18 ms·

It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. The fascist dictator who formed modern Spain mad

by cfv 7y ago

It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. The fascist dictator who formed modern Spain made it so its constituent lands can expel a part of it but no one part of it can choose to leave. This is the root of why the procés is illegal, and why they are being charged as violent agitators. They are seen as young kids trying to leave their parent's house and taking their bedrooms and console with them. If they amended the constitution, changed the rules, THEN left, that would change things. Problem is, that's even harder to do, in a country where the aforementioned military dictator died free, of old age, and he and his legacy are greatly revered by a whole lot of people.

romaaeterna 7y ago
Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule. Plato's Crito has Socrates make the point that, even sentenced to death, he was bound to respect the laws of Athens as he was someone who had made the voluntary choice to remain in the city all of his life until then and under those laws.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule. For individuals, sure, and I'm quite sure Catalonians are free to leave Spain and go somewhere else.
  - romaaeterna 7y ago
    Good, I'm glad that we're agreed on the individual right. Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from? The answer to each question will have a lot to do with how much you love each one. Someone who hates Spain and the Spanish would certainly suggest that their course is to be a grubby landlord, trying to get every cent out of a tenant before kicking them out the door. Someone who loves them would hopefully never think of them as the sort of nation that would wish to impose on a free people or steal anything from a people, especially not land or property. Lovers of Spain, properly, will think of their rights as rights of attraction, and free association, and from the governors to the governed. Haters will think of the Nation's rights as something to be imposed, and their duties as something to be extracted from their subject peoples. What do you think of Spain? Is it love or hate?
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from? The nation of Spain certainly is sovereign on the territory it occupies, so it is bound only by the rules it imposes on itself (and of course, external powers which might impose other rules upon it). The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people. Look, I'm not a lover or a hater of Spain, but what I learned so far about how the world works is that it is divided into countries, which set the rules, called law, on their territories, and get to enforce it. If you don't like the rules, usually there's a mechanism to change those, but if you can't make it work through that mechanism, your only option is to assert your own sovereignty, and hope to prevail over the existing contender. So far, the separatists in Catalonia hasn't been successful neither the former nor the latter. I might sympathize with them, but certainly I do not think that they have any right whatsoever to secede.
      - romaaeterna 7y ago
        > The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people. Interesting. I belong to a country where we think of ourselves as telling our rulers what our rights are -- deriving from God, some say -- and certainly not coming down to us from those rulers in any way. Sometimes we have to fight for these rights. It has been violent sometimes. Other times the process has been used. Some of our rights have yet to be asserted. But try telling an American that George Washington and company gave us our rights, and you'll see who far that gets you. We love our country. I hope that the people of Spain can love their country too.
        xyzzyz 7y ago
        Note that I said "[t]he nation of Spain", not the "rulers" of Spain. It's exactly the same as in US: in both cases, the nations codified the rules through the constitution they made the law. If anything, it is more of the case with Americans who are given down rules from above: the American constitution was created and voted into the law by the representatives of the people, while in Spain, the people themselves voted the current constitution into the law through public referendum.
rndgermandude 7y ago
>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. Why do they need the approval of people living elsewhere?
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  It's a tightly integrated part of the economical and political system, the people elsewhere would also be severely affected. Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally?
  - not2personal 7y ago
    >Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally? Thomas Jefferson I believe explained this best: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Without the consent of the governed you do not have a legitimate government, what you have is despotism, no matter if you held a vote or not. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    The UK is tightly integrated into the EU economical and political system. They are breaking away unilaterally. The reason they can do so is that they wouldn't have entered in the first place if there was no instrument to leave again like this (Article 50). The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. And yet Spain says they have to stay no matter what. This doesn't sound right to me.
droithomme 7y ago
> they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving I wonder if the American colonies which seceded from Great Britain in 1776 received the agreement of King George or of the people of Great Britain in general. Secession without consent of the sovereign was not part of their law, so the action was clearly illegal and unethical and the colonists simply in the wrong, do you think? Also there is the matter of them using violence and acts of terrorism as part of their secession process. Clearly wrong, correct?
- t_rope 7y ago
  Well, talking about the US, a group of states tried to secede from the union and there was quite a large war to stop them. It's not legal for a state to secede from the US at all without other states agreeing to it.
- david-gpu 7y ago
  The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process. In contrast, the US was a colony of the UK with no direct representation. Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that. The potential independence of Catalonia is a complex matter and these simplistic comparisons are unhelpful.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    > the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede This is completely untrue. The US Constitution has no such clause. Let's have a wager. We both transfer $10,000 to an independent bookie. Then we each submit our evidence that the US Constitution prohibited secession in 1861. An independent panel of judges rules and winner takes all. I'll give you 30 minutes to accept the wager and transfer your contact info. The War between the States was an illegal war. Because the Northern Aggression won and wrote the textbooks of course they justify their illegal actions, just as the US currently justifies its illegal war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Disagree? Under what legal theory does the US have the right to seize Syrian oil fields as it is currently doing? That's the latest action this week. There are similar absurd and illegal claims of the US government going back centuries. What legal theory do you think the US claims for their seizure of native american lands and parallel mass genocide? Are you aware it's not the Doctrine of Conquest, but the Doctrine of Discovery that the US Supreme Court cited as legal justification? That the first Christian to eye lands held by non-christians permanently and irrevocably has sovereign ownership of the lands, as well as the right to enslave and kill the "pagan" populace. Do you believe this Doctrine of Discovery is a valid legal principle? Or do you agree the US has no legitimate legal claims whatsoever over the much of its territory, which it seized through genocide and deceit and spurious insane pseudo-legal principles. The Doctrine of Discovery has as much validity as the spurious claim that there was anything questionable or illegal or especially unconstitutional about southern secession, and as much rational basis as the european and puritan claims that witches can be detected by attempting to drown them, pile stones on them until they asphyxiate, or that werewolves are responsible for crop failure.
maximente 7y ago
it would be ridiculous to expect a colony of a monarchy to be expected to overthrow the government in order to "legally" split off. i'm not sure why this is any different - if they win, then the new country obviously won't be held to whatever rules the old one had. this is sort of the nature of the game - successful nations splitting off get to "live to tell the tale".
JetSpiegel 7y ago
Not to mention the current Prime Minister (he's only PM because the support of the pre-independence parties) dragged his feet for months instead of start discussing a federal Spanish state or some other solution. Radio silence until the procés.

