It seems shocking that Spain a member of the EU is resorting to these tactics. Can you discuss some of their justifications for doing so?
At this point, the government says that both them and the judiciary powers are just defending the democratic rules, and Catalonia's government is the one at fault for all this hassle.
The problem is that it is accepted that there's a wide majority of catalan people who want a referendum, and here we are...
In the words of General Sherman:
You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.
People are not rational however, and the wealthy landowners were facing the extinction of their wealth... so they started a war.
As someone who doesn't know much about American history: What happened to the wealth of those Southern landowners after the war? Did they get to keep it?
The South was still devastated by the war. But being largely agrarian to begin with, loss of capital wasn't quite as hard a blow as losing a factory.
Maybe you were thinking about taxes ?
[1] "http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/gdp.htm"
But not only that, the centralisation of government powers and agencies have created a problem where many big companies have to be in Madrid even if most their operations are in other parts of the country. That makes their taxes to be paid in Madrid instead of e.g. Valencia, Bilbao or Barcelona. The amount of taxes lost because of this is HUGE and much worse than the 16 billion per year above.
An independence would bring back 100% of the former and a good chunk of the latter. Hopefully that would help Catalonia grow at the pace its economy can and then it should be able to contribute back to Europe much more than now. Contributions have to be sustainable.
Edit: This comment is now at -1. Please argue instead of downvoting. You're acting against HN's rules.
In the Catalan media they appear in waves, polluting all the comments and making the discussion unbearable.
They are also holding cyberatacks to the Catalan News Agency so we cannot inform outside.
They have also closed aerial space, so drones cannot fly and take pictures of massive demonstrations tomorrow if we cannot vote.
Google censors an app from Google Play which was telling people where to vote, after Spanish court forces it: https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/913798991539777537 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/913812096319737857
And more geopolitical info: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/913920102411718656
Tech people in the world: Please help us and spread the word!
http://www.expansion.com/economia/2017/09/29/59cd50b8ca47412...
Ireland from the UK, Slovakia from Czechoslovakia, Kosovo from Serbia, the bits of Poland that were in Austria-Hungary or Germany from those two empires, pretty much every single European overseas colonial possession... Not to mention all the widely-supported secessionist movements that have failed militarily in the Indian northeast, in the Chinese west, or in the Russian Caucasus.
Of course, Americans prefer to imagine that political conflict everywhere is all about money rather than actually confront the idea that people other than themselves have collective identities and cultures.
My interpretation of GP's comment was about the draconian approach towards silencing internet activity. Is it believed the raiding of ISPs, outright blocking of websites, etc is the fault of Catalonia's government or Spain's?
Edit: "Getting away with it" is mostly a question of "which side are you on?". Independentists and most non-government supporters think that what's going on is outrageous, whereas government supporters are totally fine with it.
These laws where passed mainly to fight against piracy (think thepiratebay). Of course the excuse was that it was a tool against terrorism and pedophilia though ;)
Without disobbeying, woman and black people would not vote nowadays, so history proves it is a good way to take down immoral legal laws.
EDIT: UN experts say that Spain must respect fundamental rights in Catalonia. Freedom of expression, freedom of press and power separation is at stake.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne...
This is about democracy.
Democracy is deciding new law based on current law following people's desires... Like it or not, every day meter of Catalan soil belongs as much to a Catalan woman as to an Andalusian man...
Nobody in his right mind would say that Catalonia is an oppressed region by Spain's government... Quite the opposite actually.
You don't argument why Catalonia is not opressed. Banning all the laws emerging from its parliament is not respecting.
Sorry Spaniards, we will vote. It's not about you, it's about us. It's not about us feeling superior or supremacist. It's about deciding our way, as we think too different in too many things. We can be good neighbours.
Not all laws emerging from its parliament are ruled unconstitutional by the courts. And unconstitutional laws enacted by any parliament in Spain are banned by the courts, Catalonia or not. It's not really a matter of respect.
E.g. "Catalonia is a nation". The Spanish Constitution says "Catalonia is a nationality" while the Andalusian Estatuto says "Andalusia is a nation".
TÍTULO PRELIMINAR Artículo 1. Andalucía. 1. Andalucía, como nacionalidad histórica y en el ejercicio del derecho de autogobierno que reconoce la Constitución, se constituye en Comunidad Autónoma en el marco de la unidad de la nación española y conforme al artículo 2 de la Constitución.
http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/html/especiales/NuevoGobierno...
Unless that's not the most current estatuto, you've been misled.
The count is of about 30 different articles. Here's a comment from El País (hardly pro-indy or pro-catalan) about it: https://elpais.com/diario/2007/07/05/espana/1183586424_85021...
La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomía de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas.
The Andalusian estatuto almost uses the exact same words, "nacionalidad historica" in the "unidad de la nación española". Can hardly be considered against the Constitution. Agreed?
