I don’t think the Spanish government could have done a better job of justifying Catalan secession if they tried. Tons of horrific Spanish police brutality on display at https://twitter.com/hashtag/CatalanReferendum?src=tren
Despite all the emotion and opinions about Catalonia, what you said is absurdly stupid.
These are protesters being whacked with bats and shot by rubber bullets, with no reported deaths yet. Saddam killed 5000 people with mustard gas, and the current day Iraqi government employs summary executions against accused ISIS members. They are universes apart.
Compare the actions of the Iraqi central government to the Kurdistan independence referendum vs. the actions of the Spanish central government to the Catalonia referendum, the two votes occurring roughly one week apart. In both cases the central government considered the vote to be illegal. The Iraqi central government, despite declaring the vote to be illegal, took no physical steps to prevent it. The Spanish central government turned to violent repression. So, rather than absurdly stupid, the comparison is quite accurate – in this particular case, the Spanish government behaved far worse than the Iraqi one did – and stuff that Saddam did (nothing to do with the actions of the current Iraqi government which is controlled by anti-Saddam forces), or stuff that the current Iraqi government does to ISIS fighters (summary executions are abhorrent, but nothing to do with the Kurdish independence vote) are just irrelevancies.
This comment breaks the HN guidelines against name-calling in arguments. Please read and follow them when commenting here. The rules apply whether or not someone else is wrong—indeed that's when they're most important to stick to.
I wonder if the ballots were destroyed, or if we'll ever know the results of them. Since they were forcibly taken, the impartialness would surely be dubious.
The average turnout across all EU nations for the 2014 European Parliament elections was 43% and no-one is questioning the legitimacy of those results.
Though secession surely would require a higher hurdle than normal parliamentary elections, for such momentous an election? These aren't normal elections,but the breakup of a major European state.
Perfectly right. But I fear that the opposition of the spanish government to a well organized referendum leaves us with this second rate opinion poll as the best we can get: 90% for yes, with 40% turnout.
Those elections weren't ruled unconstitutional with the national government instructing people not to participate. Obviously people choosing to participate were going to be disproportionately those choosing to reject the authority of the national government - i.e. the separatists - even if there hadn't been heavy-handed policing.
A more relevant comparison would be the Scottish independence referendum which managed 85% turnout.
The last unsanctioned Catalan referendum got 80% voting for independence, and that was when opinion polls gave No a huge lead (they seem to be suggesting if a proper vote had been held this time round, Yes to independence could have won, but only narrowly)
The population of Catalonia has risen 0.1% since that vote (in 2014), and the raw number of Yes votes has risen 5%. If all the Yes voters vote for secessionist parties in the next regional election they will have a majority.
Catalan turnout for last year's national election was 61%. Turnout for the last regional election, two years ago, was 75%. Some of those against stayed home - and no wonder, since casting a vote for something you weren't passionate about would still risk a run-in with riot cops - but not a huge amount.
Over half of the population chose not to participate in an illegal vote that the police were lawfully shutting down. Clearly, it's only the supporters of independence who would be motivated to turn out anyway. People who respect the legal authority of the Spanish government all stayed home. This has no legitimacy.
I suspect you don't know many Catalans. They are not cowed that easily and always ready to take to the streets. I saw a marvellous clip earlier of a white haired little old lady of about 90 going for the throat of one of the state stormtrooper wannabes
The majority stay home for most elections, that says little.
Granted your argument would have more weight if say 10% of the population voted, but with 40+% of the population voting you need to accept many yes and no voters stayed home out of fear.
Or more widely if their where much doubt the government would have let a vote take place secure in the knowledge they had popular support.
There are reports of people voting 4 times, and of people from another region voting after presenting an id from another region. There were no election observers from neutral or "no" political forces. The "international" observers were secessionists from other regions of Spain. I don't believe the 40%. I don't believe anything. This vote was a joke from its inception. As much as it was horrible from the national government to beat people, it's as horrible to push people to go out and fight riot police for a sham of a referendum.
Several people and they provided pictures and testimony. There are more facts, like that the organization changed the methods 15m before starting and lost internet access and had to resort to writing people's names manually without checks are not even disputed by the Catalan authorities. They breached ~50% of their own electoral law, that they made up for this event alone. You are not going to find a statistical study of the elections, obviously. But nobody who was watching impartially has any doubts as to the fraud guarantees.
I hate to tell ya but you are making the mjnority argument here. Nobody in their right mind would support what the Spanish police are doing to people casting votes - legal or not.
I'm not justifying the police actions, just saying the referendum was a farce. In fact without the police action, it would have been a farce too, which makes you wonder why they needed to stir the pot with so many police but anyway.
Among other measures, Abraham Lincoln had state legislators arrested to prevent them from voting for secession. He ended up waging the deadliest war in US history to force the seceding states to remain in the Union. Today, Abraham Lincoln is a hero. And before you bring in slavery, I think it's very clear from Lincoln's writings that he would have done the same no matter what the basis for secession was (and before the war, he was also in favor of continuing slavery if it would have kept the Union together).
The 90% is plausible, since only the people voting yes were mobilized. What is doubtful is the 40% participation. What there's no doubt about is that it's not representative of the general population and there weren't enough guarantees to take the result seriously.
No, yesterday was a process born dead. If there's no representation of all the factions and a legally binding agreement to vote on, it's useless. The Spanish government could have done nothing yesterday, maybe they should have, and we'd be in the same place now, a illegitimate result with pretty much the same numbers.
The Spanish government has had years, if not decades, to accommodate the aspirations of the Catalan population, but it has chosen to either ignore them or to actively work against them. This process is a consequence of a flowing society crashing against inflexible institutions.
