EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Husar]

If the situation is negative regardless of what you do, then isn't it a categorical choice over the option involving violent repression?

The situation may not be negative in the eyes of the government as long as Catalonia stays a part of Spain.

Either way, I'm just trying to guess why the Spanish government tried to prevent it. Perhaps they thought that showing hardness is better than having a result in peoples' minds that lets them claim they're ignoring the will of the people if they annull it afterwards. May have been the wrong choice, but technically the state can use violence to enforce the law. I guess I'd just rather get beaten over going to a polling place in willing defiance of the law than shot in the back over a broken tail light.

I really don't know anymore. Surely beating people up is not my favourite response either...I just think it was a very provocative and aggressive thing to do to hold the referendum anyway...
People say they beat fathers and grandparents, but keep in mind they willingly decided to participate in an unlawful act...

[Fragony]

They could be shitting me, website I got it from likes doing that, you never know when it's satire, but did spain just lose Catalana?

[Montmorency]

The situation may not be negative in the eyes of the government as long as Catalonia stays a part of Spain.

Either way, I'm just trying to guess why the Spanish government tried to prevent it. Perhaps they thought that showing hardness is better than having a result in peoples' minds that lets them claim they're ignoring the will of the people if they annull it afterwards. May have been the wrong choice, but technically the state can use violence to enforce the law. I guess I'd just rather get beaten over going to a polling place in willing defiance of the law than shot in the back over a broken tail light.

I really don't know anymore. Surely beating people up is not my favourite response either...I just think it was a very provocative and aggressive thing to do to hold the referendum anyway...
People say they beat fathers and grandparents, but keep in mind they willingly decided to participate in an unlawful act...

I think you identified a plausible instinct, but more force applied now - it's not like these Iberians involved have no history - seems more liable to abet Catalonian sedition than avert it. It would be a hell of a thing if Spain wins this battle at higher cost than necessary, but 6 years from now there's another push for independence and the next time Madrid sends in riot police they come under fire from militant groups.

You should really only move aggressively when it's on government employees at the point that they are implementing the secessionist policy, such as blocking borders, withholding money transfers, elevating legislatures, and refusing to cooperate with non-local colleagues. No jackboots. Jackboots is how you end up with forced disappearances and "dirty walls", and insurgencies. Not to say that it has to end that way, but there's a reason jackboots aren't a part of democratic best practices.

They could be shitting me, website I got it from likes doing that, you never know when it's satire, but did spain just lose Catalana?

You mean the Catalan government claiming a pro-independence result from the referendum?

[Husar]

I think you identified a plausible instinct, but more force applied now - it's not like these Iberians involved have no history - seems more liable to abet Catalonian sedition than avert it. It would be a hell of a thing if Spain wins this battle at higher cost than necessary, but 6 years from now there's another push for independence and the next time Madrid sends in riot police they come under fire from militant groups.

You should really only move aggressively when it's on government employees at the point that they are implementing the secessionist policy, such as blocking borders, withholding money transfers, elevating legislatures, and refusing to cooperate with non-local colleagues. No jackboots. Jackboots is how you end up with forced disappearances and "dirty walls", and insurgencies. Not to say that it has to end that way, but there's a reason jackboots aren't a part of democratic best practices.

Hmm, I absolutely get your point, but I didn't even know about this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKBN19P1ZZ

Catalonia will declare independence from Spain within 48 hours if voters back secession in an October referendum, according to a draft bill proposed by secessionist parties on Tuesday, though it remains unclear whether the vote will go ahead.

That was in early July...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/w...eferendum.html

Assuming ballots are cast, the regional Parliament has committed to making the result binding within 48 hours, which could translate any approval for a Catalan republic into a unilateral declaration of independence. Under Spanish law, however, the national government could still invoke emergency powers to take full administrative control of Catalonia.

And this is from last week. So it looks like the Catalan government did not plan to give the Spanish government a lot of time for negotiations once the referendum was/is done. And considering they still want to go through with it, it looks like they planned to just force their independence through from the start.
That might just be why the Spanish government tried to prevent it right from the start. I wouldn't be very surprised at this point if it gets even uglier...

