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 wrote:
I thought the EU was supposed to stay out of sovereign countries and respect their sovereignty?

The EU is supposed to stand up for the principles and human rights it was supposedly founded on.

nfe wrote:

That's what the unionist spokespeople and the bulk of the media told everyone the EU was saying. No official statements were every made by the EU. The opinions given by EU commissioners, lawyers, and negotiators were pretty mixed and ranged from 'you'll get straight in' to 'back of the queue' via 'a new entrant but with accelerated access'.

I would disagree since the Spanish Ambassador stated that they would veto any application as they didn't (rather ironically) want to encourage Catalan voices for independence.

Can we agree that the general consensus was not encouraging? And required more investigation than that which was carried out?

Cheers

Andrew

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you are expecting here.

A statement that boils down to 'We unilaterally reject the Spanish Government's use of force to resolve internal political problems instead of diplomacy' would be nice. Or as mentioned, a 'leaked' article from Juncker's desk decrying the barbarism inherent in deploying police to smash in people's heads? Or, again as said, a public joint protestation from Macron & Merkel in favour of democracy? I mean, come on, seriously? Me posting on the internet here is about as much as the EU has done on the matter.

Which is in line with what I thought was the case, in all honesty. It's one of the reasons I voted to leave. But I take absolutely no joy in seeing it proved like this, and I've already written to my MP asking him to make a public statement. Won't happen (he's a Tory who fancies himself leader in twenty years), but in that, it would appear that he demonstrates the same actual values as the EU does.

Yeah, but you aren't going to get anyone condemning a state in this way, such strong language is going to be reserved for places like North Korea. However for example Guy Verhofstadt response was this " I don't want to interfere in the domestic issues of Spain but I absolutely condemn what happened today in Catalonia". There is more subtlety in the statement from the EU than is people realise as well. It in particular points out Spain's Prime Minister as responsible for the Police's actions and that they 'trust' that he will sort things out (i.e. not to let it happen again). they also reiterate that peoples rights are not to sacrificed.

"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."

The EU are not going to fully support the referendum because in the end it was illegal, so there is a careful line to be drawn between "having words" and not encouraging other potential illegal votes in other countries. I do not agree with Spain's approach (and in fact think it will be counter productive for them) but at the same time recognise that the EU have only so much control and are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater where diplomatic channels might result in a better outcome.

 Whirlwind wrote:

"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."

Sorry is that the constitution that states that Spain is indivisible?

No genuinely democratic country is indivisible. Trying to enforce such an attitude leaves people with no recourse but violence.

Would Spain prefer a peaceful independence referendum, or a USA style Civil War?

Kilkrazy wrote:Given this clear failure of conventional modern liberal regulation of the free market and redistribution of wealth, May's position is full of contradictions while Corbyn's position makes complete sense.

That's why I found that comment (a few pages ago in this thread, don't remember who made it) about Corbyn's policy ideas being stuck in the 70s kinda funny. The 70s are kinda when we (we being more or less all western democracies) have started to cut social services, privatise as much as possible, and cut taxes (we just didn't see the effect that early). That were our sacrifices at the altar of economic prosperity at the cost of overall stagnant wages for the poor and middle class while nearly all of the benefits of those polices were funnelled to the already rich. Maybe going to 70s policy ideas (higher taxes for the rich and more wealth redistribution) wouldn't such a bad idea to rediscover the prosperity of the "good old times" instead of cutting whatever bits of our social services are left and at the same time reducing the tax burden on the already rich.

We were far from propserous in the 70's...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We were far from propserous in the 70's...

The 70's the UK was dirty. Backwards, riddled with strikes and industrial disputes.

It was not a golden age.

Didn't it take months to order a new phone?

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

According to Die Welt Rajoy got an earful from none other than Frau Merkel.

The Commission was more diplomatic:

"We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein."

I'm sure all those battered old ladies will sleep better at night knowing that the German Premier dared to be slightly terse with the man responsible. If he orders the killing of a few thousand, will the EU Commission send him to bed without supper?

For the record, I think both president Rajoy and whoever was joint police chief at the moment should resign but:

The people on the receiving end knew exactly what was going to happen. Simple as that. For the last 2 weeks the main item in the news was there's a court order that says the referendum is illegal, ballots and voting boxes will be seized. Some people decided exercise their right to assemble and protest the court order, and the police exercised their duty to comply with a court order, which for the most part was proportionate. In the cases when it was not, complaints have been filed in court and will go through due process.

