Catalan Indyref - Spanish police beat old women, seize ballot boxes, fire rubber bullets at voters.

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

kronk wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

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**

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.”

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**Iron_Captain**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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**

Catalan isn't having a revolution against Spain. They want to vote themselves free, but they have gone the wrong way about it.

**Orlanth**

There isn't a right way officially. That door is closed by the Spanish constitution. Thus a new path opens itself. This is how it often happens.

**Grey Templar**

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.

**Iron_Captain**

Grey Templar wrote:
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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
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.

**Grey Templar**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
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.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

jouso wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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'.

**AlmightyWalrus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
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.

BaronIveagh wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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?

**jouso**

BaronIveagh wrote:

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.

https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2017-09-22/rajoy-sanchez-reforma-constitucional-referendum-cataluna_1447790/

**Lord Kragan**

Well, JxSi just split back into PdeCat and ERC for the upcoming elections. Oh gee I wonder why.

**AllSeeingSkink**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**jouso**

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).

They wanted a confrontation, and they got one.

**tneva82**

Grey Templar wrote:
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...

**Kilkrazy**

You are right.

The trouble was that the majority of Catalonians are satisfied with the devolution situation that already existed, and do not want 100% independence.

Thus, the "Tru-Independentists" had to attempt a kind of "democratic coup" to force the issue.

This having failed, it remains to be seen what will happen next.

**tneva82**

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.

**jouso**

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.

Catalonia crisis: Spain could allow referendums, says FM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41913520

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**jouso**

So Pamela Anderson (yes, THAT Pamela Anderson) sides with the indy camp. That will surely make a lot of pro-union supporters think twice about it

http://www.pamelaandersonfoundation.org/news/2017/11/6/catalonia

She seems to be on the Russian dime lately, so not that surprising considering this top 4.

**Iron_Captain**

jouso wrote:

So Pamela Anderson (yes, THAT Pamela Anderson) sides with the indy camp. That will surely make a lot of pro-union supporters think twice about it

http://www.pamelaandersonfoundation.org/news/2017/11/6/catalonia

She seems to be on the Russian dime lately, so not that surprising considering this top 4.

Shhh! Don't expose our little plot to destabilise Europe!

**Crazyterran**

Has anyone ever cared what Pamela Anderson Thought?

I mean, other than to mock it immediately.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Crazyterran wrote:
Has anyone ever cared what Pamela Anderson Thought?

I mean, other than to mock it immediately.

Who?

**kronk**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Crazyterran wrote:
Has anyone ever cared what Pamela Anderson Thought?

I mean, other than to mock it immediately.

Who?

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.

Also, Tommy Lee gave her hepatitis.

**Lone Cat**

Iron_Captain wrote:
jouso wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
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?