Orlanth wrote: It was a struggle perhaps but I did post reasons.
You should try being honest enough not to edit down what you are critiqueing to remove supporting commentary.
I made no off cuff remark, but followed through with reasoning.
My (somewhat sardonic) comment was on your style of address, not the general content of the post (as well you know). If I prefaced everything I said with 'I'm awesome and understand stuff but you aren't and don't', I wouldn't get far in life. Given that Killkrazy is a literate, intelligent poster, saying that kind of thing to him doesn't exactly help any argument you might try to make. Quite the contrary, really.
If you look at the context, its not 'i'm awesome you are not', but 'this is clear logic, you can understand this too'. An exortation to logical process.
You also clipped the context down, this goes back to the discussion on the Scottish indyref, I explained then how Spain would in due course veto Scottish EU membership because of the Catalan question. As with much I write on Dakka, when those opposed cannot handle the logical content there is a resort to scoffing and considering me an idiot. I don't require someone else to point out that I am literate or intelligent.
Bran Dawri wrote: Just a reminder, the Dutch voted down the same EU constitution as the Irish in our own referendum, only to have its contents forced down our throats in the treaty of Maastricht a few years later anyway. EU is not about self-determination at all. Never has been.
...
Just as with the Ukraine association treaty, and come January, the referendum on our new "let's allow security services to monitor innocent citizens" law.
And politicians wonder why people like Trump or our own Geert Wilders and more recently Thierry Baudet get so many votes...
What?
Yeah, and if I am not mistaken they now even want to revoke the law that allowed referenda. Evidently, the Dutch government only likes democracy when people vote what the government wants them to vote. Democracy, but preferably just kratos without demos.
There is another even easier way to look at this and see the doctrinaire and arbitrary nature of EU politics hidden in plain sight.
Yes the EU overturn referenda et al, for some, but they also offer a free pass for select member states to openly disobey EU law.
The same attitude of rule that bullies some people oftimes shows undue favour to others, this is the case here.
Clearest example of this is the squatter camp at Calais.
Now in EU law, migrants must claim asylum in the country of entry. Now this has been in part suspended during the Syria crisis when vast numbers of people flooded into southern Europe. However the Calais problem has been ongoing a lot longer, and France is a very rich and powerful member state, and can swallow the issue.
According to EU law those Calais migrants MUST apply for EU asylum in France, however they want to get to the UK. This is partly because some nations are considered a soft touch, and while the UK no longer is, it was and the reputation remains. Second once in the UK the EU rights will be applied, in fact one of the sticking points of Brexit is getting same rights to continually apply after the UK leaves.
However during this time thee is zero pressure from Brussels for France to close the squatter camps and process the migrants.
To do so would involve making EU mandatory legislation, applicable to the French, and the EU doesn't go that far.
Allowing France to blatantly ignore EU law is the other side of the coin which has the EU bully the populace of Holland Greece or Ireland when they produce referendum results they don't like.
For the record my problem here is with Brussels not Paris, I believe the French have every right to try and take full advantage of EU membership. I also have much sympathy with their desire to pass the immigration problem along. The problem is how they get away with it, the EU should be all over them for it, but never were, are or will be.
SO SO glad we are leaving! Should of run to Gibraltar, we should offer him protection there, and its a act of war to invade it against a fellow Nato member!
Spain would of loved that one.
That would be a fun stunt but would be very Joffreyesque. The UK, and Gibraltar, needs to stay out of this.
Yes the EU is complicit, and Francoist songs and Nazi salutes were both seen at the unity rally according to reports today. Those pro-union attendees have every right and reason to disown them.
The interesting thing is what is behind the flight of Puigdemont to Belgium. apparently it is not an invite by the Belgian government, I suspected it was and the EU was trying to lure and contain him and then basically control his output. Instead more interestingly he has been given sanctum by Flemish separatists who have their own autonomous region, and are off script when it comes to EU's harmonious ever closer union. So rather than containment this is an opportunity to be a long term thorn in side.
Some of the Madrid government have done their nut about Puigdemont and five others asylum was guaranteed for by the Flemish separatist government. Threats of long prison terms, 30 years for Puigdemont, become jokes if the Spanish can't legally reach him, and that is on top of the price of the heavy handed approach they are using. Seems like the pro-indy group are looking for a long term living martyr strategy. Puigdemont will hold Assange like interviews from Belgium and be difficult to silence.
I wonder if anyone might thing he is due an accident?
1. Is there any Bourbon praising song exists either in France or Spain? If there's such song why ain't Unionists use ones.. owing that Bourbon monarch is on their side (Bourbons hate seccessionists as well as Non-catholic christians)
2. What happened to Carlism? Will this crisis presents one more chances for them to comback and be a 'Better Monarch' than the reigning 'Alphonsian' lineage of the Bourbon dynasty
3. What does Donald Trump says? Does he supports the 'Spanish Unionists' and if the Catalonian seccessionist chose to go war (or Catalonain war for independence) broke out. which side will he (and his US of A) be? and to which
4. Does the USA deny Puigdemont asylum?
1. Is there any Bourbon praising song exists either in France or Spain? If there's such song why ain't Unionists use ones.. owing that Bourbon monarch is on their side (Bourbons hate seccessionists as well as Non-catholic christians) No idea what you mean by this sorry.
2. What happened to Carlism? Will this crisis presents one more chances for them to comback and be a 'Better Monarch' than the reigning 'Alphonsian' lineage of the Bourbon dynasty Again, don't know how to answer this.
3. What does Donald Trump says? Does he supports the 'Spanish Unionists' and if the Catalonian seccessionist chose to go war (or Catalonain war for independence) broke out. which side will he (and his US of A) be? and to which. Donald Trump has said nothing, he is 100% self absorbed and this issue doesnt effect him personally so he doesnt care. If Trump cares about something he tweets. The US is far from leaderless, Pense if effectively president, and has been most of this year and thing work behind the scenes as usual, there just isn't a public face for the time being.. Catalonia is not recognised as an independent state by the US in statements given.
4. Does the USA deny Puigdemont asylum? Puigdemont has not asked, and probably wouldnt easily get it. He hasnt formally asked for asylum anywhere, the offiers from within Belgium are pro-active and public to give assurances. Puigdemont says he will be in Brussels for the forseeable future but has not claimed asylum. This is true only on a technicality.
Are you familiar with the concept of separation of powers? Governments don't prosecute, the judiciary does.
Only if the judiciary is actually independent of the other branches. Frankly even when it is, sometimes it isn't.
When the charges are being read by politicians, not lawyers, it is hard to argue due process is being followed.
Are they?
Between this, the conspiracy to reroute a civilian commercial flight and your last comments on EU, Calais, etc. I'm having a hard time picturing you without a tinfoil hat
It might be the slant given by your choice of media, but nowadays there's no excuse not to follow an event from multiple angles.
It looks like the Madrid government turned the stupidity up to 11
European arrest warrants. people in custody without bail
It's also amusing when Spain talks about not recognising rebels.
The USA is technically a rebel province. The Republic of Ireland is technically a rebel provence. Kosovo, which Spain recognised, was a rebel province. And yet, Spain recognises these 3 nations.
The Madrid government's logic is all over the place and worst of all, they have made martyrs for the Catalan indy movement.
The Swiss Navy has had more success than Rajoy's government.
European arrest warrants. people in custody without bail
It's also amusing when Spain talks about not recognising rebels.
The USA is technically a rebel province. The Republic of Ireland is technically a rebel provence. Kosovo, WHICH SPAIN DID NOT RECOGNIZE, IS a rebel province AS FAR AS SPAIN IS CONCERNED. And yet, Spain recognises these 2 nations.
The Madrid government's logic is all over the place and worst of all, they have made martyrs for the Catalan indy movement.
The Swiss Navy has had more success than Rajoy's government.
There fixed it for you. Tho looking at your prior posting history it doesn't surprise me that you made such an egregious mistake, as pointed out by Jouso in certain issues your "facts fly in the face of your feels" Now you could search online about how Preventive prison works in Spain, when and why you can go into preventive prison and how bail works. But as it will be difficult to find it in English I'll help you with that, one thing that weighs heavily in the mind of a Spanish judge when sending somebody to preventive prison is if the accused will keep committing the crime or destroy evidence during the time the investigation is going on. These persons public and notoriously have been saying they don't care about what the Spanish laws say, they are rebels as you pointed out.
But I forgot, these lawbreakers belong to an indy movement and are politicians, in the eyes of certain posters they could be ordering the killing of people on the streets (because these people never get their hands dirty with blood) and they would still be innocent victims.
European arrest warrants. people in custody without bail .
The bail thing has been entirely Puigdemont making. He's proven there's a flight risk.
And don't mistake the actions of a judge with those of the executive. They can still appeal and there's a chance they can get the judge revoked.
Actually you shouldn't be imprisoning people for daring to vote to hold a ballot. Its not like they went to the hills with machine guns.
Everything the pro-indy has done should have a diplomatic counter.
Also Puigdemont left the country prior to an arrest or warrant, that is entirely legal. Using legal travel as an excuse to incarcerate without bail is unethical. Besides according to Catalan news some pro-indy supporters were already imprisoned prior to the call for UDI, I dont know who or the circumstances of the arrest.
Anyway Catalans are getting a dose of Francoism right now, and memories are being stirred. I wonder if Madrid will feel the need to rig the December election.
But I forgot, these lawbreakers belong to an indy movement and are politicians, in the eyes of certain posters they could be ordering the killing of people on the streets (because these people never get their hands dirty with blood) and they would still be innocent victims.
M.
A grossly unfair comment, there is no evidence to suggest that if the pro-independence Catalans encouraged or orchestrated violence that anyone here would support that.
There have been several people critical of the Spanish government who have noted that the pro-independence movement has operated peacably.
But I forgot, these lawbreakers belong to an indy movement and are politicians, in the eyes of certain posters they could be ordering the killing of people on the streets (because these people never get their hands dirty with blood) and they would still be innocent victims.
M.
A grossly unfair comment, there is no evidence to suggest that if the pro-independence Catalans encouraged or orchestrated violence that anyone here would support that.
There have been several people critical of the Spanish government who have noted that the pro-independence movement has operated peacably.
Here you are, some peace for you! I started the video at the peaceful moments just for you. And that video also answers one of your questions. why the so called "Jordis" are in preventive prison? For arranging and coordinating that mob that happily destroyed three police cars while besieging the agents for almost a full day. Riot police are not usually the more diplomatic of the lot, but something that never fails to set them off is to throw stones at them, try to kick a mate on the head, charge against the police lines... all those things that the videos decrying police brutality never bothered to show, lest they give viewers a chance to think that police brutality might not have been unprovoked.
Also if Catalonians were receiving a dose of Francoism, currently the Spanish government would be encouraging Ford to move their car factory from Valencia to Barcelona like his government did with SEAT, building new highways to connect with France were the rest of the country had to do with barely decent roads, rewarding books written in Catalan (https://www.dolcacatalunya.com/2014/03/cuando-franco-premiaba-libros-en-catalan/ ) and in general pampering Catalonia and Barcelona over other regions of Spain... oooops sorry I might be going against the official line that Catalonians are the most repressed peoples in Spain since the times of Julius Caesar, disregard all the facts and keep feeling.
But I forgot, these lawbreakers belong to an indy movement and are politicians, in the eyes of certain posters they could be ordering the killing of people on the streets (because these people never get their hands dirty with blood) and they would still be innocent victims.
M.
A grossly unfair comment, there is no evidence to suggest that if the pro-independence Catalans encouraged or orchestrated violence that anyone here would support that.
There have been several people critical of the Spanish government who have noted that the pro-independence movement has operated peacably.
Here you are, some peace for you! I started the video at the peaceful moments just for you. And that video also answers one of your questions. why the so called "Jordis" are in preventive prison? For arranging and coordinating that mob that happily destroyed three police cars while besieging the agents for almost a full day. Riot police are not usually the more diplomatic of the lot, but something that never fails to set them off is to throw stones at them, try to kick a mate on the head, charge against the police lines... all those things that the videos decrying police brutality never bothered to show, lest they give viewers a chance to think that police brutality might not have been unprovoked.
Also if Catalonians were receiving a dose of Francoism, currently the Spanish government would be encouraging Ford to move their car factory from Valencia to Barcelona like his government did with SEAT, building new highways to connect with France were the rest of the country had to do with barely decent roads, rewarding books written in Catalan (https://www.dolcacatalunya.com/2014/03/cuando-franco-premiaba-libros-en-catalan/ ) and in general pampering Catalonia and Barcelona over other regions of Spain... oooops sorry I might be going against the official line that Catalonians are the most repressed peoples in Spain since the times of Julius Caesar, disregard all the facts and keep feeling.
M.
Yeah, but the fact that they've been clubbing people in the streets kinda negates any possible way to claim that Catelans are not oppressed.
When your people are getting beaten bloody in the streets, you can legitimately say you're being oppressed.
Yeah, but the fact that they've been clubbing people in the streets kinda negates any possible way to claim that Catelans are not oppressed.
When your people are getting beaten bloody in the streets, you can legitimately say you're being oppressed.
It would be if they were being clubbed because of their political ideas. But they weren't, there have been hundreds if not thousands of demonstrations and public displays (including at least one not-quite-a-referendum) where people haven't been beaten bloody. Separatist parties run to the elections, hold public office and openly claim their goal of establishing a new state and no one bats an eyelid as long as they do it within the law.