I bet you didn't see the video of a man throwing his own 10-ish year old child to a policeman trying to get him to push or hit him? Or the woman whose fingers were "broken" on live TV (with a thick bandage and that) be bandage-less on a separate location a couple hours later? As a father I have very little sympathy for anyone putting their children in front of riot police, at least the seniors knew where they were getting themselves into.

The government fell for the trap, and should pay for it, but I'd like to see the same treatment thrown at the local government calling for their own people to act as human shields to cover for their own incompetence at getting a proper referendum law passed on their own regional parliament.

Well, well. well.

Looks like MEPs are up to their old tricks again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41477817

MEPs are urging delay in trade talks decision unless 'progress' is made.

We know what the EU's idea of progress is: Britain putting £100 billion on the table as a bare minimum

Sadly, in May, we have a PM who is prepared to roll up the white flag and put large sums of money on the table

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Didn't it take months to order a new phone?

Yes.

Amusingly enough, it is taking me months to order an upgrade to fibre broadband, because BT Openreach told the numerous broadband providers they had wired up my local street-side cabinet, but they hadn't actually done it properly. This allowed me to order the upgrade, have it "installed" and start to be charged for it, without any benefit of higher speeds.

I am not allowed to communicate directly with BT, who own and maintain the hardware. I have to go through my provider, who are operating on the basis of wrong information. This makes it much harder to resolve the situation than if there was a single company in charge of the system.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We know what the EU's idea of progress is: Britain putting £100 billion on the table as a bare minimum

Do we? I thought that was the maximum?

I don't see the problem, we agreed on day 1 that we wouldn't talk trade until the divorce was dealt with, and we don't seem any further forward on it.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We know what the EU's idea of progress is: Britain putting £100 billion on the table as a bare minimum

Do we? I thought that was the maximum?

I don't see the problem, we agreed on day 1 that we wouldn't talk trade until the divorce was dealt with, and we don't seem any further forward on it.

There's only one side trying to negotiate here, and it ain't the EU.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: it's high time we pulled the plug on this sham of a negotiation and walk away.

Oh, you're negotiating? I thought you were running a tragicomic farce.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yeah, but you aren't going to get anyone condemning a state in this way, such strong language is going to be reserved for places like North Korea. However for example Guy Verhofstadt response was this " I don't want to interfere in the domestic issues of Spain but I absolutely condemn what happened today in Catalonia". There is more subtlety in the statement from the EU than is people realise as well. It in particular points out Spain's Prime Minister as responsible for the Police's actions and that they 'trust' that he will sort things out (i.e. not to let it happen again). they also reiterate that peoples rights are not to sacrificed..

How about we actually look at the statement? Because that interpretation sounds a mile off to me.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-3626_en.htm

EU Statement on Catalonia wrote:Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday's vote in Catalonia was not legal.
For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain.
We also reiterate the legal position held by this Commission as well as by its predecessors. If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union.
Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation.
We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein.

The first thing that they bother to state is that the vote isn't legal. Interesting first priority for a statement supposedly regarding a considerable amount of violence, no? They then vaguely call for unity, generally say that violence isn't a tool (without specifying who was committing it) before finally very actively endorsing the 'leadership' of the Spanish premier with an allusion to a hope that he'll do it line with (very explicitly) the rights contained within (or 'therein') the Spanish Constitution. Not, I hasten to add, those within a European legal framework, just very specifically the Spanish one.

That's not so much rapped knuckles as practically being given a metaphorical box of chocolates given how many people got their heads kicked in on camera by policemen. For an alternative view of things, let's look at the statement wheeled out by the UN Human Rights High commissioner:

I am very disturbed by the violence in Catalonia on Sunday. With hundreds of people reported injured, I urge the Spanish authorities to ensure thorough, independent and impartial investigations into all acts of violence. Police responses must at all times be proportionate and necessary.

I firmly believe that the current situation should be resolved through political dialogue, with full respect for democratic freedoms.

I call on the Government of Spain to accept without delay the requests by relevant UN human rights experts to visit.

