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.

If they roll up to bite me, I face them down. Happy to talk about Spain too though.

 Orlanth wrote:
I am sure you would, because your vitriliolic hatred of the English is well understood from previous encounters.

Yup, back to my ignore list.

Rape is not a blown out of proportion issue.

Reread/read my post at all. I think Birmingham was blown out of proportion, and I brought up the Catholic Church because it is an organization that has engaged in decades long cover ups of sexual abuse, in many instances with public officials being complicit but when a Catholic priest abuses a kid, no one makes it evidence of how Catholics or Christians are dangerous to society. This isn't the first time you've been completely incapable connecting extremely obvious dots I might add, so maybe I need to address you on an even more basic level than I already do.

You can hardly consider me confused or innaccurate for commenting on known facts, that were proven in a court of law.

Many a contrivance are built on known facts and they are quite confusing when presented as undeniable fact. I mean I could build a whole idea that Christians want to kill all the Jews, gays, and gypsies based on nothing more than known facts proven in a court of law if I ignore that outside of involving "white people in Europe" there is no connection between the facts.

Don't patronise me.

I am a poster on DakkaDakka, which is hardly a position of ignorance and can say that my first hand experience with your cherry picking of information, inflating the value of your own suppositions, and being horribly incapable of following even basic responses that your opinions are built on such basic flaws, which is more of your problem than mine, that it's not really possible to respond to them without a little patronizing happening. Especially when it often comes off that those flaws are made by choice rather than a lack of ability to recognize them.

 Orlanth wrote:
If they roll up to bite me, I face them down.

Riiight. Keep telling yourself that while you hide behind semantics and technicalities Give Edward the Confessor my regards when you see him, and my apology for including his reign in my broad assertion about England's actions for the last millennium.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
If they roll up to bite me, I face them down.

Riiight. Keep telling yourself that while you hide behind semantics and technicalities Give Edward the Confessor my regards when you see him, and my apology for including his reign in my broad assertion about England's actions for the last millennium.

I don't know why you go on about this.

We were having a nice mostly on topic conversation when you pipe in on a topic about historic brutality by Spain in Catalonia by commenting that how the English were so much worse. It wasn't relevant to anything but racism like that has to be challenged.

England is so evil for a thousand years! <Blink> the English have behaved like just about every other country in Western civilisation according to the methods of the time, and frankly was usually early on the curve for reform on several key issues including slavery and womens rights, though by no means the first. Sure the British Empire committed many actions which by todays standards would be considered vile atrocities, just like any other western civilisation that were able to do more than sit at home. However former British colonies are mostly in better shape than those colonised by others, and relations are mostly friendly. There are exceptions, but most of those have a religious bent behind them and it wouldn't have mattered who was the colonising power.

Also why the 'English'? When redcoats did what redcoats do they were as often a Welshman, Scot or Irishman in the uniform, or even as their commander.

You sir have a racist attitude towards my people, and based on actions from ludicrously long ago, its futile asking you to stop, but it would be interesting to understand what makes you tick, in the same way I am interested in the motivations behind followers of Zanu PF or Daesh.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Rape is not a blown out of proportion issue.

Reread/read my post at all. I think Birmingham was blown out of proportion, and I brought up the Catholic Church because it is an organization that has engaged in decades long cover ups of sexual abuse, in many instances with public officials being complicit but when a Catholic priest abuses a kid, no one makes it evidence of how Catholics or Christians are dangerous to society. This isn't the first time you've been completely incapable connecting extremely obvious dots I might add, so maybe I need to address you on an even more basic level than I already do.

However your comment holds no connexion as I am not either making comment to link the Islamic extremists or rape gangs against all/most Moslems either. So there is no valid comparison.

In your little mind you however assume this is that case, because its easier to critique someone if they criticise pandering to extremism if you can relabel their position as a hatred of an entire people group.
You are not the first to use that dirty little trick, and won't be the last.
It is in fact why the paedophile rape gangs got away with what they did for so long, if you criticised them you were just an anti-Moslem bigot. It worked on the police too.

 LordofHats wrote:

You can hardly consider me confused or innaccurate for commenting on known facts, that were proven in a court of law.

Many a contrivance are built on known facts and they are quite confusing when presented as undeniable fact.

However no contrivance was built. I knew about this a priori and believed there was an issue that was being swept under the carpet, this position was vindicated by revelations in government.