If I rob a bank while draped in the Catalan flag I'm still robbing a bank. A flag is not a get out of jail free card.
European arrest warrants. people in custody without bail
It's also amusing when Spain talks about not recognising rebels.
The USA is technically a rebel province. The Republic of Ireland is technically a rebel provence. Kosovo, WHICH SPAIN DID NOT RECOGNIZE, IS a rebel province AS FAR AS SPAIN IS CONCERNED. And yet, Spain recognises these 2 nations.
The Madrid government's logic is all over the place and worst of all, they have made martyrs for the Catalan indy movement.
The Swiss Navy has had more success than Rajoy's government.
There fixed it for you. Tho looking at your prior posting history it doesn't surprise me that you made such an egregious mistake, as pointed out by Jouso in certain issues your "facts fly in the face of your feels" Now you could search online about how Preventive prison works in Spain, when and why you can go into preventive prison and how bail works. But as it will be difficult to find it in English I'll help you with that, one thing that weighs heavily in the mind of a Spanish judge when sending somebody to preventive prison is if the accused will keep committing the crime or destroy evidence during the time the investigation is going on. These persons public and notoriously have been saying they don't care about what the Spanish laws say, they are rebels as you pointed out.
But I forgot, these lawbreakers belong to an indy movement and are politicians, in the eyes of certain posters they could be ordering the killing of people on the streets (because these people never get their hands dirty with blood) and they would still be innocent victims.
M.
I'm happy to hold up my hand and admit that I made a mistake in confusing Ireland's recognition of Kosovo with Spain's non-recognition of Kosovo
If you're so familiar with my posting history, then you'll know that I have ALWAYS spoken out against political violence and have NEVER advocated anything more than peaceful democratic protest and voting in these types of situations. I can honestly say that there are many dakka members who know me who will back me up on this.
As for your comment, it's obvious to me that you're hiding behind the cloak of legality to excuse the anti-democratic nature of the Madrid government.
We have political prisoners in Spain, we have peaceful voters being subjected to police brutality, but you're hiding behind lawyers' talk in an attempt to sweep this under the carpet.
Yeah, but the fact that they've been clubbing people in the streets kinda negates any possible way to claim that Catelans are not oppressed.
When your people are getting beaten bloody in the streets, you can legitimately say you're being oppressed.
It would be if they were being clubbed because of their political ideas. But they weren't, there have been hundreds if not thousands of demonstrations and public displays (including at least one not-quite-a-referendum) where people haven't been beaten bloody. Separatist parties run to the elections, hold public office and openly claim their goal of establishing a new state and no one bats an eyelid as long as they do it within the law.
If I rob a bank while draped in the Catalan flag I'm still robbing a bank. A flag is not a get out of jail free card.
But nor is legality an excuse for immoral actions.
Stalin's purges were legal. The Holocaust was legal. Slavery in the Southern States of the USA was legal etc etc
Jailing Catalan indy supporters is legal and beating up protestors is all legal in Rajoy's eyes.
European arrest warrants. people in custody without bail .
The bail thing has been entirely Puigdemont making. He's proven there's a flight risk.
And don't mistake the actions of a judge with those of the executive. They can still appeal and there's a chance they can get the judge revoked.
Well, the narrative is already out there. Why bother with facts when you can have feels?
Facts? The leader of a peaceful democratic movement is up on charges of rebellion and sedition. That's the only pertinent fact here.
Large numbers of people had 7 colours of gak kicked out of them by the Spanish police for doing nothing more than casting a vote. There's another fact for you.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the difference between rebellion and sedition?
Sedition is leading a riot to prevent authorities or public servants from doing their jobs or complying with a court order, that's a textbook example.
Rebellion implies violence or the threat of violence, and the most recent example was the '81 coup. The prosecution will have a hard time proving that, most jurists (including the one who redacted the law) think it's classic overcharging and that it won't come to that.
@DINLT Would you rather live in a country where the executive (or parts of it) tell the judiciary or ignore their directions? I don't. It's extremely sad and a failure of politicians on both sides of the equation that it's come to this but if you treat your country like a banana republic you deserve banana republic treatment.
It's just emerged that the Catalan leaders set up a parallel tax authority using funds earmarked for the unemployed, social services, vulnerable families, etc. That's putting your beliefs above your citizens and it's totally unacceptable, even more so if it involves at least three self styled left parties.
SO SO glad we are leaving! Should of run to Gibraltar, we should offer him protection there, and its a act of war to invade it against a fellow Nato member!
Spain would of loved that one.
That would be a fun stunt but would be very Joffreyesque. The UK, and Gibraltar, needs to stay out of this.
Yes the EU is complicit, and Francoist songs and Nazi salutes were both seen at the unity rally according to reports today. Those pro-union attendees have every right and reason to disown them.
The interesting thing is what is behind the flight of Puigdemont to Belgium. apparently it is not an invite by the Belgian government, I suspected it was and the EU was trying to lure and contain him and then basically control his output. Instead more interestingly he has been given sanctum by Flemish separatists who have their own autonomous region, and are off script when it comes to EU's harmonious ever closer union. So rather than containment this is an opportunity to be a long term thorn in side.
Some of the Madrid government have done their nut about Puigdemont and five others asylum was guaranteed for by the Flemish separatist government. Threats of long prison terms, 30 years for Puigdemont, become jokes if the Spanish can't legally reach him, and that is on top of the price of the heavy handed approach they are using. Seems like the pro-indy group are looking for a long term living martyr strategy. Puigdemont will hold Assange like interviews from Belgium and be difficult to silence.
I wonder if anyone might thing he is due an accident?
1. Is there any Bourbon praising song exists either in France or Spain? If there's such song why ain't Unionists use ones.. owing that Bourbon monarch is on their side (Bourbons hate seccessionists as well as Non-catholic christians)
I don't think anyone in Europe gives a about Bourbons. In fact, I think most people think Bourbon is a kind of whiskey. Songs praising monarchs simply aren't a thing anymore in this era (unless you are British and you are stuck with it as your anthem). Nowadays people in Europe prefer to praise the nation as a whole. Also, the Bourbons don't hate non-catholic christians. That is also a thing of the past.
Lone Cat wrote: 2. What happened to Carlism? Will this crisis presents one more chances for them to comback and be a 'Better Monarch' than the reigning 'Alphonsian' lineage of the Bourbon dynasty
Afaik, Carlism is pretty much dead and buried. The Carlists supported the dictatorship of Franco, and when that dictatorship came to an end the Carlists were done for. I don't think the people of Spain care at all which lineage their king belongs to. That kind of stuff was important in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, when kings still had actual power. Now that kings now longer have any real power such dynastic issues are no longer of importance. So no. No chances for the Carlists to come back. I kinda doubt whether most Spanish people even know who the Carlist claimant is. Or rather, claimants. since the Carlists themselves can't seem to agree on it either.
Lone Cat wrote: 3. What does Donald Trump says? Does he supports the 'Spanish Unionists' and if the Catalonian seccessionist chose to go war (or Catalonain war for independence) broke out. which side will he (and his US of A) be? and to which
Trump, like virtually all national leaders supports the Spanish government. No one wants trouble in Spain. In the unlikely event that it comes to war, the US will most likely still support the Spanish government but it will not involve itself in the actual war. Then again, Trump is unpredictable.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the difference between rebellion and sedition?
Sedition is leading a riot to prevent authorities or public servants from doing their jobs or complying with a court order, that's a textbook example.
Rebellion implies violence or the threat of violence, and the most recent example was the '81 coup. The prosecution will have a hard time proving that, most jurists (including the one who redacted the law) think it's classic overcharging and that it won't come to that.
@DINLT Would you rather live in a country where the executive (or parts of it) tell the judiciary or ignore their directions? I don't. It's extremely sad and a failure of politicians on both sides of the equation that it's come to this but if you treat your country like a banana republic you deserve banana republic treatment.
It's just emerged that the Catalan leaders set up a parallel tax authority using funds earmarked for the unemployed, social services, vulnerable families, etc. That's putting your beliefs above your citizens and it's totally unacceptable, even more so if it involves at least three self styled left parties.
I am not sure I completely understand the sequence of events here. Was it a judge that ordered the arrests and prosecution? Isn't that a very blatant violation of the separation of powers? Afaik, it it the task of the executive (in the persons of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors), to enforce laws and prosecute violations. How does it work in Spain?
I am not sure I completely understand the sequence of events here. Was it a judge that ordered the arrests and prosecution? Isn't that a very blatant violation of the separation of powers? Afaik, it it the task of the executive (in the persons of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors), to enforce laws and prosecute violations. How does it work in Spain?
The procedure was started by a prosecutor, case brought to an examining judge who will direct the investigation, dictate preliminary measures such as pretrial detention, etc. And then will hand over the case to the court that will finally make the judgement.
That's how it works in most Civil law systems (France, etc.)
I am not sure I completely understand the sequence of events here. Was it a judge that ordered the arrests and prosecution? Isn't that a very blatant violation of the separation of powers? Afaik, it it the task of the executive (in the persons of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors), to enforce laws and prosecute violations. How does it work in Spain?
The procedure was started by a prosecutor, case brought to an examining judge who will direct the investigation, dictate preliminary measures such as pretrial detention, etc. And then will hand over the case to the court that will finally make the judgement.
That's how it works in most Civil law systems (France, etc.)
Ah I see. I just got confused by the comments in this thread then. How much independence does the prosecutor's office get in Spain? Can the government task him with prosecuting certain cases or demand him to drop a case?
Anyways, I don't think this is a smart move on the side of the prosecutor. Prosecuting them creates the image of oppression (even if it is perfectly legal), and making martyrs out of them is not a good idea.
But I forgot, these lawbreakers belong to an indy movement and are politicians, in the eyes of certain posters they could be ordering the killing of people on the streets (because these people never get their hands dirty with blood) and they would still be innocent victims.
M.
A grossly unfair comment, there is no evidence to suggest that if the pro-independence Catalans encouraged or orchestrated violence that anyone here would support that.
There have been several people critical of the Spanish government who have noted that the pro-independence movement has operated peacably.
Here you are, some peace for you! I started the video at the peaceful moments just for you. And that video also answers one of your questions. why the so called "Jordis" are in preventive prison? For arranging and coordinating that mob that happily destroyed three police cars while besieging the agents for almost a full day. Riot police are not usually the more diplomatic of the lot, but something that never fails to set them off is to throw stones at them, try to kick a mate on the head, charge against the police lines... all those things that the videos decrying police brutality never bothered to show, lest they give viewers a chance to think that police brutality might not have been unprovoked.
Also if Catalonians were receiving a dose of Francoism, currently the Spanish government would be encouraging Ford to move their car factory from Valencia to Barcelona like his government did with SEAT, building new highways to connect with France were the rest of the country had to do with barely decent roads, rewarding books written in Catalan (https://www.dolcacatalunya.com/2014/03/cuando-franco-premiaba-libros-en-catalan/ ) and in general pampering Catalonia and Barcelona over other regions of Spain... oooops sorry I might be going against the official line that Catalonians are the most repressed peoples in Spain since the times of Julius Caesar, disregard all the facts and keep feeling.
M.
Yeah, but the fact that they've been clubbing people in the streets kinda negates any possible way to claim that Catelans are not oppressed.
When your people are getting beaten bloody in the streets, you can legitimately say you're being oppressed.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the difference between rebellion and sedition?
Printing a pamphlet decrying the injustices of the ruling party and encouraging people to resist is sedition. Leading an armed group to seize a military installation is rebellion.
Nothing to see here. Move along. This was not politically motivated
Two days ago, the Madrid government reneged on an agreement that it would not suspend the Barcelona government if it did not declare independence and agreed to new local elections next month. Madrid then proceeded with suspension, and Catalonia duly proceeded with declaration – though with no mention of implementation. Madrid immediately arrested those Catalan politicians (and officials) it could find, on charges of rebellion and treason.
Treason, sedition, conspiracy and the like are by nature political labels as they revolve around someone trying to attack the State. Declaring your own independent nation based on the result of a referendum with no binding power and loads of irregularities is almost textbook sedition. The courts would be derelict in their duty if they didn't at least charge Puigdemont.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Treason, sedition, conspiracy and the like are by nature political labels as they revolve around someone trying to attack the State. Declaring your own independent nation based on the result of a referendum with no binding power and loads of irregularities is almost textbook sedition. The courts would be derelict in their duty if they didn't at least charge Puigdemont.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
The Catalans elected him when he ran on a platform that he would do pretty much exactly what he did. It was his entire platform. So where's the failure to respect democracy here?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Treason, sedition, conspiracy and the like are by nature political labels as they revolve around someone trying to attack the State. Declaring your own independent nation based on the result of a referendum with no binding power and loads of irregularities is almost textbook sedition. The courts would be derelict in their duty if they didn't at least charge Puigdemont.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
The Catalans elected him when he ran on a platform that he would do pretty much exactly what he did. It was his entire platform. So where's the failure to respect democracy here?
The fact that he ignored the Catalan constitution because it was inconvenient to follow?
The fact that he ignored the Catalan constitution because it was inconvenient to follow?