[rory_20_uk]

I really don't know anymore. Surely beating people up is not my favourite response either...I just think it was a very provocative and aggressive thing to do to hold the referendum anyway...
People say they beat fathers and grandparents, but keep in mind they willingly decided to participate in an unlawful act...

The oppressed are always the ones breaking the law. That's sort of the point. And I'm amazed you can somehow square peacefully voting with sending riot police with batons and teargas grenades. If it was illegal, then say that it has no legal grounding. No need to attack people who are placing bits of paper.

When the state has to attack its own people to remain part of the state, it is undermining its legitimacy to govern.

Of course the EU has again decided not to press democratic rights, as neither has Communist China - both political structures hardly based on what the people want.

[Pannonian]

The oppressed are always the ones breaking the law. That's sort of the point. And I'm amazed you can somehow square peacefully voting with sending riot police with batons and teargas grenades. If it was illegal, then say that it has no legal grounding. No need to attack people who are placing bits of paper.

When the state has to attack its own people to remain part of the state, it is undermining its legitimacy to govern.

Of course the EU has again decided not to press democratic rights, as neither has Communist China - both political structures hardly based on what the people want.

If the EU is pressing for democratic rights, on what level is it pressing for said rights, and at what level is it right for the EU, a supra-national organisation, to do so? Why is it the EU's fault for not intervening in the affairs of one of its members? Would you praise the EU if it did intervene, to order Madrid to back off? Would this not be, in the eyes of Eurosceptics, just another example of the EU sticking its nose where it's not wanted?

[rory_20_uk]

If the EU is pressing for democratic rights, on what level is it pressing for said rights, and at what level is it right for the EU, a supra-national organisation, to do so? Why is it the EU's fault for not intervening in the affairs of one of its members? Would you praise the EU if it did intervene, to order Madrid to back off? Would this not be, in the eyes of Eurosceptics, just another example of the EU sticking its nose where it's not wanted?

Perhaps something about setting police on to unarmed people who are voting? That might be nice. What about sending in peace keepers to protect EU citizens from abuse from their leaders? To focus on the rule of law and not on sending thugs to beat up EU citizens with those lovely rights that the EU is fighting for people to have over Brexit - it seems they are more important when they are for those abroad than when in an EU country.

So it is OK for the EU to order states around for money, but not to protect people?

[Beskar]

What about sending in peace keepers to protect EU citizens from abuse from their leaders?

I know Fragony likes to remind us about the hypothetical EU army, but it European Peacekeepers are still currently a pipe dream and not a reality enforce what you envision for the Catalonian region.

[Pannonian]

Perhaps something about setting police on to unarmed people who are voting? That might be nice. What about sending in peace keepers to protect EU citizens from abuse from their leaders? To focus on the rule of law and not on sending thugs to beat up EU citizens with those lovely rights that the EU is fighting for people to have over Brexit - it seems they are more important when they are for those abroad than when in an EU country.

So it is OK for the EU to order states around for money, but not to protect people?

Who do these peacekeepers consist of? Who pays for them? Who issues orders to them? What if they disagree politically with these orders?

[rory_20_uk]

I know Fragony likes to remind us about the hypothetical EU army, but it European Peacekeepers are still currently a pipe dream and not a reality enforce what you envision for the Catalonian region.

Yet they have been deployed in several regions to date.

Who do these peacekeepers consist of? Who pays for them? Who issues orders to them? What if they disagree politically with these orders?

Funny how the EU managed to get troops sent abroad... yet when their own citizens rights are being abused suddenly you worry about who pays them? The EU has never had its accounts signed off - there are bigger matters.

Don't agree with the EU's orders? Funnily enough NATO never has that problem.

[Pannonian]

Yet they have been deployed in several regions to date.

Funny how the EU managed to get troops sent abroad... yet when their own citizens rights are being abused suddenly you worry about who pays them? The EU has never had its accounts signed off - there are bigger matters.

Don't agree with the EU's orders? Funnily enough NATO never has that problem.

