Spain Will Remove Catalonia Leader, Escalating Secession Crisis(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Spain Will Remove Catalonia Leader, Escalating Secession Crisis
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/europe/spain-catalonia-mariano-rajoy.html
162 comments
Which restaurant? Did you raise a complain?
Sorry but these stories ring untrue, given that Barcelona is both a huge touristic destination and most servers speaking Spanish as a rule.
Sorry but these stories ring untrue, given that Barcelona is both a huge touristic destination and most servers speaking Spanish as a rule.
I think the idea was that the server understood she was Spanish and therefore that he was hostile to her, not that he didn't speak Spanish.
Most servers tend to speak Spanish, and quite a big percentage are from South America. Spanish (as main language) speaking people in Catalonia tend not to have a Catalan accent in their Spanish, most Catalan (as main language) speaking have said accent.
So they went to a restaurant that had a server that not only was Catalan, but was an independentist, detected your friend by her accent, isolated her making she alone speak Catalan and the manager was OK with that?
Sorry, does not compute.
So they went to a restaurant that had a server that not only was Catalan, but was an independentist, detected your friend by her accent, isolated her making she alone speak Catalan and the manager was OK with that?
Sorry, does not compute.
Barcelona's local government has been pretty aggressive against tourism lately.
Edit: Ok, is impossible to have a conversation when secessionists are downvoting every comment. Fine. I prefer to post arguments, and sources.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2017/04/ba...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11643...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/barcelona-anti...
Edit: Ok, is impossible to have a conversation when secessionists are downvoting every comment. Fine. I prefer to post arguments, and sources.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2017/04/ba...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11643...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/barcelona-anti...
You are partly right.
Barcelona's major wants to make tourism more manageable because it is considered that too many tourists kill the spirit of the city, increase rent for the citizens too much and, depending on their upbringing, bring fights and low quality tourism to the city.
There's also a civil movement against tourism, specially AirBnB, that has made some actions.
But that movement is separate from the independence movement. There are people of all factions in that movement, and it's quite smaller than the independence one.
The partly is that, at least on the other times this topic has come to hacker news, the brigading was from unionists.
Barcelona's major wants to make tourism more manageable because it is considered that too many tourists kill the spirit of the city, increase rent for the citizens too much and, depending on their upbringing, bring fights and low quality tourism to the city.
There's also a civil movement against tourism, specially AirBnB, that has made some actions.
But that movement is separate from the independence movement. There are people of all factions in that movement, and it's quite smaller than the independence one.
The partly is that, at least on the other times this topic has come to hacker news, the brigading was from unionists.
It rings as true to me. I've been to small towns in Catalonia, and while most people figures I'm Mexican and treat me as a tourist, a few locals would feign not understanding a word of Spanish and would only speak to you in Catalan, even if you're trying to buy something from them.
Which problem is independence solving?
Have you looked for their arguments, or are your questions rhetorical?
Saying this is about "the details of our passports" is a bit disrespectful. Being part of Spain is about much more than that - as I think both sides would agree. And I don't see why the separation of countries would prevent the union of the continent.
Have you looked for their arguments, or are your questions rhetorical?
Saying this is about "the details of our passports" is a bit disrespectful. Being part of Spain is about much more than that - as I think both sides would agree. And I don't see why the separation of countries would prevent the union of the continent.
I did not intend to be disrespectful in any way. I am - as I wrote - judging this with my limited knowledge of the matter, which is probably more or less on the same level of other Europeans watching things unfold right now. Not more, not less.
Thus, no, my question was absolutely not rhetorical. Happy to hear which problem their trying to solve.
Thus, no, my question was absolutely not rhetorical. Happy to hear which problem their trying to solve.
As far as I can tell they want out for two reasons:
1. They want to preserve their own culture, which is apparently distinct from Spain's.
2. They've some issue with the Spanish government, seems to be around corruption and/or unfair treatment. Don't know enough about this to comment on it though.
How does seceding make sense here? It's not the only solution, it's one of many, and it's probably one of the worst - they're going to torpedo Spain's recovering economy, and have to build a new country of their own. Who's going to run the hospitals? Where's the money/electricity/food/water/fuel etc coming from?
1. They want to preserve their own culture, which is apparently distinct from Spain's.
2. They've some issue with the Spanish government, seems to be around corruption and/or unfair treatment. Don't know enough about this to comment on it though.
How does seceding make sense here? It's not the only solution, it's one of many, and it's probably one of the worst - they're going to torpedo Spain's recovering economy, and have to build a new country of their own. Who's going to run the hospitals? Where's the money/electricity/food/water/fuel etc coming from?
Bound to happen, to say the least.
The sentiment on the street is to keep pushing forward and declare independence. The opposition to this rule is huge (there has been a new huge demostration today).
If this happens civil disobedience will grow.
There won't be a civil war (we are peaceful people and have no guns), but we won't obey what comes from Madrid.
If this happens civil disobedience will grow.
There won't be a civil war (we are peaceful people and have no guns), but we won't obey what comes from Madrid.
> There won't be a civil war (we are peaceful people and have no guns),
So it'll be a massacre?
I don't believe that everyone owning firearms is even remotely close to the answer, but nations get super fucking stupid and desperate when folks try to break away from them, even if the break away process is democratic and peaceful.
So it'll be a massacre?
I don't believe that everyone owning firearms is even remotely close to the answer, but nations get super fucking stupid and desperate when folks try to break away from them, even if the break away process is democratic and peaceful.
Rajoy is not Assad. He knows there are more effective methods than just shooting at demonstrators
[deleted]
> We are peaceful people and have no guns.
You're either entirely wrong, or Catalonia is an extreme statistical outlier when it comes to gun ownership in Spain.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
What does one have to do with the other?
