That was a military coup d'état. It was followed by a civil war. The events have nothing in common.
I've no idea what any of that means, and I don't "claim to be wrong". I think there's a garble in there somewhere.
Spain suppressing Catalan Indyref
- Thread starter Craig B
- Start date
With respect, that canard was used by the Unionists here during IndyRef #1 to suggest that Orkney and/or Shetland were likely to secede from Scotland (and hence, one was to infer, take the oilfields with them). Inasmuch as there is no strong secessionist movement in the northern isles, this was considered with some bemusement by most people I know and certainly received little coverage in the Scottish press as a consequence.
I posted a discussion of the international legal definition of statehood at that point, which unfortuantely I don't have time to track down now, however my recollection is that the UN required the territory in question to have:
1.a permanent population
2. defined territory
3. a government
4. the capacity to enter into treaties, etc. with other states.
Now if one was to take Scotland as an example, we satisfy the tests of (1) and (2) in their entirety, and a significant part of (3) inasmuch as we have a parliament with control over a wide range of issues including entirely seperate legal and educational systems. It is a recognised entiry, not least as it was previously independent nation. It would therefore be a modest leap to full statehood.
Shetland, on the other hand, only has (1) and (2) only (i.e. beyond local government and cleaning out the bins level). They would have a lot further to go to support an argument for statehood.
My undertanding, possibly flawed, is that the Catelan devolved government enjoys a significant level of devolution, although this may fall slightly short of the Scottish situation, and therefore can make similar arguments. Barcelona, however, fails the test for similar reasons to (say) Lerwick or Kirkwall (albeit with the advantage of a substantial population).
Yes, I'm sure there are no similarities whatsoever between two illegal usurpations of authority, because one was followed by a civil war and the other one wasn't
Keep up the good work, you're almost entertaining!
McHrozni
Abooga
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,114
First thing, since you´re quoting the UN, we should remember that it does not support Catalan independentism, it doesn´t recognise the legitimacy of the referendum, would not allow Catalonia back in the UN etc. And Spain would fulfill those requirements better than Catalonia anyway, but then, if a large majority of Catalans wanted out (which is not the case, but if they did) wouldn´t it be fair to let them?
I haven´t seen those "requirements" mentioned anywhere in the current media coverage, all they seem to be repeating is "Catalans want to vote, voting is democratic, Spain is fascist because it doesn´t allow a democratic referendum " etc. etc. So the only requirement that seems to be waived so far is that of the will of the people. Which is fine and all, but I´d like it to be more concretely explained and defined. Who says Catalonia has a government and Barcelona doesn´t? How do you define what a nation is?
I mean, if you have a region with a large majority of citizens who wish to form their own nation, who says whether they fulfill the necessary requirements if not themselves? Why should they accept the legitimacy of some outside power to dictate whether they do, in opposition to that large majority?
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
These four criteria were codified in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, a treaty between 16 American countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention
It only restated existing customary international law. And it's obviously pre UN.
I think the criterion "government" is customarily understood with the qualification that said government has actual control over the administration. A mere gremium of honorable elders signing declarations that no one executes might call itself "government", but wouldn't be one under the Montevideo Convention.
Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
Even more entertaining are the results of the referendum Caesar held when he crossed the Rubicon, or General Puigdemont stating, alea iacta est before crossing the Tagus with his legions and occupying Madrid.Yes, I'm sure there are no similarities whatsoever between two illegal usurpations of authority, because one was followed by a civil war and the other one wasn't
Keep up the good work, you're almost entertaining!
McHrozni
No similarities.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
One guy is really happy about this mess:
Vladimir Putin. Another European Democracy Destablized.
Vladimir Putin. Another European Democracy Destablized.
I'll be damned if I can find my original post, which included quite a bit of reading-up and the like. Must be old age. Ah well......
Yes, it was Montevideo and you are correct in that it was a restatement of existing international law. To the best of my knowledge, which is admittedly limited in this respect, it remains the current primary definition of a state and is therefore relevant.
Agreed and hence my comments about the difference between a substantially devolved government such as Holyrood as opposed to local authorites such as Shetland. Hence for the former to step up to the "national government" mark is much less of a leap than for the latter.
One of the problems, of course, is that the principal test of statehood is really whether other countries are willing to recognise the nation/state. It would, I imagine, be possible to have a de facto state (Eritrea prior to independence from Ethiopia) as opposed to a de jure state (Eritrea after the 1993 Referendum and independence.
The UN declaration doesn't help, alas. It notes that peoples have the right to self determination but then goes on to state that anything seeking to undermine a member state territory is against the spirit of the organisation. This rather flies in the face of examples such as the former SSRs, Eritrea, East Timor (now there's a real argument), and so on.
I think the particular problem is for those regions (former sovereign nations or otherwise) where a substantial proportion of the population are likely to support independence but a national government (such as Madrid) take great offence. If it requires the mother state to always agree to the vote and subsequent independence then there is little or no hope for a peaceful breakaway in some cases.
And to be honest, anyone who flings around silly terms like seperatist or independentist (that's never a real word, surely) isn't really engaging with the actual political or legal issues at a sensible level.
Yes, it was Montevideo and you are correct in that it was a restatement of existing international law. To the best of my knowledge, which is admittedly limited in this respect, it remains the current primary definition of a state and is therefore relevant.
Agreed and hence my comments about the difference between a substantially devolved government such as Holyrood as opposed to local authorites such as Shetland. Hence for the former to step up to the "national government" mark is much less of a leap than for the latter.
One of the problems, of course, is that the principal test of statehood is really whether other countries are willing to recognise the nation/state. It would, I imagine, be possible to have a de facto state (Eritrea prior to independence from Ethiopia) as opposed to a de jure state (Eritrea after the 1993 Referendum and independence.
The UN declaration doesn't help, alas. It notes that peoples have the right to self determination but then goes on to state that anything seeking to undermine a member state territory is against the spirit of the organisation. This rather flies in the face of examples such as the former SSRs, Eritrea, East Timor (now there's a real argument), and so on.
I think the particular problem is for those regions (former sovereign nations or otherwise) where a substantial proportion of the population are likely to support independence but a national government (such as Madrid) take great offence. If it requires the mother state to always agree to the vote and subsequent independence then there is little or no hope for a peaceful breakaway in some cases.
And to be honest, anyone who flings around silly terms like seperatist or independentist (that's never a real word, surely) isn't really engaging with the actual political or legal issues at a sensible level.
Quote doesn't seem to be working for me on Firefox, so excuse me breaking ceonvention.
Link?
Spain would obviously fit those requirements, since it's already a de jure nation state, hence I don't see your point I'm afraid.
As others have pointed out, there are legal discussions around what constitutes a government. It clearly doesn't allow you to call the local parish council a government in any meaningful sense, whereas the (say) Scottish Parliament does have substantial powers including the (largely unexercised) ability to raise some taxes.
They don't. They can be, for example, like Somaliland which is a de facto but not a de jure state. Kurdistan is in the same boat in some areas. Truth be told, however, assuming you want international trade and the like then you really need to get the de jure status.
Link?
Spain would obviously fit those requirements, since it's already a de jure nation state, hence I don't see your point I'm afraid.
As others have pointed out, there are legal discussions around what constitutes a government. It clearly doesn't allow you to call the local parish council a government in any meaningful sense, whereas the (say) Scottish Parliament does have substantial powers including the (largely unexercised) ability to raise some taxes.
They don't. They can be, for example, like Somaliland which is a de facto but not a de jure state. Kurdistan is in the same boat in some areas. Truth be told, however, assuming you want international trade and the like then you really need to get the de jure status.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
The EU seems to be keeping a low profile on this;probably because it does not want to be seen as taking sides,since that would hurt them coming forward as a neutral "honest broker" later.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
That word didn't settle well with me, either. But due to an abundance of caution only belatedly learned from repeatedly putting my foot in my mouth about unfamiliar usages in the past, I decided to look it up before I made any comment.
After breaking free of what was promising to become an extended wiki-walk through the history and laws of England's several civil wars, I emerged enlightened.
Not only is it a real word, but it is one which has a background several centuries old.
And (purely coincidentally, I'm sure) one whose roots are closely tied to early sovereignty conflicts between Scotland and England.
Whoda thunk it?
Last edited:
Putting the E back into JREF, or whatever we call ourselves this week....although I think this might fall into the category of some of the more obscure, rarely if ever used words only used by the Scrabblers amongst us!
