How can they be illegal ?
A democratic government derives it's legitimacy from the fact the people they govern choose to be governed by them. If the people obviously do not want this government, then isn't it the government that's obviously illegitimate ?
'The people' are the source of power, they just outsource it to a smaller group of people through democratic elections for practical purposes. If 'the people' decide their government's services are no longer needed, then there is nothing the government can do. It's not their call.
Catalonia is a well-defined region, redefine the borders and be done with it. Seems easy enough.
If these people don't want to be part of Spain anymore, why force them to stay ? There is no point to any of it.
Surely you can see the flaw in your line of reasoning.
If a group of people doesn't want to be governed by a certain body they should have the right to secede.
A government derives it's right to rule by the people accepting this rule.
Obviously this is a really hard problem and it opens up the door for all kind of abuses, but ultimately democracy demands that. Democracy first needs a demos. A group of people who feel connected by whatever reason they like and agree to form a community. If the borders of the community are not drawn by the community itself, it's not democratic. Just look at all the wars being fought about borders which were drawn by colonial forces and didn't respect the locals.
In this I also see the power of parliament's and federal states - even if your vote don't win the election, you are still represented in parliament and you have the local gov. Without that, it would be hard to keep regions where a majority voted different than the whole nations majority.
Globalism, neo-liberalism, individualism - all that severely reduced the solidarity people have which each other. The internet then connected us with people that we share much more with than just area. All nations, democracy as a whole will have to face this tremendous challenge. And I have no idea how.
If you follow this principle to the extreme then laws become essentially voluntary, which contradicts the whole meaning of law.
I think democratic principles can never be applicable to decisions about the existence of the entity as a whole in the same way they apply to governing an existing entity.
Surely you can see the flaw in this new line of reasoning as well?
There is two simple truths. 1. If a group decides that it doesn't want to be ruled by a certain body, it's hard to legitimize the continuation of that rule. 2. If any group, especially very small ones can refuse the ruling body, all big groups will ultimately split down to individuals with no rules at all.
Democracy only works when balancing these truths. Trough opposition in parliament, minority rights, local and regional governments, regional independence and so on.
I.e. the whole situation in Catalan is blowing up because the reginal independence wasn't granted (or not enough in the opinion of the Catalans). Look at South-Tyrol in Italy for an example where things are working better. Even the American states are a good example - liberal, rich California wouldn't accept Republican rule without the independence the states have.
Surely you can see the point I'm trying to make?
It's weird that everyone wants a large monopoly not a lot of smaller competing governments.
I dont think a "town", regardless of their richness, would be able to handle that.
Now, I could see the eastern seabed, with the bounds of the Appalachian mountains as a "country". I could also see the northern and southern areas between the 2 mountain ranges being their own countries as well. But not a "town".
I'm trying to soften the blow, what do you think I should tell them?
You say this like it's a bad thing.
> Different provinces and regions are united into a country because this way they have more military power to defend themselves.
Exactly. So there are many benefits for people to form larger groups, but please let them decide that for themselves. This kind of negates your first point, if there are obvious benefits then there won't be thousands of states, because people would recognise they are better off together.
I don't believe for a second that people will. There are groups of people who don't give a crap about "being better off" - they care about showing those damn Spanish/British/French/German/Polish/<insert group name here> what they think and being able to "finally decide for themselves" which is complete nonsense. If people could so easily see the benefits of staying together then Brexit wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be seeing nationalist movements all over Europe nowadays. The problem is that the benefits are not obvious and you have to actually educate yourself a bit about them - but if someone is unwilling to put the energy into it, then it's not going to happen.
Already after Brexit I've heard quite a few reports of 1) young Brits elsewhere in Europe becoming much more engaged with politics because 'now it matters', and 2) Brexit voters who now regret their decision because it affects them negatively (or is likely to).
Again, I agree with you and I don't think it's ideal, but part of me feels letting people make decisions like this, even if I personally think they're (often) stupid decisions prompted by populism, might be better than jamming 'the educated choice' down their throats.
But I'm not expert on the matter. Are there any historical analogues that might provide some insight here?
It sounds mean, but as you are saying - we have to allow that at least sometimes, so people are ok with listening to more educated people next time. Because when even such fragmented group as economists agreed universally that Brexit is bad, it just is bad, and people should accept it.
