Yeah, economically it would be likely a disaster without quick integration into the EU on a higher level. That's another topic, why can't the EU sort them out?

Or why can't they rejoin with Spain after trying and failing? I don't think that people would deal with a failure like that, they'd vote to rejoin, and the bond would be stronger afterwards.

I think their movement wouldn't have gotten that much steam with a legal possibility to secede though.

I'm interested in the mass psychology behind it, why Spain and their politicians think that it's a good idea to point out that the constitution of Spain and their unitarian aspects are untouchable.

> I'm interested in the mass psychology behind it, why Spain and their politicians think that it's a good idea to point out that the constitution of Spain and their unitarian aspects are untouchable.

I can give you my point of view as a Spanish person. I am not part of the goverment by any means. Just a normal citizen living in the middle of the country.

The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

The goverment of Spain has a responsability to protect all citizens. Independece creates problems for all those people. It also costs the country millions of euros that have been invested in the region. It will have an impact on people across the country if the economy slows down, not only there. Therefore it is a decision that needs to be taken by the whole country, not only people in that region. Suggesting anything else is ludicrous.

Spain is a country, catalonya doesn't have the power to raise its middle finger to everyone else in the country whenever they please just like any other region in the country. We are one, period.

I understand that but I think that the economic objection doesn't carry much weight: I guess that Catalonya paid its own share of the infrastructure of the other regions of Spain. Same thing with Brexit: the EU benefited from having the UK in the Union (money and not only that) and viceversa. Then the UK voted to go and they go (well, maybe, the way they're handling it is so weird.)

I think it ends up to what people living in a part of a country / union want to do, if they want to be one or not. My impression from far away was that the last time they had a kind of vote in Catalonya it was like about half of the people living there wanted to secede and half didn't. Probably not enough given the circumstances but I'd like to live in a place with clear procedures for secessions. I'm not (most of us don't) even if the EU has them for its member countries.

Sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges. The EU is not a country, it is a club of countries. The EU doesn't and never will have the power to choose whether a member state can leave or not. That's how it is. So it is wrong to compare a region of a country seceding than comparing a country leaving the EU. Which is more similar to a country leaving NATO for example.

You don't need to go that far back before you could have replaced EU with USA and the statement would have sounded equally plausible. Then it stopped being plausible. The EU is more tightly integrated in many ways than the US was during the period of the Articles of Confederation.

> The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

That is not true. Most of the investment in trains, port, highways in Catalonia started as private investment, mostly because it was one of the first places where they were being built (roads and train are the best examples).

And in the more recent years, and considering public investment, Catalonia is clearly under invested (specially Rodalies, according to most news and friends in the area). The budget for transportation is lower than the GDP and population in average, and most years less than half the budget is executed [1][2]

In terms of airports, 1/2 of the revenue of the airports in Spain come from Barcelona's airport [3].

The more I look at the numbers, the more clear it is that Spain's interest in Catalonia is $$$.

[1] https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2018/10/02/companias/... [2] https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20190120/454182028060/... [3] https://www.elperiodico.com/es/economia/20150327/el-prat-aen...

Are you kidding me? The connection between madrid and barcelona came after madrid and sevilla (very logical in an economical sense). The highways are payed by us (by tolls) thanks to president Pujol and his friends (irony). Only tolls in rich regions. Our trains (renfe) lack a total need of investment for years. Catalunya gives more money to the rest of Spain than it receives, because it’s one of the economic motors of Spain. We are self sufficient.

Yes I see the problem as you point out, we pay too many things, Spain cannot afford losing us. That’s the only reason you want to keep us, economic matters. At least talk about other reasons to keep us united, not just money. It’s not just about money! It’s culture, it’s many years of oppresion, of not letting a nation decide it’s laws... like the ‘estatut’. it’s not reconizing dictatorships that have hurt so much Catalan culture... a lot of people don’t feel any attachment to Spain, we do not share the government attitude, culture, language... Spain has to learn it’s a multicultural country, Spanish is not the only language...

