Catalun independence vote

[baxus]

2 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

The makeshift and pathetic charade of a vote that was held last Sunday was declared illegal by various reasons, among them that in essence it violated the principle that the sovereignty of the Spanish nation resides on all Spaniards.

That something is law does not make it right. There's a long list of examples that prove that point.

[SirArthur]

4 minutes ago, baxus said:

That something is law does not make it right. There's a long list of examples that prove that point.

I wouldn't consider the vote right in any way. Homeprinted ballot paper alone should invalidate this vote. Print 3, fold them together and throw them in the ballot box. There was a lot wrong with the vote and from a voting point of view this was a farce. 

[The Inquisitor]

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

That something is law does not make it right. There's a long list of examples that prove that point.

You see Baxus, what you say is irrelevant. The law is the law. It is what it is and there's nothing to be discussed in a democratic state such as Spain outside the rule of the law. 

As Alarich II has put quite well there are ways to change the Constitution which is the "magna" law from which all laws derive, but that's something that must be approved by the Parliament and supported by Spaniards in a referendum. 

[mormont]

31 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

No, Mormont, it isn't so. You are wrong, which is understandable since I presume you are not familiar with the specifics of the Spanish rule of the law.

No, if you've read my posts in this thread you'd know that this is incorrect. I understand the specifics. And if you'd read the post you're replying to, you'd know that this is irrelevant to my point. To repeat:

1 hour ago, mormont said:

But to claim the right to insist that other people remain part of Spain, against their will, is - apart from anything else - just not workable. I'll ask again what I've been asking throughout the thread: put aside the questions of whether you should be able to do that. How are you going to do it? Are you claiming the right to use force, for example?

Your criticisms of the actual vote held last week may be valid, but they don't answer that question or refute that point. They only assert a point everyone understands, that the Spanish constitution doesn't allow it. But that point is not the end of the discussion, as you seem to imagine.

Think of it like a marriage. Sure, there are two people in a marriage, and they are equal parties in it. But if your partner wants to leave, and you don't want them to, how are you going to stop that? Even if you live in a country where your assent to a divorce is legally required, how are you going to prevent them moving out, cutting their financial ties, and moving on with their lives? Are you going to use force?

You can argue with them, sure. You can put your side. You can explain why the marriage should continue, how it might be saved. But you're doing none of those things here: you're simply saying 'well they can't go', without explaining how you intend to stop them.

So I come back to it. What steps do you think the Spanish government can take in response to a declaration of independence, short of pointing to the constitution and sticking their fingers in their ears? I mean, suppose - and just imagine that this might in some world happen - suppose doing that doesn't actually stop the Catalan government from pressing ahead. What next?

[polishgenius]

16 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

As Alarich II has put quite well

 

No Inquisitor, it isn't so. All Kingy has done is aggravate the situation.

The thing is no one is saying that the vote was legal or gone about in the right way. What people are saying is that the Spanish government are apparently only interested in strongarm tactics and that the argument that the Catalans should have done it the right way is the same as saying the Catalans shouldn't consider independence at all because the 'right' way has no possibility of success.

 

 

20 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

The law is the law. It is what it is and there's nothing to be discussed in a democratic state such as Spain outside the rule of the law. 

That's not how democracy works. That's how totalitarianism works.


But, I mean, you are glorifying the Spanish inquistion so...

[lessthanluke]

25 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

You see Baxus, what you say is irrelevant. The law is the law. It is what it is and there's nothing to be discussed in a democratic state such as Spain outside the rule of the law. 

As Alarich II has put quite well there are ways to change the Constitution which is the "magna" law from which all laws derive, but that's something that must be approved by the Parliament and supported by Spaniards in a referendum. 

Not really sure you understand what a democracy is.

[Mentat]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

So I come back to it. What steps do you think the Spanish government can take in response to a declaration of independence, short of pointing to the constitution and sticking their fingers in their ears? I mean, suppose - and just imagine that this might in some world happen - suppose doing that doesn't actually stop the Catalan government from pressing ahead. What next?

What the Spanish government can do and what it should do, are two very separate issues, but nation states aren't powerless. The Spanish government can do a great deal; from the more or less legal and arguably proportionate (Catalan public officials who have broken Spanish laws can be fined and/or put in prison, the Catalan devolved government can be temporarily stripped of its powers, state police, the civil guard and even the army can be sent to 'keep the peace', the Catalan institutions' bank accounts can be frozen, etc.), to the not so legal or proportionate (which I will not indulge in because I think it's actively harmful and I truly hope it never happens). A long enough struggle will put both side's resolve to the test... and we're back to "May the best man win".