> There won't be a civil war
It's increasingly clear that the only two possible outcomes are either abandoning the idea altogether (possibly with an overall reduction in autonomy or proscription of the pro-independence parties); or violence.
You can see even in this thread that nobody in the rest of Spain is even going to consider the possibility of peaceful secession. It's going to end up like 70s Belfast if people go down this route.
It's increasingly clear that the only two possible outcomes are either abandoning the idea altogether (possibly with an overall reduction in autonomy or proscription of the pro-independence parties); or violence.
You can see even in this thread that nobody in the rest of Spain is even going to consider the possibility of peaceful secession. It's going to end up like 70s Belfast if people go down this route.
No, the secessionists movement is deeply fueled with public funds. Now that Spanish government is going to control that, you can expect way less secessionists support.
How much would you bet on that?
I wouldn't bet a cent, not because his reasoning is wrong, but because the premise is wrong. The government doesn't control the main propaganda source: public education. That was transferred to comunidades autónomas more than 30 years ago and nationalists have used it to brainwash people.
Did you know that it's impossible to have your children study in Spanish at public schools... in Spain? There were sentences from the Supreme Court and Tribunal Constitucional condemning this situation. Regional government ignored them and central governments did nothing for decades.
Other propaganda sources are not going to be controled either. There are a couple of associations, the ones whose leaders are now jailed, that play a central role and, unless illegalized (that I seriously doubt will happen) will still be receiving lots of money from the very same State that they're fighting. Why? Because cutting the financing would mean reforming laws that allow national parties to give money to their own fundations in other parts of Spain.
Public funded tv and radio would get new heads, but replacing the fanatics that produce the contents would need dismantling them, that most likely won't happen either.
Do you know why this situation seems so confusing? Because spanish governments have done nothing for a very long time. This has allowed nationalists to create the ilusion that they're really almost independent and they only need a little push to get there. Then our current prime minister is known for its "do nothing until there's no other option" style, that made the thugs think it's the moment to make their move.
Did you know that it's impossible to have your children study in Spanish at public schools... in Spain? There were sentences from the Supreme Court and Tribunal Constitucional condemning this situation. Regional government ignored them and central governments did nothing for decades.
Other propaganda sources are not going to be controled either. There are a couple of associations, the ones whose leaders are now jailed, that play a central role and, unless illegalized (that I seriously doubt will happen) will still be receiving lots of money from the very same State that they're fighting. Why? Because cutting the financing would mean reforming laws that allow national parties to give money to their own fundations in other parts of Spain.
Public funded tv and radio would get new heads, but replacing the fanatics that produce the contents would need dismantling them, that most likely won't happen either.
Do you know why this situation seems so confusing? Because spanish governments have done nothing for a very long time. This has allowed nationalists to create the ilusion that they're really almost independent and they only need a little push to get there. Then our current prime minister is known for its "do nothing until there's no other option" style, that made the thugs think it's the moment to make their move.
I don't bet but if you're interested in betting, I saw a thread in Reddit where people are betting 'reddit gold'.
I'm catalan and I don't want Independence.
The sentiment in the Street by Independentists.
I was in Barcelona 4 days ago. At least 25% of the people there is clearly not independentist.
So stop talking the "sentiment in the street" like there is only one "Poble" in Catalunia that wants independence. If there is a fight it is not going to be against Madrid, but Catalans over Catalans.
I was in Barcelona 4 days ago. At least 25% of the people there is clearly not independentist.
So stop talking the "sentiment in the street" like there is only one "Poble" in Catalunia that wants independence. If there is a fight it is not going to be against Madrid, but Catalans over Catalans.
With "the sentiment on the street" I'm referring to the demostrations.
Most are pro-independence, and they are always full of people. Unionists are few and with not that many people (except the one on the 8th of October).
The "the fight will be catalan VS catalan" is an unionist mantra. People want to vote, not fight.
Unionists would love an armed or belligerent pro-independence group, so they could repress us while giving the illusion of being right. That's why our movement will be pacifist.
Most are pro-independence, and they are always full of people. Unionists are few and with not that many people (except the one on the 8th of October).
The "the fight will be catalan VS catalan" is an unionist mantra. People want to vote, not fight.
Unionists would love an armed or belligerent pro-independence group, so they could repress us while giving the illusion of being right. That's why our movement will be pacifist.
>Unionists are few and with not that many people (except the one on the 8th of October).
Anti-secession supporters has been afraid of Catalan government. Not anymore.
>Unionists would love an armed or belligerent pro-independence group
No, that's BS. By the way, such group has existed before (Terra Lliure) and nothing changed.
Anti-secession supporters has been afraid of Catalan government. Not anymore.
>Unionists would love an armed or belligerent pro-independence group
No, that's BS. By the way, such group has existed before (Terra Lliure) and nothing changed.
> There won't be a civil war (we are peaceful people and have no guns)
Myanmar has gun controls too. That’s really working out for its populace /s
The ignorance and naïveté in this statement is astounding.
Myanmar has gun controls too. That’s really working out for its populace /s
The ignorance and naïveté in this statement is astounding.
we won't obey what comes from Madrid
The Constitution, you mean?
Good luck when, in your newly forged Republic, some citizens don't want to obey the Rule of Law, because
we won't obey what comes from Barcelona
The Constitution, you mean?
Good luck when, in your newly forged Republic, some citizens don't want to obey the Rule of Law, because
we won't obey what comes from Barcelona
According to a poll from a Catalan newspaper [0] released yesterday, 68% of Catalans prefer regional elections versus an unilateral independence declaration.
[0] http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171020/encuesta-cat...
[0] http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171020/encuesta-cat...
Thanks for the link, didn't know that.
