Hacker News Reader

Comment by iagovar | Hacker News Reader

IMO the accusation of terrorism is too much, but honestly some of the actions are worrying. I'm against the Catalonian independence, so everyone knows where I'm coming from, but I understand why so many Catalonians are angry and protest for.

But I also understand what different police forces are facing. You get actions like putting trees and blocks of concrete on railroads, making it very dangerous for passengers and workers. They can't just let that happen. And they see this people is using P2P technology which is almost impossible to control, so they use all legal means at their disposal. I'm not a legal expert but I'd bet that going through the terrorism route is the only way they have to do something about it.

We could argue for years about what's legitimate and what's not, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the police forces to do nothing.

View on HN

> And they see this people is using P2P technology which is almost impossible to control, so they use all legal means at their disposal. I'm not a legal expert but I'd bet that going through the terrorism route is the only way they have to do something about it.

Framing it another way they're using trumped up terrorism charges to invoke powers that were not meant to be used against protests. Police powers are intentionally limited so that the full force of the state doesn't come crushing down on people speeding and using over blown charges to access those additional powers is very reminiscent of past slides away from democracy.

> I don't think it's reasonable to expect the police forces to do nothing.

That's the problem there's always more a police force can do, restricting that impulse to order and action is important to resist the slow slide towards police states.

This is a fundamental question any government or citizenry has to ask itself:

Under what circumstances, if any, should the police stand down?

It's a very tough question and not one that's ever really answered formally. The US Constitution has a vague definition but the line has been redrawn and erased so many times.

In theory, it's an easy question: when nobody's natural rights are being violated, police should not intervene. In practice, of course, no police force ever limits themselves to that, so the question becomes - how much the citizens would agree to tolerate and under which sauce? Experience shows, that the first is "a lot" and the second is "depending on how much you scare them, if you are good at scaring, you can pull off practically anything".

>I'm against the Catalonian independence, so everyone knows where I'm coming from

The question is if a democracy can be called democratic if it's impossible/unlawful for minorities to secede. I also think that a secession wouldn't be the smartest choice, but that's a totally different matter.

A functional democracy implies that the whole has to arrange itself democratically with the parts it consists of, if not it risks degrowth, parts that split off from the whole and form their own units.

Enforcing unity therefore can't be democratic because it lacks democracy at the lowest level. A functional democracy regulates itself through trade offs and common sense. If the outcome of that is something you're opposed to you still have to accept that if you want to live in a real democracy, not just a hypocrite simulation of it.

It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. The fascist dictator who formed modern Spain made it so its constituent lands can expel a part of it but no one part of it can choose to leave.

This is the root of why the procés is illegal, and why they are being charged as violent agitators. They are seen as young kids trying to leave their parent's house and taking their bedrooms and console with them.

If they amended the constitution, changed the rules, THEN left, that would change things. Problem is, that's even harder to do, in a country where the aforementioned military dictator died free, of old age, and he and his legacy are greatly revered by a whole lot of people.

Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule. Plato's Crito has Socrates make the point that, even sentenced to death, he was bound to respect the laws of Athens as he was someone who had made the voluntary choice to remain in the city all of his life until then and under those laws.

Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule.

For individuals, sure, and I'm quite sure Catalonians are free to leave Spain and go somewhere else.

Good, I'm glad that we're agreed on the individual right.

Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from?

The answer to each question will have a lot to do with how much you love each one.

Someone who hates Spain and the Spanish would certainly suggest that their course is to be a grubby landlord, trying to get every cent out of a tenant before kicking them out the door. Someone who loves them would hopefully never think of them as the sort of nation that would wish to impose on a free people or steal anything from a people, especially not land or property.

Lovers of Spain, properly, will think of their rights as rights of attraction, and free association, and from the governors to the governed. Haters will think of the Nation's rights as something to be imposed, and their duties as something to be extracted from their subject peoples.

What do you think of Spain? Is it love or hate?

Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from?

The nation of Spain certainly is sovereign on the territory it occupies, so it is bound only by the rules it imposes on itself (and of course, external powers which might impose other rules upon it). The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people.

Look, I'm not a lover or a hater of Spain, but what I learned so far about how the world works is that it is divided into countries, which set the rules, called law, on their territories, and get to enforce it. If you don't like the rules, usually there's a mechanism to change those, but if you can't make it work through that mechanism, your only option is to assert your own sovereignty, and hope to prevail over the existing contender. So far, the separatists in Catalonia hasn't been successful neither the former nor the latter. I might sympathize with them, but certainly I do not think that they have any right whatsoever to secede.

> The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people.

Interesting. I belong to a country where we think of ourselves as telling our rulers what our rights are -- deriving from God, some say -- and certainly not coming down to us from those rulers in any way. Sometimes we have to fight for these rights. It has been violent sometimes. Other times the process has been used. Some of our rights have yet to be asserted.

But try telling an American that George Washington and company gave us our rights, and you'll see who far that gets you. We love our country.

I hope that the people of Spain can love their country too.

Note that I said "[t]he nation of Spain", not the "rulers" of Spain. It's exactly the same as in US: in both cases, the nations codified the rules through the constitution they made the law. If anything, it is more of the case with Americans who are given down rules from above: the American constitution was created and voted into the law by the representatives of the people, while in Spain, the people themselves voted the current constitution into the law through public referendum.

The point is that in the case of most modern nations, they did not exist as separate nations until they asserted that they were, often by waging war on those who insisted they were not.

These nations bootstrap their nationhood, and are first legitimate after the fact.

One would hope that we will extend civilization to the point where people who want independence don't need to kill to prove they're serious.

>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving.

Why do they need the approval of people living elsewhere?

It's a tightly integrated part of the economical and political system, the people elsewhere would also be severely affected. Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally?

The UK is tightly integrated into the EU economical and political system. They are breaking away unilaterally. The reason they can do so is that they wouldn't have entered in the first place if there was no instrument to leave again like this (Article 50).

The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. And yet Spain says they have to stay no matter what. This doesn't sound right to me.

Article 50 was retrofitted: at the time of joining the EC (as it was then) in 1973, there was no defined mechanism for leaving.

The EC was hardly the same as the EU.

But sure, the EC not having had a defined process there was an oversight. But it was clear that the EC would not prevent the UK or any other member from leaving should they have chosen to do so. They wouldn't have arrested the Queen and replaced the UK members of parliament with EC people.

Article 50 really is just about establishing a procedure for an orderly withdrawal from the union (well, not that orderly in practice it would seem).

> The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago.

When did that happen?

Most regions on Spain had independent laws up to ~1700. While they belonged to the same Kingdom, they kept some independence. That level of independence was erased after a secession war that started on 1700, and ended with some decrees (Nueva Planta decrees, 1716 for Catalonia) that removed some "furs" and constitutions (not only in Catalonia, but everybody that supported the Hamburg's successor). And this was done using the term "derecho de conquista" (right of conquest).

Since then. I think that the source of conflict is that, for multiple reasons, catalans wanted to be part of a bigger political reality, but in "their" terms. And Spain, as a centralized system, didn't like that, doesn't like that and will not like that. To Spain, Catalonia is a property, why would they let it go? After all, it's their right (of conquest) to keep it.

It’s a bit misleading to say that Catalonia (along with other regions) was “essentially annexed” by Spain three centuries ago when it had been already be part of Spain for two centuries already. Since the very creation of the Kingdom of Spain. (It’s true that it tried to secede in 1640-1652 but the result was the loss of its northern territories to France. By the way, Napoleon would actually annex Catalonia to France later.)

Anyway, they level of independence that Catalonia has had in the last decades is much higher that before that “annexion”.

> Anyway, they level of independence that Catalonia has had in the last decades is much higher that before that “annexion”.

I am sorry to say, but this is the misleading part. You can't compare the situation hundreds of years ago with today's standards. Politically, Catalonia has less level of independence than 300 years ago. After all it had its own political institutions, courts, laws and coinage of money; all of them separated from the Kingdom of Castile.

The annex I was referring to was political, economical, legal and monetary unification after Catalonia defended a different candidate for the crown. And this is the level of autonomy that some Catalans wanted to regain.

> You can't compare the situation hundreds of years ago with today's standards.

That’s a very good point. But for some reason some people can’t leave 1714 behind!

Actually Article 50 is quite new, it's from 2009.

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

It's just the way nation-states are setup, as part of being in the union constituent states give up part of their autonomy. This happens all the way down the governmental ladder. The other states (or regions I'm not sure how Spain is divided so I'll just say states) also definitely have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the whole nation. Over the years money has flowed both ways both from the other states to Catalan and from Catalan to the other states.

That's all fine and dandy, but it presumes the participating states actually want to be part of the union. Otherwise it's tyranny in my humble opinion.

I think it depends massively on the situation involved and the state we're talking about. Without suppression beyond "you don't get to just leave" I really hesitate to call it tyranny.

It also seems like if we follow that all the way down where does the fracturing stop and how do you maintain a larger society? Does every sub division of administration have that same right to just say screw the rest of you I'm going home? Allowing it all the way down seems like a ticket straight to fractious setup of loosely associated towns and cities. There's reasons we built up the larger groups over time and part of accessing those benefits requires gluing those partisan impulses together to resist tribal urges.

We have a constitution that was voted in referendum in 1978. Most people in Catalonia voted in favor of these constitution, and Catalan parties have been an essential part of the governments we have had since then. Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence.

>Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence.

The results of the elections and the independence referendum strongly disagree.

>Most people in Catalonia (1978) voted in favor of these constitution,

Unlike those that voted the Estatut d'Autonomia (see below), many of these people are dead. There was no alternative to this constitution as it happened in a very unstable climate after the death of the dictator, where the constitution was seen as the one way to stabilize the country and advance towards a democracy.

And the fact people want this is in no way unrelated to what happened to the Estatut d'Autonomia, which defines the relationship between Catalonia and Spain. The current version of the document was written in Catalonia, revised and cut several times until Spain was OK with it, then voted in a referendum in Catalonia and put into effect, only to be cut down dramatically shortly after by the constitutional court, acting on the behalf of a Spanish nationalist political party which gets almost no votes at all in Catalonia. This was perceived as a massive insult to Catalan people.

