Catalonia

[pongo]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

France doesn't like it because it will encourage Bretons, Normans, and those from the Cerdagne ( French Catalonia) to seek autonomy.

There is negligible support for a specifically Catalan separatism/autonomy in France. Journalists looking for a story will obviously find pockets of exception, but the Mediterranean south west of France has so many competing, overlapping and simultaneous ancient and modern regional identities. Cultural but seldom political - and celebrated as such. It's as fringe as, say, a Cornish political identity. Most people think it a bit daft the road signs being in two languages* (like here). The real issues are economic and who can hold back the advance of FN.

* Occitan ≈ Catalan

[John Wright]

On 06/10/2017 at 9:52 AM, woody2 said:

cough......

There isn't one word of truth in that analysis btw

[woody2]

30 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There isn't one word of truth in that analysis btw

and what you call fake bbc report.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41474674

[Barrie Stevens]

 

Spain is still a little constitutionally fragile and really rather new in its present form. Its democracy and restored monarchy relatively recent. The old days of unleashing military force against the populace are well within living memory

The putting down of dissent using troops and civil guard etc was more or less normal for decades so it is no surprise that the militaristic tendency lies smouldering ready to flare up.

After the civil war military dictator General Franco ran the country from 1939-1975. That is only 42 years ago. People were scared of him and his forces. In 1981 200 soldiers and civil guard invaded the Cortes the lower house of the Spanish parliament and took 350 “MPs” hostage. This coup failed but showed that the genie was still out of the bottle. That was only 36 years ago.

You can see Youtube footage of some Colonel firing his pistol in the chamber of the Cortes. Get that in the House of Commons! Maybe?

The monarchy was restored under strict terms and conditions in 1975 and that is only 42 years ago.

The old ways are still rattling around in there somewhere and Catalonia has sparked it off. Franco held Spain together by force. Forget Human Rights. Franco of Spain, Dr Salazar of Portugal, Hitler of Germany, Mussolini of Italy and Tito of Jugoslavia were all birds of a feather. The Nazi legacy even in modern Germany has recently reappeared.

Certainly for as long as I can remember Spain under General Franco epitomised the use of force against dissent and also imposed a strict brutal policing.

The drunken British tourists now seen spewing in the streets and falling off balconies would have had a rough time of it when Franco was in charge. Zero tolerance and the inside of a Spanish cell along with a good beating kept order.

Over all, the Catalonian business is Spain as I recall it. ‘Twas ever thus! And if it was necessary back then it might well be necessary again today to hold the country together.

 

[John Wright]

57 minutes ago, woody2 said:

taken from the union run lefty bbc......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29478415

Ah, this. BUT it doesn't say what you suggest, at all.

What it says, simply, is that Catalonia contributed and still contributes €10billion a year in current account receipts than it receives back.

What it then goes on to say is that post 2008 Catalonia ( and other Spanish regions )could not borrow capital funds internationally for capital projects. Not because Catalonia was a bad risk, but because many of the other communities and provinces such as Rioja or extra Madura, were bankrupt.

So Spain borrowed and then loaned on. That's the fund. It isn't a current account subsidy. Catalonia has to pay it back, just like it would have had to do if it had borrowed internationally.

It would still have borrowed the €60 billion for the huge infrastructure projects, just a different lender. Do the sums. 10 years at €10 billion is €100 billion more to Madrid than received back.

10 years of the fund as you describe it is €60 billion.

Even if you are correct the sums are €40 billion in favour of Catalonia.

But you aren't right. One is income, current account and the other capital account.

Yes, Catalonia has borrowed more, it has invested that money. Madrid can't loan those funds to many regions because they can never pay back. Catalonia can.

So Madrid takes Catalan taxes and gives them to the poorer regions. As a result Catalonia is forced to borrow.

[woolley]

5 hours ago, P.K. said:

But the rule of law is essential to any democracy.

Only the National Government can amend the constitution.

Sure times change and the constitution may not suit Catalan and the Basque Region but it suits everyone else.

My thinking is the mistake was giving them too much autonomy....

For the wettest of liberals, PK, you do seem to have more than a smattering of Stalinist tendencies. "Giving them too much autonomy."

It isn't so much the "giving" as the realpolitik of what was achievable and acceptable to all factions in what was a fluid situation. They weren't starting with a blank piece of paper. Centuries of history and forty years of dictatorship were involved and the post-Franco settlement is an attempt at a very sensitive balancing act.

They've held the line for forty years. I love Spain and enjoy spending time there but there are Spaniards I know who still subscribe to the view that in extremis the whole country can only be held together by the threat of force. Talk about constitutions and the rule of law all you like but if it is not by popular consent or there is perceived unfairness, the running sore will not heal, a tipping point will be reached and regimes overthrown, even those that you thought were for ever.

