Catalun independence vote

[Mentat]

51 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

The Spanish Constitutional Court suspended the Catalonian Parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/spanish-pm-mariano-rajoy-warns-of-greater-harm-from-catalonia-independence-plans

It suspended a session of the parliament (because a discussion of the results of the referendum, which had previously been declared illegal, had been scheduled). The parliament itself can't be suspended by the constitutional court. The government could strip it of some of its power temporarily, either by declaring a state of emergency or by applying article 155 of the constitution (which would require an authorization from the Spanish senate and at least two warnings to the Catalan government).

This particular suspension will probably matter very little, as the Catalan government will either just ignore it and go ahead anyway or schedule a session without any 'illegal' matters to debate and introduce the debate (or simple declaration by the president) into the session during its celebration.

[Tijgy]

Nevertheless it is still weird a Constitutional Court can prohibit a Parliament from having a discussion about something in a session, just like it was weird to punish people for allowing to discuss a possible secession during a parliamentary session.

If you allow this, there is something seriously wrong in your constitution. 

 

[mormont]

16 hours ago, The Inquisitor said:

Well, Mormont, what do you want me to say? That it would be desireble to have a dialogue this very moment?

Yes. Absolutely. In fact I can see no alternative that any sensible person would recommend. And that dialogue should begin with an apology for the mishandling of the situation by the Spanish government and by Rajoy personally.

This is not 'impossible': it's the only way forward.

[Mentat]

6 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

Nevertheless it is still weird a Constitutional Court can prohibit a Parliament from having a discussion about something in a session, just like it was weird to punish people for allowing to discuss a possible secession during a parliamentary session.

If you allow this, there is something seriously wrong in your constitution.

The specific powers of the constitutional court are not set in the constitution, but in its regulating laws. I think it's not impossible that at some point some international court rules that some of what the constitutional court has been doing lately is pretty irregular, but the problem is this whole business is so mired in irregularity on all sides that I'm not sure it will matter (El que roba a un ladrón tiene cien años de perdón).

There's one thing we definitely agree with: we do indeed live in weird times!

[Mentat]

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yes. Absolutely. In fact I can see no alternative that any sensible person would recommend. And that dialogue should begin with an apology for the mishandling of the situation by the Spanish government and by Rajoy personally.

This is not 'impossible': it's the only way forward.

Rajoy should resign and summon new elections. The Catalan government should follow suit. A Spanish coalition government of the Socialists and Podemos and a Catalan government with a strong presence of the Comuns might conceivably be able to talk their way out of this somehow (not that it'll be easy; it won't).

The current Spanish and Catalan governments are dug so deep that I think it's impossible they find any middle ground and extremely unlikely they even try. The alternative to negotiation (a clash between Spain and Catalonia) is otherwise what's going to happen, like it or not. Sensible people might not recommend it, I'll give you that.

In History there's no 'only way forward', things happen, and whoever sees them through gets to pick up the pieces.

[baxus]

2 hours ago, Mentat said:

I think you can argue that, morally, the Catalans should be masters of their own fate and not require the accord of the Spanish to leave. What you can't do, is say that the reason is that it would affect the rest of Spain very little.

A Catalan independence would be disastrous for Spain. It would throw it into a spiral of political instability where other regions (specifically the Basque country, but possibly also other regions like Galicia) would also demand their own referendums. This would likely make rating agencies, banks and international investors weary of coming anywhere near it until the whole thing had settled. It would also be very bad for the Spanish economy. As Meera points out, Spain over-taxes its rich regions to subsidize its poor regions (and I can agree Catalonia -and other regions like Valencia and Murcia- has been excessively over taxed, though we might argue to what extent). Catalonia is the second wealthiest region in Spain after Madrid. Its secession would be a very powerful blow to the Spanish economy. There's also the question of whether Catalonia would remain in the EU. If it didn't (as the EU currently claims) this would be terrible for Spain, as its main connections with northern Europe all go through Catalonia.

Again, one can argue that the Catalan moral right to independence trumps these considerations, or that a negotiation about the conditions of independence might help alleviate some of them, but one definitely can't say that the Spaniards don't have a significant interest in this.

If the only argument for Spanish government's refusal of Catalan referendum is "we'll lose money" than that should tell you all you need whether it should be legal or not.