Not only the situation was not repaired, but Spain's attacks on Catalonia's self government continued. This is the main reason why independence took a hold, perceived as the only option going forward.

What happened with the Estatut should not be a carte blanche to secede, it was bad? yes it was pretty bad. But to drag probably half the people in Catalonia through this ordeal is just as bad as what happened with the Estatut. We need politicians doing politics again, change whatever it needs to be changed but inside the current framework.

>What happened with the Estatut should not be a carte blanche to secede

Nobody took a "carte blanche" to secede. The succession of pro-independence governments were put in there by voters. These governments exhausted all possible avenues with the spanish goverment, which refused to even talk about the topic.

Catalan people were then asked explicitly whether they wanted it, in the referendum that's famous for the violence of the spanish police that were sent to prevent it. And even after that, the Catalan government tried again and again to establish dialogue with Spain, to no avail.

Spain then went on to suspend catalan government, put everybody they could in jail, and to force an election in Catalonia. An election from which yet another pro-independence government was formed.

And to date, Spain has refused any and all dialogue, and the politicians in Jail have been given a judgement that most people in Catalonia cannot agree with, by a trial that independent international observers found outrageously biased and unfair.

This is why we are where we are. The people have taken to the streets because that's what's left.

"Spain" did not put anybody in jail, it was the judges and there was a public trial, according to the rule of law, some politicians commited crimes are were judged accordingly, the way you phrase it makes it seem arbitrary when it was not.

Judges selected by the Spanish government.

If the trial was fair, why is the majority of the sentence an explanation about how fair they were? One doesn't need to explain how clean they are, they just need to be clean.

Why were policemen allowed to explain their fears, but not the defense witnesses?

Why were only some of the defense witnesses warned that omitting the truth would be considered perjury but no single accusation witness was? The Spanish politicians were really withholding a lot.

The minister in charge of taxes said, on the trial, that there wasn't an euro unaccounted for. So where is the mishandling of money? The law was stretched thin on this.

Look, I am not a layer. I have zero experience about how to redact a sentence or how many witnesses should speak in court. And I am really surprised of how many experts you can find in Catalonia.

But all these expert seem to ignore that these people can appeal their sentences if they don't agree with them. Spain, at difference of authoritarian countries, is subjected to international law. Do you accept these international courts or are they fascists too? Because if the whole world think that what these politicians did was wrong maybe, just maybe, you should consider that there is a possibility that what they did was wrong.

The Spanish government has made many mistakes, and I am very sure they will make many more, no matter who wins the elections. But the Generalitat cannot just take the law into their hands. Everybody knew it would have legal consequences. Most of them can be out early next year. Do you think this an injustice that deserve rioting and burning your city? That is what I would call an stretch.

The whole world is not thinking that what our politicians did, if they did anything, was illegal. There have been plenty of interventions about the sentence, most of the ones I've heard about are against it.

How justice works is to usually make the initial judgement on a low court and the recourses go to higher ones. Not on this, it was directly judged on the higher one and no recourse can be made about the judgement, only about how it was reached.

This ruling is not something that "deserves" rioting, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

> There have been plenty of interventions about the sentence, most of the ones I've heard about are against it.

I am talking about official positions, not "interventions". Please, show me all those countries that have condemned Spain for its fascist non-democratic practices.

And, I repeat than I am not a layer, but as far as I understand this sentence can still be appealed in international courts.

Why are you moving the goal? That's not a nice tactic. I've not expressed the Spanish practices as non-democratic or fascist, so I should not have to show an international condemnation for them in these words.

In a shallow search I've found this, from just before the trial [0] Iceland, and Scotland, ask for democratic solution. Couple of quotes: "The Icelandic Government has called upon their Spanish counterparts to look for a negotiated solution, emphasising the need to respect human rights.", "Scottish minister reiterates support for “the people of Catalonia to determine their own future”". February 15th 2019.

I've heard interventions on the EU parliament to talk about the issues, but it was voted against.

On the other hand I've seen no country saying that Spain is doing great with their police. Almost the opposite, with China saying that Hong Kong police are better than Spanish police and the press is the other way around [1].

Then, again, the appeal to the sentence to international courts will do nothing. The appeal, even if it prospered, it would do nothing against the ruling, at most it would ask a revision of the trial [2]. And that's from a pro-independence source, so you can imagine what others might say.

[0] https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/13862/iceland-becomes-... [1] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1168214.shtml [2] https://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/189638/exvicepresident/...

Ok, my apologies. Let's be specific then. Show me please some international authority saying that the sentence was wrong, or that they did the right thing disobeying court orders or with that "declaration of independence" (what the hell was that more than a provocation that they knew could get them in jail?). But, please, do not show me people saying that they want a democratic solution, that they are against police brutality (who isn't?) or that they support the goal for self-determination. That would be changing the goal, it's not a nice tactic.

You show the case of Iceland. They have "expressed concern". That's fine. I'm concerned too. And Scotland asks for a "democratic solution". A democratic solution cannot include breaking the law or ignoring court orders from a democratic country. I think both sides are guilty of not finding a democratic solution, don't you agree? Don't you think that these people refused the democratic solution the moment they decided to ignore the law? And, if you really think Spanish police is worse than the Chinese one, well... you should go there and check by yourself, I sincerely don't know what to say about such statement.

But let's forget for a second about the other comments and, please, answer me one question: what do you want? What should happen now to make you happy (or at least to stop spreading FUD about our country)? Should the government go against the court rule ignoring separation of powers? Should they allow the kids to burn Barcelona? What exactly do you want?

Sorry, it's late and I'm tired of having the burden of proof. This is what I will add to the reactions to the ruling (and to the trial) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Catalonia_independenc... . Several international organizations having problems with the trial, not many international reactions on either side. About the UDI... it was a letdown, that was not a real one and everyone that wanted one was disappointed.

On that "both sides are guilty" I could find all the times the Catalan government has tried to talk and the Spanish response has been "no". It's hard to reach a consensus when one side is so fixed on not taking.

I haven't said, and neither think, that the Spanish police is worse than the Chinese one. But if they can make the comparison it's because the way the Spanish police is acting is quite unprofessional and unworthy of a force acting in a democratic country.

What do we want? Lots of things, because there are lots of "factions", each with different needs. I'll try to summarise the principal, some of which I may not agree with. I won't enter into wether they are real or not, some you might think they are not and I'm tired of explaining the same to different people in different media, I should make a github repo.

* Cultural freedom. Catalan culture feels the constant oppression of centralist Spanish culture trying to reduce it to folk usage, like it has almost done with Galician and Valencian (which is the Catalan spoken in Valencia).

* Our money. Catalonia gives more money than it receives.

* End of corruption. We are tired of the rampant corruption in Spain. And yes, Catalan corrupts should go to jail too, starting with Pujol.

* A future. The young ones don't have a future. There is no money, there are no jobs, the world is being destroyed.

* Improve public services. They are being destroyed, in the name of profit (for friends of the different ruling parties).

These are different things that different people want, there are probably more (like letting the political prisoners out and remove the occupation forces). Some are right wing, some left wing, and most of them would sit well with Spanish people.

This is not Catalonia against Spain, it's not even left vs right, it's up vs down.

Thank you for taking the time to write that comment. Everyone is tired and a bit too sensitive now and, even if I don't agree with many of the things you say, I sincerely appreciate that you are trying to give your reasons and answering questions, and helping to keep the discussion civilized.

If you don't mind, I will response to your points one by one. Feel free to not respond if you don't feel like it.

> Cultural freedom.

I think we will agree the situation has greatly improved in the last 40 years. I also agree with you it has to improve more. There is indeed some reject to everything related to Catalan culture by a minority in the centre of Spain. I have seen similar attitudes in the other side (hate for everything related with Spain). At least where I'm from (deep Castille), most of these people will be death in the next 20 years. Unfortunately, this is changing right now, due to the last events (from both sides).

> Money.

Any wealthy region has to help poorer regions for the greater being. Where to put the line is a matter of personal opinion. Although I don't share it, I respect your opinion that the line should be the border of Catalonia.

> Corruption.

This is as much a Spanish problem as a Catalan problem. Everybody in Spain (and everywhere else) is against corrupt politicians (even the corrupt politicians if you ask them!).

> Future and public services.

Again, everyone wants that, and this is not an "Spanish problem".

As you correctly say, it's up and down. Up is powerful, really powerful. When you need to fight a powerful force, looking for cooperation is always more useful than confrontation. You will find strong support all over Spain for these demands, or most of them. As you will find support to have a fairer justice system, or against the anti-riot police (everyone who has been at the other side at some point hates them). I understand these problems, but I do not see how independence will solve them. In some cases, I think all this "proces" is just making it worse.

But we do not need to agree. It is ok if we have different opinions. Again, thank you for a civilized discussion (it's getting harder and harder these days).

> I do not see how independence will solve them. In some cases, I think all this "proces" is just making it worse.

If these problems were solved without us having to resort to become independent we would not do that. In fact if most of them were "solved" the independence movement would diminish a lot.

But right now there's too much immobilism and cronyism in Spain. There are some of these questions that are met with a direct "no" from some parties (culture), and most of them are guilty of the main problems (corruption and public services) and will not solve them.

Having a blank slate would make it easier to solve them (theoretically).

Do you want to help solve the independence "problem" without "breaking" Spain up? Vote correctly this weekend, and help others choose any of the correct options, that do not want the power for the sake of the power.

> The results of the elections and the independence referendum strongly disagree.

The turn out in the 2017 one was 43% and iirc at the time those against the referendum were encouraged to and did sit out as a way of saying 'this is not legitimate' which kind of muddies the water a bit on the actual numbers. [0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe...

[0] Of course this is the problem with any low turn out election, how do you account for the people that don't turn out? Are they protesting, happy with either choice or something else?

