5 ms·

I'm not disagreeing, but just a semantic argument here. The referendum is absolutely democratic. But it is also illegal under the Spanish constitution. The prob

by DCKing 9y ago

I'm not disagreeing, but just a semantic argument here. The referendum is absolutely democratic. But it is also illegal under the Spanish constitution. The problem is that the Spanish constitution and the judge's interpretation (which is straightforward but unfortunate) patently would disallow self determination through a referendum, which to me is democracy in its purest form. The only reason it's illegal is because the law is undemocratic. I agree the Spanish central government seemingly had no choice but escalation. But that escalation is tragic and will only make Catalonia's independence inevitable, whereas it was not at all clear cut before this.

thesumofall 9y ago
There will be people here with more knowledge about international constitutional law but I’m pretty sure almost every state has rules in place to prevent it from disintegrating. Otherwise, what would stop oneself to declare one’s own little piece of land as independent (with yourself voting for it) and stop paying taxes?
- lostmsu 9y ago
  Two problems with that: 1) I'm not sure that would be bad 2) Some areas are already relatively independent. Wouldn't harm to make them a bit more so.
- dandellion 9y ago
  Without an army to defend your borders the government from which you claim independence could just remove you by force... You would have problems to trade so you would have to be completely self sufficient with food, energy etc. You kind of need to reach some critical mass to be able to organize a functioning nation. Getting to city-states could be viable, but I don't think it can go much farther.
- DCKing 9y ago
  The world is not a libertarian tax fantasy of that degree, no. But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. It seems to me this constitution article was put in place to specifically specific regional identity issues that the country of Spain was built on. Spain is moreso a collection of regional identities than a firm national national identity. As a counterexample, the Dutch constitution does not identify what the unity of the Dutch state actually means or that breaking Dutch unity is against the law a priori [1]. Historically speaking, this has not been a great concern despite historical [2] and modern [3] seperatist movements, because the Dutch "identity" has historically been synonymous with the Dutch nationality to a very large degree. The same cannot be said for Spain. As a disclaimer, I'm not advocating identity politics here. I'm just trying to give a historical explanation. [1]: The Dutch constitution does define treason but what constitutes treason is left rather vague and therefore up to a judge to decide. Would/should the same Spanish judge have deemed this referendum treason in the absence "state unity" laws? Not a rhetorical question. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party
  - barry-cotter 9y ago
    > But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. Why? I agree that people who want to secede should be able to but I see no reason to restrict it to “groups that have a significant cultural claim”. That’s just leaving it up to those in power.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I don't see it as at all a given that just because 51% of the voting population in some geographic region wants to form their own country that they should always be allowed to do so. In general, I favor self-determination but, especially when a large portion of the population in the region supports the status quo, it's by no means an automatic process.
lz400 9y ago
Why is the referendum democratic? is it your opinion that unilateral secession of any region, under any circumstances is democratic by definition? I find that very strange. I don't agree.
- fiblye 9y ago
  Brexit was a democratic decision. People may hate the results and call it bullshit, say the vote shouldn't matter, etc. But it's still democratic. A non-democratic option would be the government breaking off without consulting the residents. Or a government saying people who live in a region aren't allowed to have a vote to decide their fate because politicians from other regions forbid it.
  - lz400 9y ago
    Yes, it was agreed and allowed under local law. Catalonian's referendum was not. It's not legal. Needs to be agreed upon. Additionally, to see why a group of people wanting to secede might also be unethical, think about this case. A country finds unobtanium in its land. Decides to build an unobtanium factory there, which costs 20% of GDP but it pays off with awesome employment growth and tax revenue. Now the inhabitants of that region don't like that their tax gets used mainly in poorer areas of their country and want independence. Fair? I don't think so. So voting to leave is not always a natural right. Only under agreed conditions with all the national territory is ok. Barring ethnic cleanses, war and stuff like that but nothing like that has happened in Catalonia's case.
    - fiblye 9y ago
      It's easy to construct a Venn diagram of fairness for all and democracy. O O Very few independence movements are "fair". There are regions of every country in the world that generate a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to the others. There are regions with unique local identities that feel they're unfairly being squished out by others. There's no way to please everybody, and so countries essentially never respect independence votes and prefer conflict. There are few countries today where people would say, "you know, let's undo our independence." There are a lot of people who say "we can't let them become independent because it's bad for the people in the other regions." People thought America's independence was an ass-backwards and illegal decision because those fools were trying to get a free ride off of England while keeping all the resources to themselves. They, just like nearly every country that opposes secession, decided war would be a good idea to end it.
nsnick 9y ago
The Spanish government did have a choice and this particular decision will likely lead to a shooting war.
- lz400 9y ago
  No it won't, Catalonia doesn't have an army. It could lead to the creation of terrorist cells I guess, I hope things don't get that far.
  - Kathee_HDS 9y ago
    We used to have that. It took years of negotiation to dismantle that. I don't think we'll fall down that path again. Not our generation, at least. Can't speak for the next ones.
Grustaf 9y ago
Of course it would look bad if 95% of Catalonian voted for independence but I wonder if there are legal reasons stopping the Spanish government from just letting the vote go through and then simply ignore the outcome. It seems to me Catalonian independence can only really happen with support from Madrid anyway.
- lz400 9y ago
  The judiciary ordered the dismantling. It had to be done. We can argue about the execution, I won't disagree it's being poor but in a country with separation of powers, the executive needs to obey the law. Anyway, the referendum specifically doesn't have any anti-fraud guarantees and people who don't want independence aren't going to vote so the "yes" is going to win 9X% most likely.
  - Grustaf 9y ago
    What I mean is, why can't Madrid just let Catalonia vote to their hearts' content and simply ignore the outcome? It's not like they would be forced to act on the result, right, or would international law compel them to respect it?
    - lz400 9y ago
      They could have responded with a lighter touch but if the referendum is suspended, conducting it is illegal. If a judge orders seizing voting booths, they need to attempt to do that. For example, the local police did exactly what you said, paid lip service to the judge and left people to vote. Guess what there are already 6 judges investigating them for negligence. Personally I expected an smarter police action plan.
      - Grustaf 9y ago
        It's not hard to understand why police and others choose to implement the decisions made by the national government, that is not what I am asking about. I simply wonder why the national government decided to try to stop it in the first place, instead of letting it go ahead and then ignore the outcome.

