Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"You ate my sandwich, I'm gonna kill you and kill your family" sis what i am getting out of this.

 Galas wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with the Catalan independists movement is that it broke the law three times:

-They broke the Spanish constitution.
-They did broke the Catalonian Constitution law to approve their modifications to make their referendum "legal"
-They did broke their own referendum laws to make the referendum and declare independence because by their own law they shouldn't have done it.

And the problem for the Spanish Government is that their heavy handed response rendered all of that a moot point. Perception is everything. The Referendum might have been illegal, but all that matters is the images and footage of voters being beaten to a pulp by Police plastered all over the media.

Whose narrative do you think is winning here? The Spanish Government's narrative of an illegal and invalid referendum?

Or the Catalan Separatist's victim narrative?

Oh yeah, I don't dispute that. The goverment has do a horrible job at handling this situation. But the only response one should expect from the ones that in the first place are responsivle for allowing this to reach this point.
But I wasn't talking about that subject, I wrote that because people where arguing about the "legality" of the referendum, that independentists movement normally don't follow any legality of the "parent" state, etc...

In reality. seccession was not favored by any governing body of any country in question. Even if the seccession is 'legal'... Remember the US of A some 150 years ago. (And there are good reasons to worry)
1. Possible foreign 'Annexation' of a seceeded territory (Usually by neighbours, as in case of 3 Provinces in the Southern Thailand.... there are fears that if these provinces (Which were once a portion of the former Battani Sultanate) break away, they will promptly join Malaysia.
2. Economy concerns... a territory seeking secession are usually economically advantageous (Catalognia)
3. National Integrity... If one region breaks away, others will follow... (American Civil War... If the Confederacy won, Any factions resented the Federal Government due to serious 'frictions' in the past will do the same (By 1860, The Mormons still not yet forgive the Federal Governments, After so many mental wounds the likes of Maarten van Bruen, and James Bucchanan inflicts upon them. they would promptly restore The Holy Republic of Deserette... remember that the memories of the massacres still fresh to them ), Native 'nationalist' will follow suit.. seeking international recognition to their 'Great Nation' which series of Whites robbed them for three centuries... it might be possible either by force of arms or by diplomatic methods...) )... Another case was Post Tito Yugoslavia.
Seccession movements usually leads up to the armed conflict.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my entire point: anyone can make a referendum, but there needs to be some way of determining whether it is legitimate or not. The Catalan referendum didn't even follow the rules they had set up themselves.

No, your point was to propose a ridiculous extreme in the hope to break the logical system, and failed.. Referenda have to be organised nationally to vote on national issues. Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state, so no referenda can't be made by just anyone, bur a regional government or larger body can feasibly organise one.

 Orlanth wrote:

Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state

Sometimes, they don't even need the referenda!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my entire point: anyone can make a referendum, but there needs to be some way of determining whether it is legitimate or not. The Catalan referendum didn't even follow the rules they had set up themselves.

No, your point was to propose a ridiculous extreme in the hope to break the logical system, and failed.. Referenda have to be organised nationally to vote on national issues. Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state, so no referenda can't be made by just anyone, bur a regional government or larger body can feasibly organise one.

Why? How do we decide who can and who can't call a referendum?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my entire point: anyone can make a referendum, but there needs to be some way of determining whether it is legitimate or not. The Catalan referendum didn't even follow the rules they had set up themselves.

No, your point was to propose a ridiculous extreme in the hope to break the logical system, and failed.. Referenda have to be organised nationally to vote on national issues. Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state, so no referenda can't be made by just anyone, bur a regional government or larger body can feasibly organise one.

Why? How do we decide who can and who can't call a referendum?

"we" don't decide those things. Governments decide those things. It is up to a government to decide who can call a referendum and on when a referendum will take place.

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state

Sometimes, they don't even need the referenda!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Sealand is different. Roy Paddy Bates moved into an abandoned offshore seafort and applied a maritime law loophole. In which case he was the 'national' population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my entire point: anyone can make a referendum, but there needs to be some way of determining whether it is legitimate or not. The Catalan referendum didn't even follow the rules they had set up themselves.

