The internet is not isolated from the physical world. Some times "the cloud" seems like an ethereal place, but in the end there are servers somewhere with hardware that can break, that needs maintenance and that can be confiscated by the government. Technology doesn't solves political problems, it just makes governments more efficient.
This has very little to do with internet freedom etc; Catalonia has threatened to leave Spain via a referendum. There are very few things countries will not do to keep the country together. Think of "war on terror" on steroids.
Can I mention a few counterexamples? I guess no need to because you know. Yeah in 2017 some things are no longer accepted in the heart of Europe but Yugoslavia, Ukraine etc are recent examples.
IIRC, you have the right to leave in peace, use your language, autonomy and not be discriminated but declaring independence is quite a few steps above that.
However, freedom of speech is an inalienable human right (and in need of most protection when it's political speech) - so regardless of whether you think that government's power derives from the people, they should be allowed to talk about the referendum.
It might or might not be of interest, but there's a pretty profound difference between your attitude and the attitude of an American, and the approach of American constitutional law. Political speech, which is broadly defined, is the most highly protected sort of speech we have under our constitution.
But maybe you were joking or something. Saying "Everybody can speak about the referendum in Spain" and then immediately contradicting yourself is ironic.
Self-determination of peoples is a jus cogens law and a cardinal principle in international law. It's part of the UN's Charter and it's enshrined in many international treaties subscribed by Spain and by the European Union.
For years Catalonia has formally requested for this right to be exercised in different ways, and the Spanish government has made every effort to stop any possible way to channel this right. This has continued until today, when the Spanish militarized police has raided the Catalan institutions and arrested members of the Catalan government that was elected with the mandate to let Catalans exercise this right in spite of the official Spanish position, which it's trying to do through a referendum where both positions in favor and against independence may have equal opportunities to be heard.
Spain has always defended that this right to self-determination is confined to colonies because it would otherwise conflict with the also very important principle of territorial integrity. However, the International Court of Justice explained in its Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 regarding the case of Kosovo that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States”. Thus, even unilateral declarations of independence do not conflict with the aforementioned principle: “general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence“.[0]
“general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence“
Sure, you can declare all day but who will recognize you and if it's "illegal" in the country you want to leave, you will be jailed. If they do the ethnic cleansing that Serbia did in Kosovo then, you may have a better chance internationally. Changing of borders is frowned upon, almost every country has their own issues.
what about Ukraine? laat time I checked they were invaded by Russia, not much to do with some free will of local citizens through some official referendum
It's pretty sad to see how weak some of the recent democracies are. At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many thought an independent Scotland would be a huge mistake.
Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog.
Now, there is no going back. I wish the best of luck to my friends in Catalonia. Shall they be allowed to express their desire to leave or stay in Spain in peace. I wish no one to get hurt during these turbulent weeks.
Using the constitution as some sort of shield / holy bible that can't ever possibly be changed IS what show the weakness of Spanish democracy.
In the end, governments are there to serve their people. They don't make sense as entities on their own. They represent a group of people who chooses to be represented by their government. If the government attacks the people and refuses to hear to what people have to say, you need to resort to not following the dogma.
Thank you. It's quite surprising how hard it is for a lot of people to understand this. Listening to the Spanish president say that what's going on in Catalonia is anti-democratic and that democracy is following the constitution is the most frustrating thing you can hear, and I'm surprised people use that argument against the pro-independence movement.
Democracy requires the rule of law. The law says the vote should not take place, therefore either the vote doesn't take place or the law (the constitution, in this case) is changed.
Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, this is not possible and pushing for it is not constructive.
The Spanish constitution is violating one of the basic rights: the right of self-determination. To me, right now, it doesn't matter what the constitution says. We will ignore it. The constitution won't be changed because it's in their interest to not change.
Anyway, when that site states "All peoples have the right to self-determination" Is there a minimum number of people to aim for 'this right'? V.g. if 259 persons in Els Hostalets de Balenya say the want 'the right to self-determination', are they a nation from then?
I answered this same question in another comment. Copy pasting:
As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).
If a supposedly democratic nation banned free speech, then I would proudly break the law.
If a sufficient number of people in a geopolitical area wish to govern themselves, broadly, it should be seriously considered by any ethical government.
Like Catalonia, Britain, Scotland, South Sudan, the United States, or India?
The circumstances matter. I can't draft a workflow for "ethical independence" on a Friday morning on HN. I can say there is a difference between self-determination and the desire for liberty vs. mass murder, conquering territory and waging guerrilla warfare against multiple nations.
> There's a legal way to change the Spanish Constitution.
Changing how when the two main parties are against this change?
That argument is just an excuse.
Articles of the Estatut d'Autonomia where denunced by present the ruling part declared invalid by the TC but that same party wrote carbon copies of them in other Estatutes it say how the situation can change.
That constitution was written and signed under Military watch. Let's not forget Franco, a genocidal dictator, died of old age while still in power, he was not ousted by democratic forces. And no one ever went to jail for the dictatorship. Many in power during the dictatorship remained in power for a long time after it "ended". The current constitution is a reflection of that time, where Spain was a nascent democracy but the military and judiciary (and oligarchies) were still controlled by Franco people. Times change, so do societies, and constitutions can be amended to reflect that. In fact Spain recently amended it's constitution overnight. They could also amend the constitution to allow for a vote, but they don't want to.
Yeah, well, every time we dig a ditch on a road we find more corpses, women and kids too. What do you call a lot, by the way?
> Historians of the Spanish Civil War concur that the death toll of the White Terror (~58 000–400,000), because of its extent and duration,[12][12][13][14][1][2] was greater than the death toll of the Red Terror (38,000 – ~172,344 ).[15][16][17] The political repression of the White Terror was formal policy of the Nationalist forces during the Spanish Civil War, and of the government of Gen. Franco until 1945 — six years after the war's end in 1939.[18][19] In 2015, the government of Spain refused Spanish historians access to the pertinent government archives, open to foreign historians, which would allow determining the physical whereabouts and political fate of victims of the White Terror.[20]
> The main goal of the White Terror was to terrify the civil population who opposed the coup,[88][89][90] eliminate the supporters of the Second Spanish Republic and the militants of the leftist parties,[91][92][93] and because of this, some historians have considered the White Terror a genocide.[94][95] In fact, one of the leaders of the coup, General Emilio Mola said:[96]
> "It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do. There can be no cowardice. If we hesitate one moment and fail to proceed with the greatest determination, we will not win. Anyone who helps or hides a Communist or a supporter of the Popular Front will be shot."
If the law goes against one of the principles of democracy, the issue is with the law. What would your opinion be on a constitution that allows slavery? Because that was the case with a lot of constitutions in the past, and I think we would all agree that from a human right's point of view it was wrong. What's going on in Catalonia is illegal, but it's the democratically correct choice, and given what the Spanish government says ("we will only talk as long as it's within the legality"), it's the only thing you can do.
For those HN readers that might not know, a decade ago Catalonia tried to pass something known as the Estatut, which would give us more rights and more power (similar to what the Basque country has had for a long time). Needless to say, it didn't pass because the big parties opposed to it. One of the two important political parties in Spain (the Popular party) went as far as going around Spain collecting signatures (four million) to get rid of the Estatut. And that's part of the story of how the pro-independence movement gained as much traction as it has right now.
I haven't downvoted a SINGLE comment, and even if I wanted I wouldn't be able because I don't have enough points. I never downvote, and of course I wouldn't downvote because someone has different views than me. Stop with the bullshit. Go to reddit if that's what you are looking for.
And what's exactly the principle of democracy that the spanish constitution is violating?
The right of a part of a country to secede is not recognized by most constitutions around the world, and it is certainly not a "principle of democracy".
You want to change the constitution that rules your country, you get 2/3 of the votes of the parliament behind your vote and the constitution changes (or whatever rule your constitution has to allow a change). The whole point of a constitution is to have a stable body of law.
The Estatut went further than giving you something similar to what the Basque country has. It was ruled out because it was deemed incompatible with the constitution. This is exactly the same process any other country with a constitution follows.
As for the "rights" that you are not enjoying, the only one I hear repeatedly is one: collect and distribute your own taxes, because you pay more taxes than what is reinvested in Catalonia (of course this happens in roughly half of the country).
If New York asked to secede from the United States because they were oh so tired of paying more in taxes than the average in the US and receiving less than what they bring to the table (which is true for the vast majority of "rich" states) we will all see through the bullshit of the argument.
If you want to follow that argument, when do you stop? is it right for my city to secede because we do not want to support the poor in rural areas around us? (this is not a retorical question, some big cities have historically done that, and many of them today are tax havens). Can I as an individual decide to not pay my taxes because I pay more than what I receive?
I'm referring to the right of self-determination. It might not fall under one of the principles of democracy (my apologies), but it's certainly a basic right (http://www.unpo.org/article/4957)
The Spanish constitution won't change because it's in their best interest to not do so, which is why this illegal referendum is being created. If they wanted the Estatut to pass, they would have passed; they didn't pass it because the rest of the Spanish communities would have been affected by it from an economical point of view (suddenly a chunk of money that was going to the other communities stays in Catalonia. Guess who's gonna be unhappy).
As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).
It is not "certainly" a basic right. Some countries accept it, others do not.
As for the cultural, language and historical I see absolutely no basis for this referendum. Cultural wise I have never, ever, see the slightless difference between catalonians and people for the rest of Spain. What will be the difference between someone that lives in Tarragona and someone from Valencia? Of course it's all a smooth change, and the farther away you go the more small changes you get, but I have seen much deeper differences between people living in cities vs rural areas (even when they are close to each other).
In any case, these differences are (to me) smaller than the differences between a New Yorker and a Texan.
Historically Catalonia has never been a separate, independent country, and you have to go pretty far away to get a substantially different Spain to what you have today.
Catalonia has a different language, that roughly 60% of their inhabitants do not speak, and that is shared by some of the inhabitants of the spanish states (Comunidad Valenciana and Balears).
If your point is that Catalonia people should be allowed to secede because they have a differenciate culture / language (let's ignore for a second all the catalans that do not speak catalan), why don't they call to vote in catalonia, comunidad valenciana and balears, all together? Because they will very clearly lose the vote.
In polls there are a huge number of catalans descendants from andalusia n "inmigrants" that are also for the independence. Why is it so? Because the reason argued again and again during years has been only one: taxes. Not "culture".
