Spain suppressing Catalan Indyref

Film of the local police forces trying to stop the forces that have been shipped in from attacking voters.

What a mess.
 
I was not a big fan of this referendum, and am very skeptical about how well a independent Catalanonia would work in the real world, but the Spanish Goverments heavy handed tactics have disgusted me.
General Franco is alive and well..........
 
Craig4 said:
Wow, Madrid just ********** that up. I saw the video coming out of a polling station where the police in riot gear used batons to break the glass and enter the building full of reporters and election volunteers. The Spanish Police just wrote the propaganda for the Catalonians. They should have let the referendum go an ignored the results.
Click to expand...

THIS.
They should have just let the referendum happen, and then announce it was a political gesture which had no legal validity (which it did not). Instead they have been incredibly ham fisted and stupid, and lot of people who though the a referendum with no legal status was a silly publicity stunt now sympathize with the separatist. Nice going, guys, nice going.
The govement now looks like Franco has come back from the dead .......
Time to reread Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia".
 
Belgian thought said:
The stench of a Hitler youth brigade comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Hitler fans seem to be on the other side.

And under extreme pressure from a brutal Spanish police and anti protesters, the Catalonians are facing it with respect inducing dignity.

I think my favourite moment is when the local firefighters shielded voters from the police.

I have no dog in this race, and would personally prefer less fragmentation of Europe than more. However, I also support a people's right to self determination, and the actions of the Spanish authorities have shown that the Catalonians might have a valid case.
 
Article 7 of the EU treaty mandates suspension of any member state that uses military force on its population.

So far, despite the use of rubber bullets, Spain has not used military force against Catalan would-be voters but its actions today has IMO cemented a determination in Catalonia to secede from Spain.
 
To put the opposing argument. There is no doubt that under Catalan and Spanish law the referendum is illegal. There is a serious issue when governments (in this case the Catalan) feel that they can act illegally. Even if they have public support (and as I understand there has never been an opinion poll suggesting a majority in favour of Catalan independence), this is not a reason to break the law. Currently they spend public money illegally on a referendum. What will be the next action that is contrary the constitution, perhaps arresting those opposed to independence, closing down opposing newspapers? They have passed the point of no return they have demonstrated the will to break the law. They are criminals.

If you do not like the law in a civil society you campaign for a change. You do not break it. That it especially so if you are the government.
 
Agatha said:
Article 7 of the EU treaty mandates suspension of any member state that uses military force on its population.

So far, despite the use of rubber bullets, Spain has not used military force against Catalan would-be voters but its actions today has IMO cemented a determination in Catalonia to secede from Spain.
Click to expand...
As well as that the Spanish government has forfeited any outside sympathy for its point of view with its use of force.
 
Planigale said:
To put the opposing argument. There is no doubt that under Catalan and Spanish law the referendum is illegal. There is a serious issue when governments (in this case the Catalan) feel that they can act illegally. Even if they have public support (and as I understand there has never been an opinion poll suggesting a majority in favour of Catalan independence), this is not a reason to break the law. Currently they spend public money illegally on a referendum. What will be the next action that is contrary the constitution, perhaps arresting those opposed to independence, closing down opposing newspapers? They have passed the point of no return they have demonstrated the will to break the law. They are criminals.

If you do not like the law in a civil society you campaign for a change. You do not break it. That it especially so if you are the government.
Click to expand...
By that reasoning, Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus.

There may have been no such opinion poll, but there was another referendum in 2014 with a majority pro-independence, and the current ruling party is actually a coalition or merger of pro-independence parties from all over the political spectrum. It would be folly to claim the voters didn't know they would be organizing this.
 
Planigale said:
To put the opposing argument. There is no doubt that under Catalan and Spanish law the referendum is illegal. There is a serious issue when governments (in this case the Catalan) feel that they can act illegally. Even if they have public support (and as I understand there has never been an opinion poll suggesting a majority in favour of Catalan independence), this is not a reason to break the law. Currently they spend public money illegally on a referendum. What will be the next action that is contrary the constitution, perhaps arresting those opposed to independence, closing down opposing newspapers? They have passed the point of no return they have demonstrated the will to break the law. They are criminals.

If you do not like the law in a civil society you campaign for a change. You do not break it. That it especially so if you are the government.
Click to expand...

Your post is horse doo doo. A referendum being illegal means the result is meaningless, it does not give the government the right to send in a paramilitary force to smash peoples' heads for taking part in it.

The Spanish government have truly disgraced themselves today, and it would serve them right if the Catalans declared UDI.
 
ddt said:
By that reasoning, Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus.

There may have been no such opinion poll, but there was another referendum in 2014 with a majority pro-independence, and the current ruling party is actually a coalition or merger of pro-independence parties from all over the political spectrum. It would be folly to claim the voters didn't know they would be organizing this.
Click to expand...

And the USA should still be part of the UK........
 
ddt said:
By that reasoning, Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus.

There may have been no such opinion poll, but there was another referendum in 2014 with a majority pro-independence, and the current ruling party is actually a coalition or merger of pro-independence parties from all over the political spectrum. It would be folly to claim the voters didn't know they would be organizing this.
Click to expand...
Not the government.
 
Strawberry said:
Your post is horse doo doo. A referendum being illegal means the result is meaningless, it does not give the government the right to send in a paramilitary force to smash peoples' heads for taking part in it.

The Spanish government have truly disgraced themselves today, and it would serve them right if the Catalans declared UDI.
Click to expand...

Governments should not act illegally. Once the case had gone to court and been judged then the government should have obeyed the law. Once governments can decided what laws they obey and which they do not it ceases to be a democracy.
 
Planigale said:
Governments should not act illegally. Once the case had gone to court and been judged then the government should have obeyed the law. Once governments can decided what laws they obey and which they do not it ceases to be a democracy.
Click to expand...

No, dearie. It ceases to be a democracy when police in riot gear baton charge peaceful citizens to prevent them from voting.
 
Planigale said:
Not the government.
Click to expand...
You wrote:
Planigale said:
If you do not like the law in a civil society you campaign for a change. You do not break it. That it especially so if you are the government.
Click to expand...
So yes, you stated the principle that you do not break the law in advocating a change to anyone, government, individual or business.

Spaniards are oppressive bastards who want to burn anyone at the stake who has the wrong religion. Here's our 1581 Act of Abjuration. That was also illegal by your standards.
ETA: and that was "government against government", it being signed by the parliaments of the Dutch provinces.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
By that reasoning, Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus.

There may have been no such opinion poll, but there was another referendum in 2014 with a majority pro-independence, and the current ruling party is actually a coalition or merger of pro-independence parties from all over the political spectrum. It would be folly to claim the voters didn't know they would be organizing this.
Click to expand...
So what happened?
Although not Rosa Parks, the case went to court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browder_v._Gayle
The segregation on the bus was held illegal. The authorities were held to account. Rosa Parks at the end of the day had not acted illegally. The Bus company had.

Your argument is that the authorities should just have ignored the courts and continued what was a 'popular' policy. I am arguing the civil rights case, that the authorities should be held to account.
 
ddt said:
You wrote:

So yes, you stated the principle that you do not break the law in advocating a change to anyone, government, individual or business.

Spaniards are oppressive bastards who want to burn anyone at the stake who has the wrong religion. Here's our 1581 Act of Abjuration. That was also illegal by your standards.
Click to expand...
Yeah no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

I think you can argue that there is a difference between a 'democratic' constitutional monarchy subject to ECHR jurisdiction and the absolutist Spanish monarchy. I would not argue that the English law was democratic then but at least the English monarchy had been subject to judicial oversight from 1215.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom