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.

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.

 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.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42849055

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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

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.