Have NATO forces ever been deployed to impose the will of one or more of its members on another of its members? If the US disagrees with how the UK government is handling its domestic affairs, should US forces be deployed in the UK to force the UK government to follow the wishes of the US?

[rory_20_uk]

Have NATO forces ever been deployed to impose the will of one or more of its members on another of its members? If the US disagrees with how the UK government is handling its domestic affairs, should US forces be deployed in the UK to force the UK government to follow the wishes of the US?

An organisation whose remit is specifically for defense of all members? UNICEF isn't getting involved either. Nor the Salvation Army. Nor Oxfam.

Not entirely sure how that relates to the EU and supporting the enshrined rights of all the EU citizens from violent attacks.

[Pannonian]

An organisation whose remit is specifically for defense of all members? UNICEF isn't getting involved either. Nor the Salvation Army. Nor Oxfam.

Not entirely sure how that relates to the EU and supporting the enshrined rights of all the EU citizens from violent attacks.

You still haven't clarified how those peacekeepers of yours would work. If you don't want to talk about who pays them (this being the key point of the fall of the Roman republic), then explain who issues the orders, what authority the commander and forces have, and how the command structure works (eg. what happens when subordinate troops refuse to obey orders of their commanders). NATO is built on clearly defined multilateral agreements, and AFAIK has never been deployed to enforce its will on a member state> Or are you suggesting your EU peacekeeping force does not need multilateral agreements to work, and that it can unilaterally deploy in member states to impose its unilaterally defined state of order?

[Montmorency]

Yet they have been deployed in several regions to date.



Funny how the EU managed to get troops sent abroad... yet when their own citizens rights are being abused suddenly you worry about who pays them? The EU has never had its accounts signed off - there are bigger matters.

Don't agree with the EU's orders? Funnily enough NATO never has that problem.

I can't find information on any integrated EU (not German or French) military force, let alone one that has already been deployed abroad.

?

Anyway, the 90% result is official (by the Catalonian government's judgement). The EU is scheduled to make a statement today (Monday) if that hasn't happened already.

Oh, it has. Here it is:

Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday's vote in Catalonia was not legal.

For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain.

We also reiterate the legal position held by this Commission as well as by its predecessors. If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union.

Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation.

We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein.

Standard PC.

[rory_20_uk]

It's called EUFOR apparently.

Ah, internal matter for Spain. Police attacking undefended people? No, that's fine - move along. Funnily enough the EU is demanding EU citizens in the UK will remain under EU law. Does this mean they'll merely issue a statement and state it is an internal matter?

Yes,standard BS.

[Husar]

The oppressed are always the ones breaking the law. That's sort of the point. And I'm amazed you can somehow square peacefully voting with sending riot police with batons and teargas grenades. If it was illegal, then say that it has no legal grounding. No need to attack people who are placing bits of paper.

When the state has to attack its own people to remain part of the state, it is undermining its legitimacy to govern.

Of course the EU has again decided not to press democratic rights, as neither has Communist China - both political structures hardly based on what the people want.

Again, this is entirely slanted in the direction of secessionists. If I stop paying my taxes tomorrow because I feel oppressed, I guess the government should just leave me alone because I just peacefully stopped paying them.

[Pannonian]

It's called EUFOR apparently.

Ah, internal matter for Spain. Police attacking undefended people? No, that's fine - move along. Funnily enough the EU is demanding EU citizens in the UK will remain under EU law. Does this mean they'll merely issue a statement and state it is an internal matter?

Yes,standard BS.

Are you going to clarify how your EU force will work as I've asked above, or are you still going to dodge around the issues I've highlighted because your only aim is to say that the EU is wrong in everything, without actually looking at what you're arguing for? You're just as bad as Husar, he in his monomaniacal anti-Britishness, you in your monomaniacal anti-EUness.

[Montmorency]

It's called EUFOR apparently.

Ah, internal matter for Spain. Police attacking undefended people? No, that's fine - move along. Funnily enough the EU is demanding EU citizens in the UK will remain under EU law. Does this mean they'll merely issue a statement and state it is an internal matter?

Yes,standard BS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...Military_Staff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...European_Union

Apparently, it's not an actual distinct force or body of soldiers but an administrative designation for individual campaigns that are set up with EU political backing.