One can argue that "Cataluña es una nación" is a valid interpretation of the Constitution (I won't, because I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I don't think you are either), but you can't really use the Andalusian estatuto to support that the Tribunal Constitucional gives inconsistent rulings. (And has the Andalusian one even been challenged? I don't think the Tribunal Constitucional can strike down laws that haven't been brought to them).
And for the record, I read that, back in the day, Ciudadanos asked the Defensor del Pueblo to bring the Andalusian estatuto to the Tribunal Constitucional. Not sure if he did, or who can and cannot bring laws to their court.
Like it or not, Catalonia will break away from Spain if it wants to and there's nothing Spain can do to stop it short of murdering thousands of people. That's the choice Spain will have to make when it comes down to it.
That would be horrible, for sure, but don't worry. Using my disheveled imagination I think that asking the people responsible of breaking the laws to explain their behaviour in front of a jury could be one (very obvious) thing that Spain could do. It seems that they are doing it yet, in fact.
This does not seem like the correct definition to me.
Suppose that a country is an absolute dictatorship, with the exception that the citizens may vote on the color of a bikeshed, and their word goes for the color of the bikeshed regardless of the dictator's preference for the color of the bikeshed, and that this is all enshrined in law.
This would not be a democratic country.
Democracy is based on people voting on the decisions being made.
"deciding the new law based on the current law" is not a fundamental part of democracy?
That is not to say that I don't think that "deciding the new law based on the current law" is valuable. I strongly agree that it is valuable. But it is not, I think, an essential part of what democracy is.
The current status is complicated and a failure of politicians' ability to do their job, but the fact is that trying to split the country unilaterally is currently illegal and wrong from at least some very sound points of view (another comment put it very well: Catalonia is as much of the Andalusians as of the Catalans).
So the government is now forced to stop this - they would otherwise be letting Andalusians be robbed. It is their job to block the referendum. It was also their job to avoid this situation by creating avenues of dialogue though... So in my opinion their next task in their job is to resign.
I agree free speech laws in pretty much every country are unethical because they are arrayed in a way to ban speech that might risk the dissolution of the nation, but every single country has those laws because its governments trying to protect themselves.
Care to elucidate me on what basis that statement lies? I am a UKoGBnNI citizen who has also lived in DE for a few years in the West Germany part in the 70's and 80's and have friends who are native to DE.
In the UK we have laws banning inflammatory speech of various types that are clearly categorised and so does Deutschland. Both countries also, I think, have citizens who pride themselves on being able to pretty much speak their mind freely. I think both are very liberal states in this regard.
I do feel that some of my civil liberties have been eroded over the years but I in no way feel that my right to freedom of speech has been compromised in any way. I may live in a country that (worryingly) has more CCTV cameras pointing at me than you can shake a stick at but I do not believe that my right to express myself coherently and freely is damaged in any way. I'm not happy about say RIPA and co but we have a formal, legalised right to freedom of speech in the UK.
You are obviously not a US citizen because you seem to believe the US is one "thing" or a single country. It isn't and yet it is. It is a federation of states with a few odd bits tacked on (just like the UK - not) which means that there are federal laws, state laws, county laws, city laws, bye laws and made up by someone laws. This is also how most "normal" countries work.
So, where do you live?
Free speech laws in the US are strictly governed at the federal level, not at the city / state / county level. Your comment accordingly makes no sense. The states are legally unable to make any laws abridging freedom of speech. Every time a local entity has attempted such, it has ultimately been struck down by the federal government, which retains supremacy over many rights (and will ensure those rights with force against a local entity if necessary, as when ending segregation).
On a government level the UK regularly imprisons people for facebook/twitter posts (that would be protected by US first amendment).
Same with the most parts of the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United... .
The US Supreme Court has never allowed something like this in the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... .
In those other countries, not so much. For example, uttering "I believe that there was no Holocaust" in public.
You misunderstand the nature of the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech in the United States. The Bill of Rights are in the federal constitution and are enforceable in the federal courts, against any level of government (federal, state, or local).[1]
One of the central free speech doctrines in the United States is the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. That means that our laws cannot treat any viewpoint differently than any other. If you are allowed to stand in front of the courthouse and scream anti-racist slogans, then you must be allowed to stand in front of the courthouse and spew all the racist hatred that your heart desires. Communists, fascists, anarchists, democrats, republicans, racists, reverse-racists, white supremacists, black supremacists, holocaust deniers, and even people calling for the overthrow of the US government, they can all speak their minds in America. There is no jurisdiction in the world that guarantees free speech as totally and absolutely as the United States does.
Americans are self-governing people. We don't need someone to tell us what we're allowed to think.
[1] This wasn't always the case, but the Supreme Court has held since the 1920s that the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the Bill of Rights to the states. Before this, most or all states had free speech provisions in their own constitutions anyway, but enforcement was not uniform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
Spain respects fundamental rights in Catalonia and anywhere else in the country; respecting them is the supreme law of the land. Anyone who violates those rights will have the courts after them the exact same way as the courts are acting against this referendum.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne...