 LordofHats wrote:

I am a poster on DakkaDakka, which is hardly a position of ignorance and can say that my first hand experience with your cherry picking of information, inflating the value of your own suppositions, and being horribly incapable of following even basic responses that your opinions are built on such basic flaws,

I am not cherry picking, just presenting the relevant facts. If was cherry picking you would be able to provide alternate facts that were carefully omitted. However you never post links, or even search criteria. Just baseless accusation; you say its cherry picking ad lib because it allows you to avoid countering a factual based argument with contrary data. It's both dishonest and lazy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, moving on.



When is the Senate vote on article 155 scheduled? Does anyone know.

 Orlanth wrote:
So there is no valid comparison.

Neither do I. What two incidents in the UK have to do with stuff in the rest of Europe is very unclear but you're here contriving a whole bunch of stuff anyway, and the contrivance is so basic I could throw together any number of alternate contrivances that are equally absurd but that you'd never buy into.

because its easier to critique someone if they criticise pandering to extremism if you can relabel their position as a hatred of an entire people group

Well you speak in such general terms, it is pretty easy but I haven't even jumped on that wagon this time

I am not cherry picking, just presenting the relevant facts.

When you narrowly define relevant to exclude all counter evidence (like crime stats), it's still cherry picking.

However you never post links, or even search criteria.

This whole tangent started when you were asked to provide evidence of a rather sweeping claim to which you have posted no links and the only search criteria you offered is to two cases in the UK. I don't need to post links or search criteria to point out how that doesn't hold up. You made the claim. It's not my burden to disprove it, though poking holes at it and watching you fumble around to hold the flimsy position together is entertaining in a mundane way.

Just baseless accusation

Like the baseless accusation that multiple European countries are ignoring things for political correctness? Honestly I find your entire response to people criticizing your opinion;

both dishonest and lazy

And funny because once again your attempts to dismiss criticism are really just a reflection of your own posting style more than anything; throw as many generalities as possible, then switch to specificity when those generalities are called out.

 LordofHats wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-41712725/spain-fm-many-police-violence-pictures-fake

The Spanish Government is declaring that the images of police beating people were faked, and the whole thing was 'Fake News'.

The "just declare it fake" strategy. If it's good enough for the internet its good enough for the state

I am disappointed however by the remarkable lack of effort. Not even a video of someone holding up a photo with some cool red circles and explaining how it's photo-shopped? Come on Spain. You can't even put as much effort into it as the moon landing nuts and the 9/11 Truthers? Disappointing

There's more to it than declare it fake. The foreign press has been too gullible with the oppressed people narrative that they were fed by interested Catalan parties.

Even notorious lost-cause advocates the guardian had to issue a sort-of apology.

Violence in Catalonia needed closer scrutiny in age of fake news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo-injuries-fact-checking

But of course by then the damage was already done.

Here's an interesting piece (also on the Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/catalan-case-persuasive-ruin-separatists-nationalism

1 October referendum was hardly a model of sound, democratic expression. Only a minority of Catalans took part (turnout was 43%), and its organisation ran counter to Catalonia’s own legislation. The two laws that led to it were voted through without the two-thirds majority the Catalan charter (the Estatut) requires for such a momentous reform process. Nor was the vote overseen by the regional constitutional court. The Council of Europe, Europe’s democracy watchdog, said it did not abide by its fundamental criteria. Reporters without Borders, an organisation that scrutinises freedom of the press, denounced the harassment and intimidation – sometimes physical – of reporters who did not toe the pro-independence line.

 Orlanth wrote:


Puidgemeont has several options. He has threatened to declare UDI if article 155 is triggered. Alternately he can hold an election and pull the rug from under Madrid. Assuming he wins the vote he would be re-legitimised and make Madrid's position very difficult.

That's the option he's been offered to save face (including an amnesty). Call an election or we will trigger 155 and do it for you.

Drop this random tangent about Islam, it's wildly off topic, insulting and barely based in reality outside of the Daily Mail and similar carriers.

Do not post 'FTFY' posts, be they hostile, supportive, or "funny".