No, your point was to propose a ridiculous extreme in the hope to break the logical system, and failed.. Referenda have to be organised nationally to vote on national issues. Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state, so no referenda can't be made by just anyone, bur a regional government or larger body can feasibly organise one.

Why? How do we decide who can and who can't call a referendum?

"we" don't decide those things. Governments decide those things. It is up to a government to decide who can call a referendum and on when a referendum will take place.

Gain a movement of several million people, become a literal or close to literal majority in your country or region. Claim to all wish to return to free Walrusitania, and force the Swedish government to agree to have a vote, or have a vote anyway in your own breakaway province with fellow Walrusoons..

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my entire point: anyone can make a referendum, but there needs to be some way of determining whether it is legitimate or not. The Catalan referendum didn't even follow the rules they had set up themselves.

No, your point was to propose a ridiculous extreme in the hope to break the logical system, and failed.. Referenda have to be organised nationally to vote on national issues. Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state, so no referenda can't be made by just anyone, bur a regional government or larger body can feasibly organise one.

Why? How do we decide who can and who can't call a referendum?

A referendum is a legal process that goes through legislative processes of approval (which vary from country to country) and are put on public ballots, all of which (ballots, staff for the voting places, etc) is paid for by the government in question (on a national, regional or local level, whichever applies). So each country has laws on how a referendum process happens, which makes legitimacy a pretty clear thing in most cases.*

*unless the laws are poorly written and have loopholes.

Voss wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my entire point: anyone can make a referendum, but there needs to be some way of determining whether it is legitimate or not. The Catalan referendum didn't even follow the rules they had set up themselves.

No, your point was to propose a ridiculous extreme in the hope to break the logical system, and failed.. Referenda have to be organised nationally to vote on national issues. Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state, so no referenda can't be made by just anyone, bur a regional government or larger body can feasibly organise one.

Why? How do we decide who can and who can't call a referendum?

A referendum is a legal process that goes through legislative processes of approval (which vary from country to country) and are put on public ballots, all of which (ballots, staff for the voting places, etc) is paid for by the government in question (on a national, regional or local level, whichever applies). So each country has laws on how a referendum process happens, which makes legitimacy a pretty clear thing in most cases.*

*unless the laws are poorly written and have loopholes.

Precisely. The Catalonian government hasn't done that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Voss wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That was my entire point: anyone can make a referendum, but there needs to be some way of determining whether it is legitimate or not. The Catalan referendum didn't even follow the rules they had set up themselves.

No, your point was to propose a ridiculous extreme in the hope to break the logical system, and failed.. Referenda have to be organised nationally to vote on national issues. Two guys cant hold a referendum to effect a nation state, so no referenda can't be made by just anyone, bur a regional government or larger body can feasibly organise one.

Why? How do we decide who can and who can't call a referendum?

A referendum is a legal process that goes through legislative processes of approval (which vary from country to country) and are put on public ballots, all of which (ballots, staff for the voting places, etc) is paid for by the government in question (on a national, regional or local level, whichever applies). So each country has laws on how a referendum process happens, which makes legitimacy a pretty clear thing in most cases.*

*unless the laws are poorly written and have loopholes.

Precisely. The Catalonian government hasn't done that.

Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

Spain could sort this whole thing out much quicker and far less painful if it just authorised and held a referendum in Catalonia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
... ...
Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

The difficulty for Catalan independence right now is that while it's a popular idea it only has the support of less than half of the Catalan population.

A dodgy power grab at independence, ignoring the majority, as well as annoying the Madrid government, is the wrong way to go about things. It's difficult to see how it could succeed.

A greater proportion of the population would support more autonomy while remaining within the Spanish state, In the long term this might lead towards complete independence.

There's no reason why Catalonia couldn't be another successful minor state within the EU, providing it has the goodwill of its own population, and its neighbours and partners. The EU provides a structure to support that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
... ...
Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

The difficulty for Catalan independence right now is that while it's a popular idea it only has the support of less than half of the Catalan population.

A dodgy power grab at independence, ignoring the majority, as well as annoying the Madrid government, is the wrong way to go about things. It's difficult to see how it could succeed.

Iron Captain is right.

Also, its not a majority if it doesn't speak out.
It is inherently dishonest to claim that all or even most of those who did not vote supported continued union.

