4 ms·

I'd rather not to take anyone on Spain very seriously about this, as this is a very "with me or against me" kind of problem, and practically everyone has a stro

I'd rather not to take anyone on Spain very seriously about this, as this is a very "with me or against me" kind of problem, and practically everyone has a strong opinion. Everyone will tell you their side of the story, with half-truths and euphemisms wherever they need them. Source: I'm Spanish, currently living in Barcelona.

StavrosK 7y ago
It's true, and neither side is handling this very well. The government could have let the referendum happen but campaign against it, appeasing the people who wanted a democratic vote but still winning. Instead, they went full suppression and made themselves look much worse.
- petre 7y ago
  It's against their constitution to do so. My country has similar wording in its constitution. Nevertheless, independence can happen if there's enough support for it, either through peaceful means or not. Unfortunately the central goverment's actions only escalate the situation further. It's like they've learned nothing from the Basque conflict.
- ricardbejarano 7y ago
  The thing is, the government can't let a "comunidad autonoma" organize a binding referendum about a region's secession of Spain, because that would put the region's sovereignty on the region's people, and that's against the Spanish constitution (art. 1.2, the sovereignty of the entire Spanish territory is of all Spanish citizens). That also infringes Spanish constitution's 2nd art., "the Constitution is fundamented atop the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation". It's not that they "should have let them vote", it's that they can't, unless the Spanish citizens reform the constitution and remove those articles. The separatist movement is blocked in that regard, and unless all other UN countries were to recognize Catalonia as an independent state, they are locked in as a "comunidad autonoma" until a constitution reform happens.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Fair enough, but they could still have campaigned against secession and declared any referendum void. They probably could have managed it better than send armed police to confiscate the ballot boxes.
  - arien 7y ago
    It didn't have to be binding, just advisory or symbolic with no action to be taken. It might have prevented most of the current situation if the result had been to remain (which would have been most likely, back then, now I'm not so sure). If it had been independence I suppose we would be in a very similar situation.
    - ricardbejarano 7y ago
      We had a non-binding referendum on November 9th, 2014, with 90% saying yes to independence, but 37% voter turnout. Then an illegally-binding referendum was organized by the Catalan government on October 1st, 2017. The result was 90% leaves, but yet again, 43% voter turnout, and there were no democratic guarantees, as some people were caught voting multiple times, the census was obtained illegally, etc. After that illegal referendum, the Catalan government decided to secede and declare independence. That's why they were prosecuted and recently convicted. Declaring the independence of a part of Spanish sovereign territory is explicitly forbidden under the name of "secession" in Spanish constitution, and because it goes against the nation's own sovereignty it is considered a very serious crime, that's why they were convicted up to 13 years. From my POV, as a Catalan citizen, this is ordinary application of law, the law that we all agreed upon in the first place, and the riots and violent scenes seen recently are simply caused by a minority of the pro-independent minority which want independence at all costs, and police forces can't allow that, thus, conflict.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    And yet, doesn't this violate the principle of self-determination? If the people of a region want to create a separate region, who is to tell them not to? Catalonia now needs the permission of the others to leave? It seems as though the Spanish constitution was written for the primacy of a centralized state, rather than federated government down to the individual. I suppose the idea that sovereignty is effectively granted by the central state is a result thereof. Maybe reforming that would be a good first step.

StavrosK 7y ago

It's true, and neither side is handling this very well. The government could have let the referendum happen but campaign against it, appeasing the people who wanted a democratic vote but still winning. Instead, they went full suppression and made themselves look much worse.

petre 7y ago
It's against their constitution to do so. My country has similar wording in its constitution. Nevertheless, independence can happen if there's enough support for it, either through peaceful means or not. Unfortunately the central goverment's actions only escalate the situation further. It's like they've learned nothing from the Basque conflict.
ricardbejarano 7y ago
The thing is, the government can't let a "comunidad autonoma" organize a binding referendum about a region's secession of Spain, because that would put the region's sovereignty on the region's people, and that's against the Spanish constitution (art. 1.2, the sovereignty of the entire Spanish territory is of all Spanish citizens). That also infringes Spanish constitution's 2nd art., "the Constitution is fundamented atop the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation". It's not that they "should have let them vote", it's that they can't, unless the Spanish citizens reform the constitution and remove those articles. The separatist movement is blocked in that regard, and unless all other UN countries were to recognize Catalonia as an independent state, they are locked in as a "comunidad autonoma" until a constitution reform happens.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Fair enough, but they could still have campaigned against secession and declared any referendum void. They probably could have managed it better than send armed police to confiscate the ballot boxes.
- arien 7y ago
  It didn't have to be binding, just advisory or symbolic with no action to be taken. It might have prevented most of the current situation if the result had been to remain (which would have been most likely, back then, now I'm not so sure). If it had been independence I suppose we would be in a very similar situation.
  - ricardbejarano 7y ago
    We had a non-binding referendum on November 9th, 2014, with 90% saying yes to independence, but 37% voter turnout. Then an illegally-binding referendum was organized by the Catalan government on October 1st, 2017. The result was 90% leaves, but yet again, 43% voter turnout, and there were no democratic guarantees, as some people were caught voting multiple times, the census was obtained illegally, etc. After that illegal referendum, the Catalan government decided to secede and declare independence. That's why they were prosecuted and recently convicted. Declaring the independence of a part of Spanish sovereign territory is explicitly forbidden under the name of "secession" in Spanish constitution, and because it goes against the nation's own sovereignty it is considered a very serious crime, that's why they were convicted up to 13 years. From my POV, as a Catalan citizen, this is ordinary application of law, the law that we all agreed upon in the first place, and the riots and violent scenes seen recently are simply caused by a minority of the pro-independent minority which want independence at all costs, and police forces can't allow that, thus, conflict.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  And yet, doesn't this violate the principle of self-determination? If the people of a region want to create a separate region, who is to tell them not to? Catalonia now needs the permission of the others to leave? It seems as though the Spanish constitution was written for the primacy of a centralized state, rather than federated government down to the individual. I suppose the idea that sovereignty is effectively granted by the central state is a result thereof. Maybe reforming that would be a good first step.