[Mentat]

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

If the only argument for Spanish government's refusal of Catalan referendum is "we'll lose money" than that should tell you all you need whether it should be legal or not.

I think that's a very reductionist reply. Also, money is important to everyone (with less money come less social services, less free education, less public health service, less pensions for the elderly and the disabled and other things that don't sound as dirty as "money" but are certainly bought with it). One can argue that the whole rise of the independence movement could have been averted if Arthur Mas's demands for more/better financing had been met back in the day. Finally, we can debate about what should and shouldn't be legal, but not really about what is and isn't legal. Spanish public officials are sworn to uphold the law, which currently doesn't allow a devolved government to summon a referendum or declare independence (and changing it requires a referendum in which all Spaniards participate and a super-majority in both Spanish chambers.... and we're back to square one). A Spanish government that decided to ignore the law in order to do what seems convenient (against the will of the majority of Spaniards), would be committing political suicide and probably seen as illegitimate, even committing a coup d'etat, by the people who voted it in (and it would have to see Catalan secession as the lesser of two evils, which as I said in a previous post, would either require massive civil unrest and violence or forceful international pressure by the UN and the EU). If the Catalans can sway the majority public opinion of the Spaniards then we might be on to something.

[Alarich II]

 

15 hours ago, mormont said:

Err.. so far as I know nobody is suggesting that Spaniards would not be able to enter an independent Catalonia, or that anyone is going to shoot at the national police.

Like a lot of these arguments against independence, this relies on a theoretical construct being treated as if it were a real problem.

You asked: How are you going to do it [prevent Catalonia from seperating]? Are you claiming the right to use force, for example?

Several possibilities were suggested, several measures were already taken. They all include the use of force. That's not a theoretical construct, because - as I said before - independence means control over your own borders and control within, which includes the use of force. So unless your idea of independence is entirely theoretical, the very practical implication is this: Either the Catalans will have to use force to control their borders (for example to prevent Spanish law enforcement units from entering and arresting their premier Minister) and they will have to use force to uphold their own state structures within. If they succeed and/or Spain doesn't use force, they are independent. Or Spain uses force, for example to disband Catalan police units, disperse crowds, prevent parliament from meeting and so on.

If you unilaterally declare independence it automatically means that you are willing to use force and that you consider the use of force a legitimate act of self-defense. Otherwise the declaration has no practical implication and all your independence talk is just a theoretical construct being treated as if it were a real problem.

Quote

No. I'm saying that it is easy to identify a genuine democratic independence movement based on a real (for want of a better word) national identity, particularly in Europe. The slippery slope argument, as a result, is just a really bad argument. It (again) relies on a hypothetical problem being treated as a real one. That you have to go to Cliven Bundy to find an example to back this argument up illustrates the poverty of the argument.

No, we are already far down this slippery slope and it costs thousands of lives in Ukraine, the Balkans, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Maybe this is all a very theoretical discussion for you, but in Europe, people are killing each other right now over these questions that are anything but easy. The divides are religious, ethnic, linguistic or simply historical and if you are saying that any "movement" is automatically justified to declare independence because it is legitimized by virtue of it's own existence, you are opening the floodgates to an ever increasing division based along those lines. I gave you the example of the village in the Pyrenees and you said: Why would I, or you, tell them what they should do? They can choose for themselves. Now what do you think will happen, when you apply your answer to Northern Ireland and say: every municipality, every village, every quarter can decide for themselves wether they want to stay with Britain, become independend or ask for unification with Ireland. Maybe everyone will live happy ever after, maybe though it makes a shitty conflict even worse (I guess it's the latter).

And because we know that the questions of national and regional, ethnic and religions self-determination often end in blood-shed, we need to establish guiding principles to determine under which circumstances such demands should be considered legitimate and where not, at least within the EU. Because this is not only a Spanish affair: France for example has a border with Catalonia, so it will be affected too when suddenly a part of its border becomes and external EU border. Many European companies, but also EU citizens own assets and/or companies in Catalonia, or they live there so their rights will be affected too.