As far as I've read the only Constitution he ignored was Spain's, as Catalonia has no Constitution. In fact, the law that the Spanish courts suspended called for the creation of a Catatonian Constitution.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Treason, sedition, conspiracy and the like are by nature political labels as they revolve around someone trying to attack the State. Declaring your own independent nation based on the result of a referendum with no binding power and loads of irregularities is almost textbook sedition. The courts would be derelict in their duty if they didn't at least charge Puigdemont.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
The Catalans elected him when he ran on a platform that he would do pretty much exactly what he did. It was his entire platform. So where's the failure to respect democracy here?
He ran on a platform that would declare Independence if they got a seat AND a vote majority.
They didn't.
Also they passed a new electoral law without the needed majority (according to the Catalan Statute, which is their Constitution), they didn't follow it either.
The list is really long. A lot of it is in earlier posts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Treason, sedition, conspiracy and the like are by nature political labels as they revolve around someone trying to attack the State. Declaring your own independent nation based on the result of a referendum with no binding power and loads of irregularities is almost textbook sedition. The courts would be derelict in their duty if they didn't at least charge Puigdemont.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
The Catalans elected him when he ran on a platform that he would do pretty much exactly what he did. It was his entire platform. So where's the failure to respect democracy here?
He ran on a platform that would declare Independence if they got a seat AND a vote majority.
They didn't.
Also they passed a new electoral law without the needed majority (according to the Catalan Statute, which is their Constitution), they didn't follow it either.
The list is really long. A lot of it is in earlier posts.
Yeah, but I think it was also mentioned that the Catalan statute isn't really a fair piece of law and that independence movements have the tendency to not follow laws because laws usually prohibit independence. The statute was modified by the Spanish Constitutional Court to such an extent that a peaceful, democratic way to independence was virtually impossible for the Catalans (along with a whole bunch of other restrictions on autonomy, language and referenda). The statute is a Spanish law. You can't expect a Catalan separatist, who wants independence, to obey it. When some of the republics of the USSR declared independence in 1991, they also did not follow their own constitutions, which ultimately were tools of the Soviet government to keep them in line. Independence in most states is impossible to achieve through legal means. That is why expecting separatists to follow legal means and criticising them on that account is beating a dead horse. Of course they are not going to follow the laws! It only becomes possible for them to follow laws if those laws offer them a fair way to achieve independence, such as in Scotland or Quebec. I am not saying that not following laws is good, but it is just what separatists do. Pointing that out is like pointing out to a thief that he is breaking the law. Of course he is breaking the law, he is a thief! Of course Puigdemont is guilty, just as guilty as George Washington, Boris Yeltsin, Mahatma Gandhi and almost every other independence movement leader in history. If you are dealing with an independence movement, you know beforehand they are going to ignore any law that is inconvenient to them. That is why engaging with them on legal terms is ultimately meaningless. In the end, you will have to deal with them either by giving them what they want or by trying to rob them of their power base, which in the sad reality of our world is mostly done through force, but which can also be done through economic or political means. Reminding them that they are violating the law on the other hand will just make them laugh, and trying to enforce laws and arresting them will just make them appear oppressed to those sympathetic to their cause, which will increase their power base.
TL;DR Separatists don't care about legality or elections or treaties or anything like that. All they care about is independence, and they will use whatever means they think give them the best chance of achieving that goal. All independence movements throughout history have done that. That is why pointing out that they are violating laws, their mandate, their election promises (wait, all politicians violate that one) is beating a dead horse. You know beforehand they will be going to do that, because they are separatists, and that is just what separatists do.
And they still only have a majority because of the way the electoral system works, if I've understood it correctly. In other words, parties who got fewer votes than their opposition are taking actions that they aren't legally allowed to do and going against the will of the majority in doing so, all the while complaining about oppression and tyrrany.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And they still only have a majority because of the way the electoral system works, if I've understood it correctly. In other words, parties who got fewer votes than their opposition are taking actions that they aren't legally allowed to do and going against the will of the majority in doing so, all the while complaining about oppression and tyrrany.
70 to 65 in favor of Independence at the last parliament vote (70 for, 2 abstentions, 13 against and the rest walked out rather than vote). That's not a minority no matter how you cut it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And they still only have a majority because of the way the electoral system works, if I've understood it correctly. In other words, parties who got fewer votes than their opposition are taking actions that they aren't legally allowed to do and going against the will of the majority in doing so, all the while complaining about oppression and tyrrany.
70 to 65 in favor of Independence at the last parliament vote (70 for, 2 abstentions, 13 against and the rest walked out rather than vote). That's not a minority no matter how you cut it.
You mean aside from the fact that the parliament's composition is stacked in favour of the more rural areas and penalizes barcelona's metropolitan area, which is where the main pro-union's strongholds are, and thus skews the result?
They can say whatever they want. Back in the 78 the current Spanish Constitution was voted with an overwhelming yes by Catalans.
And as long as them means >50% of the electorate (they don't) they don't even have the recourse of "the people is with us". Indy supporters still need to prove they can get a substantial majority behind then.
Then there's the issue of whether a 50%+1 is enough for such a sweeping change, but first things first.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the difference between rebellion and sedition?
Printing a pamphlet decrying the injustices of the ruling party and encouraging people to resist is sedition. Leading an armed group to seize a military installation is rebellion.
Missed this. You need to do substantially more than a pamphlet to be charged with sedition. The Spanish penal code is clear.
TÍTULO XXII
Delitos contra el orden público
CAPÍTULO PRIMERO
Sedición
Artículo 544
Son reos de sedición los que, sin estar comprendidos en el delito de rebelión, se alcen pública y tumultuariamente para impedir, por la fuerza o fuera de las vías legales, la aplicación de las Leyes o a cualquier autoridad, corporación oficial o funcionario público, el legítimo ejercicio de sus funciones o el cumplimiento de sus acuerdos, o de las resoluciones administrativas o judiciales.
Did they publicly raise a mob? Yes. Did it prevent public servants from complying with a court order? Yes. Textbook sedition, made worse because they were members of the government.
Sedition doesn't necessarily mean the same in different penal codes.
They can say whatever they want. Back in the 78 the current Spanish Constitution was voted with an overwhelming yes by Catalans.
And as long as them means >50% of the electorate (they don't) they don't even have the recourse of "the people is with us". Indy supporters still need to prove they can get a substantial majority behind then.
Then there's the issue of whether a 50%+1 is enough for such a sweeping change, but first things first.
And if the Spanish Constitution was what we were talking about, you might have a point there. But since the object in question was actually the Catalan Statute, this is irrelevant. Interesting, and I can see why they voted for it, but things have clearly changed.
Further, as is so commonly said in the US, those that do not vote have no say. The people who bothered to vote voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Separatists.
Missed this. You need to do substantially more than a pamphlet to be charged with sedition. The Spanish penal code is clear.
And if the Spanish Penal code was what we were talking about, again, you might have a point. My understanding of his question was a more general 'what is the difference between these two things. Sedition is a crime of thought, generally, whereas Rebellion is usually a more violent act.
The tyranny of the minority is the ultimate failure of democracy.
If there is a genuine pro-union majority in Catalonia, the "referendum" is meaningless, since they considered it illegitimate, ignored it, and of course will disregard the illegitimate (to them) form of independent Catalan government formed upon it.
And if the Spanish Constitution was what we were talking about, you might have a point there. But since the object in question was actually the Catalan Statute, this is irrelevant. Interesting, and I can see why they voted for it, but things have clearly changed.
They may have, but the Catalans subjected themselves to the Spanish Constitution when they voted for it. Several notable Catalan politicians were involved in the making of it.
Look at the changes that were introduced by the Constitutional court. By reading some it would look like it was a full repeal when actually they're mostly cosmetic.
Further, as is so commonly said in the US, those that do not vote have no say. The people who bothered to vote voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Separatists.
Leaving aside the fact that the vote was illegal, so most people just refused to play.
Do you mean this guy had four says? (voting four times at four locations) Google a bit and you'll find videos and even a how-to.
And if the Spanish Penal code was what we were talking about, again, you might have a point. My understanding of his question was a more general 'what is the difference between these two things. Sedition is a crime of thought, generally, whereas Rebellion is usually a more violent act.
The Spanish penal code is very much central to this thread. It takes much more than printing pamphlets to get you charged with sedition in Spain. Any other countries penal code definition of sedition is irrelevant.
Sedition in Spain is not a crime of thought, it's a very public action, and it is dishonest to talk about sedition in this context if you use a definition taken from somewhere else.
And if the Spanish Penal code was what we were talking about, again, you might have a point. My understanding of his question was a more general 'what is the difference between these two things. Sedition is a crime of thought, generally, whereas Rebellion is usually a more violent act.
And what in blazes are we about if it isn't the spanish penal code? Newsflash: it's a spanish judge who's ordered them arrested upon crimes of sedition, not a murican one so your penal code doesn't apply here. Sedition is a crime of deed/act as long as this case is concerned.
But I forgot, these lawbreakers belong to an indy movement and are politicians, in the eyes of certain posters they could be ordering the killing of people on the streets (because these people never get their hands dirty with blood) and they would still be innocent victims.
M.
A grossly unfair comment, there is no evidence to suggest that if the pro-independence Catalans encouraged or orchestrated violence that anyone here would support that.
There have been several people critical of the Spanish government who have noted that the pro-independence movement has operated peacably.
Here you are, some peace for you! I started the video at the peaceful moments just for you. And that video also answers one of your questions. why the so called "Jordis" are in preventive prison? For arranging and coordinating that mob that happily destroyed three police cars while besieging the agents for almost a full day. Riot police are not usually the more diplomatic of the lot, but something that never fails to set them off is to throw stones at them, try to kick a mate on the head, charge against the police lines... all those things that the videos decrying police brutality never bothered to show, lest they give viewers a chance to think that police brutality might not have been unprovoked.
Also if Catalonians were receiving a dose of Francoism, currently the Spanish government would be encouraging Ford to move their car factory from Valencia to Barcelona like his government did with SEAT, building new highways to connect with France were the rest of the country had to do with barely decent roads, rewarding books written in Catalan (https://www.dolcacatalunya.com/2014/03/cuando-franco-premiaba-libros-en-catalan/ ) and in general pampering Catalonia and Barcelona over other regions of Spain... oooops sorry I might be going against the official line that Catalonians are the most repressed peoples in Spain since the times of Julius Caesar, disregard all the facts and keep feeling.
And what in blazes are we about if it isn't the spanish penal code? Newsflash: it's a spanish judge who's ordered them arrested upon crimes of sedition, not a murican one so your penal code doesn't apply here. Sedition is a crime of deed/act as long as this case is concerned.
I'm not an American (believe me I've requested that be fixed several times and the mods give less than a flying rat gak) and the Penal code here basically lacks 'Sedition' as a crime entirely. 'We' aren't on about anything. He went back, did not bother to read the preceding post, made assumptions, and then posted as if they were true. Rather like your assumption about me being an American, due to not bothering to read my 'location'.
So please do not insult me by calling me an American.
The Spanish penal code is very much central to this thread. It takes much more than printing pamphlets to get you charged with sedition in Spain. Any other countries penal code definition of sedition is irrelevant.
Sedition in Spain is not a crime of thought, it's a very public action, and it is dishonest to talk about sedition in this context if you use a definition taken from somewhere else.
It seemed a passing question not specific to Spanish law, and so I gave two general answers of things that might be considered one or the other.. I could have used and older answer like 'One you're hanged, one you're drawn and quartered'. But, generally speaking, world wide, my answer was broadly correct. But you seem to want to attack me personally by taking things out of Context.
Do you mean this guy had four says? (voting four times at four locations) Google a bit and you'll find videos and even a how-to.
Spain's entire election system had a rate of fraud over 30% when the Constitution was ratified, if you bother to Google a bit. So the idea that one guy voted four times is hardly news.
Your link to El Correo tells me that this thread is going into the RU on Crimea part of the Ukraine thread.
And what in blazes are we about if it isn't the spanish penal code? Newsflash: it's a spanish judge who's ordered them arrested upon crimes of sedition, not a murican one so your penal code doesn't apply here. Sedition is a crime of deed/act as long as this case is concerned.
I'm not an American (believe me I've requested that be fixed several times and the mods give less than a flying rat gak) and the Penal code here basically lacks 'Sedition' as a crime entirely. 'We' aren't on about anything. He went back, did not bother to read the preceding post, made assumptions, and then posted as if they were true. Rather like your assumption about me being an American, due to not bothering to read my 'location'.
So please do not insult me by calling me an American.
Just as an aside, the flag is based on your Internet Provider, so there probably isn't anything the Mods can do.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
No danger of that. They aren't voting for independence but parliament. They will never be given independence willingly. Even if 100% of catalians vote for independence in elections rigged by Spain they wouldn't give independence quoting Spain's constitution. Nobody expects December elections be about independence. It isn't, never been suggested it would be and Spain never is going to give willingly independence. Only way Catalonia CAN be independent is by either massing enough foreign support Spain has no choice but to yield or beat the crap out of Spain in civil war. Good luck with either one because they are going to need it either way.
Has history ever seen independence that actually was legal? They always are illegal by definition.
The Spanish penal code is very much central to this thread. It takes much more than printing pamphlets to get you charged with sedition in Spain. Any other countries penal code definition of sedition is irrelevant.
Sedition in Spain is not a crime of thought, it's a very public action, and it is dishonest to talk about sedition in this context if you use a definition taken from somewhere else.