by cfv 7y ago

romaaeterna 7y ago

Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule. Plato's Crito has Socrates make the point that, even sentenced to death, he was bound to respect the laws of Athens as he was someone who had made the voluntary choice to remain in the city all of his life until then and under those laws.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xyzzyz 7y ago
Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule. For individuals, sure, and I'm quite sure Catalonians are free to leave Spain and go somewhere else.
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  Good, I'm glad that we're agreed on the individual right. Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from? The answer to each question will have a lot to do with how much you love each one. Someone who hates Spain and the Spanish would certainly suggest that their course is to be a grubby landlord, trying to get every cent out of a tenant before kicking them out the door. Someone who loves them would hopefully never think of them as the sort of nation that would wish to impose on a free people or steal anything from a people, especially not land or property. Lovers of Spain, properly, will think of their rights as rights of attraction, and free association, and from the governors to the governed. Haters will think of the Nation's rights as something to be imposed, and their duties as something to be extracted from their subject peoples. What do you think of Spain? Is it love or hate?
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from? The nation of Spain certainly is sovereign on the territory it occupies, so it is bound only by the rules it imposes on itself (and of course, external powers which might impose other rules upon it). The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people. Look, I'm not a lover or a hater of Spain, but what I learned so far about how the world works is that it is divided into countries, which set the rules, called law, on their territories, and get to enforce it. If you don't like the rules, usually there's a mechanism to change those, but if you can't make it work through that mechanism, your only option is to assert your own sovereignty, and hope to prevail over the existing contender. So far, the separatists in Catalonia hasn't been successful neither the former nor the latter. I might sympathize with them, but certainly I do not think that they have any right whatsoever to secede.
    - romaaeterna 7y ago
      > The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people. Interesting. I belong to a country where we think of ourselves as telling our rulers what our rights are -- deriving from God, some say -- and certainly not coming down to us from those rulers in any way. Sometimes we have to fight for these rights. It has been violent sometimes. Other times the process has been used. Some of our rights have yet to be asserted. But try telling an American that George Washington and company gave us our rights, and you'll see who far that gets you. We love our country. I hope that the people of Spain can love their country too.
      - xyzzyz 7y ago
        Note that I said "[t]he nation of Spain", not the "rulers" of Spain. It's exactly the same as in US: in both cases, the nations codified the rules through the constitution they made the law. If anything, it is more of the case with Americans who are given down rules from above: the American constitution was created and voted into the law by the representatives of the people, while in Spain, the people themselves voted the current constitution into the law through public referendum.