[The Inquisitor]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

No, if you've read my posts in this thread you'd know that this is incorrect. I understand the specifics. And if you'd read the post you're replying to, you'd know that this is irrelevant to my point. To repeat:

Your criticisms of the actual vote held last week may be valid, but they don't answer that question or refute that point. They only assert a point everyone understands, that the Spanish constitution doesn't allow it. But that point is not the end of the discussion, as you seem to imagine.

Think of it like a marriage. Sure, there are two people in a marriage, and they are equal parties in it. But if your partner wants to leave, and you don't want them to, how are you going to stop that? Even if you live in a country where your assent to a divorce is legally required, how are you going to prevent them moving out, cutting their financial ties, and moving on with their lives? Are you going to use force?

You can argue with them, sure. You can put your side. You can explain why the marriage should continue, how it might be saved. But you're doing none of those things here: you're simply saying 'well they can't go', without explaining how you intend to stop them.

So I come back to it. What steps do you think the Spanish government can take in response to a declaration of independence, short of pointing to the constitution and sticking their fingers in their ears? I mean, suppose - and just imagine that this might in some world happen - suppose doing that doesn't actually stop the Catalan government from pressing ahead. What next?

I find that your analogy about the marriage is not necessarily a bad one. I often say that the conundrum between Spain and the regional government of Catalonia is pretty much like a marriage turned sour without a divorce law. 

The solution must come through dialogue and politics. The problem is that that solution right now is unachievable as the Catalan regional government is outisde the law and performing an institutional coup against Spain's democracy. 

Now you ask me, what happens if the Catalan regional government escalates things further?

I reply to you, the rule of law in a democracy must be upheld at all times. The Spanish constitutional powers have the tools and the means to restablish order which include but are not limited to the suspension of the Catalan autonomy, the intervention of the Catalan regional government and the calling of a new regional election. 

I find endearing your witticism of "pointing to the Constitution and sticking their fingers to the their ears". I understand it comes from your sympathy towards the secessionist movement in Catalonia given your background, but you see, the problem is slightly more complex than what your witty words amount for. 

[SirArthur]

14 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

Not really sure you understand what a democracy is.

What is it then ? Is it democracy if Catalonia votes for independence and the rest of Spain tells the MP to not accept the independence ? Certainly the logic of "democracy by single vote" ends there. And a constitution as well as the law is the historical combination of the "will of the people". Of all the people. That is his point. 

By ignoring the rest of Spain, the elefant in the room, nothing will be achieved. Can we now do anything as a people, as long as "the majority" votes for it ? Certainly the lessons of WW2 have long been forgotten. 

 

[The Inquisitor]

20 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

That's not how democracy works. That's how totalitarianism

No my dear, that's precisely how a democracy works. You are clueless. 

23 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

But, I mean, you are glorifying the Spanish inquistion so...

How cute!

I'm half tempted to pull out as you just have an "ad-hominem" jab and say something concerning your polish essence.

I simply won't. I'm moved by compassion as your cluelessness matches your lack of perception. 

Perhaps we can discuss something else in another thread. 

Nice knowing you. 

[polishgenius]

5 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

No my dear, that's precisely how a democracy works. You are clueless.

Democracy works by not allowing any sort contemplation of things that are currently outside of the law? Are you under the impression that laws in democracies are immutable?

 

By the way I want to own up and confess that I did something very stupid and somehow read 'Alarich II' as 'Felipe VI' in my previous response and thought you were suggesting that the King of Spain's response has been reasonable: Alarich has indeed been putting things quite well in this thread. But I don't think you've been taking them on board very well.

 

18 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

By ignoring the rest of Spain, the elefant in the room, nothing will be achieved. Can we now do anything as a people, as long as "the majority" votes for it ? Certainly the lessons of WW2 have long been forgotten.

I've seen it on  across a few social media places now where supporters of Spain's position are, directly or less so as here, comparing Catalonia's actions to those of Nazi Germany. Is that really an argument you want to run with? It's not just utterly ridiculous in its own right, unless you're seriously trying to argue that the Catalan government are trying to take over Spain and committing genocide (one dude on Facebook did claim that they've kidnapped four million people, but he didn't get back to me when I questioned that), but if you're using the spectre of WWII to try to persuade people from outside of Spain of the wrongs of this situation all you're gonna do is remind people of fucking Franco and undermine your own cause!