That line of thinking is very unpopular, at least in the US since that time.
That said, if any state or group of states did overwhelmingly want to breakaway from the US, it seems unlikely that there would be meaningful support for the federal government to go to war to stop them.
Given that states rights are far less than they were in the 19th century, I expect the US government to be even more likely to prevent succession in the infinitesimal chance it would happen.
[1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements
Your point about the erosion of states rights is certainly fair. In any case, it's hard to say what "prevent secession" means without the context of the circumstances.
That's not enough though. There are people who have tried to declare an independent country of their land, or their house, or their bedroom[1]. Clearly one person declaring their bedroom to be independent is silly and not allowable, but a large reason is. So somewhere there's a line, right?
Clearly states are silly and not allowable, but here we are.
Spain has chosen to be governed by the current government. Democracy doesn't mean that you always get the way you want if the majority wants something else...
Did they now ?
Let's say Russia is having an election and the people in Crimea are allowed to vote. Let's assume the majority of Russians voted for Putin but hardly any of the people in Crimea did. Did Russia suddenly become the legitimate government of Crimea just because 'the people voted for it' ?
I think the first step would be for the people to agree to have an election over who governs them first.
AFAIK Catalonia didn't voluntarily join Spain, they got annexed.
This is how most countries were formed in the Middle Ages. You either are big enough to defend yourself or become a part of big enough country.
And if they pool money to form an army - how will be the funding determined? Some states will want more defence, some less, some will prefer naval power, some airpower . . .
if those people can't agree on anything to such extent that they want to be entirely separate, how would they agree on anything when they would have even less incentive to cooperate? See how dysfunctional EU seems at times today, and this would be way worse . . .
Especially when you start considering other forms of warfare, like trade. Solving all problems leads right back to something resembling either superstate or close coalition of large states.
Also good luck with making an army from nothing just in time before invasion.
Edit: and you are still ignoring weakness of such states on economic level.
Economics is not a problem in a modern world with a free trade. Small city-states, that embrace free trade, fare well. There is even an possibility, that trade liberalization leads to political disintegration: https://www.nber.org/papers/w6163
I mean, sort of yes, but also Catalonia was annexed within living memory.
Just because it happened a few hundred years ago, doesnt mean they lost their own heritage, their language, and their self-determination.
Look no further than Ireland. That battle goes back to Grace O'Malley and Elizabeth in the 16th'c. In reality, it went further back, to this structure called the Hadrian Wall, but that's in 1st c.
"Living memory" indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Catalonia#Republic_...
Thank you.
This is probably not the the way the national government wanted their actions to be seen, nor is overwhelming popular disobedience the outcome they desired.
States in spain are incapable of declaring independence from the national government. This was a democratic process. A democratic process inside one state, just to get that state to say it is separate, doesn't change that.
So the parent's question still standards. If the referendum is illegal, why does the national government bother at all? It can ignore the referendum.
Are you sure the same people who voted for that constitution are the ones doing the protesting ? I'm not sure about Spain, but I know for a fact that I didn't vote for the constitution of my country, in fact it was written about 160 years before I was even born.
Not sure if that changes your opinion
and it also doesn't answer the question of why the national government is bothering anyway
It's a package deal. I either join the club, benefit from being a member, and have to play by the clubs rules or I don't.
If you allow a referendum on such topic in a part of Spain, it doesn't matter the result because you're accepting implicitly that a part of Spain can rule over the whole.
Let's boil it down to the basics: an election decides who is going to be leader of a group of people. For that leader to be legitimate every member has to voluntarily decide they want to be part of the group and thus the election.
The problem here is not that Catalonia doesn't accept the government because they didn't like who won the elections. The problem here is that they never agreed to even be part of those elections.
If we have a group of 10 people who decide to democratically pick a leader, and the majority chooses Steve. That's fine. What is not fine is taking 2 random people of the street and tell them they have to now do what Steve tells them because he was voted leader 10 against 2. They never agreed to take part in the election and respect its results.
So ten people decide to bow at Steve's now-royal feet. His rule involves property. The two who didn't vote for him might be living within the boundaries of that property. Or it might not be economically feasible for them to survive without entering Steve's kingdom. And unfortunately all the other land is rules by Dave and Jared, who would require their submission just as much as Steve.