It seemed a passing question not specific to Spanish law, and so I gave two general answers of things that might be considered one or the other.. I could have used and older answer like 'One you're hanged, one you're drawn and quartered'. But, generally speaking, world wide, my answer was broadly correct. But you seem to want to attack me personally by taking things out of Context.
Ehm no, you took a question out of context. Kilkrazy was asking DINLT about the charges leveled against certain politicians,so it was very much in the context of the Spanish penal code (which also happens to be the main focus of the whole thread).
What would be the equivalent offence in British penal code, btw? Perverting the course of justice sounds the closest to me.
Do you mean this guy had four says? (voting four times at four locations) Google a bit and you'll find videos and even a how-to.
Spain's entire election system had a rate of fraud over 30% when the Constitution was ratified, if you bother to Google a bit. So the idea that one guy voted four times is hardly news.
Honest question. Do you speak any Spanish? Because that's not what the quote you provided says.
The 78 referendum changed the age of vote at the 11th hour, from 21 to 18 this meant a substantial number of people could not vote. Up to 30% in Ourense province, which is one of the least populated provinces in Spain (less than 1% of population).
But given that the youngest voters overwhelmingly voted yes, it only served to skew the results towards lowering the participation.
And yes the Belgian judge let them go but they're forbidden from leaving Belgium and have their addresses listed. The hearing is due in 15 days tops.
Yeah... and that article mentions NOWHERE the 30% mark country-wide fraud. But for some province and it was more due to how much of a mess the censal data (and it included missing votes), due to how much of a mess the voting was due to incorporating a new segment of demographic, was than actual and honest to god fraud.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
No danger of that. They aren't voting for independence but parliament. They will never be given independence willingly. Even if 100% of catalians vote for independence in elections rigged by Spain they wouldn't give independence quoting Spain's constitution. Nobody expects December elections be about independence. It isn't, never been suggested it would be and Spain never is going to give willingly independence. Only way Catalonia CAN be independent is by either massing enough foreign support Spain has no choice but to yield or beat the crap out of Spain in civil war. Good luck with either one because they are going to need it either way.
Has history ever seen independence that actually was legal? They always are illegal by definition.
Sweden-Norway was split into Sweden and Norway in 1905 after the Swedish Parliament agreed to the Norwegians request for independence.
I should have been clearer on the December election though: I didn't mean that they'd immediately become independent, I meant that the result of the election could lead to them continuing to strive for independence and obtaining it in the future. If that is the case, and if the election isn't tampered with, I don't mind Catalonia becoming independent at all. I do mind it when people try to force independence down people's throats by making up their own rules as they go, just as I mind police brutality and incompetence in general from the Spanish government.
EDIT: Having read this article I realise I've been arguing my point a bit sloppily. The relevant interview with Prof. Marti is below for the work-blocked.
I've been focussing on the fact that the Catalan parliament didn't follow their own laws in order to point out that they haven't demonstrated the legitimacy of their referendum. If they truly had a majority in support they wouldn't have had to resort to forcing legally suspect legislation through parliament in order to make the vote binding in case of a yes. It's the tactics by someone who knows they don't have the support but are going to go ahead anyway, democracy be damned.
Which, of course, is why Madrid's jack-boot response is extra dumb. They're running a very real risk of giving legitimacy to a movement that doesn't really have it, or at least haven't demonstrated that it does.
Spoiler:
Well, I’m not an international lawyer, but what I can say about the specific international legal argument is that most international lawyers – almost all of them, in fact – would say that the right of self-determination doesn’t apply to cases like Catalonia. The right to self-determination was born and evolved basically to be applied to former colonies, and that’s not the case with Catalonia…
Having said this, I think that many Catalan secessionists – probably most of them, and particularly the government of Catalonia – are not trying to say that their moves are legal. They certainly concede that they’re not legal according to the Spanish constitution and legal system. So, they accept that these moves are illegal. But, the thing is, we’re at a point now – and this week in particular – we are at a point in which legality is probably not the most important thing.
So, the independence movement is aware that they are launching a sort of rebellion. They are aware of that. They don’t try to masquerade or try to deceive the people about this. They are launching a rebellion, and the most important thing about rebellions is not whether they are legal because, by definition, they are not. The most important thing is whether this rebellion is legitimate.
My personal view was that up to last week, it was not legitimate. To begin with, because we didn’t know whether there was a majority of Catalans who gave support to this rebellion… Actually, all the data we had until last week is that there is no such majority, and if there is not, then the rebellion, I would say, is not legitimate.
I would go even further. I would say that to justify and legitimise a rebellion you need more than just 50 + 1% of the people. You need a vast majority of people wanting it. And all the data we had is that there was no such majority. So, again, up until last week I think that the rebellion was neither legal nor legitimate. However, things might be changing now, because on Sunday, as you may know, the police were very harsh in beating the people who were peacefully turning out and queuing to cast their votes, etc. Things are moving very quickly this week.
I think now, today on 3 October, there is a majority – a vast majority – of Catalans who feel disgust and are very angry about what happened on Sunday. They felt that it was a humiliation, that it was an unjustified act of violence, and so things might rapidly change. Who knows? Maybe the secessionist movement is gaining popular support and therefore is gaining also democratic legitimacy. So, I think we should evaluate what is happening now not in terms of the legality of the issue, because even the secessionists are not trying very hard to make this argument about international law, and they concede that it is totally unconstitutional and illegal according to Spanish law. But that’s not the question. The question is whether this is legitimate. And rebellion and revolution may be legitimate, even if it is happening in a democratic state.
So, I don’t think – as many others might think – that rebellions are totally unjustified when you have a democratic system in front of you. I think they might be justified, but what they require is vast popular support. So far, I haven’t seen this popular support obtained in Catalonia. Things might be changing very quickly, and we’ll see what happens at the end of this week. I think we will see many developments over the next couple of days.
Well, I'm glad a judge in Belgium saw sense and made the right decision.
They were never going to get a fair trial from a corrupt, Francoist judge.
And another issue, for all this talk of referendums and self-determination, can I point out to people that in my life time, I have seen a lot of former Soviet States become sovereign nations, without so much as a single referendum vote being cast or a UDI being issued.
Often, the law is what the general consensus of the family of nations says it is.
jouso wrote: What would be the equivalent offence in British penal code, btw? Perverting the course of justice sounds the closest to me.
Perverting the Course of Justice is defined as follows:
Fabricating or disposing of evidence
Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
Intimidating or threatening a judge
And carries a sentence of up to life in prison.
The UK abolished Sedition as a crime in 2009. Previous to that, the general interpretation of sedition was, as taken from James Fitzjames Stephan's Digest of Criminal Law
" …a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.
An intention to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures, or to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution as by law established, with a view to their reformation, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to point out, in order to secure their removal, matters which are producing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of hatred and ill-will between classes of His Majesty's subjects, is not a seditious intention."
A broadly similar definition was used in two American laws (quickly shot down) attempting to institute the same sort of law.
The US does not currently have a Sedition law on the books, but they do have the similar Seditious conspiracy law as US Code 2384:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
More generally though people who do this are charged with Treason.
Singapore defines it as "encouraging the violent overthrow of democratic institutions".
German law has a similar legal concept called 'Volksverhetzung' (roughly 'incitement of the people') which can be applied to a wide variety of 'rabble rousing' and carries a three month to five year sentence.
Spain however, has this:
"Conviction for sedition shall befall those who, without being included in the felony of rebellion, public and tumultuously rise up to prevent, by force or outside the legal channels, application of the laws, or any authority, official corporation
or public officer from lawful exercise of the duties thereof or implementation of the resolutions thereof, or of administrative or judicial resolutions."
" Those who have induced, sustained or directed the sedition or who appear as the main doers thereof, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment from eight to ten years, and with that ten to fifteen years if they are persons with the status of an authority. In both cases, absolute barring for the same term shall also be imposed.
Apart from those cases, a punishment from four to eight years imprisonment and of special barring from public employment and office for a term from four to eight years shall be imposed."
Theoretically, any protest, any speaking out against the government or it's laws or actions, can be construed as 'sedition' under this, so long as it somehow inconveniences a mailman or Clerc on his way to work.
In most English and German speaking countries, Sedition is a crime where one tries to incite hate or violence in others, generally via spreading libel though that's not a requirement all the time, in Spain it's the crime of political dissent, and you're guilty of it whether what you said is true or not.
They were never going to get a fair trial from a corrupt, Francoist judge.
And another issue, for all this talk of referendums and self-determination, can I point out to people that in my life time, I have seen a lot of former Soviet States become sovereign nations, without so much as a single referendum vote being cast or a UDI being issued.
Often, the law is what the general consensus of the family of nations says it is.
Do you have any proof of your allegations of corruption or are you just using buzzwords and empty rhetoric?
They were never going to get a fair trial from a corrupt, Francoist judge.
And another issue, for all this talk of referendums and self-determination, can I point out to people that in my life time, I have seen a lot of former Soviet States become sovereign nations, without so much as a single referendum vote being cast or a UDI being issued.
Often, the law is what the general consensus of the family of nations says it is.
Do you have any proof of your allegations of corruption or are you just using buzzwords and empty rhetoric?
In most English and German speaking countries, Sedition is a crime where one tries to incite hate or violence in others, generally via spreading libel though that's not a requirement all the time, in Spain it's the crime of political dissent, and you're guilty of it whether what you said is true or not.
It's not. You've been shown proof on how sedition targets specific actions by specific individuals.
This was a few years back, a very similar situation with the Basque people, with the added threat that ETA was still active. No one was charged with anything, because everything was done according to the law n both sides (including a final ECHR ruling n favour of Spain). It is interesting that the Basque nationalists tried to mediate between the Central and Catalan government and ended up disparaging Puigdemont as a man without word.
As much as you want to depict Spain as some sort of repressive state, it is according to the economist democracy index one of only 19 full democracies worldwide. Just a hair below the UK but above the US, France, Italy, Japan.... or indeed Belgium.
They were never going to get a fair trial from a corrupt, Francoist judge.
And another issue, for all this talk of referendums and self-determination, can I point out to people that in my life time, I have seen a lot of former Soviet States become sovereign nations, without so much as a single referendum vote being cast or a UDI being issued.
Often, the law is what the general consensus of the family of nations says it is.
Do you have any proof of your allegations of corruption or are you just using buzzwords and empty rhetoric?
Proof? Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Spanish government these past few days speak for themselves.
But of course, the Spanish judiciary is completely neutral in this situation and is not politically motivated. No, no, no, no no, not at all.
They were never going to get a fair trial from a corrupt, Francoist judge.
And another issue, for all this talk of referendums and self-determination, can I point out to people that in my life time, I have seen a lot of former Soviet States become sovereign nations, without so much as a single referendum vote being cast or a UDI being issued.
Often, the law is what the general consensus of the family of nations says it is.
Do you have any proof of your allegations of corruption or are you just using buzzwords and empty rhetoric?
'
He's DINLT. What you expect?
Madrid has reneged on promises made to Catalonia these past few days. See my post above or on a previous page. They have links in them.
The Puigdemont and friends actually did take apparently seditious actions against the nation of Spain -- e.g. declare independence.
It seems to me that it would be a politically influenced act for the criminal law system not to arrest them. There are also the charges of embezzlement.
Whether it is a good move will be discovered over the next couple of months.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Puigdemont and friends actually did take apparently seditious actions against the nation of Spain -- e.g. declare independence.
It seems to me that it would be a politically influenced act for the criminal law system not to arrest them. There are also the charges of embezzlement.
Whether it is a good move will be discovered over the next couple of months.
By the letter of the law, it is sedition and/or rebellion. I've never denied that.
It's the morality argument that I'm supporting here Vs legality.
I won't repeat my earlier post about Warsaw Uprising, American revolution, Stalin's purges etc etc because I think I've made my point.
Kilkrazy wrote: I expect we'll see in December, when the general election for the next parliament is held, whether the 60% decide to express their opinion.
Except it\s not vote for independence so not conclusive for independence support anyway.
Is it moral to declare unilateral independence against the wishes of +60% of your citizens?
If the choice is between legal and immoral & illegal and immoral I'll take the former.
If you don't vote, you don't get an opinion. So the 60% who didn't turn up get no opinion on the matter.
And since I just voted for Uruguay to annex Spain that's the moral thing to do. After all, if you don't vote you don't get a say.
Your argument only works if the election was fairly handled. An illegally organised election organised entirely by one side in the election is a pathetic joke of a "referendum". Certain procedural steps need to be taken for there to be any point in voting at all, not all of these steps were fulfilled.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: An illegally organized election organized entirely by one side in the election is a pathetic joke of a "referendum".
The US started with 13 men voting illegally in a room. I wouldn't call what came out of that illicit vote 'a pathetic joke' in the hearing of any Americans.
According to the CEO survey (which is the Catalan govt polling institution, btw), 24% of those who had the intention to vote "yes" on 1-O did it to pressure the government for a future negotiation. This would leave straight independence supporters in 1,5 million, or 30% or the census.
You can't extrapolate data from what essentially was a demonstration. Even if the results were trustworthy (they aren't) people know the difference between a legal, binding vote and party shenanigans.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: An illegally organized election organized entirely by one side in the election is a pathetic joke of a "referendum".
