Spain suppressing Catalan Indyref

[ddt]

Section 167, page 81. Happy reading!

http://www.congreso.es/portal/page/...ist_Normas/Norm/const_espa_texto_ingles_0.pdf

McHrozni

No, Section 168 applies. The indivisibility of Spain is laid down in Section 2, in the Preliminary Part. The procedure then is as follows:
1) both Houses of the Cortes approve the principle of the proposed constitutional change with a two/thirds majority;
2) both Houses are immediately dissolved and re-elected;
3) the new Houses vote on the constitutional change with a two/thirds majority;
4) the constitutional change must be approved by referendum.

 

[Craig B]

No, Section 168 applies. The indivisibility of Spain is laid down in Section 2, in the Preliminary Part. The procedure then is as follows:
1) both Houses of the Cortes approve the principle of the proposed constitutional change with a two/thirds majority;
2) both Houses are immediately dissolved and re-elected;
3) the new Houses vote on the constitutional change with a two/thirds majority;
4) the constitutional change must be approved by referendum.

Thank you. I don't think even achieving a substantial majority of Catalan voters will be able to surmount these constitutional hurdles. So the expression of their wishes will remain unlawful.

 

[ddt]

This may be the worst PR blunder by a central government handling a secessionist movement since the Easter Rising.

How about the Amritsar Massacre in 1919?

 

[Rolfe]

Unlike the case for Scotland, Castilian Spain has been mooching of Catalonia during centuries.

I don't want to derail the thread, just to put down a marker that the "unlike the case for Scotland" comment is incorrect.

 

[ddt]

This is nonesense.

Catalonia was a major part of the kingdom of Aragon, which formed, alongside kingdoms of Castillie, Leon and Asturias, the kingdom of Spain. It was never conquered by Spain, Spain didn't even exist when the union was created. It doesn't belong to Spain any more than Castillie does.

McHrozni

Spain formally emerged as a centralized state from the War of the Spanish Succession, during which the new Bourbon king Philip V issued the Nueva Planta decrees. But in the two centuries and a half between the Union of the Crowns by Ferdinand and Isabella and that, "the Spains" had been reigned centrally from Madrid by a king who applied Castilian absolutist norms to the whole of his empire and saw the Aragonese and Catalan parliaments merely as hindrances to his power.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm inclined to take that question as proof of the satirical intent of your comments. It must be obvious why.

No, it's not. Democracy means, among other things, you can't reorder the state around to your liking without consent of a large proportion of the elected representatives and/or the electorate.

Catalonian independence will not affect only the Catalans, so they must necessarily secure agreement from other parts of Spain who would also be impacted from the secession. The horror! The inhumanity! The injustice! ... etc.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Spain formally emerged as a centralized state from the War of the Spanish Succession, during which the new Bourbon king Philip V issued the Nueva Planta decrees. But in the two centuries and a half between the Union of the Crowns by Ferdinand and Isabella and that, "the Spains" had been reigned centrally from Madrid by a king who applied Castilian absolutist norms to the whole of his empire and saw the Aragonese and Catalan parliaments merely as hindrances to his power.

Sure, there is no doubt that Castillie came out on top. But this wasn't in a war of conquest, but by political maneuvering that saw the favored Castillie win out in the end.

If you're really picky you could say Aragonese were subjugated through subterfuge and dirty politics, it's not wrong per se, but it wasn't a military conquest by any definition of the term that I'm aware of.

Spain wasn't the only such nation, France went through a similar period, but managed to effectively assimilate the minorities to the north and south. Germany too was more of a conglomerate of tribes which were kindof similar until late 19th century when national identity arose. Ditto for Italy. Spain is only special in that it unified in a more peaceful way and that the ruling elite bothered far less with integrating its minorities ... or something. These were mistakes, of course. That doesn't mean Catalonia would be best served as an independent state any more than Hesse would be better off alone outside of Germany.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

No, it's not. Democracy means, among other things, you can't reorder the state around to your liking without consent of a large proportion of the elected representatives and/or the electorate.

Catalonian independence will not affect only the Catalans, so they must necessarily secure agreement from other parts of Spain who would also be impacted from the secession. The horror! The inhumanity! The injustice! ... etc.

McHrozni

Thank you. Why did you then attempt to bamboozle us at first by talking about the inadequacy of the Catalan assent to the proposed separation? As is now clear, there is no level of Catalan assent that would be adequate in your mind. Madrid decides whether Catalonia is to be independent in your view, and so it ought to be, you say. Well why didn't you say that all at once? The rest of Spain is impacted by the secession of Catalonia, so the opinions of the Catalans are not the determining feature in that question.