This is a real issue. Yugoslavia originated from slavs gaining independence from the auto-hungrian and ottoman empires (cf Kurdistan) this independent country split up. How unitary do modern countries need to be? Look at this map of the Netherlands and Belgium!
Parts of Belgium are inside parts of the Netherlands inside Belgium.
http://www.exclave.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=10
Part of Catalan is entirely within France.
Certainly what is modern Catalan territory is Historically the Kingdom of Aragon, only a small part is historically the County of Catalonia. I find it hard to find a reference to an independent Catalan state in history, it seems principally to have been part of either the kingdom of the Franks or Aragon. That there has never been an independent nation state of Catalan does not mean that if there is a self defined Catalan ethnic group they should not be allowed to become a nation. However, there is no longer the need for such a nation to be in continuity, each household or community can decide on remaining part of Spain or becoming part of the new nation. This actually has an advantage for the independence campaign as it makes it difficult for the EU to effectively exclude the new state from the EU.
States can exist within broader monarchical unions. I have found useful accounts in Principality of CataloniaWP and Catalan CourtsWP. It is very obvious that a Catalan polity existed for centuries until its suppression in 1714. It was usually in monarchical union with other parts of Aragon. This resembles the situation in Scotland during the Union of the Crowns. Between 1603 and 1707 Scotland and England had a common monarch, but separate Parliaments. Scotland's loss of independence dates from the closure of that Parliament, not from the installation of the common monarchy.
The BBC history page explains
James was king of Scotland until 1603, when he became the first Stuart king of England as well, creating the kingdom of Great Britain.
Great Britain had a single monarch, but it was two countries, with two parliaments, currencies, and weights and measures, until 1707. Aragon appears to have been a similar entity until 1714, with the added complexity that Aragon itself was in a further monarchical union with Castile.There was never a Catalan Kingdom in the way there was a Scots Kingdom, perhaps a better analogy would be the relationship within the Kingdom of Scotland with the Lairdship of the Isles. One could see the Gàidhealtachd arguing for an independence vote from an independent Scotland. The basis for ethnicity seems strongly linguistic with a consequent separate culture. Clearly history is very important in these issues, the principal reason for the division between England and Scotland seems to be the limit of the Roman empire.
That there was or was not a historical Catalan Kingdom should not preclude possible independence. I am uneasy about claims that some group of people are intrinsically more virtuous than others this seems to me to verge on racist ideology. That there is some intrinsic virtue that sets one group of people as different from another is a dangerous argument.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Can we all get to decide which country our houses sit in or is that a privilege reserved for those who we decide we need to twist ourselves in knots over trying to deny the basic principles of self determination?
Abooga
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,114
It works with my firefox...
There are plenty of sources in Spanish media. For example, a good summary:
https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/09/13/actualidad/1505301022_964189.html
FROM "10 MYTHS AND LIES OF SECESSIONISM"
point 8. WE WOULD NOT LEAVE THE EU.
It is not true that an independent Catalonia would continue to be part of the European Union, as secessionism claims.
Since 2004, the successive presidents of the European Commission (who is the guardian and interpreter in the first instance of the Treaties), Romano Prodi, Jose Manuel Durão Barroso and Jean-Claude Juncker, have maintained the same thesis, with very few variations in their formulation: "If a territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State because that territory becomes an independent State, the Treaties can not continue to be applied to that part of the territory. And the new independent region becomes, by effect of its independence, in a third country ". That new state must "request the entrance again" if it wishes to be member.
This definition derives directly from the textuality of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Article 52 mentions the 28 Member States of the Union, one by one and by its full name. It does not appear the one of Catalonia, so that its ascription to the European community derives from the fact to be part of the Kingdom of Spain. It is not that Catalonia was concerned with its expulsion from the community club; is that he would exclude himself from it.
However, in its Title I (the most constitutional one), the TEU obliges everyone in Article 1.2 to respect the constitutional order of each Member State and its territorial integrity, in the following terms: "The Union shall respect the equality of Member States with the Treaties and their national identity inherent in their constitutional structures ... and shall respect the essential functions of the State, in particular those which aim to guarantee their territorial integrity. " It is not a matter of derived legislation, nor regulation, nor optional, but of constitutional order.