He very explicitly states that police responses must be proportionate, for a legal process to be established to investigate the violence used, and demands for the Spanish Government to allow UN human rights officials to visit. I mean, when even the UN, that wonderful body run by the world's biggest hypocrites, is issuing harsher statements? That tells you something. If you're going to tell me that the EU can't or won't match even that statement, then they're clearly no good whatsoever when it comes to standing up for the rights of their citizens, and accordingly losing their 'protection' is little to care about in that regard.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's only one side trying to negotiate here, and it ain't the EU.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: it's high time we pulled the plug on this sham of a negotiation and walk away.

I haven't seen the UK try negotiating anything yet either. At least the EU has been consistent, both internally and over time.

As far as I can tell, the UK has only been suggesting things that we already decided for/against on day 1.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Oh, you're negotiating? I thought you were running a tragicomic farce.

I wouldn't believe everything that comes out of Juncker's office.

There's a lot of hyperbole from both sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's only one side trying to negotiate here, and it ain't the EU.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: it's high time we pulled the plug on this sham of a negotiation and walk away.

I haven't seen the UK try negotiating anything yet either. At least the EU has been consistent, both internally and over time.

As far as I can tell, the UK has only been suggesting things that we already decided for/against on day 1.

What you call consistent, I call rigid and inflexible.

The UK is banging its head against an EU brick wall, hence the reason why I think we should walk away.

..it's almost like they don't need us more than we need them..

.. who knew !




for today's fun :

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pig-keepers-identify-animals-before-moving-them

Gove lied to everyone in his speech.

.. a pigsear and brexit ... this stuff writes itself doesn't it eh ?

 reds8n wrote:


..it's almost like they don't need us more than we need them..

.. who knew !




for today's fun :

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pig-keepers-identify-animals-before-moving-them

Gove lied to everyone in his speech.

.. a pigsear and brexit ... this stuff writes itself doesn't it eh ?

India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.

Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?

I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.

You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.

Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?

I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.

You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.

Load them with what, exactly?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.

Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?

I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.

You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.

Load them with what, exactly?

Duchy Originals?

I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc

It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.

Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?

I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.

You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.

Load them with what, exactly?

Duchy Originals?

I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc

It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.

I mean other than the majority of the Indian populace being unable to afford those things/ prohibited by their religion, sure you're on to a winner, up until the EU walks up with it's selection of stuff and larger market share for trade going the other way.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/india/index_en.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/india-eu-ties-the-art-of-the-free-trade-agreement/article18732229.ece

The EU already is in negotiations with India , so in all probability they'll have a trade deal with India before we do/would -- outside of the EU.

Plus of course India has already said they want visa-less movement for professionals

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-britain-india-trade-deal-freedom-of-movement-delhi-boris-johnson-a7534026.html

However, the issue of visas quickly surfaced with a senior Indian official saying “mobility issues are of importance to us; we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments”. And S Irudaya Rajan, an advisor to the Indian government on migration issues added: “India is an important country for the UK and curbing the flow of good minds, whether they are students or skilled workers, cannot be good for the UK

I'm sure the IMMIGRATION IS THE #1 ISSUE brexit crowd would be absolutely fine at letting in increased numbers of people from India/Asia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39103078

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No genuinely democratic country is indivisible. Trying to enforce such an attitude leaves people with no recourse but violence.

Would Spain prefer a peaceful independence referendum, or a USA style Civil War?

This is not strictly true. The Spanish Government has given a large amount of independence to Catalonia. The Catalonian parliament can call for a vote on independence but that needs to have majority support in their Parliament. They didn't get it, but it was actioned anyway. Hence strictly speaking the vote wasn't constitutional. If people wanted a vote on independence then when it comes to the Catalonian elections they should vote for someone that supports it. That is how the democratic system is set up. It doesn't excuse attacking people protesting (but that's hardly unique to the western world, e.g. the UK miners strikes and 2010 student protests), however the parties wanting a referendum have also played their part in stoking tensions by not following the democratic process. Something that you have advocated for before. We can't pick and choose which parts we want to apply because it is inconvenient. Otherwise I could hold an referendum tomorrow on staying in the EU and I'd win. Does that mean the UK then has to stay in the EU? It's not a legal vote but this is what you are advocating. The people behind the vote probably wanted to inflame the situation because that can only benefit them if the Spanish government over-reacted, which they by far did. The Spanish government would have been far better to let them have the vote and then point out how much money these people wasted on something that really didn't hold any weight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-3626_en.htm

EU Statement on Catalonia wrote:Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday's vote in Catalonia was not legal.
For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain.
We also reiterate the legal position held by this Commission as well as by its predecessors. If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union.
Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation.
We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein.