Also, what do you plan to do with the half of catalans who don't support independence? Oppress them perhaps? Neglect their culture and language? It's turtles all the way down

How does Spain oppress people who speak another language exactly? I thought it was totally legal to speak catalan everywhere in catalunya including schools. Am I missing something?

> , Spain cannot afford losing us

Spain can afford it

By the way, all the part about dictatorship, oppression and the rest is false.

> The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

It's not like it was paid only by people from outside Catalonia. In fact, the catalan people, pay taxes as well, and that money was used to fund developments outside Catalonia too. And this not only happens at a country level, there are for example funds from the European Union like the ERDF. Does that mean that Scotland should never leave the UK (and therefore the EU) because their roads -for example- have been paid by the european people for many, many years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Regional_Development_...

No, that's just one of the reasons. Again EU and Scotland aren't a country. I don't know why people just keep comparing different things like they are the same?

Do you want to propose a solution to people who live in catalunya and don't want independence? A referendum is a stupid idea frankly, it divides sociaties between those who want to leave and those who want to say.

People in catalunya only want independence because they are richer. What happened to solidarity?

They just want to kick Spanish people out (by the way they are spanish too in spite of all their bullshit), becuase they see them as the Nazis saw the Jews.

Let's call things by what they are. We aren't going to stand by and abandon half if catalan people who don't want to lose their rights to live and work in Spain.

You can do that in other countries if you want.

To the EU this is an internal matter, plus, most of the countries of the EU have regions with similar intentions (of secession), it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus new state members of the EU have to be approved by every current member IIRC.

The EU is absolutely happy to interfere with internal matters when it suits them, to a huge degree. Look at how they have been treating Poland and its reforms of its court system. Or look at how the EU is trade sanctioning Switzerland due to a dispute over Swiss internal working regulations.

The Commission is all about "European values" and how they're going to impose penalties when a country is doing something unaligned with their own agenda. But their agenda is to destroy all European nations and merge them all into one super-nation controlled by itself. As part of that they desperately want people to feel patriotism and nationalism towards their new nation called Europe, not existing countries. See how disrespecting the EU flag is now illegal in some countries.

From their perspective Catalonian independence = more countries = harder to unite Europe. Therefore it's fine to crush the resistance. "European values" have mysteriously gone missing.

I would've thought more countries = easier to unite Europe. Each country has more of an incentive to be united and less of an ability to separated if there's many small independent countries.

Someone wants to have a European Civil Code, and they say "but I already know the rules to trade with 30 million people". When you cut up the countries, they say "but if I want to trade with someone an hour's drive away, the rules are different - it's better to unify".

There's more boundaries where rules change, so there's more motivation to smoothe them out.

There's less power for each individual government, because their voice is 1 in 60 instead of 1 in 28. You'll quickly come to an understanding that the rules of European decision making have to be standard federal rules, rather than some compromise between federal and international rules.

The motivation for European integrationists is absolutely and solely for Catalonia and other places to become direct members of Europe.

I think nationalism and its more “accepting form” patriotism so far, in history, had a net negative impact. I am reffering at relations between states.

I also think that we have a wide range of problems which cannot be solved at national level.

So why it is bad if EU wants to have less of that?

One of the initial premises of EU was to facilitate cooperation between states which were at war for lenghty periods of time. And by facilitating collaboration the making them feel more “together”.

This is complicated, but let's say that the EU's arguments are all basically arguments for empires and they are happy to say so. Look at the recent speech by Verhofstadt where he praised empires and said Europe must become one. But that's nonsense. Literally all the bloodshed and horrors Europe went through in the 20th century were caused by attempts to unite it into a single empire. The bizarre lesson some people see in this is to keep trying.

Also, don't for one second think the EU is against nationalism or patriotism. They desperately chase both. Why do you think the EU has a national anthem? Why do it's supporters say things like, "we Europeans". The entire EU project is a project to craft a new form of loyalty to the state and a self-sense of tribal belonging. Those who don't think this new nation, with its so called "European values", is better than their current nations ... well, they're treated with contempt.