I was speaking more generally and not specific to the Catalan situation.

You could use this argument for the South (US) in 1800s

You could, but I doubt the 40% of the population of the south that were slaves would supported secession.

This is a general state problem, to be sure. It always ends up as an older generation imposing rules on a younger generation that lacks the political autonomy to change them.

For the same reason they include Barcelona in their hypothetical new country when most people there do not want independence or the same reason a state with 80% of democratic vote has to accept a republican president voted by people "living elsewhere". That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.

> That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.

What's wrong with self-determination?

You still do it within the context of existing laws. Democracies rely on leadership by majority so you have to operate within that system.

If it worked the way you imply what would be the limit to what you can justify with “self determination”?

> You still do it within the context of existing laws.

Existing laws may be undemocratic and unjust. If your bar for secession is legality, I will have to point out that the United States should still be part of the British Empire (The revolution was illegal), Hong Kong should pipe down, and stop protesting (They are bound by CPC laws, which have ruled the protests illegal), and most of Africa should still be governed from London and Paris (Most of it did not leave in the context of existing laws.)

> what would be the limit to what you can justify

There really isn't one, but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons. When you secede, you lose a lot of benefits, including economic, military, etc, protection from neighboring states.

Taxes are unjust, let's try not paying taxes and see how it goes.

You can stop paying taxes to the country you live in, when you leave it.

> but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons.

So you can find a limit. What if Barcelona does not want to be in that new country (and they don’t)? Will the borders of that new country inside which you start counting votes include Barcelona against their will? What freedoms do people who want to stay with the "original" country get? They suddenly become the oppressed minority. How many splinters is too many?

You object to the “dictatorship” of democracy in Spain but the plan is do do the exact same at a smaller scale in the new country to a newly created minority. The reason we’ve had the longest period of peace and prosperity in Europe’s history is that the rules are as they are now and they're the best compromise. Any “improvement” you want to get for yourself comes at a major cost for everyone.

That's not a fair response, since the two sides are not "Catalonia should be independent" vs "Catalonia should be part of Spain"; rather, the two sides are "Catalonia should have a right to discuss terms of independence with its own people and the rest of Spain" vs "Catalonia should not have the right to discuss terms of independence with its own people and the rest of Spain".

Catalonia should have a right to poll its people about whether to engage in negotiations, and to discuss terms with Spain (who, naturally, should represent coherent minority interests in Catalonia who do not want to depart).

Spain should have a right to say "Well, look, the border should not include Barcelona since 60% of them (or whatever the figure might be in a just and fair plebiscite) have expressed a desire to remain".

Once fair negotiations have taken place and each side has accepted that they have won some and lost some, Catalonia could have another referendum, and it might turn out that no-one wants independence from both Madrid and Barcelona.

Spain says it's illegal to start, middle and end the process. If the Catalans don't really want to separate, then starting is free. It will almost certainly increase the order and decrease the tension if they let a plebiscite go forward.

(The last paragraph is an irrelevance, since there's no evidence that a European Union of many smaller states, incapable of independently sustaining a modern armed force, will be any more likely to go to war than a European Union of fewer larger states, capable of independently sustaining modern armed forces. In fact, even putting the argument down in black on tan really brings out its ridiculousness.)

> the two sides are not "Catalonia should be independent" [...but] Catalonia should have a right to discuss terms of independence

Polling someone about something implies one of the results is perfectly possible. I considered that as being the final result for the purpose of the discussion because that's the crux of the matter. So yes, that is the only side that matters. There are no "fair" negotiations to be had. Spain has nothing to gain. It would not only show willingness to let illegal activity go unpunished and worse, it encourages it by negotiating.

What happens next time someone wants something illegal according to country laws and constitution? Negotiate every time? There is no negotiation that will please everybody and at best you'd end up with a random collection of patches where 100% of the population wants independence (since you don't want to oppress anyone).

> Spain should have a right to say "Well, look, the border should not include Barcelona since 60% of them (or whatever the figure might be in a just and fair plebiscite) have expressed a desire to remain".

What about the 40% (just to fit the math) that want the independence in Barcelona? Aren't they to Barcelona what Catalonia is to Spain? Should they splinter from Barcelona? How many times do you splinter? How long until you say "well I think we have enough"? And when you do isn't that arbitrary and hypocritical?

> Polling someone about something implies one of the results is perfectly possible.

Both results of asking Catalonia whether or not it should start negotiating with Spain as to what independence would look like are completely possible. It's up to Spain to accept that possibility, though, not Catalonia.

> There are no "fair" negotiations to be had. Spain has nothing to gain.

Internal stability, an end to social unrest, and doing the right thing, by letting people govern themselves, is not something to gain?

You shouldn't block your spouse from divorcing you in a broken marriage, and you should generally not keep people who want to leave, in your country.

> What happens next time someone wants something illegal according to country laws and constitution? Negotiate every time?

Generally speaking, when there's a large demand in a democracy for an unjust law to be changed, the correct thing to do is to, in fact, change the law.

> What about the 40% (just to fit the math) that want the independence in Barcelona? Aren't they to Barcelona what Catalonia is to Spain? Should they splinter from Barcelona? How many times do you splinter? How long until you say "well I think we have enough"? And when you do isn't that arbitrary and hypocritical?

That's the whole point of going to the negotiating table, in good faith. To discuss the options, to figure out how edge cases will work. If Barcelona wants to remain in Spain, I see no reason for why Catalonian secession should have to include it. Catalonia can then make the choice of whether or not it wants to secede without Barcelona. It will probably choose to not do so, and you will solve your problem without turning to violence and repression.

Of course, this requires negotiating in good faith, which seems to be anathema.

> doing the right thing

It appears that most of the country (Spain) does not agree hence the existing laws. It's questionable whether even most of Catalonia agrees. Just because a small minority thinks that it's the right thing means nothing in the context of a whole country.

> You shouldn't block your spouse from divorcing you

If you have to use broken analogies to make the point then you don't have much of a point. It should be pretty clear right now that unlike divorce, what we're talking about here is illegal. You don't get to vote whether laws apply to you or not. The country as a whole votes what happens to the country.

> when there's a large demand in a democracy

Spain is the democracy, not Catalonia. And Spain's laws/constitution are pretty clear. The only democratic process that would be valid right now is to change the laws as a country, and then do anything about independence.

You seem to think democracy is this weird selective process where you can take an arbitrary group of people and as long as they mostly agree on something then everyone should submit to that.

Your logic above is perfectly able to justify anything, even genocide, as long as laws no longer apply because (local) majority consensus exists.

It's curious how every example you mention refers to colonies. But Catalonia is not a colony.

Also, in every case you mention, there were international support for the secession, while the Catalan independist movement, in spite of its strong efforts, has got almost zero support. By the way, this is the same international community who thinks that Spanish laws are not undemocratic or unjust.

> There really isn't one, but six people seceeding their house is not going to be a minimally viable country for very obvious reasons. When you secede, you lose a lot of benefits, including economic, military, etc, protection from neighboring states.

I don't think that's really the right reason for saying a house isn't valid. Catalonia is a well defined, self-governing region of Spain. That means the Spaniards have already admitted that they're basically a sensible territory for being an independent state.

You could probably argue, in a case like the US, that New York isn't a valid territory for independence since it was created a long time ago prior to much settlement in the area - but the self government isn't revokable under the US constitution.

Catalonia has no such problem, since its autonomy is a relatively recent gift and is constantly revokable, so the fact that the Spanish haven't done it is proof that they think it's reasonable.

Even then, you still have places like Monaco and San Marino, which are very small. It's hard to argue they're minimally viable countries, just places history forgot, but they are independent.

All independence movement start with laws that are not existing.

And then there is always an independence war

A lot of the time, yes. Not always. In this case, hopefully not.

Trust me, in this case will be war

At difference than Norway, there is a silent majority in Catalonia that is fuming. They had being opressed in the last decades by separatism. Now they can't exit home without finding a burning barricade and the pavement vandalised, can't go to work without finding the highway blocked by a group of clowns sit singing kumbaya, can't enter in the university without the permit of masked people boycotting the classes and closing the doors (It does not really matter because they will not find a local job anymore in the 5000 companies that have quited the area by this permanent climate of confrontation).

Poor workers struggling to survive, students from modest families, owners of small family bussiness sued by using spanish in their small shops, elders that can't sleep by youngs playing war games all night... Being poked in the eye each month, each day, hour and minute, by children demanding permanent attention. Children that want to steal their rights and identity, make their lifes miserable and chase them off from their homes and properties...

In some moment of the future this silent half will face some apparently trivial issue, reach boiling point, explode and raise in a bloodthirsty rage swirl.

Separatists crave to achieve a reaction from Spain that would justify their agenda, but trust me, the mortal hit will come from inside.

The rest of Spain will take some popcorn and enjoy the carnage and backstabbing on TV

All of these things sound horrible, as do the people doing them.

Why do you insist on keeping people who feel that way in the country, against their will?

It's something that often puzzles me against political stances that oppose separatism. Often, they both express contempt for the people who want to leave, while at the same time, not allowing them to.

Because we know it's not the cleverest idea in the world and therefore we don't want to play that game.

No-one is opposing separatism by the way, it's just that the whole country has to agree. The catalans signed up to the constitution like everyone else.

Why should they be able to shit all over it? And by the way is less than half of catalans who want this.

> Because we know it's not the cleverest idea in the world and therefore we don't want to play that game.

This awfully sounds like:

"We know better" "Hey Catalans, you guys don't really know what's good for you, so we are taking decisions on your behalf"

All your argument can only be explained from the right of conquest.

>"Hey Catalans, you guys don't really know what's good for you, so we are taking decisions on your behalf"

Hey Catalans, you guys really know what's good for you!, you are trying to get out of Spain and EU all in the same step. Hooow foxxxyyy!

You don't want to be like those savages that speak spanish in Chile, Buenos Aires, Mexico, Los Angeles or Madrid! you are too good to speak the language of torturers!