BTW, they wanted the Estatut to pass (it passed in congress), but you needed more than 1/2 the votes, you needed 2/3. If the Estatut had nothing against the Constitution, it will be law by now.
The right of self-determination is certainly a fundamental right (or that's what United Nations says, and Spain signed it).
I have never lived in Texas nor NYC, so I can't really say much about it. I believe that Catalonia is large enough to warrant a referendum if enough people want it, especially given that so many people disagree with the treatment they are receiving from Spain. I accept the argument that we might not be different enough, but it's not the main reason a referendum should be held, in my opinion, and I'm not aware of many people from Valencia or Balears who want to leave Spain. At which point a region of a country has the right to secede? Or you are implying that no region from no country should ever have that right?
That people has self-determination rights based on allegedly cultural and historic reasons is very weak point, and ignores the rule of law.
But what is more worrisome is that it ignores the rights of the other group. What about the Spanish, not from Catalonia, that have interests in Catalonia, be it companies, properties, families or even just cultural links? Shouldn't they have an opinion on the matter?
Unsurprisingly yes, and that's precisely what the Constitution says. And that's the supreme law, and I have not seen any other reasonable country where a subset of it is claiming so freely to withdraw the Constitution because they don't like it, even when there are very clear paths to change it.
It Catalonia wants to vote, go to Parliament and ask for a referendum of all Spaniards (that's legal). It's that simple.
Oh it probably violates the constitution - but the right thing to do is to either let it slide or admend it. The law is supposed to serve the people, right now Spain is just using it as a bully platform.
> Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog.
The irony is that many who support the independence of Catalonia are against independence of current EU member states and fail to see the inherent dangers in the centralization of power (many such dangers exemplified by this very article and listed by you).
I would like to see an argument for that. With the original scenario, its just an argument for autonomy and that less homogoneity and centralization in governmental structures better represents and distributes power amoung the diversity of the governed. Someone arguing for Brexit and against Calexit would have to do so on other grounds - which I'd be interested to see if they have any weight.
Playing devils advocate: Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s. It's the constitution which prevents the referendum from happening. (I believe for a referendum to be constitutional, Spain's "federal" parliament would have to agree to it and the whole country would have to vote).
Personally I feel this whole comparison between the 2 situations highlights the cultural differences: consensus seeking anglo-saxons, conflict/imposition-driven Hispanics/Latins. (non-hispanic latin here)
> Spain has a constitution that was signed by Catalonian reps in the 70s
Totally agree. Yet, the 70s were different times. Getting out of a dictatorship and moving into a democratic state takes a lot of compromises on all sides. Back then, there was the sense of urgency to agree on common terms, for the time being, to allow the country and the people to transition into a modern democracy.
It's been 40 years now. Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country, yet it should not be used as a license to oppress people.
Many Catalonians requested to change some parts of the constitution to better represent Catalonia's cultural and political differences, as compared to Spain. Yet Spain would not even consider talking about anything that challenges the status quo.
Uh, you remember how indyref was Cameron gambling the cohecion of his country for the opportunity to steal a policy issue from the opposition? The idea that indyref was allowed out of respect of popular will is utterly deluded, Cameron never cared for the scots as they are too left to vote for him.
You’re not in a democracy, it’s a representative parliament system. Same almost worldwide. There’s a difference.
Many of modern so called democracies though referendums are not the best way to solve these issues. Read up on how it worked for the Ancient Greeks or how the American constitution fathers talk about “direct democracy”.
Then think how it worked out for Brexit. It’s nothign new: ancient Greeks also got fired up by propaganda and later regretted their own decisions. Socrates came up with his “government of the fit” watching his contemporaries claim for bad things only to regret it when it was too late.
Essentially: a referendum is like saying “every single citizen has enough information and vision to do whatever is best for the country”. I find that pretty optimistic to say the least.
How I’m I saying that? I don’t even mention fascism.
I’m saying that representative parliament works, and there’s a way to solve this using this worldwide system. Direct democracy is not what we have, America’s founders considered it “anarchy” as a matter of fact. Read up.
America's founders also considered slaves fractional people and women incapable of voting. They happened to be right about some things, but they were still wrong about other things.
Yeah, they also called indigenous people “savages”. Back in those days stuff like that was still not clear. However, when creating the constitution, they put a lot of thought on the system it should follow. Like I said: direct democracy is a tried and tested method. It has failed for the same reason always.
> Like I said: direct democracy is a tried and tested method. It has failed for the same reason always.
Always? You should be sure to inform the Swiss, who've been operating under the mistaken assumption that direct democracy in their cantons was functioning just fine.
Then, climb in your time machine and alert the New Englanders that their town halls were actually ruinous disasters. Then go further back and mock the ancient Athenians for starting this whole democracy debacle by running a stable government for 200 years.
"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves, even though many thought an independent Scotland would be a huge mistake."
That referendum was restricted to two options, what the UK government wanted and what they thought was too extreme a position to win. By excluding the middle way option, which polling suggested would win they hoped to get their own position rubber stamped.
The fact that it came so close us a testament to how badly they played their hand.
It was openly known that the nationalists wanted the option, and the unionists didn't. Perhaps it was negotiated away for something else the nationalists wanted, but still the point stands, they wanted it, and didn't get it.
What was this 'middle way' option? Scotland already has its own Parliament, legislation and such. I always thought they were already in a 'middle way'?
I'm not trying to be provocative, just trying to understand what else could Scotland get without going full-on independent?
More control over taxation could be something on the table. Devolution of welfare & benefits. A reevaluation of how much input Scotland gets in UK-wide decisions. A reevaluation of how things like NHS Scotland are funded, in the face of NHS England being gradually drained of cash (since the amount of money given to Scotland to spend on various things depends on the amount of money England spends on them). There's a few big things, and a bunch of little specific things, that could all be on the table.
In practice, some of this has happened, but perhaps not as much as would've been if the debate were more public.
Technically both sides were proposing more powers, it was a difference of degree in what was being offered. At the last minute more power was offered when it seemed like full independence had a chance of winning.
It's been 80 years since the Spanish Civil War, yet I can't help but wonder whether its influence is being felt today with BS maneuvers like this. What would Spain be like today if Franco hadn't been helped into power in the 30s by (among other infamous parties who shall remain nameless) Ford Motors, General Motors, and the Catholic Church?
It might well have become part of the Communist bloc (maybe not, if anarchists and communists hadn't stopped bickering). I don't know if it would have stopped before or after the USSR.
"At least in the UK the government allowed people to express themselves"
The problem here in Spain/Catalonia is that Catalonian politicians only want Catalonians to vote. I feel that, being a Spanish citizen of legal age, I have the same right to vote on whether I want a part of my country to separate from it. But they won't let us vote, so, why should "we" let them vote? (Also, as per the constitution, it is illegal)
Only Scotland voted on their referendum. The rest of the UK didn't nor couldn't vote.
Would you let, let's say, France vote on your general elections to chose the next MP? Would you let a stranger choose the colour of the walls for your living room?
Only Catalans can decide their own fate. It's up to them and no one else whether they stay or leave. I don't care which side wins but there must be a vote.
You can change your last sentence to say: "Only spanish can decide their own fate".
Only Scotland voted on their referendum, as agreed by the whole United Kingdom. USA did not allow southern states secede, Germany did not allow Bavaria secede, etc.
What do you mean? in the scottish referendum only scots voted, not all brits. Are you saying that all spaniards (not only those living in Catalonia) should vote in the referendum? I don't see how this makes any sense.
Actually it was people living in Scotland. As a Scot living in Spain I wasn't allowed to. "Fair enough" I though, until we got completely screwed over with the English and Welsh voting for Brexit.
Lets face it the lead up to both referendums were based on packs of lies (on both sides probably - but it can only be proven for the winning sides).
Spain is for all the spaniards. All have the same basic rights as the right to move freely inside the entire country, to work and live when they want inside its frontiers and to decide together about the destiny of their country. With logical exceptions (like requiring granted access to private areas); this super-basic concept is in use in all free and democratic countries of the world.
New York people can't wake up some day, like a single man, and decide that Texans (or Floridians, or afroamericans), can not enter in the state anymore, their basic rights are expired and they have 48 hours to quit the place leaving its properties behind. Some people would point to the fair "self-determination right" from Newyorkers. Some even would shamelesly call this situation democracy, but it isn't. Would be a huge scam. NY are only a small part of the people that are USA citizens, and the other people have the f*ing right to express their opinion about that. No matter how peculiar, colorful, or different than other places is the city.
In the same way Barcelona can not wake up some day and decide that people from Sevilla aren't allowed anymore to decide about the future of Barcelona and must quit the place. Unless of course we would aim to happily nuke the basic rights of 39 millions of citizen that are non-catalonian spaniards (to improve the chances for the 1-2 million of people than want Catalonia out of Spain). Is also a scam. Is a riged game. Democracy is the rule of the majority, and this constant actitude of I'm holier than thou so I must be allowed to speak but you can't is incredibly upsetting.
> Spain is for all the spaniards. All have the same basic rights as the right to move freely inside the entire country, to work and live when they want inside its frontiers and to decide together about the destiny of their country. With logical exceptions (like requiring granted access to private areas); this super-basic concept is in use in all free and democratic countries of the world.
Think that has nothing to do with a part of an state voting their secession and not the whole country.
A question to all of the people that say that the whole country should vote.
What would you do if more than 70% of the population of a part of the state would be independent? Allow them the independence and start the negotiations or don't allow>
As said before, this 70% of the local population would represent, lets say, a mere 10% of the total population.
So if one of each ten people voted for "yes to A", and the other nine people voted for "no to A". What should happen in a democratic system?.
Well, the idea here is that you has the freedom to choose among two nice options: "yes to A" and "repeat the process until yes to A is achieved" or "start negociations to circumnavigate what people really wanted". But this is not a dictatorship, of course; we are a democratic modern society unlike the spaniards, those savages.
And talking about semi-naked savages, this reminds me that extra-nice 2008 campaign launched by Catalonian independentists: "support a spanish child with more money from Catalonia". It seems that this is how they see the other spaniards. Nice image. It isn't?.
Because poor children is a perfectly fine theme to make some good laughs (They are poor, ha-haa!).