The US started with 13 men voting illegally in a room. I wouldn't call what came out of that illicit vote 'a pathetic joke' in the hearing of any Americans.
Those men had an army behind them. And their heirs raised an army to stop other guys voting illegally in a room from seceding less than a hundred years later.
Is it moral to declare unilateral independence against the wishes of +60% of your citizens?
If the choice is between legal and immoral & illegal and immoral I'll take the former.
If you don't vote, you don't get an opinion. So the 60% who didn't turn up get no opinion on the matter.
Again: Illegal. You can't expect the results of an illegal vote as binding. Do Democrats participate in Republican party conventions? Same here.
Again, when Declaring Independence is involved, the legality of any actions are irrelevant. You're already doing an illegal thing, the fact that you did your illegal thing illegally is really irrelevant.
Democrats participating in the Republican part convention isn't really an equivalent action. Neither party's rules are any sort of national law, so legally nothing would prevent someone from being a member of both parties.
Is it moral to declare unilateral independence against the wishes of +60% of your citizens?
If the choice is between legal and immoral & illegal and immoral I'll take the former.
If you don't vote, you don't get an opinion. So the 60% who didn't turn up get no opinion on the matter.
Again: Illegal. You can't expect the results of an illegal vote as binding. Do Democrats participate in Republican party conventions? Same here.
Again, when Declaring Independence is involved, the legality of any actions are irrelevant. You're already doing an illegal thing, the fact that you did your illegal thing illegally is really irrelevant.
Democrats participating in the Republican part convention isn't really an equivalent action. Neither party's rules are any sort of national law, so legally nothing would prevent someone from being a member of both parties.
And when you do illegal things you get jailed. Why the outrage then?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: An illegally organized election organized entirely by one side in the election is a pathetic joke of a "referendum".
The US started with 13 men voting illegally in a room. I wouldn't call what came out of that illicit vote 'a pathetic joke' in the hearing of any Americans.
Why not? From a democratic point of view the American Revolution WAS a joke at the time. The fact that it turned out for the better doesn't change the fact that it was a bunch of people forcing their way on the majority while waxing about how noble and great the struggle for liberty is.
I also don't think Americans go into berserk mode just because I call the American revolution a pathetic joke in a certain context.
Is it moral to declare unilateral independence against the wishes of +60% of your citizens?
If the choice is between legal and immoral & illegal and immoral I'll take the former.
If you don't vote, you don't get an opinion. So the 60% who didn't turn up get no opinion on the matter.
Again: Illegal. You can't expect the results of an illegal vote as binding. Do Democrats participate in Republican party conventions? Same here.
Again, when Declaring Independence is involved, the legality of any actions are irrelevant. You're already doing an illegal thing, the fact that you did your illegal thing illegally is really irrelevant.
Democrats participating in the Republican part convention isn't really an equivalent action. Neither party's rules are any sort of national law, so legally nothing would prevent someone from being a member of both parties.
And when you do illegal things you get jailed. Why the outrage then?
The outrage isn't over Spain retaliating due to these illegal actions. The outrage is over HOW they retaliated. Sending their police off with Nazi salutes to go beat people bloody in the streets is why there is outrage.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: An illegally organized election organized entirely by one side in the election is a pathetic joke of a "referendum".
The US started with 13 men voting illegally in a room. I wouldn't call what came out of that illicit vote 'a pathetic joke' in the hearing of any Americans.
Why not? From a democratic point of view the American Revolution WAS a joke at the time. The fact that it turned out for the better doesn't change the fact that it was a bunch of people forcing their way on the majority while waxing about how noble and great the struggle for liberty is.
I also don't think Americans go into berserk mode just because I call the American revolution a pathetic joke in a certain context.
You missed the point. The point is that an Independence referendum doesn't need to be legal to be valid. One can't just ignore a declaration of independence because "it was illegal at the time".
It has to be organised in a fair and impartial manner, however. When it is carried out more or less exclusively by the supporters of one side of the argument without independent oversight it's blatantly not valid.
Why is it oppression for Spain to want to retain Catalonia (leaving aside the police brutality which is obviously not warranted) but not for a minority in Catalonia to force the region out of Spain?
You would prefer that the Catalonians did, rather than attempt a more peaceful departure from Spain? So that we could hear of the terrible atrocities that they miraculously inflicted on themselves somehow and that Spanish forces were not to blame (as we did with Iron Captain before with Russia and the Ukraine)?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It has to be organised in a fair and impartial manner, however. When it is carried out more or less exclusively by the supporters of one side of the argument without independent oversight it's blatantly not valid.
Why is it oppression for Spain to want to retain Catalonia (leaving aside the police brutality which is obviously not warranted) but not for a minority in Catalonia to force the region out of Spain?
The fact that there wasn't a organized "No Independence" movement doesn't mean a vote wasn't valid. And I haven't heard anything saying that the Yes side was actively trying to keep anybody who wanted to vote No away from the polls.
It just seems like anybody who didn't support Independence decided to stay home, thus invalidating any opinion they might have held.
Kilkrazy wrote: I expect we'll see in December, when the general election for the next parliament is held, whether the 60% decide to express their opinion.
Except it\s not vote for independence so not conclusive for independence support anyway.
Even so, that is the start of the process. If a strongly unionist government is elected, there won't be a referendum. If a strongly iendependist government is elected, they will have a mandate to run a referendum. It needs to be run properly, under the auspices of international observers to ensure fairness.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It has to be organised in a fair and impartial manner, however. When it is carried out more or less exclusively by the supporters of one side of the argument without independent oversight it's blatantly not valid.
Why is it oppression for Spain to want to retain Catalonia (leaving aside the police brutality which is obviously not warranted) but not for a minority in Catalonia to force the region out of Spain?
The fact that there wasn't a organized "No Independence" movement doesn't mean a vote wasn't valid. And I haven't heard anything saying that the Yes side was actively trying to keep anybody who wanted to vote No away from the polls.
It just seems like anybody who didn't support Independence decided to stay home, thus invalidating any opinion they might have held.
It doesn't matter whether the vote was valid or not.
Madrid has dissolved the Catalan parliament and installed direct rule officials. The parliamentary leaders of the independence movement are liable to be prosecuted. The bulk of the population, and regional state organs such as the civil service, police and so on, are going along with things, in anticipation of the elections in December. Puigdemont has no support from foreign governments.
Why do you read this situation as a binding authority for the 45% to overrule the wishes of the 55%?
And when you do illegal things you get jailed. Why the outrage then?
The outrage isn't over Spain retaliating due to these illegal actions. The outrage is over HOW they retaliated. Sending their police off with Nazi salutes to go beat people bloody in the streets is why there is outrage.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is surprised or upset over Puigdemont & co. being charged for crimes they did actually commit. It is the really poor way that the Spanish government has handled all of this that is making people upset.
jouso wrote: [
And when you do illegal things you get jailed. Why the outrage then?
For the same reason I hate Americans. They won't stop trying to rule us. They sign treaties with us, and then ignore them. They ask us to die for them, and then after we're no longer needed, betray us. They claim to be the lawful rulers of many of our neighbors, using the same excuses that Spain uses to rule over the Catalans. 'Well, we conquered them, murdered them, forced them to speak our language, so now we own them. We own their land, their asses and their souls, and if they protest, we go rolling in with police to beat the living feth out of them for daring to presume to protest anything we demand of them."
Why do you read this situation as a binding authority for the 45% to overrule the wishes of the 55%?
Because that's any election. Whatever percent votes binds that which does not.
Remember that even nations with Mandatory voting rarely top 84% turnout. And that's in places where the police can round you up and force you to vote.
US turnout is about 55% in a Presidential Election, and lower on other years. Switzerland only has a 38% turn out last election. Does that mean that under 40% of the population rules over the 60% that didn't? Yes.
You would prefer that the Catalonians did, rather than attempt a more peaceful departure from Spain? So that we could hear of the terrible atrocities that they miraculously inflicted on themselves somehow and that Spanish forces were not to blame (as we did with Iron Captain before with Russia and the Ukraine)?
Hey! I never said anything like that.
But now that we are on the topic of the legality of independence declarations... I do see a whole bunch of Russian republics that made an illegal declaration for independence. Convenient... Now that there are so many people here and institutions like the EU and countries like the US all supporting Spanish unity, what about supporting Russian unity? The Baltic republics, Ukraine, Belarus and all of Central Asia are all parts of Russia after all. Only Finland and Poland ever got independence in a more or less legal way. Or what about Serbia? The EU seemed awfully fond about the idea of parts of Serbia becoming independent. Why not Spain too? What happened to all those nice self-determination principles? Such delightful hypocrisy.
Kilkrazy wrote: I expect we'll see in December, when the general election for the next parliament is held, whether the 60% decide to express their opinion.
Except it\s not vote for independence so not conclusive for independence support anyway.
Even so, that is the start of the process. If a strongly unionist government is elected, there won't be a referendum. If a strongly iendependist government is elected, they will have a mandate to run a referendum. It needs to be run properly, under the auspices of international observers to ensure fairness.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It has to be organised in a fair and impartial manner, however. When it is carried out more or less exclusively by the supporters of one side of the argument without independent oversight it's blatantly not valid.
Why is it oppression for Spain to want to retain Catalonia (leaving aside the police brutality which is obviously not warranted) but not for a minority in Catalonia to force the region out of Spain?
The fact that there wasn't a organized "No Independence" movement doesn't mean a vote wasn't valid. And I haven't heard anything saying that the Yes side was actively trying to keep anybody who wanted to vote No away from the polls.
It just seems like anybody who didn't support Independence decided to stay home, thus invalidating any opinion they might have held.
It doesn't matter whether the vote was valid or not.
Madrid has dissolved the Catalan parliament and installed direct rule officials. The parliamentary leaders of the independence movement are liable to be prosecuted. The bulk of the population, and regional state organs such as the civil service, police and so on, are going along with things, in anticipation of the elections in December. Puigdemont has no support from foreign governments.
Why do you read this situation as a binding authority for the 45% to overrule the wishes of the 55%?
I don't read it as any binding authority. Its a rebellion. Whoever wins the struggle gets to claim victory.
But in terms of getting 45% to overrule the wishes of 55%. The US is lucky to get 55% of eligible voters to actually show up. So really, a huge chunk of the population always gets marginalized if you want to be technical.
The 55%(or whatever % it actually is) who didn't vote in the referendum really don't have any right to complain about its results. Hypothetically if the succession was successful, the 45% of the population who support independence(and voted) have the right to rule over the 55% who didn't support independence(and didn't vote).
Remember, the American Revolution was only supported by a minority of the total population of the colonies at the time. Having support from only a minority of the population is far from a problem for an independence movement. And in this case, Catelonian independence has more support than the American Revolution did.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Again, that's assuming the referendum itself was legitimate, which it blatantly wasn't.
Due to the international nature of dakka, that's debatable, because everyone here has a slightly different idea of what constitutes a 'legitimate' vote. Remember, in my country the politicians paying voters for their votes is an accepted practice. Most places would be horrified by that, but it's still secret ballot. I can take their money and vote whatever the feth I want. As I see it it's just a nice change on which way the bribe money flows in the politician/proletariat dynamic.
Having one party in the vote organise the referendum and count the ballots is blatantly unsound, and no amount of deflection is going to change that. There's no point to trying to legitimise the entire thing through democracy if you're going to go full Stalin* on the process. It makes a mockery of the entire point of democracy.
Instead of trying to weasel away through talking about different traditions, address my argument: how can there be legitimacy in a referendum where one of the sides in the issue being voted on has exclusive control of the entire process? As a "remain" voter, what reason would you have to believe that a government that ignores it's own laws when it's convenient wouldn't just tweak the result to something more desirable if they lost?
*As in "he who votes controls nothing, he who counts the votes controls everything", not "Gulag for you!".
Again, when Declaring Independence is involved, the legality of any actions are irrelevant. You're already doing an illegal thing, the fact that you did your illegal thing illegally is really irrelevant.
Democrats participating in the Republican part convention isn't really an equivalent action. Neither party's rules are any sort of national law, so legally nothing would prevent someone from being a member of both parties.
And when you do illegal things you get jailed. Why the outrage then?
The outrage isn't over Spain retaliating due to these illegal actions. The outrage is over HOW they retaliated. Sending their police off with Nazi salutes to go beat people bloody in the streets is why there is outrage.
I've seen plenty of outrage in this thread about political prisoners and whatnot.
You would prefer that the Catalonians did, rather than attempt a more peaceful departure from Spain?
I don't but the relevant question is do they? They don't have enough political support to take the democratic avenues available to them but they aren't willing to fight either. And that's where all the ramblings about "legality is a moot point because independentist don't follow the law" fall apart. As I said before if you want to take the founding fathers as an example remember that their grandchildren fought a bloody war to prevent another would-be founding fathers from seceding. I'd like to think we're past those times, but since people keep bringing that up, it's worth reminding that there are two sides to that.
The guys in front of them do follow the law, and have the means to enforce it. They're not a colonial administration, they represent +50% of the Catalan people, and they're getting progressively more fed up with indy people speaking in their name.
When the independentist prove in real, verifiable elections (not a sham vote with pound shop ballots and votes counted by the owner) that they really are a majority then they can force a referendum on everyone else.
When the independentist prove in real, verifiable elections (not a sham vote with pound shop ballots and votes counted by the owner) that they really are a majority then they can force a referendum on everyone else.