Nonetheless I find that most sources lack my trust. There's campaigning from both sides, but the unionists have a huge influence on all the national media.
There's also the big probability that some new elections will have the effect to provide a new Catalan parliament with the same number (at least) of pro-independence elected members.
Then that would "solve" nothing.
Nonetheless I find that most sources lack my trust. There's campaigning from both sides, but the unionists have a huge influence on all the national media.
There's also the big probability that some new elections will have the effect to provide a new Catalan parliament with the same number (at least) of pro-independence elected members.
Then that would "solve" nothing.
Good, we can't allow the dissolution of nations.
Why not? Let them fork, iterate and improve. They have a strong identity and economy, so they must be doing something right. Maybe being tied to a monolith even hinders their progress? (Just ideas for thought.)
Sometimes parts are weaker than the whole. The strong economy is possibly part due to investments made with the assumption that Catalonia would be part of Spain for the foreseeable future.
Would London have been the de-facto financial hub of Europe, if people knew Brexit was coming?
Would London have been the de-facto financial hub of Europe, if people knew Brexit was coming?
I'd bet you London will keep being the financial hub of Europe long after Brexit.
Everyone on Earth has a petty identity. If we allow secession just so every self-identifying group can 'rule' themselves then we encourage those petty identities when we should be discouraging them and instead encouraging universal humanism.
Germany is a federated state, stark differences between the regions (the dialects vary a lot, but not as much as the Spanish and Catalan languages differ) but it does work because the government is not centralised like in Spain or France, and the Bundesländer have their say there's a lot of respect for each other. Spain's PP has always shown disrespect to any federalization and autonomy of the spanish regions.
Except the government in Spain is not centralised at all. The comparison with France is just...
IDK where are you getting this ideas but is mostly the opposite. PP is disrespectful about everything but that doesn't mean that there's no autonomy, there's a reason why every region has an "autonomous government" and are called "autonomous communities", basically because they have that autonomy.
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_communities_of_Spai...
IDK where are you getting this ideas but is mostly the opposite. PP is disrespectful about everything but that doesn't mean that there's no autonomy, there's a reason why every region has an "autonomous government" and are called "autonomous communities", basically because they have that autonomy.
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_communities_of_Spai...
[deleted]
Yes, can we have Napoleon's unite Europe back? Or at least the Third Reich? Austria-Hungary was also a terrific idea as was the Ottoman Empire (why did the Greeks every want to rule themselves?)
Do you think any other State would allow one of its major sources of income go away like that?
I really hope Catalonia makes it.
I really hope Catalonia makes it.
I think the US would let California secede.
Sorry maybe it's going above my head. Is this sarcasm or there's some context?
I suspect he’s just saying that if California were to hold a binding referendum to secede, he doesn’t think the Federal government would send in troops to arrest the governor and take over California. I tend to agree although, at this point it’s sufficiently a hypothetical that you would need to know something of the circumstances that made it not a hypothetical to have a good opinion.
So seems like he was more than that with saying congress would vote to have them secede.
I don't think the US would send troops of course but they wouldn't just let California secede either. As far as I know precedent says it's illegal to secede in the first place.
I don't think the US would send troops of course but they wouldn't just let California secede either. As far as I know precedent says it's illegal to secede in the first place.
Of course, the default is that no one can secede. There was an unpleasantness in the 1860s over that. But ultimately, if a geographical region won’t do what you want it to do, the alternative is to use force. For example, the Federal government used force to enforce voting rights in the 1960s. If asking nicely, threats, and sanctions don’t work, troops are mostly what you have left.
Yes, and I think Congress would vote to let California secede.
Obligatory "the beatings will continue until morale improves".
Since when applying the law is escalating?
All European Union leaders support the rule according a higher law.
All European Union leaders support the rule according a higher law.
When shooting peaceful civilians with (illegal) rubber ammunition and kicking them in the face, for example.
The rubber balls were forbidden only for the Catalonian police, after the incidents in 2011 and 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/catalonia-poli...
Source for that?
https://twitter.com/JordiGraupera/status/914406594779205632
https://twitter.com/JordiGraupera/status/914408451870265344
https://twitter.com/LordRennard/status/914434884990652421 Here's one of the international observers verifying too
https://twitter.com/LordRennard/status/914434884990652421 Here's one of the international observers verifying too
Are you really serious with those 'sources'?
Since you couldn’t discredit them, apparently I don’t need to look for better ones.
I myself don’t see any particular reason to question Lord Rennard.
I myself don’t see any particular reason to question Lord Rennard.
>Since when applying the law is escalating?
When it is escalating.
When it is escalating.
Assuming there's a group of people who more or less agree to be separate from some larger group, it's hard to think of legitimate reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to secede. Their forefathers having signed an agreement is hardly a convincing reason to hold them in a union they no longer like. Neither are issues of the current political situation ("it would destabilize the region...").
There's still hard questions, though. How do we split the national debt? What about various government assets? Who has a choice about what nation to join? And so on.
All hard questions, but none of them seems to undermine the idea that people should be allowed to decide to be separate.
There's still hard questions, though. How do we split the national debt? What about various government assets? Who has a choice about what nation to join? And so on.
All hard questions, but none of them seems to undermine the idea that people should be allowed to decide to be separate.
Interestingly enough the same arguments secessionists state for breaking with Spain, they expressly forbid such thing inside Catalonia.
V.g. Barcelona can't propose a secession from Catalonia.
V.g. Barcelona can't propose a secession from Catalonia.
"The people" includes a lot of people who don't want to separate. If 99% want it I would say OK, maybe. Where does one draw the line? Take a look at how the separation of India and Pakistan went if you want to get an idea of how it might go.