To finish, and taking in mind several harassments and repeated BS like this in the last decade, I think that a lot of people in Spain would vote enthusiastically about sending this people out of Spain, even better, why not to Mars?, to build the New Castelldefells and live their futuristic utopia happy forever in the red planet.
I repeat the question, because it seems that you have not understood it.
If a 70% of the population of a territory (and I'm not talking about Catalonia, because there is no majority for independence) wants to secede, what the State should do?
> it seems that you have not understood the question.
I did, and have provided a very clear answer to the question in fact.
What the government of a country should do if a group of people declare themselves on sedition, start refusing to pay taxes, wants to steal all public resources, harass and drive out of the place the people that think different, take their properties and piss generously on the constitutional rights of the majority of the citizens?
Enforce the law, obviously
"But, but, I want to ignore and twist the law in my benefit!. I should be allowed to do it, because I'm special!, my mom told me!"
You can violate the laws everytime that you want, as long as you accept the consequences, and repair the damage caused to other members of the society.
No, you have not understood the question. I'm not talking of what is happening in Catalonia this days. Because in Catalonia there is no majority of people defending independence.
I'm asking what happens if in a part of a territory the vast majority of population doesn't want to be part of that country.
If you want to talk of Catalonia, I can ask what the Central Government can do when 82% of the population (and this includes half of people that wants independence and half of people that doesn't want independence) would defend a LEGAL and proper done referendum.
Ok, enough of running in circles chasing our tails.
The answer to your deliberately ambiguous question is the same. Enforce the law.
> What if a lot of people do not want to remain in this country?
They will pack, leave and try to migrate and be accepted under the umbrella of other countries typically. It is happening a lot in the last decades, by good (and sad) reasons.
> What if the majority of people would hate their country (but want to remain in it).
They could use the tools specified in the law to change the bad parts and improve their country democratically. As they are a majority, they are probably doing this yet since years. They must have in mind still that there are international laws and treaties.
> What would happen if 100% of USA demand the independence from themselves and require to be called "Pantsdemonium, the land of the pants-free" from now on?
Just a change of name (and interesting parties, like the national day of the duck and so). On the other hand, if you can't stand to be in the same room with yourself, go to see a doctor as soon as possible.
> and if it was the 90%?
A change of name plus a 10% of people driven off their own country, typically by violent means, if we study the human history.
> I feel that, being a Spanish citizen of legal age, I have the same right to vote on whether I want a part of my country to separate from it. But they won't let us vote, so, why should "we" let them vote?
If a son or daughter of legal age wants to move out of their parents' house, does the rest of the family get to stop them from moving?
> The problem here in Spain/Catalonia is that Catalonian politicians only want Catalonians to vote.
The same was true of the Scottish referendum. And the Quebec referendums.
I'm not really for or against anything here, but it doesn't make any sense to have everyone vote in a secession referendum. It should be a referendum among the people attempting to secede.
I could see there being a universal referendum on the wording of the referendum and the terms of secession though.
States vote for secession alone. Where they secede from has no say in the matter, hence secession. How do you think the crown would have voted when the US colonies declared independence?
You seem to agree with the way it went in the UK/Scotland. And yet as far as I can remember, only Scottish citizens voted in that referendum... Why would Catalonia's be different than any other self-determination referendum?
Do you honestly believe this is a logical demand? If so, what % of "pro-independence" of Spanish census would be enough for you, 51% of whole Spain?
Never heard of a case where someone has been arrested for saying anything that isn't aimed at causing vioelnce. The UK government _do_ allow a lot of open debate on political topics (and every other type of topic) as long as it doesn't threaten peoples health.
It's hard to try to explain the true here when secessionists are brigading but you aren't serious, really.
Since 1977, Catalans had participated in 35 free elections, and in 3 referendums. The Catalans have their own government, and there are politicians born in Catalonia successfully in the Spanish Parliament, and in the European Parliament.
Where you don't see freedom?
If someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.
Catalans will never amount to the number of votes you need to start such a change. This position amounts to prohibiting the exercise of the right to self-determination all peoples have.
Perfect, as everybody can say anything for the "right" of this new thing, the "self-determination all people have" I require you to free the oppressed people of Ohio, quit the area right now, and anexionate the state to, for example, France. And if you do not agree to do what I want then I will shout loud that "this is not a democracy and all of you are nasty fascists". Happy?
Yes, is exactly like that.
Last year the catalan goverment spent 5 millions euro (stolen) from taxes of all spaniards in a similar "referendum" show. Money used against the interests of the same people that give it. Instead to pay schools and hospitals they bought cardboard urns, candies and fireworks and make a wonderful theater full of passion, and drama. Do we understand the meaning of the term "diversion of public founds and prevarication"?
This year trying the same dirty trick again and take the freedom that all spaniards have by law to decide about their country.
And of course they are the "victims" in a world that do not understand their uniqueness and fantasy extravaganza.
It's Spain, the politicians in the government are using it to cover that they have more than 800 members of their party being under investigation or even prosecuted from corruption. The governing party is being investigated for having using black money to pay for elections among other things like getting rich. They embrace themselves inside the Spanish flag and the unity of the country.
This is a good example of the breakdown of the westphalian concept of nation-state. The people have the right to divorce and the state has the right to maintain its unity against all.
It's like Spain is trying to push Catalonians to violence.
> This is a good example of the breakdown of the westphalian concept of nation-state.
Your premise is contradictory. You're claiming that Catalonia trying to form its own nation-state is a proof that the nation-state is breaking down. The exact opposite is the case: the nation-state is so desirable that Catalonia wants to form its own.
I know it’s hard to not take parts with the “oppressed” but:
You must know that this referendum was approved without reading the bill in the Catalonian parliament, so the opposition couldn’t even have a say. Even the vicepresident of the chamber stepped out of line since it was so outrageously un-democratic. The people leading this movement in Catalonia (very much like the central government) is riddled with corruption. Public workers have been pressured to accept participation in the referendum (which is ilegal to do).
And just to finish: if you’re going to reference any prior “referendum” know that it’s not only ilegal like this one (thus no observers, nor accurate census) but also take into account participation (usually very low).
In short: please be skeptical about whatever you hear from either side. There’s an estimated 40-45% of support for the vote and less than that (30-40%) support for independence.
We should of course be sceptical, but at the same time it seems that Spain is active so heavy handed in this and related matters that they are almost trying to make this go violent.
This is the thing: the referendum is ilegal according to constitution (agreed on by Catalans in the 70s).
We can debate if it should or should not be ilegal, but it’s a different thing.
These actions are taken to avoid violating the constitutional order, not the vote directly. If the constitution is being infringed, you can’t make exceptions.
We can also debate whether the response of the Spanish government is out of line. Nothing will bring about Catalan independence faster than heavy handed repression by the Spanish government.
How would you react if a regional government (which represent 30-40% of the people there) in your country stops obeying the constitution? Would you not stop the privacy infringement that is using census data ilegally? Would you not protect the 60-70% who didn’t vote the ruling party?
If by "stops obeying the constitution" you mean "holds a referendum" I would be fine with it. What I am not ok with is a central government rounding people up because they want to hold an election.
Sure but now you’re deciding what parts of the constitution you obey and which ones you don’t. That just doesn’t scale.
If you want to modify the constitution you need 2/3 of the senate. There’s a procedure for that. There no excuse to break the constitution. If you think there is, you had no argument to defend your own constitutional rights.
The Spanish constitution recognizes the right to self-determination inasmuch as it explicitly enshrines the international treaties that define it.
Spain (executive and judiciary) is choosing to ignore that (unlike Canada, for example), and not letting Catalonia exercise that right in any way. According to polls 70%/80% of Catalans think a referendum about independence should take place. The current Catalan government has the mandate from last elections to find a way for the Catalans to exercise this right even if Spain opposes, given that Spain has also refused all previous proposals to find a solution.
Catalans literally have no other option. They either waive their right to self-determination or they exercise it.
Thats false. You'll find it usually in the first articles:
- Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1 (Purposes and Principles), article 1.2: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace" [1]
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 1.1 (check out other points and article 2): 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. [2]
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 1.1: [pretty much same text as International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) [3]
- Spanish Constitution, part 1 (Fundamental Rights and Duties), Section 10.2: "Provisions relating to the fundamental rights and liberties recognized by the Constitution shall be construed in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain." [4]
Though you only had to check Wikipedia: "The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule)" [5]
I was talking about who appoints the judges in the lower courts (like the one in Barcelona behind the operations being discussed). But if your point is that the Catalan administration is part of the Spanish administration and the Catalan legality can be traced back to the Spanish constitution then I fully agree.
If 30-40% of the people want to leave your country, you have a problem. Hiding behind legal strictures made 40 years ago ignores the core issue entirely.
The proper thing for the Spanish government to do is to sit down with the Catalans and engage in meaningful dialogue. Not kick in doors and jail people for participating in a non-binding referendum.
Just in case you didn’t read it right: 30-40% of Catalonia, which in whole is less than 20% of Spain’s population... so that’s like a 5-7% of Spanish population? The constitution is for all Spaniards.
> "In short: please be skeptical about whatever you hear from either side. There’s an estimated 40-45% of support for the vote and less than that (30-40%) support for independence."
So why not just let the vote go ahead and get it over with?
Because of the precedent, presumably. If it is not allowed by the Spanish Constitution, what will be the next part of the Constitution that will be ignored?
So, following that view, in the hypothetical case that the 100% of the people of one region wanted the independence, they should just be quiet because it's in the constitution of the 'federal' government?
In that case the federal government should consider amending the Constitution, or something like that. Which isn't necessarily that simple.
For example, the wide majority that is needed for constitutional changes would require agreement at the federal level even beyond parties that are part of the government. Also, some constitutions have provisions that are explicitly listed as un-amendable.
In the case of Catalunya there are other issues. For example, admission to the EU of Catalunya would probably be vetoed by Spain and by almost any other country that has regions with strong separatist movements (e.g. Spain would have vetoed the admission of Scotland, had the Scottish referendum passed). This would be a big unknown for Catalan economy.
Sure, how are they oppressed? In 1938 Barcelona was bombed because the army wanted to destroy the republic and what existed of Catalonia autonomy. So any existing Catalonia autonomy or democracy of any form was crushed in 1939, replaced by a military dictatorship, and only started to recover in 1977-1978. The Spanish dictatorship killed thousands of Catalans after the 1939 takeover.