NATO/EU member military staff (where applicable) still have operational control, and the EU office is only an advisory role.

Even if the EU were very brave and had threatened Spain with intervention, deliberations on how to organize the unique mission would surely last into next year, would require voluntary military contributions by member countries (e.g. France can't just send troops and retroactively call it an EU mission) ,and Spain could presumably just vote against it in the end. So not much of a threat even if the will were there.

[rory_20_uk]

Again, this is entirely slanted in the direction of secessionists. If I stop paying my taxes tomorrow because I feel oppressed, I guess the government should just leave me alone because I just peacefully stopped paying them.

So the democratic mandate is only relevant when people are voting on things they are allowed to vote on? And decided by the existing powers.

The locally elected politicians held the vote. The people voted - and no almost statistically the same as in the Brexit situation - where the democratic principle is being upheld - by 90%.

Any other irrelevant comparisons?

[Pannonian]

So the democratic mandate is only relevant when people are voting on things they are allowed to vote on? And decided by the existing powers.

The locally elected politicians held the vote. The people voted - and no almost statistically the same as in the Brexit situation - where the democratic principle is being upheld - by 90%.

Any other irrelevant comparisons?

Thus says someone who helped force London, by far the biggest revenue generator in the UK, from the EU. Does London's democratic mandate in favour of Remain count? Can we refuse to reallocate any of London's tax revenue to areas outside Greater London?

[Husar]

So the democratic mandate is only relevant when people are voting on things they are allowed to vote on? And decided by the existing powers.

The locally elected politicians held the vote. The people voted - and no almost statistically the same as in the Brexit situation - where the democratic principle is being upheld - by 90%.

Any other irrelevant comparisons?

Again, if I elect myself and then vote with myself on whether I want to have my own country, does that count? Or would that perhaps just be irrelevant? Every small town has a local elected government, that doesn't mean every town can vote to leave the country it's in.
The democratic manadate is relevant within the confines as given by the constitution, that's why countries have a constitution. In Germany you also can't just hold a referendum willy-nilly and then claim to have authority on what is to be done. Is there any limit to the self-determination you demand?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So the democratic mandate is only relevant when people are voting on things they are allowed to vote on? And decided by the existing powers.

The locally elected politicians held the vote. The people voted - and no almost statistically the same as in the Brexit situation - where the democratic principle is being upheld - by 90%.

Any other irrelevant comparisons?

What is the history of the Spanish Constitution and the means by which the region came under its authority? Did it peacefully enter this constitution which forbids these independence votes?

[Gilrandir]

From what I hear, international law values the national integrity higher than self determination, unless there is a genocide or similar injustice going on.

Not so was with Czechoslovakia. The Brits and the Canadians were also ready (grudgingly I believe) to let their provinces go in case they voted for it. I don't see why it should be otherwise in Spain.

[Husar]

What is the history of the Spanish Constitution and the means by which the region came under its authority? Did it peacefully enter this constitution which forbids these independence votes?

I'm assuming the Wikipedia summary will do for this:

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

In the late 8th century, the counties of the March of Gothia and the Hispanic March were established by the Frankish kingdom as feudatory vassals across and near the eastern Pyrenees as a defensive barrier against Muslim invasions. The eastern counties of these marches were united under the rule of the Frankish vassal the Count of Barcelona, and were later called Catalonia. In 1137, Catalonia and the Kingdom of Aragon were united by marriage under the Crown of Aragon, and the Principality of Catalonia became the base for the Crown of Aragon's naval power and expansionism in the Mediterranean. In the later Middle Ages Catalan literature flourished. Between 1469 and 1516, the King of Aragon and the Queen of Castile married and ruled their kingdoms together, retaining all their distinct institutions, Courts (parliament), and constitutions. During the Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659), Catalonia revolted (1640–1652) against a large and burdensome presence of the Royal army in its territory, becoming a republic under French protection. Within a brief period France took full control of Catalonia, at a high economic cost for Catalonia, until it was largely reconquered by the Spanish army. Under the terms of the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659, which ended the wider Franco-Spanish War, the Spanish Crown ceded the northern parts of Catalonia, mostly incorporated in the county of Roussillon, to France. During the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), the Crown of Aragon sided against the Bourbon Philip V of Spain, whose subsequent victory led to the abolition of non-Castilian institutions in all of Spain and the replacement of Latin and other languages (such as Catalan) with Spanish in legal documents.

