7 ms·

It's not the Spanish government, it's the Courts in Catalonia. These are orders from the judge in the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña.

by euyyn 9y ago

lsaferite 9y ago
Who seems to be backing the Spanish government in suppressing the referendum.
- 627467 9y ago
  You seem to imply that backing the ref or independence is unanimous or that the Catalan courts are arbitrarily following the bidding of Madrid.
  - lsaferite 9y ago
    I have no skin in the game, but I think that in a democracy if you forbid the people from at least expressing a yes/no on whether they should continue to be governed by the group currently governing them, you are breeding discontent. If a democracy is nominally a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the legitimacy of the government is driven by the continued support of the citizens. If a portion (or region) of your populous wants to no longer be collectively governed by the current group and would instead rather form their own government more attuned to their needs, why not at least let them find out if the other people in their group agree? I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession. So, to your point, perhaps the judge is just 100% about following the law, even if they disagree. They could just as well be a 'stay' voter imposing their will on others. In either case, the underlying laws that are forbidding the vote, binding or not, are what I find objectionable. But again, I have no skin in that particular game and am just a bystander.
    - skytreader 9y ago
      > I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession. Nitpicking but considering the context of the news item, I think you meant "secession". Edit distance of 2 but makes a lot of difference in the meaning of your sentence.
      - lsaferite 9y ago
        You are indeed correct. How embarrassing. :/
    - bkohlmann 9y ago
      I'm torn on this, and I think in general your statements make sense. However, you're also arguing that the South in 1861 should've been allowed to secede, or at least have an unemcumbered plebiscite. Or the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq, which may set off regional catastrophe. Is that an accurate reading?
      - NetStrikeForce 9y ago
        I would agree with your reading and at the same time I also think it is morally sound to go to war with the South to free up the slaves from the South.
      - mattnewton 9y ago
        The south was allowed to assemble, talk and vote on it, but the north didn't recognize the secession as legitimate. Those are separate issues.
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        Catalonia has been allowed to discuss. It’s just the referendum, as I understand it, that is being banned. I’m trying to think what would happen if California passed an independence referendum whose results were then nullified by the Supreme Court.
        nsnick 9y ago
        So they can talk about independence but not vote on it?
        euyyn 9y ago
        Independence would be a modification of the Spanish Constitution, which can be voted on.
      - Trundle 9y ago
        Not that guy here but yes as someone who is pro self determination I think the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq and the South should have been allowed to secede.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      > I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession. You know, this makes sense on the surface, but when you start to think about the details, the trickiness of the situation becomes apparent. Ok, so we are going to allow seccession. Well, how big a group does it have to be to be allowed to secede? Can I secede as an individual, and make my house an independent nation? A neighborhood? A city? A county? A US State? Each level is going to have its own problems. Ok, lets imagine we agree on the minimum size we will allow to secede. Let's say we are in the USA, and we decide a state can secede. Does it require a simple majority? 