Censorship in internet. Opening private letters. Political detentions and raids to political parties offices, searching for posters and ballots. Bringing 10000 policeman by boat to avoid a vote.
Sound quite authoritarian to me.
Threats to the press, threats to polititians. Closing websites, chasing teenagers who fork a repo in github, opening mail, spying communications.
Check Julian Assange tweets to know a bit more about it. You cannot accuse him of being a part in this conflict. https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/914029345018122240
I think there's still a stretch from "there are corrupt politicians and the monarchy and president have a lot of undue influence over the judiciary" to "Catalans don't have freedom of expressions or are oppressed".
Try to give one candy to calm a child having a tantrum in a room full of them and see what happens when the other children realize that crying, breaking toys and banging the head on the wall equals to be rewarded with sweets.
You allow somebody to break the law and jump over the constitution just because they are inconsolable otherwise. You fell in the trap. Now you must grant the same treatment to the rest. Similar referendums were demanded (and should have to be allowed in the very next day) for Euskadi, Galicia, Canary Islands, Asturias, Leon, Andalucia and only god knows what more. Two can play this game, and ten also.
The idea is not Germany allowing or not a referendum for Bavaria; or UK trying to please Scottland; the idea would be: you must now be forced to grant referendums for each single state in Deutschland or UK to make us happy "or we will stop breathing (and will create a permanent state of confrontation and street disturbs)".
If your spouse wants a divorce, if your children wish to disown you — you can't deny them just because it's an inconvenience — it is their right.
So, why deny independence? Because only the optics have changed, not the reality?
IMO that has not been true for last 70 yrs. Point to me a war that has been People vs People.
The fact of the current world is People Are Sovereign. If some >=N people domiciled in continuous region wants self-determination, thats their human right.
Just start the political movement and it'll be respected. I think it's a fair ask.
By the way, can I get your crystal ball? There's this lottery thing...
Aran has its rights explicitly recognised by Catalan Parliament, including their self determination rights, right now: https://cat.elpais.com/cat/2015/01/23/catalunya/1422013790_5...
Rahola hasn't been a politician for decades. ERC is much better than it was with her and Angel Colom.
... their loving father or something?
for Pete's sake, you, bad parent, they have rights!, and politicians that advise them well! Break the law, my minions, is funny (Specially to me, when I'll run with your money and deny to even know you... fools).
(tip: the correct answer starts with Y, but not for the spurious reasons that you claim. Is because, as citizen of your country, you have some constitutional rights. No matter if you are super-smart or a frozen cabbage sending your 11yo children to a warfield). Any nation must try to protect their citizens all the time (even from themselves if were the case). Spain is not different in that sense to any other country. Sometimes is not possible, sadly.
All residents in Catalonia have the right to vote in this referendum, regardless of their origin. So your comment is basically empty.
E.g. why would a foreigner that's been living in Catalonia for a few weeks, and plans to move away within a month to never return, have more of a say than a Catalan that spent 40 years there but had to move abroad two months ago in search of a job?
For the record: Spaniards living in Catalonia for at least 6 months can vote. Foreigners can't, like in General or Regional elections.
Even with your version my fairness argument stands. How is it fair that a Catalan expat isn't allowed to vote, and an Andalusian that might be there just for a few months is? Expats are certainly allowed to vote in General elections.
But I grant that "you're allowed to vote if you can vote in the General elections as a resident of one of the four Catalan provinces" is probably as fair as one can practically get when designing this.
The true fact is that I can't divorce from my wife without her permit and she could not divorce from me without me agreeing to sign the divorce papers. Does not match the case of one part splitting unilaterally. A better term for this case would be marital abandonment, and a even better term would be family abuse. There is not such thing like a "right to desert your family keeping the house for yourself only".
Historically the central government has extracted money and resources from Catalonia. Catalonia was one of the first regions in Spain to develop its industry and definitely the strongest on that: https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolución_industrial_en_Esp...
These days it is widely accepted that the Catalan people send 16 billion per year to Spain that are never returned. That wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't because our infrastructures are underfunded and only around 35% of the budgeted investments were actually executed: http://www.elnacional.cat/es/politica/estado-ejecucion-infra...
But this is not just an economic grievance. The issue is way more complex and includes (but not restricted to) language, cultural and respect issues.
Edit: This comment is now at 0. Please argue instead of downvoting. You're breaking HN's rules.
What? You totally can, at least in most countries, as long as you can prove that your wife did something wrong. Can Catalunya prove that Spain did something wrong? Yeah: Franco.
http://www.vozbcn.com/figura/2009/11/20091127nou.jpg
"Shouldn't your wife be allowed to divorce from you if she wants" with an implicit (because you abused it) would be, on the other hand, an extremely rude example. I don't think that this passive-agressive possibility was even in the mind of the people posting it.