The separatists strategy has been pretty much spot on, they are getting the results they want peacably. This is Rajoy's own fault.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There's no reason why Catalonia couldn't be another successful minor state within the EU, providing it has the goodwill of its own population, and its neighbours and partners. The EU provides a structure to support that.

Err, no. While you are technically correct, Catalonia could easily be a functioning state in the EU, and the whole region is very firmly pro-EU this whole process goes against dogma, and the EU is very doctrinaire.
Did you read what Juncker said about Catalan independence Paraphrased "I dont want to wake up and find the EU has ninety member states."
the EU is all about ever closer union, less states more EU superstate, seperatism within EU member states in continental European countries is not what the project is all about.
Also several countries in the EU, including France is not happy about this. The French press (English language) are more hostile than press sources in rSpain. Italy is even more worried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain could sort this whole thing out much quicker and far less painful if it just authorised and held a referendum in Catalonia.

They will have to at some stage. It's the only way out now without heavy repression.
It keps things civil in places with similar issues, like Scotland and Quebec.


People here are sweating the small stuff. Independence movements often have to go against the set rules. 1776 anyone. Now Puigdemont might have been a very naughty boy for doing what he has done, but internationally a finger wagging is in order, that is all.
This doesn't mean that Catalonia should be recognised as a sovereign state, but it does mean the ballot and its consequences should be taken seriously.
In the larger scale of things Catalonia held a vote which resulted in overwhelming approval, and critically the vote was not as far as we know restricted or rigged. The only issues with the ballot are technicalities.
The people have spoken and Spain didnt take that seriously enough.

Complaining about ballot technicalities that don't involve vote rigging, is like seeing an invading army and complaining about littering. There are larger issues at stake.

In case anyone hasnt realised Washington didnt get legal permission to declare independence either. Anyone here going to argue that the Declaration of Independence was a worthless document in law because it wasnt countersigned by the British Foreign Office?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
... ...
Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

The difficulty for Catalan independence right now is that while it's a popular idea it only has the support of less than half of the Catalan population.

A dodgy power grab at independence, ignoring the majority, as well as annoying the Madrid government, is the wrong way to go about things. It's difficult to see how it could succeed.

Iron Captain is right.

Also, its not a majority if it doesn't speak out.
It is inherently dishonest to claim that all or even most of those who did not vote supported continued union.

It is not dishonest, you just have to read regional election results.

Indy parties have failed to get a majority of the vote in each and every democratic election. Not a vote without a proper census, where one of the parties also tallies the votes and with plenty of evidence of vote tampering.

jouso wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
... ...
Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

The difficulty for Catalan independence right now is that while it's a popular idea it only has the support of less than half of the Catalan population.

A dodgy power grab at independence, ignoring the majority, as well as annoying the Madrid government, is the wrong way to go about things. It's difficult to see how it could succeed.

Iron Captain is right.

Also, its not a majority if it doesn't speak out.
It is inherently dishonest to claim that all or even most of those who did not vote supported continued union.

It is not dishonest, you just have to read regional election results.

Indy parties have failed to get a majority of the vote in each and every democratic election. Not a vote without a proper census, where one of the parties also tallies the votes and with plenty of evidence of vote tampering.

Aye, but what Orlanth means I think is that a majority doesn't mean anything if you don't take action. Often, revolutions and such are not supported by a majority at all, but rather by a radical minority that is willing to actually take action. The majority of the people simply want to avoid confrontation and go on with their lives, so they will not step up to this minority even if they disagree.
Revolutions and other such significant changes are not about gaining support, but rather about gaining momentum. Even very small groups can affect a revolution and force through changes if they gain enough momentum to roll over the silent majority. However, in Catalonia I do notice a good amount of pro-unity protests and such, so if the pro-unity are indeed the majority then at least they aren't silent.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
... ...
Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

The difficulty for Catalan independence right now is that while it's a popular idea it only has the support of less than half of the Catalan population.

A dodgy power grab at independence, ignoring the majority, as well as annoying the Madrid government, is the wrong way to go about things. It's difficult to see how it could succeed.

A greater proportion of the population would support more autonomy while remaining within the Spanish state, In the long term this might lead towards complete independence.

