People forget, democracy is a process, it doesn't just stop some time in the past.
And Spanish people supported the Constitution with their vote on a large scale.
EDIT: I should reword my question. What part of it you believe is false? Or is it all of it?
> Historians of the Spanish Civil War concur that the death toll of the White Terror (~58 000–400,000), because of its extent and duration,[12][12][13][14][1][2] was greater than the death toll of the Red Terror (38,000 – ~172,344 ).[15][16][17] The political repression of the White Terror was formal policy of the Nationalist forces during the Spanish Civil War, and of the government of Gen. Franco until 1945 — six years after the war's end in 1939.[18][19] In 2015, the government of Spain refused Spanish historians access to the pertinent government archives, open to foreign historians, which would allow determining the physical whereabouts and political fate of victims of the White Terror.[20]
> The main goal of the White Terror was to terrify the civil population who opposed the coup,[88][89][90] eliminate the supporters of the Second Spanish Republic and the militants of the leftist parties,[91][92][93] and because of this, some historians have considered the White Terror a genocide.[94][95] In fact, one of the leaders of the coup, General Emilio Mola said:[96]
> "It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do. There can be no cowardice. If we hesitate one moment and fail to proceed with the greatest determination, we will not win. Anyone who helps or hides a Communist or a supporter of the Popular Front will be shot."
You're just lying.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refer%C3%A9ndum_para_la_ratifi...
Using the constitution as some sort of shield / holy bible that can't ever possibly be changed IS what show the weakness of Spanish democracy.
In the end, governments are there to serve their people. They don't make sense as entities on their own. They represent a group of people who chooses to be represented by their government. If the government attacks the people and refuses to hear to what people have to say, you need to resort to not following the dogma.
Politics is the art of the possible. Right now, this is not possible and pushing for it is not constructive.
If a sufficient number of people in a geopolitical area wish to govern themselves, broadly, it should be seriously considered by any ethical government.
The circumstances matter. I can't draft a workflow for "ethical independence" on a Friday morning on HN. I can say there is a difference between self-determination and the desire for liberty vs. mass murder, conquering territory and waging guerrilla warfare against multiple nations.
When defining a right, you must show who is the subject of that right.
Anyway, when that site states "All peoples have the right to self-determination" Is there a minimum number of people to aim for 'this right'? V.g. if 259 persons in Els Hostalets de Balenya say the want 'the right to self-determination', are they a nation from then?
As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).
The so-called "right to self-determination" doesn't exist in the Spanish Constitution, nor in the International Law, nor in Comparative Law.
https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/10/opinion/1412946101_9911...
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength,
Trying to organize a Referendum is Antidemocratic.
What people can't do is play outside the Law in a Democracy.
Changing how when the two main parties are against this change?
That argument is just an excuse.
Articles of the Estatut d'Autonomia where denunced by present the ruling part declared invalid by the TC but that same party wrote carbon copies of them in other Estatutes it say how the situation can change.
If you state "that same party wrote carbon copies of them in other Estatutes" you have to give us sources.
For those HN readers that might not know, a decade ago Catalonia tried to pass something known as the Estatut, which would give us more rights and more power (similar to what the Basque country has had for a long time). Needless to say, it didn't pass because the big parties opposed to it. One of the two important political parties in Spain (the Popular party) went as far as going around Spain collecting signatures (four million) to get rid of the Estatut. And that's part of the story of how the pro-independence movement gained as much traction as it has right now.
The right of a part of a country to secede is not recognized by most constitutions around the world, and it is certainly not a "principle of democracy".
You want to change the constitution that rules your country, you get 2/3 of the votes of the parliament behind your vote and the constitution changes (or whatever rule your constitution has to allow a change). The whole point of a constitution is to have a stable body of law.
The Estatut went further than giving you something similar to what the Basque country has. It was ruled out because it was deemed incompatible with the constitution. This is exactly the same process any other country with a constitution follows.