This is going off topic a little bit but it's interesting. Do you actually know what those aspirations are? Are you able to read original sources in Spanish? it might come as a surprise to you but this whole thing is built on extreme in-solidarity and those aspirations amount to "we want to contribute less tax to poorer regions" or "we didn't like that our unconstitutional law was declared unconstitutional". The central government actually ceded to those aspirations for 25 years and it was when they got too unjust for the rest of the country when they said no more.
Sure I can, I am Spanish and Catalan, so I can read the Catalan version too (not particularly interested in any of both versions). Whatever the Truth behind all those complex questions is, at some point this becomes a matter of opinion. And opinions are measured at the voting booth.
Modern societies should be flexible enough to allow for friction-less changes: there are no holy cows.
There is part of it that is indeed opinion and "feeling". The cultural part, the "hecho diferencial", whatever you want to call it. But there's also the part where Montilla's government called inaceptable and "a grave offense" a completely reasonable and correct ruling of the Spanish Constitutional Court on the Catalan estatut. Thousands of people marched in Barcelona that day against Spain when in fact that ruling was fair and equitable and didn't touch much, just clarified economic assimetries are not cool, etc.
The first part, the feelings, I can't share but I can respect. I don't think it makes for a significant part of Catalonia though, maybe 20-30%? The second part, the in-solidarity, I can't have simpathy for and I think Spain is right in staying put. And if that's the part that is really moving so many people to independence (and it seems that way), then I don't think this is so much a matter of opinion as it is of not knowing or not respecting the facts.
I am really not qualified to give my opinion on fiscal issues - as most people are not. For details on these complex problems we must trust (interested) third parties, so our perceptions are necessarily biased. I do not follow neither Spanish nor Catalan news, so I have no strong opinion about these matters.
But this is not the only issue: the situation in Catalonia is complex, and ultimately should only be decided by Catalan people. One of the most common arguments against the referendum, namely that people are being "brain-washed", assumes three things wrongly:
1) That brainwashing happens only in one sense.
2) That people are easily brainwashed.
3) That brainwashed people have no right to vote.
The Human Right of auto-determination does not only apply to societies we are not directly related to, but specially to the cases where we have an interested stake, since that shows that we are actually committed to those rights, and not using them abstractly to control remote regions by UN proxy.
The general principle applies: "I might not agree with you, but I will always defend your right to voice your opinion"
Well, you don't need a PhD to see for yourself what was done in these laws and to recognize the political intent. You kind of need to be able to, in fact, if you want to know what's happening around you and take decisions as an informed adult, and interested third parties might be biased, it's better to check and form an opinion by yourself. We can't turn any discussion of fact in "I'm not qualified so it's an opinion, so I'm entitled to mine, this is just a matter of opinion". The fact is, the demands from the Catalonian government were rightfully unconstitutional.
edit to attach the sentencing in particular, it's perfectly legible (only 14 articles eliminated), and the reasons why they were excessive easy to understand.
I would say that the illegitimacy is on the part of the Spanish government and the police who used violence to prevent a peaceful political statement by the people.
So? Ignore the declaration of independence. Let Catalonia decide what that means. Whatever action any person (civilian or official) in Catalonia takes under the guise of "independence" – be it non-payment of taxes, or eviction of Spanish military – presumably there are laws against that.
Criminalizing a vote – to the point of beating people – is beyond stupid. It strengthens the cause for Catalonian independence. It only makes rational sense if the Spanish government is very afraid of what a "legitimate" vote says.
Things could get out of hand very easily: the Catalan government has been supportive (organizer) of the whole process, and will probably be willing to clash with the Spanish government (hopefully not violently) to defend the newly formed republic.
Yes, we all remember the time Hungary and Czechoslovakia behaved illegally. Quite right that the Soviets lawfully, according to their own laws, shut that down.
I'm not making any claims about what the Spaniards should or should not have done, only about what they did accomplish: undermining the legitimacy of the referendum.
But by arguing/accepting that you're essentially saying all a state has to do to prevent a secession (however popular) is disrupt the election/referendum process.
Except for a brief period in 1600s, Catalonia was never a sovereign entity.
If it weren't for a Catalan language revival in the 20th century as a response to Franco's dictatorship, it's claim to independence from a historical perspective has even less weight than Venice's.
These regions still had self-governance far in excess to the equivalent nowadays. Being a vassal state to a title is pretty unrestrictive: you had to raise levies, pay a tithe, and not lose the province to a rival claim. Nobles were free to set taxes and laws as they pleased.
While I'm all for democracy, this paragraph here seems to imply this wasn't quite that:
Catalan officials instead relied on privately printed ballots, and changed the voting rules an hour before polls were scheduled to open, to allow voters to cast a ballot at any poll station, without using an envelope and whether registered there or not.
They were trying to resist a violent crackdown, equivalent to trying to vote under military occupation. It’s a miracle any ballot was cast at all, not exactly the time for being picky on how it happened.
Without the crackdown, the vote could have been monitored by independent organisations, like it happens in modern democracy.
But this would have been the case even without the crackdown. After this unilateral act of repression, it becomes a total propaganda victory for indipendentists.
It was a stupid approach from a very weak government.
> Furthermore, the result is impossible to believe given previous results in open elections.
A natural or man-made disaster during a vote filters out the less "passionate" portion of the electorate; if you don't care that much about an election's outcome, a thunderstorm or the threat of riot police cracking open your skull would probably convince you to stay home rather than visit your polling place.
I would imagine the bulk of the "passion" on this topic would reside with the separatists, so it stands to reason the police action ironically resulted in suppressing the "remain" vote.
It had 90% in favor instead of 80% like the previous one, and got modestly more votes than the separatist parties received in the last regional election. The result is eminently believable.