There's no reason why Catalonia couldn't be another successful minor state within the EU, providing it has the goodwill of its own population, and its neighbours and partners. The EU provides a structure to support that.

With just under half the population in support, they have more support than the American revolution had among the population of the 13 colonies. The American revolution had maybe 1/3 of the population in full support at best. Everybody else was a loyalist or apathetic.

Let me just remind you all something: even countries with MANDATORY voting often do not get above a 84% turn out, even when the police will round you up and escort you to the polling station.

The reason for this varies, but typical reasons include things like inaccurate voting registries, deaths, and people moving.

jouso wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
... ...
Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

The difficulty for Catalan independence right now is that while it's a popular idea it only has the support of less than half of the Catalan population.

A dodgy power grab at independence, ignoring the majority, as well as annoying the Madrid government, is the wrong way to go about things. It's difficult to see how it could succeed.

Iron Captain is right.

Also, its not a majority if it doesn't speak out.
It is inherently dishonest to claim that all or even most of those who did not vote supported continued union.

It is not dishonest, you just have to read regional election results.

Indy parties have failed to get a majority of the vote in each and every democratic election. Not a vote without a proper census, where one of the parties also tallies the votes and with plenty of evidence of vote tampering.

But have they voted for indendence or for party? You know there's generally more than 1 reason to vote for party. Just because somebody supports independency doesn't mean they might consider that party better than others.

tneva82 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
... ...
Just like every government ever that wanted to be independent, so who cares? Independence movements pretty much by definition do not follow laws. Since laws are usually designed to forbid or prevent independence, they simply can't if they ever want to have a chance at being independent.

The difficulty for Catalan independence right now is that while it's a popular idea it only has the support of less than half of the Catalan population.

A dodgy power grab at independence, ignoring the majority, as well as annoying the Madrid government, is the wrong way to go about things. It's difficult to see how it could succeed.

Iron Captain is right.

Also, its not a majority if it doesn't speak out.
It is inherently dishonest to claim that all or even most of those who did not vote supported continued union.

It is not dishonest, you just have to read regional election results.

Indy parties have failed to get a majority of the vote in each and every democratic election. Not a vote without a proper census, where one of the parties also tallies the votes and with plenty of evidence of vote tampering.

But have they voted for indendence or for party? You know there's generally more than 1 reason to vote for party. Just because somebody supports independency doesn't mean they might consider that party better than others.

On the last 3-4 elections each party has declared their position on whether they're pro- or anti-indy.

But if you go deeper the picture looks even worse for the indy parties.



Not even 50% of the ruling PdeCat party would be in favour of straight independence, 50% would choose to continue being part of Spain with a better economic deal.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Aye, but what Orlanth means I think is that a majority doesn't mean anything if you don't take action. Often, revolutions and such are not supported by a majority at all, but rather by a radical minority that is willing to actually take action. The majority of the people simply want to avoid confrontation and go on with their lives, so they will not step up to this minority even if they disagree.
Revolutions and other such significant changes are not about gaining support, but rather about gaining momentum. Even very small groups can affect a revolution and force through changes if they gain enough momentum to roll over the silent majority. However, in Catalonia I do notice a good amount of pro-unity protests and such, so if the pro-unity are indeed the majority then at least they aren't silent.

Edit: written as a reply to a collective 'you'.

This and more.
Iron Captain is correct that the momentum of a minority can be the catalyst of political change. This is even true of normal politics, most incumbent governments have minority support valid through low electoral turnout, divided opposition, coalition or even general apathy. So long as those who wished to vote against were not actively prevented from doing so, such minority mandates are valid.

However the big lie is the myth of the silent majority. If its silent then you simply cannot claim it as in support of either side. Sure some boycotted the referendum, but to not vote is a democratic choice available in all ballots in most countries. The proper way to note dissent would be to return spoiled ballots.
However pro-union supporters talk of a silent majority despite a 90% result on a turnout of 42%, which is low but actionable. At that rate just about everyone who didn't vote would have to be pro-union for the actual polling to be overturned. There is no evidence to support this. For a start some did vote but had their ballot boxes seized by Spanish police.we dont know how many or who they voted for. Some people habitually don't vote and could have any opinion. Some might have not voted for independence to avoid disappointment as much as because of disbelief in the merits of the ballot. We don't know, yet time again dishonest claim is made for the absent demographic.

