It’s not that the abstainers wanted there to be no confidence, it’s that they said “I’m not voting unless it’s real. Do your homework and then I’ll vote.”
My local city hall can organize a referendum on whether Felipe VI should divorce Letizia and marry Her Most British Majesty, or on the price of pumpkin in Jamaica. They’re not any more binding than the two referendums in Catalonia.
Then they start with the first step, of working through the democratic and legal processes to have that legal obstacle removed.
Then they are permanently subject to the majority in other parts of the country who have no reason to grant such a concession. Thus armed conflicts arise.
Sent from my SM-N910U using Tapatalk
That’s where stuff such as “negotiating” and “finding partners” comes in handy. Mind you: it requires things such as offering to the other side stuff they may actually want, rather than merely taking their help for granted. See for example: any party that’s ever assumed they’d get help or votes from the Basque or the Navarrese, while forgetting that we are Basque and/or Navarrese (you can be one, both or neither).
This is a bit like telling a domestic-abuse victim, “The first thing to do is to get your abuser to agree to let you pack your belongings and leave the house.” There’s a good chance the abuser won’t exactly be amenable to such a request.
First off, there’s no abuse (at least no more than any other region receives just the same), so that’s terrible rhetoric to begin with.
A more fair comparison would be somebody wanting to leave the company they’re working in, break contract and set shop elsewhere… only they don’t have a plan on how to do any of that, and, if anything, they’re barely 50% convinced they should do that at all. In fact, they’re 50% siding on being staunchly loyal to their company.
Now, it’s true that the Constitutional reform required to do that legally is pretty damn hard. So I’m not saying that literal disobedience and rebellion and secession should be entirely off the table… but when you’re acting against the express wishes of more than half your population, and of the half supporting you a good percentage isn’t that willing to do the required sacrifices (and in fact you had to lie a lot about the actual problems with independence to have them follow you) then, I think that it’s fair to say that you should have set a stronger foundation before going half cocked.
Hell, imagine that they went and managed to, after a lot of sweat and tears, actually establish a Republic with their 50% of Parliamentary seats… and then elections are called… and this time the non-secessionists get 50’1% of seats… and want to rejoin Spain.
That indeed is an issue, and there should be a supermajority for secession or any matters of similar weight such as Brexit (of which there is plenty of confusion and regret as well). Which isn’t to say that that makes the votes illegitimate, it just increases the potential for confusion if you keep saying “now i’m in! now i’m out! in! out!” or conversely if there is a modest downswing in separatism but then they find that they can’t back out even if the firm majority turns against it.
The figure of this supermajority already exists. Laws affecting Catalan Autonomy laws need to be approved by 90 Parliament seats, which is to say, about two thirds of the chamber. There are also processes for minority parties to stall any law by having them going through the approval of a legal committee,
They were just summarily ignored in this case.
“I beat all my children equally. I don’t play favorites”. Frankly, beating or not, it isn’t up to anyone on the outside to determine whether their reasons for leaving are justifiable enough for doing so. Maybe they don’t like the colors on the flag or something equally inane. If they get the votes, then they should be allowed to leave. That they aren’t allowed to vote is a major issue here.
A self selected minority of a country is not entitled to dissolve a country.
Well, I’m in the inside, but in any case I don’t mind outside opinions, thank you very much.
And of course we are allowed to vote. In actual elections. elections that last time gave a small Parliamentary majority (not an actual electoral majority… small towns have got a lot more weight here) to the secessionist parties.
Now, let’s forget about the actual legal issue that according to Catalan law, let alone Spanish Constitutional Law, they weren’t allowed to vote for the referendum law without two thirds of parliament. Let’s forget about the ethical issue that you have a moral duty to have a strong majority on your side before you want to exert such a brutal change, lest you’re screwing half of your electorate. Even from a pragmatic viewpoint, you need that strong majority because a 50/50 split is too fickle to sustain anything of substance.
So we are fortunate enough to be living at the exact time in human history where people are ideally placed in the appropriate areas with appropriate governments such that these areas and governments should never be changed for all time?