And coming back to the Catalan independence question: I personally think that it should be possible to reach independence through lawful means, but I won't pretend as you do, that this issue is clear-cut or easy to answer. The arguments against Catalan independence are not unreasonable: Catalans are not oppressed, they can freely express their cultural identity, their language and customs. They were a part of Spain for a good thousand years, i.e. we are not talking about an artificial product of 19th century realpolitik. So independence is not an issue of survival or even lack of regional representation and therefore it should be resolved either within the existing legal framework or by changing and renegotiating the legal framework. The Spanish state has a responsibility to all its citizens, and if a richer province wants to secede that automatically means less funds available for the rest, so yes, this is a problem - especially when you are in the midst of recovery from a heavy recession. You think that finances are not the driving reason, and I agree insofar as I believe that it needs a healthy dose of nationalism too, to turn the usual grievances between regions and central government (not enough regional investment, we want our money back, allocation is unfair, why do the others get better conditions etc.) into an independence movement. But I don't think that money is unimportant in this conflict.

As for your final question: I just don't believe that self-determination as a nation as opposed to self-determination as a person is a very important right as long as the individual citizens have all the freedoms that a liberal democracy offers. The idea of national self-determination relies on the rather dated notion that every "nation" should have it's own state because states can only function when they organize a culturally and ethnic homogeneous people. It's basically 19th century bourgois nationalism cast as some sort of fundamental "right" which of course was promptly abused as a welcome excuse to bash in your neighbours skull. Today, it's more of a nice to have thing than necessary precondition for a free and happy life.

The practical implications like economic turmoil, new EU-borders, renegotiation of the rights of EU-citizens living in a non-EU Country, the reduced tax base to finance education, security etc. are all touching on the rights of Spanish and EU-citizens. So from a purely practical POV I'd say it is good to have legal means to achieve independence but if that possibility is not or not easily available this isn't a great deficit either.

[Hereward]

15 hours ago, Fez said:

I'm not sure there's a good universal standard, but fortunately I don't think one is necessary here. Spain and all its component regions are part of the Western, liberal order, which has a recognized set of values (e.g. free speech, trial by jury of peers, fair elections, etc.) that, while some variation occurs, are found and upheld throughout. 

Trial by jury is not by any means universal in the West.

[Tijgy]

16 minutes ago, Mentat said:

Rajoy should resign and summon new elections. The Catalan government should follow suit. A Spanish coalition government of the Socialists and Podemos and a Catalan government with a strong presence of the Comuns might conceivably be able to talk their way out of this somehow (not that it'll be easy; it won't).

The current Spanish and Catalan governments are dug so deep that I think it's impossible they find any middle ground and extremely unlikely they even try. The alternative to negotiation (a clash between Spain and Catalonia) is otherwise what's going to happen, like it or not. Sensible people might not recommend it, I'll give you that.

In History there's no 'only way forward', things happen, and whoever sees them through gets to pick up the pieces.

I think an election at this moment would bring have as result a very high result for the independentist Catalan parties. At this moment the issue of independence is very alive in Catalonia. It will be an election but a new factual referendum of independence. I think the table wouldn't be different at their side of the table. That can only resolved by time or by some concessions by the Spanish government. 

In 2007-2010 there were also difficulties with our state reforms. The francophones kept saying no to more autonomy for their regions (and one of their leaders, the lady who was called "Madame Non", became now recently an adviser to Juncker.  That will be fun). In the end the traditional Flemish parties have now between 10-20 %, and the Flemish Nationalist one went from 5% tot above 30%. 

At this moment the Flemish are less interested in an independent Flanders than in 2007-2010, but that is solely because all the issues between francophones and the Flemish are kept silent and because the biggest party in the federal government are the Flemish Nationalists. 

41 minutes ago, Mentat said:

The specific powers of the constitutional court are not set in the constitution, but in its regulating laws. I think it's not impossible that at some point some international court rules that some of what the constitutional court has been doing lately is pretty irregular, but the problem is this whole business is so mired in irregularity on all sides that I'm not sure it will matter (El que roba a un ladrón tiene cien años de perdón).

 

I think it cannot be longer denied the Spanish government several human rights, like the right to exercise of opinion, ...

 

[Tijgy]

In the end human rights are actually more worth than a constitutional. If you say it doesn't, the human rights lose their reason of their existence.

They were 'created' after the WOII. The German Constitution wasn't able to protect the constitutional/human rights of the Jews and certain other people living in Germany. To protect humans from those situations human rights in treaties were 'created', or rather several countries said in those treaties those human rights exist and are universal, ... and a country can never violate those human rights unless under very strict conditions. 