Sure they might want to turn up now, but too fething late. Plenty of mostly young people wanted to reverse Brexit who could not be bothered to go out and vote in the rain, leaving more determined pro leave voters, mostly of an older demographic who didnt mind getting wet to go out and vote. Too fething late the next day.
Also people who bemoaned the election of Trump, but couldn't sink their differences enough to vote for Hillary. Too fething late the next day, congratulations Mr President.

The referendum happened. As Iron Captain understands it wasnt entirely on the level, but that doesn't matter when the peple want freedom and have no avenue for it. Spain proved that no matter how much you disagree when they reacted the way they did. The message is loud and clear and is the thread title. Catalan Indyref - Spanish police beat old women, seize ballot boxes, fire rubber bullets at voters.
The Madrid government did not act against the ballot per se, but against Catalans who chose to vote. Message sent loud and clear. Catalans you will NOT get a single free referendum to choose to leave or keep union with Spain as Quebec did and as Scotland did. That validated the vote in terms of realpolitic.

Somethign else I should note. Many of the criticisms of Catalan independence referendum and its aftermath come from vested interests. I can respect that up to a point, Jouso, Galas and other Spaniards here have every right to be worried, but the fact that they dont like the arguments put forward by Puigdemont et al, and their failure for some to condemn the methods used by Spanish police are a triumph of nationalism over rationality.
On a logical rational level Madrid is losing and losing hard. They have been outmaneuvered, outplayed and when acted have done exactly the wrong thing and handed opportunity for victory on a plate to their opponents.
Its all the fault of this arsehead:


Technicalities of the election aside, and those are minor grievances compared to the overreaction of the state, Catalan independence has the momentum, the leadership and the moral high ground. That is from the point of view of realpolitik. Catalonia isn't recognised not on merit but because international recognition is not an exercise of merit but an exercise of benefit from the point of view of foreign regimes. Taiwan should be recognised on merit, but people much prefer not to piss off China. The merits of independent Catalonia are outweighed by the ruptures it would cause in Europe.
The UK cannot support because Rajoy has kicked the wasps nest, illegal referendums used not to count, but that was before grannies trying to vote got truncheoned. The SNP is watching and choosing its words carefully. Plaid Cymru has already called for the Welsh assembly to recognise Catalonia. Just adding this here in case anyone thinks my disagreement with the pro-Spanish lobby here is based on personal emotive opinion, feth that, I actually would prefer you guys were right, but sadly you are not.
Italy is in a worse state than the UK on this, and the whole EU is generally not happy, the Federalists have been delivered a huge fly in their wine gobblet, EU show of strength unity has large cracks now and everything will get more expensive all round as a wealthy portion of a member state goes tits up financially sinking Spain further into the territory of a 'club med' economy. Germany is sick of paying for Greece and Portugal, Barcelona keeps the Spanish economy bouyant, now that will sink and the balance of input output of EU resources will be come less favourable to the wealthier northern economies.

The trouble now is, its a populist movement now, with a zeitgeist so the economic pressures are mostly on Madrid, not Barcelona. This is because it's considered worthwhile to suffer a drop in income in return for 'freedom'. The economic exodus from Barcelona, if it happens, and any economic downturn will hurt Madrid more. While the EU has confirmed its an internal Spanish matter, and there is an affirmation of sovereignty in that, its also has a double meaning. Your mess so you fix it. Rajoy has already had open comments on an intergovernmental level on how to deal with the issue, some bordering on the patronising, that inform him not to go over the edge, again.
The pro-independence Catalans could do a lot worse, tactically, than simply being hold-outs over the process. This adventure will cost Spain visibly, and it will then cost the EU visibly, which with a combo with the strong probability of a no deal Brexit will leave EU finances uncomfortable, then the Germans and French will start grumbling, that Madrid cannot ignore, and the Catalans will hold they key to any solution.