No, they can't, as that's still illegal. You know, illegal, that thing you guys keep falling back on. See, the problem with the whole argument here is even if 100% of the population of Catalonia came out in favor of independence, there's still no legal way for them to pursue that.
kronk wrote:
In the Seneca Nations that's a thing?
In SNI it is a thing. And legal. (As a whole, we lean more in the direction of socialism, to the degree that at one point former President Moe Johns was jokingly referred to as 'Chairman Moe'.)
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Having one party in the vote organise the referendum and count the ballots is blatantly unsound, and no amount of deflection is going to change that. There's no point to trying to legitimise the entire thing through democracy if you're going to go full Stalin* on the process. It makes a mockery of the entire point of democracy.
Instead of trying to weasel away through talking about different traditions, address my argument: how can there be legitimacy in a referendum where one of the sides in the issue being voted on has exclusive control of the entire process? As a "remain" voter, what reason would you have to believe that a government that ignores it's own laws when it's convenient wouldn't just tweak the result to something more desirable if they lost?.
One would imagine that, where such a vote even legal, that you might have a point about third parties observing. But when a vote is already being disrupted with jack booted thugs, your concerns about it's legitimacy are hilariously misplaced. We don't even know how many votes were seized rather than counted. 'Can we trust the counters?' falls way behind that issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jouso wrote: They don't have enough political support to take the democratic avenues available to them but they aren't willing to fight either.
One, you're making a very large assumption, and have been
Two, again, you keep talking like there ARE democratic avenues available, but Spain has made it very clear that there are not. There have been several legitimate (non binding) referendums on this, where each time the Independence side won. I've heard a lot of excuses that 'They really didn't mean independence' 'the voting system is rigged and everyone is secretly against it', but don't vote. And that's where it comes down to, that Democracy is the tyranny of those who bother to vote over those who do not.
One, you're making a very large assumption, and have been
Two, again, you keep talking like there ARE democratic avenues available, but Spain has made it very clear that there are not. There have been several legitimate (non binding) referendums on this, where each time the Independence side won. I've heard a lot of excuses that 'They really didn't mean independence' 'the voting system is rigged and everyone is secretly against it', but don't vote. And that's where it comes down to, that Democracy is the tyranny of those who bother to vote over those who do not.
Do you really, really think those +80% referendums reflect the will of the Catalan people? Non-indy voters don't go because they aren't legitimate, period. If there really was such a tremendous support for the indy cause there wouldn't be a single unionist MP in the Catalan parliament, and that's where the will of the people is reflected: in real elections, with a verifiable census, etc. etc.
Once indy parties get a vote majority (not just seats) then and only then they will be able to ask about a referendum.
If we're talking the legal way the tyranny of those who bothered to vote in 78 (Constitution), and in the subsequent Estatut votes requires Estatut changes to have a 2/3 majority. When we get there we'll talk. Yes, the Constitutional court can shut those changes down, but those changes don't have the same weight when backed by 48% of voters than +%60 (which would be the approximate threshold for a 2/3 seat majority). Constitutional changes all over the world require reinforced majorities for a reason.
Unless they want to do it the hard way, as some in this thread are so fond of reminding everyone.
The vote was illegitimate before the jackboots ever hit the ground. Nice deflection, again, though; you didn't actually answer my question. It is entirely immaterial if the police ruined the vote or not (although the fact that they did also renders the vote illegitimate) if the vote was already ruined.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The vote was illegitimate before the jackboots ever hit the ground. Nice deflection, again, though; you didn't actually answer my question. It is entirely immaterial if the police ruined the vote or not (although the fact that they did also renders the vote illegitimate) if the vote was already ruined.
As others have pointed out on numerous occasions, and perhaps even yourself has pointed this out?
The Spanish government had a ready made template to follow with the British government and the Scottish independence referendum.
There was no need for people to be getting whacked over the head.
If Catalonia is dead against independence as a lot of people have claimed it is, then the referendum would have settled this for decades, as the pro-Spain side would have won, and Rajoy would be standing atop the moral and political high ground.
Catalonia isn't dead set against independence. I don't think anyone has claimed that. The bulk of polls and so on indicate roughly a 55/45 split on the issue, with the unionists in the majority.
Obviously this percentage can and will change, as circumstances change, and it is the duty of the "hard core" on both sides to try to persuade people in the middle towards their side of the issue.
While considering independence, it's worth noting that the southern "provinces" (or counties or whatever is the correct term) of Catalonia already have a movement for independence from Catalonia. That will be interesting if Catalonia ever does get independence from Spain.
If Catalonia is dead against independence as a lot of people have claimed it is, then the referendum would have settled this for decades, as the pro-Spain side would have won, and Rajoy would be standing atop the moral and political high ground.
Assuming, of course, that it wasn't manipulated, and if it was how would the remain side ever know? That's the crux of the entire problem.
kronk wrote:
In the Seneca Nations that's a thing?
In SNI it is a thing. And legal. (As a whole, we lean more in the direction of socialism, to the degree that at one point former President Moe Johns was jokingly referred to as 'Chairman Moe'.)
kronk wrote:
In the Seneca Nations that's a thing?
In SNI it is a thing. And legal. (As a whole, we lean more in the direction of socialism, to the degree that at one point former President Moe Johns was jokingly referred to as 'Chairman Moe'.)
That's as disgusting as it is sad...
That was my initial reaction as well, but honestly the point about the ballots being secret is a good one. You can pay people to vote for you all you want, but it's likely that people will just take the money and then vote for their preferred candidate anyway as there is no enforcement mechanism in place. There's also an argument to be made that it's just another form of political advertisment anyway; it's legal to spend vast sums of money to convince people to vote for you, after all.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one here is calling for a 21st Century Russian revolution.
“Revolution means blood and deaths,” Katya tells me. “We want honest elections, not revolution.”
You can have velvet and orange revolutions these days as well.
Poland is a prime example with its efforts in throwing off the shackles of Communism.
Which was only successful because the Soviet Union was crumbling due to certain unhealthy financial practices (like spending loads of money on propping up inefficient communist regimes with no popular support).
Spain isn't crumbling, and another major difference is that those revolutions were about regime change within a country, not about the independence of part of a country.
I think a better example of a more or less peaceful and succesful independence movement is Gandhi's Indian independence movement.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one here is calling for a 21st Century Russian revolution.
“Revolution means blood and deaths,” Katya tells me. “We want honest elections, not revolution.”
You can have velvet and orange revolutions these days as well.
Poland is a prime example with its efforts in throwing off the shackles of Communism.
Which was only successful because the Soviet Union was crumbling due to certain unhealthy financial practices (like spending loads of money on propping up inefficient communist regimes with no popular support).
Spain isn't crumbling, and another major difference is that those revolutions were about regime change within a country, not about the independence of part of a country.
I think a better example of a more or less peaceful and succesful independence movement is Gandhi's Indian independence movement.
To use your argument about Poland against you, I can argue that India only got independence because Britain was bankrupt from the War
Kilkrazy wrote: Catalan isn't having a revolution against Spain. They want to vote themselves free, but they have gone the wrong way about it.
When declaring independence, there isn't a wrong way to do it. Largely because there isn't really a right way to do it either.
I'd argue that any way that results in actual independence is a right way, and any way which does not is a wrong way.
That places independence above the actual will of the people and assumes that independence is always the desirable outcome wether people actually want it or not.
Kilkrazy wrote: Catalan isn't having a revolution against Spain. They want to vote themselves free, but they have gone the wrong way about it.
When declaring independence, there isn't a wrong way to do it. Largely because there isn't really a right way to do it either.
I'd argue that any way that results in actual independence is a right way, and any way which does not is a wrong way.
That places independence above the actual will of the people and assumes that independence is always the desirable outcome wether people actually want it or not.
Thats not what he meant. He meant that if you want to declare independence, the right way is the way which is successful and the wrong way is the way which fails.
That of course misses the point. You can't really know which methods of independence will be successful or not, so defining a right and wrong way to declare independence is impossible. It's variable depending on the situation.
Kilkrazy wrote: Catalan isn't having a revolution against Spain. They want to vote themselves free, but they have gone the wrong way about it.
When declaring independence, there isn't a wrong way to do it. Largely because there isn't really a right way to do it either.
I'd argue that any way that results in actual independence is a right way, and any way which does not is a wrong way.
That places independence above the actual will of the people and assumes that independence is always the desirable outcome wether people actually want it or not.
Thats not what he meant. He meant that if you want to declare independence, the right way is the way which is successful and the wrong way is the way which fails.
That of course misses the point. You can't really know which methods of independence will be successful or not, so defining a right and wrong way to declare independence is impossible. It's variable depending on the situation.
Which is still placing your desire to declare independence over the good of everything else. It's a highly selfish approach.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The vote was illegitimate before the jackboots ever hit the ground. Nice deflection, again, though; you didn't actually answer my question. It is entirely immaterial if the police ruined the vote or not (although the fact that they did also renders the vote illegitimate) if the vote was already ruined.
Ok, let me tip over why it's not automatically a rigged, dishonest election: because of what happens if it gets out. Why do you think the Swedish government hasn't rigged your elections? Because it only takes one honest idiot to blow the whole thing wide open. Even the suspicion that it's going on makes the public nervous, and you do not want that when you're pushing an independence movement. These guys strike me as pretty smart, and most likely ran a fair election, because that was in their best interests, knowing that the majority of people who would vote even with a government crackdown going on probably felt pretty strongly about the issue.
Once indy parties get a vote majority (not just seats) then and only then they will be able to ask about a referendum.
Which the Spanish courts will strike down as unconstitutional and make non-binding at the very least. As you yourself mention. There is, unless the Constitution of Spain is changed, no legal recourse here.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The vote was illegitimate before the jackboots ever hit the ground. Nice deflection, again, though; you didn't actually answer my question. It is entirely immaterial if the police ruined the vote or not (although the fact that they did also renders the vote illegitimate) if the vote was already ruined.
Ok, let me tip over why it's not automatically a rigged, dishonest election: because of what happens if it gets out. Why do you think the Swedish government hasn't rigged your elections? Because it only takes one honest idiot to blow the whole thing wide open. Even the suspicion that it's going on makes the public nervous, and you do not want that when you're pushing an independence movement. These guys strike me as pretty smart, and most likely ran a fair election, because that was in their best interests, knowing that the majority of people who would vote even with a government crackdown going on probably felt pretty strongly about the issue.
I think you'll find that it's because it can't happen in the first place because not only the government is represented in the vote-counting or the organization of the election. In fact, the entire process is open to the public so that anyone that wants to can observe the process to ehnance transparability and legitimacy. You know, like the Catalonian election should've been handled from the start.
Which is still placing your desire to declare independence over the good of everything else. It's a highly selfish approach.
Let me introduce you to this crazy species that calls itself 'humanity'.
This would seem to contradict your previous point; if humanity is expected to be selfish and if independence above all else is desired, why wouldn't someone cheat if they could get away with it?
Which the Spanish courts will strike down as unconstitutional and make non-binding at the very least. As you yourself mention. There is, unless the Constitution of Spain is changed, no legal recourse here.
Not with the PP in power, but other parties have indicated they're willing to listen if things are done the right way.
Negotiations between all the parties to change the constitution were initiated as soon as the court struck down the Catalan law but this wasn't enough for CiU or ERC.
Sorry can we just rewind for a second for someone who hasn't been keeping up with everything.
I thought there WAS a legal process for holding a referendum as determined by the Catalan government itself and it wasn't adhered to for this vote?
Obviously an accurate vote of the public isn't necessary for creating independence, but it would definitely be the preferred way to actually know if it is what the people as a whole want. Whether or not it's legal it does sound like there's plenty of room for this vote to have been inaccurate.
To some degree it is now irrelevant whether the referendum was legal, illegal, well-organised or badly organised.
The independence movement has been stalled and its leaders are facing prosecution for rebellion, sedition, and embezzlement. The parliament has been dissolved. Spanish officials are in charge of all Catalan government functions.
Elections in December to choose a new parliament need to be held with proper international oversight to assure their fairness. The recent referendum and its consequences will be a major talking point, but their practical effect is ended for the moment.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Sorry can we just rewind for a second for someone who hasn't been keeping up with everything.
I thought there WAS a legal process for holding a referendum as determined by the Catalan government itself and it wasn't adhered to for this vote?
It's buried in the thread but the tl;dr version is yes, the Catalan estatut allows (art 122) to make non-binding public consultations.
They just can't call it a referendum because the Spanish Constitution defines them as Nationwide and an exclusive central government prerogative.
So they did modify their electoral law, so that Catalan law would supersede the Constitution, and that was shot down by the Constitutional court on two counts. One, that they did not have the 2/3 majority required by the Catalan estatut for modifying an article of the same estatut, two it would place a Catalan law above the Constitution.
So yes, the Catalan government could have set up a public consultation, with auditable results, as it's within their devolved powers, they just chose the confrontational way.
It wasn't "we just want to vote" as it was oft repeated during the whole thing, they could have done that just short of calling it a referendum (like they did in 2014).
Kilkrazy wrote: Catalan isn't having a revolution against Spain. They want to vote themselves free, but they have gone the wrong way about it.
When declaring independence, there isn't a wrong way to do it. Largely because there isn't really a right way to do it either.