You can insult your main customers six times a day because you are best buzzinezmen in the world!. Customers love a "meneíto" and everybody will kill for buying your stuff made of pure freedom vapour! at any price!.

Independence will raise your economy to the stratosphere like a Winged San Jorge ascending to heaven with a choir of Xavier Cugats playing golden trumpets in the background!. The world will worship you as the first really freemocratic potency in Europe and you are zupaclever and megasmart and have a solid economic plan for the future.

...

That would be better for you?

Lies feel warm?

"I know what is best for you, you get no say" is a retort of dictators, not democracies.

I don't need to be a dictator to know better than other people. It is just a fact that some people know better than others.

You seem to be implying that you know more than me by taking the higher road, you dictator! :P

Ugh.

> Trust me, in this case will be war

Sorry, after reading your text the one thing I can't do is to trust you.

> At difference than Norway, there is a silent majority in Catalonia that is fuming.

I would love to see data on that; right now, pro-independence parties are majority in the parliament and have had 10x times the amount of people on the streets (without the need of bringing outsiders). That majority is not silent, is inexistent.

> Now they can't exit home without finding a burning barricade and the pavement vandalised (...)

All that is false. I have multiple friends in Barcelona and protests have been focalized in a small area (spanish police station in Via Layetana).

> It does not really matter because they will not find a local job anymore in the 5000 companies that have quited the area by this permanent climate of confrontation

That is also false. There were some movements of the headquarters address that didn't really affected the business. The part that should be scary to all democrats is how the Spanish government created a law specifically to facilitate this change of address and how the king of Spain started calling companies to do that change.

> The rest of Spain will take some popcorn and enjoy the carnage and backstabbing on TV

This is pretty disgusting and telling.

> pro-independence parties are majority in the parliament

Spanish democracy is malapportioned: Basically, rural voters get more of a say than urban voters. The pro independent parties have a majority in the Spanish parliament for the same reason that Republicans have a majority in the US Senate: Americans and Spaniards prefer havoc and civil war to democracy, so they'll do everything they can to make sure their parliaments are illegitimate. It's worked for them both before.

> I would love to see data on that; That majority is not silent, is inexistent.

This seems often like trying to explain colors to blind people. Even worse, to people that are not blind but refuse to understand even really simple concepts that everybody out of the bubble can see inmediately.

The population in Catalonia is 7,5 millions, and the people that voted independentist parties are 1,6 millions. Have you consider the possibility than not all those "inexistent" people are independentists?.

Lets assume that some strangers would appear at your door requiring politely you to leave your home and work and go away because you aren't in the right kind of thinking and your bloodlines are Spainted. Oh, and you are not a US citizen (or a german citizen, french, whatever...) anymore.

Would you fight back for defending your rights and your home?

If the separatists really expect all this millons of people lowering their head, going to the exile and leaving in peace without a word they are even dumber than they seem. They will wake up and eat them alive.

> protests have been focalized in a small area, a single street...

If you really want to educate yourself, a simple search in youtube will provide you with plenty of data that debunk this idea. Think about it.

> I don't trust you

Good. As I'm just a stranger in internet, this is the right thing to do. By the way, I don't care about who do you trust either, so is not a problem at all. Go out and explore the world by yourself. Cheers.

> The population in Catalonia is 7,5 millions, and the people that voted independentist parties are 1,6 millions. Have you consider the possibility than not all those "inexistent" people are independentists?.

7.5 million including kids and people who don't vote. 5.5 million people that can vote, ~4.3 that voted (2017 numbers). Over 2 million votes that voted explicitly pro-independence parties [1].

Those are the real numbers.

> Lets assume that some strangers would appear at your door requiring politely you to leave your home and work and go away because you aren't in the right kind of thinking and your bloodlines are Spainted. Oh, and you are not a US citizen (or a german citizen, french, whatever...) anymore.

That's sci-fi. It hasn't happen. It won't happen. If Catalonia would become independent, why would they kick anybody out?

> If you really want to educate yourself, a simple search in youtube will provide you with plenty of data that debunk this idea. Think about it.

Go to Barcelona, report back if that's a war zone or not. The problems/fires have been extremely focalized.

[1] https://eleccions.ara.cat/parlament-21d

> If Catalonia would become independent [because they can't stand anything remotely "spanish" now], why would they kick anybody out?

Because is easy to see that they wouldn't tolerate anything remotely "spanish" tomorrow in their cuckoopia and nobody would stop them to continue to make the life impossible to this people and increase the pressure until they go away, (except a resistance movement).

And here we have in just a few words an explanation of why we know that Spain learnt nothing about democracy in the 20th century.

The rest of us know that you permit democratic expression so that the force is spent at a ballot box. Most people don't want needless change (in fact, the countries first used referendums used them precisely to prevent change).

If Catalonia had've been permitted to vote in a fair referendum, it would've been lost 45 to 55 and there would be peace and order in the streets of Barcelona, just like Glasgow.

Instead, the ignoramouses in Madrid thought force was the first choice, and now everyone in Barcelona suffers - those who want change, and those who don't.

Generally, it's so that the national polity can invest in specific regional polities without fear that they'll take the money and run, or abscond with strategic assets critical to the development of other regions.

It's basically a checklist item for a negotiated diplomatic withdrawal, to avoid triggering a knee-jerk military suppression of the unlawful rebellion. If "the rest of the country" does not agree, and won't negotiate, secession is still possible, it just means winning the civil war.

> they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving

I wonder if the American colonies which seceded from Great Britain in 1776 received the agreement of King George or of the people of Great Britain in general. Secession without consent of the sovereign was not part of their law, so the action was clearly illegal and unethical and the colonists simply in the wrong, do you think? Also there is the matter of them using violence and acts of terrorism as part of their secession process. Clearly wrong, correct?

Well, talking about the US, a group of states tried to secede from the union and there was quite a large war to stop them.

It's not legal for a state to secede from the US at all without other states agreeing to it.

The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process.

In contrast, the US was a colony of the UK with no direct representation. Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that.

The potential independence of Catalonia is a complex matter and these simplistic comparisons are unhelpful.

> the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede

This is completely untrue. The US Constitution has no such clause. Let's have a wager. We both transfer $10,000 to an independent bookie. Then we each submit our evidence that the US Constitution prohibited secession in 1861. An independent panel of judges rules and winner takes all. I'll give you 30 minutes to accept the wager and transfer your contact info.

The War between the States was an illegal war. Because the Northern Aggression won and wrote the textbooks of course they justify their illegal actions, just as the US currently justifies its illegal war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Disagree? Under what legal theory does the US have the right to seize Syrian oil fields as it is currently doing? That's the latest action this week. There are similar absurd and illegal claims of the US government going back centuries. What legal theory do you think the US claims for their seizure of native american lands and parallel mass genocide? Are you aware it's not the Doctrine of Conquest, but the Doctrine of Discovery that the US Supreme Court cited as legal justification? That the first Christian to eye lands held by non-christians permanently and irrevocably has sovereign ownership of the lands, as well as the right to enslave and kill the "pagan" populace. Do you believe this Doctrine of Discovery is a valid legal principle? Or do you agree the US has no legitimate legal claims whatsoever over the much of its territory, which it seized through genocide and deceit and spurious insane pseudo-legal principles. The Doctrine of Discovery has as much validity as the spurious claim that there was anything questionable or illegal or especially unconstitutional about southern secession, and as much rational basis as the european and puritan claims that witches can be detected by attempting to drown them, pile stones on them until they asphyxiate, or that werewolves are responsible for crop failure.

> The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process.

That's irrelevant for minorities; it's the tyranny of the majority.

> Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that.

That's false.

Catalonia is free to try to win the war of independence, of course, just like the US did.

it would be ridiculous to expect a colony of a monarchy to be expected to overthrow the government in order to "legally" split off. i'm not sure why this is any different - if they win, then the new country obviously won't be held to whatever rules the old one had. this is sort of the nature of the game - successful nations splitting off get to "live to tell the tale".

Not to mention the current Prime Minister (he's only PM because the support of the pre-independence parties) dragged his feet for months instead of start discussing a federal Spanish state or some other solution. Radio silence until the procés.

The section on "Self-determination versus territorial integrity" on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination addresses the different arguments here.

> The question is if a democracy can be called democratic if it's impossible/unlawful for minorities to secede. I also think that a secession wouldn't be the smartest choice, but that's a totally different matter.

I don't think I'm in position to have a long discussion about this in english, but I thought about it and reached no conclussion.

If I'm against the Catalan independence it's basically because of practical reasons. I don't think it will solve any problem, but create many more, make many people from Catalonia and from outside miserable and it's also the question of how this momentum has been achieved, which actors have been involved, and in what way.

Currently the independence movement is probably, and for the most part, outside the control of PDCAT and ERC, which are the two main independence parties.

But I can't just erase my memory and forget how it got here, and on what arguments.

I have Catalan friends and relatives, as well as two ex-girlfriends, so I don't live in a television reality (exclusively), and the situation hurts me a lot, and I can understand how the Catalan perception of events develops, and I am perfectly aware of the failures of the Spanish state, but I can only be in favour if I do a very selective memory exercise.

All this without forgetting that there is a legal way, which is to reform the constitution. But it is difficult and requires a political capital that the parties that (now) are idependent have burned long ago.

And I can imagine what a politician sitting in his office thinks when he observes that he has never had better material and symbolic conditions, and that if he wanted support from other regions he would have to recover the capital lost in the last, I don't know, fifteen years.

Constitution reform is the only way and yet lots of people keep pointing to other things, this is the reason we are stuck in this situation now. That road is long and requires actual politics, what they have done is taking a shortcut to nowhere.

Catalan are not majority of Spain. They cannot themselves change the constitution, yet they do not want to stay in Spain. So it's a fake "way." The majority should not be allowed to bully the minority.

So if I don't want to be part of the new Catalonia I can secede my home or join with a few neighbors to be independent from Catalonia? We have a constitution for something it's a not a Chinese vase to glance at it.