The same forces in Spanish society who did that are the same forces which seek to destroy Catalan autonomy again. By the same means, policemen kicking down the door. You dismiss prior referendums, fine. There is going to be one in 11 days. So if those polls you cite are true, then it seems independence will not happen. It's bizarre to call a referendum in ten days "outrageously undemocratic", while decades of a brutal dictatorship established by an invasion and the murder of thousands afterward goes without mention.
What forces are you talking about? The fascist killed Spaniards from all Spain, not only Catalonia. In any case, the republic was outspokenly against the Catalan independence. Azaña was quoted to write in a letter “before alllwing for an independent Catalonia, I’ll give it to Franco”. Please don’t revise history, is the most fascist thing you can do.
The problem with the referendum results is that they can’t be accurate. They’re asking people to bring the ballots printed at home, and there’s no accurate census. No observers either. Not that the Catalonian government cares, of course.
Azaña said many things: "Si en algún momento dominara en Cataluña otra voluntad y resolviera remar sola en su navío, sería justo permitirlo y nuestro deber consistiría en dejaros en paz, y si esto sucediera os desearíamos buena suerte hasta que cicatrizara la herida"
Yes, Azaña said those words in March, 27, 1930, in the Restaurant Patria (Barcelona) but soon he learned about his error, and the grave consequences of that speech.
In May, 1937, Azaña wrote in his diary: "las muchas y muy enormes y escandalosas [...] pruebas de insolidaridad y despego, de hostilidad, de 'chantajismo' que la política catalana ha dado frente al gobierno de la República".
And then he added: "Y si esas gentes van a descuartizar a España, prefiero a Franco. Con Franco ya nos entenderíamos nosotros, o nuestros hijos, o quien fuere, pero estos hombres son inaguantables. Acabarían por dar la razón a Franco".
My point is that even a single guy changes his opinion. It's not reasonable to present it as representative of a full system of government. Go ask Rajoy if his opinions represent the whole system :)
EDIT: Also, those quotes just show that the iconoclast and rebellions attitude of Catalonia against the central government is quite old, and not just an invention of some corrupt politicians to divert attention :)
Pau Claris, head of the Generalitat of Catalonia, called the politician members of the all Principality in order to form a Junta de Braços or Braços Generals (General Estates), a consultive body. (...) This assembly, which worked with individual voting, began to create and apply various revolutionary measures (...), while the tension with the monarchy grew.
> The people leading this movement in Catalonia is riddled with corruption
Every single party in Spain is riddled with corruption. But it doesn't mean they can't defend some ideology anymore. Besides, this is not some crazy politician's idea, but a movement from people ranging from the far left to the Christian democracy. Some parties changed their positions to "ride the wave", though.
> There’s an estimated 40-45% of support for the vote and less than that (30-40%) support for independence.
And how you know that? Polls? Polls means nothing. They can say whatever their planners want them to say.
>Every single party in Spain is riddled with corruption.
The smaller the government the less corruption would be my assumption. Iceland seems to do a pretty good job of listening to its people.
> Polls means nothing. They can say whatever their planners want them to say.
Regarding polls, I have a theory that you should always lie if asked in one. The less validity that polls have, the less they can be used to manipulate the vote.
If no one believes what the polls say, there will have less influence and there be less chance of tactical voting, which is a real problem with our current version of democracy. Maybe some people think that tactical voting is a good thing, but in my lifetime it always seems to be the case that people are voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than what they actually believe in. Is that really what democracy is supposed to be about?
> There’s an estimated 40-45% of support for the vote and less than that (30-40%) support for independence.
Madrid would not react as brutally as they do if their intelligence services foresee such a result; they would just protest and deny vote legitimacy as they usually did the previous times, and let the vote be.
"You must know that this referendum was approved without reading the bill in the Catalonian parliament, so the opposition couldn’t even have a say."
It's understandable given the filibusterism, and outright prohibitions you would expect from the central government. Referendum has been proposed for 7 years and it was rejected every time.
Catalonia has less corruption than Spain in average. Even though the National Police and the judiciary have a very strong bias in favor of spanish parties.
So, if for 2 comunities of 1 million people with 300 politicians each, if in one comunity 1 politician steals 1.000 millions is more corrupt than one where 300 politicians steal 3 millions each?
Curious way of counting corruption
And, by the way, I think Catalonia is exactly as corrupt as the rest of the Spain, it is not a problem of the comunity, is a problem of the whole society which rewards that any people steal taxes or don't pay VAT
> In short: please be skeptical about whatever you hear from either side. There’s an estimated 40-45% of support for the vote and less than that (30-40%) support for independence
Do you have sources, because the last I know is from El Periodico (against independence) and the amount of people supporting a referendum was almost 80%
> Hasta un 82% de catalanes se muestran partidarios de solucionar el problema catalán con un referéndum pactado y plenamente legal sobre la independencia. La idea seduce a la inmensa mayoría de los partidos independentistas pero también recoge numerosos apoyos entre las fuerzas constitucionalistas.
When I was dating a Croatian girl, I asked her which country reminded her most of pre-war Yugoslavia.
"Spain," she said, without skipping a beat. "It's eerily similar. All power and wealth flowing to the capital in the center of the country? Check. Generations-long repression of regional, cultural, and linguistic diversity? Check. Awkward tendency to rewrite history to avoid open discussion of WWII-era atrocities? Check. A staunch refusal by the central government to engage in meaningful dialogue with aggrieved regions and peoples? Check. Brutal repression of freedom of speech or demonstrations, inspiring ever-more-radical nationalism... All the ingredients are there."
"Nah," I said. "Spain's a stable republic! There's no way it'll descend into a Yugoslavia-style death fest."
She just arched her eyebrow. "War was unthinkable to us right up until the moment the JNA started shelling us. It's a miracle Spain's still one country, honestly."
The more I learn -- about both Yugoslavia and Spain -- the more I fear she was right.
The country that looks most likely to split (in Europe) to me is Belgium, not Spain.
But then predicting geopolitical changes is the same as predicting Black Swans: the Berlin wall will stand forever right until the moment it wont; The Soviet Union is just there until it is no more; nothing can stand the Nazi war machine; those scrappy colonists have no chance against the English empire.
Really? My take is that Flemings and Walloons don't really understand each other but are happy staying in their own half of the country. Who would get Brussels in a split?
"Brutal repression of freedom of speech or demonstrations" "Spain's a stable republic" It's saddens me to see so much ignorance and nonsense. Keeping aside that Spain is a monarchy, in today's Catalonia people have to fight for basic things like the right to educate their children in Spanish, mayors who do not support the referendum are being harrased by the radicals... that is a little example of the "oppresion" you talk about. They have pushed the government to the limit and they have to do something.
And why do you think that such radicalism has taken hold in Catalonia? Has it ever been thus, or could it possibly be in reaction to something...?
And do you think that the Spanish government's actions will encourage unity or fan the flames of separatism?
I think Catalan independence is a stupid idea, but you'd have to be pretty blinkered not to see the historical, ongoing heavy-handedness of the Spanish government in response to its regions. Countries responsive to their citizenry don't, as a general rule, have two or more internal states in which >30% of the population wants to secede.
That "radicalism" has nothing to do with centralism. It has to do with radical nationalism of peripherical regional parties. They control the media, the education, the funding of heavily subsized companies with public money for more than 35 years. Spain is a very decentralized country, closer to a federal model.
Right regional parties in Catalonia cannot keep on stealing from the public budget since the Great Recession. Their business model is over. They have to pivot to a new business model called "independence".
You didn't answer my question. People aren't born radical. And fringe regional parties don't come to control the media, education, and public purse without some significant measure of popular support.
So once again: Why do you think radical secession is even on the table? Why do you think Catalan nationalism has flared up in recent years? Why would any young person support Catalan independence if Spain's federal government is meeting their needs?
Answer that question honestly, and I think you'll realize where the problem is, and where the solution lies.
(Hint: It's not censoring websites, arresting ministers, or raiding the officials of regional bureaucrats.)
> in today's Catalonia people have to fight for basic things like the right to educate their children in Spanish
I don't think there's a right to be taught in the language of your choice, the same way you can't decide which subjects your children will study. At least not in Spain.
> mayors who do not support the referendum are being harrased by the radicals
Maybe you should look at what's happening to those supporting it.
For context for those interested, Article 3 of the Spanish Constitution says the following (translated into English):
"1. Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it.
2. The other Spanish languages shall also be official in the respective Autonomous Communities in accordance with their Statutes.
3. The wealth of the different language modalities of Spain is a cultural heritage which shall be the object of special respect and protection."
> 100% of the children who finish secondary education in Catalonia are perfectly fluent in Catalan and Spanish.
This is debatable, specially in ortography. There is always room to improve; and it seems that parents here and there demand more hours taught in spanish at the school since years. Those are just normal people that want the best for their children and have to fill the educational gaps at home, not politicians.
On the other hand, isn't "Unionist" a peculiar word to refer to your neighbours?
> On the other hand, isn't "Unionist" a peculiar word to refer to your neighbours?
Independentist is the person who would prefer Catalonia being an independent state.
Unionist is the person who wants Catalonia to stay united with Spain.
I think that both terms are quite neutral. Do you have any idea for a better terminology?
> This is debatable, specially in orthography.
I guess that you are aware that there's an annual exam that assesses the knowledge level in several subjects (PISA). The result of this test shows, year after year, that the knowledge of Spanish language of the Catalan kids is slightly over the average of the country; and quite higher than many other regions that are Spanish monolingual.
Yugoslavia and Spain has nothing to do. For a start, we are a Monarchy .
Maybe you should start with the basics about European history. Yugoslavia had a terrible civil war and they broke in pieces. There was no reason to keep on together. Spain had a more terrible civil war and Spain still exists as it was before.
The history of Catalonia says that they have never really fought for independence. They are always looking for economical benefits. Except anarchist which I think they really want to shock the system, the new-born "Indepes" will never stand up in arms to fight for the independence of Catalonia.
> Maybe you should start with the basics about European history.
Don't condescend to me. I live in what was Yugoslavia. And that terrible civil war? I spend my days surrounded by its victims. None of them saw it coming. Nobody did until it was too late.