Well I would say simply asking for current parent leadership IS wrong way as it\s never going to work. Well unless maybe if your area is economical disaster with no prospect of recovery at which point maybe they might decide "better to be without them" but even then without some alternative factor like revolution going on that's unlikely as they don't want to give ideas to well-do sections.
Problem with Catalonian's is they tried now when only way it could possibly work would be if they could beat up main Spain in civil war without being willing to actually go for that far. Spain is too secure and stable now that they wouldn't take actions and squash any attempt.
Catalonian's should have waited for when main goverment is too unstable to do much but who knows when that would happen...
Problem being even if 100% catalonians were behind independence it still wouldn't help in terms of getting independent. It's still either wait for central goverment getting in serious doo-doo(think 1917 Russia level of doo-doo) or beat them in civil war. How strong military Catalonia could muster assuming they could count on their police/military(do they have one?) to be at their side and how that compares to spain?
If they can't beat them in war(And are willing to go that far) then anything that doesn't involve central goverment having too much trouble at their hands is doomed to fail whether movement has 1% or 100% support inside.
As it is history has shown many independence projects done by minority group. Majority supporting isn't even needed. Helpful but not essential as long as majority are not vehemently AGAINST you.
tneva82 wrote: Problem being even if 100% catalonians were behind independence it still wouldn't help in terms of getting independent. It's still either wait for central goverment getting in serious doo-doo(think 1917 Russia level of doo-doo) or beat them in civil war. How strong military Catalonia could muster assuming they could count on their police/military(do they have one?) to be at their side and how that compares to spain?
In a Mad Max-esque future maybe. Things aren't worked like that anymore, not in Western democracies at least.
tneva82 wrote: Problem being even if 100% catalonians were behind independence it still wouldn't help in terms of getting independent. It's still either wait for central goverment getting in serious doo-doo(think 1917 Russia level of doo-doo) or beat them in civil war. How strong military Catalonia could muster assuming they could count on their police/military(do they have one?) to be at their side and how that compares to spain?
If they can't beat them in war(And are willing to go that far) then anything that doesn't involve central goverment having too much trouble at their hands is doomed to fail whether movement has 1% or 100% support inside.
As it is history has shown many independence projects done by minority group. Majority supporting isn't even needed. Helpful but not essential as long as majority are not vehemently AGAINST you.
Scotland voted about 55/45 against independence from the UK. Do you think if the vote had been 55/45 in favour of independence, that right now the British armed forces would be tied down in a guerilla war in the Scottish highlands?
I think there would be a situation a bit like the UK has now in relation to the EU, The Scottish and UK governments would be arguing about the proportion of national debt and such, in preperation for actual, real independence.
She's famous for her role in Barbed Wire. It's a film noir masterpiece that studies the juxtaposition of a leather top with minimal under-wire and a pair of 42 DD's bouncing around as the starlet performs her "acting" as a crime fighter.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Treason, sedition, conspiracy and the like are by nature political labels as they revolve around someone trying to attack the State. Declaring your own independent nation based on the result of a referendum with no binding power and loads of irregularities is almost textbook sedition. The courts would be derelict in their duty if they didn't at least charge Puigdemont.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
The Catalans elected him when he ran on a platform that he would do pretty much exactly what he did. It was his entire platform. So where's the failure to respect democracy here?
He ran on a platform that would declare Independence if they got a seat AND a vote majority.
They didn't.
Also they passed a new electoral law without the needed majority (according to the Catalan Statute, which is their Constitution), they didn't follow it either.
The list is really long. A lot of it is in earlier posts.
Yeah, but I think it was also mentioned that the Catalan statute isn't really a fair piece of law and that independence movements have the tendency to not follow laws because laws usually prohibit independence. The statute was modified by the Spanish Constitutional Court to such an extent that a peaceful, democratic way to independence was virtually impossible for the Catalans (along with a whole bunch of other restrictions on autonomy, language and referenda). The statute is a Spanish law. You can't expect a Catalan separatist, who wants independence, to obey it. When some of the republics of the USSR declared independence in 1991, they also did not follow their own constitutions, which ultimately were tools of the Soviet government to keep them in line. Independence in most states is impossible to achieve through legal means. That is why expecting separatists to follow legal means and criticising them on that account is beating a dead horse. Of course they are not going to follow the laws! It only becomes possible for them to follow laws if those laws offer them a fair way to achieve independence, such as in Scotland or Quebec.
I am not saying that not following laws is good, but it is just what separatists do. Pointing that out is like pointing out to a thief that he is breaking the law. Of course he is breaking the law, he is a thief! Of course Puigdemont is guilty, just as guilty as George Washington, Boris Yeltsin, Mahatma Gandhi and almost every other independence movement leader in history. If you are dealing with an independence movement, you know beforehand they are going to ignore any law that is inconvenient to them. That is why engaging with them on legal terms is ultimately meaningless. In the end, you will have to deal with them either by giving them what they want or by trying to rob them of their power base, which in the sad reality of our world is mostly done through force, but which can also be done through economic or political means. Reminding them that they are violating the law on the other hand will just make them laugh, and trying to enforce laws and arresting them will just make them appear oppressed to those sympathetic to their cause, which will increase their power base.
TL;DR Separatists don't care about legality or elections or treaties or anything like that. All they care about is independence, and they will use whatever means they think give them the best chance of achieving that goal. All independence movements throughout history have done that. That is why pointing out that they are violating laws, their mandate, their election promises (wait, all politicians violate that one) is beating a dead horse. You know beforehand they will be going to do that, because they are separatists, and that is just what separatists do.
Even in case of what leads to American Civil War some 160 years ago... The Southern States tried some legal approach (and even claimed that the seccession is legal). but some incident leads to the armed conflict that dragged on for four years (and AFAIK the South almost won its 'War for Independence'... if they did indeed win. the war set in the USA between 1861-1865 will be called 'The Confederacy War for Independence' instead of American Civlil War.
What will catalonains do? what will they face is that a segregation by Castillian-based Government. and more Chinese will be invited to settle in Catalogina... because Chinese immigrants tend to obey the host government as well as willing to form their community. The contral government might use them against the rebellious natives... similar methods how Siam annexed Lanna some 160 years ago.
tneva82 wrote: Problem being even if 100% catalonians were behind independence it still wouldn't help in terms of getting independent. It's still either wait for central goverment getting in serious doo-doo(think 1917 Russia level of doo-doo) or beat them in civil war. How strong military Catalonia could muster assuming they could count on their police/military(do they have one?) to be at their side and how that compares to spain?
If they can't beat them in war(And are willing to go that far) then anything that doesn't involve central goverment having too much trouble at their hands is doomed to fail whether movement has 1% or 100% support inside.
As it is history has shown many independence projects done by minority group. Majority supporting isn't even needed. Helpful but not essential as long as majority are not vehemently AGAINST you.
Scotland voted about 55/45 against independence from the UK. Do you think if the vote had been 55/45 in favour of independence, that right now the British armed forces would be tied down in a guerilla war in the Scottish highlands?
I think there would be a situation a bit like the UK has now in relation to the EU, The Scottish and UK governments would be arguing about the proportion of national debt and such, in preperation for actual, real independence.
There are many factors that affects the seccessionost modus operandi.
England and Scotland was quite 'married' economically. the last armed insurrection in Scotland was the Jacobite rebellion (some 20 years prior to the Seven Years War.) and that is. I'm not sure how the England-based government of the Great Britain secure peace in Scotland for THREE CENTURIES ... to the point that no scottist offered to help any foreign invasion attempts ... or seek that opportunity should the GB went to war against any European Powers (either France or... later Germany) but the Scottists are well respected in England as well as in their homeland (They contribute much to the progress of the Britain.. either Science, or Industrialization kickoff).
Not sure about Ireland. why Irish choose a direct approach... armed conflicts.. against the London-based government? even after they got its own Republic some times after WW1, the North Ireland still remains in flames until much recently... Was there an English mischieve there that angered the Irish in the long past?
The UK tried very hard to kill the Catholics off here centuries ago. And we weren't the nicest people to the Irish, we kind of let them die with the potato famine, and we had laws in place that demanded that any land giving to children be split equally between the sons. Meaning land would shrink with successive generations.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Treason, sedition, conspiracy and the like are by nature political labels as they revolve around someone trying to attack the State. Declaring your own independent nation based on the result of a referendum with no binding power and loads of irregularities is almost textbook sedition. The courts would be derelict in their duty if they didn't at least charge Puigdemont.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even if Catalonia becomes independent following the vote in December they should STILL try him for sedition, because he's guilty as sin. The man's essentially performed a coup d'état by seizing powers he had no right to in declaring Catalonia independent. If Catalonia wishes to be independent then so be it, but Puigdemont clearly has no respect for the democratic process and, as such, must go.
The Catalans elected him when he ran on a platform that he would do pretty much exactly what he did. It was his entire platform. So where's the failure to respect democracy here?
He ran on a platform that would declare Independence if they got a seat AND a vote majority.
They didn't.
Also they passed a new electoral law without the needed majority (according to the Catalan Statute, which is their Constitution), they didn't follow it either.
The list is really long. A lot of it is in earlier posts.
Yeah, but I think it was also mentioned that the Catalan statute isn't really a fair piece of law and that independence movements have the tendency to not follow laws because laws usually prohibit independence. The statute was modified by the Spanish Constitutional Court to such an extent that a peaceful, democratic way to independence was virtually impossible for the Catalans (along with a whole bunch of other restrictions on autonomy, language and referenda). The statute is a Spanish law. You can't expect a Catalan separatist, who wants independence, to obey it. When some of the republics of the USSR declared independence in 1991, they also did not follow their own constitutions, which ultimately were tools of the Soviet government to keep them in line. Independence in most states is impossible to achieve through legal means. That is why expecting separatists to follow legal means and criticising them on that account is beating a dead horse. Of course they are not going to follow the laws! It only becomes possible for them to follow laws if those laws offer them a fair way to achieve independence, such as in Scotland or Quebec.
I am not saying that not following laws is good, but it is just what separatists do. Pointing that out is like pointing out to a thief that he is breaking the law. Of course he is breaking the law, he is a thief! Of course Puigdemont is guilty, just as guilty as George Washington, Boris Yeltsin, Mahatma Gandhi and almost every other independence movement leader in history. If you are dealing with an independence movement, you know beforehand they are going to ignore any law that is inconvenient to them. That is why engaging with them on legal terms is ultimately meaningless. In the end, you will have to deal with them either by giving them what they want or by trying to rob them of their power base, which in the sad reality of our world is mostly done through force, but which can also be done through economic or political means. Reminding them that they are violating the law on the other hand will just make them laugh, and trying to enforce laws and arresting them will just make them appear oppressed to those sympathetic to their cause, which will increase their power base.
TL;DR Separatists don't care about legality or elections or treaties or anything like that. All they care about is independence, and they will use whatever means they think give them the best chance of achieving that goal. All independence movements throughout history have done that. That is why pointing out that they are violating laws, their mandate, their election promises (wait, all politicians violate that one) is beating a dead horse. You know beforehand they will be going to do that, because they are separatists, and that is just what separatists do.
Even in case of what leads to American Civil War some 160 years ago... The Southern States tried some legal approach (and even claimed that the seccession is legal). but some incident leads to the armed conflict that dragged on for four years (and AFAIK the South almost won its 'War for Independence'... if they did indeed win. the war set in the USA between 1861-1865 will be called 'The Confederacy War for Independence' instead of American Civlil War.
What will catalonains do? what will they face is that a segregation by Castillian-based Government. and more Chinese will be invited to settle in Catalogina... because Chinese immigrants tend to obey the host government as well as willing to form their community. The contral government might use them against the rebellious natives... similar methods how Siam annexed Lanna some 160 years ago.
Catalonians can hardly claim segregation when they get to write the rules for most stuff happening in Catalonia. Catalan is the main language of education and government, all public radio and TV in Catalonia is in Catalan and so on. To the point that there have been a few claims to different courts from parents who wanted their children education to be in Spanish (so far the courts have sided with the Catalan government, though).
I'm not entirely sure what Chinese have to do with the whole thing, though.
^ About Chinese solving Spanish Catalognia problem.... the Castillian-based government just can't churn out pro-Castillian population in time to counter Cataloginian secessionist. What else will the Castillian government suppress Catagolinian nationalism in long term?
Use foreign immigrants and give them citizenships... those chaps are more likely to support Castillian government agenda.
In addition. Xi Jinping supports the Castillian government and will NOT recognize Catalogina even if anyone else do.
Lone Cat wrote: ^ About Chinese solving Spanish Catalognia problem.... the Castillian-based government just can't churn out pro-Castillian population in time to counter Cataloginian secessionist. What else will the Castillian government suppress Catagolinian nationalism in long term?
Use foreign immigrants and give them citizenships... those chaps are more likely to support Castillian government agenda.
You don't tell people (Chinese or otherwise) to go somewhere and live there for the purposes of colonisation. Much less hand out citizenships without due process.
Not in Europe at least.