Finally, there are no problems to which the solution is empires. The world has more countries than ever, yet is also richer and healthier than ever. This correlation and trend can easily continue for long time.

You say:

> Literally all the bloodshed and horrors Europe went through in the 20th century were caused by attempts to unite it into a single empire. The bizarre lesson some people see in this is to keep trying

Here is a response to this from [0]:

> Within the zone of integration, there has been no conflict since 1945, making it the longest period of peace on the western European mainland since Pax Romana

So from this there are two possible conclusions:

1) Either empires are good for peace

Or

2) EU is not an empire and it is not trying to be

Regarding:

> Finally, there are no problems to which the solution is empires

First: there are problems which cannot be solved by each state. See global warming for example

Second: The collaboration between countries is not mandatory to be an empire as form.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Europaea

Edit: formatting and adding quote author

I understand this argument but find it brittle.

Firstly, yes, empires can be good for peace in some ways. The Roman Empire had Pax Romana. But the Soviet Union was also internally fairly peaceful, at least as much if not much more than the Roman Empire. Oddly enough, lots of people didn't want to be a part of either empire. There are downsides to empires that outweigh enforced "peace".

Secondly:

EU is not an empire and it is not trying to be

I think you missed a possibility: the EU is not an empire yet but is trying to be, and this is already causing various kinds of conflict. The fact that it's not creating World War 3 is no excuse: the Soviets didn't cause World War 3 either but not many people think the USSR was a good thing.

For an empire to dominate people it must have at least two things. One, a large number of people physically within that population who are loyal to the regime. Two, military strength to swiftly put down any rebellions and ensure the loyalists remain in power.

The EU has the first in abundance, as the horrible situation in the UK is showing. People were given a vote. The British establishment are refusing to implement it, as they're more loyal to the EU than to their own voters. This is no surprise because the same pattern is observed throughout Europe, where the EU creates a constant series of constitutional crises. Democracy is being crushed throughout the continent without a shot being fired due to the massive weight of regime loyalists already in positions of power.

The EU doesn't yet have the second. But it wants it very, very badly and has identified an EU army which reports directly to the Commission as its new top priority. Why does the EU need an army when NATO exists and works? Nobody can quite explain that. But let's face it: people keep voting in anti-EU politicians throughout Europe and if current trends continue, eventually one of these power struggles will be lost by the loyalists. The only way the EU could then keep control is by suppressing anti-EU citizens through force. If the local police won't do it, an EU army will be ready to step in and enforce Commission policy. It's hardly going to be useful for major conflict anytime soon given its size and newness, but as a form of ultra-loyal police it won't be half bad.

I'm personally planning based on the belief that the EU will be a new USSR-style empire before I reach retirement, complete with ability to put down insurrections, a large propaganda apparatus and ideological loyalty of at least 100 million people. I expect to die of old age with it firmly in control of most of Europe.

Finally:

Second: The collaboration between countries is not mandatory to be an empire as form.

I completely agree, so why are we building one? The useful work the EU does could be better done by a constellation of standards bodies and independent political alliances. The politics of unity and Europeanism that comes with it is unnecessary and dangerous.

>Or look at how the EU is trade sanctioning Switzerland due to a dispute over Swiss internal working regulations.

The Swiss aren't in the EU.

I know. That's my point. The EU very much much wants them to be and had imposed trade sanctions on its financial sector as part of applying pressure during a treaty "renegotiation".

> That's another topic, why can't the EU sort them out?

What do you think the EU should even do about this, based on which principles? To me this is entirely unclear.

There is no right to secede from a country, in fact, the territory is usually part of the identity of a country, also legally speaking.

100% people talk about the catalonya issue like they should just be able to break free without understanding the first thing about the issue. It just proves that people are so easy to manipulate with propaganda-like videos that catalonya pro-independence parties put online. I wonder what they would think if it was their countries that were trying to be broken.

I’m from Canada and we let the separatists have a referendum and tried to change their minds. The referendum failed. I don’t know anyone who took it personally or wanted to invade Quebec to make them stay or violently stop the vote.