The first thing that they bother to state is that the vote isn't legal. Interesting first priority for a statement supposedly regarding a considerable amount of violence, no? They then vaguely call for unity, generally say that violence isn't a tool (without specifying who was committing it) before finally very actively endorsing the 'leadership' of the Spanish premier with an allusion to a hope that he'll do it line with (very explicitly) the rights contained within (or 'therein') the Spanish Constitution. Not, I hasten to add, those within a European legal framework, just very specifically the Spanish one.

That's not so much rapped knuckles as practically being given a metaphorical box of chocolates given how many people got their heads kicked in on camera by policemen. For an alternative view of things, let's look at the statement wheeled out by the UN Human Rights High commissioner:

I am very disturbed by the violence in Catalonia on Sunday. With hundreds of people reported injured, I urge the Spanish authorities to ensure thorough, independent and impartial investigations into all acts of violence. Police responses must at all times be proportionate and necessary.

I firmly believe that the current situation should be resolved through political dialogue, with full respect for democratic freedoms.

I call on the Government of Spain to accept without delay the requests by relevant UN human rights experts to visit.

He very explicitly states that police responses must be proportionate, for a legal process to be established to investigate the violence used, and demands for the Spanish Government to allow UN human rights officials to visit. I mean, when even the UN, that wonderful body run by the world's biggest hypocrites, is issuing harsher statements? That tells you something. If you're going to tell me that the EU can't or won't match even that statement, then they're clearly no good whatsoever when it comes to standing up for the rights of their citizens, and accordingly losing their 'protection' is little to care about in that regard.

It's by far more subtle than this. The EU have set out their position statement on the vote, this is fair enough. They wanted to be clear that they believe that individual countries constitution should be followed, they can't be seen to be advocating an illegal vote. Given that it is a democratic country that is reasonable. When you ignore this and just do what you want then effectively you have a dictatorship. They then clearly lay the blame in political speak at the doorstep of the Spanish PM, they have named him specifically immediately after stating violence is not an answer. It may not be directly accusing him but the sentences are linked and they are clearly laying it at his door. It might not be "you should take responsibility" but there is a large amount of political subtlety in these statements because that is how the world works. Only Trump/Boris ploughs in without any consideration. More stronger words come through individuals as that is how the message can be put out more plainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whisky, guns, etc etc

It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.

Erm.... you want to sell Whiskey to a country where many think that alcohol should be banned because of their religious beliefs? And you want to sell guns after what we have just seen in Las Vegas?

Also given that we don't yet grow enough food to sustain our own populace why does selling expensive food abroad actually help at all especially those on the lowest wages?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, well. well.

Looks like MEPs are up to their old tricks again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41477817

MEPs are urging delay in trade talks decision unless 'progress' is made.

I thought you liked Democracy? They voted pretty unanimously on how far talks had gotten to and almost all (probably with the exception of UK MEPs) that not enough progress has been made. If the UK had made more progress then perhaps the vote would have been tighter. You can't complain in one moment that the EU isn't democratic and then in the next moment complain that a democratic vote was had and it didn't go the way you wanted?

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's by far more subtle than this. The EU have set out their position statement on the vote, this is fair enough. They wanted to be clear that they believe that individual countries constitution should be followed, they can't be seen to be advocating an illegal vote.

The vote is not the issue. They could have given out half a dozen other statements of equal length talking about the legalities of the vote. The discussion at hand is their lack of spine (or concern) for the quantity of violence doled out by the police by the instruction of the government.

Given that it is a democratic country that is reasonable. When you ignore this and just do what you want then effectively you have a dictatorship.

I keep hearing this bizare 'Oh, but if the EU dared to say anything stronger, they'd be interfering in the affairs of other countries, etcetc', and it's a huge steaming pile of disingenous rubbish as far as arguments go. Not only is it taking the most ridiculous hyperbolic extreme interpretation of 'interfering', we've seen over Brexit and a dozen other issues that when the EU feels its interests are at stake, rhetoric, briefings, and funding flow freely from their desks in short order. The only difference here is that the EU has no realpolitik gain to make from doing the same here. None whatsoever. Not even enough to justify a harshly worded admonition that everyone would forget in a month.