2/3rds vote? 3/4ths? We have a constitution for a reason, to protect the minority from the majority. We have decided the majority can't do certain things (like establish a state religion, or ban the practice of minority religions), but do we allow a secession vote to be an end-run around that idea? Could a majority just vote to secede and create a new nation that doesn't have the protections for minority viewpoints? How do we even do the vote? Do we vote as individuals, or do our state representatives make the decision? Ok, suppose we set decide an individual votes, and you need 2/3rds to vote to secede. Well, who gets to vote? Let's imagine it is Texas voting to leave; does Joe, the guy who moved from California 3 weeks ago get to vote in the secession? What about the guy who moved there 3 years ago, but lives a quarter of the time in South Dakota? What about people who own houses in Texas but live somewhere else? I think a big part of this comes down to the fact that once you are a single nation, there is no longer a clear definition of who would have standing to secede. I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it. The entity that can make the decision to break apart is only the entire country; if Texas wants to secede, it would have to be as a decision the entire country makes together, since that is the unit of sovereignty that exists.
      - pmontra 9y ago
        My quick answer: 2/3, all the resident citizens, only the people in the region, any size (too small gets impractical and won't happen, if it does ok, good luck to them).
        Xylakant 9y ago
        This is impractical already and it's happening: Catalonia wants to secede, but no one has any clue of what's happening afterwards: They'd want to become a separate nation. This nation would require to be recognized. If the Catalan nation would actually be recognized, it would not be part of the EU, thus have (at least initially) border checks, tariffs, no freedom of movement. It probably could keep the Euro as de-facto currency but have no power over its policy. It could apply to become a member of the EU, but a single veto of an existing member would block that. Now, which member might actually go veto a catalanian EU-membership? I can't possibly think of any, maybe you can. Even if not vetoed, this process takes years. What happens to people that live in Catalonia, but self-identify as spanish? What happens to people that live outside Catalonia, but self-identify as Catalonian? Their pensions, their work and residence permits? Their families and livelihoods? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote as well? To be extra-clear: I don't think the hard-line course that the spanish government is pursuing is good, but I don't consider the forceful push for a referendum against spanish law and constitution is helping either. So yeah, impractical, idiotic things happen all the time and the minority (in your proposal up to 1/3rd plus quite a few) is dragged into the mess. These things must be negotiated carefully and consider what will happen after secession. A referendum on a full treaty could work, see the separation of Czechoslovakia, but an unilateral declaration is just a mess. (see also: Brexit - where Theresa May just called upon support from the worlds leaders because of tariffs imposed by the US on Bombardier airplanes. If only you could be member of a major, powerful trading block.)
- euyyn 9y ago
  The judge in Catalonia doesn't mind what it seems to you or anyone: her job is to interpret and apply the law. As the Supreme Court did, e.g., when they sent a Ministro del Interior to prison. The law isn't written by the Spanish government either, it's written by Congress. A Congress in which nationalistic parties have more representation per number of voters than other parties with a higher number of total voters. Insinuations that the judges in Catalonia are puppets of the Spanish government ignore the reality of Spain.
  - ChristianBundy 9y ago
    Are you implying that Congress isn't part of the Spanish government?
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      don't reply to that
    - euyyn 9y ago
      Oh my god of course it's not, unless by government you mean something broader than the executive branch, in which case you have to include the judiciary too. The three separate powers is the foundation of western democracies.
      - roywiggins 9y ago
        This is a US/Euro nomenclature difference I think. In the US "the government" refers to the entire apparatus- all three branches.
        cucuuc 9y ago
        No, it doesn’t. It refers to the executive. Whenever we complain about the poor quality of government, (the VA, DMV,) we’re complaining about an organ of the executive (be it federal, state or municipal). In fact the word govern implies executive.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  Judges siding with the law doesn’t seem surprising, does it?
  - lsaferite 9y ago
    Well, their job is to interpret the law and weigh in on it's validity. They have a lot of leeway in that task honestly. Unfortunately, they are not immune from politics.
- pfortuny 9y ago
  You could also say that tbey are applying the existing law...

