Spain suppressing Catalan Indyref

[McHrozni]

40-45% of _those who bother to vote_ don't decide anything, usually. Or do you suggest that Catalonia has some unusual election system which gives more seats with less votes?

No, I'm saying that drastic and traumatic changes, like those that would occur should Catalonia pushed forward with independence come hell or high water, need more than 40-45% popular support to deserve the label "democratic".

I'd support it, were the proportions twice as high. With these numbers however there is no case.

McHrozni

 

[Giz]

No, I'm saying that drastic and traumatic changes, like those that would occur should Catalonia pushed forward with independence come hell or high water, need more than 40-45% popular support to deserve the label "democratic".

I'd support it, were the proportions twice as high. With these numbers however there is no case.

McHrozni

A higher level of support, such as might have been demonstrated if the police hadn't been assaulting voters?

 

[Craig B]

Sure.



Sure.



In 1918 in Ireland, the pro-independence party won about half the vote and another party which also favored greater self-rule at least won about half the remainder. Save for Northern Ireland, the pro-indepednence parties won large majorities in all electoral districts.

By comparison in 2017 Catalonia, the pro-independence parties barely manage to get half the parliament and according to our best information, manage to get 40-45% of the electorate on their side.

Why should 40-45% of the voters decide on what happens with their constituents and how is that democracy?

McHrozni

That is not in fact your point. What you have been telling me is that it is not up to the people of Catalonia, majority or not, to defy the Spanish constitution and hold a referendum. I state, by contrast, that the people of Catalonia do have such a right, if they decide by a clear majority to exercise it.

So you have been arguing two opposite things, and I want you to clear up this matter by choosing one of these opinions and thereafter sticking to it. Do the people of Catalonia have a right, if a majority of them agree, to secede from Spain?

If you say yes, there is no dispute between us, because I agree that a majority is essential. That's why I'm surprised that Madrid has disrupted the referendum, if Spain believes that the majority is for the union, as you have been stating.

 

[McHrozni]

That is not in fact your point. What you have been telling me is that it is not up to the people of Catalonia, majority or not, to defy the Spanish constitution and hold a referendum. I state, by contrast, that the people of Catalonia do have such a right, if they decide by a clear majority to exercise it.

This is always a gray area. However, I do agree Catalonia has such a right, if they decide by an overwhelming majority of the electorate to exercise it. The right is not granted by the Spanish constitution, which is why it must be an overwhelming majority and not just a "clear" majority (whatever that means) or a majority or, as we see here, a mere plurality.

Overwhelming majority of the electorate is 80% of eligable voters or above. You shouldn't take any significant actions (i.e. holding a referendum) without at least 60% of the entire electorate behind you if those actions are as illegal and unconstitutional as those of the Catalan leadership.

So you have been arguing two opposite things, and I want you to clear up this matter by choosing one of these opinions and thereafter sticking to it. Do the people of Catalonia have a right, if a majority of them agree, to secede from Spain?

If the majority is large enough, sure. Currently it's about half what it should be if you're talking about a unilateral and unconstitutional secession.

If you say yes, there is no dispute between us, because I agree that a majority is essential. That's why I'm surprised that Madrid has disrupted the referendum, if Spain believes that the majority is for the union, as you have been stating.

The Spanish state is supposed to uphold the Spanish constitution. It's in their job description. The Spanish constitution clearly states Spain is indivisible and the right to self-determination doesn't exist early on, within the first few articles if I recall correctly. Madrid is obligated to disrupt the referendum just as it would be obligated to disrupt any attempt by Morocco to conquer Ceuta or Andalusia.

On the other hand my opinions are not bound by the Spanish constitution. The actions of their state apparatus are. They're sworn to uphld it, I'm not, so I can disagree with what the best actions regarding Catalonia should be and still say the Spanish state didn't do anything wrong - except for unnecessary police violence, which I condemned several times.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

A higher level of support, such as might have been demonstrated if the police hadn't been assaulting voters?