You're now saying, and at last I believe implicitly in your seriousness, that since a whole Empire will be affected by the abscondence of one of its dependencies, it is the Empire, not the local residents, that must decide that dependency's fate.

 

[McHrozni]

Thank you. Why did you then attempt to bamboozle us at first by talking about the inadequacy of the Catalan assent to the proposed separation? As is now clear, there is no level of Catalan assent that would be adequate in your mind. Madrid decides whether Catalonia is to be independent in your view, and so it ought to be, you say.

That's nonesense. Of course Catalonian independence without Catalonian agreement to it would be impossible. You can't just cut away parts of the country that don't want independence.

You're now saying, and at last I believe implicitly in your seriousness, that since a whole Empire will be affected by the abscondence of one of its dependencies, it is the Empire, not the local residents, that must decide that dependency's fate.

Catalonia is not a dependency of an Empire. It is a founding member and a major part of a nation-state. Your comparison is meaningless.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

If you're really picky you could say Aragonese were subjugated through subterfuge and dirty politics, it's not wrong per se, but it wasn't a military conquest by any definition of the term that I'm aware of.

You're not aware of any definition of military conquest that might be fulfilled by the event described here?

By 25 July of that year the city of Barcelona was surrounded by Bourbon forces ... but attacks upon it were unfruitful due to the scarcity of artillery. The Bourbons then waited for a 20,000 man reinforcement force, which arrived in April–May 1714. Under the command of Duke of Berwick, the assault was renewed despite the efforts of the Catalans to break the siege by sending troops behind enemy lines ... Finally, the Catalan leaders decided to surrender and start the negotiations about capitulation ... This defeat represents the end of the Principality of Catalonia as a political entity, as its independent institutions and legislation were suppressed and replaced by Castilian ones.​

 

[McHrozni]

You're not aware of any definition of military conquest that might be fulfilled by the event described here?

If you follow that logic a good portion of the US was conquered by the Federal forces from Confederacy. If you think this is nonesense then congratulations, you've discovered why this 'argument' of yours is BS.

Actually no, belay that. The argument Confederacy is conquered makes much, much more sense. Confederacy didn't claim authority over the entire US, it just wanted to be its own state. The forces of Catalonia, alongside allies, wanted to keep Spain as it was, but under a different king. It is called the War of Spanish Sucession, that could quite be a giveaway.

McHrozni

 

[ddt]

Sure, there is no doubt that Castillie came out on top. But this wasn't in a war of conquest, but by political maneuvering that saw the favored Castillie win out in the end.

If you're really picky you could say Aragonese were subjugated through subterfuge and dirty politics, it's not wrong per se, but it wasn't a military conquest by any definition of the term that I'm aware of.

The accumulation of various duchies and counties in the Low Countries under the Burgundian crown in roughly the same timeframe was also done (mostly) peacefully by political maneuvering. By the same token, the rebellion of those provinces against the heir of the Burgundian crown, Philip II, would be illegal?

Spain wasn't the only such nation, France went through a similar period, but managed to effectively assimilate the minorities to the north and south.

France quite forcefully suppressed expression of regional identity in Britanny, in French Flanders, and most importantly, in the Langue D'Oc.

Germany too was more of a conglomerate of tribes which were kindof similar until late 19th century when national identity arose. Ditto for Italy. Spain is only special in that it unified in a more peaceful way and that the ruling elite bothered far less with integrating its minorities ... or something.

Germany's unification was quite bloodless internally, actually (then I count Austria as "outside"). Italy's as well, Garibaldi managed to conquer Naples and Sicily with 1,000 volunteers. Germany's unification also was done in a federal manner, leaving regional autonomy to the constituent states.

Saying Spain unified peacefully disregards the various civil wars that have been fought throughout the centuries.

These were mistakes, of course. That doesn't mean Catalonia would be best served as an independent state any more than Hesse would be better off alone outside of Germany.

Hesse would be an awkward case, as it would be an enclave fully surrounded by German territory (did you pick that on purpose?). But what you mentioned in a previous post is spot-on: in a few decades, a split of a state within the EU would be as disruptive as merging two municipalities, i.e., not at all. And I would add: even today, such a split would not have adverse effects on government efficacy when it comes to regions that already have high degrees of autonomy, such as Catalonia, or Scotland, or Flanders, or Wallonia. In fact, they would just cut out the middleman in Madrid, London, or Brussels between their regional government and the European one.