The argument of "I can secede from my home" is reductionist, simplistic and overall insulting to any group of people that want independence from the country they depend on or have fought for independence in the past.

Most countries today are independent even though it was illegal for them to become independent before they did. Poland or Estonia would still be part of the Russian empire. Austria and Hungary the same country, same with Czech Republic and Slovakia would still be Czechoslovakia. Malta and Cyprus would be part of the UK. And this is just a quick look to Europe of the 20th century.

We can go back and argue that the US couldn't/shouldn't be independent of the UK. And Cuba part of Spain. The question remains the same: why do people, outside of a territory, control the political status of this territory, going against international law?

"Article 1 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

What Spain is saying, and some Spanish people justifying, is that Catalonia doesn't have that right, and Catalans should never freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Then reinforce that lack of freedom with charges of sedition if you try and charges of terrorism if you protest.

We are talking about a region of Spain that in 1978 voted YES to approve the Spanish constitution. One of the wealthiest regions of an EU member. This is not an oppressed or punished population, the right of self determination does not apply to it when it's an autonomous region that is part of a functioning modern democracy. Even ex-UN chief Ban Ki-moon agreed on this:

https://www.thejournal.ie/catalan-independence-ban-ki-moon-2...

What Ban Ki-Moon is quoted as saying in that article just amounts to Catalonia not being on the UN's list of Non-Self-Governing Territories ( https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt ) That does not mean the right to self-determination does not apply, just that the UN doesn't literally consider Catalonia to be a Spanish colony.

> We are talking about a region of Spain that in 1978 voted YES to approve the Spanish constitution.

More reductionist argument. Catalonia, and any other region in Spain voted between a constitution and a possible new dictatorship. Trying to imply that, since a group of people signed something 40 years ago, everybody in that region is rejecting their rights not explicitly expressed in that constitution is dishonest. And what is worst, the argument seems to be made that it will remain like this forever or until the majority of Spain decides. Again, the tyranny of the majority.

> the right of self determination does not apply to it when it's an autonomous region

The right of self determination is not yours (or Ban Ki-Moon) to give, it is for people to take.

> that is part of a functioning modern democracy

Clearly it doesn't function that well, or most [1] Catalans wouldn't be so eager to leave.

[1] http://icps.cat/recerca/sondeigs-i-dades/sondeigs/sondeigs-d...

Read that report you linked. According to it, most Catalans are not so eager to leave as you say (and I would not call it an impartial source). For example, in page 4 you can clearly see: 43.6% wants an independent Catalunya, but 48.2% wants to remain being a part of Spain.

Why is the tyranny of the majority wrong (this is what most people would call democracy) but you see no problem with the tyranny of a minority?

Most would vote Yes to independence. Most would rather have a different relationship with Spain and yes, a big chunk of people would have liked to remain in Spain with increased autonomy. Since this seems impossible and the direction Spain is taking is the opposite, with strong repression, people that were not pro independence would vote Yes in a referendum.

> Why is the tyranny of the majority wrong (this is what most people would call democracy) but you see no problem with the tyranny of a minority?

Tyranny of the majority is not what you think it is. It happens when a some minority is part of a larger group that limits their freedom because of its larger number. This minority is usually focused on a specific region, and one of the the tools used by the majority to restrict this freedom is centralization and uniformity.

A good example of this are the 32 laws the Catalan government tried to push that the Spanish government sent to the constitutional court to be banned [1]. As a reminder, members of the constitutional court are selected by the main Spanish parties.

[1] https://ca.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llista_de_recursos_o_sent%C3...

> why do people, outside of a territory, control the political status of this territory, going against international law?

Because they are not outside of, they are part of. The rest is a made up fantasy which a bunch of nationalists have used to rile people up, create a "common enemy" and a "them vs us" narrative and gain power for themselves.

This process is absolutely not new and has caused terrible harm throughout history, yet here we are in the 21st Century, seeing Trumps and Brexits and all this bullshit again because we don't fucking learn.

The democratic means for eventual independence are HARD and SLOW because they HAVE to be. You should need a lot more than a loud voice and a molotov cocktail in your hand to push more than half of your presumed co-citizens out of their country against their will.

> Because they are not outside of, they are part of. The rest is a made up fantasy which a bunch of nationalists have used to rile people up, create a "common enemy" and a "them vs us" narrative and gain power for themselves.

No, it's just because they can. They are strong enough to do it.

Pro independence movements are orthogonal to nationalism.

> This process is absolutely not new and has caused terrible harm throughout history, yet here we are in the 21st Century, seeing Trumps and Brexits and all this bullshit again because we don't fucking learn.

I am sure Norway is hating that they split from Sweeden.

> The democratic means for eventual independence are HARD and SLOW because they HAVE to be. You should need a lot more than a loud voice and a molotov cocktail in your hand to push more than half of your presumed co-citizens out of their country against their will.

That's exactly why pro-independence Catalan movement has been asking for a referendum.

It sounds like you're arguing that to democratically separate, using a referendum isn't sufficient. Instead, you have to have a molotov cocktail and something else - presumably heavier, more effective weapons?

What the rest of the world hears Spain saying is, Catalonia cannot separate and even asking the question and discussing the matter is a criminal offence. When people are locked up for making sure there's interest before they start negotiating, what's left isn't "the democratic means for eventual independence are hard and slow because they have to be". What's left is "there's no democratic means for eventual independence; if you want to separate, it's over my dead body". And that means war.

The democratic means to separate can only be a democratic majority vote in the territory concerned. Otherwise it is by definition not democratic. Likening Catalonia's actions to Trump and Brexit and presenting Spain as the side of the lessons of the 20th century is hilarious. Catalonia said "let's have a vote on it, oh look independence won [in a questionable referendum], let's have a discussion". Spain said "you can't have a vote on it, you can't discuss it, thanks for trying: now you'll spend a decade in prison". Spain and rSpain do not have to agree with independence to have respect in this - they just have to not lock people up for democratic expression.

Spain and the EU are losing a lot of respect in this process.

For it to be a democratic process, there must be a way for this to happen, and there must be a way for this to happen that sees Catalonia exiting even though everyone else in rSpain is unhappy about it. Yes, of course, that means Catalonia will be paying a price when exiting. Maybe they will lose some of their territory or continue to pay some taxes for a certain number of years. And that price might mean they decide not to leave at this time, democratically.

But if the price is too great, if rSpain says "we will unhappily allow you to leave but we will veto your EU membership application and close the borders", if the price is something that Catalonia could never pay, then the democratic process will still be stifled and Spain will continue to be taught the lessons of the 20th century because, as you say, the Spanish "don't fucking learn".

> What the rest of the world hears Spain saying is, Catalonia cannot separate and even asking the question and discussing the matter is a criminal offence

This is false, absurd, and most definitely not what the rest of the world is hearing. Please we're adults here.

And I forgot to link to the covenant the Article 1 comes from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Ci...

Signed by Spain in 1976, and that the Spanish constitution (10.2) accepts.

But if Catalonia secedes, the majority (they're not, but for argument's sake) of independentist catalonians will be bullying the minority of non-independentist catalonians, right?

It's turtles all the way down.

That's disingenuous, Catalonia is comparable in size to other EU countries, has it's own language, and has long historic objection to being part of Spain. There are not many subgroups that can have similar claim.

I think his argument is pretty valid and on point. Half of Catalonia is basically dragging the other half through a conflict that will end up (if their wishes come to fruition) creating a new state that won't be a member of the EU with all the consequences all that carries, plus all the uncertainties of being a new state. All this while stepping over the current constitution that should protect the half does not want any of this to happen.

The real issue here is not about the identity of the Catalonian people, it's about money. The catalan politicians have instigated nationalism but real issue is money, as in "why we catalans should contribute this much to the other regions of Spain that don't produce as much?"

> But if Catalonia secedes, the majority (they're not, but for argument's sake) of independentist catalonians

If Spain really wanted to quiet down the independence movement in Catalonia, they could actually introduce a democratic, non malapportioned voting system. Americans would be proud of the Spanish non-democratic electorates.

The Spanish have basically gone off and said "how can we make an on-paper proportional voting system repeatedly return majorities for the minority who we hate and who are destroying our country". The problem is, as always, that no politician would ever vote themself out of power, and so no-one in Spain will ever propose a democratic reapportionment.

I don't understand your point. Nobody is the majority of Spain, but certainly most regions are far away of the power Catalans have in their hands, be it because of their population (gets you more seats in the central parliament) or because of the money they manage.

Every region has its own parliament and has representation in the central parliament. If you want something for your region you have to negotiate with others. And most regions have it way more difficult than Catalans to achieve whatever they want.

Catalan are not fighting 1v1 some other region, they are 1 v rest. Even if every other region is less politically powerful, their sum is more powerful, and their sum benefits from extracting economic output from Catalan. Catalan cannot reasonably get a constitutional change because the rest of the regions benefit from them being part of Spain. Again, it's a one vs rest ordeal.

Welcome to reality mate. You cannot get a constitutional change if you burned your political capital decades ago. FFS, even the Basques turned their back to catalan politicians.

If the Constitution is too hard to amend then that is as oppressive as any other method. Deliberately making political change too slow to accomplish is how you get revolutions, sooner or later.

Yeah, economically it would be likely a disaster without quick integration into the EU on a higher level. That's another topic, why can't the EU sort them out?

Or why can't they rejoin with Spain after trying and failing? I don't think that people would deal with a failure like that, they'd vote to rejoin, and the bond would be stronger afterwards.

I think their movement wouldn't have gotten that much steam with a legal possibility to secede though.

I'm interested in the mass psychology behind it, why Spain and their politicians think that it's a good idea to point out that the constitution of Spain and their unitarian aspects are untouchable.

To the EU this is an internal matter, plus, most of the countries of the EU have regions with similar intentions (of secession), it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus new state members of the EU have to be approved by every current member IIRC.

