> the government was using violent means to ensure the rule of law

Beating up people for trying to put a piece of paper into a box is not "the rule of law".

The rule of law would have been to let people put pieces of paper into boxes, then go out the next day and arrest the organizers of the referendum.

The rule of law would have been letting people put pieces of paper in boxes, then laughing when they vote no anyway. From what I've seen, they would probably have voted against independence if Spain hadn't tried to stop the referendum.

Had they voted for independence anyway, the Spanish government could then refuse to recognize it because it was unconstitutional.

I think it's actually a tougher call than you suggest, allowing the referendum to resolve could easily foment more unrest and a greater more violent outcome.

I would not have ordered such action, FWIW.

> I think it's actually a tougher call than you suggest

No. "Police should only beat people as a last resort to keep them from causing direct, immediate bodily harm to others" is not a tough call at all.

Even if having police present was a good idea (it wasn't), they should have had the strictest orders to, you know, not hit people with sticks.

> allowing the referendum to resolve could easily foment more unrest and a greater more violent outcome

You are arguing for punishing people, by causing them physical harm, without court orders, for things others might possibly do in the future. You are arguing for the exact opposite of the rule of law.

OK, AIUI the law in Spain means that only central gov can order a referendum. The vote was declared illegal and those party to it were thus breaking the law, conspiring to harm the constitutional standing of the country.

If you were voting, supporting voters, etc., you were breaking the law, refusal to stop is contravening the law and the police should then act accordingly, using force if people refuse to stop supporting the vote.

Imagine it was an illegal march of white supremacists in USA, or National Front in UK.

It devolves into violence when people choose to ignored the rule of law and give no other option to maintain the law than to apply violence.

Unless the separatists want to negotiate then violence is literally the only recourse that Spain has to defend its constitution. Perhaps it shouldn't, but anything else is just letting an undemocratic action force an unwanted change.

> OK, AIUI the law in Spain means that only central gov can order a referendum. The vote was declared illegal and those party to it were thus breaking the law, conspiring to harm the constitutional standing of the country.

My understanding is the same. Which is why I wrote above that they should have gone out and actually arrested the separatist leaders who organized all this. This could have played out in the courts (up to the Court of Justice of the European Union, I would guess).

But sending a few thousand (or tens of thousands?) police against millions of voters was not about this. Whatever they thought they were trying to do, it was not possible with these numbers. And as far as I can tell, they did not try to arrest people. They did not try to get people's personal data to get them before of a court at some other point. They did not show up in time to simply barricade the doors of polling stations. In short, they were not enforcing or upholding the law in any meaningful sense.

No, he's just saying that parent's excuse that "no" voters didn't show up because of fear of violence is invalid, because the only perpetrators of violence were Spanish police (i.e. the pro-"no" force), so if anything "yes" voters were discouraged.

The people who thought the referendum was illegal and didn't matter, didn't show up. In part because of fears of violence from police (shall we say) "enthusiastically" enforcing the law.

The people who wanted the referendum to go through were motivated to show up despite the violence. Because they believed in their cause.

So no, the "yes" voters were likely not discouraged from showing up. Or, the "soft" yes votes were discouraged.

Democratic will is the will of voters, by not voting you choose to let others decide for you.

You can’t reward people for not voting, that’s just utterly insane.

In the minds of the Spanish people of Catalonia the referendum was completely illegitimate, why would they vote in it?

Because it was run by the democratically elected legitimate government of Catalonia. Because it had immense popular support.

So it had immense popular support but most people didn’t participate? Maybe they didn’t realise how immense the support was...

My mistake, I thought demos was the people not the "voters". /s

Not voting in an illegal ballot seems reasonable. The rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy as too are free and fair elections.

And self-determination is the cornerstone of international rights, up there in Article I of the Charter of the UN.

For me, 70 out of 135 elected representatives is a more democratic mandate than the referendum. Not a fan of referendums.

Cornerstone? Isn't recognition of nation states the cornerstone?

Art 1.2 talks of maintaining peace amongst the nation's through respect for "equal rights and self-determination of peoples". To me that puts self-determination below democratic process, reversing them would not respect equal rights.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.htm...

What you can't do is to reward people voting on a poll that the majority does not want to vote in.

Why not? If the majority doesn't want to make their opinion known, that's fine, but I don't see how they can blame others for continuing on despite their silence.

Because then every minority can vote whatever they want. A few of your neighbours can vote to kick your family out of your house. A few rival supporters can vote to kick your team out of your favourite league. Some students can vote to kick your kids out of college because they do not like them. If we let anyone to invent polls and votes that affect the majority of people then nonsense happens.

> Because then every minority can vote whatever they want.

I don't see why that would be a problem. In fact, we already do that all the time. Look at the voting turnout for a large number of elections. Are you seriously suggesting that >50% of voters have to vote on something (that they may or may not be properly informed about) to make it legitimate?

I generally don't vote on my local school and education laws, because I don't have kids, and don't follow that system enough to be properly informed. My city has a low percentage of parents, so I'm assuming that a lot of other people don't either. If the choice is between everyone voting on stuff that they don't understand, or only those who care enough vote, I'll take the later every time.