It's not the Spanish government, it's the Courts in Catalonia. These are orders from the judge in the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña.

by euyyn 9y ago

It's not the Spanish government, it's the Courts in Catalonia. These are orders from the judge in the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña.

lsaferite 9y ago

Who seems to be backing the Spanish government in suppressing the referendum.

627467 9y ago
You seem to imply that backing the ref or independence is unanimous or that the Catalan courts are arbitrarily following the bidding of Madrid.
- lsaferite 9y ago
  I have no skin in the game, but I think that in a democracy if you forbid the people from at least expressing a yes/no on whether they should continue to be governed by the group currently governing them, you are breeding discontent. If a democracy is nominally a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the legitimacy of the government is driven by the continued support of the citizens. If a portion (or region) of your populous wants to no longer be collectively governed by the current group and would instead rather form their own government more attuned to their needs, why not at least let them find out if the other people in their group agree? I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession. So, to your point, perhaps the judge is just 100% about following the law, even if they disagree. They could just as well be a 'stay' voter imposing their will on others. In either case, the underlying laws that are forbidding the vote, binding or not, are what I find objectionable. But again, I have no skin in that particular game and am just a bystander.
  - skytreader 9y ago
    > I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession. Nitpicking but considering the context of the news item, I think you meant "secession". Edit distance of 2 but makes a lot of difference in the meaning of your sentence.
    - lsaferite 9y ago
      You are indeed correct. How embarrassing. :/
  - bkohlmann 9y ago
    I'm torn on this, and I think in general your statements make sense. However, you're also arguing that the South in 1861 should've been allowed to secede, or at least have an unemcumbered plebiscite. Or the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq, which may set off regional catastrophe. Is that an accurate reading?
    - NetStrikeForce 9y ago
      I would agree with your reading and at the same time I also think it is morally sound to go to war with the South to free up the slaves from the South.
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      The south was allowed to assemble, talk and vote on it, but the north didn't recognize the secession as legitimate. Those are separate issues.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        Catalonia has been allowed to discuss. It’s just the referendum, as I understand it, that is being banned. I’m trying to think what would happen if California passed an independence referendum whose results were then nullified by the Supreme Court.
        nsnick 9y ago
        So they can talk about independence but not vote on it?
        euyyn 9y ago
        Independence would be a modification of the Spanish Constitution, which can be voted on.
    - Trundle 9y ago
      Not that guy here but yes as someone who is pro self determination I think the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq and the South should have been allowed to secede.
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    > I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession. You know, this makes sense on the surface, but when you start to think about the details, the trickiness of the situation becomes apparent. Ok, so we are going to allow seccession. Well, how big a group does it have to be to be allowed to secede? Can I secede as an individual, and make my house an independent nation? A neighborhood? A city? A county? A US State? Each level is going to have its own problems. Ok, lets imagine we agree on the minimum size we will allow to secede. Let's say we are in the USA, and we decide a state can secede. Does it require a simple majority? 2/3rds vote? 3/4ths? We have a constitution for a reason, to protect the minority from the majority. We have decided the majority can't do certain things (like establish a state religion, or ban the practice of minority religions), but do we allow a secession vote to be an end-run around that idea? Could a majority just vote to secede and create a new nation that doesn't have the protections for minority viewpoints? How do we even do the vote? Do we vote as individuals, or do our state representatives make the decision? Ok, suppose we set decide an individual votes, and you need 2/3rds to vote to secede. Well, who gets to vote? Let's imagine it is Texas voting to leave; does Joe, the guy who moved from California 3 weeks ago get to vote in the secession? What about the guy who moved there 3 years ago, but lives a quarter of the time in South Dakota? What about people who own houses in Texas but live somewhere else? I think a big part of this comes down to the fact that once you are a single nation, there is no longer a clear definition of who would have standing to secede. I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it. The entity that can make the decision to break apart is only the entire country; if Texas wants to secede, it would have to be as a decision the entire country makes together, since that is the unit of sovereignty that exists.
    - pmontra 9y ago
      My quick answer: 2/3, all the resident citizens, only the people in the region, any size (too small gets impractical and won't happen, if it does ok, good luck to them).
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        This is impractical already and it's happening: Catalonia wants to secede, but no one has any clue of what's happening afterwards: They'd want to become a separate nation. This nation would require to be recognized. If the Catalan nation would actually be recognized, it would not be part of the EU, thus have (at least initially) border checks, tariffs, no freedom of movement. It probably could keep the Euro as de-facto currency but have no power over its policy. It could apply to become a member of the EU, but a single veto of an existing member would block that. Now, which member might actually go veto a catalanian EU-membership? I can't possibly think of any, maybe you can. Even if not vetoed, this process takes years. What happens to people that live in Catalonia, but self-identify as spanish? What happens to people that live outside Catalonia, but self-identify as Catalonian? Their pensions, their work and residence permits? Their families and livelihoods? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote as well? To be extra-clear: I don't think the hard-line course that the spanish government is pursuing is good, but I don't consider the forceful push for a referendum against spanish law and constitution is helping either. So yeah, impractical, idiotic things happen all the time and the minority (in your proposal up to 1/3rd plus quite a few) is dragged into the mess. These things must be negotiated carefully and consider what will happen after secession. A referendum on a full treaty could work, see the separation of Czechoslovakia, but an unilateral declaration is just a mess. (see also: Brexit - where Theresa May just called upon support from the worlds leaders because of tariffs imposed by the US on Bombardier airplanes. If only you could be member of a major, powerful trading block.)
euyyn 9y ago
The judge in Catalonia doesn't mind what it seems to you or anyone: her job is to interpret and apply the law. As the Supreme Court did, e.g., when they sent a Ministro del Interior to prison. The law isn't written by the Spanish government either, it's written by Congress. A Congress in which nationalistic parties have more representation per number of voters than other parties with a higher number of total voters. Insinuations that the judges in Catalonia are puppets of the Spanish government ignore the reality of Spain.
- ChristianBundy 9y ago
  Are you implying that Congress isn't part of the Spanish government?
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    don't reply to that
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Oh my god of course it's not, unless by government you mean something broader than the executive branch, in which case you have to include the judiciary too. The three separate powers is the foundation of western democracies.
    - roywiggins 9y ago
      This is a US/Euro nomenclature difference I think. In the US "the government" refers to the entire apparatus- all three branches.
      - cucuuc 9y ago
        No, it doesn’t. It refers to the executive. Whenever we complain about the poor quality of government, (the VA, DMV,) we’re complaining about an organ of the executive (be it federal, state or municipal). In fact the word govern implies executive.
kgwgk 9y ago
Judges siding with the law doesn’t seem surprising, does it?
- lsaferite 9y ago
  Well, their job is to interpret the law and weigh in on it's validity. They have a lot of leeway in that task honestly. Unfortunately, they are not immune from politics.
pfortuny 9y ago
You could also say that tbey are applying the existing law...