How far do to you extend that? because I highly doubt you can find a single government action, law, policy, or anything where 99% of people agree
So then you find that all government is illegitimate? or is your 99% requirement only valid for separation?
So then you find that all government is illegitimate? or is your 99% requirement only valid for separation?
Separation into a new country is a huge deal. Such a big deal that I don't think any country has a legal mechanism for part of the country to leave. If set up ahead of time maybe 75% or 80% of all eligible voters, would be a good level.
>The unexpectedly forceful moves by Mr. Rajoy
That’s not true. Catalan leaders were given a few days to make it clear whether they had declared the independence or not, because after their joke referendum, they were intentionally vague about what they were going to do. Puigdemont dodged the question again so this is it.
They said they want to negotiate with the central government. In my opinion this is simply racketeering, they want a better deal with taxes. This must not stand.
Nothing of this would have happened if secessionists wouldn't have had full access to the education and the media of that region since forever. They have been blasting propaganda por decades. Of course this was bound to happen. I work in the media and I know there's no way to get a grant for your small paper/radio station if you don't align with their values.
There's a widespread sentiment that Spain "is robbing them". But the truth is that this is just redistributing wealth; many regions of Spain give money and others take. That's how the economy works everywhere.
That’s not true. Catalan leaders were given a few days to make it clear whether they had declared the independence or not, because after their joke referendum, they were intentionally vague about what they were going to do. Puigdemont dodged the question again so this is it.
They said they want to negotiate with the central government. In my opinion this is simply racketeering, they want a better deal with taxes. This must not stand.
Nothing of this would have happened if secessionists wouldn't have had full access to the education and the media of that region since forever. They have been blasting propaganda por decades. Of course this was bound to happen. I work in the media and I know there's no way to get a grant for your small paper/radio station if you don't align with their values.
There's a widespread sentiment that Spain "is robbing them". But the truth is that this is just redistributing wealth; many regions of Spain give money and others take. That's how the economy works everywhere.
Spain is forcing its might on a peaceful majority on Catalonians through violence & other 'onesided-lawful' means. When a significant majority (apparently 90% who polled) wants to separate, calling it a joke, is not really apt.
The 90% who show up to an election that was declared illegal by the national courts aren't likely to be representative of the population at large, though. I recall seeing numbers that the overall turnout was something like 40%, so how you would like to apportion support for independence among the non-voting 60% greatly affects how popular you think independence is.
>Spain is forcing its might on a peaceful majority on Catalonians through violence...
Except that statement is completely false.
Except that statement is completely false.
Until this comment I thought you're serious!
I've posted this already but it seems you didn't read it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/19...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo...
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/02/inenglish/1506943013_99...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/19...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo...
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/02/inenglish/1506943013_99...
These articles simply don't seem that relevant. Of course there's been a bunch of fake news on both sides.
There was obviously a plenty of very real violence by GC, anyone watching the live streams saw this for themselves.
And a few days ago el pais fired a bunch of folks for having the wrong opinions on Catalonia, so I'm not sure if they're the best source.
There was obviously a plenty of very real violence by GC, anyone watching the live streams saw this for themselves.
And a few days ago el pais fired a bunch of folks for having the wrong opinions on Catalonia, so I'm not sure if they're the best source.
Can you point out any source about fake news from anti-secessionists?
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/09/26/inenglish/1506413477_99...
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/09/25/inenglish/1506323273_06...
https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/10/20/aixo_va_de_d...
El Pais & Co. are heavily pushing this lie that there's somehow a very significant amount of "fake news" on the other side.
I believe that they are purposefully overstating the significance of the "fake news" on the pro-independence side, and are simply trying to use the slightest indication of such to discredit the pro-independence side as a whole.
Where their theory really falls apart the most is the fact that all the "fake news" they speak of are in English. It feels fundamentally strange that "fake news" on small English language blogs would significantly affect the political sentiments in Catalonia.
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/09/25/inenglish/1506323273_06...
https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/10/20/aixo_va_de_d...
El Pais & Co. are heavily pushing this lie that there's somehow a very significant amount of "fake news" on the other side.
I believe that they are purposefully overstating the significance of the "fake news" on the pro-independence side, and are simply trying to use the slightest indication of such to discredit the pro-independence side as a whole.
Where their theory really falls apart the most is the fact that all the "fake news" they speak of are in English. It feels fundamentally strange that "fake news" on small English language blogs would significantly affect the political sentiments in Catalonia.
If being blasted with propaganda for decades means the people's opinions are invalid, how can the Constitution be defended, when that vote was held after more than thirty years of propaganda by a totalitarian (by its own admission) government?
Cool. Let's not negotiate. Consequences? You have a region where 50% of the people are so discontent with the situation that they are willing to go independent. Unsustainable. So you basically give them no option: they can't hold a referendum for an independence, you don't want to find an agreement with them... What kind of government would do that?
I've never seen a poll that lists support for full independence at 50% or higher, could you please provide a link?
No, because sadly they don't let us have a referendum.
Oh I know you're not allowed a referendum, you should be though.
What I was referring to was public opinion polls, I've never seen one conducted that resulted in 50% or higher in favour of full independence.
What I was referring to was public opinion polls, I've never seen one conducted that resulted in 50% or higher in favour of full independence.
I know what you mean, but I am pretty sure that you're going to see those numbers go higher. It looks like some of the non-independence options that a person might have preferred in those polls are being explicitly taken off the table by the Spanish government.
I'm not so sure, I think if new elections were called in the next few weeks (will not happen) I'd imagine support for explicitly pro-independence parties would drop.
Then stop pulling numbers from your ass. Thank you.
I've warned you elsewhere in this thread, but just to repeat: this will get you banned here if you keep doing it. You're a good commenter otherwise, so please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this from now on.