In short, this thread is on notice. As is the UK politics thread. You'll end up like US politics if you can't behave like adults. Gradually shortening threads as each one gets locked before the topic gets forbidden. You've been given too much leeway to bite and snipe at each other recently because you "weren't as bad" as the US thread. Now that isn't around, your behaviour is centre stage for "political discussion on dakka dakka". So do better. And keep it to 1 thread.

jouso wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-41712725/spain-fm-many-police-violence-pictures-fake

The Spanish Government is declaring that the images of police beating people were faked, and the whole thing was 'Fake News'.

The "just declare it fake" strategy. If it's good enough for the internet its good enough for the state

I am disappointed however by the remarkable lack of effort. Not even a video of someone holding up a photo with some cool red circles and explaining how it's photo-shopped? Come on Spain. You can't even put as much effort into it as the moon landing nuts and the 9/11 Truthers? Disappointing

There's more to it than declare it fake. The foreign press has been too gullible with the oppressed people narrative that they were fed by interested Catalan parties.

Even notorious lost-cause advocates the guardian had to issue a sort-of apology.

Violence in Catalonia needed closer scrutiny in age of fake news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo-injuries-fact-checking

But of course by then the damage was already done.

Here's an interesting piece (also on the Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/catalan-case-persuasive-ruin-separatists-nationalism

1 October referendum was hardly a model of sound, democratic expression. Only a minority of Catalans took part (turnout was 43%), and its organisation ran counter to Catalonia’s own legislation. The two laws that led to it were voted through without the two-thirds majority the Catalan charter (the Estatut) requires for such a momentous reform process. Nor was the vote overseen by the regional constitutional court. The Council of Europe, Europe’s democracy watchdog, said it did not abide by its fundamental criteria. Reporters without Borders, an organisation that scrutinises freedom of the press, denounced the harassment and intimidation – sometimes physical – of reporters who did not toe the pro-independence line.

 Orlanth wrote:


Puidgemeont has several options. He has threatened to declare UDI if article 155 is triggered. Alternately he can hold an election and pull the rug from under Madrid. Assuming he wins the vote he would be re-legitimised and make Madrid's position very difficult.

That's the option he's been offered to save face (including an amnesty). Call an election or we will trigger 155 and do it for you.

That's gonna intresting election.

Its the big test for Catalan independence.
If Madrid win. It's settled.

If Catalan. Well then that's gonna present real issues as they validated the refreanedum with a legal vote.

 jhe90 wrote:


That's gonna intresting election.

Its the big test for Catalan independence.
If Madrid win. It's settled.

If Catalan. Well then that's gonna present real issues as they validated the refreanedum with a legal vote.

Well, for starters they'll have their own *exit issue right off the bat.





Of course it's all in a bit of jest, but it highlights that pro-indy regions who are so staunchly against their money being sent to poorer regions are in turn subsidised by the overwhelmingly pro-remain bigger cities. Much like London during the run up to Brexit.

jouso wrote:


There's more to it than declare it fake. The foreign press has been too gullible with the oppressed people narrative that they were fed by interested Catalan parties.

Even notorious lost-cause advocates the guardian had to issue a sort-of apology.

Violence in Catalonia needed closer scrutiny in age of fake news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo-injuries-fact-checking

But of course by then the damage was already done.

Here's an interesting piece (also on the Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/catalan-case-persuasive-ruin-separatists-nationalism

It was inevitable with the sheer volume of images and stories that some were going to be "fake," whether that be in attribution or fabrication, but I think that's not the real point.

When your mom catches your hand in the cookie jar, you don't turn around and say "but I only took two cookies." No one really cares that your sister is lying about how you took a third cookie. Your hand shouldn't have been in the jar to begin with, and focusing on the cookies you didn't eat is a very shallow and blatant attempt to obfuscate responsibility. To not even put much effort into the excuse is just kind of an insult added to foolishness. The damage was done the moment Spain responded to the independence movement by sending in hordes of national police and guards, and the details are just a matter of degrees that might effect the level of outrage but don't really have any bearing on the question of why Spain needed such a heavy response to an event that Spain itself has put great effort into downplaying, an act that just further begs why the response needed to be so heavy and the independence movement is so small and of such limited scope.

 LordofHats wrote:

jouso wrote:


There's more to it than declare it fake. The foreign press has been too gullible with the oppressed people narrative that they were fed by interested Catalan parties.

Even notorious lost-cause advocates the guardian had to issue a sort-of apology.

Violence in Catalonia needed closer scrutiny in age of fake news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo-injuries-fact-checking

But of course by then the damage was already done.