I just don't see a practical way, within the framework of (pretty much?) then entire world at this point, where it is possible to not agree to take part in an election, and to realistically disrespect its results.
Catalonia and the real world is more complicated, so perhaps there is a future where Catalonia succeeds at seceding. Personally I'm not as much against that as most people seem to be.
But I guess I'm just pointing out that there's no simple anything that this situation can be reduced to.
As I understand it, polls show a slim majority of Catalan residents actually oppose independence, but people likely to put in the effort and/or take the risk of voting in an illegal referendum will of course skew in favor of independence.
So if the vote proceeds, the Spanish government will be struggling to explain the result as being likely not representative, and illegal in any case, but they'll be doing so in the face of an invigorated independence movement that will be claiming a mandate. Even if the Spanish government's position is correct, this is a very hard PR problem.
If you can quietly prevent the vote from proceeding, you deny the independence movement the ability to claim a mandate, they have less energy, and your PR problem is easier.
Obviously, they got neither of these, but instead got a different flavor of PR disaster.
I was under the impression that the pro-stay leaders were encouraging their supporters to stay home to de-legitimize the vote.
If by any chance a Catalan terrorist group appears, that's the next several elections sorted.
PP misses ETA, the Basque terrorist group.
If you're thinking that's stupid and can backfire on them big time, well, I didn't say they were smart.
Spain's actions in all of this seemed completely bizarre to me. They could have diffused the situation so easily. They did the one thing that makes it all worse.
But yeah, once you realize that Spain is ruled by a nationalist party that wants conflict and violence to maintain power.. this all must seem like a gift from heaven for them.
That's a really miserable thing to say.
Very interesting word choice.
Instead, here we are. Yes, this is very much the PP's fault.
And absolutely, the Catalan politicians are another bunch of disgusting corrupt agitators, who will also benefit from the tension and violence. They are also loving it. They literally couldn't have hoped for a better outcome.
I was merely answering the question of "Why is the Spanish government acting in such a stupid way?"
Oh, and I'm afraid your "commie-dar" is a bit misaligned.
FYI there was a terrorist group in Catalonia called "Terra Lliure". Now the members of that group are promoting secession.
The right of people to self-determination is actually a quite important concept in the international law.
In Catalan region the population is split in two. It is not a "revolution against the central government", but for the power inside the region.
I think they are trying to determine how the population is split by the voting.
If it's a large enough population that doesn't want to live under the Spanish rule, they shouldn't. And if there's a minority that does want to live under the Spanish rule, they still can, just move to Spain.
Now, Catalan nationalists/separatists (one half of the Catalan population) have the photo of "violent Spanish police" repressing "idealist people just voting", while the truth is that regional police has been boycotting the Court during a week, against the rule of law. This is going to get ugly, probably with regional government and regional police authorities charged with many years of jail.
(I'm still looking for how to make fit the local police not doing its job in the story of those violence... maybe there is a rational justification using facts unknown to me; like the central government only employing unstable violent people for their police forces, who have been rejected by local ones?)
Unless you consider the "work" of police is to beat the local population especially when they have their hands up.
I completely understand the narrative you gave for what happened before all that shit and agree with its factual aspects, but it does not magically provides quotes for clearly documented behaviors. People justifying violence by politics are, IMO, the most dangerous. It is inadmissible to sound like a local police force ignoring court order justify central police violence against a population.
So they decided they would fly forward. Most of them, like Mas and Puigdemont were friends or partners of Puyol, who actually manage to steal hundreds of millions of euros, probably thousands, they are going to jail anyway. They have nothing to lose and lots to win.
Puyol stole for 40 years without nobody in central Government doing anything, you could not do business there without paying to his family. He actually hired people from the Spanish secret services and got a lot of information back so central Government was scared of doing anything against him.
The plan was doing all this and after 48 hours unilaterally declare independence, because of the "Oppressive state".
For the independentists it is "now or never". Certainly is not easy to have someone as weak as Rajoy as prime minister.
For me as an Spaniard who works in center Europe who last week was in Catalunya is obvious who is using violence. It is not the police. There are people trowing stones to police, they are insulting and spitting to them, they are doing scratches to them.