[deleted]
Following your argument: lets make happy that 50% breaching the law, and lets punish the 50% honoring the law.
That doesn't make any sense.
That doesn't make any sense.
Firstly, being pro-Independence, as the other person mentioned, isn't breaking the law. Secondly, you didn't understand the point of my comment. My point was that if a good percentage of the population are so discontent with the situation that they are willing to go independent, then there's a problem, and to go as far as wanting to be independent from a country where you have lived all your life you need to be VERY discontent. Turning a blind eye and saying gibberish about the Constitution and blah blah blah helps very little with the problem. Aren't politicians in power to represent us and to try to solve these kind of issues? Maybe we can find a middle point that will satisfy both sides. I'm certainly very biased, like you are, but I think we need to make an effort to understand what every party wants.
Supporting independence isn't breaking the law. Voting for independence isn't breaking the law.
But it is. It is specifically forbidden in the Spanish Constitution.
The sovereignty of Spain resides in all Spaniards.
The sovereignty of Spain resides in all Spaniards.
Even the Spanish government does not agree with you.
Few individuals such as Puidgemont may very well have violated the law, but supporting them simply isn't against the law.
Few individuals such as Puidgemont may very well have violated the law, but supporting them simply isn't against the law.
I mean voting for independence, not having an opinion, obviously.
As jayniz says, please find the part of the constitution that outlaws voting for independence. (As opposed to organizing such a vote.)
I replied to jayniz, maybe you didn't see it.
It's in the article 1.2 of the Spanish Constitution:
> La soberanía nacional reside en el pueblo español, del que emanan los poderes del Estado.
(The national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people, from which emanate the powers of the State.)
It's in the article 1.2 of the Spanish Constitution:
> La soberanía nacional reside en el pueblo español, del que emanan los poderes del Estado.
(The national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people, from which emanate the powers of the State.)
That certainly doesn't seem to outlaw people casting votes for independence.
This doesn’t seem to contain any information relevant to the legality of voting. It merely discusses the validity of the referendum, which is a separate issue.
Indeed. It seems somewhat akin to "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
But doesn't mean that.
In law there isn't something like 'oh it seems this legal precept means...'
All legal precepts have carefully chosen words and a spirit in which they're based.
In law there isn't something like 'oh it seems this legal precept means...'
All legal precepts have carefully chosen words and a spirit in which they're based.
It means all the Spanish people have a say when talking about sovereignty, not only a part.
That's why is illegal a election for secession with only a part of the Spanish census.
That's why is illegal a election for secession with only a part of the Spanish census.
It still certainly doesn’t make it illegal to vote. This constitution merely tells you what’s a valid referendum and what isn’t. It’s not against the law to participate in an “invalid” one.
Can you give us that quote from the constitution (the whole paragraph would be swell)?
The article 1.2 of the Spanish Constitution states:
> La soberanía nacional reside en el pueblo español, del que emanan los poderes del Estado.
(The national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people, from which emanate the powers of the State.)
> La soberanía nacional reside en el pueblo español, del que emanan los poderes del Estado.
(The national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people, from which emanate the powers of the State.)
The interesting question is what level of brutality the EU is willing to accept before intervening.
They won't intervene, as it is 'domestic issues'. They are more than happy to turn a blind eye as long as there's nothing physical, since a hypothetical independence would cause instability in the EU and might give the pro-Independence movement more legitimacy.
The European Union leaders ain't turning a blind eye, they have showed their express support to the Spanish government, and to the rule of law.
>>and to the rule of law.
I have always found it fascinating how strongly people believe "the rule of law" to be the ethical and correct position. To uphold the rule of law no matter what. That the rule of law itself if the goal. No matter what those laws are, no matter if those laws are unethical, immoral, unjust. The rule of law itself is the goal. Not a moral society, not a just society, not a ethical society, but a society of law.
Why?
Almost every major atrocity in human history was legal under the laws governing the geographic zone they were committed in so why is there such strong support for this concept of "Rule of law"
I have always found it fascinating how strongly people believe "the rule of law" to be the ethical and correct position. To uphold the rule of law no matter what. That the rule of law itself if the goal. No matter what those laws are, no matter if those laws are unethical, immoral, unjust. The rule of law itself is the goal. Not a moral society, not a just society, not a ethical society, but a society of law.
Why?
Almost every major atrocity in human history was legal under the laws governing the geographic zone they were committed in so why is there such strong support for this concept of "Rule of law"
That's the argument that the Spanish govt. gives all the time, so it's only normal for them to use this argument when trying to defend the govt. position to attack the Catalan people when trying to vote or when trying to justify taking control of the Catalan administration, some Catalan public TV channels, etc.
Wow a democracy defending the rule of law! /s
Again, we're talking about the rule of law in democratic societies, not totalitarian ones.
I don't know the source of your fascination if you don't understand that.
I don't know the source of your fascination if you don't understand that.
You believe no atrocities have ever been legal under a democratic society?
Really? I suggest you study more history if you believe that
Along with the rule of law I am fascinated by the difference people give to "democratic" society, as if that is the best, or some how perfect
Really? I suggest you study more history if you believe that
Along with the rule of law I am fascinated by the difference people give to "democratic" society, as if that is the best, or some how perfect
When you state something like that, you must show us some sources.
I dotn know how about some big ones
1. Slavery
2. Trail of Tears / Native American Reservations
3. Japanese internment camps
Those are 3 from just American History that everyone should agree on, Then there are others from other Democracies, plus things that happen in War Time in like Vietnam,
I could compile I huge list, the idea that democracies are some how pure as the driven snow free from any unethical or immoral action is so wrong I question how anyone to could believe that
1. Slavery
2. Trail of Tears / Native American Reservations
3. Japanese internment camps
Those are 3 from just American History that everyone should agree on, Then there are others from other Democracies, plus things that happen in War Time in like Vietnam,
I could compile I huge list, the idea that democracies are some how pure as the driven snow free from any unethical or immoral action is so wrong I question how anyone to could believe that
Slavery is a bit of a stretch. There were many restrictions on who was able to vote when slavery was legal in the US. (Most obviously, slaves couldn't vote, but women and many white men were also unable to.)