Not only that but many modern leftist political parties advocate for self determination freedom within our constitution.
So the fact that the Catalan parliament with a simple majority of separatists are claiming unilateral referendum of independence in a free country is just to gather momentum.
It is indeed possible to change the constution, but:
1) You need 3/5ths of the camera to do so.
2) There is only one significant state-wide party supporting self determination (podemos, which a very young party that entered the scene only in the last election).
3) The major parties (PP and PSOE, which would be like the republicans and democrats in the state) are both overtly against self determination.
In any case, having to change the constitution amounts to having to get the support of 3/5ths of spain. This is hardly self-determination, don't you think?
The same restrictions exists in Catalonian Parliament for things such as changing the "Estatut". It is not right for a simple majority to enforce their will over the people their opposition represent. Therefore the referendum is not legal, nor legitimate.
Hear yourself: "the referendum is not legal". Such a nice view of what democracy is.
So willing to vote and say goodbye to this bla-bla-bla-this is not legal, that is not legal.
Good bye opressors. My deceased family in the war the dicator won will be really happy if we can finally separate. Too many open wounds you have never tried to heal.
It's easier to separate Communists from non-Communists, because each of us gets to vote to only one party, than Catalans from non-Catalans. And even though Communists are a clear minority in Spain, you'd be hard pressed to find one that equates "not having a majority in Congress" with "being victims of a tyranny".
If your family lived under the dictatorship, you should be sensitive to what they (and many others) suffered and fought, to not use lightly words like oppression and tyranny.
It is not fair and Catalonia is fighting (again) to change it.
The fantasy of "the Transición didn't take the francoists off the power" would need the likes of Felipe Gonzalez be "mentally francoist". It's no more than a feel-good fantasy.
The fact that you need to convince the majority to change something, while individuals are constitutionally protected, is really how democracies work. If anything, nationalist minorities have wielded much more power in the Spanish Congress than other minorities with more voters, due to quirks of our electoral law.
And the rich leaving the poor seems like a right wing thing to do. Maybe Franco would agree that the smaller "upper class" need protection from the tyranny of the poor. Or maybe money is not the biggest part of the equation, maybe it is just a nationalistic disgrace of the same kind that forced Castilian as language onto Basques and Catalans during Franco. Maybe we will get a Franco like situation in Catalonia where minorities are not allowed to teach/speak Castilian. I think that would be a disgrace for every decent person killed by the butchers of Franco and other "nationalists".
And what is the lesson to learn from all this, should all nations start to force minorities to speak the national language just because if we give minorities relative freedom and power they will claim independence? And possibly treat our minorities left bad?
Should Catalonia accept independence from pockets where the majority wants to be Spanish?
Can your neighborhood struck trade deals with India? Then maybe your neighborhood wants to team up with others around to do that... See where I'm going?
It already meets all the requirements to be a member, EU law is ingrained in Catalan law, it has the ability to negotiate and state structures. It just needs to be an independent country.
It would be better to be in the EU, but meanwhile that happens some bilateral trade deals with the EU should be relatively easy to accomplish.
If you're referring to recognition as a country, that's a separate and huge discussion. If Catalonia is not recognised it can't take its part of Spanish debt with it (might be up to 20% of the total) while being a rebel region not paying taxes and maybe under military occupation. How is Spain, which is still in critical condition with a debt of the size of its GDP, going to fare? This month Spain had to get a loan to pay pensions. This month!
So if Spain loses 20% of its GDP while keeping all the debt, how is it going to survive? And if Spain can't pay and falls, what's going to happen to the EU? You thought Brexit was bad? This is much worse!
A situation were the outcome of a YES vote is negotiated and Catalonia pays his dues is a win-win for every stakeholder: Catalans, Catalonia, Spaniards, Spain and the EU. Striking trade deals after that is pure pragmatism.
Just go through old papers about Slovenia or even the Baltics. It's all about realpolitik at the end and Catalonia has to be able to show its value to the world.
But one of the requirements for entering the EU is unanimous approval from the other countries. That is not going to happen for Catalunya.
Which makes think about the ramifications for the future of the EU with a yes vote in the referendum.
A relatively prosperous region in on the European subcontinent that agrees to succeed will embroil the EU with more political and economic turmoil than it already has, and open the subcontinent up to more non EU influence.
Might be a boon for multinational corporations and some governments who have something to gain from a weaker EU.
At least something tells me that the recent former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the US State Dept words from a leaked phone conversation on the EU a couple years ago probably stands true today of the perspective some powerful people have in the world on the EU…
The extinction
Being smaller is stupid when you need to compete with much bigger countries in the rest of the world. It doesn't work in the practise.
I mean, by the same argument, why not let someone annex Spain? If bigger is better...
I haven't heard of any new independent country asking to be part again of the former one.
Yeah, the tiresome "seduce us (with mo' fresh money)" argument again.