Here's an interesting piece (also on the Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/catalan-case-persuasive-ruin-separatists-nationalism

It was inevitable with the sheer volume of images and stories that some were going to be "fake," whether that be in attribution or fabrication, but I think that's not the real point.

When your mom catches your hand in the cookie jar, you don't turn around and say "but I only took two cookies." No one really cares that your sister is lying about how you took a third cookie.

The wheels for the whole thing were set in motion before that, but let's just go a week before the shock! horror! images you refer.



Let's explain the picture. You have two guys standing on top of a completely vandalized police vehicle (the contents of which including ammunition were also stolen, but anonymously returned days later) leading a mob of several hundred people.

That mob is surrounding a government building where 8 police and prosecutor office employees are surrounded and unable to leave, for almost 24h. The police only prevented the mob from entering the building, among other things because they didn't have the numbers and didn't want to escalate the situation. They only charged when the numbers thinned in the early hours of the morning to allow the trapped officials inside to finally leave (though one female officer left through the roof to neighboring building with the help of plainclothes police).

So what was that restraint good for? Basically nothing, only to embolden the separatists further.

You're from the USA, can you imagine what would happen if a mob of, idk, Texans surrounded 8 federal officers in a State office, vandalized three (federal agency of your choice) marked SUVs and prevented them from leaving while chanting threats? I'm sure they wouldn't have gotten off this lightly.

These two leaders btw are now in jail, while Catalan politicians cry "political prisoners". Sure thing.

With regards to police Brutality on 1-O there are several criminal investigations going on. Let justice do its job and have the sword ready for whichever heads have to roll.

Radicals are as emboldened by inaction as they are by watching people get beat up. Honestly they're radicals and you can't really dissuade them one way or the other, but an overreaction just build sympathy and undermines the rule of law by creating distrust in law enforcement. It legitimizes the grievances of the agitator and gives them new grievances.

jouso wrote:
You're from the USA, can you imagine what would happen if a mob of, idk, Texans surrounded 8 federal officers in a State office, vandalized three (federal agency of your choice) marked SUVs and prevented them from leaving while chanting threats? I'm sure they wouldn't have gotten off this lightly.

We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

With regards to police Brutality on 1-O

I'm not sure what exactly we disagree about. If people are being charged then presumably Spanish officials also think things went to far.

 LordofHats wrote:
We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a bunch of loonies locking themselves out in the sticks (even if it's in a Federal building) and having government officials surrounded and threatened for 24h in downtown Barcelona.

But yeah, I was as shocked and disgusted as anyone when I saw the videos. One because I knew that was the indy plan from the beginning, but also because I have family in Barcelona some of whom did vote.

jouso wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a bunch of loonies locking themselves out in the sticks (even if it's in a Federal building) and having government officials surrounded and threatened for 24h in downtown Barcelona.

But yeah, I was as shocked and disgusted as anyone when I saw the videos. One because I knew that was the indy plan from the beginning, but also because I have family in Barcelona some of whom did vote.

Madrid has badly mishandled this from the get-go, and frankly, I'm surprised to see them repeat so many of the mistakes other governments have made in the same circumstances,

The smart move would have been to just let the vote go forward, but to declare it non-binding. Then based on the outcome, craft a response. The moment armed men roll in and try to prevent the vote, you've already lost, and it does not matter if they're the police, the army, or a band of wild gunmen from the hills.

What flag is that on the right, it appears to be a mix of Catalan and rainbow flag.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a bunch of loonies locking themselves out in the sticks (even if it's in a Federal building) and having government officials surrounded and threatened for 24h in downtown Barcelona.

But yeah, I was as shocked and disgusted as anyone when I saw the videos. One because I knew that was the indy plan from the beginning, but also because I have family in Barcelona some of whom did vote.

Madrid has badly mishandled this from the get-go, and frankly, I'm surprised to see them repeat so many of the mistakes other governments have made in the same circumstances,

The smart move would have been to just let the vote go forward, but to declare it non-binding. Then based on the outcome, craft a response. The moment armed men roll in and try to prevent the vote, you've already lost, and it does not matter if they're the police, the army, or a band of wild gunmen from the hills.

Yes. There tactics basically entrenched things.

They need to be careful because with the election plan they Don t want to fuel the elections for thr opposition and independence campaign.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a bunch of loonies locking themselves out in the sticks (even if it's in a Federal building) and having government officials surrounded and threatened for 24h in downtown Barcelona.