As I understand there wasn't even a 'no' campaign and the whole thing was created and run by the 'yes' campaign. Surprising they didn't get nearer 100% in those circumstances. (Police brutality by the Madrid government is a separate resigning issue.)
Not answering point by point, but this is just a referendum in 40 years, overwhelmingly wanted by catalans, and just about moving borders, not sterilising anybody.
How so? I tried to debunk all those facile arguments in favour of the "referendum".
#11: do you think then that the "referendum" was properly organised, with enough accountability and transparency, and no meddling? Do you trust the results announced by the Catalan government?
The "no" campaign was mostly the Spanish government arresting people and seizing ballot boxes. They weren't interested in convincing people to say "no", they were working to make sure they couldn't say "yes".
If only one side participates, the match is called off - you don't get to kick the ball into an empty goal and call yourself the league champion, however much you want to play. (FWIW I think the Spanish government have behaved like complete shits and should resign, and the independence movement heads are mostly a mix of opportunists and useful idiots, already trading off the blood of well-intentioned and reasonable Catalans, of whom I know many.)
The catalan government is full of opportunists - like every government - rightly implementing the wishes of the overwhelming majority of catalans: a democratic referendum.
Until this week at least opinion was split in Catalonia with no supermajority on either side. Catalonia is very proud of its high standards of education - hopefully they don't want to look as completely stupid as the British now do after Brexit.
When I say "overwhelmingly" I refer to the desire to vote, not to the opinion that people hold. There is probably no supermajority, but we are not allowed to know about it since voting seems to be illegal.
All we have is 40% turnout with 90% yes. We will have to do with that.
To be fair, when police are shutting down a not insignificant number of polling stations, it seems justified to allow people to vote at any polling station and not just the one that is potentially shut down.
The Spanish government has succeeded in ruining the referendum. Law abiding citizens who respect the Spanish government clearly stayed home and did not participate in the illegal vote.
Anyone who is claiming an electoral victory for the independence camp is delusional. The level of support for independence is nowhere near 90%, which was the final tally. An illegal referendum that half the population either chose to or was forced to boycott does not have any legitimacy.
So you’re saying that the Spanish government's violent authoritarian tactics backfired? Whoops, sucks for them. Maybe if they wanted all their supporters to turn out they shouldn’t have been violently beating and shooting people at the polling stations.
If the Spanish have any doubt as to the fact that the vast majority of Catalonians want to leave Spain, they can feel free to allow people to hold a referendum without attacking them this time.
This would have happened without the crackdown as well. That’s why a referendum often requires a quorum of voters: if the majority of people think it’s pointless, they don’t show up and the referendum is void.
But with the crackdown, now independentists can claim a moral victory as well as a vindication of their reasons, and they can even claim the missing voters could have been for them, because cleary it was unsafe for most people to show up regardless of political inclination.
Good job, Spanish government, you’ve just strengthened your enemies. This was phase 3 of the classic Gandhi quote.
> An illegal referendum that half the population either chose to or was forced to boycott does not have any legitimacy
I see it differently. I see a government suppressing the will of the people, then using low turnout due to government intimidation as a way to delegitimize the vote. There wouldn't even be a vote if a massive amount of people didn't disagree with the direction that their government was forcing them in.
If people can't separate peacefully, there will be many who try to do so violently.
Given the widespread images of riot police and blood spattered citizens for nothing more than trying to vote, I'd put it down as a strong political victory for the independence movement.
The Spanish government and courts said that it was illegal for the Catalan regional government to run this referendum. That's what makes it illegal. You may very well feel that is morally wrong, but that has no bearing on legality.
Even though I believe most Catalonia people want independence (good for them) I would not be surprised if we found Russia's role in the event was similar as in last vote for president in the US
That's a false equivalency. Yes, Russia has a horrible human rights record. That doesn't speak directly, in any way, to the rattling of sabres over alleged (or hypothetical) political sabotage.
Why was the parent comment wrong? There has been some speculation on Russia's involvement in the referendum [0] that was compared by some to the US election. [1]
It's off topic and heads in a bad direction: generic + speculative + political. That gravitational pull goes to one of those black holes whence no thread returns.
The goal for HN is to have it be interesting, which means unpredictable, which means not repeating the same things over and over. Particularly when speculating (i.e. imagining in the absence of information) about something divisive, that's certain to be all we get, so the better part of valor is simply not to go there.
Catalan goverment run this vote against all laws. There is no laws in Spain that allows such a vote. Catalan goverment has used the people only as a way to declare secession in next days.
Two scenarios: It's 2019, Trump is still president, California has had enough and wants to leave the US. Or, perhaps, it's 2020, Bernie just got elected a bunch southern and midwestern states want to leave the union. Would that be allowed? Would it be legal according to the US constitution? Would the police intervene if required to stop it? Maybe even the US army? How do you (presumably american) feel about whatever you think would happen?
This reminds me of something I have been wondering lately : what is the ideal size for a country? I mean, most borders nowadays are remnants of a very different world where kings were continuously fighting to maximize their territory, or at least not to let it shrink. Things are very different these days, since most countries are peaceful and democratic.
If we were to rationalize all this and draw lines peacefully, what would be the typical size of a country? Would we chose no country at all, in a world-government? Would we pick the "city-state" model, as often advocated by libertarians?
The bigger the better. Like it or not, we are operating in a global economy and bigger gets massive economies of scale in production and consumption, and leverage in trade with the other blocs. (This is the reason Europe and the US are being destabilised by outside forces.)
Given the US perspective of polarized politics, how does it make sense that the strongly-held beliefs of one portion of the voting citizens should be foisted upon the remainder of the entire population?
Smaller government is more responsive to the local conditions and culture than is large government. And the inevitable abuses of the state against the citizenry will be limited in scope.
The question wasn't about the size of the government, it was about the physical size of the country. Tiny countries would lack many natural resources, would probably lack any sizable military, and would be powerfully affected by the economies of the countries around it.
It would be interesting to see if there is correlation between size of the government and size of the country.
Of course, along with very small government, I would also advocate 100% free trade and very low regulatory burden, such that a small land-area country could still be an economic powerhouse.
On the contrary, smaller countries are less effective in the international arena (militarily, economically, and politically). Banding together with other countries only creates a meta-republic of countries (e.g. the EU).
So I think the original question is quite valid. There's a sweet spot somewhere between "as big as possible" (e.g. US or Russia) and "as small as possible" (e.g. city-states).
My gut would be that it's more determined by economic production and ethnic subgroups than some constant. Sufficient economic production to play competitively on the world stage, while grouping as many like or agreeing ethnic groups as possible (and preventing their repressing minority groups).
I personally favor a weak federal government, somewhere in the vicinity of the Articles of Confederation or EU, which manages military and basic rights, supervening mainly on city-states and with special provision for a different local model for large rural areas.
As you say, the threat of invasion was the only reason people banded together physically. Now the the threat is gone, we should see more (as small as possible) city-states because everyone loves freedom and more control over their lives. There would not be a world government. Instead multilateralism is how the world would coordinate/cooperate.
City-states are the closest to being self-contained economic units, and having the scope of government match the scope of people's economic lives is a good thing.[Citation Needed]
The benefits of large governments - uniform currency, uniform code of law - have been increasingly eroding and losing relevance, so I am pretty sold on the city-state model.
I think more than size, it is about the cultural/religious/historic identity of across a geographic area. If you look into the history of how many country borders were created (India-Pak, The creation of Iraq, the creation of Syria) etc. a lot of the historic distress caused between the people is because of differences in identity. If there is a strong shared identity between people across a large area, then it is relatively easier to understand concepts like "for the greater good" and empathizing with people as your own.
Sadly, countries rarely are created as such, and are demarcated more along lines of conquest (which is a very weak signal of local culture, especially if the local civilisation has been around for 1000s of years but conguests happened 400 years ago) or even sometimes on what can only be described as kookoo political ideologies.
"Illegal vote" is quite an interesting idea. The government that is supposedly democratic must give permission to the people to hold a vote, or else out come the batons and riot gear. It's a beautifully ironic snapshot of the nature of the state and "democracy."
I absolutely agree, the rhetoric here is unscrupulous. Voting is basic freedom of speech. Whether the vote compels anybody to anything is a whole different story.
Right, this is what completely baffles me. I haven't seen reasoning yet given in the news outlets. The only "logical" reason I can think of is the Spanish government thinks beating people queued in a line in the age of sousveillance is preferable to the outcome of a legitimate vote on this topic being made known.
I just read it, and it the whole point is: referendum is declared illegal, and therefore it is ok for Spain's crackdown on it. And people should not vote on illegal things, so they deserve it.....
The point of democracy is for people to voice their opinions and vote on their future. Even if the referendum has no legal binding, it should have been allowed to happen.
I'm not sure you understood the article if you think that's what it said. The point is that Spain is a representative democracy, not a direct one and that this is the way every modern democracy works. Democracy is therefore about voicing your opinion on who will govern, not on specific issues. You don't get to unilaterally decide to have a vote on splitting up the country in any nation in the world - devolution has to be negotiated and it takes generations. The alternative is force and armed struggle - the Basque and Northern Ireland approach, which we've hopefully put behind us.
> You don't get to unilaterally decide to have a vote on splitting up the country in any nation in the world
And you think this justifies the repression and violence perpetrated against the Catalonian proletariat?
You're right, we hopefully have put armed struggle behind us, which is an excuse for... an armed struggle? It wouldn't be a struggle if the vote was allowed to go ahead. After that you can basically strangle it through bureaucracy -- which would be the civilized way to do it.
As such, they've effectively forced the catalonians into revolution through armed conflict.
> And you think this justifies the repression and violence perpetrated against the Catalonian proletariats?
Where have I said this? That's a disgraceful accusation. I've said that the Madrid government should resign so I'm in agreement with Ada Colau there.
> if the vote was allowed to go ahead
The article gives sound reasons why it shouldn't and why holding the vote is _antidemocratic_. There may of course be good counterarguments but they aren't being made. I'd like to see them, not childlike miscomprehension of how democracy works.
> they've effectively forced the catalonians into revolution through armed conflict
You do realise that over half of Catalonia is against independence. This is exactly the Northern Ireland problem where Madrid would be forced to defend the interests of those Catalans even if they'd otherwise wanted to say goodbye to Catalonia (presumably with Basque region next). The leadership on both sides have been incredibly irresponsible in driving the country and region towards that situation and of course it's the people who will pay for it.
> The article gives sound reasons why it shouldn't and why holding the vote is _antidemocratic_. There may of course be good counterarguments but they aren't being made. I'd like to see them, not childlike miscomprehension of how democracy works.
Of course they are being made: what a piece of paper says has only meaning if there is a consensus behind it. A paper is not the Ultimate Truth: society must be heard, since popular opinion changes.
The Catalan people have been working for their self-governance for decades, and they (rightly or wrongly) feel that the central government is not willing to accommodate their needs. It is not too much to ask to have one's voice heard about these matters once in a while, ideally with a negotiated referendum. Unfortunately the Spanish government has shown no inclination of willing to hear what kind of relationship Catalans want to have with the rest of the Spain; actually, the contrary has been the case: each time that Catalans have tried to redraw the framework they have been confronted by a very hostile central government.
The Spanish government (and the majority of the Spanish people) are treating the constitution as a holy gospel, when it is exactly the opposite: it is a document which should regulate and adapt to the needs of its people, whatever they might be, and not some ultimate goal that people must abide to.
> You do realise that over half of Catalonia is against independence. This is exactly the Northern Ireland problem where Madrid would be forced to defend the interests of those Catalans even if they'd otherwise wanted to say goodbye to Catalonia (presumably with Basque region next). The leadership on both sides have been incredibly irresponsible in driving the country and region towards that situation and of course it's the people who will pay for it.
Which half should be deprived of their "rights"? Difficult question, but since separatists have been deprived of their ideal world for years, maybe they should get the chance to implement their vision?
This would have been much easier if the vote had been properly organized: something with >60% turnout and >60% would had closed the case for independence, something with >60% turnout and <40% would have closed it for remaining in Spain, and something in between would have been grounds for further discussions and negotiations.
As it stands, the handling of the situation by the Spanish government puts us in a very awkward situation. I would say the case for independence is pretty much sealed, since the chances that the Spanish government takes the Catalans seriously is pretty much null.
Note that Catalonia is one of the richer sections of Spain. Would you let the rich section of town succeed in order to avoid paying taxes that benefit the poor? Democracy also requires protecting people from the tyranny of the (in this case, local) majority.
"It's the same old theme, since nineteen-sixteen..."
First of all, this is not definitely a case of "violence against proletariat". You can find lots of Catalonian people in this group that neither want the independence nor probably felt particularly oppressed when the police came to protect their rights as spanish citizens.
And there is also the "repression and violence", lets see:
Let suppose that a group of people, men, women, elders and children, enter in a public school in a saturday night, with the intention to doing something illegal like, dunno, selling endangered parrots. The police came the next day with the direct order from a jury, to just remove the materials needed for the illegal trade, dislodge the public building, close and custody it for the entire sunday.
But when they were asked by the autorities to end the party and go home, the people instead decide to sit in the soil, start singing "kumbaya" and refuse to move. And when policemen try to remove the ofending material they make a wall of interlaced bodies to deliberately obstruct their orders. So the police starts picking up one person at a time and moving them out. One to one.
This happens in the same week that groups of the same people assaulted and damaged some police cars, throw heavy objects to the police, and even chased some policemen in the streets with a rain of rocks (sending some of they to the hospital).
And other people harassed police in their hotels making loud noises that annoy all the clients of the hotel, that probably couldn't sleep in the entire night and didn't deserved this treatment.
What do you think would happen in USA if you decide starting to spit literally and repeatedly in the face of the local sheriff after hours of defying the autorities and showing a stubborn, irrational and totally unreasonable behaviour? Would you gain a ticket to deservely enter the draw of a couple of bruises?
Taking in mind the situation and the 2 millions of people involved it was practically a miracle that nobody were killed, only two people got seriously injured (unfortunately of course, one claimed as an accident when some policemen cornered started shooting rubber balls to clear a way out, and the other was the old woman hit in the head I think, but I could be wrong). The immense majority among the eight thousands of the people classified as 'injured' got away probably with only a few scratches and maybe a panick attack.
And this is "the first war on internet", so don't trust in all that you see in the social networks. There was for example a very moving photo from a boy with some blood running by his cheek... the problem is that the photo was taken in 2012, not in 2017 as claimed.
There is one thing that was particularly brutal in this history, and it was the patience of the spanish policemen and policewomen
Ok, Just for the record, the second seriously injured people was a 70 years old man in critic state after suffering a heart attack. I hope he recovers and gets well
This should not be downvoted. It is a well argued and supported piece on why the vote is inappropriate, regardless of the merits of Catalonian independence.
While well written, it does not attempt justify Spain's physical (police) response to prevent the vote, over a legal (court) response to nullify the vote, which I suspect is the issue most people have with Spain's response (it is certainly what I take offense to), save the following tu quoque:
> One more thing to consider: three years ago, the separatist Catalan government authorised police force to stop a popular “multireferendum” about a number of social issues in Catalonia, confiscating ballot boxes. Clearly, the Catalan leaders do not think that casting a ballot is always okay.
In fact, the piece goes so far as to call the physical response justified:
> Hundreds or thousands of elected officials and public servants in Catalonia are disobeying the law, perverting justice, defying judges and diverting funds for the “referendum”. They had to be stopped, thus the few detentions (all mandated by independent judges who are acting well within the law). That is no excessive use of force.
Good. Let them. The act of hosting a vote does not physically harm anyone, it does not "have to be stopped".
Indict the officials who are in breach of the law afterward.
> The piece goes so far as to call the physical response justified.
I wrote that article a few days before the fake referendum. In no way was I defending violent repression by the police. I had no idea that we would witness what finally happened on 1 October.
> The act of hosting a vote does not physically harm anyone.
Not directly, no. But I still think that not every conceivable question should be submitted to the people expecting the answer to be binding (my points #1, #2 and #4). If this were posed as a "poll" (even an "official", "institutional" one), most people in Spain would not have an issue with it. The "legally binding" part is what's troubling.
That being said, and in the light of what finally happened on 1 October, perhaps you are right: the Spanish government could have let the whole farce play, then ignore the "results" and prosecute those responsible for it.
In fact there have been several such (successful) votes in the US – albeit on a smaller scale. You don't hear about them because the results just get nullified in court and everyone goes on their way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States...
Why did the national government respond with personnel at all?
If the national law, which all the states voted on in merely 1978, didn't allow for any state to unilaterally declare independence and this was deemed illegal and pointless, then why did they send police to enforce that, if it doesn't matter?
A high turnout with a overwhelming vote for independence would have made it politically impossible to ignore.
So they chose the next worse option: violent crack down.
The least bad option would have been a negotiated referendum, with the full legitimacy of the State. And mind you, the separatists would have probably lost.
It's surprising how weak the Spanish government is. The obvious course of action would have been to arrest the entire leadership and charge them with treason and sedition. In Germany the parties promoting this movement would have been declared illegal and dissolved long ago.
It all boils down to a regional government using taxpayer's money to stage a mock election as a means to usurp the functions of the democratically elected national government.
And suddenly those who respect the Rule of Law are the bad guys.
Maybe the Spanish government is just waiting for them to actually declare independence to bring down the hammer.
> And suddenly those who respect the Rule of Law are the bad guys.
So what is the legal path to independence? You can claim it's illegal all you want, but unless there is a legal avenue to pursue then legality is irrelevant.
That is indeed the core of the problem. Catalans have so far only been offered fake alternatives: "Reform the Constitution", for which they will never have a majority.
145 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] threadThese are protesters being whacked with bats and shot by rubber bullets, with no reported deaths yet. Saddam killed 5000 people with mustard gas, and the current day Iraqi government employs summary executions against accused ISIS members. They are universes apart.
Compare the actions of the Iraqi central government to the Kurdistan independence referendum vs. the actions of the Spanish central government to the Catalonia referendum, the two votes occurring roughly one week apart. In both cases the central government considered the vote to be illegal. The Iraqi central government, despite declaring the vote to be illegal, took no physical steps to prevent it. The Spanish central government turned to violent repression. So, rather than absurdly stupid, the comparison is quite accurate – in this particular case, the Spanish government behaved far worse than the Iraqi one did – and stuff that Saddam did (nothing to do with the actions of the current Iraqi government which is controlled by anti-Saddam forces), or stuff that the current Iraqi government does to ISIS fighters (summary executions are abhorrent, but nothing to do with the Kurdish independence vote) are just irrelevancies.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
~770,000 votes lost and the results are clearly in favor of separation even if every one of those lost votes was No.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/oct/01/catalan-i...
Pretty bad managed by Spain.
I think the result should absolutely cause a second, officially sanctioned referendum, for what it's worth.
A more relevant comparison would be the Scottish independence referendum which managed 85% turnout.
The last unsanctioned Catalan referendum got 80% voting for independence, and that was when opinion polls gave No a huge lead (they seem to be suggesting if a proper vote had been held this time round, Yes to independence could have won, but only narrowly)
Granted your argument would have more weight if say 10% of the population voted, but with 40+% of the population voting you need to accept many yes and no voters stayed home out of fear.
Or more widely if their where much doubt the government would have let a vote take place secure in the knowledge they had popular support.
Who is making this report, why should I trust them, and do they have evidence this is a statistically meaningful problem?
However, the exact same thing would be reported if it did not happen making it somewhat meaningless observation.
PS: I really don't trust the 90% yes either. But, vote suppression IMO is a sign the people in power expect the vote to go counter to their desires.
Modern societies should be flexible enough to allow for friction-less changes: there are no holy cows.
The first part, the feelings, I can't share but I can respect. I don't think it makes for a significant part of Catalonia though, maybe 20-30%? The second part, the in-solidarity, I can't have simpathy for and I think Spain is right in staying put. And if that's the part that is really moving so many people to independence (and it seems that way), then I don't think this is so much a matter of opinion as it is of not knowing or not respecting the facts.
But this is not the only issue: the situation in Catalonia is complex, and ultimately should only be decided by Catalan people. One of the most common arguments against the referendum, namely that people are being "brain-washed", assumes three things wrongly:
1) That brainwashing happens only in one sense.
2) That people are easily brainwashed.
3) That brainwashed people have no right to vote.
The Human Right of auto-determination does not only apply to societies we are not directly related to, but specially to the cases where we have an interested stake, since that shows that we are actually committed to those rights, and not using them abstractly to control remote regions by UN proxy.
The general principle applies: "I might not agree with you, but I will always defend your right to voice your opinion"
edit to attach the sentencing in particular, it's perfectly legible (only 14 articles eliminated), and the reasons why they were excessive easy to understand.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencia_del_Tribunal_Constit...
Criminalizing a vote – to the point of beating people – is beyond stupid. It strengthens the cause for Catalonian independence. It only makes rational sense if the Spanish government is very afraid of what a "legitimate" vote says.
Spain, like all nation-states descended from medieval feudal states, is a conglomeration of multiple distinct regions with individual histories.
If it weren't for a Catalan language revival in the 20th century as a response to Franco's dictatorship, it's claim to independence from a historical perspective has even less weight than Venice's.
lol ok
These regions still had self-governance far in excess to the equivalent nowadays. Being a vassal state to a title is pretty unrestrictive: you had to raise levies, pay a tithe, and not lose the province to a rival claim. Nobles were free to set taxes and laws as they pleased.
Catalan officials instead relied on privately printed ballots, and changed the voting rules an hour before polls were scheduled to open, to allow voters to cast a ballot at any poll station, without using an envelope and whether registered there or not.
Without the crackdown, the vote could have been monitored by independent organisations, like it happens in modern democracy.
Sending in the riot police to enforce the ban made the Spanish government look weak and fearful.
In all actuality, they could have just said "Sure, vote. The results won't be legal."
But the referendum is a joke. Both the way it was called, and how it has been conducted.
Furthermore, the result is impossible to believe given previous results in open elections.
A sad day for Spain and Catalonia.
It was a stupid approach from a very weak government.
A natural or man-made disaster during a vote filters out the less "passionate" portion of the electorate; if you don't care that much about an election's outcome, a thunderstorm or the threat of riot police cracking open your skull would probably convince you to stay home rather than visit your polling place.
I would imagine the bulk of the "passion" on this topic would reside with the separatists, so it stands to reason the police action ironically resulted in suppressing the "remain" vote.
Nevertheless, turnout has been quite high.
And yes, police has been sent.
"Just about moving borders" makes it sound as if that were a trivial change. It would be huge for Spain.
#11: do you think then that the "referendum" was properly organised, with enough accountability and transparency, and no meddling? Do you trust the results announced by the Catalan government?
All we have is 40% turnout with 90% yes. We will have to do with that.
Anyone who is claiming an electoral victory for the independence camp is delusional. The level of support for independence is nowhere near 90%, which was the final tally. An illegal referendum that half the population either chose to or was forced to boycott does not have any legitimacy.
If the Spanish have any doubt as to the fact that the vast majority of Catalonians want to leave Spain, they can feel free to allow people to hold a referendum without attacking them this time.
But with the crackdown, now independentists can claim a moral victory as well as a vindication of their reasons, and they can even claim the missing voters could have been for them, because cleary it was unsafe for most people to show up regardless of political inclination.
Good job, Spanish government, you’ve just strengthened your enemies. This was phase 3 of the classic Gandhi quote.
I see it differently. I see a government suppressing the will of the people, then using low turnout due to government intimidation as a way to delegitimize the vote. There wouldn't even be a vote if a massive amount of people didn't disagree with the direction that their government was forcing them in.
If people can't separate peacefully, there will be many who try to do so violently.
Why was the parent comment wrong? There has been some speculation on Russia's involvement in the referendum [0] that was compared by some to the US election. [1]
[0] https://www.google.ca/amp/s/elpais.com/elpais/2017/09/25/ine...
[1] https://medium.com/dfrlab/electionwatch-russia-and-referendu...
Was it too off-topic, or did it lack context?
The goal for HN is to have it be interesting, which means unpredictable, which means not repeating the same things over and over. Particularly when speculating (i.e. imagining in the absence of information) about something divisive, that's certain to be all we get, so the better part of valor is simply not to go there.
If we were to rationalize all this and draw lines peacefully, what would be the typical size of a country? Would we chose no country at all, in a world-government? Would we pick the "city-state" model, as often advocated by libertarians?
Given the US perspective of polarized politics, how does it make sense that the strongly-held beliefs of one portion of the voting citizens should be foisted upon the remainder of the entire population?
Smaller government is more responsive to the local conditions and culture than is large government. And the inevitable abuses of the state against the citizenry will be limited in scope.
Of course, along with very small government, I would also advocate 100% free trade and very low regulatory burden, such that a small land-area country could still be an economic powerhouse.
So I think the original question is quite valid. There's a sweet spot somewhere between "as big as possible" (e.g. US or Russia) and "as small as possible" (e.g. city-states).
My gut would be that it's more determined by economic production and ethnic subgroups than some constant. Sufficient economic production to play competitively on the world stage, while grouping as many like or agreeing ethnic groups as possible (and preventing their repressing minority groups).
Or in other words, international jerrymandering.
The benefits of large governments - uniform currency, uniform code of law - have been increasingly eroding and losing relevance, so I am pretty sold on the city-state model.
Sadly, countries rarely are created as such, and are demarcated more along lines of conquest (which is a very weak signal of local culture, especially if the local civilisation has been around for 1000s of years but conguests happened 400 years ago) or even sometimes on what can only be described as kookoo political ideologies.
Some of them, like Denmark or Finland are doing pretty well, and have some of the most advanced democracies in the world.
The point of democracy is for people to voice their opinions and vote on their future. Even if the referendum has no legal binding, it should have been allowed to happen.
What's next, "polls" being declared illegal?
And you think this justifies the repression and violence perpetrated against the Catalonian proletariat?
You're right, we hopefully have put armed struggle behind us, which is an excuse for... an armed struggle? It wouldn't be a struggle if the vote was allowed to go ahead. After that you can basically strangle it through bureaucracy -- which would be the civilized way to do it.
As such, they've effectively forced the catalonians into revolution through armed conflict.
Where have I said this? That's a disgraceful accusation. I've said that the Madrid government should resign so I'm in agreement with Ada Colau there.
> if the vote was allowed to go ahead
The article gives sound reasons why it shouldn't and why holding the vote is _antidemocratic_. There may of course be good counterarguments but they aren't being made. I'd like to see them, not childlike miscomprehension of how democracy works.
> they've effectively forced the catalonians into revolution through armed conflict
You do realise that over half of Catalonia is against independence. This is exactly the Northern Ireland problem where Madrid would be forced to defend the interests of those Catalans even if they'd otherwise wanted to say goodbye to Catalonia (presumably with Basque region next). The leadership on both sides have been incredibly irresponsible in driving the country and region towards that situation and of course it's the people who will pay for it.
Of course they are being made: what a piece of paper says has only meaning if there is a consensus behind it. A paper is not the Ultimate Truth: society must be heard, since popular opinion changes.
The Catalan people have been working for their self-governance for decades, and they (rightly or wrongly) feel that the central government is not willing to accommodate their needs. It is not too much to ask to have one's voice heard about these matters once in a while, ideally with a negotiated referendum. Unfortunately the Spanish government has shown no inclination of willing to hear what kind of relationship Catalans want to have with the rest of the Spain; actually, the contrary has been the case: each time that Catalans have tried to redraw the framework they have been confronted by a very hostile central government.
The Spanish government (and the majority of the Spanish people) are treating the constitution as a holy gospel, when it is exactly the opposite: it is a document which should regulate and adapt to the needs of its people, whatever they might be, and not some ultimate goal that people must abide to.
