4 ms·

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 regi

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.
- ricardbejarano 7y ago
  I can count with one hand the amount of state constitutions that allow the sudden declaration of independence of a part of their territory. Self-determination is a right you reject when you step foot on Spain (and practically every other country). We might have to change that, I don't know, but the Spanish constitution is no fascist rule, or else almost all modern democratic states are, too. It is very complicated.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    Is it? The UK allowed Scotland to decide and it's been peaceful. Also, isn't the relevant section of the Spanish constitution from a fascist era?
    - javierga 7y ago
      Regarding the UK, they might be the only democracy with that prerogative since they don’t have a codified constitution beyond the Magna Carta* * Please don’t quote me on this since it’s been 12 years I did constitutional law
      - skissane 7y ago
        Very many constitutions are actually silent on secession. I am from Australia. To my best recollection, Australia's constitution never mentions the topic of secession, neither positively or negatively. But, territories of Australia have become independent before. Same is true of United States. But, some will say a territory is not fully integrated, unlike a state or province, and a state or province would be different. People say the US constitution doesn't allow secession of a state (as opposed to a territory) without a constitutional amendment. Not directly, but indirectly it does: 1. It is accepted that a territory (as opposed to a state) can secede and become a new country with consent of Congress 2. The US constitution allows a state to surrender some of its territory to the federal government (most obvious case is District of Columbia, but actually a lot of the Midwestern states were formed out of territory originally surrendered by the Eastern states which used to be a lot bigger than they are now) 3. So, a state wishes to secede could surrender all its territory to the federal government, and then Congress allows that territory to become independent. Objection: States can only surrender some of their territory, not all of it. Reply: Even if that is true, there is a workaround. Two states are allowed to merge with consent of Congress and their state legislatures. So, seceding state could merge into a neighbouring state, and then the new state would surrender the former territory of the seceding state to the federal government, and then Congress would grant that federal territory independence. (This would of course require the cooperation of a neighbouring state, which might be thought unlikely, but maybe not impossible – the neighbouring state might be pleased to see the seceding state go; the seceding state might sweeten the deal somehow by letting the neighbouring state keep part of its territory.) Of course, the US Supreme Court might decide this is against the "spirit" of the US constitution. But they aren't compelled to conclude that it is against the letter. Strict constructionism would suggest this would be constitutional.
fangorn 7y ago
Not sure how many constitutions around the world have a "Secession Procedure" section, but I suppose not too many. I know UK sort of has one in its "unwritten" constitution. I understand that Spanish government cannot simply ignore the constitution and must do something, I'm sure they could have come up with a better something... I expect in vast majority of cases of gaining independence from a country with existing constitution it wasn't something along the lines of: "OK, so you want independence? Fine, just wait a bit until we change the constitution". Then again, and sadly, it probably wasn't happening without violence either. Here's a list of unilateral declarations of independence, some more successful than others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_inde... And let's not forget that a lot of cases of gaining independence happened after someone lost a war. Maybe let's not go there?
skissane 7y ago
Compare Spain to Iraq. Around the same time, Iraqi Kurdistan had a referendum on independence. The Iraqi central government declared it void. But they didn't make any physical attempt to stop it. The Spanish central government and court system didn't have to try to physically stop the referendum. They could have just declared it illegal but then ignored it rather than seeking to physically prevent it. They could have followed the same approach as Iraq. They chose not to. Likewise, rather than imprisoning those who declared unilateral independence, they could have just declared the act legally void and then pretended it never happened. Governments (and judicial systems) always have discretion about enforcing the law. A wise government knows when to step back. A foolish government demands it be enforced 100% of the time. (And I guarantee you, that there will be other issues, on which the Spanish government and judiciary make no such demand for 100% enforcement – prosecutorial discretion exists in every country, Spain included.)

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.

ricardbejarano 7y ago
I can count with one hand the amount of state constitutions that allow the sudden declaration of independence of a part of their territory. Self-determination is a right you reject when you step foot on Spain (and practically every other country). We might have to change that, I don't know, but the Spanish constitution is no fascist rule, or else almost all modern democratic states are, too. It is very complicated.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  Is it? The UK allowed Scotland to decide and it's been peaceful. Also, isn't the relevant section of the Spanish constitution from a fascist era?
  - javierga 7y ago
    Regarding the UK, they might be the only democracy with that prerogative since they don’t have a codified constitution beyond the Magna Carta* * Please don’t quote me on this since it’s been 12 years I did constitutional law
    - skissane 7y ago
      Very many constitutions are actually silent on secession. I am from Australia. To my best recollection, Australia's constitution never mentions the topic of secession, neither positively or negatively. But, territories of Australia have become independent before. Same is true of United States. But, some will say a territory is not fully integrated, unlike a state or province, and a state or province would be different. People say the US constitution doesn't allow secession of a state (as opposed to a territory) without a constitutional amendment. Not directly, but indirectly it does: 1. It is accepted that a territory (as opposed to a state) can secede and become a new country with consent of Congress 2. The US constitution allows a state to surrender some of its territory to the federal government (most obvious case is District of Columbia, but actually a lot of the Midwestern states were formed out of territory originally surrendered by the Eastern states which used to be a lot bigger than they are now) 3. So, a state wishes to secede could surrender all its territory to the federal government, and then Congress allows that territory to become independent. Objection: States can only surrender some of their territory, not all of it. Reply: Even if that is true, there is a workaround. Two states are allowed to merge with consent of Congress and their state legislatures. So, seceding state could merge into a neighbouring state, and then the new state would surrender the former territory of the seceding state to the federal government, and then Congress would grant that federal territory independence. (This would of course require the cooperation of a neighbouring state, which might be thought unlikely, but maybe not impossible – the neighbouring state might be pleased to see the seceding state go; the seceding state might sweeten the deal somehow by letting the neighbouring state keep part of its territory.) Of course, the US Supreme Court might decide this is against the "spirit" of the US constitution. But they aren't compelled to conclude that it is against the letter. Strict constructionism would suggest this would be constitutional.

fangorn 7y ago

Not sure how many constitutions around the world have a "Secession Procedure" section, but I suppose not too many. I know UK sort of has one in its "unwritten" constitution. I understand that Spanish government cannot simply ignore the constitution and must do something, I'm sure they could have come up with a better something... I expect in vast majority of cases of gaining independence from a country with existing constitution it wasn't something along the lines of: "OK, so you want independence? Fine, just wait a bit until we change the constitution". Then again, and sadly, it probably wasn't happening without violence either. Here's a list of unilateral declarations of independence, some more successful than others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_inde... And let's not forget that a lot of cases of gaining independence happened after someone lost a war. Maybe let's not go there?

skissane 7y ago

Compare Spain to Iraq. Around the same time, Iraqi Kurdistan had a referendum on independence. The Iraqi central government declared it void. But they didn't make any physical attempt to stop it. The Spanish central government and court system didn't have to try to physically stop the referendum. They could have just declared it illegal but then ignored it rather than seeking to physically prevent it. They could have followed the same approach as Iraq. They chose not to. Likewise, rather than imprisoning those who declared unilateral independence, they could have just declared the act legally void and then pretended it never happened. Governments (and judicial systems) always have discretion about enforcing the law. A wise government knows when to step back. A foolish government demands it be enforced 100% of the time. (And I guarantee you, that there will be other issues, on which the Spanish government and judiciary make no such demand for 100% enforcement – prosecutorial discretion exists in every country, Spain included.)