It is not a stretch at all, The fact that "There were many restrictions" has no bearing on the conversation.
You are simply grasping at straws to defend the "golden standard" for Authoritarian Government... democracy. where all unethical actions can be justified as long as the "majority" agrees
As you can tell I am no fan of democracy, and believe people that refuse to acknowledge massive ethical problems with democracy treat it almost like a religion, replacing the traditional Omnipotent God with "will of the majority"
You are simply grasping at straws to defend the "golden standard" for Authoritarian Government... democracy. where all unethical actions can be justified as long as the "majority" agrees
As you can tell I am no fan of democracy, and believe people that refuse to acknowledge massive ethical problems with democracy treat it almost like a religion, replacing the traditional Omnipotent God with "will of the majority"
Please stop using HN for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's a stretch to define a country as a democray when far less than 50% of the adult population could vote.
I suggest you look up the etymology of "democracy" and open a few history books - any that have been written in the English language, at any time - if you think that's a stretch.
Universal suffrage is a separate concept, and it's not necessary that a government have it in order to be considered a democracy. It's certainly how we all (one hopes) think a democracy ought to work, but that's a separate issue.
Universal suffrage is a separate concept, and it's not necessary that a government have it in order to be considered a democracy. It's certainly how we all (one hopes) think a democracy ought to work, but that's a separate issue.
Make an effort to read the messages carefully, please. The parent comment said `what level of brutality the EU is willing to accept before intervening`, and by brutality I understand from the Spanish govt. side, and my answer was that they won't try to condemn this kind of brutality unless it goes physical. I never said anything about the EU not supporting Spanish's position; it makes plenty of sense, since it's in their interest to avoid Catalonia's independence.
I have read it carefully, thank you. Nothing changes.
Something more than fake news, that's for sure.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo...
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/02/inenglish/1506943013_99...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/19...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/catalonia-demo...
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/02/inenglish/1506943013_99...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/10/19...
The spectre of fake news and its accompanying uncertainties could certainly raise the threshold.
Democracy is democracy until it's not.
It looks like Spain are coming as the bad guys in the whole ordeal, trying to keep their "vassal" state at any cost. Seems like a throwback to feudal times. They could have made a reasonable deal. Referendum would be valid if there is over 50% participation and a super majority 2/3rds approve it (over 66% of YES, for independence).
Most likely the independence vote would have lost, people felt they expressed their rights and Spain would move on to deal with their economy and other matters. Squashing referendums with violence made them look bad and lose the moral ground on the international scale and just embolden the separatists (who wants to live under an oppressive regime anyways).
Also the EU is coming out as a loser in this case. They demonstrated that they basically don't give a fudge about their citizens (which Catalans are), and just want to preserve the political status quo.
Most likely the independence vote would have lost, people felt they expressed their rights and Spain would move on to deal with their economy and other matters. Squashing referendums with violence made them look bad and lose the moral ground on the international scale and just embolden the separatists (who wants to live under an oppressive regime anyways).
Also the EU is coming out as a loser in this case. They demonstrated that they basically don't give a fudge about their citizens (which Catalans are), and just want to preserve the political status quo.
Spanish sovereignty resides in all Spaniards, not just a part of them. It is in the Spanish Constitution.
If secessionists lose an election, they'll keep asking for another, and another.
If secessionists lose an election, they'll keep asking for another, and another.
Lol, no, it resides on the folks that live on those states. Constitutions change. (the last change was in 78, right?).
Fromer Yougoslavia broke off, as the separate states wanted their own countries. Somewhere was peaceful (Slovenia), and very bloody, (the rest of the states).
They are much much better off by themselves right now. Things change, and if Catalonia wants their independence they should.
Fromer Yougoslavia broke off, as the separate states wanted their own countries. Somewhere was peaceful (Slovenia), and very bloody, (the rest of the states).
They are much much better off by themselves right now. Things change, and if Catalonia wants their independence they should.
The article 1.2 of the Spanish Constitution states:
> La soberanía nacional reside en el pueblo español, del que emanan los poderes del Estado.
(The national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people, from which emanate the powers of the State.)
> La soberanía nacional reside en el pueblo español, del que emanan los poderes del Estado.
(The national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people, from which emanate the powers of the State.)
No one under 57 has voted on this constitution.
It should be modernised.
It should be modernised.
Also, when my parents voted for the constitution, the other option what to go back for the dictatorship.
For them, not being beaten by the police for speaking Catalan, was a huge step forward in terms of human rights.
For them, not being beaten by the police for speaking Catalan, was a huge step forward in terms of human rights.
Do you think it would matter? I don't think most of the country supports the Catalonian independence, so it would probably remain as-is on that issue.
So every generation has to vote a new constitution?
Yes.
Thomas Jefferson said something along those lines. I think every generation might be a little extreme. Every other generation, certainly.
Thomas Jefferson said something along those lines. I think every generation might be a little extreme. Every other generation, certainly.
And which other country is doing this today?
The US has been amending the constitution about once every generation or so the last amendment was in 1992.
Spain changed the constitution in August 2011 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/26/spain-const...
It was to satisfy banks, but for the sake of your argumentation, they changed it.
It was to satisfy banks, but for the sake of your argumentation, they changed it.