by DCKing 9y ago

thesumofall 9y ago

There will be people here with more knowledge about international constitutional law but I’m pretty sure almost every state has rules in place to prevent it from disintegrating. Otherwise, what would stop oneself to declare one’s own little piece of land as independent (with yourself voting for it) and stop paying taxes?

lostmsu 9y ago
Two problems with that: 1) I'm not sure that would be bad 2) Some areas are already relatively independent. Wouldn't harm to make them a bit more so.
dandellion 9y ago
Without an army to defend your borders the government from which you claim independence could just remove you by force... You would have problems to trade so you would have to be completely self sufficient with food, energy etc. You kind of need to reach some critical mass to be able to organize a functioning nation. Getting to city-states could be viable, but I don't think it can go much farther.
DCKing 9y ago
The world is not a libertarian tax fantasy of that degree, no. But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. It seems to me this constitution article was put in place to specifically specific regional identity issues that the country of Spain was built on. Spain is moreso a collection of regional identities than a firm national national identity. As a counterexample, the Dutch constitution does not identify what the unity of the Dutch state actually means or that breaking Dutch unity is against the law a priori [1]. Historically speaking, this has not been a great concern despite historical [2] and modern [3] seperatist movements, because the Dutch "identity" has historically been synonymous with the Dutch nationality to a very large degree. The same cannot be said for Spain. As a disclaimer, I'm not advocating identity politics here. I'm just trying to give a historical explanation. [1]: The Dutch constitution does define treason but what constitutes treason is left rather vague and therefore up to a judge to decide. Would/should the same Spanish judge have deemed this referendum treason in the absence "state unity" laws? Not a rhetorical question. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_National_Party
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  > But it should be possible for groups that have a significant cultural claim to vote on these matters. And it should be possible that if a significant amount of this cultural group agrees on the subject that a mutual understanding can be obtained between the main state and the group they govern over. Why? I agree that people who want to secede should be able to but I see no reason to restrict it to “groups that have a significant cultural claim”. That’s just leaving it up to those in power.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I don't see it as at all a given that just because 51% of the voting population in some geographic region wants to form their own country that they should always be allowed to do so. In general, I favor self-determination but, especially when a large portion of the population in the region supports the status quo, it's by no means an automatic process.

