should reword my question. What part of it you believe is false? Or is it all of it?

If the law goes against one of the principles of democracy, the issue is with the law. What would your opinion be on a constitution that allows slavery? Because that was the case with a lot of constitutions in the past, and I think we would all agree that from a human right's point of view it was wrong. What's going on in Catalonia is illegal, but it's the democratically correct choice, and given what the Spanish government says ("we will only talk as long as it's within the legality"), it's the only thing you can do.

For those HN readers that might not know, a decade ago Catalonia tried to pass something known as the Estatut, which would give us more rights and more power (similar to what the Basque country has had for a long time). Needless to say, it didn't pass because the big parties opposed to it. One of the two important political parties in Spain (the Popular party) went as far as going around Spain collecting signatures (four million) to get rid of the Estatut. And that's part of the story of how the pro-independence movement gained as much traction as it has right now.

Sure? The current situation doesn't have anything to do with Pujol family being close to go to jail for corruption?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordi_Pujol

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. We are not talking about corruption here; we are talking about the right of self-determination.

Yeah, and you feel so powerful downvoting everyone who doesn't aligned with your political strategy.

I bet you are all for dialog, good arguments, better talk than fight... /s

I haven't downvoted a SINGLE comment, and even if I wanted I wouldn't be able because I don't have enough points. I never downvote, and of course I wouldn't downvote because someone has different views than me. Stop with the bullshit. Go to reddit if that's what you are looking for.

"I haven't downvoted a SINGLE comment, and even if I wanted I wouldn't be able because I don't have enough points"

Say the guy with 682 points.

https://snag.gy/MirFLw.jpg

I can't downvote. If it's not because of the points, it's because of something else.

And what's exactly the principle of democracy that the spanish constitution is violating?

The right of a part of a country to secede is not recognized by most constitutions around the world, and it is certainly not a "principle of democracy".

You want to change the constitution that rules your country, you get 2/3 of the votes of the parliament behind your vote and the constitution changes (or whatever rule your constitution has to allow a change). The whole point of a constitution is to have a stable body of law.

The Estatut went further than giving you something similar to what the Basque country has. It was ruled out because it was deemed incompatible with the constitution. This is exactly the same process any other country with a constitution follows.

As for the "rights" that you are not enjoying, the only one I hear repeatedly is one: collect and distribute your own taxes, because you pay more taxes than what is reinvested in Catalonia (of course this happens in roughly half of the country).

If New York asked to secede from the United States because they were oh so tired of paying more in taxes than the average in the US and receiving less than what they bring to the table (which is true for the vast majority of "rich" states) we will all see through the bullshit of the argument.

If you want to follow that argument, when do you stop? is it right for my city to secede because we do not want to support the poor in rural areas around us? (this is not a retorical question, some big cities have historically done that, and many of them today are tax havens). Can I as an individual decide to not pay my taxes because I pay more than what I receive?

Exactly what other right is missing in Catalonia?

I'm referring to the right of self-determination. It might not fall under one of the principles of democracy (my apologies), but it's certainly a basic right (http://www.unpo.org/article/4957)

The Spanish constitution won't change because it's in their best interest to not do so, which is why this illegal referendum is being created. If they wanted the Estatut to pass, they would have passed; they didn't pass it because the rest of the Spanish communities would have been affected by it from an economical point of view (suddenly a chunk of money that was going to the other communities stays in Catalonia. Guess who's gonna be unhappy).

It is not "certainly" a basic right. Some countries accept it, others do not.

As for the cultural, language and historical I see absolutely no basis for this referendum. Cultural wise I have never, ever, see the slightless difference between catalonians and people for the rest of Spain. What will be the difference between someone that lives in Tarragona and someone from Valencia? Of course it's all a smooth change, and the farther away you go the more small changes you get, but I have seen much deeper differences between people living in cities vs rural areas (even when they are close to each other).

In any case, these differences are (to me) smaller than the differences between a New Yorker and a Texan.

Historically Catalonia has never been a separate, independent country, and you have to go pretty far away to get a substantially different Spain to what you have today.

Catalonia has a different language, that roughly 60% of their inhabitants do not speak, and that is shared by some of the inhabitants of the spanish states (Comunidad Valenciana and Balears).

If your point is that Catalonia people should be allowed to secede because they have a differenciate culture / language (let's ignore for a second all the catalans that do not speak catalan), why don't they call to vote in catalonia, comunidad valenciana and balears, all together? Because they will very clearly lose the vote.

In polls there are a huge number of catalans descendants from andalusia n "inmigrants" that are also for the independence. Why is it so? Because the reason argued again and again during years has been only one: taxes. Not "culture".