They are exactly the same as any other bunch of self-serving mendicants squatting in government. And this has proven it.

They then clearly lay the blame in political speak at the doorstep of the Spanish PM, they have named him specifically immediately after stating violence is not an answer.

No. I do not see or agree with this frankly, strange interpretation. They very explicitly refer to the Spanish Constitution, no mention is made of the violence specifically committed by the police, no blame is specifically attributed, and an endorsement is publically made of the Spanish Prime Minister. The statement very literally states the precise opposite of what you are attempting to interpret it as.

You can attempt to claim that 'We have full faith in the power of Mr Rajoy to resolve this process in line with Spanish law' actually means 'We are very cross with Mr Rajoy and hope he enforces law in line with EU human rights', but by that logic you can claim it means anything at all in the name of subtlety. You might as well claim that they're talking about going fishing next weekend.

Not to mention the very simple fact that even if I completely agreed with you, it would still be a pisspoor, mealy mouthed vague statement when they should have made a far stronger one. My general point stands regardless of the interpretation you choose to make.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No genuinely democratic country is indivisible. Trying to enforce such an attitude leaves people with no recourse but violence.

Would Spain prefer a peaceful independence referendum, or a USA style Civil War?

This is not strictly true. The Spanish Government has given a large amount of independence to Catalonia. The Catalonian parliament can call for a vote on independence but that needs to have majority support in their Parliament. They didn't get it, but it was actioned anyway. Hence strictly speaking the vote wasn't constitutional. If people wanted a vote on independence then when it comes to the Catalonian elections they should vote for someone that supports it. That is how the democratic system is set up. It doesn't excuse attacking people protesting (but that's hardly unique to the western world, e.g. the UK miners strikes and 2010 student protests), however the parties wanting a referendum have also played their part in stoking tensions by not following the democratic process. Something that you have advocated for before. We can't pick and choose which parts we want to apply because it is inconvenient. Otherwise I could hold an referendum tomorrow on staying in the EU and I'd win. Does that mean the UK then has to stay in the EU? It's not a legal vote but this is what you are advocating. The people behind the vote probably wanted to inflame the situation because that can only benefit them if the Spanish government over-reacted, which they by far did. The Spanish government would have been far better to let them have the vote and then point out how much money these people wasted on something that really didn't hold any weight.

You're arguing against a Straw Man, things I have never said.

I have never advocated for the democratic process of Parliament to be ignored. Please provide a citation or kindly withdraw that false accusation.

That the Catalan Referendum is illegal is not in doubt. It was not approved by the Catalan Parliament, so it was illegal under the Catalan Constitution.

But I wasn't talking about this, the legality of the referendum was not touched on in my post. I was referring to the Spanish Government's claim that Spain is indivisible. The Spanish Government doesn't care if the Catalan Referendum was illegal or legal.

In stark contrast to the UK Westminster Government which agreed for a legal Scottish Referendum to be held, the Spanish Government rejects the Catalan Referendum outright. They would have still sent in the stormtroopers regardless of whether the Referendum was legal or not. If the Catalan Referendum was approved by the Catalan Parliament, the Madrid Government would still have labelled it illegal under the Spanish Constitution and sent the Guarda Civil to shut it down.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
...But I wasn't talking about this, the legality of the referendum was not touched on in my post. I was referring to the Spanish Government's claim that Spain is indivisible....

Clearly some of the people of Catalonia think otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.

Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?

I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.

You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.

Load them with what, exactly?

Duchy Originals?

I joke of course, but we still make stuff in this country: medicines, high quality food stuff, whisky, guns, etc etc

It doesn't always have to be cars and TVs.

You have accelerated so far over the bulls hit horizon, you've actually hit sanity escape velocity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We know what the EU's idea of progress is: Britain putting £100 billion on the table as a bare minimum

Do we? I thought that was the maximum?

I don't see the problem, we agreed on day 1 that we wouldn't talk trade until the divorce was dealt with, and we don't seem any further forward on it.