 

 

[baxus]

23 minutes ago, Mentat said:

I think that's a very reductionist reply. Also, money is important to everyone (with less money come less social services, less free education, less public health service, less pensions for the elderly and the disabled and other things that don't sound as dirty as "money" but are certainly bought with it). One can argue that the whole rise of the independence movement could have been averted if Arthur Mas's demands for more/better financing had been met back in the day. Finally, we can debate about what should and shouldn't be legal, but not really about what is and isn't legal. Spanish public officials are sworn to uphold the law, which currently doesn't allow a devolved government to summon a referendum or declare independence (and changing it requires a referendum in which all Spaniards participate and a super-majority in both Spanish chambers.... and we're back to square one). A Spanish government that decided to ignore the law in order to do what seems convenient (against the will of the majority of Spaniards), would be committing political suicide and probably seen as illegitimate, even committing a coup d'etat, by the people who voted it in (and it would have to see Catalan secession as the lesser of two evils, which as I said in a previous post, would either require massive civil unrest and violence or forceful international pressure by the UN and the EU). If the Catalans can sway the majority public opinion of the Spaniards then we might be on to something.

We have been debating that all along. I don't know what Spanish constitution says about Catalonia or any other region declaring independence, but I am saying that it's wrong if it says that every citizen of Spain has a say in it. That's all.

[Loge]

13 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

And coming back to the Catalan independence question: I personally think that it should be possible to reach independence through lawful means, but I won't pretend as you do, that this issue is clear-cut or easy to answer. The arguments against Catalan independence are not unreasonable: Catalans are not oppressed, they can freely express their cultural identity, their language and customs. They were a part of Spain for a good thousand years, i.e. we are not talking about an artificial product of 19th century realpolitik. So independence is not an issue of survival or even lack of regional representation and therefore it should be resolved either within the existing legal framework or by changing and renegotiating the legal framework.

Actually, Spain in its current form didn't exist before the War of Spanish Succession in the early 18th century. You could compare Catalonia to Portugal (which actually was in a union with Spain for some time but won back independence). It has its own history and language.

I think the biggest can of worms is citizenship. If you distinguish between Spaniards and Catalans, does that make everybody who lives in Catalonia on day one of independence a Catalan? We all know how well that worked out in the former Soviet Union. 

[Mentat]

9 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

I think an election at this moment would bring have as result a very high result for the independentist Catalan parties. At this moment the issue of independence is very alive in Catalonia. It will be an election but a new factual referendum of independence. I think the table wouldn't be different at their side of the table. That can only resolved by time or by some concessions by the Spanish government.

I think it cannot be longer denied the Spanish government several human rights, like the right to exercise of opinion, ...

You might be right (it's impossible to accurately foresee the result of an election). I think if ERC and PDCat go to the elections separately the loss of votes of PDCat would be considerable, and maybe the resulting government would be a ERC/Comuns coalition (hopefully without the CUP, if we're going for negotiations with Spain). The result in Spain is also up in the air. A Socialists/Podemos government is a possibility, but it's certainly not impossible that we just get a very similar result to the actual parliament or even that Rajoy goes up in votes (incredible as it seems to me).

I agree that it can be argued that Spain has infringed in the right to exercise opinion by forcefully repressing the referendum (or even more so by not allowing the Catalan parliament to debate certain issues that it deemed illegal), but the opposite can also be argued. A referendum is a very specific form of expressing your opinion that might not be protected under the general right. Catalan radio stations and newspapers can still broadcast and publish whatever they like. At the end of the day it will come down to international pressure. Spain doesn't want Catalonia to become independent, but it probably wants to become an international pariah even less. If international reaction is lukewarm and the EU has its back, however, Spain is not likely to budge.

[Mentat]

8 minutes ago, baxus said:

We have been debating that all along. I don't know what Spanish constitution says about Catalonia or any other region declaring independence, but I am saying that it's wrong if it says that every citizen of Spain has a say in it. That's all.

I respect your opinion, but you must know that, in the context of international law, it is a minority one. The Spanish constitution is not much different from the French, German or Italian, all of which contain similar provisions.