Perhaps. There is no evidence the level of support would be adequate, see my post above. In fact all the evidence we have shows the level of support is about half of what would be needed for such actions.

McHrozni

 

[Abooga]

That's probably a fair assesment, however you can't decide a bunch of people don't count because the other side is "superior and more civilized".

After all isn't that precisely why Nazis were bad?

McHrozni

I never said a bunch of people don´t count, I was just explaining my impression (a crass generalisation, admittedly) borne of my travels and having met a fair amount of different people in Catalonia, Spain, etc.

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps. There is no evidence the level of support would be adequate, see my post above. In fact all the evidence we have shows the level of support is about half of what would be needed for such actions.

McHrozni

You're just making stuff up now, or pulling things out of your bottom. Either there is a constitutional right of Catalans to decide on independence, or there is not. As you have pointed out to me very clearly, to amend the Spanish constitution would entail a referendum of all Spain, among many other complex procedures. Thus there is no right of Catalans as such to make a decision of that kind. That was clear. But it is not clear how such a procedure could be abrogated by any particular balance of Catalan opinion.

So this hybrid solution to the problem of principled choice confronting you is invalid and untenable, given what you have already told us about legality, constitutionality, and territorial integrity.

 

[McHrozni]

You're just making stuff up now, or pulling things out of your bottom. Either there is a constitutional right of Catalans to decide on independence, or there is not.

This is not really a hard question: the Catalans do not have a constitutional right to decide on independence. The question is whether they have the right to decide on independence based on something other than constitution, for example if an overwhelming majority of Catalans thought Catalonia should be independent, they should be given that regardless of what Spanish constitution said.

Of course the 50% plus one vote they might be able to scrape together (see Rolfe for some creative electoral math) won't do. You need to be north of 60% to even discuss this and north of 80% to do what they're trying to pull off.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

This is always a gray area. ...

Overwhelming majority of the electorate is 80% of eligable voters or above. You shouldn't take any significant actions (i.e. holding a referendum) without at least 60% of the entire electorate behind you if those actions are as illegal and unconstitutional as those of the Catalan leadership.

The Spanish state is supposed to uphold the Spanish constitution. It's in their job description. The Spanish constitution clearly states Spain is indivisible and the right to self-determination doesn't exist early on, within the first few articles if I recall correctly. Madrid is obligated to disrupt the referendum just as it would be obligated to disrupt any attempt by Morocco to conquer Ceuta or Andalusia.

Can you not see the ridiculous contradictions in this mishmash? Madrid is obligated to disrupt a referendum in which Catalan independence would be justified if a certain high level of support was secured. That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

To take your own example. Suppose eighty percent of Moroccan voters agree that Morocco should annex Ceuta or Melilla. (Let alone Andalusia!) Would that be enough support to justify their violation of Spanish indivisability?

 

[Abooga]

Can you not see the ridiculous contradictions in this mishmash? Madrid is obligated to disrupt a referendum in which Catalan independence would be justified if a certain high level of support was secured. That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

To take your own example. Suppose eighty percent of Moroccan voters agree that Morocco should annex Ceuta or Melilla. (Let alone Andalusia!) Would that be enough support to justify their violation of Spanish indivisability?

Yes, there is a possible contradiction, between law (the Spanish Constitution) and the Human Right to self determination.

That´s why this is not a black and white issue, Catalans may be right to demand independence at some point (not now with only around 50% support, but in theory, at some point) and Spain is right to currently demand Catalans to respect the Constitution, which was voted by over 60% of the electorate in Catalonia.

 

[Oystein]

Yes, there is a possible contradiction, between law (the Spanish Constitution) and the Human Right to self determination.

That´s why this is not a black and white issue, Catalans may be right to demand independence at some point (not now with only around 50% support, but in theory, at some point) and Spain is right to currently demand Catalans to respect the Constitution, which was voted by over 60% of the electorate in Catalonia.