There's only one side trying to negotiate here, and it ain't the EU.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: it's high time we pulled the plug on this sham of a negotiation and walk away.

Well,the current thought process that has come to my attention and tbf, makes sense of their position, is that they are determined that the taxpayers of the 27 don't pay for the decision of the ex-28th.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's by far more subtle than this. The EU have set out their position statement on the vote, this is fair enough. They wanted to be clear that they believe that individual countries constitution should be followed, they can't be seen to be advocating an illegal vote.

The vote is not the issue. They could have given out half a dozen other statements of equal length talking about the legalities of the vote. The discussion at hand is their lack of spine (or concern) for the quantity of violence doled out by the police by the instruction of the government.

And which they did indeed put out a statement on. The only real question is whether people think it is harsh enough and should have been more akin to yelling abuse at a country and telling them how bad they are.

I keep hearing this bizare 'Oh, but if the EU dared to say anything stronger, they'd be interfering in the affairs of other countries, etcetc', and it's a huge steaming pile of disingenous rubbish as far as arguments go. Not only is it taking the most ridiculous hyperbolic extreme interpretation of 'interfering', we've seen over Brexit and a dozen other issues that when the EU feels its interests are at stake, rhetoric, briefings, and funding flow freely from their desks in short order. The only difference here is that the EU has no realpolitik gain to make from doing the same here. None whatsoever. Not even enough to justify a harshly worded admonition that everyone would forget in a month.

Actually I think the argument has been that as part of Wrexit people have claimed leaving was because the EU got too involved in countries own internal affairs, yet when the EU take a stand offish approach to these then the same people complain the at the EU isn't getting involved. Of course the EU get involved when it affects the EU as a whole. That is there remit. Wrexit will affect the whole of the EU therefore they have a say. Catalan is strictly speaking Spain's affair therefore they have little remit to directly influence what is going on. That there is almost certainly pressure I the back halls on Spain is inevitable (just like we have whips etc in the UK parliament). That it is not public facing doesn't mean it isn't going on. However condemning the country can be counter productive. If a member of the public in Catalan took the Spanish government to the ECJ then it would dealt with just as any other rights issue would be.

They are exactly the same as any other bunch of self-serving mendicants squatting in government. And this has proven it.

They are human beings, we are all the same. Why are you surprised? No one ever said they were angels. Just that it was best for the UK to be in that club and not out of it

You can attempt to claim that 'We have full faith in the power of Mr Rajoy to resolve this process in line with Spanish law' actually means 'We are very cross with Mr Rajoy and hope he enforces law in line with EU human rights', but by that logic you can claim it means anything at all in the name of subtlety. You might as well claim that they're talking about going fishing next weekend.

That is because the English language links sentences so "The mat was in the hall. There was a terrible smell" means the mat was smelling. The same goes for the statement from the EU. The sentences are linked...basically that they noted the abuse and they fully expect the PM to not do it again and actually talk to Catalonia.

However in other news the Tory conference is a barrel of laughs.

For example going back to a conversation the other day, according to reports Rees-Mogg is anti-abortion, however it appears he is happy to make money from the industry as apparently his investment company earns money from this "in a roundabout way"
[url]
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-confronted-by-angry-protesters-at-tory-conference_uk_59d23ac8e4b09538b5098cb4[/url]

Where was that bit about he stood up for what he believed in?

Apparently unmarried men are a scourge on society and turn into dysfunctional human beings according to the pilchard IDS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/marriage-iain-duncan-smith_uk_59d3b8f9e4b04b9f92054af5?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

Honestly I'd probably say the same thing about parents, especially when they are on the school run....

Boris Johnson has decided that dead bodies in Libya are a bit of a joke and get in the way of business...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-faces-new-calls-to-be-sacked-after-joking-about-dead-bodies_uk_59d3d9b9e4b0218923e5b1a9?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

I've got to keep wondering who votes these people in...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

India has a population of 1 billion people. Germany, as an example, has a population of around 85 million.

Common sense tells us to load up the cargo ships and sail them to India. That's where the future is, that's where the money is. Hundreds of millions of people crying out for all sorts of goods and services, and why shouldn't they be British?

I love Europe, but it's yesterday's news in terms of economic growth.

You're talking about today, I'm focusing on tomorrow.

This is so tragically ignorant it almost hurts