> You do realise that over half of Catalonia is against independence. This is exactly the Northern Ireland problem where Madrid would be forced to defend the interests of those Catalans even if they'd otherwise wanted to say goodbye to Catalonia (presumably with Basque region next). The leadership on both sides have been incredibly irresponsible in driving the country and region towards that situation and of course it's the people who will pay for it.
Which half should be deprived of their "rights"? Difficult question, but since separatists have been deprived of their ideal world for years, maybe they should get the chance to implement their vision?
This would have been much easier if the vote had been properly organized: something with >60% turnout and >60% would had closed the case for independence, something with >60% turnout and <40% would have closed it for remaining in Spain, and something in between would have been grounds for further discussions and negotiations.
As it stands, the handling of the situation by the Spanish government puts us in a very awkward situation. I would say the case for independence is pretty much sealed, since the chances that the Spanish government takes the Catalans seriously is pretty much null.
First of all, this is not definitely a case of "violence against proletariat". You can find lots of Catalonian people in this group that neither want the independence nor probably felt particularly oppressed when the police came to protect their rights as spanish citizens.
And there is also the "repression and violence", lets see:
Let suppose that a group of people, men, women, elders and children, enter in a public school in a saturday night, with the intention to doing something illegal like, dunno, selling endangered parrots. The police came the next day with the direct order from a jury, to just remove the materials needed for the illegal trade, dislodge the public building, close and custody it for the entire sunday.
But when they were asked by the autorities to end the party and go home, the people instead decide to sit in the soil, start singing "kumbaya" and refuse to move. And when policemen try to remove the ofending material they make a wall of interlaced bodies to deliberately obstruct their orders. So the police starts picking up one person at a time and moving them out. One to one.
This happens in the same week that groups of the same people assaulted and damaged some police cars, throw heavy objects to the police, and even chased some policemen in the streets with a rain of rocks (sending some of they to the hospital).
And other people harassed police in their hotels making loud noises that annoy all the clients of the hotel, that probably couldn't sleep in the entire night and didn't deserved this treatment.
What do you think would happen in USA if you decide starting to spit literally and repeatedly in the face of the local sheriff after hours of defying the autorities and showing a stubborn, irrational and totally unreasonable behaviour? Would you gain a ticket to deservely enter the draw of a couple of bruises?
Taking in mind the situation and the 2 millions of people involved it was practically a miracle that nobody were killed, only two people got seriously injured (unfortunately of course, one claimed as an accident when some policemen cornered started shooting rubber balls to clear a way out, and the other was the old woman hit in the head I think, but I could be wrong). The immense majority among the eight thousands of the people classified as 'injured' got away probably with only a few scratches and maybe a panick attack.
And this is "the first war on internet", so don't trust in all that you see in the social networks. There was for example a very moving photo from a boy with some blood running by his cheek... the problem is that the photo was taken in 2012, not in 2017 as claimed.
There is one thing that was particularly brutal in this history, and it was the patience of the spanish policemen and policewomen
> One more thing to consider: three years ago, the separatist Catalan government authorised police force to stop a popular “multireferendum” about a number of social issues in Catalonia, confiscating ballot boxes. Clearly, the Catalan leaders do not think that casting a ballot is always okay.
In fact, the piece goes so far as to call the physical response justified:
> Hundreds or thousands of elected officials and public servants in Catalonia are disobeying the law, perverting justice, defying judges and diverting funds for the “referendum”. They had to be stopped, thus the few detentions (all mandated by independent judges who are acting well within the law). That is no excessive use of force.
Good. Let them. The act of hosting a vote does not physically harm anyone, it does not "have to be stopped". Indict the officials who are in breach of the law afterward.
I wrote that article a few days before the fake referendum. In no way was I defending violent repression by the police. I had no idea that we would witness what finally happened on 1 October.
> The act of hosting a vote does not physically harm anyone.
Not directly, no. But I still think that not every conceivable question should be submitted to the people expecting the answer to be binding (my points #1, #2 and #4). If this were posed as a "poll" (even an "official", "institutional" one), most people in Spain would not have an issue with it. The "legally binding" part is what's troubling.
That being said, and in the light of what finally happened on 1 October, perhaps you are right: the Spanish government could have let the whole farce play, then ignore the "results" and prosecute those responsible for it.
Even during "the big one", the secession of the CSA from the USA, it was the CSA who started the hostility, several months after declaring secession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
If the national law, which all the states voted on in merely 1978, didn't allow for any state to unilaterally declare independence and this was deemed illegal and pointless, then why did they send police to enforce that, if it doesn't matter?
So they chose the next worse option: violent crack down.
The least bad option would have been a negotiated referendum, with the full legitimacy of the State. And mind you, the separatists would have probably lost.
It all boils down to a regional government using taxpayer's money to stage a mock election as a means to usurp the functions of the democratically elected national government.
And suddenly those who respect the Rule of Law are the bad guys.
Maybe the Spanish government is just waiting for them to actually declare independence to bring down the hammer.
What is this? Treason to what? Something they do not believe in?
Sedition? By definition, but not necessarily with the negative connotation of your word choice.
Regional vs national government? This is exactly what Catalans are trying to sort out.
Taxpayer's money? This is one of the issues that Catalans are complaining about (rightly or wrongly)
Your whole arguments boils down to: "things are as they are, and trying to change them is bad because that would mean things do not stay as they are".
So what is the legal path to independence? You can claim it's illegal all you want, but unless there is a legal avenue to pursue then legality is irrelevant.
In Spain, the paramilitary police injured 800 citizens who wanted to vote. Following the rule of (their) law, of course.