That Xi Jinping hasn't recognized Catalonia is not surprising given that not even culturally Catalan Andorra has. Actually the only recognition has come from two equally unrecognised territories: Abkhazia and South Ossetia (both Russian satellites)
1. And even if the Catalonian Revolution won (If castillian government did a big mistake that led to an open armed insurrection in Catalonia). Xi wouldn't be peased to see it. China itself has its own seccession problem. The Xinjiang and Tibet. (EDIT: Taiwan (who wished to regain its international recognition as a different 'Republic of China'... There were no armed conflicts between the two Chinas since 194x but the PRC has not yet recognize the RoC as a fully sovereign country instead of being a province), and Hong Kong...which 100 years of British Rule created Hongkong 'sense of nationhood'... Hongkongers speak Cantonese rather than PRC Chinese, through still recognize PRC-Simplified Hanzi.. there were political resentments against Peking 'Centralization' policy)
2. If Castillia-based government can't use Foreign Immigrants to dilute Catalonian influences there. (And genocide is not an option in the 'Civilized World'... especially in the EU). What else can the Spanish Government do to beat the seccessionist to the Ideology level (and in the long term... the success the UK and the USA enjoys).
And will the (Catalonian) language bans come back in use?
2. If Castillia-based government can't use Foreign Immigrants to dilute Catalonian influences there. (And genocide is not an option in the 'Civilized World'... especially in the EU). What else can the Spanish Government do to beat the seccessionist to the Ideology level (and in the long term... the success the UK and the USA enjoys).
And will the (Catalonian) language bans come back in use?
Bans aren't coming back, that's for sure.
The Spanish govt needs to go on with the business of making Spain (inc. Catalonia) a nice enough place to live, where people can work and live in harmony with everyone else most of the time.
If a large enough number of Catalans still want to leave (and prove it in free and fair elections) they're free to go into the cold post-EU world.
Well new elections were done. Voting % 83, 3 parties supporting independence got (narrow) majority. Not that it really matters as spain wouldn't let them go independent without a war even if 100% would favour it.
tneva82 wrote: Well new elections were done. Voting % 83, 3 parties supporting independence got (narrow) majority
In seats, but not votes. Non-indy parties got 200.000 more votes than pro-indy, but again the electoral system rewarded the rural vote.
So it's back to square one. 47,5% of the votes get 51,8% of the seats, while 52,07% of the votes get 48,2% of the seats. Pro-indy wins in 2 of the provinces (the least populated) and pro-remain victory on the two bigger ones (on the last election it was 3-1)
On a single circumscription system the results would have been:
IMO the correct course of action from here is for the pro-independence parties to attempt to form a government, then make a bill to conduct a new referendum on independence.
However, to be fair this referendum should require a substantial majority one way or the other, say 55:45, and this is unlikely so they probably won't make such a bill, and a narrow majority bill can be repudiated by the losers
Interestingly, though, it's generally being viewed in many papers as an Independence win, as the Spanish government apparently expected to receive a massive mandate against Independence instead of more or less a continuation of the Status Quo.
BaronIveagh wrote: Interestingly, though, it's generally being viewed in many papers as an Independence win, as the Spanish government apparently expected to receive a massive mandate against Independence instead of more or less a continuation of the Status Quo.
Maybe if Spain hadn't acted the way that it did that could be the case.
BaronIveagh wrote: Interestingly, though, it's generally being viewed in many papers as an Independence win, as the Spanish government apparently expected to receive a massive mandate against Independence instead of more or less a continuation of the Status Quo.
Maybe if Spain hadn't acted the way that it did that could be the case.
The PP has been voted down to irrelevance, but their votes have been picked up by others.
Well fight was going on anyway. Independence movement is big enough it won't give up and spain isn't letting power and money leave short of anything but war even if they have to kill every catalian to ensure it
tneva82 wrote: Well fight was going on anyway. Independence movement is big enough it won't give up and spain isn't letting power and money leave short of anything but war even if they have to kill every catalian to ensure it
At a (or so I've heard) impressive 92% turnout, they really can't downplay the size of the independence movement (though I'm sure some posters will try)
BaronIveagh wrote: Interestingly, though, it's generally being viewed in many papers as an Independence win, as the Spanish government apparently expected to receive a massive mandate against Independence instead of more or less a continuation of the Status Quo.
Maybe if Spain hadn't acted the way that it did that could be the case.
The PP has been voted down to irrelevance, but their votes have been picked up by others.
There are enough non Indy parties to choose from.
They only managed to pass the buck as such.
The question of independence is still hovering. It might not be solid and taken form but the question remains. Ans still remains.
The Spanish government has not ended anything just yet.
BaronIveagh wrote: Interestingly, though, it's generally being viewed in many papers as an Independence win, as the Spanish government apparently expected to receive a massive mandate against Independence instead of more or less a continuation of the Status Quo.
Maybe if Spain hadn't acted the way that it did that could be the case.
The PP has been voted down to irrelevance, but their votes have been picked up by others.
There are enough non Indy parties to choose from.
They only managed to pass the buck as such.
The question of independence is still hovering. It might not be solid and taken form but the question remains. Ans still remains.
The Spanish government has not ended anything just yet.
Neither do Indy parties.
At some point they will have to realise they don't have the support they claim having and that they're supposed to, well, actually govern, as in provide solutions to their citizens problems instead of piling the blame on someone else.
At some point they will have to realise they don't have the support they claim having and that they're supposed to, well, actually govern, as in provide solutions to their citizens problems instead of piling the blame on someone else.
They tried governing. You remember, Madrid comes in, throws everyone out, looks like gestapo, everyone complains about how 'illegal' it was.
And, again, as I point out above, with a 92% turn out, and what amounts to an Indy Win, I'd say they had 'sufficient' support, since they're still a majority.
At some point they will have to realise they don't have the support they claim having and that they're supposed to, well, actually govern, as in provide solutions to their citizens problems instead of piling the blame on someone else.
They tried governing. You remember, Madrid comes in, throws everyone out, looks like gestapo, everyone complains about how 'illegal' it was.
No. They tried to do something they said they wouldn't do ("we will declare independence if we get a vote and a seat majority" you have the clip earlier in the thread). Then they twisted the law 3-4 times to pass a law they didn't have the necessary seats to do and then complain when justice swoops in. I could run on a platform that says I will remove Donald Trump from office, that doesn't mean I can deliver on that.
Again they don't have the vote majority (the remain majority grew from last vote), they don't have the seat majority for anything but the basic governing stuff (and if one of them gets sick, they lose it, unlike before when they had, IIRC, an 8-seat difference). What are they supposed to do? Keep running elections and sham referendums until they get the result they want out of pure voter exhaustion?
At some point they will have to realise they don't have the support they claim having and that they're supposed to, well, actually govern, as in provide solutions to their citizens problems instead of piling the blame on someone else.
They tried governing. You remember, Madrid comes in, throws everyone out, looks like gestapo, everyone complains about how 'illegal' it was.
And, again, as I point out above, with a 92% turn out, and what amounts to an Indy Win, I'd say they had 'sufficient' support, since they're still a majority.
They're a narrow majority in the Parliament because of how the election system works, in absolute numbers they're still fewer.
But again, the idea of a independence movement needing to be legal doesn't matter. It's always illegal to declare independence.And they still clearly have a huge chunk of the population on ttheir side.
Grey Templar wrote: But again, the idea of a independence movement needing to be legal doesn't matter. It's always illegal to declare independence.And they still clearly have a huge chunk of the population on ttheir side.
They have ernough people and ernough percent of population to Madrid to have to at least consider the independence and other aspects.
Its a too big issue to ignore.
Yes Catalonia parliment has to also be a parliamentary system and work for them.
Grey Templar wrote: But again, the idea of a independence movement needing to be legal doesn't matter. It's always illegal to declare independence.And they still clearly have a huge chunk of the population on ttheir side.
They have ernough people and ernough percent of population to Madrid to have to at least consider the independence and other aspects.
How much is enough, though? Because the obvious answer to "we have 48% of people supporting Independence" is "what about the remaining 52%?"
Reverse the percentages and the answer is still the same. That's why Constitutional changes require reinforced majorities, there have to be limits to the executive power. Checks and balances.
The people at the otherwise regurgitated garbage of a rag ABC have made ran the results through different electoral systems.
Right side union, left side Indy. Top is current system, next two purely proportional (3% entry barrier) and single electoral district.
The following one is the German system (mixed district and global) and the last one is FPTP à la UK.
Certainly the alacrity with which the justice system has responded to the Catalan crisis is in marked contrast to the glacial pace with which it is handling the hundreds of corruption cases involving members of the ruling Popular party.
2.
However, there is plenty of scope for political interference. The 20 members of the General Council of the Judiciary, which appoints most senior judges, are themselves appointed by congress and the senate. Members of the constitutional court that declared the Catalan referendum illegal are also political appointees. In the EU’s 2017 “Justice Scoreboard” Spain came third to last among 28 member states in terms of public perception of judicial independence, above only Slovakia and Bulgaria. Some 58% of Spaniards surveyed rated judicial independence as “very bad” or “fairly bad”.
I remember being criticised a few pages back for questioning the independence of the Spanish Judiciary...
I no longer have any reservations about its independence
I remember being criticised a few pages back for questioning the independence of the Spanish Judiciary...
I no longer have any reservations about its independence
Spain's democracy is only 40 years old in 2018. So it's not really a surprise there is still large amounts of independence concerns. It's going to take some time to get to a point where they follow the examples such as France and Germany.
I remember being criticised a few pages back for questioning the independence of the Spanish Judiciary...
I no longer have any reservations about its independence
Spain's democracy is only 40 years old in 2018. So it's not really a surprise there is still large amounts of independence concerns. It's going to take some time to get to a point where they follow the examples such as France and Germany.
Maybe if DINLT looked around and checked how supreme courts are appointed in other countries he'd realise it's pretty much the same all over the world.
In the UK they are appointed by the Monarch, under advice from the PM. How's that any different?
"fiercely independent". Judges are chosen exactly like in the German supreme Court, by a bicameral majority.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For sure, judges have to be appointed somehow, and I'll suppose we'll never agree on a lot of things, but as far as I'm concerned:
1. The idea that the Spanish Judiciary is independent with regard to Catalan nationalism, is risible nonsense.
2. The EU is happy to turn a blind eye to police brutality.
3. Rajoy is out of his depth.
Well of course your would think that. On #3 at least we can agree.
Judicial independence can of course only be maintained up to a certain degree. As Killkrazy noted already, judges have to be chosen somehow. Ultimately you will need someone in the government to do the appointing, so a judiciary can never be fully 100% independent. I don't think I can think of any country where judges ultimately are not appointed by the government. Whether it is an 'independent' judiciary is then decided by how much control the government has over the judiciary beyond appointments, how much it decides to interfere in the judiciary beyond this, and how much judges dance to the government's tune once appointed.
Of course, this does mean that even though a judiciary is very independent, we should not fancy any myths about a court being impartial. The judges will ultimately have been appointed by the government and therefore be likely to hold the same views. The Spanish courts are obviously not impartial in regards to Catalan independence.
Well, some news on this: following the success of the Indy movement maintaining a majority, Puigdemont is the ONLY candidate running for the Catalan Presidency.
The issue: Spain has ruled that a Fugitive cannot be President. So expect a second round of insanity, ladies and gets, since the vote is next Tuesday, and most of the people that would be eligible are in jail or on the run.
The issue: Spain has ruled that a Fugitive cannot be President. So expect a second round of insanity, ladies and gets, since the vote is next Tuesday, and most of the people that would be eligible are in jail or on the run.
Nope. The court has ruled that the person standing for the presidency must be physically present at the time of the vote, make his presentation speech pre-vote and acceptation speech post-vote.
Which is what the Catalan parliament internal rules say, and which were written for the most part by the same people now trying to bend.
What is the rule about people being held in prison standing for election?
Puigedemont's problem is that he is likely to be arrested on suspicion of treason and misuse of public funds if he returns to Spain.
Under the circumstances he is a bad choice for a presidential candidate, but of course the point is to make the Spanish government look like a bunch of pricks.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the rule about people being held in prison standing for election?
In this case nothing prevents them from running because they're held on remand and not being able to hold office is usually a penalty given to those convicted of a serious crime or a minor one while in some sort of public capacity.
That's why the elected MPs in prison are able to vote (through some other MP) because there isn't a firm court decision yet. Once it comes, the seat goes to the next in line from their respective party.
This is again dangerous, while Rajoy is passing on the task of entangling the separatists to the lawyers. If what Puigdemont is doing is not written into the legislation the separatists will have clear cause to claim that the Spanish government is making up the rules as it goes along.
Orlanth wrote: If what Puigdemont is doing is not written into the legislation the separatists will have clear cause to claim that the Spanish government is making up the rules as it goes along.
What Puigdemont is doing is against the regulations his party wrote (since they've been the hegemonic party in Catalonia since the restoration of democracy).
The farther the executive stays away from this the better.
Puigdemont wants the courts to ban him from standing, then he will use that to accuse the central government of being anti-democratic.
Most of his supporters will ignore that fact that it's Catalan law he is disobeying by trying to run from outside the country.
Alternatively, if Puigdemont does return, he probably will be arrested and he will claim that is anti-democratic, although according to Jouso's information about the electoral laws, Puigdemont would be able to stand and vote even while on remand.
about Bourbons. In fact, I think most people think Bourbon is a kind of whiskey. Songs praising monarchs simply aren't a thing anymore in this era (unless you are British and you are stuck with it as your anthem). Nowadays people in Europe prefer to praise the nation as a whole. Also, the Bourbons don't hate non-catholic christians. That is also a thing of the past.