The EU is absolutely happy to interfere with internal matters when it suits them, to a huge degree. Look at how they have been treating Poland and its reforms of its court system. Or look at how the EU is trade sanctioning Switzerland due to a dispute over Swiss internal working regulations.

The Commission is all about "European values" and how they're going to impose penalties when a country is doing something unaligned with their own agenda. But their agenda is to destroy all European nations and merge them all into one super-nation controlled by itself. As part of that they desperately want people to feel patriotism and nationalism towards their new nation called Europe, not existing countries. See how disrespecting the EU flag is now illegal in some countries.

From their perspective Catalonian independence = more countries = harder to unite Europe. Therefore it's fine to crush the resistance. "European values" have mysteriously gone missing.

>Or look at how the EU is trade sanctioning Switzerland due to a dispute over Swiss internal working regulations.

The Swiss aren't in the EU.

I know. That's my point. The EU very much much wants them to be and had imposed trade sanctions on its financial sector as part of applying pressure during a treaty "renegotiation".

I think nationalism and its more “accepting form” patriotism so far, in history, had a net negative impact. I am reffering at relations between states.

I also think that we have a wide range of problems which cannot be solved at national level.

So why it is bad if EU wants to have less of that?

One of the initial premises of EU was to facilitate cooperation between states which were at war for lenghty periods of time. And by facilitating collaboration the making them feel more “together”.

This is complicated, but let's say that the EU's arguments are all basically arguments for empires and they are happy to say so. Look at the recent speech by Verhofstadt where he praised empires and said Europe must become one. But that's nonsense. Literally all the bloodshed and horrors Europe went through in the 20th century were caused by attempts to unite it into a single empire. The bizarre lesson some people see in this is to keep trying.

Also, don't for one second think the EU is against nationalism or patriotism. They desperately chase both. Why do you think the EU has a national anthem? Why do it's supporters say things like, "we Europeans". The entire EU project is a project to craft a new form of loyalty to the state and a self-sense of tribal belonging. Those who don't think this new nation, with its so called "European values", is better than their current nations ... well, they're treated with contempt.

Finally, there are no problems to which the solution is empires. The world has more countries than ever, yet is also richer and healthier than ever. This correlation and trend can easily continue for long time.

You say:

> Literally all the bloodshed and horrors Europe went through in the 20th century were caused by attempts to unite it into a single empire. The bizarre lesson some people see in this is to keep trying

Here is a response to this from [0]:

> Within the zone of integration, there has been no conflict since 1945, making it the longest period of peace on the western European mainland since Pax Romana

So from this there are two possible conclusions:

1) Either empires are good for peace

2) EU is not an empire and it is not trying to be

Regarding:

> Finally, there are no problems to which the solution is empires

First: there are problems which cannot be solved by each state. See global warming for example

Second: The collaboration between countries is not mandatory to be an empire as form.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Europaea

Edit: formatting and adding quote author

I understand this argument but find it brittle.

Firstly, yes, empires can be good for peace in some ways. The Roman Empire had Pax Romana. But the Soviet Union was also internally fairly peaceful, at least as much if not much more than the Roman Empire. Oddly enough, lots of people didn't want to be a part of either empire. There are downsides to empires that outweigh enforced "peace".

Secondly:

EU is not an empire and it is not trying to be

I think you missed a possibility: the EU is not an empire yet but is trying to be, and this is already causing various kinds of conflict. The fact that it's not creating World War 3 is no excuse: the Soviets didn't cause World War 3 either but not many people think the USSR was a good thing.

For an empire to dominate people it must have at least two things. One, a large number of people physically within that population who are loyal to the regime. Two, military strength to swiftly put down any rebellions and ensure the loyalists remain in power.

The EU has the first in abundance, as the horrible situation in the UK is showing. People were given a vote. The British establishment are refusing to implement it, as they're more loyal to the EU than to their own voters. This is no surprise because the same pattern is observed throughout Europe, where the EU creates a constant series of constitutional crises. Democracy is being crushed throughout the continent without a shot being fired due to the massive weight of regime loyalists already in positions of power.

The EU doesn't yet have the second. But it wants it very, very badly and has identified an EU army which reports directly to the Commission as its new top priority. Why does the EU need an army when NATO exists and works? Nobody can quite explain that. But let's face it: people keep voting in anti-EU politicians throughout Europe and if current trends continue, eventually one of these power struggles will be lost by the loyalists. The only way the EU could then keep control is by suppressing anti-EU citizens through force. If the local police won't do it, an EU army will be ready to step in and enforce Commission policy. It's hardly going to be useful for major conflict anytime soon given its size and newness, but as a form of ultra-loyal police it won't be half bad.

I'm personally planning based on the belief that the EU will be a new USSR-style empire before I reach retirement, complete with ability to put down insurrections, a large propaganda apparatus and ideological loyalty of at least 100 million people. I expect to die of old age with it firmly in control of most of Europe.

Finally:

Second: The collaboration between countries is not mandatory to be an empire as form.

I completely agree, so why are we building one? The useful work the EU does could be better done by a constellation of standards bodies and independent political alliances. The politics of unity and Europeanism that comes with it is unnecessary and dangerous.

I would've thought more countries = easier to unite Europe. Each country has more of an incentive to be united and less of an ability to separated if there's many small independent countries.

Someone wants to have a European Civil Code, and they say "but I already know the rules to trade with 30 million people". When you cut up the countries, they say "but if I want to trade with someone an hour's drive away, the rules are different - it's better to unify".

There's more boundaries where rules change, so there's more motivation to smoothe them out.

There's less power for each individual government, because their voice is 1 in 60 instead of 1 in 28. You'll quickly come to an understanding that the rules of European decision making have to be standard federal rules, rather than some compromise between federal and international rules.

The motivation for European integrationists is absolutely and solely for Catalonia and other places to become direct members of Europe.

> That's another topic, why can't the EU sort them out?

What do you think the EU should even do about this, based on which principles? To me this is entirely unclear.

There is no right to secede from a country, in fact, the territory is usually part of the identity of a country, also legally speaking.

> There is no right to secede from a country

> legally speaking

I don't see how any of these things matter.

If there's no right, if there's no legal means, then wage war. Die trying.

I'm not suggesting I support either position, but pointing out that, ultimately, laws and opinions don't matter.

_Wage war. Die trying._

Yes. That's ultimately why the Cataluña thing is a paper tiger issue: Catalans are too rich and too soft to really break away.

I'm not saying they're not allowed to have grievances, nor that they don't have any legitimate ones, but these people live extremely comfortable lives in a highly (_highly_) autonomous part of a relaxed, modern, Western nation. The independence stuff is mostly posturing. There's a good saying in Spain about this these days, roughly translating to "Catalans don't want to secede; they want to be secessionists."

It's cosplay revolution, and the rest of Spain has a good case for losing its patience with it. They want to break away, but no, sorry, the rest of the country is not allowed to have a say in the matter? Some Catalans (a minority, everyone seems to forget!) want their own country, but they also want it to be handed to them voluntarily by their "oppressor" in Madrid? They want to commit crimes but they expect not to be sent to jail?

At this point I'd almost be grateful for a Catalan Lenin of some sort; at least then we'd know there's an adult in the room.

100% people talk about the catalonya issue like they should just be able to break free without understanding the first thing about the issue. It just proves that people are so easy to manipulate with propaganda-like videos that catalonya pro-independence parties put online. I wonder what they would think if it was their countries that were trying to be broken.

I’m from Canada and we let the separatists have a referendum and tried to change their minds. The referendum failed. I don’t know anyone who took it personally or wanted to invade Quebec to make them stay or violently stop the vote.

Quite frankly I find it baffling that people care so much about violently forcing provinces they don’t even live in to stay in their country.

No-one is violently forcing provinces they don't even live in to stay in their country so I'm not sure what you are insinuating there.

People were disrupting public order and doing an illegal activity (referendum) with public money. Normal people couldn't get to work or go to the doctor because people were blocking roads.

That is what police is for basically, I am glad we have police to protect us.

Maybe your constitution is different than ours, I don't tell Canada how to rule itself. I find it baffling that people think they can tell other countries how to govern themselves from so far away!

> No-one is violently forcing provinces they don't even live in to stay in their country

What I saw in the news at the time was that the rest of Spain shipped in armed goons from outside Catalonia in to beat people up who were trying to vote in the independence referendum.

Did that not happen?

> I'm interested in the mass psychology behind it, why Spain and their politicians think that it's a good idea to point out that the constitution of Spain and their unitarian aspects are untouchable.

I can give you my point of view as a Spanish person. I am not part of the goverment by any means. Just a normal citizen living in the middle of the country.

The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

The goverment of Spain has a responsability to protect all citizens. Independece creates problems for all those people. It also costs the country millions of euros that have been invested in the region. It will have an impact on people across the country if the economy slows down, not only there. Therefore it is a decision that needs to be taken by the whole country, not only people in that region. Suggesting anything else is ludicrous.

Spain is a country, catalonya doesn't have the power to raise its middle finger to everyone else in the country whenever they please just like any other region in the country. We are one, period.

I understand that but I think that the economic objection doesn't carry much weight: I guess that Catalonya paid its own share of the infrastructure of the other regions of Spain. Same thing with Brexit: the EU benefited from having the UK in the Union (money and not only that) and viceversa. Then the UK voted to go and they go (well, maybe, the way they're handling it is so weird.)

I think it ends up to what people living in a part of a country / union want to do, if they want to be one or not. My impression from far away was that the last time they had a kind of vote in Catalonya it was like about half of the people living there wanted to secede and half didn't. Probably not enough given the circumstances but I'd like to live in a place with clear procedures for secessions. I'm not (most of us don't) even if the EU has them for its member countries.

Sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges. The EU is not a country, it is a club of countries. The EU doesn't and never will have the power to choose whether a member state can leave or not. That's how it is. So it is wrong to compare a region of a country seceding than comparing a country leaving the EU. Which is more similar to a country leaving NATO for example.