Quite frankly I find it baffling that people care so much about violently forcing provinces they don’t even live in to stay in their country.

No-one is violently forcing provinces they don't even live in to stay in their country so I'm not sure what you are insinuating there.

People were disrupting public order and doing an illegal activity (referendum) with public money. Normal people couldn't get to work or go to the doctor because people were blocking roads.

That is what police is for basically, I am glad we have police to protect us.

Maybe your constitution is different than ours, I don't tell Canada how to rule itself. I find it baffling that people think they can tell other countries how to govern themselves from so far away!

> No-one is violently forcing provinces they don't even live in to stay in their country

What I saw in the news at the time was that the rest of Spain shipped in armed goons from outside Catalonia in to beat people up who were trying to vote in the independence referendum.

Did that not happen?

> There is no right to secede from a country

> legally speaking

I don't see how any of these things matter.

If there's no right, if there's no legal means, then wage war. Die trying.

I'm not suggesting I support either position, but pointing out that, ultimately, laws and opinions don't matter.

_Wage war. Die trying._

Yes. That's ultimately why the Cataluña thing is a paper tiger issue: Catalans are too rich and too soft to really break away.

I'm not saying they're not allowed to have grievances, nor that they don't have any legitimate ones, but these people live extremely comfortable lives in a highly (_highly_) autonomous part of a relaxed, modern, Western nation. The independence stuff is mostly posturing. There's a good saying in Spain about this these days, roughly translating to "Catalans don't want to secede; they want to be secessionists."

It's cosplay revolution, and the rest of Spain has a good case for losing its patience with it. They want to break away, but no, sorry, the rest of the country is not allowed to have a say in the matter? Some Catalans (a minority, everyone seems to forget!) want their own country, but they also want it to be handed to them voluntarily by their "oppressor" in Madrid? They want to commit crimes but they expect not to be sent to jail?

At this point I'd almost be grateful for a Catalan Lenin of some sort; at least then we'd know there's an adult in the room.

Constitution reform is the only way and yet lots of people keep pointing to other things, this is the reason we are stuck in this situation now. That road is long and requires actual politics, what they have done is taking a shortcut to nowhere.

Catalan are not majority of Spain. They cannot themselves change the constitution, yet they do not want to stay in Spain. So it's a fake "way." The majority should not be allowed to bully the minority.

So if I don't want to be part of the new Catalonia I can secede my home or join with a few neighbors to be independent from Catalonia? We have a constitution for something it's a not a Chinese vase to glance at it.

The argument of "I can secede from my home" is reductionist, simplistic and overall insulting to any group of people that want independence from the country they depend on or have fought for independence in the past.

Most countries today are independent even though it was illegal for them to become independent before they did. Poland or Estonia would still be part of the Russian empire. Austria and Hungary the same country, same with Czech Republic and Slovakia would still be Czechoslovakia. Malta and Cyprus would be part of the UK. And this is just a quick look to Europe of the 20th century.

We can go back and argue that the US couldn't/shouldn't be independent of the UK. And Cuba part of Spain. The question remains the same: why do people, outside of a territory, control the political status of this territory, going against international law?

"Article 1 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

What Spain is saying, and some Spanish people justifying, is that Catalonia doesn't have that right, and Catalans should never freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Then reinforce that lack of freedom with charges of sedition if you try and charges of terrorism if you protest.

We are talking about a region of Spain that in 1978 voted YES to approve the Spanish constitution. One of the wealthiest regions of an EU member. This is not an oppressed or punished population, the right of self determination does not apply to it when it's an autonomous region that is part of a functioning modern democracy. Even ex-UN chief Ban Ki-moon agreed on this:

https://www.thejournal.ie/catalan-independence-ban-ki-moon-2...

> We are talking about a region of Spain that in 1978 voted YES to approve the Spanish constitution.

More reductionist argument. Catalonia, and any other region in Spain voted between a constitution and a possible new dictatorship. Trying to imply that, since a group of people signed something 40 years ago, everybody in that region is rejecting their rights not explicitly expressed in that constitution is dishonest. And what is worst, the argument seems to be made that it will remain like this forever or until the majority of Spain decides. Again, the tyranny of the majority.