[P.K.]

49 minutes ago, woolley said:

For the wettest of liberals, PK, you do seem to have more than a smattering of Stalinist tendencies. "Giving them too much autonomy."

Cheeky!

I understand how the rule of law underpins democracies.

Which is why I have nothing but contempt for Puigdemont and his chancers for taking the route they have with it's inevitable results...

[maynragh]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

I understand how the rule of law underpins democracies.

 

You understand it, and yet you cannot explain it? 
 

You like a historical quote don't you... "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Einstein. 

 

I asked you why the rule of law was above the principle of democracy in your view, and you have not responded. John has also now made the same point - that absolute faith in the law is essentially analogous to absolute faith in those who create it - be they dictators or elected representatives, which in either case places their opinion over the notion of self determination. You are by implication saying that they are better placed to determine and maintain law than the majority in any group it effects. You believe in a distinct political class, and so therefore also in a lower class (everyone else) to be ruled over. The autonomy comment shows the same thought process.  

[P.K.]

I've already told you that, because of their content, I can't take anything you post seriously.

So my best advice to you is to stop wasting your bandwidth.

Adios (again) maynragh....

[P.K.]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

It was illegal because of oppressive inflexible provisions in a constitution that is increasingly unfit for purpose.

PK, think carefully what you suggest. Why was it necessary to send in troops and guards to crush a peaceful demonstration of freedom of speech? It wasn't illegality that Rajoy was frightened of. If it was illegal the result meant nothing legally. Rajoy is frightened of ideas, words, aspirations, nothing more or less.

I'll mull it over for a day or two.

But my first call is that it had nothing to do with freedom of speech. Because Puigdemont et al took it as a mandate for acting illegally regardless of the low turnout which was almost certainly because anyone who votes in an illegal referendum is complicit.

Maybe you should think about that.....

[maynragh]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

I've already told you that, because of their content, I can't take anything you post seriously.

So my best advice to you is to stop wasting your bandwidth.

Adios (again) maynragh....

You can't explain a very simple statement that you (not I) made? Or you don't understand a simple question? Or you don't like the implications of how you (not I) will answer it? 

[Chinahand]

Who the demos actually is, is one of the most complex issues in democracy.

Who are the governed and do they consent to be governed.

We've circled this issue multiple times in this thread - can North Berwick vote to leave England and if it does must England just accept this?  The multitude who might aspire to self-determination is very very large and simply saying if any group draws a line around itself and votes to be sovereign then it must be accepted is a recipe for chaos.

International law simply does not provide arbitrary groups this right - as the Economist put it recently:

International law recognises the right to self determination only in cases of colonialism, foreign invasion or gross discrimination and abuse of human rights.

This DOESN'T mean that sovereignty can only change over the barrel of a gun - what it means is that the sovereign entity relinquishing the sovereignty it previously exercised has to consent to the process - the Scottish referendum is a good example of this - a process was agreed, if the Scottish Nationalists had won Scotland would have been able to (re)-gain its sovereign status.  It doesn't mean the rest of the UK has to vote upon it - but there was a consensus and parliament had agreed a process whereby Scotland could could vote.

Nothing like this has happened in Spain.  In fact quite the opposite - rather than understanding the legal, constitutional and historical position of Catalonia within a recognised sovereign nation and the need for a consensual process the Catalan Nationalists have sought confrontation.

I'm not that surprised by that - it is politics through and through - a deliberate plan to fire up its base.

Time and time again the Catalan government has exceeded its powers and acted ultra vares in defiance of not only Spain's political process, but also its legal traditions -ignoring rulings of the Supreme Court.

The Catalan Nationalists sought to ignore Spanish and international law and rather than seeking a consensual way forward deliberately and consciously sought to subvert the Spanish state.

It sets a terrible precedent and creates a confrontation where sovereignty does become something violently snatched without the agreement of the sovereign holder.

The consent of the governed is a massively complex problem - a pirate radio broadcaster can't simply declare independence (Sealand) because he doesn't like OFCOM, or a town UDI because it doesn't like austerity - Passport to Pimlico. 

But I think most people do recognise that at some point a mass of people can acquire sovereignty.

Catalonia may qualify for that - and if so they should enter into a consensual process with Spain to gain it.  But they can't just demand it.

Personally, I think nationalism too often is dangerous and hence I'm very cautious about giving separatists unjustified legitimacy.

The Catalonian Nationalists have played a canny game - most likely without majority support within Catalonia they've united their base and seized the advantage.

That in my mind is dangerous - the situation could very very easily turn violent.

I simply don't believe this is the only option the Catalans had - they've acted illegally, attempted to usurp sovereignty they do not legitimately have and enforce their view by having a vote only their supporters would take part in. 