> Spain had a more terrible civil war and Spain still exists as it was before.
"More terrible"? By what measure? Half as many Spaniards died during the Spanish Civil War as were killed in the Yugoslav theatre during the same period. By the 1970s, the result was the same in both cases: A powerful federal state, ruled by a dictator, comprised of areas with strong regional identities.
And in the most recent Yugoslav Wars? Sure, fewer people died than in Spain, but only because over four million fled. That's almost ten times as many displaced people as in the Spanish Civil War. Don't pretend that Spain has a monopoly on suffering or is somehow special.
> The history of Catalonia says that they have never really fought for independence.
Historians (and Serbs) said the same thing about Croatians and Slovenes right up until they walked out of the constitutional congress.
If you have such a huge knowledge how come you haven't mentioned a particular HUGE difference between Spain and Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia one of the main reasons of the war and secession was RELIGION, in Spain there's no such clash between muslims and catholics.
Religion had little to do with it until after Slovenia and Croatia seceded. Religious and ethnic reasons were bolted on ex post facto to drum up popular support for what was, originally, an economic and politic dispute over increased autonomy.
Spain has been an actual fascist state, so historically this is unrelated, but you may find it interesting to know that it's also present quite prominently at the US Congress[0] as well as in the US Senate's seal[1].
Under the assumption that for the next 10-20 years Catalonia wouldn't be allowed to join the EU, could someone of the pro separate group explain how a independent state of Catalonia is supposed to survive?
Ask UK. There are 10 countries as many outside in EU as inside. I am pro EU, but if this has to be in the way of a more important and noble interest, then we stay out.
The problem here is not the secession, it is the right to vote.
I'm Catalan, I'm against the independence, one reason is because I don't give a shit about being Spanish or Catalan, another is because the politicians here are exactly equally corrupts than the Spanish ones and economics ones.
But what I want is the right to have a referendum and vote no.
Funny thing is that if the entral government wanted to destroy the independist movement they could have modified the Constitution and allow that consult, the majority here is against the independence.
Sure. Just a coincidence that kind of speech 'we just want to vote', 'I'm going to say no but want to vote in this illegal referendum', I only hear it from secessionists.
Listen, there is more than the present status quo or independence, there a people that want less descentralization, there is people that want a federal state and there is people that wants a confederal state.
And a fucking lot of people support that others can decide want they want to be and, at the same time, doesn't agree whit their views.
I think people like you, that see this situation in balck and white and think that anyone that doesn't see like you is an independentist are part of the problem, no of the solution.
Catalonia sends much more money to the central government than it receives (the difference is an amount equivalent to 8% of the region's GDP, according to a Guardian article that's a few years old). I wonder why shaking off the central government wouldn't be a win for them financially, even if they spend more than they ought to.
This is only a part of the entire equation. Politics could be happy and sell their triumph for a while, but entrepreneurs an companies at this point would had a big problem and probably not so happy
Yeah, I think this whole secession thing is a bad idea since the less tangible parts of breaking up a functioning country are so awful. It's pretty much always a better idea to fix things if it is possible.
So I say advisedly that if the attitude and misunderstanding of facts among some of the unionists here is representative of a larger whole, it might not be possible to fix things. That's an outsider's point of view.
Funny to see all these Non-Spanish commenters that think they know what they're talking about. My wife is from Barcelona. I just spent 2 weeks there. Most Catalonians think the split, and the minority of people seeking it are fucking stupid. They are the Trumpsters of Spain. Truly strange to see most people here supporting the separatists. I don't necessarily agree with Spain's methods of dealing with this but many of you have got it wrong. Like, badly wrong.
If not being Spanish prevents one from having informed opinions, what makes you right?
Since we measuring Spanish penises, I'm half-Spanish myself and I find the characterization of "Trumpists" to be absurd. Yes, they are probably a minority, but so what? As for finding them fucking stupid, that's just politics, especially nowadays. Lots of people find Podemos to be fucking stupid, yet they still got 20%+ of the whole population vote.
In any case, people here are arguing for the principle, not the people. The analogy is not with supporting Trump, it's with defending his right to run at all. Now, the cases are different, but the point stands: defending the right to a referendum is not the same as defending a certain result.
It's really funny listening to the President of the government of Catalonia talking about repression when his salary is 145.471 euros, and the President of the government of Spain salary is 78.185,04 euros.
Yep, the public salary of many presidents of a part of Spain is bigger than the president of the whole.
That's for give you a picture of the current craziness.
You won't get many responses because the PC thing is to side with Catalonia, but this is the whole story: a money grab scheme. It's been going on for ages. With B- debt rating, collapsing health care system, and massive public spending on things like the one you mention, they simply need money. Plan post-independence is to seize all public assets belonging to the Spanish state (funds, buildings, public companies, ...), while retaining their first customer (the rest of Spain), pay no tariffs (stay in EU), and no taxes to central state.
Before anyone answer with "but the Spanish state too": yes, same shit, which doesn't invalidate anything I said.
The 'original sin' is the political over-representation of the nationalist parties because both PSOE and PP have needed their support for the Spanish government most of the time. In exchange of too much concessions, of course.
At this point, what is happening in Catalonia is not a fight for Independence; it is a fight for Democracy and against the authoritarianism of the central government.
Catalan institutions have been raided, Catalan members of the government have been arrested, and their crime is to work towards allowing Catalans vote about their future.
- judge told .cat TLD to take over some domains, setting them to display a spanish police landing page.
- .cat complied.
- Judge told .cat TLD to censor any domain that does support the referendum in any way.
- .cat replied that they run a TLD, that it's not their job to act as a censorship agency, inspecting each domain and disabling those that host websites that talk about topics that a judge specified are forbidden.
242 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 246 ms ] thread(the spanish police seem to be raiding anything that could potentially be related to catalonian independence)
(yes, knows it's Catalina but doesn't care)
/s
IIRC, you have the right to leave in peace, use your language, autonomy and not be discriminated but declaring independence is quite a few steps above that.
You can't say there isn't freedom of speech in Spain when even people convicted for terrorism speaks in public media everyday.
Spanish authorities asked the registry to block domain names that were being used to spread information about an upcoming referendum for independence.
I can understand why the opposition would be pretty pissed off about that infringement on their free speech rights.
But maybe you were joking or something. Saying "Everybody can speak about the referendum in Spain" and then immediately contradicting yourself is ironic.
For years Catalonia has formally requested for this right to be exercised in different ways, and the Spanish government has made every effort to stop any possible way to channel this right. This has continued until today, when the Spanish militarized police has raided the Catalan institutions and arrested members of the Catalan government that was elected with the mandate to let Catalans exercise this right in spite of the official Spanish position, which it's trying to do through a referendum where both positions in favor and against independence may have equal opportunities to be heard.
Spain has always defended that this right to self-determination is confined to colonies because it would otherwise conflict with the also very important principle of territorial integrity. However, the International Court of Justice explained in its Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 regarding the case of Kosovo that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States”. Thus, even unilateral declarations of independence do not conflict with the aforementioned principle: “general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence“.[0]
[0] http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/16010.pdf
Sure, you can declare all day but who will recognize you and if it's "illegal" in the country you want to leave, you will be jailed. If they do the ethnic cleansing that Serbia did in Kosovo then, you may have a better chance internationally. Changing of borders is frowned upon, almost every country has their own issues.
Once again, if 100% of your human rights can be exercised with broad autonomy, no sane country will support your independence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_move...
Now compare that with the Spanish government. Banning a referendum, raiding political parties and Catalonian government offices, arresting government officials, flirting with far-right politics, de-facto suspending the Catalonian autonomy and basically abandoning any democratic dialog.
Now, there is no going back. I wish the best of luck to my friends in Catalonia. Shall they be allowed to express their desire to leave or stay in Spain in peace. I wish no one to get hurt during these turbulent weeks.
The rule of law applies also to politicians.
Because it seems to me that these people are asking to vote.
Using the constitution as some sort of shield / holy bible that can't ever possibly be changed IS what show the weakness of Spanish democracy.
In the end, governments are there to serve their people. They don't make sense as entities on their own. They represent a group of people who chooses to be represented by their government. If the government attacks the people and refuses to hear to what people have to say, you need to resort to not following the dogma.
Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, this is not possible and pushing for it is not constructive.
When defining a right, you must show who is the subject of that right.
Anyway, when that site states "All peoples have the right to self-determination" Is there a minimum number of people to aim for 'this right'? V.g. if 259 persons in Els Hostalets de Balenya say the want 'the right to self-determination', are they a nation from then?
As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).
The so-called "right to self-determination" doesn't exist in the Spanish Constitution, nor in the International Law, nor in Comparative Law.
https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...
If a sufficient number of people in a geopolitical area wish to govern themselves, broadly, it should be seriously considered by any ethical government.
The circumstances matter. I can't draft a workflow for "ethical independence" on a Friday morning on HN. I can say there is a difference between self-determination and the desire for liberty vs. mass murder, conquering territory and waging guerrilla warfare against multiple nations.
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength,
Trying to organize a Referendum is Antidemocratic.
What people can't do is play outside the Law in a Democracy.
Changing how when the two main parties are against this change?
That argument is just an excuse.
Articles of the Estatut d'Autonomia where denunced by present the ruling part declared invalid by the TC but that same party wrote carbon copies of them in other Estatutes it say how the situation can change.
If you state "that same party wrote carbon copies of them in other Estatutes" you have to give us sources.
http://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/politica/Estatuto-artic...
http://www.jlprieto.es/paradojas-constitucionales-sobre-el-e...
People forget, democracy is a process, it doesn't just stop some time in the past.
You're just lying.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_para_la_ratifi...
> Historians of the Spanish Civil War concur that the death toll of the White Terror (~58 000–400,000), because of its extent and duration,[12][12][13][14][1][2] was greater than the death toll of the Red Terror (38,000 – ~172,344 ).[15][16][17] The political repression of the White Terror was formal policy of the Nationalist forces during the Spanish Civil War, and of the government of Gen. Franco until 1945 — six years after the war's end in 1939.[18][19] In 2015, the government of Spain refused Spanish historians access to the pertinent government archives, open to foreign historians, which would allow determining the physical whereabouts and political fate of victims of the White Terror.[20]
> The main goal of the White Terror was to terrify the civil population who opposed the coup,[88][89][90] eliminate the supporters of the Second Spanish Republic and the militants of the leftist parties,[91][92][93] and because of this, some historians have considered the White Terror a genocide.[94][95] In fact, one of the leaders of the coup, General Emilio Mola said:[96]
> "It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do. There can be no cowardice. If we hesitate one moment and fail to proceed with the greatest determination, we will not win. Anyone who helps or hides a Communist or a supporter of the Popular Front will be shot."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain)
And Spanish people supported the Constitution with their vote on a large scale.