Rajoy could speed this up by heavy handed means, if he does this he WILL lose the province from Spain sometime in the next five to fifteen years, if that.
He could offer a super autonomy, independence lite option and bribe them back. That might work, but UDI has been declared, and this is aklready a criminal matter according to Madrid.
Or he could offer a blanket pardon, and arrange a referendum saying it should be done legally and ask the EU for proactive help to ensure the pro-union campaign does not lose.

jouso wrote:




Not even 50% of the ruling PdeCat party would be in favour of straight independence, 50% would choose to continue being part of Spain with a better economic deal.

Not relevant. People voted for Thatcher to give her a landslide in '87, that doesnt mean Tories forever. Blair had a landslide in '97, Labour is not in power.

You can post a hundred pie charts, but when on the day of the referendum the result says 90% the other way your excuse had better be 'vote rigging', as its the only one that counts. Sadly for you the vote does not appear to have been rigged or interfered with, except by the Spanish police, on orders from Madrid, to oppress the voters by force.
It doesn't look good however you slice it.

I'll only ask to not be mixed with Jouso and his ideas. Not that I'm saying that they are wrong per se, but I have different ones. I have made my opinions on this clear, in the firsts pages of this thread

I despise equally the central goverment and the independists one. To be honest, I despise more Rajoy and the central goverment, but at the end of the day, I'm just tired of the farse of the wholle Spain political system built under the orders of that piece of **** of Franco.

 Galas wrote:
I'll only ask to not be mixed with Jouso and his ideas. Not that I'm saying that they are wrong per se, but I have different ones. I have made my opinions on this clear, in the firsts pages of this thread

I despise equally the central goverment and the independists one. To be honest, I despise more Rajoy and the central goverment, but at the end of the day, I'm just tired of the farse of the wholle Spain political system built under the orders of that piece of **** of Franco.

Opinion noted. However you appear to share the same love and concern for Spain, as Jouso, if with a different political stance. Both of you have been strongly opposed to the referendum.

I remember your comments on the Scottish indyref campaign, and how we agreed that Spain would be forced to veto Scottish application to join the EU, and it was on this issue. How the world turns. Better Together made some mistakes, but feth, this has been handled worse than Brexit, and that should have been won but for Cameron's complacency.
There is a recurring message, if you don't take a ballot seriously and act to defeat it, expect disappointing consequences.

Spain can win here, and safely too, but it would require a visible U turn at this point, a careful approach and a new leader. How attached is Rajoy to the trappings of power? Could he be persuaded to fall on his sword?

Actually I have said many times that I'm pro-referendum but pro-union.

I have been opposed with how they have made this referendum, the agenda behind it, etc... but even more opposed with how the central goverment has react to it.

And no. The problem with Rajoy and the PP is that even being the MOST corrupt political party on Spain, like, literally the week before has been proved by the anti-corruption fiscal, that is very very possible that Rajoy has been receiving many illegal bonuses. If we had a election now in Spain, they'll win again. Because people is like that. I have said many times that Spanish is more similar to an American banana republic than to an advanced democratic European country.

I'm sorry that I cant encounter this on english media, maybe the auto-translate will help you:
http://www.eldiario.es/politica/Fiscal-Gurtel-sobornos-cargos-PP_0_700280114.html


Rajoy didn't leaved the power position even when the party that supported the PP to become presidents (Ciudadanos) campaigned under the idea that they would only support the PP if Rajoy ceased to be president. Rajoy refused, and Ciudadanos supported them and make him president.

 Orlanth wrote:


You can post a hundred pie charts, but when on the day of the referendum the result says 90% the other way your excuse had better be 'vote rigging', as its the only one that counts. Sadly for you the vote does not appear to have been rigged or interfered with, except by the Spanish police, on orders from Madrid, to oppress the voters by force.
It doesn't look good however you slice it.

Again. It was not a referendum. It was a glorified single-party event, just like the previous one. Which is why only one part of the electorate showed up.

Would you accept as legitimate a Scottish referedum held at the SNP national convention and where only the SNP campaigned? Do you accept the Crimean 2014 referendum as valid? On a different scale, this is the same here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

And no. The problem with Rajoy and the PP is that even being the MOST corrupt political party on Spain,

The problem with Rajoy is that his party seems to have a floor of 8 million votes. Unless they feel punished by the electorate they will go on doing exactly the same thing.