I’m not sure how accurate that is. Brexit passed with what? 51%? Before that, the Scottish independence referendum failed, but presumably if a few more Scotsmen/women had voted for independence, they’d have proceeded with just 51% as well. Whoever decided it wasn’t pragmatic or moral forgot to inform the Brits.
Yes, and in both cases it was agreed by the majority of parties involved that the respective Parliaments would respect the results and not start a yearly Brexit/BrackIn, IndyRef/ReuniRef. So, while the ethical issue may still be argued, at least that took care of legal and pragmatic issues.
The equivalent here would be for the SNP to rebel and make a referendum by themselves, and then declare independence just like that. A lot of Scots, and the Uk Parliament, wouldn’t feel like they had to oblige.
Absolutely not. But, the cost of destabilizing nations ought to be sufficiently high to discourage the action if possible. If secessionist movements take hold so will chaos. Divide and conquer is an ancient strategy and even stable and strong democracies can be weakened by it.
Secondly, ideal is not the goal. What’s ideal to you or to me or to any other individual or group of individuals is likely to be different. How to resolve those differences? Endless balkanization and warfare?
So I think we agree that sometimes secession is appropriate, but we also agree that as Jefferson said, it should not be done for light and transient causes.
I would also add that even at times when appropriate, a majority will never agree to secession. Let’s say that the United States had a 51st state called Cashcropia that provided the overwhelming majority of food to the country, and the United States enacting unfair legislation to take advantage. As a free nation, Cashcropia would be a thriving country without the other 50 states pulling it down. The United States would never agree to Cashcropian independence, even though the rest of the world would likely think it fair and the residents of Cashcropia would certainly approve.
I’m not suggesting that is the case with Spain and Catalonia, but if it was, the positions of the parties would be the same, and demanding Spanish permission would be for naught.
I agree that there should be some sort of neutral system to base secession on, but the position should not be NEVER! I mean, we seceded from the UK. If anything, insisting that secession never happens will only increase violence and allow only the “might makes right” states able to secede. It might possibly self select for only the “bad” states to secede.
I think a large portion of whether or not one can secede is actually might. Let’s say you have 10 regions, each with a different level of wealth and productivity. Once #1 secedes #2 becomes the new #1 and might want to do the same thing. Furthermore, #1 has cities or other regions that are wealthier than other parts. Why wouldn’t #1 now be susceptible to the same forces of fracturing?
Imagine if rich taxpayers took the same concept. The country of BillGates would be quite rich.
There is no neutral or objective set of criteria for deciding such matters. It comes down to a priori subjective opinions as to what and who has priority. Nor is the brutal answer necessarily the pragmatic one, or not permanently. Franco and his satraps thought it had been the answer to Red Menace and feeble liberal democracy; but 40 years on, not only was full multiparty democracy back in place, but the last president of the Catalan Generalitat was back to lead the revived institution and the Communist La Pasionaria, as the oldest member, reopening the democratic parliament.
I believe that in places where this is the practice, for the instruments of enforcement, i.e. the military, secret services and police, they tend to feel that segregasjon along ethnic lines is essential. Not always, but mostly. And in places where they are not, those instruments have been streamlined and conditioned to expect that this might be a part of their duties.
I don’t think this is the case in Spain. I could be wrong, but I think the armed forces, officers and soldiers are not segregated by which region of Spain they hail form. The people that would be ordered to execute this would be a mix of Catalonians, Basques, Valencians etc with only a minority from Madrid. None of them will have considered this to be a part of their duties before.
And -I am guessing again, Spanish people would know this better- I suspect they may have grown up with some demonization of Francos regime and methods.
So if something like this were to be ordered in a fit of madness, I believe there is a better than even chance of the state apparatus turning against the issuers of the order.
PS “Pragmatic” does not mean “brutal”
If Catalonia really wants to secede, their best approach would be peaceful civil disobedience and protest. The central government cannot imprison the whole region for sedition while being a liberal democracy.
For a start, all of the separatist leaders should force Madrid to imprison them by refusing to leave office. And any newly elected separatists should provoke imprisonment with peaceful acts as well.
Based on news reports, it seems like the separatists do not have the fortitude to do it.