But yeah, I was as shocked and disgusted as anyone when I saw the videos. One because I knew that was the indy plan from the beginning, but also because I have family in Barcelona some of whom did vote.

Madrid has badly mishandled this from the get-go, and frankly, I'm surprised to see them repeat so many of the mistakes other governments have made in the same circumstances,

The smart move would have been to just let the vote go forward, but to declare it non-binding. Then based on the outcome, craft a response. The moment armed men roll in and try to prevent the vote, you've already lost, and it does not matter if they're the police, the army, or a band of wild gunmen from the hills.

As I understand it, the referendum was organised not in accordance with Catalan parliament rules on referendums, so it was illegal from that aspect if not from the constitutional position of dividing an undivisable country (moot point.)

This is why lots of anti-separatists boycotted the vote, leading to low turnout of 43% and high Yes vote of 90%. There is no winning position for moderates in this situation. If the anti-separatists had voted en masse, they might or might have won, but it would have added a veneer of democratic respectability to the otherwise very flawed vote. Not voting allowed the separatists to claim a victory.

However, sending in the police to try and break up the referendum also was a bad move.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a bunch of loonies locking themselves out in the sticks (even if it's in a Federal building) and having government officials surrounded and threatened for 24h in downtown Barcelona.

But yeah, I was as shocked and disgusted as anyone when I saw the videos. One because I knew that was the indy plan from the beginning, but also because I have family in Barcelona some of whom did vote.

Madrid has badly mishandled this from the get-go, and frankly, I'm surprised to see them repeat so many of the mistakes other governments have made in the same circumstances,

The smart move would have been to just let the vote go forward, but to declare it non-binding. Then based on the outcome, craft a response. The moment armed men roll in and try to prevent the vote, you've already lost, and it does not matter if they're the police, the army, or a band of wild gunmen from the hills.

As I understand it, the referendum was organised not in accordance with Catalan parliament rules on referendums, so it was illegal from that aspect if not from the constitutional position of dividing an undivisable country (moot point.)

This is why lots of anti-separatists boycotted the vote, leading to low turnout of 43% and high Yes vote of 90%. There is no winning position for moderates in this situation. If the anti-separatists had voted en masse, they might or might have won, but it would have added a veneer of democratic respectability to the otherwise very flawed vote. Not voting allowed the separatists to claim a victory.

Yeah, but that would have been a waaay better option. It would have stopped the independence movement dead in its tracks, at least for the near future. If you can vote, you should always vote, even if you disagree with the referendum itself. Nobody will care that you didn't vote. By not voting you are just giving the organisers of the referendum a license to do whatever they want.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a bunch of loonies locking themselves out in the sticks (even if it's in a Federal building) and having government officials surrounded and threatened for 24h in downtown Barcelona.

But yeah, I was as shocked and disgusted as anyone when I saw the videos. One because I knew that was the indy plan from the beginning, but also because I have family in Barcelona some of whom did vote.

Madrid has badly mishandled this from the get-go, and frankly, I'm surprised to see them repeat so many of the mistakes other governments have made in the same circumstances,

The smart move would have been to just let the vote go forward, but to declare it non-binding. Then based on the outcome, craft a response. The moment armed men roll in and try to prevent the vote, you've already lost, and it does not matter if they're the police, the army, or a band of wild gunmen from the hills.

As I understand it, the referendum was organised not in accordance with Catalan parliament rules on referendums, so it was illegal from that aspect if not from the constitutional position of dividing an undivisable country (moot point.)

This is why lots of anti-separatists boycotted the vote, leading to low turnout of 43% and high Yes vote of 90%. There is no winning position for moderates in this situation. If the anti-separatists had voted en masse, they might or might have won, but it would have added a veneer of democratic respectability to the otherwise very flawed vote. Not voting allowed the separatists to claim a victory.

Yeah, but that would have been a waaay better option. It would have stopped the independence movement dead in its tracks, at least for the near future. If you can vote, you should always vote, even if you disagree with the referendum itself. Nobody will care that you didn't vote. By not voting you are just giving the organisers of the referendum a license to do whatever they want.

The referendum fell short of just about every democratic measure. It was not just an issue of you should have voted. Leaving aside the fact that the referendum law was passed without the required majority in the Catalan parliament (and thus suspended by the Constitutional court):

- It was sponsored, organised and overseen by one of the interested parties. There was no organised NO campaign.
- Census did not comply with the Catalan electoral law.
- Figures did not add up (possibly because of the previous point).
- There was plenty of evidence of vote tampering, and people voting multiple times (also because of the previous points).

Why would a no voter go when the vote tally is going to be made exclusively by the opposing camp? When the Constitutional court and the government have been saying for weeks "don't do this, it's illegal and we're going to seize the ballot boxes"?

If a good number of Catalans don't feel represented by the current Spanish government, it also happens that an equally good, most likely higher, number of Catalans don't feel represented about the current Catalan government.

jouso wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
We actually have had stuff sort of like that (the Bundy Ranch Standoff for example), and shockingly the Feds didn't kick down the door and go balls to the walls. They let it die and went after those involved after the fact. A lack of response there probably lead to the occupation of the Manhuer Wildlife Refuge later (debatable), but there again the Feds didn't automatically jump to kicking down the door and going balls to the walls. For whatever its worth the US government seems to have realized since incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge that overreactions not only play badly from a PR front, but undermine the reason for the effort taken in the first place.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a bunch of loonies locking themselves out in the sticks (even if it's in a Federal building) and having government officials surrounded and threatened for 24h in downtown Barcelona.

But yeah, I was as shocked and disgusted as anyone when I saw the videos. One because I knew that was the indy plan from the beginning, but also because I have family in Barcelona some of whom did vote.

Madrid has badly mishandled this from the get-go, and frankly, I'm surprised to see them repeat so many of the mistakes other governments have made in the same circumstances,

The smart move would have been to just let the vote go forward, but to declare it non-binding. Then based on the outcome, craft a response. The moment armed men roll in and try to prevent the vote, you've already lost, and it does not matter if they're the police, the army, or a band of wild gunmen from the hills.

As I understand it, the referendum was organised not in accordance with Catalan parliament rules on referendums, so it was illegal from that aspect if not from the constitutional position of dividing an undivisable country (moot point.)

This is why lots of anti-separatists boycotted the vote, leading to low turnout of 43% and high Yes vote of 90%. There is no winning position for moderates in this situation. If the anti-separatists had voted en masse, they might or might have won, but it would have added a veneer of democratic respectability to the otherwise very flawed vote. Not voting allowed the separatists to claim a victory.

Yeah, but that would have been a waaay better option. It would have stopped the independence movement dead in its tracks, at least for the near future. If you can vote, you should always vote, even if you disagree with the referendum itself. Nobody will care that you didn't vote. By not voting you are just giving the organisers of the referendum a license to do whatever they want.

The referendum fell short of just about every democratic measure. It was not just an issue of you should have voted. Leaving aside the fact that the referendum law was passed without the required majority in the Catalan parliament (and thus suspended by the Constitutional court):

- It was sponsored, organised and overseen by one of the interested parties. There was no organised NO campaign.
- Census did not comply with the Catalan electoral law.
- Figures did not add up (possibly because of the previous point).
- There was plenty of evidence of vote tampering, and people voting multiple times (also because of the previous points).

Why would a no voter go when the vote tally is going to be made exclusively by the opposing camp? When the Constitutional court and the government have been saying for weeks "don't do this, it's illegal and we're going to seize the ballot boxes"?

If a good number of Catalans don't feel represented by the current Spanish government, it also happens that an equally good, most likely higher, number of Catalans don't feel represented about the current Catalan government.

True, and I understand the reasons people did not vote, but by not voting, they effectively gave the Catalan government a license to do whatever the hell they want because the yes vote of this referendum gives them a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy for their actions. Sure, there were some flaws in the referendum, but in the grand scheme of things such things often tend to get overshadowed by the people yelling about how 90% of the people are in favour.
In contrast, if the people that are opposed to independence had bothered to organise a good no campaign and turned up in strength, they could have easily shut the whole thing down. It would have been even better if Madrid had approved and supported the referendum (while campaigning for a no vote). I understand why they did not vote, but not voting was not a smart decision. It never is, because as I said, people in charge simply do not care about people that do not vote. Those people are much more easily ignored than people who actively vote no.

I don't agree that the non-voting antis made the illegal referendum a fair democratic vote that supports the Catalan government. It's exactly the opposite. If they had voted, they might have won, but it would not have made the vote legal.