rndgermandude 7y ago

>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. Why do they need the approval of people living elsewhere?

SiempreViernes 7y ago
It's a tightly integrated part of the economical and political system, the people elsewhere would also be severely affected. Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally?
- not2personal 7y ago
  >Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally? Thomas Jefferson I believe explained this best: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Without the consent of the governed you do not have a legitimate government, what you have is despotism, no matter if you held a vote or not. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  The UK is tightly integrated into the EU economical and political system. They are breaking away unilaterally. The reason they can do so is that they wouldn't have entered in the first place if there was no instrument to leave again like this (Article 50). The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. And yet Spain says they have to stay no matter what. This doesn't sound right to me.

droithomme 7y ago

> they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving I wonder if the American colonies which seceded from Great Britain in 1776 received the agreement of King George or of the people of Great Britain in general. Secession without consent of the sovereign was not part of their law, so the action was clearly illegal and unethical and the colonists simply in the wrong, do you think? Also there is the matter of them using violence and acts of terrorism as part of their secession process. Clearly wrong, correct?

t_rope 7y ago
Well, talking about the US, a group of states tried to secede from the union and there was quite a large war to stop them. It's not legal for a state to secede from the US at all without other states agreeing to it.
david-gpu 7y ago
The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process. In contrast, the US was a colony of the UK with no direct representation. Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that. The potential independence of Catalonia is a complex matter and these simplistic comparisons are unhelpful.
- droithomme 7y ago
  > the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede This is completely untrue. The US Constitution has no such clause. Let's have a wager. We both transfer $10,000 to an independent bookie. Then we each submit our evidence that the US Constitution prohibited secession in 1861. An independent panel of judges rules and winner takes all. I'll give you 30 minutes to accept the wager and transfer your contact info. The War between the States was an illegal war. Because the Northern Aggression won and wrote the textbooks of course they justify their illegal actions, just as the US currently justifies its illegal war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Disagree? Under what legal theory does the US have the right to seize Syrian oil fields as it is currently doing? That's the latest action this week. There are similar absurd and illegal claims of the US government going back centuries. What legal theory do you think the US claims for their seizure of native american lands and parallel mass genocide? Are you aware it's not the Doctrine of Conquest, but the Doctrine of Discovery that the US Supreme Court cited as legal justification? That the first Christian to eye lands held by non-christians permanently and irrevocably has sovereign ownership of the lands, as well as the right to enslave and kill the "pagan" populace. Do you believe this Doctrine of Discovery is a valid legal principle? Or do you agree the US has no legitimate legal claims whatsoever over the much of its territory, which it seized through genocide and deceit and spurious insane pseudo-legal principles. The Doctrine of Discovery has as much validity as the spurious claim that there was anything questionable or illegal or especially unconstitutional about southern secession, and as much rational basis as the european and puritan claims that witches can be detected by attempting to drown them, pile stones on them until they asphyxiate, or that werewolves are responsible for crop failure.

maximente 7y ago

it would be ridiculous to expect a colony of a monarchy to be expected to overthrow the government in order to "legally" split off. i'm not sure why this is any different - if they win, then the new country obviously won't be held to whatever rules the old one had. this is sort of the nature of the game - successful nations splitting off get to "live to tell the tale".

JetSpiegel 7y ago

Not to mention the current Prime Minister (he's only PM because the support of the pre-independence parties) dragged his feet for months instead of start discussing a federal Spanish state or some other solution. Radio silence until the procés.