You being Galician (just like in my home Valencia) know that whoever the PP puts in front could murder a child in live TV and they'd still get their 8 million votes from pensioners, small business owners and everyone in their client network (which is huge at the local level). 4 million still find a way to blame "the left" for everything and the other 4 would say "ok they're bad" but would still grudgingly vote PP because "the other options are worse".

jouso wrote:

Would you accept as legitimate a Scottish referedum held at the SNP national convention and where only the SNP campaigned? Do you accept the Crimean 2014 referendum as valid? On a different scale, this is the same here.

Ok lets run with this, and the possibility that Sturgeon would pull a stunt like this is not incoceivable.

The Scottish government have claimed to have a right to hold a second referendum, legally this is not true, it does need Westminster backing so the UK could have a very similar problem as Spain has.
So what to do about it.

1. Pro-union Scots would be best advised not to boycott the referendum even if illegal. Vote anyway, make sure its not one sided, it is not for the voter to determine the legality of the ballot, and it is not illegal of itself to vote in a ballot that is illegal.

2. The Scottish Government will be informed directly and clearly that the ballot is illegal as the existing ballot structure agreed with Westminster is that ONE ballot occurs, which is final and lasting and that one ballot speaks for Scotland and is binding on Scotland and the UK These were terms the Scottish government had to sign agreement to.

Now at that point Sturgeon could just hold an illegal ballot anyway, but three further points remain.

3. Because the ballot is de facto illegal the UK itself does not have to agree to it, and unlike Spain because a ballot has been agreed a priori there is no consequence for not doing so. It is likely Scotland would not be recognised as a separate state under those circumstances.

4. It can be pointed out repeatedly that if Scotland had voted Yes to independence in 2014 and the majority of Scots wanted to change their mind in 2017 would Sturgeon and Salmond allow them to do so and reverse independence? The chances are very likely they would not.

5. Scotland has had one partisan referendum, only Scots were balloted. However the Scots in a ballot have confirmed they are part of the UK. So if a new ballot is to be held it is a UK issue, as confirmed by the Scots in 2014 when they confirmed they would remain UK citizens. Scottish independence effects people on both sides of the border, and therefore the ideal of a Scottish referendum is a legal one off as it is a suspension of equal opportunities and free voting rights. Now that single event has passed a legal challenge could be made that for reasons of democratic equality and fairness every UK citizen of voting age, regardless of where they live in the UK should be entitled to a ballot on the issue.
To not ballot the English Welsh and Irish members of the UK on a repetitive issue effecting the UK is inherently undemocratic. This can be held in the courts long enough to kick the issue into touch.


There are probably other legal arguments and challenges possible. They are unlocked by giving the Scots, or Catalans a fair one time referendum, making sure you win the vote for pro-union, and then being armed with the ballot results to neutralise further seperatist demands.
It works well enough.

jouso wrote:

 Galas wrote:

And no. The problem with Rajoy and the PP is that even being the MOST corrupt political party on Spain,

The problem with Rajoy is that his party seems to have a floor of 8 million votes. Unless they feel punished by the electorate they will go on doing exactly the same thing.

You being Galician (just like in my home Valencia) know that whoever the PP puts in front could murder a child in live TV and they'd still get their 8 million votes from pensioners, small business owners and everyone in their client network (which is huge at the local level). 4 million still find a way to blame "the left" for everything and the other 4 would say "ok they're bad" but would still grudgingly vote PP because "the other options are worse".

Sadly, you are absolutely correct.
My poor country, how the PP has destroyed it.

 Orlanth wrote:

1. Pro-union Scots would be best advised not to boycott the referendum even if illegal. Vote anyway, make sure its not one sided, it is not for the voter to determine the legality of the ballot, and it is not illegal of itself to vote in a ballot that is illegal.

Again, why? Why would supporters of one party knowingly participate in a publicity stunt organised by the opposing party?

Just because I say "this is a referendum" it doesn't make it so.

Let's forget Scotland and to go the other example: Do you accept the Crimean referendum? Do you support Russia annexing Crimea based on that?

