3 ms·

I'm not sure wether that would have actually been a possibility. The referendum ist illegal according to the ruling of the highest constitutional court. The abs

by chki 9y ago

I'm not sure wether that would have actually been a possibility. The referendum ist illegal according to the ruling of the highest constitutional court. The absolute minimum of what a functioning state needs to do is pushing back on all illegal activities. By not doing anything against an illegal referendum the Spanish state would have made the first step towards accepting that it does no longer have full control over a part of its own territory. I'm also quite sure that their international reputation is not really that important to them when the state itself is endangered.

ryanlol 9y ago
>I'm not sure wether that would have actually been a possibility. The referendum ist illegal according to the ruling of the highest constitutional court. The absolute minimum of what a functioning state needs to do is pushing back on all illegal activities. Utter nonsense. According to the courts referendum is invalid, organizing it in on the ground isn't criminal. Using public funds for it may be.
Lazare 9y ago
> By not doing anything against an illegal referendum the Spanish state would have made the first step towards accepting that it does no longer have full control over a part of its own territory. I couldn't disagree more. If the referendum is not part of the legal process, then it's not binding, but participating in it should not be illegal, and absolutely should not be suppressed with force. There's a vast chasm between "we do not recognise this referendum because it was not held in accordance with the constitution" and "we will use violence to stop you doing this thing". > I'm also quite sure that their international reputation is not really that important to them when the state itself is endangered. Again, all it takes is to say "no, actually, no referendum was held, as the laws do not permit it. All you did was hold a symbolic protest", and boom, the state isn't threatened. Unless, of course, a majority of the broader state is sympathetic to the symbolic protest. Which, if so, would explain the seeming desperation to prevent it, but at the same time further undermines any moral justification for doing so. In short, either there was no need to suppress the voting, or there was no moral reason to suppress the voting. The more the Spanish state is threatened by a symbolic, non-binding, unconstitutional referendum, the less the Spanish state is deserving of defence.
barry-cotter 9y ago
> The absolute minimum of what a functioning state needs to do is pushing back on all illegal activities. This isn’t true. The speed limit in the US comes with the proviso +2 or 3 miles per hour, unless the police officer feels like pulling you over, in Ireland the drink driving laws started being enforced with any degree of vigour in the 90’s despite being much older than that, and the Netherlands’ drug laws as written aren’t much different from its neighbours but it’s enforcement is. Law and legislation are not the same. Prosecutorial discretion is totally a thing. When’s 16 year old gets prosecuted for sexting as a producer of child porn that’s monstrous whether the law as written calls for it or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law,_Legislation_and_Liberty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law,_Legislation_and_Liberty
patrickaljord 9y ago
Not sure if you're being naive or ignorant of how governments work but in case you don't know, when it's convenient to do so, governments chose to not apply laws all the time. So I'm not buying the "but this was illegal, they had no choice" argument. Sounds like complete BS.
krona 9y ago
What the Spanish constitution says is largely besides the point on the matter of the rights of Catalonians to assemble, protest and express themselves. See Chapter I of the United Nations Charter. The acts of internal or external self-determination such as the Scottish referendum are expressions of fundamental human rights. The significant difference is whether such acts are recognized by the international community. The sensible thing would have been to let the referendum to go ahead and not recognize the result. Instead the Spanish government uses violence to pro-actively prevent peaceful protest, and makes the situation dangerously unpredictable.
kiliancs 9y ago
In addition to what many sibling commenters already said, the law of the referendum as well as its organization have been cautiously suspended, which is done automatically whenever Spain brings anything to the Constitutional Tribunal. There's no ruling as to its legality.

by chki 9y ago

ryanlol 9y ago

>I'm not sure wether that would have actually been a possibility. The referendum ist illegal according to the ruling of the highest constitutional court. The absolute minimum of what a functioning state needs to do is pushing back on all illegal activities. Utter nonsense. According to the courts referendum is invalid, organizing it in on the ground isn't criminal. Using public funds for it may be.

Lazare 9y ago

> By not doing anything against an illegal referendum the Spanish state would have made the first step towards accepting that it does no longer have full control over a part of its own territory. I couldn't disagree more. If the referendum is not part of the legal process, then it's not binding, but participating in it should not be illegal, and absolutely should not be suppressed with force. There's a vast chasm between "we do not recognise this referendum because it was not held in accordance with the constitution" and "we will use violence to stop you doing this thing". > I'm also quite sure that their international reputation is not really that important to them when the state itself is endangered. Again, all it takes is to say "no, actually, no referendum was held, as the laws do not permit it. All you did was hold a symbolic protest", and boom, the state isn't threatened. Unless, of course, a majority of the broader state is sympathetic to the symbolic protest. Which, if so, would explain the seeming desperation to prevent it, but at the same time further undermines any moral justification for doing so. In short, either there was no need to suppress the voting, or there was no moral reason to suppress the voting. The more the Spanish state is threatened by a symbolic, non-binding, unconstitutional referendum, the less the Spanish state is deserving of defence.

barry-cotter 9y ago

> The absolute minimum of what a functioning state needs to do is pushing back on all illegal activities. This isn’t true. The speed limit in the US comes with the proviso +2 or 3 miles per hour, unless the police officer feels like pulling you over, in Ireland the drink driving laws started being enforced with any degree of vigour in the 90’s despite being much older than that, and the Netherlands’ drug laws as written aren’t much different from its neighbours but it’s enforcement is. Law and legislation are not the same. Prosecutorial discretion is totally a thing. When’s 16 year old gets prosecuted for sexting as a producer of child porn that’s monstrous whether the law as written calls for it or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law,_Legislation_and_Liberty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law,_Legislation_and_Liberty

patrickaljord 9y ago

Not sure if you're being naive or ignorant of how governments work but in case you don't know, when it's convenient to do so, governments chose to not apply laws all the time. So I'm not buying the "but this was illegal, they had no choice" argument. Sounds like complete BS.

krona 9y ago

What the Spanish constitution says is largely besides the point on the matter of the rights of Catalonians to assemble, protest and express themselves. See Chapter I of the United Nations Charter. The acts of internal or external self-determination such as the Scottish referendum are expressions of fundamental human rights. The significant difference is whether such acts are recognized by the international community. The sensible thing would have been to let the referendum to go ahead and not recognize the result. Instead the Spanish government uses violence to pro-actively prevent peaceful protest, and makes the situation dangerously unpredictable.

kiliancs 9y ago

In addition to what many sibling commenters already said, the law of the referendum as well as its organization have been cautiously suspended, which is done automatically whenever Spain brings anything to the Constitutional Tribunal. There's no ruling as to its legality.