When it comes to independence, I think the overriding principle should be that the state is there to serve the people, and not the people there to serve the state as Frederick the Great of Prussia would have it. When the people want to be independent, let them be; and I agree there with you that that should be a convincing majority, not just barely a majority of 51%.

What Hlafordlaes hasn't mentioned in his posts, is that there was a renewed, increased autonomy statute for Catalonia agreed in 2006 and that this has been largely struck down in 2010 by the Constitutional Court. That certainly has given a new impetus to a Catalan drive for independence. The Catalans went to the streets with the slogan "we are a nation".

28 years ago, the people of Leipzig went to the street with a similar slogan: "we are the people". There were no deaths, no injuries, there was not even police visible on the street. And that was the oppressive GDR regime.

The Spanish government should also heed Gorbachev's advice to Egon Krenz and his buddies: "He who comes too late is punished by life."

 

[ddt]

Catalonia is not a dependency of an Empire. It is a founding member and a major part of a nation-state. Your comparison is meaningless.

McHrozni

Whether Spain qualifies as such is at the heart of the matter here. Many, many Catalans dispute the "nation" part.

 

[McHrozni]

The accumulation of various duchies and counties in the Low Countries under the Burgundian crown in roughly the same timeframe was also done (mostly) peacefully by political maneuvering. By the same token, the rebellion of those provinces against the heir of the Burgundian crown, Philip II, would be illegal?

Of course it was illegal at the time.

Comparing a 16th century kingdom to a 21st century one is inappropriate though.

France quite forcefully suppressed expression of regional identity in Britanny, in French Flanders, and most importantly, in the Langue D'Oc.

Germany's unification was quite bloodless internally, actually (then I count Austria as "outside"). Italy's as well, Garibaldi managed to conquer Naples and Sicily with 1,000 volunteers. Germany's unification also was done in a federal manner, leaving regional autonomy to the constituent states.

Of course there are differences in how these nations formed and unified into one.

Saying Spain unified peacefully disregards the various civil wars that have been fought throughout the centuries.

All major states of Europe had major civil wars by that standard, so this tells us precisely nothing of value.

Hesse would be an awkward case, as it would be an enclave fully surrounded by German territory (did you pick that on purpose?).

Busted
It just so happens it's also one of the richest states in Germany, so it wasn't the only reason.

When it comes to independence, I think the overriding principle should be that the state is there to serve the people, and not the people there to serve the state as Frederick the Great of Prussia would have it. When the people want to be independent, let them be; and I agree there with you that that should be a convincing majority, not just barely a majority of 51%.

Correct. And it would have to be acceptable to as many as possible, including as many people as possible who would remain behind in the old state.

What Hlafordlaes hasn't mentioned in his posts, is that there was a renewed, increased autonomy statute for Catalonia agreed in 2006 and that this has been largely struck down in 2010 by the Constitutional Court. That certainly has given a new impetus to a Catalan drive for independence. The Catalans went to the streets with the slogan "we are a nation".

28 years ago, the people of Leipzig went to the street with a similar slogan: "we are the people". There were no deaths, no injuries, there was not even police visible on the street. And that was the oppressive GDR regime.

The Spanish government should also heed Gorbachev's advice to Egon Krenz and his buddies: "He who comes too late is punished by life."

Yes, I did mention Spain should rethink and rework their strategy to keep the country together. Their approach is behind the times and needs significant changes or else Spain may well fall apart before it becomes an irrelevant issue.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

If you follow that logic a good portion of the US was conquered by the Federal forces from Confederacy. If you think this is nonesense then congratulations, you've discovered why this 'argument' of yours is BS.

Actually no, belay that. The argument Confederacy is conquered makes much, much more sense. Confederacy didn't claim authority over the entire US, it just wanted to be its own state. The forces of Catalonia, alongside allies, wanted to keep Spain as it was, but under a different king. It is called the War of Spanish Sucession, that could quite be a giveaway.

McHrozni

I regret that indeed I must say you seem to be back in gibberish mode again about the Confederacy. Up until 1714 Catalonia was an existing polity with a Parliament that had experienced in its long history: independence; association with other polities within Aragon, and personal monarchic union with Castile. The 1714 siege was therefore not performed to suppress Catalan or Aragonese secession.

The post 1714 events, as my last citation suggested, turned Spain into a unitary state with Castilian-style institutions, which had not existed over all Spain before; therefore unlike the confederacy, Catalonia had never seceded from it, and was not doing so in 1714. Between the days of Ferdinand and Isabella, and 1714, the situation of Aragon was much like that of Scotland in the years 1603 to 1707. Nobody doubts that it was in the latter year, not the former, that Scotland lost its independence to a more dominant neighbour.