These are the sort of things that happen in places like Zimbabwe.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't agree that the non-voting antis made the illegal referendum a fair democratic vote that supports the Catalan government. It's exactly the opposite. If they had voted, they might have won, but it would not have made the vote legal.

These are the sort of things that happen in places like Zimbabwe.

Which is why the best solution is to call a snap election, where every party has its definite line with regards to indy yes or no, and do it with all the weight of the democratic state behind you.

Puigdemont has until Friday to call it or the government will do it through art. 155 for him.

That's what I think too.

There must be sufficient time for all candidates to campaign properly before polling day, of course.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't agree that the non-voting antis made the illegal referendum a fair democratic vote that supports the Catalan government. It's exactly the opposite. If they had voted, they might have won, but it would not have made the vote legal.

These are the sort of things that happen in places like Zimbabwe.

Of course not. Thing is, regardless of how fair the vote actually was, the Catalan government is treating it as a fair democratic vote and derives a mandate for independence from it. If people had turned up to vote no, they would not have been able to do this. Ultimately, whether something is strictly legal or not is totally meaningless when it comes to governments (because 'legal' is in the end just a malleable and arbitrary term). They don't care about legality, they only care for the appearance of legality. And this referendum had enough democratic trappings to be used to build that appearance of legality, which the Catalan government can use to mobilise its supporters and press through with its goals.
Had the Spanish government endeavoured to drag a 'no' vote out of this referendum, they would have beaten the Catalan separatists at their own game. Instead, by the actions now took they handed the Catalans three powerful tool (the appearance of legality, the appearance of oppression and international sympathy).
Sometimes you have to do what is legal or what is right according to your principles. And sometimes you have to screw laws and principles and just do what is smart. In politics, this is also called realpolitik.

However, now that opportunity is lost for Spain, they better keep fighting Catalonia on legal terms and hope that Puigdemont doesn't just declare independence now. If he doesn't, Spain could get a new chance through new elections (which might also turn out really bad). If he does, then it is probably going to turn ugly.

The appearance of legality is so flimsy that if you made a garment out of it a Rio Carneval dancer would find it too immodest.

Yes and no, no and yes.

The current unpopular Catalan parliament may or may not regard it as a democratic mandate. In fact Puigedemont and other separatists rabbit on at length about democratic mandates. But the anti-separatists who make up over half the population, and largely did not vote, will not accept it as a mandate for independence, and will fight back against it.

Ultimately a veneer of legality is irrelevant if the hearts and minds of the population are not prepared to go along.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes and no, no and yes.

The current unpopular Catalan parliament may or may not regard it as a democratic mandate. In fact Puigedemont and other separatists rabbit on at length about democratic mandates. But the anti-separatists who make up over half the population, and largely did not vote, will not accept it as a mandate for independence, and will fight back against it.

Ultimately a veneer of legality is irrelevant if the hearts and minds of the population are not prepared to go along.

Will they though? They were not as motivated before, and they need to get off their arses if they want a pro-union campaign to succeed. A so called silent majority is no power base, for starters no faction has the right to claim a non voting demographic as their own.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes and no, no and yes.

The current unpopular Catalan parliament may or may not regard it as a democratic mandate. In fact Puigedemont and other separatists rabbit on at length about democratic mandates. But the anti-separatists who make up over half the population, and largely did not vote, will not accept it as a mandate for independence, and will fight back against it.

Ultimately a veneer of legality is irrelevant if the hearts and minds of the population are not prepared to go along.

Will they though? They were not as motivated before, and they need to get off their arses if they want a pro-union campaign to succeed. A so called silent majority is no power base, for starters no faction has the right to claim a non voting demographic as their own.

They sure have. For the first time separatism has looked like it might have a shot at succeeding so pro-union are starting to get themselves organised. The pro-union demonstration a few years back was the first ever of its kind in Barcelona, and drew almost half a million people which, considering the stigma usually attached to the Spanish flag in Catalonia is wildly successful.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The appearance of legality is so flimsy that if you made a garment out of it a Rio Carneval dancer would find it too immodest.

Fortunately or unfortunately, as look as it 'looks' substantive, and, more importantly, legitimate, it's effective. Spain's heavy handed response made it look even more so, as though they assumed a 'Yes' vote was a forgone conclusion if they did not suppress it.