Sure, many countries change parts of their constitution from time to time, usually through a parliament. The question was however: "So every generation has to vote a new constitution?" because earlier someone was questioning the Spanish constitution since "no one under 57 has voted on it".
It’s the same thing.
You would also want to note that many constitutions in Europe aren’t that old many were rewritten following WW2 and those which weren’t are often modified and ratified.
There is no legal difference between adding or removing parts of a constitution and voting on a new one.
You still need to approve a new constitution and ratify it. If you start from scratch it means that you either didn’t have a codified constitution or it was really shitty but those are pretty unique cases.
I really don’t see a problem of revising a constitution once every 25-50 years.
You would also want to note that many constitutions in Europe aren’t that old many were rewritten following WW2 and those which weren’t are often modified and ratified.
There is no legal difference between adding or removing parts of a constitution and voting on a new one.
You still need to approve a new constitution and ratify it. If you start from scratch it means that you either didn’t have a codified constitution or it was really shitty but those are pretty unique cases.
I really don’t see a problem of revising a constitution once every 25-50 years.
I don’t think I follow.
What is then exactly now the difference if you compare Spain with other countries?
What is then exactly now the difference if you compare Spain with other countries?
And the sovereignty of the government comes from the social contract. When a big part of the citizens feel that they are not represented by the government, the social contract is broken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
The Spaniards seem to love Rajoy, as they give him the majority in every election. Rajoy's party, "Partido Popular", is voted by less than 8% of the Catalans.
So, the question is, why the Catalans need to be governed by a political party, that not only rules against them, but that does not represent Catalan society?
There are more than 2 million people that do not accept the government of Madrid. How will Madrid rule over all this people without transforming Spain to a full-blown dictatorship again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
The Spaniards seem to love Rajoy, as they give him the majority in every election. Rajoy's party, "Partido Popular", is voted by less than 8% of the Catalans.
So, the question is, why the Catalans need to be governed by a political party, that not only rules against them, but that does not represent Catalan society?
There are more than 2 million people that do not accept the government of Madrid. How will Madrid rule over all this people without transforming Spain to a full-blown dictatorship again?
Are you kidding? Do you know how a democracy works?
You've been repeatedly violating the site guidelines by posting uncivilly, unsubstantively, using this site for political battle, and generally ruining this and other threads. We ban accounts that do that regardless of how good your cause is or how wrong someone else is. We have to, because otherwise this place will destroy itself.
I'm not going to ban you because you've used HN as intended before this recent political crisis. But it's dismaying that I had to look back through hundreds of comments to determine that.
I understand how emotional these topics can be, but would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post like this to HN again?
I'm not going to ban you because you've used HN as intended before this recent political crisis. But it's dismaying that I had to look back through hundreds of comments to determine that.
I understand how emotional these topics can be, but would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post like this to HN again?
It works in a manner which encourages secession for regions which generally hold distinctly different political opinions than the rest of the country.
Given that "Catalunia leader" has dissolved the Parlament (Catalunia local congress) and declared independence(but saying that he suspended it), it is only logical what the Government has to do.
The central Government is not escalating anything, on the contrary, it has been extremely weak.
Imagine that some State in the US declares the president of the US has no decisions over his land, and that you follow your own local laws(made by you on the go) instead of the laws of your country. It will not take more than 5 minutes of that for the country to act.
The Parlament local laws said that you need two thirds of the Parlament in order to do anything serious. Those guys wanted to declare independence with half the seats plus one. Those seats represent less people that those that were not independentists.
In the case of Spain it has taken almost a month to do something, and most of the responsible people are out there free, earning a very good salary for trying to destroy the country.
In China when revolution won everything that Chinese elite did was bad, even if they did some things well, like having hygienic manners. As a result, living in China today is extremely disgusting.
In Spain the same happens with anything Franco dictatorship did. We always have to do the opposite of what Franco would have done.
So because Franco was nationalist and brave(he risked his life over 200 hundred times in battle) politicians believe that democracy needs to be against the nation and weakness the rule. They do not consider that you could be a democracy and take your country seriously.
So they made it legal for politicians that want to destroy the system be part of the System. They gave territories more autonomy, a local tv, local police, the education and health system.
Local police now is acting like a private independentists police(like the SA and SS were private armies of Hitler against Germany army and police). Local TV and radio uses their airtime to put loop videos of Spanish police "brutality" (nothing compared against last Germany action in the G20 summit or Britain with Brexit protests), where the local police has not followed orders by central Government.
The local health system(following also local orders) declared anyone having an anxiety crisis for watching local TV loops to be an officially "injured" by Spanish police. More than 200 "injured" by Spanish police had just watched TV.
The central Government is not escalating anything, on the contrary, it has been extremely weak.
Imagine that some State in the US declares the president of the US has no decisions over his land, and that you follow your own local laws(made by you on the go) instead of the laws of your country. It will not take more than 5 minutes of that for the country to act.
The Parlament local laws said that you need two thirds of the Parlament in order to do anything serious. Those guys wanted to declare independence with half the seats plus one. Those seats represent less people that those that were not independentists.
In the case of Spain it has taken almost a month to do something, and most of the responsible people are out there free, earning a very good salary for trying to destroy the country.
In China when revolution won everything that Chinese elite did was bad, even if they did some things well, like having hygienic manners. As a result, living in China today is extremely disgusting.
In Spain the same happens with anything Franco dictatorship did. We always have to do the opposite of what Franco would have done.
So because Franco was nationalist and brave(he risked his life over 200 hundred times in battle) politicians believe that democracy needs to be against the nation and weakness the rule. They do not consider that you could be a democracy and take your country seriously.
So they made it legal for politicians that want to destroy the system be part of the System. They gave territories more autonomy, a local tv, local police, the education and health system.