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain could sort this whole thing out much quicker and far less painful if it just authorised and held a referendum in Catalonia.

Or it just hang all the mayors who supported it. As this is Spain, option B is more likely than you might think.

 Frazzled wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain could sort this whole thing out much quicker and far less painful if it just authorised and held a referendum in Catalonia.

Or it just hang all the mayors who supported it. As this is Spain, option B is more likely than you might think.

We prefer to shoot them on the back of the head and let them rot in a gutter. We call it the "Paseito" (Walk)

jouso wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

1. Pro-union Scots would be best advised not to boycott the referendum even if illegal. Vote anyway, make sure its not one sided, it is not for the voter to determine the legality of the ballot, and it is not illegal of itself to vote in a ballot that is illegal.

Again, why? Why would supporters of one party knowingly participate in a publicity stunt organised by the opposing party?

Just because I say "this is a referendum" it doesn't make it so.

Ok. By encouraging the populace not to boycott the ballot you prevent a whitewash result. 90% is pretty damning, its the opposite of the sweet spot. Had nearer 100% of those polled been pro-indy it would appear to be a North Korean election and a joke. There are exceptions to that, but only where the position of the local populace is exceptionally clear, which isnt the case in Catalonia. This can be true locally to you though,, Gibraltar is one such case.
90% is a clear indication of massive support for independence.

Next is it a stunt though? No. Ballot papers were delivered everywhere, the voting booth placement map was not fixed or slanted to make it more difficult to vote in areas known to have strong pro-Spanish community. I cannot write off a ballot that is not of itself rigged that showed fair and open distribution as a stunt.

You are let complaining that the Catalan parliament didn't go through proper procedures, but their error is less than those opposed. If Rajoy had not intervened with the ballot stations and simply disavowed the election results we might not be having this conversation. Pro-Catalonian independence crowds would be smaller, pro-Spain crowds larger and you would have more time for a breather. Nobody would be forced into a position to dissolve parliaments or issue criminal warrants, extra time for dialogue would occur.
It is then that a ballot result could be contested on reasons of legality in the courts, there would be zeitgeist for a UDI declaration, and no need to rush one either.

jouso wrote:

Let's forget Scotland and to go the other example: Do you accept the Crimean referendum? Do you support Russia annexing Crimea based on that?

Putin invades Crimea with a military force while a pro-Russian Ukrainian government leaves the door open for them. Most non Russian speaking populace of Crimea have to flee and thus the remaining population is not a fair indication of the whole, No the referendum was illegal because it was issued by an invading force on another nations sovereign territory after removing opposed population base.
However conquest happens, Putin conquered Crimea, I respect him for having the balls to pull off a territorial conquest in a European territory in the 21st century.
Its not legal, but it was mostly bloodless, supported by the remaining population without a holocaust and the Russians aren't going to leave.
It has happened, like Tibet happened, and the cause is lost. So no point making waves.
Instead of complaining about Crimea soldiers have been sent to the Baltic states and the remainder of the Ukraine. Putin knows his neighbours won't be caught napping a second time. Ukraine will have no more pro-Moscow governments to sell them out, and the Baltic states are wide awake to the threat and NATO is deploying token troops in border regions so an unopposed walk in is not possible.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Spain could sort this whole thing out much quicker and far less painful if it just authorised and held a referendum in Catalonia.

Or it just hang all the mayors who supported it. As this is Spain, option B is more likely than you might think.

Puigdemont has already been offered asylum. If he has to leave and there are martyrs left behind; assuming they are imprisoned not executed. I cannot myself believe Madrid would sink that low. Puigdemont would become president-in-exile, the true leader of the Catalan people, and hyped as expected, maybe even 'destined' to return. Give him a makeover to get rid of his 60's hairstyle and he is ready.
He would become a mythical great leader like Mandela was touted to be. Mandela was actually a corrupt incompetent, and that was untested because he was in prison, but he knew how to play the messiah card given to him by supporters he had no contact with. Unlike Mandela cannot fault Puigdemont's smarts one bit, and thus to give him a mythical leader persona would be a very dangerous mistake.

https://www.politico.eu/article/belgian-minister-puigdemont-can-apply-for-asylum-here/