BTW, they wanted the Estatut to pass (it passed in congress), but you needed more than 1/2 the votes, you needed 2/3. If the Estatut had nothing against the Constitution, it will be law by now.

The right of self-determination is certainly a fundamental right (or that's what United Nations says, and Spain signed it).

I have never lived in Texas nor NYC, so I can't really say much about it. I believe that Catalonia is large enough to warrant a referendum if enough people want it, especially given that so many people disagree with the treatment they are receiving from Spain. I accept the argument that we might not be different enough, but it's not the main reason a referendum should be held, in my opinion, and I'm not aware of many people from Valencia or Balears who want to leave Spain. At which point a region of a country has the right to secede? Or you are implying that no region from no country should ever have that right?

That people has self-determination rights based on allegedly cultural and historic reasons is very weak point, and ignores the rule of law.

But what is more worrisome is that it ignores the rights of the other group. What about the Spanish, not from Catalonia, that have interests in Catalonia, be it companies, properties, families or even just cultural links? Shouldn't they have an opinion on the matter?

Unsurprisingly yes, and that's precisely what the Constitution says. And that's the supreme law, and I have not seen any other reasonable country where a subset of it is claiming so freely to withdraw the Constitution because they don't like it, even when there are very clear paths to change it.

It Catalonia wants to vote, go to Parliament and ask for a referendum of all Spaniards (that's legal). It's that simple.

Oh it probably violates the constitution - but the right thing to do is to either let it slide or admend it. The law is supposed to serve the people, right now Spain is just using it as a bully platform.

No, if someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.

> Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog.

The irony is that many who support the independence of Catalonia are against independence of current EU member states and fail to see the inherent dangers in the centralization of power (many such dangers exemplified by this very article and listed by you).

I'm sure many who applaud Brexit don't support "Calexit" either and I don't think that's ironic, really. They're entirely different situations.

I would like to see an argument for that. With the original scenario, its just an argument for autonomy and that less homogoneity and centralization in governmental structures better represents and distributes power amoung the diversity of the governed. Someone arguing for Brexit and against Calexit would have to do so on other grounds - which I'd be interested to see if they have any weight.

The things that make a region a part of a country are different from the things that make countries a part of a transnational union.

Seems simple to justify: Brexit is just canceling a treaty, the other is dividing a country.

It's been 80 years since the Spanish Civil War, yet I can't help but wonder whether its influence is being felt today with BS maneuvers like this. What would Spain be like today if Franco hadn't been helped into power in the 30s by (among other infamous parties who shall remain nameless) Ford Motors, General Motors, and the Catholic Church?

It might well have become part of the Communist bloc (maybe not, if anarchists and communists hadn't stopped bickering). I don't know if it would have stopped before or after the USSR.

You’re not in a democracy, it’s a representative parliament system. Same almost worldwide. There’s a difference.

Many of modern so called democracies though referendums are not the best way to solve these issues. Read up on how it worked for the Ancient Greeks or how the American constitution fathers talk about “direct democracy”.

Then think how it worked out for Brexit. It’s nothign new: ancient Greeks also got fired up by propaganda and later regretted their own decisions. Socrates came up with his “government of the fit” watching his contemporaries claim for bad things only to regret it when it was too late.

Essentially: a referendum is like saying “every single citizen has enough information and vision to do whatever is best for the country”. I find that pretty optimistic to say the least.

So you are saying you want Spain to bring back the Fascists?

How I’m I saying that? I don’t even mention fascism.

I’m saying that representative parliament works, and there’s a way to solve this using this worldwide system. Direct democracy is not what we have, America’s founders considered it “anarchy” as a matter of fact. Read up.

America's founders also considered slaves fractional people and women incapable of voting. They happened to be right about some things, but they were still wrong about other things.

Yeah, they also called indigenous people “savages”. Back in those days stuff like that was still not clear. However, when creating the constitution, they put a lot of thought on the system it should follow. Like I said: direct democracy is a tried and tested method. It has failed for the same reason always.

> Like I said: direct democracy is a tried and tested method. It has failed for the same reason always.

Always? You should be sure to inform the Swiss, who've been operating under the mistaken assumption that direct democracy in their cantons was functioning just fine.

Then, climb in your time machine and alert the New Englanders that their town halls were actually ruinous disasters. Then go further back and mock the ancient Athenians for starting this whole democracy debacle by running a stable government for 200 years.

The Constitution fathers also mentioned that sometimes blood is necessary to preserve liberty.

I personally prefer a referendum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com