> the right of self determination does not apply to it when it's an autonomous region

The right of self determination is not yours (or Ban Ki-Moon) to give, it is for people to take.

> that is part of a functioning modern democracy

Clearly it doesn't function that well, or most [1] Catalans wouldn't be so eager to leave.

[1] http://icps.cat/recerca/sondeigs-i-dades/sondeigs/sondeigs-d...

Read that report you linked. According to it, most Catalans are not so eager to leave as you say (and I would not call it an impartial source). For example, in page 4 you can clearly see: 43.6% wants an independent Catalunya, but 48.2% wants to remain being a part of Spain.

Why is the tyranny of the majority wrong (this is what most people would call democracy) but you see no problem with the tyranny of a minority?

Most would vote Yes to independence. Most would rather have a different relationship with Spain and yes, a big chunk of people would have liked to remain in Spain with increased autonomy. Since this seems impossible and the direction Spain is taking is the opposite, with strong repression, people that were not pro independence would vote Yes in a referendum.

> Why is the tyranny of the majority wrong (this is what most people would call democracy) but you see no problem with the tyranny of a minority?

Tyranny of the majority is not what you think it is. It happens when a some minority is part of a larger group that limits their freedom because of its larger number. This minority is usually focused on a specific region, and one of the the tools used by the majority to restrict this freedom is centralization and uniformity.

A good example of this are the 32 laws the Catalan government tried to push that the Spanish government sent to the constitutional court to be banned [1]. As a reminder, members of the constitutional court are selected by the main Spanish parties.

[1] https://ca.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llista_de_recursos_o_sent%C3...

What Ban Ki-Moon is quoted as saying in that article just amounts to Catalonia not being on the UN's list of Non-Self-Governing Territories ( https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt ) That does not mean the right to self-determination does not apply, just that the UN doesn't literally consider Catalonia to be a Spanish colony.

And I forgot to link to the covenant the Article 1 comes from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Ci...

Signed by Spain in 1976, and that the Spanish constitution (10.2) accepts.

> why do people, outside of a territory, control the political status of this territory, going against international law?

Because they are not outside of, they are part of. The rest is a made up fantasy which a bunch of nationalists have used to rile people up, create a "common enemy" and a "them vs us" narrative and gain power for themselves.

This process is absolutely not new and has caused terrible harm throughout history, yet here we are in the 21st Century, seeing Trumps and Brexits and all this bullshit again because we don't fucking learn.

The democratic means for eventual independence are HARD and SLOW because they HAVE to be. You should need a lot more than a loud voice and a molotov cocktail in your hand to push more than half of your presumed co-citizens out of their country against their will.

> The democratic means for eventual independence are HARD and SLOW because they HAVE to be. You should need a lot more than a loud voice and a molotov cocktail in your hand to push more than half of your presumed co-citizens out of their country against their will.

It sounds like you're arguing that to democratically separate, using a referendum isn't sufficient. Instead, you have to have a molotov cocktail and something else - presumably heavier, more effective weapons?

What the rest of the world hears Spain saying is, Catalonia cannot separate and even asking the question and discussing the matter is a criminal offence. When people are locked up for making sure there's interest before they start negotiating, what's left isn't "the democratic means for eventual independence are hard and slow because they have to be". What's left is "there's no democratic means for eventual independence; if you want to separate, it's over my dead body". And that means war.

The democratic means to separate can only be a democratic majority vote in the territory concerned. Otherwise it is by definition not democratic. Likening Catalonia's actions to Trump and Brexit and presenting Spain as the side of the lessons of the 20th century is hilarious. Catalonia said "let's have a vote on it, oh look independence won [in a questionable referendum], let's have a discussion". Spain said "you can't have a vote on it, you can't discuss it, thanks for trying: now you'll spend a decade in prison". Spain and rSpain do not have to agree with independence to have respect in this - they just have to not lock people up for democratic expression.