EDIT: I should reword my question. What part of it you believe is false? Or is it all of it?
For those HN readers that might not know, a decade ago Catalonia tried to pass something known as the Estatut, which would give us more rights and more power (similar to what the Basque country has had for a long time). Needless to say, it didn't pass because the big parties opposed to it. One of the two important political parties in Spain (the Popular party) went as far as going around Spain collecting signatures (four million) to get rid of the Estatut. And that's part of the story of how the pro-independence movement gained as much traction as it has right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordi_Pujol
I bet you are all for dialog, good arguments, better talk than fight... /s
Say the guy with 682 points.
I can't downvote. If it's not because of the points, it's because of something else.
The right of a part of a country to secede is not recognized by most constitutions around the world, and it is certainly not a "principle of democracy".
You want to change the constitution that rules your country, you get 2/3 of the votes of the parliament behind your vote and the constitution changes (or whatever rule your constitution has to allow a change). The whole point of a constitution is to have a stable body of law.
The Estatut went further than giving you something similar to what the Basque country has. It was ruled out because it was deemed incompatible with the constitution. This is exactly the same process any other country with a constitution follows.
As for the "rights" that you are not enjoying, the only one I hear repeatedly is one: collect and distribute your own taxes, because you pay more taxes than what is reinvested in Catalonia (of course this happens in roughly half of the country).
If New York asked to secede from the United States because they were oh so tired of paying more in taxes than the average in the US and receiving less than what they bring to the table (which is true for the vast majority of "rich" states) we will all see through the bullshit of the argument.
If you want to follow that argument, when do you stop? is it right for my city to secede because we do not want to support the poor in rural areas around us? (this is not a retorical question, some big cities have historically done that, and many of them today are tax havens). Can I as an individual decide to not pay my taxes because I pay more than what I receive?
Exactly what other right is missing in Catalonia?
The Spanish constitution won't change because it's in their best interest to not do so, which is why this illegal referendum is being created. If they wanted the Estatut to pass, they would have passed; they didn't pass it because the rest of the Spanish communities would have been affected by it from an economical point of view (suddenly a chunk of money that was going to the other communities stays in Catalonia. Guess who's gonna be unhappy).
As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).
As for the cultural, language and historical I see absolutely no basis for this referendum. Cultural wise I have never, ever, see the slightless difference between catalonians and people for the rest of Spain. What will be the difference between someone that lives in Tarragona and someone from Valencia? Of course it's all a smooth change, and the farther away you go the more small changes you get, but I have seen much deeper differences between people living in cities vs rural areas (even when they are close to each other).
In any case, these differences are (to me) smaller than the differences between a New Yorker and a Texan.
Historically Catalonia has never been a separate, independent country, and you have to go pretty far away to get a substantially different Spain to what you have today.
Catalonia has a different language, that roughly 60% of their inhabitants do not speak, and that is shared by some of the inhabitants of the spanish states (Comunidad Valenciana and Balears).
If your point is that Catalonia people should be allowed to secede because they have a differenciate culture / language (let's ignore for a second all the catalans that do not speak catalan), why don't they call to vote in catalonia, comunidad valenciana and balears, all together? Because they will very clearly lose the vote.
In polls there are a huge number of catalans descendants from andalusia n "inmigrants" that are also for the independence. Why is it so? Because the reason argued again and again during years has been only one: taxes. Not "culture".
BTW, they wanted the Estatut to pass (it passed in congress), but you needed more than 1/2 the votes, you needed 2/3. If the Estatut had nothing against the Constitution, it will be law by now.
I have never lived in Texas nor NYC, so I can't really say much about it. I believe that Catalonia is large enough to warrant a referendum if enough people want it, especially given that so many people disagree with the treatment they are receiving from Spain. I accept the argument that we might not be different enough, but it's not the main reason a referendum should be held, in my opinion, and I'm not aware of many people from Valencia or Balears who want to leave Spain. At which point a region of a country has the right to secede? Or you are implying that no region from no country should ever have that right?
But what is more worrisome is that it ignores the rights of the other group. What about the Spanish, not from Catalonia, that have interests in Catalonia, be it companies, properties, families or even just cultural links? Shouldn't they have an opinion on the matter?
Unsurprisingly yes, and that's precisely what the Constitution says. And that's the supreme law, and I have not seen any other reasonable country where a subset of it is claiming so freely to withdraw the Constitution because they don't like it, even when there are very clear paths to change it.
It Catalonia wants to vote, go to Parliament and ask for a referendum of all Spaniards (that's legal). It's that simple.
The irony is that many who support the independence of Catalonia are against independence of current EU member states and fail to see the inherent dangers in the centralization of power (many such dangers exemplified by this very article and listed by you).
Personally I feel this whole comparison between the 2 situations highlights the cultural differences: consensus seeking anglo-saxons, conflict/imposition-driven Hispanics/Latins. (non-hispanic latin here)
Totally agree. Yet, the 70s were different times. Getting out of a dictatorship and moving into a democratic state takes a lot of compromises on all sides. Back then, there was the sense of urgency to agree on common terms, for the time being, to allow the country and the people to transition into a modern democracy.
It's been 40 years now. Times change, the world changes, people change. A constitution is a very important document for a country, yet it should not be used as a license to oppress people.
Many Catalonians requested to change some parts of the constitution to better represent Catalonia's cultural and political differences, as compared to Spain. Yet Spain would not even consider talking about anything that challenges the status quo.
We will see where this is heading.
There are legal ways to change a constitution. In all cases, it starts by changing public opinion.
Having said that, the US is a beast very different from Spain, affording its states far more autonomy than the norm.
Many of modern so called democracies though referendums are not the best way to solve these issues. Read up on how it worked for the Ancient Greeks or how the American constitution fathers talk about “direct democracy”.
Then think how it worked out for Brexit. It’s nothign new: ancient Greeks also got fired up by propaganda and later regretted their own decisions. Socrates came up with his “government of the fit” watching his contemporaries claim for bad things only to regret it when it was too late.
Essentially: a referendum is like saying “every single citizen has enough information and vision to do whatever is best for the country”. I find that pretty optimistic to say the least.
I’m saying that representative parliament works, and there’s a way to solve this using this worldwide system. Direct democracy is not what we have, America’s founders considered it “anarchy” as a matter of fact. Read up.
Always? You should be sure to inform the Swiss, who've been operating under the mistaken assumption that direct democracy in their cantons was functioning just fine.
Then, climb in your time machine and alert the New Englanders that their town halls were actually ruinous disasters. Then go further back and mock the ancient Athenians for starting this whole democracy debacle by running a stable government for 200 years.
I personally prefer a referendum.
That referendum was restricted to two options, what the UK government wanted and what they thought was too extreme a position to win. By excluding the middle way option, which polling suggested would win they hoped to get their own position rubber stamped.
The fact that it came so close us a testament to how badly they played their hand.
See also Brexit.
The wording of the question was decided by the Scottish Parliament and reviewed for intelligibility by the Electoral Commission, an independent body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement_(2012)
It was openly known that the nationalists wanted the option, and the unionists didn't. Perhaps it was negotiated away for something else the nationalists wanted, but still the point stands, they wanted it, and didn't get it.
I'm not trying to be provocative, just trying to understand what else could Scotland get without going full-on independent?
In practice, some of this has happened, but perhaps not as much as would've been if the debate were more public.
popularly known as Devo-max.
Technically both sides were proposing more powers, it was a difference of degree in what was being offered. At the last minute more power was offered when it seemed like full independence had a chance of winning.
The problem here in Spain/Catalonia is that Catalonian politicians only want Catalonians to vote. I feel that, being a Spanish citizen of legal age, I have the same right to vote on whether I want a part of my country to separate from it. But they won't let us vote, so, why should "we" let them vote? (Also, as per the constitution, it is illegal)
Would you let, let's say, France vote on your general elections to chose the next MP? Would you let a stranger choose the colour of the walls for your living room?
Only Catalans can decide their own fate. It's up to them and no one else whether they stay or leave. I don't care which side wins but there must be a vote.
Only Scotland voted on their referendum, as agreed by the whole United Kingdom. USA did not allow southern states secede, Germany did not allow Bavaria secede, etc.
Lets face it the lead up to both referendums were based on packs of lies (on both sides probably - but it can only be proven for the winning sides).
New York people can't wake up some day, like a single man, and decide that Texans (or Floridians, or afroamericans), can not enter in the state anymore, their basic rights are expired and they have 48 hours to quit the place leaving its properties behind. Some people would point to the fair "self-determination right" from Newyorkers. Some even would shamelesly call this situation democracy, but it isn't. Would be a huge scam. NY are only a small part of the people that are USA citizens, and the other people have the f*ing right to express their opinion about that. No matter how peculiar, colorful, or different than other places is the city.
In the same way Barcelona can not wake up some day and decide that people from Sevilla aren't allowed anymore to decide about the future of Barcelona and must quit the place. Unless of course we would aim to happily nuke the basic rights of 39 millions of citizen that are non-catalonian spaniards (to improve the chances for the 1-2 million of people than want Catalonia out of Spain). Is also a scam. Is a riged game. Democracy is the rule of the majority, and this constant actitude of I'm holier than thou so I must be allowed to speak but you can't is incredibly upsetting.
Think that has nothing to do with a part of an state voting their secession and not the whole country.
A question to all of the people that say that the whole country should vote.
What would you do if more than 70% of the population of a part of the state would be independent? Allow them the independence and start the negotiations or don't allow>
So if one of each ten people voted for "yes to A", and the other nine people voted for "no to A". What should happen in a democratic system?.
Well, the idea here is that you has the freedom to choose among two nice options: "yes to A" and "repeat the process until yes to A is achieved" or "start negociations to circumnavigate what people really wanted". But this is not a dictatorship, of course; we are a democratic modern society unlike the spaniards, those savages.