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

You asked: How are you going to do it [prevent Catalonia from seperating]? Are you claiming the right to use force, for example?

Several possibilities were suggested, several measures were already taken. They all include the use of force. That's not a theoretical construct, because - as I said before - independence means control over your own borders and control within, which includes the use of force. So unless your idea of independence is entirely theoretical, the very practical implication is this: Either the Catalans will have to use force to control their borders (for example to prevent Spanish law enforcement units from entering and arresting their premier Minister) and they will have to use force to uphold their own state structures within. If they succeed and/or Spain doesn't use force, they are independent. Or Spain uses force, for example to disband Catalan police units, disperse crowds, prevent parliament from meeting and so on.

This is a lot of words to say very little of relevance. In theory, yes, control of borders involves the use of force. In practice, if Catalonia was independent there is no reason to suppose crossing the border would be any different than crossing the border from one Western country to another. A passport check, and that's it.

The issue of Spanish police entering the country to arrest the PM etc. rest on the idea of that declaration of independence not being recognised by Spain, which is a different issue, and one that can and should be resolved by political dialogue.

25 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

No, we are already far down this slippery slope and it costs thousands of lives in Ukraine, the Balkans, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

These do indeed stand as examples of why trying to hold states together forcibly against the will of those within can go horribly, horribly wrong. However, the don't really prove anything about whether nationalist movements arise among random groups of people who don't have a clearly distinct identity as a people. Surely the reverse: in each case, these states have within them distinct groups of people whose identity supersedes that of the nation-state.

In any case, we're discussing democratic independence movements here. Northern Ireland, for example, stands as a clear example of why recognising the democratic aspirations of a group with a distinct identity is a good thing. If the British government had stuck to the line that the UK is indivisible and no talks can take place until the Nationalists give up forever any notion of a unified Ireland, where would we be?

25 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

Now what do you think will happen, when you apply your answer to Northern Ireland and say: every municipality, every village, every quarter can decide for themselves wether they want to stay with Britain, become independend or ask for unification with Ireland.

But why would every town or village decide separately?

If the question is 'should inhabitants of those towns be allowed to participate in a vote on NI's future', the answer is 'yes, of course'. But the question is not 'should those villages be split up as a result of that vote?' Nobody's proposing to split Catalonia up, just as nobody's saying that Coleraine or Ballymena have distinct identities from the rest of Northern Ireland.

The question at hand was and is 'what counts as a distinct people?' My point is that this is a non-issue, as I'm not aware of any movement for independence that isn't based on a distinct culture existing. Your response focuses on another issue entirely, what happens when two distinct peoples occupy the same geographical area. That's not a response, that's a different subject. A difficult one, admittedly, but not the same one.

25 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

And because we know that the questions of national and regional, ethnic and religions self-determination often end in blood-shed, we need to establish guiding principles to determine under which circumstances such demands should be considered legitimate and where not, at least within the EU.

I'm not going to disagree with that, but I am going to suggest that 'our constitution says you can't ever leave, so there' is not a particularly good guiding principle. The Spanish government need to recognise that, for there to be any progress.

I would also agree that the Catalan government need to acknowledge that the vote that took place last week is not sufficiently robust to base independence on, and that they shouldn't unilaterally declare independence. As noted, both sides need to talk, to find a way in which the aspirations of the Catalan people can be recognised and those people can be allowed to determine their own future democratically and legally. But at present, that seems impossible.

The only 'clear-cut' question, for me, is whether it is viable to force a region to remain in a democratic nation-state. I would say that it is not. You can be a democracy or you can force people to remain within your borders. You can't do both.

[SirArthur]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

 You can be a democracy or you can force people to remain within your borders. You can't do both.

The Catalans are free to leave. Kappa

[Tijgy]

17 minutes ago, Mentat said:

I agree that it can be argued that Spain has infringed in the right to exercise opinion by forcefully repressing the referendum (or even more so by not allowing the Catalan parliament to debate certain issues that it deemed illegal), but the opposite can also be argued. A referendum is a very specific form of expressing your opinion that might not be protected under the general right. Catalan radio stations and newspapers can still broadcast and publish whatever they like. At the end of the day it will come down to international pressure. Spain doesn't want Catalonia to become independent, but it probably wants to become an international pariah even less. If international reaction is lukewarm and the EU has its back, however, Spain is not likely to budge.