Is there a Human Right of self determination? Aren't human rights individual rights? Do I, after 100% Yes vote within my own plot, house and garden, have a human right to secede from my country? If my town votes 80% pro independence, don't the other 20% have the human right to stay in the old state?

I think arguing from human rights gets us nowhere. Ideally, all states ought to guarantee all human rights. If Spain doesn't, the fix is not to secede but to fix Spain's human rights treatment.

 

[Craig B]

Is there a Human Right of self determination? Aren't human rights individual rights? Do I, after 100% Yes vote within my own plot, house and garden, have a human right to secede from my country? If my town votes 80% pro independence, don't the other 20% have the human right to stay in the old state?

I think arguing from human rights gets us nowhere. Ideally, all states ought to guarantee all human rights. If Spain doesn't, the fix is not to secede but to fix Spain's human rights treatment.

Empires rise and fall. Once Spain had an Empire, and it fell apart. Now the United Spanish state is showing signs of dissolution.

Once Briain had an Empire, and it fell apart. Now the United British state is showing signs of dissolution.

Both these polities became central unified states in the early eighteenth century, during the course a war: the War of Spanish Succession. Perhaps the political structures evolved in these days are now perceived to be obsolete, human rights being one, but not the only one, of the factors in play.

 

[Oystein]

Empires rise and fall. Once Spain had an Empire, and it fell apart. Now the United Spanish state is showing signs of dissolution.

Once Briain had an Empire, and it fell apart. Now the United British state is showing signs of dissolution.

Both these polities became central unified states in the early eighteenth century, during the course a war: the War of Spanish Succession. Perhaps the political structures evolved in these days are now perceived to be obsolete, human rights being one, but not the only one, of the factors in play.

I agree that the present shape of states is contingent on a confluence of historical events and will grow anachronistic eventually. It follows that there ought to be ways, preferably peaceful, to reshape states. What I disputed is that a notion of "human rights" is the right way to approach this.

Today's nation states are largely a product of a century (roughly 1775 to 1875) when nation states was all the hoot. A concept developed wherein "nations" are an entity bestowed with rights, opposing the former concept of noblemen and kings with their families being the thing that defined political entities. In the 20th century, the concept of "nation" was perverted, by fascism, into the totalitarion concept of a "people" having rights, as opposed to individuals.

In my mind, it is today difficult to argue for "nation" being the core of states, and to distangle that from the racist "people" concept. A modern state ought to be assembled around a core of political ideas - democracy given as a premise, human rights too, but beyond that: subsidiarity, rule of law, recognition of minority issues, some lebel of economic solidarity, ... I don't see how delineating new states along old concepts born out of historical contingencies will result in sustained improvements all around. Then again, I favour continued dissolution of the European nation states into an ever more fluid EU superstate.

 

[Abooga]

Is there a Human Right of self determination? Aren't human rights individual rights? Do I, after 100% Yes vote within my own plot, house and garden, have a human right to secede from my country? If my town votes 80% pro independence, don't the other 20% have the human right to stay in the old state?

I think arguing from human rights gets us nowhere. Ideally, all states ought to guarantee all human rights. If Spain doesn't, the fix is not to secede but to fix Spain's human rights treatment.

There is such a right, a right of the "peoples", which can also be drafted in terms of the individual´s right to democratic self government. But the issue is quite complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

 

[Craig B]

... I don't see how delineating new states along old concepts born out of historical contingencies will result in sustained improvements all around. Then again, I favour continued dissolution of the European nation states into an ever more fluid EU superstate.

I'm not sure that what is currently happening is new states being deliniated along old lines. I'm more optimistic in my interpretation of the significance of the present processes of increasing autonomy - within wider bonds of common trade, travel and common responsibilities for the global environment.

For these purposes I think the superpowers and the relic ex-imperial core area states are too big, and too remote. In Scotland it is rather fashionable to envy the smaller Scandinavian polities, and to remind ourselves that in terms of size, technological level and resources, our country fits neatly into that category of small democratic Northern state.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Ah, Independence Day! Now come the aliens.