And talking about semi-naked savages, this reminds me that extra-nice 2008 campaign launched by Catalonian independentists: "support a spanish child with more money from Catalonia". It seems that this is how they see the other spaniards. Nice image. It isn't?.
http://img.rtve.es/imagenes/apadrina-nino-extremeno/12174362...
Because poor children is a perfectly fine theme to make some good laughs (They are poor, ha-haa!).
To finish, and taking in mind several harassments and repeated BS like this in the last decade, I think that a lot of people in Spain would vote enthusiastically about sending this people out of Spain, even better, why not to Mars?, to build the New Castelldefells and live their futuristic utopia happy forever in the red planet.
If a 70% of the population of a territory (and I'm not talking about Catalonia, because there is no majority for independence) wants to secede, what the State should do?
I did, and have provided a very clear answer to the question in fact.
What the government of a country should do if a group of people declare themselves on sedition, start refusing to pay taxes, wants to steal all public resources, harass and drive out of the place the people that think different, take their properties and piss generously on the constitutional rights of the majority of the citizens?
Enforce the law, obviously
"But, but, I want to ignore and twist the law in my benefit!. I should be allowed to do it, because I'm special!, my mom told me!"
You can violate the laws everytime that you want, as long as you accept the consequences, and repair the damage caused to other members of the society.
I'm asking what happens if in a part of a territory the vast majority of population doesn't want to be part of that country.
If you want to talk of Catalonia, I can ask what the Central Government can do when 82% of the population (and this includes half of people that wants independence and half of people that doesn't want independence) would defend a LEGAL and proper done referendum.
The answer to your deliberately ambiguous question is the same. Enforce the law.
> What if a lot of people do not want to remain in this country?
They will pack, leave and try to migrate and be accepted under the umbrella of other countries typically. It is happening a lot in the last decades, by good (and sad) reasons.
> What if the majority of people would hate their country (but want to remain in it).
They could use the tools specified in the law to change the bad parts and improve their country democratically. As they are a majority, they are probably doing this yet since years. They must have in mind still that there are international laws and treaties.
> What would happen if 100% of USA demand the independence from themselves and require to be called "Pantsdemonium, the land of the pants-free" from now on?
Just a change of name (and interesting parties, like the national day of the duck and so). On the other hand, if you can't stand to be in the same room with yourself, go to see a doctor as soon as possible.
> and if it was the 90%?
A change of name plus a 10% of people driven off their own country, typically by violent means, if we study the human history.
> and if it was the 85.45342%?
the same... and more people in exodus.
My question is not ambiguous.
And looking at your "hate", I think that you prefer what happened in Jugoslavia and not what happened in Czechoslovakia
If a son or daughter of legal age wants to move out of their parents' house, does the rest of the family get to stop them from moving?
The same was true of the Scottish referendum. And the Quebec referendums.
I'm not really for or against anything here, but it doesn't make any sense to have everyone vote in a secession referendum. It should be a referendum among the people attempting to secede.
I could see there being a universal referendum on the wording of the referendum and the terms of secession though.
Do you honestly believe this is a logical demand? If so, what % of "pro-independence" of Spanish census would be enough for you, 51% of whole Spain?
In the Spanish case, there's only one part, so a nice analogy here is body amputation.
This isn't really true. You can get arrested for "offensive" social media posts in the UK.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/01/man-who-filmed-dog-doing-nazi-...
What's funny is that the original youtube video is still up.
Edit: Might as well include the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus
Since 1977, Catalans had participated in 35 free elections, and in 3 referendums. The Catalans have their own government, and there are politicians born in Catalonia successfully in the Spanish Parliament, and in the European Parliament.
Where you don't see freedom?
If someone wants to change the Spanish Constitution, there's a legal way to do it.
https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...
Yes, is exactly like that.
Last year the catalan goverment spent 5 millions euro (stolen) from taxes of all spaniards in a similar "referendum" show. Money used against the interests of the same people that give it. Instead to pay schools and hospitals they bought cardboard urns, candies and fireworks and make a wonderful theater full of passion, and drama. Do we understand the meaning of the term "diversion of public founds and prevarication"?
This year trying the same dirty trick again and take the freedom that all spaniards have by law to decide about their country.
And of course they are the "victims" in a world that do not understand their uniqueness and fantasy extravaganza.
The only reason Quebec is not a country is that the Canadian government kept a 'somewhat' cool head during the two referendums.
Breaking Point is a damn good CBC documentary about the Quebec referendum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl7lOundk4Y
I didn't see that sort of thing during the Scottish referendum, and I sure don't see it in Catalan.
It's like Spain is trying to push Catalonians to violence.
Your premise is contradictory. You're claiming that Catalonia trying to form its own nation-state is a proof that the nation-state is breaking down. The exact opposite is the case: the nation-state is so desirable that Catalonia wants to form its own.
prior this mess, most of the people were against leaving, after this I am not so sure...
You must know that this referendum was approved without reading the bill in the Catalonian parliament, so the opposition couldn’t even have a say. Even the vicepresident of the chamber stepped out of line since it was so outrageously un-democratic. The people leading this movement in Catalonia (very much like the central government) is riddled with corruption. Public workers have been pressured to accept participation in the referendum (which is ilegal to do).
And just to finish: if you’re going to reference any prior “referendum” know that it’s not only ilegal like this one (thus no observers, nor accurate census) but also take into account participation (usually very low).
In short: please be skeptical about whatever you hear from either side. There’s an estimated 40-45% of support for the vote and less than that (30-40%) support for independence.
We can debate if it should or should not be ilegal, but it’s a different thing.
These actions are taken to avoid violating the constitutional order, not the vote directly. If the constitution is being infringed, you can’t make exceptions.
How would you react if a regional government (which represent 30-40% of the people there) in your country stops obeying the constitution? Would you not stop the privacy infringement that is using census data ilegally? Would you not protect the 60-70% who didn’t vote the ruling party?
If you want to modify the constitution you need 2/3 of the senate. There’s a procedure for that. There no excuse to break the constitution. If you think there is, you had no argument to defend your own constitutional rights.
Spain (executive and judiciary) is choosing to ignore that (unlike Canada, for example), and not letting Catalonia exercise that right in any way. According to polls 70%/80% of Catalans think a referendum about independence should take place. The current Catalan government has the mandate from last elections to find a way for the Catalans to exercise this right even if Spain opposes, given that Spain has also refused all previous proposals to find a solution.
Catalans literally have no other option. They either waive their right to self-determination or they exercise it.
Some relevant sources:
Referendum Law: http://dogc.gencat.cat/ca/pdogc_canals_interns/pdogc_resulta...
The Legitimacy of Catalonia's Exercise of its Right to Decide (a Report by a Commission of International Experts): https://www.unige.ch/gsi/files/9115/0461/7417/EXECUTIVE_SUMM...
https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...
- Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1 (Purposes and Principles), article 1.2: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace" [1]
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 1.1 (check out other points and article 2): 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. [2]
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 1.1: [pretty much same text as International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) [3]
- Spanish Constitution, part 1 (Fundamental Rights and Duties), Section 10.2: "Provisions relating to the fundamental rights and liberties recognized by the Constitution shall be construed in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain." [4]
Though you only had to check Wikipedia: "The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule)" [5]
[1] http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.htm...
[2] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.asp...
[3] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx
[4] http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/espana/leyfundamental/Pa...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunal_Superior_de_Justicia_...
The proper thing for the Spanish government to do is to sit down with the Catalans and engage in meaningful dialogue. Not kick in doors and jail people for participating in a non-binding referendum.
So why not just let the vote go ahead and get it over with?
There IS a procedure for modifying the constitution, and it requieres 2/3 of the senate to agree.
Just trying to follow your reasoning.
For example, the wide majority that is needed for constitutional changes would require agreement at the federal level even beyond parties that are part of the government. Also, some constitutions have provisions that are explicitly listed as un-amendable.
In the case of Catalunya there are other issues. For example, admission to the EU of Catalunya would probably be vetoed by Spain and by almost any other country that has regions with strong separatist movements (e.g. Spain would have vetoed the admission of Scotland, had the Scottish referendum passed). This would be a big unknown for Catalan economy.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforma_de_la_Constituci%C3%B3...
Sure, how are they oppressed? In 1938 Barcelona was bombed because the army wanted to destroy the republic and what existed of Catalonia autonomy. So any existing Catalonia autonomy or democracy of any form was crushed in 1939, replaced by a military dictatorship, and only started to recover in 1977-1978. The Spanish dictatorship killed thousands of Catalans after the 1939 takeover.
The same forces in Spanish society who did that are the same forces which seek to destroy Catalan autonomy again. By the same means, policemen kicking down the door. You dismiss prior referendums, fine. There is going to be one in 11 days. So if those polls you cite are true, then it seems independence will not happen. It's bizarre to call a referendum in ten days "outrageously undemocratic", while decades of a brutal dictatorship established by an invasion and the murder of thousands afterward goes without mention.
The problem with the referendum results is that they can’t be accurate. They’re asking people to bring the ballots printed at home, and there’s no accurate census. No observers either. Not that the Catalonian government cares, of course.
Yes, Azaña said those words in March, 27, 1930, in the Restaurant Patria (Barcelona) but soon he learned about his error, and the grave consequences of that speech.
In May, 1937, Azaña wrote in his diary: "las muchas y muy enormes y escandalosas [...] pruebas de insolidaridad y despego, de hostilidad, de 'chantajismo' que la política catalana ha dado frente al gobierno de la República".
And then he added: "Y si esas gentes van a descuartizar a España, prefiero a Franco. Con Franco ya nos entenderíamos nosotros, o nuestros hijos, o quien fuere, pero estos hombres son inaguantables. Acabarían por dar la razón a Franco".
EDIT: Also, those quotes just show that the iconoclast and rebellions attitude of Catalonia against the central government is quite old, and not just an invention of some corrupt politicians to divert attention :)
Also 80 years is a lot or not.
Pau Claris, head of the Generalitat of Catalonia, called the politician members of the all Principality in order to form a Junta de Braços or Braços Generals (General Estates), a consultive body. (...) This assembly, which worked with individual voting, began to create and apply various revolutionary measures (...), while the tension with the monarchy grew.