Spain and the EU are losing a lot of respect in this process.

For it to be a democratic process, there must be a way for this to happen, and there must be a way for this to happen that sees Catalonia exiting even though everyone else in rSpain is unhappy about it. Yes, of course, that means Catalonia will be paying a price when exiting. Maybe they will lose some of their territory or continue to pay some taxes for a certain number of years. And that price might mean they decide not to leave at this time, democratically.

But if the price is too great, if rSpain says "we will unhappily allow you to leave but we will veto your EU membership application and close the borders", if the price is something that Catalonia could never pay, then the democratic process will still be stifled and Spain will continue to be taught the lessons of the 20th century because, as you say, the Spanish "don't fucking learn".

> What the rest of the world hears Spain saying is, Catalonia cannot separate and even asking the question and discussing the matter is a criminal offence

This is false, absurd, and most definitely not what the rest of the world is hearing. Please we're adults here.

> Because they are not outside of, they are part of. The rest is a made up fantasy which a bunch of nationalists have used to rile people up, create a "common enemy" and a "them vs us" narrative and gain power for themselves.

No, it's just because they can. They are strong enough to do it.

Pro independence movements are orthogonal to nationalism.

> This process is absolutely not new and has caused terrible harm throughout history, yet here we are in the 21st Century, seeing Trumps and Brexits and all this bullshit again because we don't fucking learn.

I am sure Norway is hating that they split from Sweeden.

> The democratic means for eventual independence are HARD and SLOW because they HAVE to be. You should need a lot more than a loud voice and a molotov cocktail in your hand to push more than half of your presumed co-citizens out of their country against their will.

That's exactly why pro-independence Catalan movement has been asking for a referendum.

But if Catalonia secedes, the majority (they're not, but for argument's sake) of independentist catalonians will be bullying the minority of non-independentist catalonians, right?

It's turtles all the way down.

> But if Catalonia secedes, the majority (they're not, but for argument's sake) of independentist catalonians

If Spain really wanted to quiet down the independence movement in Catalonia, they could actually introduce a democratic, non malapportioned voting system. Americans would be proud of the Spanish non-democratic electorates.

The Spanish have basically gone off and said "how can we make an on-paper proportional voting system repeatedly return majorities for the minority who we hate and who are destroying our country". The problem is, as always, that no politician would ever vote themself out of power, and so no-one in Spain will ever propose a democratic reapportionment.

That's disingenuous, Catalonia is comparable in size to other EU countries, has it's own language, and has long historic objection to being part of Spain. There are not many subgroups that can have similar claim.

I think his argument is pretty valid and on point. Half of Catalonia is basically dragging the other half through a conflict that will end up (if their wishes come to fruition) creating a new state that won't be a member of the EU with all the consequences all that carries, plus all the uncertainties of being a new state. All this while stepping over the current constitution that should protect the half does not want any of this to happen.

The real issue here is not about the identity of the Catalonian people, it's about money. The catalan politicians have instigated nationalism but real issue is money, as in "why we catalans should contribute this much to the other regions of Spain that don't produce as much?"

I don't understand your point. Nobody is the majority of Spain, but certainly most regions are far away of the power Catalans have in their hands, be it because of their population (gets you more seats in the central parliament) or because of the money they manage.

Every region has its own parliament and has representation in the central parliament. If you want something for your region you have to negotiate with others. And most regions have it way more difficult than Catalans to achieve whatever they want.

Catalan are not fighting 1v1 some other region, they are 1 v rest. Even if every other region is less politically powerful, their sum is more powerful, and their sum benefits from extracting economic output from Catalan. Catalan cannot reasonably get a constitutional change because the rest of the regions benefit from them being part of Spain. Again, it's a one vs rest ordeal.

Welcome to reality mate. You cannot get a constitutional change if you burned your political capital decades ago. FFS, even the Basques turned their back to catalan politicians.

If the Constitution is too hard to amend then that is as oppressive as any other method. Deliberately making political change too slow to accomplish is how you get revolutions, sooner or later.