Local police now is acting like a private independentists police(like the SA and SS were private armies of Hitler against Germany army and police). Local TV and radio uses their airtime to put loop videos of Spanish police "brutality" (nothing compared against last Germany action in the G20 summit or Britain with Brexit protests), where the local police has not followed orders by central Government.
The local health system(following also local orders) declared anyone having an anxiety crisis for watching local TV loops to be an officially "injured" by Spanish police. More than 200 "injured" by Spanish police had just watched TV.
Catalonia'president has not dissolved the parliament, neither has he disbanded it.
There will be a parlamentari meeting next week to debate what to do with the application of the 155 and how to respond. Has just said so in a televised speech.
Just with the inaccuracy you started marks all the rest you wrote as "things to doubt".
There will be a parlamentari meeting next week to debate what to do with the application of the 155 and how to respond. Has just said so in a televised speech.
Just with the inaccuracy you started marks all the rest you wrote as "things to doubt".
>>Imagine that some State in the US declares the president of the US has no decisions over his land, and that you follow your own local laws(made by you on the go) instead of the laws of your country. It will not take more than 5 minutes of that for the country to act.
We have a strong Federalist Society and I think it would take much longer than 5 mins to act.
While the US Federal Government has gain alot of power after the last 100 years it is still not the Top Dogs, Under the US Constitution the State governments can amend and/or abolish the Federal Government if they so choose.
The US Constitution is entirely about limiting the power and scope of the US Federal Government, a fact that seems to be lost both in international understanding of the US, and sadly domestically as well since we have more and more people thinking the Constitution is about "Giving people rights" or outlining what an individual can do, instead of its original and true purpose of defining what the government is allowed to do
Prime example of this is National Speed Limits, there is no way for the US Federal Government to demand a speed limit so when they wanted to establish said limit of 65, they had to do it by bribes and extortion they tied federal funding for roads to the passage of state laws establishing a 65 speed limit, states that did not pass such a law would lose billions in federal money
So no I do not believe the reaction would be as you think it would be here in the States
A more modern and pressing example is the ongoing conflict between several states and the US Federal Government over Marijuana where multiple states have now openly defied the federal laws on prohibition of this plant.
And on Immigration where they openly resist and obstruct enforcement of Federal Immigration Law.
No in the US the State government are regularly in opposition to the Federal Government
We have a strong Federalist Society and I think it would take much longer than 5 mins to act.
While the US Federal Government has gain alot of power after the last 100 years it is still not the Top Dogs, Under the US Constitution the State governments can amend and/or abolish the Federal Government if they so choose.
The US Constitution is entirely about limiting the power and scope of the US Federal Government, a fact that seems to be lost both in international understanding of the US, and sadly domestically as well since we have more and more people thinking the Constitution is about "Giving people rights" or outlining what an individual can do, instead of its original and true purpose of defining what the government is allowed to do
Prime example of this is National Speed Limits, there is no way for the US Federal Government to demand a speed limit so when they wanted to establish said limit of 65, they had to do it by bribes and extortion they tied federal funding for roads to the passage of state laws establishing a 65 speed limit, states that did not pass such a law would lose billions in federal money
So no I do not believe the reaction would be as you think it would be here in the States
A more modern and pressing example is the ongoing conflict between several states and the US Federal Government over Marijuana where multiple states have now openly defied the federal laws on prohibition of this plant.
And on Immigration where they openly resist and obstruct enforcement of Federal Immigration Law.
No in the US the State government are regularly in opposition to the Federal Government
Have you forgotten about the Civil War? It didn't go down super peacefully the last time a group of states tried to go it alone.
Have you forgotten about the American Revolutionary War...
To answer your question no, I have not forgotten about the Civil War and to classify the Civil War as "states trying to go at it alone" is extremely ignorant of the political, economic, and other factors around the Civil War
To answer your question no, I have not forgotten about the Civil War and to classify the Civil War as "states trying to go at it alone" is extremely ignorant of the political, economic, and other factors around the Civil War
I don't see how else you would describe the secession of the Southern States. It's basically Latin for "going it alone".
It's almost like Spain wants Catalonia to secede.
It's worse than that. It is as if Spain wants Catalonia to look justified in seceding in the eyes of the world. Pretty much everyone in the world would have regarded a secession referendum from Catalonia - regardless of how it was decided - as an unimportant joke until the Spanish government started beating people over it.
Look at the electoral results. PP, the current governing party in Spain, doesn't get good results in Catalonia.
Its main opponents, PSOE, does get decent results there, as does the alternative, PODEMOS.
So they have absolutely nothing to lose, politically speaking, losing us.
Not only that, but they have used, and still use, Catalonia as a ghost whom they fight, in order to gain votes in the rest of Spain.
And lastly, there are active cases against them by justice, all this is casting a smokescreen so people won't notice if they are declared guilty,or when they pardon their friends.
Its main opponents, PSOE, does get decent results there, as does the alternative, PODEMOS.
So they have absolutely nothing to lose, politically speaking, losing us.
Not only that, but they have used, and still use, Catalonia as a ghost whom they fight, in order to gain votes in the rest of Spain.
And lastly, there are active cases against them by justice, all this is casting a smokescreen so people won't notice if they are declared guilty,or when they pardon their friends.
Yeah, I always suspected Rajoy to be an idiot, but this really confirmed it. The handling of this situation has been just terrible.
National media is crying outloud people are 'adoctrinated' in Catalonia in favour of independence...how that saying? like seeing the mote in one's brother's eye without noticing the beam in one's own.
I definitely don’t know enough to judge the whole thing. However, from what I know, as a European, the secession movement bewilders me. It strangely feels very un-European. How can we unite the continent if we start separating countries? Can we not all just get along together and not care so much about the details of our passport? Which problem is independence solving?