You don't need to go that far back before you could have replaced EU with USA and the statement would have sounded equally plausible. Then it stopped being plausible. The EU is more tightly integrated in many ways than the US was during the period of the Articles of Confederation.

Are you kidding me? The connection between madrid and barcelona came after madrid and sevilla (very logical in an economical sense). The highways are payed by us (by tolls) thanks to president Pujol and his friends (irony). Only tolls in rich regions. Our trains (renfe) lack a total need of investment for years. Catalunya gives more money to the rest of Spain than it receives, because it’s one of the economic motors of Spain. We are self sufficient.

Yes I see the problem as you point out, we pay too many things, Spain cannot afford losing us. That’s the only reason you want to keep us, economic matters. At least talk about other reasons to keep us united, not just money. It’s not just about money! It’s culture, it’s many years of oppresion, of not letting a nation decide it’s laws... like the ‘estatut’. it’s not reconizing dictatorships that have hurt so much Catalan culture... a lot of people don’t feel any attachment to Spain, we do not share the government attitude, culture, language... Spain has to learn it’s a multicultural country, Spanish is not the only language...

> , Spain cannot afford losing us

Spain can afford it

By the way, all the part about dictatorship, oppression and the rest is false.

How does Spain oppress people who speak another language exactly? I thought it was totally legal to speak catalan everywhere in catalunya including schools. Am I missing something?

Also, what do you plan to do with the half of catalans who don't support independence? Oppress them perhaps? Neglect their culture and language? It's turtles all the way down

> The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

It's not like it was paid only by people from outside Catalonia. In fact, the catalan people, pay taxes as well, and that money was used to fund developments outside Catalonia too. And this not only happens at a country level, there are for example funds from the European Union like the ERDF. Does that mean that Scotland should never leave the UK (and therefore the EU) because their roads -for example- have been paid by the european people for many, many years?

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

No, that's just one of the reasons. Again EU and Scotland aren't a country. I don't know why people just keep comparing different things like they are the same?

Do you want to propose a solution to people who live in catalunya and don't want independence? A referendum is a stupid idea frankly, it divides sociaties between those who want to leave and those who want to say.

People in catalunya only want independence because they are richer. What happened to solidarity?

They just want to kick Spanish people out (by the way they are spanish too in spite of all their bullshit), becuase they see them as the Nazis saw the Jews.

Let's call things by what they are. We aren't going to stand by and abandon half if catalan people who don't want to lose their rights to live and work in Spain.

You can do that in other countries if you want.

That is not true. Most of the investment in trains, port, highways in Catalonia started as private investment, mostly because it was one of the first places where they were being built (roads and train are the best examples).

And in the more recent years, and considering public investment, Catalonia is clearly under invested (specially Rodalies, according to most news and friends in the area). The budget for transportation is lower than the GDP and population in average, and most years less than half the budget is executed [1][2]

In terms of airports, 1/2 of the revenue of the airports in Spain come from Barcelona's airport [3].

The more I look at the numbers, the more clear it is that Spain's interest in Catalonia is $$$.

[1] https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2018/10/02/companias/... [2] https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20190120/454182028060/... [3] https://www.elperiodico.com/es/economia/20150327/el-prat-aen...

> The question is if a democracy can be called democratic if it's impossible/unlawful for minorities to secede.

Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue." The U.S. have been a republic (what you call a "democracy") for the entirety of their history as a nation, and yet unilateral secession is clearly forbidden.

I think OP is asking whether such countries, including the US, are indeed democratic, or just called that like Congo is called democratic, (not to the same degree obviously, but the same principle).

Can a country be called democratic if me and six friends are not allowed to draw a random border around a house and then vote to murder the residents with only our votes counting because only those inside the arbitrary border we drew are allowed to vote?

Wouldn't the analogy be better if you lived in a dorm building, and your friends voted to draw the border around the dorm?

Ugh. By your logic once India was conquered by the British, all attempts at independence were six friends drawing a random border around their house.

Unless the residents you vote to murder are also given the same freedom to secede and draw a border that excludes you because they do not consider your rule legitimate, this certainly would not be democratic.

Your analogy illustrates why a right to secede matters: It is the ultimate peaceful (if the right is protected) tool for those who feel disenfranchised, whether by being robbed off the chance to vote or because they are a persistent minority, to ensure that either their rights are protected because the government do not want them to leave, or that they have an escape hatch against a majority abusing their power.

It is saying "we no longer accept that this government legitimately represents us," and the right and ability to do that seems to me to be the most fundamental concept of democracy - but only if it is extended to everyone, which takes away the problems of your example; you and your six friends would have no rights to draw a new border that includes other residents without they too having a say, including the right to themselves secede if you do not offer them something they are willing to see as legitimate.

As such it provides an important incentive against over-reach and towards negotiated settlements that does not exist when there is no realistic mechanism for a minority to vote for their region to leave.

You can mitigate the need for a right to secede by giving sufficient protections for minorities against the choices of the majority; but whenever secession gains substantial support, that is evidence that whatever mechanisms are in place are insufficient.

To me, a government that feels a need to deploy police to stop a region from demanding independence is inherently illegitimate.

At the same time, I am all four having secessionists be made to understand the consequences, in that if you a house and decides your house should secede, then fine, but you e.g. have no inherent right to then be allowed to cross the border, or expect your new neighbouring state to provide you with any services, and you can expect them to act with force to protect the interests of any of their citizens resident on "your territory" who do not want to secede and who are not offered sufficient protections - including their own right to secede from "your state" and rejoin their preferred state.

In practice I think that taking such a right to secede to it's full consequence would minimize actual uses - anyone wanting to do it would need to take into account the problems of whether or not they'd e.g. end up with enclaves, eroded borders, exclaves, and whether they'd even end up with a contiguous territory of significance at all if they have majority support in a region but also lot of resistance, and would be forced to actually negotiate to solve such issues in a way that is not inherently detrimental to both sides. At the same time this would also apply to the state you seek to leave.

> To me, a government that feels a need to deploy police to stop a region from demanding independence is inherently illegitimate.

And to the rest of the planet is totally legit

Deploying police when there are serious disturbs by groups of organised people that are purposely preventing people from leading a normal life, ravaging and creating really dangerous situations for everybody is: NORMAL.

Name a country in the planet. Whichever country. This is exactly what the government of that country will do in the same situation.

Maybe for a few people is a videogame and lots of fun, but for the rest of us is a rock put in the path of the train when we or our loved ones are travelling. You will eat this rock if I would see you doing that.

For the rest is their small shop set in flames or ravaged. Is huge bills in damages and healthcare that they will have to pay. Is, undoubtely and crystal clear, Terrorism.

And deliberately sending your minions to disturb the peace and convivence of the society, unless you agree to "talk with me" accept my new twisted concept of "democracy" and gave me something for telling my people to stop and go home. Well, this has a name also in any part of this planet and the name is blackmail.

You are arguing a strawman. I never suggested the behaviour you are describing is legitimate either.

So we both agree that could be some legitimate reasons to send police to stop a region for demanding independence. It depends on how is demanded.

And if you are trying to suggest that the police is sent to stop the region each time the people demands peacefully independence because, duh, "Spain, evil people", let me inform you that this only happens in your imagination.

The main festivity in the region has been replaced by groups of people showing flags and asking for indepencence, year after year, after year. Everybody can find decens of videos on internet. Do you know what? As everybody can confirm easily, the number of people detained for asking independence peacefully in this kind of events is: zero.

Every independentist is crying slogans, singing and walking with banners and flags. No police is sent to stop any of their performances or demand silence, we are a society proud of granting an extensive freedom of speach

...with some limits of course. Like in many democracies, there are laws pursuing libel and protecting right to honour. You can't claim anything you want from other people without showing proofs, and this is not a bad thing

(another day, another typo)

An extensive freedom of -> speech

> So we both agree that could be some legitimate reasons to send police to stop a region for demanding independence. It depends on how is demanded.

No. I agree that there are actions that are legitimate to stop by force. Demanding independence is not one of them. Using violence while demanding independence if you have other means of obtaining independence would be; using violence against people who are not representing the government denying your claim, would be.

Notably Spanish police were deployed to stop the independence vote itself. To me that means the Spanish government inherently lost legitimacy. They are oppressors, and by extension Spain is denying democracy to a substantial portion of its population. I'd hesitate to call Spain democratic at all as a result.

The supporters of independence are dealing with an oppressive government that are denying them rule by consent, and which by extension they have every reason to see as illegitimate, and they have no reason to respect that governments right to a monopoly on the use of force.

Subsequent actions are largely secondary effects; you can not expect people to remain peaceful in the face of an oppressor.

But that does not mean that violence or destructive actions targeting people who have nothing to do with the oppression they face is acceptable.

> And if you are trying to suggest that the police is sent to stop the region each time the people demands peacefully independence because, duh, "Spain, evil people", let me inform you that this only happens in your imagination.

Again, I've never suggested this. You seem incredibly intent in reading things into what I wrote that is simply not there.

You can twist the words anything you want and repeat oppresion ten times in a row. But this house of cards simply do not resist the tiniest breeze of logical reasoning.

You know that both the first and the second referendum were just clownery and embezzlement. Everybody knows it yet.

We know now that of the around 300 detained for violent disturbs, 32 were directly incarcered for their participation in the most severe disturbs. Of this 32 people 27 where Catalonian independentists. Not evil spaniards "infiltrats" as they claimed. The rest were well known foreigners "professionals of violence" (from Italy and France for example).

We know that the anticapitalists can't build a Tsunami democratic app. For common people is just technically too expensive to hire programmers for that and maintain the system running. Only relatively rich people with lots of money to burn could be at the other extreme of the app.

Enough is enough. All the lies were exposed again and again by proven facts. Nothing that came from separatism mouths is trustable anymore.

Perhaps the American Republic ended in 1869 with Texas v. White, succeeded by the American Empire.