lz400 9y ago

Why is the referendum democratic? is it your opinion that unilateral secession of any region, under any circumstances is democratic by definition? I find that very strange. I don't agree.

fiblye 9y ago
Brexit was a democratic decision. People may hate the results and call it bullshit, say the vote shouldn't matter, etc. But it's still democratic. A non-democratic option would be the government breaking off without consulting the residents. Or a government saying people who live in a region aren't allowed to have a vote to decide their fate because politicians from other regions forbid it.
- lz400 9y ago
  Yes, it was agreed and allowed under local law. Catalonian's referendum was not. It's not legal. Needs to be agreed upon. Additionally, to see why a group of people wanting to secede might also be unethical, think about this case. A country finds unobtanium in its land. Decides to build an unobtanium factory there, which costs 20% of GDP but it pays off with awesome employment growth and tax revenue. Now the inhabitants of that region don't like that their tax gets used mainly in poorer areas of their country and want independence. Fair? I don't think so. So voting to leave is not always a natural right. Only under agreed conditions with all the national territory is ok. Barring ethnic cleanses, war and stuff like that but nothing like that has happened in Catalonia's case.
  - fiblye 9y ago
    It's easy to construct a Venn diagram of fairness for all and democracy. O O Very few independence movements are "fair". There are regions of every country in the world that generate a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to the others. There are regions with unique local identities that feel they're unfairly being squished out by others. There's no way to please everybody, and so countries essentially never respect independence votes and prefer conflict. There are few countries today where people would say, "you know, let's undo our independence." There are a lot of people who say "we can't let them become independent because it's bad for the people in the other regions." People thought America's independence was an ass-backwards and illegal decision because those fools were trying to get a free ride off of England while keeping all the resources to themselves. They, just like nearly every country that opposes secession, decided war would be a good idea to end it.

nsnick 9y ago

The Spanish government did have a choice and this particular decision will likely lead to a shooting war.

lz400 9y ago
No it won't, Catalonia doesn't have an army. It could lead to the creation of terrorist cells I guess, I hope things don't get that far.
- Kathee_HDS 9y ago
  We used to have that. It took years of negotiation to dismantle that. I don't think we'll fall down that path again. Not our generation, at least. Can't speak for the next ones.

Grustaf 9y ago

Of course it would look bad if 95% of Catalonian voted for independence but I wonder if there are legal reasons stopping the Spanish government from just letting the vote go through and then simply ignore the outcome. It seems to me Catalonian independence can only really happen with support from Madrid anyway.

lz400 9y ago
The judiciary ordered the dismantling. It had to be done. We can argue about the execution, I won't disagree it's being poor but in a country with separation of powers, the executive needs to obey the law. Anyway, the referendum specifically doesn't have any anti-fraud guarantees and people who don't want independence aren't going to vote so the "yes" is going to win 9X% most likely.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  What I mean is, why can't Madrid just let Catalonia vote to their hearts' content and simply ignore the outcome? It's not like they would be forced to act on the result, right, or would international law compel them to respect it?
  - lz400 9y ago
    They could have responded with a lighter touch but if the referendum is suspended, conducting it is illegal. If a judge orders seizing voting booths, they need to attempt to do that. For example, the local police did exactly what you said, paid lip service to the judge and left people to vote. Guess what there are already 6 judges investigating them for negligence. Personally I expected an smarter police action plan.
    - Grustaf 9y ago
      It's not hard to understand why police and others choose to implement the decisions made by the national government, that is not what I am asking about. I simply wonder why the national government decided to try to stop it in the first place, instead of letting it go ahead and then ignore the outcome.