That's no way to pass sovereignty from one entity to another, it a recipe for violence and division.

I agree the Spanish government are making things worse, but the idea Catalonia is some repressed region giving it some legitimacy to secede is not justifiable.  Negotiation is the only legitimate way forward, not UDI based on a flawed ballot.

[llap]

I think, whatever one's views, it is completely unnecessary and counterproductive to send the Gestapo in to beat up old ladies and drag women by the hair. Utterly contemptible and the EU's silence and refusal to engage with the internal politics of Spain despite routinely interfering in internal British politics is deafening and a good reason I'm glad we're leaving. They have no interest in democracy or freedom of speech, assembly, or expression.

[maynragh]

7 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Who the demos actually is, is one of the most complex issues in democracy.

Who are the governed and do they consent to be governed.

We've circled this issue multiple times in this thread - can North Berwick vote to leave England and if it does must England just accept this?  The multitude who might aspire to self-determination is very very large and simply saying if any group draws a line around itself and votes to be sovereign then it must be accepted is a recipe for chaos.

International law simply does not provide arbitrary groups this right - as the Economist put it recently:

International law recognises the right to self determination only in cases of colonialism, foreign invasion or gross discrimination and abuse of human rights.

This DOESN'T mean that sovereignty can only change over the barrel of a gun - what it means is that the sovereign entity relinquishing the sovereignty it previously exercised has to consent to the process - the Scottish referendum is a good example of this - a process was agreed, if the Scottish Nationalists had won Scotland would have been able to (re)-gain its sovereign status.  It doesn't mean the rest of the UK has to vote upon it - but there was a consensus and parliament had agreed a process whereby Scotland could could vote.

Nothing like this has happened in Spain.  In fact quite the opposite - rather than understanding the legal, constitutional and historical position of Catalonia within a recognised sovereign nation and the need for a consensual process the Catalan Nationalists have sought confrontation.

I'm not that surprised by that - it is politics through and through - a deliberate plan to fire up its base.

Time and time again the Catalan government has exceeded its powers and acted ultra vares in defiance of not only Spain's political process, but also its legal traditions -ignoring rulings of the Supreme Court.

The Catalan Nationalists sought to ignore Spanish and international law and rather than seeking a consensual way forward deliberately and consciously sought to subvert the Spanish state.

It sets a terrible precedent and creates a confrontation where sovereignty does become something violently snatched without the agreement of the sovereign holder.

The consent of the governed is a massively complex problem - a pirate radio broadcaster can't simply declare independence (Sealand) because he doesn't like OFCOM, or a town UDI because it doesn't like austerity - Passport to Pimlico. 

But I think most people do recognise that at some point a mass of people can acquire sovereignty.

Catalonia may qualify for that - and if so they should enter into a consensual process with Spain to gain it.  But they can't just demand it.

Personally, I think nationalism too often is dangerous and hence I'm very cautious about giving separatists unjustified legitimacy.

The Catalonian Nationalists have played a canny game - most likely without majority support within Catalonia they've united their base and seized the advantage.

That in my mind is dangerous - the situation could very very easily turn violent.

I simply don't believe this is the only option the Catalans had - they've acted illegally, attempted to usurp sovereignty they do not legitimately have and enforce their view by having a vote only their supporters would take part in. 

That's no way to pass sovereignty from one entity to another, it a recipe for violence and division.

I agree the Spanish government are making things worse, but the idea Catalonia is some repressed region giving it some legitimacy to secede is not justifiable.  Negotiation is the only legitimate way forward, not UDI based on a flawed ballot.

I am surprised that you have not considered the basis for your philosophical position.

1. An unchecked right to self determination would result in ‘chaos’. Is there any evidence for this? Taking the idea to it's extreme philosophical conclusion, hypothetically speaking you could end up in a world with no nation states at all. Why is that a bad thing for the human species?

2). Another statement that Catalans had other viable options to achieve self determination. What were they?

[woody2]

14 hours ago, John Wright said:

 

Ah, this. BUT it doesn't say what you suggest, at all.

 

yes it does-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41474674

Quote

Perhaps of greater concern is Catalonia's public debt.

The Catalan government owes €77bn (£68bn) at the last count, or 35.4% of Catalonia's GDP. Of that, €52bn is owed to the Spanish government.

In 2012, the Spanish government set up a special fund to provide cash to the regions, who were unable to borrow money on the international markets after the financial crisis. Catalonia has been by far the biggest beneficiary of this scheme, taking €67bn since it began.

we only have that in 2014 they paid €10bn extra but from 2012 they have taken an extra €67bn- divide by 4 or 5 years it doesn't matter they are taking more from the state than they put in...

the loans are separate and stand at €52bn