***

Yet another cultural translation:
Q: Was the US a democracy with a constitution prior to the Emancipation Proclamation?
A: Yes, but flawed. Neither the claim of being a democracy or having a constitution are sufficient guarantee of a properly functioning democratic system. Mariano, hear that? La-hu, sa-her!

Q: But Catalans are not an excluded sex or a race, so what's the freaking problem here?
A: The tyranny of the majority, a known potential failing in democracy when it involves identifiable socio-anthropological groups as majority/minority, not just groupings of people by topical opinion.
(1) In the case of blacks in the antebellum US, such tyranny by a racial majority allowed for their permanent disenfranchisement, and remedying that has required redress in Constitutional and legislative law. (Women are a case of silenced majority; different discussion.) It required the sense of deeper democratic values beyond simply majority opinion to overcome, born of an awareness that mobs, too, are majorities that can have their victims.
(2) Catalonia is a regional ethnic minority. The Spanish constitution expressly prohibits regional votes on independence as a measure consciously and fully intended to serve as a fig leaf for permanently shutting down any thought of ethnic minorities getting out from under the thumb of the majority. It's best observed in contemporaneous political discussion under and just after Franco, as well as in very recent years.
(3) In short, the law is that minorities must submit to another, larger ethnic group in practice. Disobeying such a law is the kind of struggle for liberty any moderate should recognize as fully legit. (Think Tibet!)
(4) I.e., the Spanish Constitution has a "Slavery Clause," whose intent is the polar opposite of that of the Emancipation Proclamation. Legacy from Franco's instructions. Yuck, I know.

Q: What's with that King who, just after the referendum, did not mention when addressing the nation the hundreds of bloodied innocents who attempted to vote; many old, many women?
A: Wish I could say. There is a local gag law. He is above criticism, subject to fines and imprisonment. I can say, in general, that when someone is "mo' better equal," that system, even if democratic on the face, just like the US prior to universal adult suffrage, has poison in its democratic veins. Can't say more; but I do find the very idea of bending knee to some pampered trust fund phreak run amok with hubris abhorrent. As a general concept and with no specific reference, of course.

Catalan independence is the answer. The day Castile realizes it is not universally admired in awe, and that all on Earth do not wish to leave for heaven from the closest departure gate, Madrid (a saying of theirs), or speak "Christian" (Castilian), is the day the place grows up and has a chance of something better than a Potemkin democracy that beats innocent women at polling booths.

 

[McHrozni]

Can you not see the ridiculous contradictions in this mishmash? Madrid is obligated to disrupt a referendum in which Catalan independence would be justified if a certain high level of support was secured. That's a bit contradictory isn't it?

No, not at all. The government of Madrid is obligated to uphold the constitution of Spain. The rest of the world is not.

To take your own example. Suppose eighty percent of Moroccan voters agree that Morocco should annex Ceuta or Melilla. (Let alone Andalusia!) Would that be enough support to justify their violation of Spanish indivisability?

No. Eighty percent of voters in Ceuta or Melilla (or Andalusia) might be though.

Why do you find something this basic so hard to grasp?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Q: But Catalans are not an excluded sex or a race, so what's the freaking problem here?
A: The tyranny of the majority, a known potential failing in democracy when it involves identifiable socio-anthropological groups as majority/minority, not just groupings of people by topical opinion.
(1) In the case of blacks in the antebellum US, such tyranny by a racial majority allowed for their permanent disenfranchisement, and remedying that has required redress in Constitutional and legislative law. (Women are a case of silenced majority; different discussion.) It required the sense of deeper democratic values beyond simply majority opinion to overcome, born of an awareness that mobs, too, are majorities that can have their victims.
(2) Catalonia is a regional ethnic minority. The Spanish constitution expressly prohibits regional votes on independence as a measure consciously and fully intended to serve as a fig leaf for permanently shutting down any thought of ethnic minorities getting out from under the thumb of the majority. It's best observed in contemporaneous political discussion under and just after Franco, as well as in very recent years.
(3) In short, the law is that minorities must submit to another, larger ethnic group in practice. Disobeying such a law is the kind of struggle for liberty any moderate should recognize as fully legit. (Think Tibet!)
(4) I.e., the Spanish Constitution has a "Slavery Clause," whose intent is the polar opposite of that of the Emancipation Proclamation. Legacy from Franco's instructions. Yuck, I know.