As for the "rights" that you are not enjoying, the only one I hear repeatedly is one: collect and distribute your own taxes, because you pay more taxes than what is reinvested in Catalonia (of course this happens in roughly half of the country).
If New York asked to secede from the United States because they were oh so tired of paying more in taxes than the average in the US and receiving less than what they bring to the table (which is true for the vast majority of "rich" states) we will all see through the bullshit of the argument.
If you want to follow that argument, when do you stop? is it right for my city to secede because we do not want to support the poor in rural areas around us? (this is not a retorical question, some big cities have historically done that, and many of them today are tax havens). Can I as an individual decide to not pay my taxes because I pay more than what I receive?
Exactly what other right is missing in Catalonia?
The Spanish constitution won't change because it's in their best interest to not do so, which is why this illegal referendum is being created. If they wanted the Estatut to pass, they would have passed; they didn't pass it because the rest of the Spanish communities would have been affected by it from an economical point of view (suddenly a chunk of money that was going to the other communities stays in Catalonia. Guess who's gonna be unhappy).
As to when you stop with the right of self-determination, in the case of Catalonia, from a cultural, language, and historical point of view, there's enough reasons for a referendum to be held (given the discontent of the population). There's a similar situation with Quebec, for example. As far as I know, there's nothing about New York --language, history, or culture-- that would warrant a referendum, and there's certainly no reason for you as an individual to do so (you don't even have the basic political institutions).
As for the cultural, language and historical I see absolutely no basis for this referendum. Cultural wise I have never, ever, see the slightless difference between catalonians and people for the rest of Spain. What will be the difference between someone that lives in Tarragona and someone from Valencia? Of course it's all a smooth change, and the farther away you go the more small changes you get, but I have seen much deeper differences between people living in cities vs rural areas (even when they are close to each other).
In any case, these differences are (to me) smaller than the differences between a New Yorker and a Texan.
Historically Catalonia has never been a separate, independent country, and you have to go pretty far away to get a substantially different Spain to what you have today.
Catalonia has a different language, that roughly 60% of their inhabitants do not speak, and that is shared by some of the inhabitants of the spanish states (Comunidad Valenciana and Balears).
If your point is that Catalonia people should be allowed to secede because they have a differenciate culture / language (let's ignore for a second all the catalans that do not speak catalan), why don't they call to vote in catalonia, comunidad valenciana and balears, all together? Because they will very clearly lose the vote.
In polls there are a huge number of catalans descendants from andalusia n "inmigrants" that are also for the independence. Why is it so? Because the reason argued again and again during years has been only one: taxes. Not "culture".
BTW, they wanted the Estatut to pass (it passed in congress), but you needed more than 1/2 the votes, you needed 2/3. If the Estatut had nothing against the Constitution, it will be law by now.
I have never lived in Texas nor NYC, so I can't really say much about it. I believe that Catalonia is large enough to warrant a referendum if enough people want it, especially given that so many people disagree with the treatment they are receiving from Spain. I accept the argument that we might not be different enough, but it's not the main reason a referendum should be held, in my opinion, and I'm not aware of many people from Valencia or Balears who want to leave Spain. At which point a region of a country has the right to secede? Or you are implying that no region from no country should ever have that right?
But what is more worrisome is that it ignores the rights of the other group. What about the Spanish, not from Catalonia, that have interests in Catalonia, be it companies, properties, families or even just cultural links? Shouldn't they have an opinion on the matter?
Unsurprisingly yes, and that's precisely what the Constitution says. And that's the supreme law, and I have not seen any other reasonable country where a subset of it is claiming so freely to withdraw the Constitution because they don't like it, even when there are very clear paths to change it.
It Catalonia wants to vote, go to Parliament and ask for a referendum of all Spaniards (that's legal). It's that simple.
I bet you are all for dialog, good arguments, better talk than fight... /s
Say the guy with 682 points.
I can't downvote. If it's not because of the points, it's because of something else.
Because it seems to me that these people are asking to vote.
The rule of law applies also to politicians.