I have a better idea, why you don't try to seduce me instead to call me thief (Spain stole us) and abuser (Spain oppress us and do not let us be free) and hit me all the time with a new surrealist occurrence (don't buy spanish products, here are a list of the evil companies that you must avoid if you want to be a good citizen)?
In the last 60 years, you have been offered a lot of gifs and privileges (that by the way, I don't enjoy), and is never enough. You are never, ever, happy. Always creating drama around, like an old crazy theater lady past her prime, always demanding to be loved, but giving in return dry sarcasm and a single uncaring kiss by christmas (when there are cameras around).
So thanks, but not thanks. I will pass this time. You are not so irresistible as you think and not so beautiful as you were 20 years ago. I deserve something better.
> I haven't heard of any new independent country asking to be part again of the former one.
This does not bother me, but there is always a first time for everything.
Name three "gifts/privileges" that Catalonia has been given/granted and you don't enjoy, please.
Just google it, spend a few hours reading legal documents and history of the country and will find the answer by yourself.
Then you don't have to deal with them.
A vote is happening. There is nothing that the government can do to stop it unless they send in the tanks and start killing millions.
Beware and let us know if you spot any zombie
There has certainly been some disruption, but the people are mostly still forging ahead on all fronts.
The police have open fired on some of the pro independence people, sending a couple hundred to the hospital, but that is very minor in the vast scheme of things.
A couple hundred pro independence people in the hospital isn't that big of a barrier.
This is only the beginning. Every video of the Spanish military beating up an 80 year old lady with a ballot in hand is a propaganda Victor for the independence movement. They stop 1 person from voting, via their rubber bullets, and they create a hundred more pro independence people who were previously neutral.
Another possibility could be separatists thinking last week or yesterday "this is stupid, some people could be hurt!, for nothing!, why we don't stop this farce before... dunno... a 80yo lady is beaten or so?
I bet that the lady, or the child crying, would have appreciated that line of reasoning, but it seems that for separatists the more people hurt, the better. Curious if we think about it.
The people voting know what they are doing. Many people throughout history have died for their right to do that.
More than 800 wounded in hospital. I think it is not a fantasy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/01/dozens-injured...
2 seriously injured == millions murdered?
If you want to bang your head repeatedly against the walls and trow chairs against policemen, please don't tell me that is my fault if you end the day with some scratches, a headache, a panic attack or something worst.
There is a great solution for this, avoid being deliberately (with your little kids not less!) in a place where something illegal is happening and was publicly announced. Avoid to participate in the scam and specially to mock and challenge the police in their faces (with the obvious goal to elicit a violent reaction for advertising purposes), and you will be OK. Take care of yourself and think twice before to act.
Independentists are irresponsably scalating their constant provocation and salivating since years with the idea of a militar intervention with shiny tanks and hundreds of people murdered (preferibly non-indepentendist people). Thus they could finally justify having their much dreamed war of secession, doing a little clean of the zone, and feeling like warfare heros in their neighborhood. This is not what happened yesterday, thanks to all deities.
And today the basques had also asked for a referendum to be recognised as nation. As expected. Great.
In fact you can see it in the flag, it has a shield with the chains of Navarra, the lion of Leon, the Castle of Castilla and the colors of Aragon(which are the same of Spain and Catalunya flag) over a Granada fruit(for Granada conquest).
Basque was never a kingdom,either Galicia or Catalunya. Asturias was a kingdom, later becoming Asturias and Leon kingdom, then growing again and again against the muslims in Alandalus.
To say that Basque was a kingdom is an enormous lie that unfortunately is told in Basque country as they control their own education.
My grandfather was Basque, he spoke Batua, the original Basque language in his village. He could not speak complex abstractions or communicate with people in villages 40 kms away as every batua was different. The language was unified less than 100 years ago(with the abstractions simply being invented at this time)and called euskera, a recent invention. Now kids there are brainwashed being told that this was the language that people spoke 3000 years ago.
The places in Spain that after industrialization are rich are rewriting History in order to look better themselves, specially if you are nationalist.
Actually “batua” means “unified” and is the name given to the modern variant that you talk about.
What's next, back to deny our languages and call them dialects? Forbid em them again?
Not true with PP having more than 1/3 of the Congress seats
The second biggest party, currently in opposition, is obviously blaming the government for the whole mess, but I don't think they have any intention of voting to change the constitution.
... was drafted 40 years ago by a Franchist establishment concerned with maintaining a certain degree of continuity. It's not surprising that the people most oppressed by Franco are not particularly happy with the result.
Besides, the Wilson doctrine is usually more relevant for this sort of movements than whichever piece of paper is supposed to be law here or there. A population cannot be denied the right to self-determination, which includes splitting off if they really want to. It can be a stupid move (see Brexit), but people must be given the possibility to democratically discuss it and vote on it; because otherwise things will eventually go full Balkan, and you never want to go full Balkan.
> the people most oppressed by Franco
Let's at least agree that this is subjective.