[SirArthur]

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I've seen it on  across a few social media places now where supporters of Spain's position are, directly or less so as here, comparing Catalonia's actions to those of Nazi Germany. Is that really an argument you want to run with? It's not just utterly ridiculous in its own right, unless you're seriously trying to argue that the Catalan government are trying to take over Spain and committing genocide (one dude on Facebook did claim that they've kidnapped four million people, but he didn't get back to me when I questioned that), but if you're using the spectre of WWII to try to persuade people from outside of Spain of the wrongs of this situation all you're gonna do is remind people of fucking Franco and undermine your own cause!

I ... am speechless. What has genocide to do with anything ? Or with anything I wrote ? The entire point was about majority vote as an argument of enforcing ones people opinion over anothers people opinion. But whatever. This seems to get into a very trigger happy discussion. I'm out. 

[polishgenius]

4 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

I ... am speechless. What has genocide to do with anything ? Or with anything I wrote ? The entire point was about majority vote as an argument of enforcing ones people opinion over anothers people opinion. But whatever. This seems to get into a very trigger happy discussion. I'm out. 

I apologise if that's not what you were doing when you brought up WWII, I may have wrongly conflated what I have seen elsewhere (where people were explicitly comparing what the Catalans are doing to what the Nazis did).

But if so, do you mind clearing up what you do mean by 'the lessons of WWII'?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, The Inquisitor said:

You see Baxus, what you say is irrelevant. The law is the law. It is what it is and there's nothing to be discussed in a democratic state such as Spain outside the rule of the law. 

As Alarich II has put quite well there are ways to change the Constitution which is the "magna" law from which all laws derive, but that's something that must be approved by the Parliament and supported by Spaniards in a referendum. 

"The law is the law" can be used to justify all sorts of nastiness.  

[mormont]

55 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

I find that your analogy about the marriage is not necessarily a bad one. I often say that the conundrum between Spain and the regional government of Catalonia is pretty much like a marriage turned sour without a divorce law. 

The solution must come through dialogue and politics. The problem is that that solution right now is unachievable as the Catalan regional government is outisde the law and performing an institutional coup against Spain's democracy. 

Well, I've posted my view on preconditions to dialogue already, so I won't repeat it. I'll merely note that while I agree with the sentiment that there must be a political solution, it's not really a response to my question to say 'there should be a political solution', then in the next breath effectively rule that out. 

55 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

Now you ask me, what happens if the Catalan regional government escalates things further?

I reply to you, the rule of law in a democracy must be upheld at all times. The Spanish constitutional powers have the tools and the means to restablish order which include but are not limited to the suspension of the Catalan autonomy, the intervention of the Catalan regional government and the calling of a new regional election. 

I understand that these are all options. What good do you think any of them will do?

It seems to me that following this particular course of action will merely reinforce the Catalan independence parties' position. If you punish Catalonia (and that is how it will appear), you can expect people to react to that in only one way, and that is to vote for those parties.

55 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

I find endearing your witticism of "pointing to the Constitution and sticking their fingers to the their ears". I understand it comes from your sympathy towards the secessionist movement in Catalonia given your background, but you see, the problem is slightly more complex than what your witty words amount for. 

I understand that it's complex. I'm interested in this situation mostly because it's one where I genuinely have no idea where things might go from here. But I do know that, complex as it may be, sticking to the line that the Catalans can't ever leave Spain because the constitution says so is not a viable way to go.

53 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

What is it then ? Is it democracy if Catalonia votes for independence and the rest of Spain tells the MP to not accept the independence Certainly the logic of "democracy by single vote" ends there. And a constitution as well as the law is the historical combination of the "will of the people". Of all the people. That is his point. 

By ignoring the rest of Spain, the elefant in the room, nothing will be achieved. Can we now do anything as a people, as long as "the majority" votes for it ? Certainly the lessons of WW2 have long been forgotten.

No, of course not. But my point is rather the reverse: you can't overrule the will of the people of a region. Not that you shouldn't, but you can't. It's not democratic, true: a democracy you don't have the freedom to leave isn't a democracy at all. But it won't work either. Those people are not going to stop wanting to leave because you tell them they can't.

I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with 'the lessons of WW2'.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Mentat said:

What the Spanish government can do and what it should do, are two very separate issues, but nation states aren't powerless. The Spanish government can do a great deal; from the more or less legal and arguably proportionate (Catalan public officials who have broken Spanish laws can be fined and/or put in prison, the Catalan devolved government can be temporarily stripped of its powers, state police, the civil guard and even the army can be sent to 'keep the peace', the Catalan institutions' bank accounts can be frozen, etc.), to the not so legal or proportionate (which I will not indulge in because I think it's actively harmful and I truly hope it never happens). A long enough struggle will put both side's resolve to the test... and we're back to "May the best man win".