I do not buy the argument that unilateral secession is clearly forbidden in the US and I don't think the American Civil War settled that point. The Confederates stood a decent legal chance to secede from the Union. It was a constitution crisis. Instead the Confederates choose to throw constitutional avenues away and engage in a war of aggression against the North. The South didn't need to raise armies and launch an attack on Fort Sumter. However personally I'm grateful for their gross incompetence both in starting the war and their conduct throughout the war because it brought about the end of Chattel Slavery in North America.

Furthermore I would argue there is a large legal and ethical difference between:

1/ a largely peaceful movement for secession which is suppressed and then responds with riots

2. and a landed gentry rising up in open war and invasion because they lost an presidential election and they want to preserve their right to strip freedom from their countrymen.

I'm sorry but your misreading of American history is substantial. Texas v. White in 1869 made official that which Shay's Rebellion, the annexation of the Texas Republic, and the Civil War had established by actions--that secession in the US is illegal.

Illegal and forbidden are not synonyms. Political actions especially with respect to territorial integrity can both be illegal and allowed to happen i.e. not forbidden.

>Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue."

My main point was reacting to your statement above. A particular set of wars does not settle those issues.

What prevents a secessionist legal action to be heard by the Supreme court and for them to overturn the Texas v. White decision?

> Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue." The U.S. have been a republic (what you call a "democracy") for the entirety of their history as a nation, and yet unilateral secession is clearly forbidden.

That's not a fair analogy. If Texas decided, tomorrow, that they wanted to pursue independence, I'm reasonably confident that at no point would the federal government dismiss the state government, arrest their members and throw them in prison. They might say, "We're incapable of having any discussion on the matter until a bill passes the US Congress permitting us to negotiate" or "We'll negotiate, but terms cannot be settled and finally agreed to by us; we will need a constitutional amendment" or "Sure why not". (The US President is, after all, the president of the United States, and so their agreement is tantamount to the consent of the states. Moreover, if US federal power is withdrawn from Texas by the order of the US president, legal or not, such that it takes a revolution to regain it, it's fair to say it's happened, whether it's legal or not.)

In order to have a healthy democracy we first need the rule of the law.

Constitutions are made to define the foundations of those laws and protect citizen minorities against majority abuses: what if 80% of the population of a region decides to expel the other 20% because of whatever reasons?

The fact that the state tries to preserve the integrity of the country is necessary to keep the rule of the law. For if it just renounces to a region, its power to enforce its law is lost in such region.

Now let's assume a particular region decides to secede. That region's people, industry and such is the product of a historical process: there has been some migration, investments in the region and outside the region, etc... Thus, in case of secession under what law its decided how that secession is done? Who has legitimacy to define the rules of the law?

It's not entirely sensible to talk about "rule of law" when it comes to secession. Most countries exist in violation of some earlier set of laws. They were part of some nation and broke away, or they replaced their own government with another form through revolt.

I think you meant "secession". A really small minority is actually revolting, thankfully. Lots of pro-independence people are protesting peacefully. There's also the other side that don't want to hear anything about seceding that are just looking at these events unfold pretty worried.

Yes, thanks. My brain refuses to see typos and I just read back what I intended to write.

In order to have a healthy democracy, we first need legitimacy. In other words, those who are part of the entity need to consider it to have authority.

Nobody should be surprised if an entity you can not leave if the majority oversteps their perceived bounds ceases to have legitimacy in the eyes of those who are forcibly prevented from leaving.

By all means seek to ensure all interests are taken into account, but you don't do that by holding people against their will.

[My favorite discussion on the topic of democratic legitimacy is Robert A Dahl's "After the Revolution? Authority in a good society" (Yale University Press) that goes through this issue in a very approachable way]

91% of the people of catalonia voted for the current spanish constitution back 1978, these are the rules of play for all us.

Any change to that constitution should be made by the mechanisms it itself provides, and even in the case a new one is made, it'd have to be voted by the whole country in a referendum.

This crisis has been provoked by irresponsable politicians that have taken shortcuts clearly out of the law in order to secede a whole region of Spain from it, and we also need to keep in mind half of the people from or living in Catalonia do not want to split from Spain.

My 0,02.

>91% of the people of catalonia voted for the current spanish constitution back 1978,

Many of these people are dead. There was no alternative to this constitution as it happened in a very unstable climate after the death of the dictator, where the constitution was seen as the one way to stabilize the country and advance towards a democracy.

>This crisis has been provoked by irresponsable politicians that have taken shortcuts clearly out of the law

These "irresponsible" politicians exhausted all avenues and did what they did because they had no alternative left to actually act on what their constituents, the people who voted for them, put them in place for.

>and we also need to keep in mind half of the people from or living in Catalonia do not want to split from Spain.

I have to ask for the source of this data. Certainly not a referendum, nor an election. At best, some newspaper poll.

My 2¢.

Data is actually the Catalonian government statistics office (Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió):

https://elpais.com/ccaa/2019/07/26/catalunya/1564132750_8266...

This and all the recent catalonian parliament elections, you clearly see the split between pro independence parties and not pro independence.

The 1978 constitution is the current rule of law, it can be changed, but that needs political support in the spanish congress. If you want to simply ignore the rule of law because you don't like the constitution or "many of the people that voted for it are dead" that's your problem (sorry to be blunt, but that can't be a serious argument).

The CEO is just an opinion poll, but it shows that there's a lot of people for independence, if anything.

The two referendums (the older non-binding "consultation", and the newer binding), along with the results of elections, and the fact the current government is pro-independence, are the best data we've got, by mere size of sample.

There hasn't been a binding referendum because a secession referendum does not legally exists in the current constitution. If the pro-independence side calls for these referendums and we all know those are non-binding, the only turnout those will have are of those who are in favor of secession. Those results cannot be taken in any way seriously.

>the only turnout those will have are of those who are in favor of secession

There was plenty of turnover, and plenty of No votes, in the referendum famous for the use of force by the Spanish "Guardia Civil" police.

There just happened to be a lot more Yes votes. Like how people voted in another pro-independence government again in the Catalan elections organized by the Spanish government after they forcibly disolved the Catalan government, just a few weeks after this referendum.

In no way those non binding events had significant participation from the side that does not want to split from Spain.

Plus there was no active voting census and people could vote multiple times, you can't seriously consider the turnout from those events as valid in any way.

> You get actions like putting trees and blocks of concrete on railroads, making it very dangerous for passengers and workers.

There are laws against doing such things on the books, I'd assume - even if the motive were "just" to block railway traffic. The government should focus on investigating those responsible. It's not at all clear that blocking an app that might have countless legitimate, non-violent uses is the right choice.

If I was from the police I'd probably want to block the chance to coordinate such attacks, not only do an investigation to track certain individuals. What would be the point to spend many resources to put a guy or a few of them in jail when they can be easily replaced.

Of course it depends how many people are involved in such things, and whether the app specifically is allowing them to coordinate these attacks. Most of the commentary so far has been about demonstrations, sometimes turning into violent riots. Purposely sabotaging/obstructing a piece of critical infrastructure is something rather different, although whether it could be defined as "terrorism" is somewhat ambiguous.

> whether it could be defined as "terrorism" is somewhat ambiguous.

I won't define it as terrorism, but if you are in the Police and you really have no other legal tool, what do you do? If the boundary is fuzzy enough, they're gonna push for it.

In the end they'll probably have a hard time proving that to a judge, but as a temporary measure they probably think it's useful.

Actually, my main point was that it could qualify. Attacks on critical infrastructure have been deemed as such, and the implied risk to human life makes this an even stronger possibility. If these things are actually happening, it's quite appropriate to bring them to light.

You don't have to call it terrorism. Vandalism, reckless endangerment, malicious mischief... there are a bunch of different laws that apply.

It's worth noting that this conflict has previously had groups who were terrorist (the bomb planting kind).

it's worth noting that spanish over-reactions may be rooted in memories/fears of ETA, which is an entirely different group from an entirely different region also seeking secession.

the concern is the "suppress this at any cost" approach.

the heavy sentences can be seen as provocative (13 years for holding an "illegal" election is indefensible. it's pure authoritarian slapdown, reeks of hubris, and spits in the face of actual violent crime convictions. you can get less for murder in Spain!)

this fuels sympathy for a movement that otherwise smelled a bit like the "Piadina" secessionists: a rich region seeking to "unburden" itself of it's poorer compatriot region

such is the unreformed state of spanish nationalism that Madridenses literally will see nothing wrong with extreme civil rights breaches by G.C. etc.

let's not forget that Spain just sold a large order of bombs to Saudi Arabia, so the epiphet "terrorist" is not to be taken seriously, as in the American Gov't etc.

I'm in no way interested in Catalunyan independence, but this posturing by the Spanish Gov't looks RIDICULOUS and should be ridiculed as such.

This is just a nitpick, but ETA was not the only active terrorist group in Spain. Catalonia also had Terra Lliure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Lliure)

I've never heard of "Piadina" secessionism, could you please shed any light on that? Can't find anything about it

Probably the op is refering to Padania in Italy, lega nord.

Please don’t be intellectually dishonest. Murder in Spain is 10 to 15 years but they have been condemned by more than one crime, and that adds up, so you are comparing apples to oranges. One of them is sedition, the other one is akin to embezzlement (they used public funds for pursuing their agenda outside of their public mandate).

Also the sentencing was not the harshest by far: rebellion was dropped, state attorney demanded up to 25 years, and “acusación particular” (VOX) was asking to up to 74 years.

Sure, that's what you'd want. And everyone in the police here wants video and audio recording of every persons movement at all times so they can solve every crime.

Sometimes the police want bad things.

"A police officer's job is only easy in a police state"

Wasn't this app purposefully made and has been branded as such for this group and their cause?

I am not at all familiar with this situation, but these quotes

> but I understand why so many Catalonians are angry and protest for

and

> But I also understand what different police forces are facing

gives the impression the police may be paying the price for some politicians' bad decisions.

What in your views would you say are valid grounds to seek independence?

If you are going to say Catalonia shouldn't seek independence, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us on the ethical criteria to seek independence?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com