Q: What's with that King who, just after the referendum, did not mention when addressing the nation the hundreds of bloodied innocents who attempted to vote; many old, many women?
A: Wish I could say. There is a local gag law. He is above criticism, subject to fines and imprisonment. I can say, in general, that when someone is "mo' better equal," that system, even if democratic on the face, just like the US prior to universal adult suffrage, has poison in its democratic veins. Can't say more; but I do find the very idea of bending knee to some pampered trust fund phreak run amok with hubris abhorrent. As a general concept and with no specific reference, of course.

Catalan independence is the answer. The day Castile realizes it is not universally admired in awe, and that all on Earth do not wish to leave for heaven from the closest departure gate, Madrid (a saying of theirs), or speak "Christian" (Castilian), is the day the place grows up and has a chance of something better than a Potemkin democracy that beats innocent women at polling booths.

Does all of this apply if the opponents of independence in Catalonia outnumber the supporters? If yes, how is it democratic?

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

No, not at all. The government of Madrid is obligated to uphold the constitution of Spain. The rest of the world is not.



No. Eighty percent of voters in Ceuta or Melilla (or Andalusia) might be though.

Why do you find something this basic so hard to grasp?

McHrozni

Stop bring cheeky, or I will end this conversation. I grasp it completely. Because you are entirely contradictory. You have told us that independence for Catalonia would require amrndment of the Spanish constitution, and to infringe that constitution is illegal; therefore the Spanish police are upholding the law against criminality in Catalonia. Fine, OK.

Then you say in contradiction to that; well if there was an 80% majority in Catalonia that would make it OK to secede, but the Spanish police are obligated to prevent such a ballot, and rubber bullets are no big deal in an election. That is absurd. I don't accept that a constitution can simultaneously be inviolable nationwide and amendable by 80% vote in one region of the country.

So the police are ordered to disrupt an election while the government is to accept its results, if they exceed a certain level? They are to encourage therefore a high participation rate, but at the same time are obligated to shoot voters with rubber bullets and confiscate ballot boxes! Nonsense. Make up your mind and stick to whatever decision you arrive at.

 

[McHrozni]

Stop bring cheeky, or I will end this conversation. I grasp it completely. Because you are entirely contradictory. You have told us that independence for Catalonia would require amrndment of the Spanish constitution, and to infringe that constitution is illegal; therefore the Spanish police are upholding the law against criminality in Catalonia. Fine, OK.

Then you say in contradiction to that; well if there was an 80% majority in Catalonia that would make it OK to secede, but the Spanish police are obligated to prevent such a ballot, and rubber bullets are no big deal in an election. That is absurd. I don't accept that a constitution can simultaneously be inviolable nationwide and amendable by 80% vote in one region of the country.

So the police are ordered to disrupt an election while the government is to accept its results, if they exceed a certain level? They are to encourage therefore a high participation rate, but at the same time are obligated to shoot voters with rubber bullets and confiscate ballot boxes! Nonsense. Make up your mind and stick to whatever decision you arrive at.

I didn't say half those things. Catalonia would be justified in pursuing unconstitutional, unilateral independence if they had a support in excess of 80% of the electorate. That's the minimum, not what they should be aiming for.

Spanish state would also be justified in trying to stop it using non-violent means.

It's entirely possible for a conflict to arise because both parties are right. That's human society for you. If you find this unfanthomable try having a conversation with a human being face to face once in a while, you'll see what I mean

McHrozni