Mentat,

Morally, is it proper to compel a group of people to remain within a given nation-state by force of arms?

[Mentat]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mentat,

Morally, is it proper to compel a group of people to remain within a given nation-state by force of arms?

I wouldn't say so, no. Hence the first sentence in the post you quoted. I just think it's disingenuous to think that the Spanish state is powerless to react. One could argue that trying to strong-arm Catalonia into giving up it's independence ambitions will only lead to strengthening their resolve (and indeed it might)... but one could also argue that, if the Spanish state doesn't relent and international organisations like the EU or the UN don't turn a more sympathetic eye to the Catalan plight than they are currently, eventually the Catalan people might just give up, lick their wounds and see if they can go about getting what they want in another way or at another time.

Of course, ideally, the situation would never have escalated this much and an agreement that was acceptable to both parties would have been reached (and I agree with the sentiment that the current Spanish president should shoulder much of the blame), but we can't go back in time. Right now, negotiations seem desirable and yet pointless. Both sides have incompatible pretensions they don't want to let go of and have dug their trenches deep. The unilateral declaration of independence (which will foreseeably happen next week) will be the final nail in the coffin for any hope of an agreed settlement. After that there will be a clash between the Spanish state and the Catalan government, and all I can hope for is that as little people as possible get hurt.    

[Fez]

45 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Morally, is it proper to compel a group of people to remain within a given nation-state by force of arms?

Not addressed to me, but I'm gonna say 'yes, absolutely.' Unless there is a history of colonialism or other overt oppression (in recent memory), I think regional self-determination is a terrible idea that long-term will lead to greater conflict and instability as more and more separations (including separations from separations) occur. Allowing the unilateral breaking of previously-agreed national social contracts* has the potential to lead to some very nasty outcomes and should generally be prevented. Its why in the US Civil War, I think the North would've been justified in preventing the South from leaving even without the backdrop of slavery.

I think Spain has the potential to go too far in its response here, but I think the national government has the right, and moral responsibility, to use every action under the rule of law to compel Catalonia to remain part of it. If it starts going extrajudicial though, then Spain is the one breaking the social contract, and then it's Catalonia that is morally correct to seek independence.

*Which is why cases like the creation of South Sudan, or the ongoing status of Northern Ireland, are different.

[Alarich II]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

I'll ask again what I've been asking throughout the thread: put aside the questions of whether you should be able to do that. How are you going to do it? Are you claiming the right to use force, for example?

These questions always go both ways because independence is always about the exercise of power and it basically breaks down to two essential questions: Who controls the borders to the outside and who controls the monopoly on legitimate violence within. If you do both, then you are de facto independent. If you don't, you may have a certain level of autonomy, but you aren't independet. So declaring independence is nothing. Excercising and defending your monopoly on violence is what makes you and independent state. So are you claiming the right to use force to become independent? Would it be okay to block Spaniards from entering Catalunya on the basis that you have decided that they may no longer come here. Is it okay for you to levy taxes and put people into prison if they don't pay? Should your police shoot at the National Police?

This is a conundrum for both sides.

 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

As for 'what counts as a people', this is a problem that solves itself. Independence movements don't spring up among random groups of people. They arise where people have sufficiently strong bonds of identity to count as a people.

Are you saying that independence movements are therefore always legitimate because they only spring up among people who will self-identify as a people so by virtue of having an independence movement people become a people and are therefore entitled to independence? I have probably misunderstood your argument, but it doesn't really make sense to me.

Lets take, for example the Basques or Catalans in France: they are a minority and within their respective regions too, probably even within their départements. Would you argue that if there is an independence movement (like there is/was amongst the French Basques), that for example holds the majority in a muinicipality with 4 overwhelming Basque villages in the Pyrenees, then they should have their own state, or join a Basque state? 

I don't think that there are easy answers: I do think that as part of a liberal democracy we must accept the right to independence, if there is sufficient support for it. But I believe that we must also be wary not to allow it as an easy way out of a collective solidarity effort. So I can understand both sides: those who say that only the Catalans - or rather those people who live there at the moment -  have the right to decide and those who say that this affects all Spanish citizens and should therefore be decided by all citizens. Because that's one of the nastier undercurrents here: We pay for the poor and if we are independent we can keep all that money for us. I find that kind of reasoning tasteless.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Mentat said:

The closing window of opportunity argument relies heavily on knowing what would happen in two or three years which I think is slightly cavalier.

The problem is that this argument cuts both ways. It's impossible to know wether the majority in favor of independence isn't temporary.
Which is why I find the requirement of a supermajority reasonable. Also, voting should be mandatory, to ensure that a minority doesn't win a majority of votes.