The use of violence by the Spanish is really problematic regarding human rights. This isn't only about prohibiting the referendum but also about using state terror against your citizens. 

And it is solely about the referendum, but also about the other politicians and journalists who are being prosecuted by the Spanish State. I am talking for example now about the leader of the Catalan police who is now being investigated and risks 15 years of prison. This is like one of the most idiotic things you can do. The Spanish government is just creating more and more martyrs. 

EU will always have Rajoy's back, or at least Juncker does. They look always very friendly (x, x, x). (Is that the normal way for Spanish people to meet each other. I really cannot imagine it is something typical of Luxembourg). The fact Juncker is actually President of the European Commission shows there are some very fundamental wrong things with the European Constitutions. The rumor on his supposedly alcohol problems is probably one of the less problematic ones (He denied it of course). Maybe he does deserves some drinks after the Brexit stuff. That had to be difficult for him.  Poor Jean-Claude. And it isn't only the American Donald who is surrounded with scandals and Tajani has links to the Dieselgate. And the three of them have of course links to the European People's Party, the same fraction as the PP.

The problem with EU is it is sometimes too busy with (a certain) member states and with their own project and not with it's citizens. There is a reason why my Prime Minister said directly he condemned the violence, why the Flemish Parliament voted unanimously the violence done by the Spanish. The EU is actually starting to have a crisis. They might still not be winning the elections, but the eurosceptics are gaining terrain. And I think they would only make more people sceptic if there is no clear reaction of the EU condemning the Spanish reactions. Further it completely delegitimizes the EU's superior attitude towards Russia and other parts of the world. Poetin is probably laughing for his television.

 

[Mentat]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

The only 'clear-cut' question, for me, is whether it is viable to force a region to remain in a democratic nation-state. I would say that it is not. You can be a democracy or you can force people to remain within your borders. You can't do both.

I think this is, again, a respectable opinion, but a minority one. Democratic states force the opinion of a majority on a minority all the time. The limit to this is human rights. Human rights of minorities cannot be breached because of the will of a majority. The right to self-determination of any region that feels uncomfortable within its state and that self-defines as distinct (which at the end of the day are not that difficult criteria to meet), however, is not currently a recognized human right in international law (as the territorial integrity of the nation state would take precedence over said sentiment, provided these people were adequately represented within their State's institutions). This is why, though the UN might put some heat on Spain for violently repressing demonstrations (and rightly so), it will not open it's mouth on it not allowing Catalans to secede if they want to (ubiquitous and currently ineffective calls for dialogue not withstanding). Moreover, this doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, as nation States in general are extremely protective of their territories and borders.

While forcing anything on a minority may seem nasty and counterproductive in the long run, the potential of said minority to become a majority in the future is, I think, key. In the case of the Catalans, I think this potential certainly exists. Some major state-level political parties (like Podemos), have warmed up to their thesis and favour allowing a referendum, and other parties (like the Socialists), while still not being OK with secession, are advocating a federal state, with more recognition of regional identities and devolved powers. A Spanish coalition government of these two parties is by no means a fantasy. The Basque nationalists would also clearly support this, and both Basque and Catalan nationalists have a strong presence in the Spanish parliament. The current right wing government will not stand for it, but they can't last forever. Spanish and Catalan public opinions are currently polarized and dug into their trenches, but if more reasonable voices are allowed to take over, tension will decrease, and the opportunity for dialogue and reform is likely to appear. If the Catalans just play it clever and take it easy, it seems likely that they can progress to an increased level of decentralisation and maybe eventually to independence. This will be a slow process, however, and it can't be built on non-negotiable demands, inflexible deadlines or confrontational politics.

[The Inquisitor]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Yes. Absolutely. In fact I can see no alternative that any sensible person would recommend. And that dialogue should begin with an apology for the mishandling of the situation by the Spanish government and by Rajoy personally.

This is not 'impossible': it's the only way forward.

I agree, and while they are at it, the King and Rajoy should walk to the middle of Barcelona's main square, ask forgiveness for centuries of opression, drop their pants, grab their ankles and shove their heads inside their own arses.

Boy, you are absolutely outside the realm of reality, which I gather is a common issue Scottish independentists share with Catalan ones.