> It was drafted by 7 hand-picked representatives, 4 of which were basically franchists
Two out of the seven writers of the Constitution were Catalan (~1/3 of the writers for ~1/6 of the population). One of them a communist. The other one, exiled during the dictatorship for supporting Catalan nationalism.
> ratified by franchist institutions before being put to a popular vote
Before being put to a popular vote, it was ratified by the Congress that resulted from the first free elections in Spain in 40 years. The francoist party of Fraga only won 16/350 seats in that Congress; comparable to the 11 seats obtained by the Catalan party of Pujol. Half the seats had been won by centrist voters, and the other half by marxist voters.
This Congress was our "assembly of people elected democratically", that could tell the writers to go back to their drafts until the result was to their liking. Those seven writers, by the way, weren't "hand-picked": they were picked by that Congress, among their members; they were all freely-elected representatives.
The prime minister was still an ex-Franchist and the UCD had plenty of old hands around. The Franchists still had huge relevance in the army. The drafters were still moving with a somewhat limited room for manoeuver.
> could tell the writers to go back to their drafts until the result was to their liking.
Not really. These things don't happen in a vacuum, the longer the process and the higher the risk that it things could go pear-shaped. There was active terrorism and of course cold war activity. Compromises were made, which were good for the times but not necessarily the best overall.
I'm just stating that no, the writers of the Constitution weren't "hand picked", rather selected by Congress among representatives elected democratically; and no, it wasn't ratified by francoist institutions, rather by a democratically-elected Congress (and later on by a referendum). That's just revisionism that gets spread to fuel Catalan nationalism.
Given there were no other options, and few people wanted to return to dictatorship, the new constitution was adopted. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a shotgun, Hobson's choice between dreadful and merely bad. Why should people continue to adhere to it?
https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1977/01/05/pdfs/A00170-00171.pdf
Read the first two articles of that law; Spain was no longer a dictatorship. The last clause of the law enacts it as supreme law of the land.
It is following that law that the first Congress of the new democracy (with the mandate to write a Constitution) was elected, using the same procedure we keep using today to elect our Congress. In that election, the francoist party of Fraga lost immensely to the centrist and marxist parties.
If the Constitution they wrote didn't pass the popular vote of the referendum, general elections would be repeated and the process would start again.
It never was a choice between accepting the new Constitution or going back to a dictatorship. It's called "Transición" instead of "Revolución" because the francoist regime turned itself into a democracy following its own laws and procedures.
That's a very optimistic view of the situation. In practice, the instability resulting from not completing the process would have had dramatic consequences. Among other things, there was a Cold War on which could have easily started a new civil war.
> the francoist regime turned itself into a democracy following its own laws and procedures.
But exactly because the prime mover was the regime itself, there was always a chance it could go back on its steps. Compromises had to be made to ensure the transition would go through smoothly, as it's always the case.
That's why most of the actions taken have been ordered by the Attorney General and not a court... Because the ref is not illegal :)
- They don't want people to vote.
- Maybe if it's suspended you should refrain from going on with it until there's a ruling.
- They know what how they want the ruling to be, so they act like it was done already. They're just working on making it legally sound in the meanwhile.
Choose whichever you prefer, all those are guesses. The fact is that there's no ruling and that's easily verifiable.
Also, some of the operations these days are not actually ordered by TSJC but by a separate judge using an old (almost forgotten) case: http://m.huffingtonpost.es/2017/09/20/el-juez-ha-ordenado-la...
And during the first days of sites blocked no telco provided the court order they were in theory served. In fact, not all the telcos are blocking the sites.
So yeah, western democracy and all that. It all smells incredibly fishy and ad-hoc.
This is altogether a political issue, that the ruling party doesn't want the rules to be changed, but points to the constitution instead of taking responsibility for their stance.
We have a Spain-wide constitution. The Catalan government decided it has a democratic mandate by the people of its region to not abide by it. The NORMAL reaction by the state is to apply it, and stop the Catalan government from breaking it. It's only oppresive insofar laws and the judicial system are opressive.
Disclaimer: I'm a non-nationalist Spaniard living (but not born) in Catalonia. I don't particularly care about Catalan seceding or not (except for pragmatic concerns such as freedom of movement, etc.). I do care about whatever country I live in being able and willing to enforce its laws, insofar they are enacted by legitimate democratic institutions (and thus can be changed or repelled by democratic means) and there's freedom to disagree with them.
I also support a secession referendum for Catalonia. There's a very strong and majoritary demand for it that the state should address. But it needs to happen in due lawful process.
Of course, the American Revolution was also illegal by the laws of the British.
It's also oppressive in the sense of trying to rule people without their consent.
If you try to let people choose, but the other side says no, what's there left to do?
(It's my opinion that it's _not_ justified, though: there's a fair chance of getting through the necessary changes to allow a referendum and other self-government demands by following legal procedures, given the current Spain-wide political climate. I believe this is mainly a politically dishonest and populist move by the Catalan government. But that's besides the point.)