Echoes of the past :)
Every single party in Spain is riddled with corruption. But it doesn't mean they can't defend some ideology anymore. Besides, this is not some crazy politician's idea, but a movement from people ranging from the far left to the Christian democracy. Some parties changed their positions to "ride the wave", though.
> There’s an estimated 40-45% of support for the vote and less than that (30-40%) support for independence.
And how you know that? Polls? Polls means nothing. They can say whatever their planners want them to say.
The smaller the government the less corruption would be my assumption. Iceland seems to do a pretty good job of listening to its people.
> Polls means nothing. They can say whatever their planners want them to say.
Regarding polls, I have a theory that you should always lie if asked in one. The less validity that polls have, the less they can be used to manipulate the vote.
If no one believes what the polls say, there will have less influence and there be less chance of tactical voting, which is a real problem with our current version of democracy. Maybe some people think that tactical voting is a good thing, but in my lifetime it always seems to be the case that people are voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than what they actually believe in. Is that really what democracy is supposed to be about?
Madrid would not react as brutally as they do if their intelligence services foresee such a result; they would just protest and deny vote legitimacy as they usually did the previous times, and let the vote be.
Are you really serious?
It's understandable given the filibusterism, and outright prohibitions you would expect from the central government. Referendum has been proposed for 7 years and it was rejected every time.
Catalonia has less corruption than Spain in average. Even though the National Police and the judiciary have a very strong bias in favor of spanish parties.
On the other hand, you can't be serious saying that in the region of Catalonia there's less corruption than in the whole Spain.
find the ratios and then the ratios of population. Thank you.
You can have 500 politicians stealing 1 million euros each, and 5 politicians stealing 1 billion each.
Curious way of counting corruption
And, by the way, I think Catalonia is exactly as corrupt as the rest of the Spain, it is not a problem of the comunity, is a problem of the whole society which rewards that any people steal taxes or don't pay VAT
CiU, PP and PSOE are equal regarding corruption.
Do you have sources, because the last I know is from El Periodico (against independence) and the amount of people supporting a referendum was almost 80%
It seems to have risin after the attacks.
http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2017/07/21/5971c7f7468aebd53d...
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2017/09/23/catalunya/1506191226_2201...
> Hasta un 82% de catalanes se muestran partidarios de solucionar el problema catalán con un referéndum pactado y plenamente legal sobre la independencia. La idea seduce a la inmensa mayoría de los partidos independentistas pero también recoge numerosos apoyos entre las fuerzas constitucionalistas.
"Spain," she said, without skipping a beat. "It's eerily similar. All power and wealth flowing to the capital in the center of the country? Check. Generations-long repression of regional, cultural, and linguistic diversity? Check. Awkward tendency to rewrite history to avoid open discussion of WWII-era atrocities? Check. A staunch refusal by the central government to engage in meaningful dialogue with aggrieved regions and peoples? Check. Brutal repression of freedom of speech or demonstrations, inspiring ever-more-radical nationalism... All the ingredients are there."
"Nah," I said. "Spain's a stable republic! There's no way it'll descend into a Yugoslavia-style death fest."
She just arched her eyebrow. "War was unthinkable to us right up until the moment the JNA started shelling us. It's a miracle Spain's still one country, honestly."
The more I learn -- about both Yugoslavia and Spain -- the more I fear she was right.
But then predicting geopolitical changes is the same as predicting Black Swans: the Berlin wall will stand forever right until the moment it wont; The Soviet Union is just there until it is no more; nothing can stand the Nazi war machine; those scrappy colonists have no chance against the English empire.
And do you think that the Spanish government's actions will encourage unity or fan the flames of separatism?
I think Catalan independence is a stupid idea, but you'd have to be pretty blinkered not to see the historical, ongoing heavy-handedness of the Spanish government in response to its regions. Countries responsive to their citizenry don't, as a general rule, have two or more internal states in which >30% of the population wants to secede.
Right regional parties in Catalonia cannot keep on stealing from the public budget since the Great Recession. Their business model is over. They have to pivot to a new business model called "independence".
Like in the rest of Spain?
So once again: Why do you think radical secession is even on the table? Why do you think Catalan nationalism has flared up in recent years? Why would any young person support Catalan independence if Spain's federal government is meeting their needs?
Answer that question honestly, and I think you'll realize where the problem is, and where the solution lies.
(Hint: It's not censoring websites, arresting ministers, or raiding the officials of regional bureaucrats.)
I don't think there's a right to be taught in the language of your choice, the same way you can't decide which subjects your children will study. At least not in Spain.
> mayors who do not support the referendum are being harrased by the radicals
Maybe you should look at what's happening to those supporting it.
The mayors who support the referendum are just being called to declare by the tribunals and being told that what they are supporting is illegal.
But there is the right. Is in the Spanish Constitution. Article 3.
And if people holds sacred the contituion, the TC didn't invalidated the linguistic immersion, it is constitutional
"1. Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it. 2. The other Spanish languages shall also be official in the respective Autonomous Communities in accordance with their Statutes. 3. The wealth of the different language modalities of Spain is a cultural heritage which shall be the object of special respect and protection."
This is the kind of nonsense Catalans need to read every day from Spanish media.
100% of the children who finish secondary education in Catalonia are perfectly fluent in Catalan and Spanish.
What those people want is to prevent their kids from learning Catalan.
The amount lies, BS and bigotry that comes from unionists is amazing.
This is debatable, specially in ortography. There is always room to improve; and it seems that parents here and there demand more hours taught in spanish at the school since years. Those are just normal people that want the best for their children and have to fill the educational gaps at home, not politicians.
On the other hand, isn't "Unionist" a peculiar word to refer to your neighbours?
Independentist is the person who would prefer Catalonia being an independent state.
Unionist is the person who wants Catalonia to stay united with Spain.
I think that both terms are quite neutral. Do you have any idea for a better terminology?
> This is debatable, specially in orthography.
I guess that you are aware that there's an annual exam that assesses the knowledge level in several subjects (PISA). The result of this test shows, year after year, that the knowledge of Spanish language of the Catalan kids is slightly over the average of the country; and quite higher than many other regions that are Spanish monolingual.
Maybe you should start with the basics about European history. Yugoslavia had a terrible civil war and they broke in pieces. There was no reason to keep on together. Spain had a more terrible civil war and Spain still exists as it was before.
The history of Catalonia says that they have never really fought for independence. They are always looking for economical benefits. Except anarchist which I think they really want to shock the system, the new-born "Indepes" will never stand up in arms to fight for the independence of Catalonia.
Don't condescend to me. I live in what was Yugoslavia. And that terrible civil war? I spend my days surrounded by its victims. None of them saw it coming. Nobody did until it was too late.
> Spain had a more terrible civil war and Spain still exists as it was before.
"More terrible"? By what measure? Half as many Spaniards died during the Spanish Civil War as were killed in the Yugoslav theatre during the same period. By the 1970s, the result was the same in both cases: A powerful federal state, ruled by a dictator, comprised of areas with strong regional identities.
And in the most recent Yugoslav Wars? Sure, fewer people died than in Spain, but only because over four million fled. That's almost ten times as many displaced people as in the Spanish Civil War. Don't pretend that Spain has a monopoly on suffering or is somehow special.
> The history of Catalonia says that they have never really fought for independence.
Historians (and Serbs) said the same thing about Croatians and Slovenes right up until they walked out of the constitutional congress.
I could go on...
Listen, one of us is definitely ignorant of history, but it ain't me. I strongly suggest you read up on the events preceding the Yugoslav Wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars#Background
I think you'll find the parallels disconcerting.
The JS in the source is really sad, one of the options click baits you to an Spanish sports newspaper.
[0] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/icke110_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_United_States_Sena...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_(Spain)
I'm Catalan, I'm against the independence, one reason is because I don't give a shit about being Spanish or Catalan, another is because the politicians here are exactly equally corrupts than the Spanish ones and economics ones.
But what I want is the right to have a referendum and vote no.
Funny thing is that if the entral government wanted to destroy the independist movement they could have modified the Constitution and allow that consult, the majority here is against the independence.
What a majority wants here is the right to vote
If Madrid listened half as well as it sneered, I suspect they'd have better relations with all their immediate neighbors.
https://www.invertia.com/es/-/-que-autonomias-deben-mas-dine...
Listen, there is more than the present status quo or independence, there a people that want less descentralization, there is people that want a federal state and there is people that wants a confederal state.
And a fucking lot of people support that others can decide want they want to be and, at the same time, doesn't agree whit their views.
I think people like you, that see this situation in balck and white and think that anyone that doesn't see like you is an independentist are part of the problem, no of the solution.
So I say advisedly that if the attitude and misunderstanding of facts among some of the unionists here is representative of a larger whole, it might not be possible to fix things. That's an outsider's point of view.
Since we measuring Spanish penises, I'm half-Spanish myself and I find the characterization of "Trumpists" to be absurd. Yes, they are probably a minority, but so what? As for finding them fucking stupid, that's just politics, especially nowadays. Lots of people find Podemos to be fucking stupid, yet they still got 20%+ of the whole population vote.
In any case, people here are arguing for the principle, not the people. The analogy is not with supporting Trump, it's with defending his right to run at all. Now, the cases are different, but the point stands: defending the right to a referendum is not the same as defending a certain result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence
Yep, the public salary of many presidents of a part of Spain is bigger than the president of the whole.
That's for give you a picture of the current craziness.
Before anyone answer with "but the Spanish state too": yes, same shit, which doesn't invalidate anything I said.
edit: wording
Or you don't know about Spanish election system or you'r just lying. I think is the former.
There is no over-representation of nationalist parties, there is a over-representation of both majority parties, PP and PSOE.
Almost all the provinces have 3 diputates and the third pary doesn't have any representation.
Catalan institutions have been raided, Catalan members of the government have been arrested, and their crime is to work towards allowing Catalans vote about their future.
- judge told .cat TLD to take over some domains, setting them to display a spanish police landing page.
- .cat complied.
- Judge told .cat TLD to censor any domain that does support the referendum in any way.
- .cat replied that they run a TLD, that it's not their job to act as a censorship agency, inspecting each domain and disabling those that host websites that talk about topics that a judge specified are forbidden.
- .cat notified the ICANN of the situation they're in: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/lineros...
- police raided the TLD office, and arrested its CTO at his home.
This is in some EU member country in western Europe.