 

[McHrozni]

I regret that indeed I must say you seem to be back in gibberish mode again about the Confederacy. Up until 1714 Catalonia was an existing polity with a Parliament that had experienced in its long history: independence; association with other polities within Aragon, and personal monarchic union with Castile. The 1714 siege was therefore not performed to suppress Catalan or Aragonese secession.

The post 1714 events, as my last citation suggested, turned Spain into a unitary state with Castilian-style institutions, which had not existed over all Spain before; therefore unlike the confederacy, Catalonia had never seceded from it, and was not doing so in 1714. Between the days of Ferdinand and Isabella, and 1714, the situation of Aragon was much like that of Scotland in the years 1603 to 1707. Nobody doubts that it was in the latter year, not the former, that Scotland lost its independence to a more dominant neighbour.

Yes, you figured it out.

Saying Catalonia was conquered in 1714 makes even less sense than to say Confederacy was conquered and annexed by the Federation.

Good job

McHrozni

 

[Abooga]

Hello from Spain, well, the Basque Country, actually (most of my friends would never say "from Spain", but I´m not very into Basque nationalism, personally).

My take is that the Spanish government has used heavy handed tactics in order to win the support of Spanish nationalists. Many of these would not bat an eye even if he had sent tanks. It´s a bit like when Trump says outrageous things and still, he seems to win support from his low-brow voters.

Also, the biggest issue in Spanish politics lately has been that of corruption, which is huge and we´ve only seen a tiny point of the probervial iceberg, but even this tiny point is huge, so you can imagine the rest. And this referendum is helping both the PP and the also hugely corrupt Catalonian parties to shed a smokescreen on this issue and make people talk about the referendum instead.

The issue shouldn´t be whether Catalans are governed by thieves from Madrid or thieves from Barcelona, the issue should be to get rid of the thieves, fix the justice system (separation of the legislative and the judiciary is badly compromised), enact effective laws to clean the system, etc. But I´m very pessimistic about whether any current political party in Spain has any intention if fixing this. They all seem to be accomplices in the same scam.

As for the Catalan nationalists´ insistence on independence, It seems quite irresponsible to start all this when polls only indicated support of very near 50% of the Catalan population.

And then there is the thing that no nationalist that I´ve spoken to has answered me sensibly, who decides whether Catalonia is a nation and has the right for self-determination? The Basque Country can too, according to many here, but if you ask them about whether a province within the Basque Country (say, Alava for example) may exert the same right of self determination, then they often will oppose the idea, using the same arguments that Spanish nationalists use to defend the "unity of Spain"...

I mean, where is the limit of self determination? It´s not such a simple question after all...

 

[Craig B]

Yes, you figured it out.

Saying Catalonia was conquered in 1714 makes even less sense than to say Confederacy was conquered and annexed by the Federation.

Good job

McHrozni

I really am baffled now. Catalonia had a Parliament and a polity. These were ended after Barcelona capitulated following a siege in 1714. Thereafter Spain became a unitary country with Castilian institutions. At no time had Catalonia seceded from such an entity because it had not existed before. The Confederacy seceded from the Union and was then brought back under union control. That is different. Catalonia was conquered, but not after, or in the course of, seceding.

What you are trying to do is to associate Catalan independence with the secession of the confederacy from the USA. But there is no real comparison.

 

[Planigale]

Although 'constitutions' are often lauded, this shows a problem.

What Hlafordlaes hasn't mentioned in his posts, is that there was a renewed, increased autonomy statute for Catalonia agreed in 2006 and that this has been largely struck down in 2010 by the Constitutional Court. That certainly has given a new impetus to a Catalan drive for independence.

The Spanish / Castillian? government tried to move forward on autonomy for Catalan. It is not the central government that is the barrier but the constitution. Barriers are put to constitutional change.

In the UK situation it would be easy to see how a written constitution from fifty years ago might create similar barriers to Scottish independence or gay rights. Constitutions fix concepts of their era and writers.

 

[dudalb]

This may be the worst PR blunder by a central government handling a secessionist movement since the Easter Rising.

The backlash against the British government in Ireland came with the execution of the leaders,which many advised them against;that it would turn a group of people that many who favored Home Rule considered to be bunch of extremists into matrys;it ,for the first time, caused a majority of the Irish people to think that armed resistence to the UK Government was justified.
Spain might have just made a similar mistake.