MPs all over Europe (Denmark, Switzerland, Finland to name a few) have asked the Spanish government to stop prosecuting and negotiate a referendum.
Not only it is the judge's job: it's not even legal for a judge to knowingly allow an illegal action.
We don't even have to imagine. It happened recently: Scotland. Or if you allow me to jump the pond: Québec.
Also, indyref not ruled illegal yet so it might not be that clear cut.
Not much really. I think its really stupid of the Spanish Govt. to try to stick to formal constitutional means when there is a genuine, popular mandate for independence. What they seem to be saying is that a referendum is not allowed by current laws so it is illegal to have it. And their ham handed response is only agitating the region even more, legitimizing the separatists call for independence.
OTOH if they had provided a path for an actual referendum to be held, provided democratic means for allowing independence... who knows? Maybe there wouldn't be a popular mandate in the referendum. Maybe the central government could have worked closely with those people, parties and cities that wanted to continue being part of Spain and convinced more.
Its seems really rich of the Spanish govt. to claim they are following democratic processes to enforce a very undemocratic rule. They seem to be playing with semantics to enforce their will.
Disclaimer: Total outsider view, I'm neither from Spain or Catalan nor have I ever visited. My opinions are based solely on news reports.
That remains to be seen. There are still less than 50% proponents of independence, according to what I read. The recent Spanish actions may have increased that number though.
It's interesting that you think so. I'd say the normal thing to do would be to issue a press release pointing out that the results aren't legally binding under the constitution and whoever wastes government money running a referendum on the thing might be held criminally or civilly liable.
Actually trying to STOP the thing is so expensive that it defeats the purpose of preventing the central government's money being wasted on the thing. It's so heavy-handed that it seems like it would just make Catalans who want to split more determined, and perhaps drive some to the other side. The most rational thing about it is that it might serve as a show of force to prevent other territories from doing the same. That part seems kind of sad.
If, for example, the State Of California, in the US, were to organize, without constitutional mandate, an "official" referendum calling for succession, Federal Marshall would be all over that in a blink of an eye.
And I'd agree that heavy-handed action gives the Calatan separatists quite a boost ... for the short term. But states don't really have choice about enforcing the law when a significant actor is visibly flouting that law. That's just how the law works, more or less everywhere it exists.
IE, the situation is as the GP states.
These things are rarely black and white, and laws often lack the necessary flexibility to address them.
It would not be illegal under federal law for California to hold a referendum on secession. It wouldn't mean anything at all. It would be legally equivalent to my planting a big red flag in the turf at a National Park and claiming that land in the name of Portugal. (it's a crime - littering - if you leave the flag there when you leave) The Federal Marshals could watch if they wanted to.
A number of actions taken by the state of California after the referendum would probably be illegal under federal law, unless the people of California held the referendum and passed it and the state officials in California simply ignored it. You'd expect that to cause a constitutional crisis at the state level in California, and that might eventually bubble up to the federal courts.
If the referendum passed and the state actually started to behave independently and take liberties with federal property, all sorts of things would start to go wrong for them. You don't really need to get heavy handed with federal law enforcement in that case. Not when you control the Federal Reserve Banks and pretty much everything else. There's a whole path of escalation you could follow in the courts before federal agents would start arresting people, but even if you want to get right to that you have to wait for them to commit actual crimes.
California has, in fact, held initiatives (“referendum” has a particular meaning in California law which is slightly different than it's general usage) on things which violate the federal Constitution. The federal government has done nothing about the votes, though it has a role in challenging and overturning substantive actions taken by the State based on such initiatives after they've passed.
There's no real reason to think a secession initiative would be any different.
Assemblea.cat (Assemblea nacional Catalana - Independentist association)
cridaperlademocracia.cat (Website protesting for actions perceived as political repression)
Empaperem.cat (Crowdsourced advertising campaign for the referendum)
E.g. http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2017/09/23/59c69496468aeb8c7f... https://www.elindependiente.com/politica/2017/09/25/la-guard...
Private organisations websites like assemblea.cat have been banned.
Lots of signs drawn, designed, printed by people have been seized by police. Including signs that only said "democracy".
Private citizens have been arrested for mirroring the websites with their own resources. That's political prosecution, stop hiding behind the law.
Please don't spread misinformation.
I very much would like to see a source for this, and, if the order to arrest them was given by the TSJC judge, what the reasoning was and whether charges were brought.
Tried to find a Twitter thread from his lawyer, but no luck. Check this out: http://www.levante-emv.com/comunitat-valenciana/2017/09/22/p...
He was also taken to police premises, put on the phone with someone from Madrid and released.
Indicted for a crime here couldn't commit as he's not a civil servant. Also the judge authorised to get his online accounts and change the passwords (wtf). A terrible attack on civil liberties.
http://www.lavanguardia.com/local/valencia/20170927/43159282...