So, if Catalonia were to become an independent State and wish to join the EU, this would not be automatic, but should apply for it, as provided for in Article 49 of the TEU, which should be validated by the 28 Member States, including Spain, something complicated, even more so if the separation were unilateral.
But to be a candidate must meet the two basic requirements set by that article. The first is to be "a European State"; the second, to be "a State that respects the democratic values" proclaimed in article 2, as recalled in an article of the prestigious exjurisconsulto of the European Council, Jean Claude Piris (Catalonia and the European Union, THE COUNTRY, 29/8/2015) .
If these values were fulfilled, it would also have to be shown that the country constitutes "a European State". And to constitute a State, one must obtain international recognition. As Artur Mas acknowledged last March 25, "if no one recognizes you, independence is a disaster."
And the indisputable way for this recognition is the UN, the membership of it. For the UN to admit a new state, the Security Council must first recommend it (whose permanent members with the right to veto are France, not inclined to favor territorial ruptures and sensitized by issues such as that of Corsica or its own Catalan territories); and then approved by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority.
The political minimization of these obstacles alluding to the capital importance of Catalonia for Europe and the imperative need that this has of that contrasts with the unanimity of the governments and European institutions against the fragmentation; with the problems that would give rise to the precedent of a secession for many Member States experiencing domestic centrifugal tensions; and with the very founding goal of the current EU to reconcile Europeans on such bases as the unaltered maintenance of the internal borders established after the Second World War.
And in response to the alleged "internal enlargement" concerning the alleged preservation by Catalans of their status as European citizens, the Commission has made it well established that only persons who are nationals of a Member State are citizens of the EU, according to Article 20 TFEU (C (2022) 3689 final, 30/5/2012).
The consolation prize would be the permanence in the euro. "In any case, Catalonia will be in the euro ... there are countries that are not in the EU and have euro, Catalonia will have it if you want," said Mas in September 2013. Not so. Being in the euro is part of the monetary union, and only the EU member states are admitted.
The substitute would be to use the euro: to create a currency of its own and to affix it to the European currency, but this mechanism, the currency board, requires a unanimous agreement (article 219.1 of the TUE) of the 28. And although it is the system used by Monaco , San Marino, the Vatican and Andorra, "is not suitable for diversified economies," according to the IMF. A substitute substitute would be used without agreement, which experts consider contrary to the Treaty. And it would also deprive banking institutions in Catalonia of the massive funding umbrella that the ECB deploys, which in the best case (having subsidiaries in the euro zone) could only award them symbolic support, such as those granted to third countries.
(translated by Google)
Please read my post again. I have explained the relationship of Catalonia with parliaments and monarchs. It was indeed not a kingdom but part of a kingdom. A "principality" with a Parliament, in a monarchical union. It was not itself a kingdom, or for that matter a Republic, which independentists now want to establish. At the time of its loss of independence, Scotland, like Catalonia, was in a monarchical union. Previously, unlike Catalonia, it had been a free-standing kingdom.
The Roman Empire is not a historical issue in the case of the Scotland England division. There is a division between the generally lowland south of the island of Britain, and the more upland and cooler north. The Romans were less interested in the latter, and simply walled it off when their empire stopped expanding. Later, different polities evolved in these areas of different character.
The Gaelic language is not an issue either. As people have changed from speaking Gaelic to English, they have not thereby become less Scottish.
Please find any contributor who states that the Catalans are more virtuous than the Castilians, or that one ethnicity is in general more virtuous than another. Nobody has argued that. What has been argued is that one political arrangement can be better than another, as I am sure you will agree. Or that peaceful voters are better than police thugs who beat them up and confiscate their ballot papers, as I am sure you will also agree.
I like to think he has a hand in this Catalonian 'uprising' thing. Perhaps in financing the leaders who are pushing for it, perhaps in other ways.
It's not so much because Spain is destabilized, but because Russia can point out to how hypocritical West is for allowing some secessions but not others.
I'll also point out how Putin dealt with issues like those facing Spain right now.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45603000/jpg/_45603333_-7.jpg
McHrozni
Dear me. Stalin also used to "like to think" evil foreigners had a hand in financing people for nefarious purposes. Like you he adduced no valid evidence, but at least he had torture chambers in which appropriate "confessions" could be fabricated. Do you even have that? Or are we simply to be told what you "like to think"?