Poor central government, at least they are lucky that NOBODY in that party has been stealing and being corrupt, isn't?
And yes, PuJol (Puyol is the football player) is a thief and one of the most corrupts politicians in Spain, buy he is not very different from a lot of others politicians of PP and PSOE
Has Pujol stolen? Yes. Have PP and PSOE (Spanish centralist groups) stolen? Yes.
Are lots of catalan tired of being insulted, being told they are not important, being told they are insolidary, being told they speak a language too many? Yes.
This movement is not in favour of local thieves, it's not against Spain, it's against some attitudes by fascists, that unfortunately are in power.
If they don't stop the referendum, positive results will be used to further the independence movement. If they do try to stop it, the videos we're watching will be used to further the independence movement.
Both the lose-lose paths - and the government’s current actions - seem to presume independence would win that mandate in a fair vote. This was never presumed until the government started acting like it was.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
So has the Spanish state moved to the third phase and enabled the fourth?
The government is in a hard position though, if it doesn't use force it loses. If it does it still might lose or even start a war, but at least there is a chance to stay in power.
What Spain should have said is "ok Catalonia, have your little vote, it doesn't mean anything." And then just ignored the whole mess.
Instead they sent in the brute squad and now you images of innocent people getting beat up in the street by Spanish thugs.
Yet the Catalan government moves forward (because that's how they got elected in the first place perhaps ?) and Spain is using violence to stop them (also illegal, but no way the courts are going to do anything about it, those officers do not have the right to operate there).
The Catalan government is not stupid: they know most of the voting will be stopped. They declared that whatever votes they can gather, if 51% vote for independence, they will declare independence, illegal or not, however many votes they can gather and once declared they will presumably move their own police force directly against the Spanish force (that Catalan police force far outnumbers the Spanish police).
That the voting is obstructed seems to virtually guarantee that 51% condition will be satisfied, whereas it would be a tossup at best if there was a fair election. It seems the Catalan government was gambling that Spain wouldn't take the risk, and they were right. Tomorrow Spain is the enemy, and Catalunya will be united under the separatist government.
Sounds like it's a pretty good bet that more violence is coming.
Europe has a huge problem. Europe's economy has been stagnant for the past 10+ years in the vast majority of Europe. There are only a few exceptions to that. Germany, the Netherlands, ... and Catalunya. Spain does not satisfy either the debt conditions or GDP conditions of joining the EU, and Catalunya does. But that's a trivial legal problem: when European politicians had to make the choice between more control and more people and their treaties (supposedly the constitution of Europe. heh), they chose for more control every single time. So Spain will be forgiven, and everybody will squint until Spain is allowed to stay. But Spain will obviously object to Catalunya staying in the EU. And if Catalunya separates, or even tries to and manages to make Spain look bad enough, many bridges might break. Belgium, the Flemish region versus Wallonia (in that one, Europe might lose it's capital). Scotland who might want to shortcut Brexit. Meanwhile, this will strengthen separatist movements in other countries (Italy, France, ... and those mostly want to leave Europe).
Therefore a LOT of things could break very badly if Catalunya separates and Europe is vehemently against, but they can't come out and state as much. The only government even a little bit willing to come out and show some support is the Belgian NVA, which is sort-of a separatist movement itself. The big question is what they'll do next.
http://estaticos.elperiodico.com/resources/jpg/6/0/150607588...
https://s5.eestatic.com/2017/09/21/espana/Espana_248487335_4...
The point of violent suppression of this referendum is optics. Those that fear and despise self-determination don't want to see a referendum result supporting succession.
Even if the referendum is meaningless, that result will be used as justification for later actions. The EU may not endorse an independent Catalan today, but it is more likely to do so if there is a clear message that Catalan wants it.
Catalonia was a economical power but not anymore, all Spaniards are sustaining that region using the FLA (Fondo de Liquidez Autonómica or Autonomous Liquidity Fund).
Also, Manchester doesn't have its own language which the central government tried to suppress.
In what way?
(Let's ignore for now the fact Manchester did have a semi-serious independence movement during the Scotland referendum, and no police were necessary.)
This whole situation is senseless from both sides but it is obvious who is the side willing to use violence.