If they can't find any evidence of such contract, I expect the charges will be dismissed and his stuff restored.
I don't think the argument that he's not allowed to do it, by his own will with his own funds, will hold in court; if I understand the law correctly. I guess at most he might be in trouble regarding the Ley de Protección de Datos, IANAL and I wouldn't know. In any case if private data-handling is fine and still the law wouldn't allow it, that law needs to be changed.
I also expect charges dismissed. A detail about his stuff is that he didn't get a receipt (as per his lawyer that was not yet present), so his things were (in his lawyer's words) "effectively stolen by the police".
This happened before the "where to vote" part of the referendum site existed. It was just an informational static site.
Many other have been called to declare with "no specific crime" in the judge notifications also for mirroring the website, including at least one member of the Catalan branch of the Pirate Party. This has been seen by some as harassment to avoid more people mirroring the website.
Same with some Aboriginal communities (who in some ways control vast areas of land, greater in size that many European countries!)
They were quickly denied the right to do so on a legal basis.
It never came to fistycuffs, but it could possibly have.
Independence movements are a tricky thing.
People are different, cultures are different, ethnicities are different.
Why do you think that after 1000 years of war (in the case of the 'Germanics' - you could say 2000 years, i.e. against the Romans) - that places like 'Germany' still exist as a relatively coherent entity? Even when they were not 'a single state' they were allied.
The boundaries of Europe for some reason always seem to 'snap back' to something resembling an ethnographic map.
Why did the Greeks - who were never 'a country' in antiquity rallied together in defence against the Persians?
Far from being 'radical' it's actually the epitome of 'reasonable' and even 'pragmatic' that ethnic groups want their own states.
Every case is different: Catalonia, Scotland, Quebec, former Yugoslav states, heck - even Crimea ... but there's always at least some reason behind these movements - even if it does get caught up in 'stupid nationalism' or even, sadly, 'stupid racism' - those are usually just the extreme voices. Most people are not like that.
When has "Germany" been a "a relatively coherent entity"? The "Germanics" the Romans fought against have just as much in common with today's Germans as they do with the French or the Dutch–the French get their name from a Germanic tribe (the Franks), the principal historical difference between France and Germany is that the Germanics who invaded the Roman Empire ended up adopting the language of the people they had conquered, whereas those who remained beyond its borders kept their original Germanic language.
Moving forward, what we call "Germany" today is just the Prussian-dominated part of the Holy Roman Empire–"Austria" being the other main component–the separation of "Germany" and "Austria" is fundamentally due to dynastic politics (the Hohenzollern dynasty ruling Prussia vs. the Habsburg dynasty ruling Austria) and religion (the former being dominated by Protestants, the later dominated by Catholics)–the differences between Austrians and Germans are really no greater than the internal differences within each country, and the fact that they are two separate countries today is more an accident of history than anything deeper.
The only time that historic Germany has ever been a "relatively coherent entity" was in the Nazi period. (I think Hitler's role in Austria-Germany relations was sort of paradoxical, in that despite briefly unifying the two countries, he ended up associating the whole idea of unification with his own odiousness, such that Austria-Germany unification is a lot less likely now than it would have been had Hitler never happened.)
> The boundaries of Europe for some reason always seem to 'snap back' to something resembling an ethnographic map.
Yes and no. On the one hand, political boundaries often (but not always) end up following ethnic boundaries. On the other hand, ethnicity is often a deliberate political construction. Look at France – for many decades, even centuries, the policy of the French central government was to suppress regional ethnic/cultural/linguistic identities in favour of a homogenous notion of Frenchness. If people on opposite sides of France see themselves today as having a common ethnic identity, that is due to the deliberate policy of the French state, rather than something that happened naturally.
Trying not to be get too biased, I'd conclude that Spanish central government is trying to protect the rule of law, state-wide or regional-wide, while also protecting those who didn't vote for separatists parties, which in 2015 elections were 52%.
Catalan Parliament passed a law with more than 50% of the vote. In a Parliamentary democracy, Parliament is sovereign.
The law says that if YES wins, there will be a mandate for independence and negotiations will start with the central government.
If the result is NO the Catalan Parliament will dissolve the government and call for regional elections.
More than 80% of Catalans want a legally binding referendum, regardless of pro or against indy.
Is the Catalan government a private organization? Or is it technically a part of the Spanish state.
Private organizations can organize, fund, and promote whatever referendums they want. And the Spanish govt. would just say they don't recognize the result.
But if the organizer is not a private organization, but instead a public institution, then it's likely abuse of authority and funds.
Every European knows that.
It's so funny to watch you kill each other over stupid arguments of "independence" dating back 1700
Grow up It's 2017
Still you managed to be the last western country to free yourself from fascism
Even Greece did better
And you still are fascists and are fighting among brothers for no real reason
Meanwhile we think we live in Europe and don't care about you being so childish
Franco is so proud of what's happening in Spain right now. He's smiling in hell watching his legacy unfold