And if them being conquered gives them the right to secede now, what about the Amerindians? Perhaps they should be asked about whether they would like to regain control over their former lands, too? Not very democratic to forcefully put them into reservations without asking for their consent. And we should be given Eastern Prussia back where our people were forcefully removed by the conquerors...
https://www.facebook.com/prusssianfr...type=3&theater

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not so was with Czechoslovakia. The Brits and the Canadians were also ready (grudgingly I believe) to let their provinces go in case they voted for it. I don't see why it should be otherwise in Spain.

Or Ukraine one wonders?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And if them being conquered gives them the right to secede now, what about the Amerindians? Perhaps they should be asked about whether they would like to regain control over their former lands, too? Not very democratic to forcefully put them into reservations without asking for their consent....

There is a traditionally accepted means for assuming or resuming independence. It does involve some risk, however. I believe the pledge formula runs "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

[Gilrandir]

Or Ukraine one wonders?

I expected this, but I'm surprised to hear it from a person who usually displays a deep understanding of international affairs. And don't tell me I drag Ukraine into every thread.

There is a whole world of difference between what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and Catalonian case.
First of all, the 2014 referenda in Crimea and Donbas were held when those regions were occupied/effectively controlled by Russia. In Catalonia no foreign soldiers were in evidence.
Second of all, we hear speak of NATIONS' self-determination. Catalonians are a separate nation/ethnicity having there own language and the history of their own state. One can't say the same of the Ukraine situation. There is no Donbassian or Crimean nation. People that live here are mostly Ukrainians and Russians - the people that have already used their right for self-determination when they founded their respective states. The only reservation here could be made for Crimean Tatars - but they didn't wish for any separate state, they have voiced their desire to stay with Ukraine. As I have remarked, the conflict in Ukraine is totally artificial, since it has no sign of being either national, linguistic or confessional - on both sides are people sharing those features. It has been instigated, started (as a military operation) and is kept smouldering by a foreign power.

And we should be given Eastern Prussia back where our people were forcefully removed by the conquerors...

... and from where they had forecefully removed the original population when Teutonic order conquered it. If we adopt historic approach we will have to uproot a lot of modern nations.

[Husar]

... and from where they had forecefully removed the original population when Teutonic order conquered it. If we adopt historic approach we will have to uproot a lot of modern nations.

Yes, you could almost say that was the point I was making in response to ACIN.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I expected this, but I'm surprised to hear it from a person who usually displays a deep understanding of international affairs. And don't tell me I drag Ukraine into every thread.

There is a whole world of difference between what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and Catalonian case.
First of all, the 2014 referenda in Crimea and Donbas were held when those regions were occupied/effectively controlled by Russia. In Catalonia no foreign soldiers were in evidence.
Second of all, we hear speak of NATIONS' self-determination. Catalonians are a separate nation/ethnicity having there own language and the history of their own state. One can't say the same of the Ukraine situation. There is no Donbassian or Crimean nation. People that live here are mostly Ukrainians and Russians - the people that have already used their right for self-determination when they founded their respective states. The only reservation here could be made for Crimean Tatars - but they didn't wish for any separate state, they have voiced their desire to stay with Ukraine. As I have remarked, the conflict in Ukraine is totally artificial, since it has no sign of being either national, linguistic or confessional - on both sides are people sharing those features. It has been instigated, started (as a military operation) and is kept smouldering by a foreign power.

Well answered. I was going to counter with the Crimean Tatars, but you inoculated nicely against that argument. I think the Catalan Independence crowd might dispute the 'no foreign soldiers' claim based on the police suppression efforts during the vote, but I agree that the Russian forces in Crimea and Donbas were entirely different in scope and implied level of threat.

BTW, the "one wonders" phrasing is meant to be a little humorous, connoting that I am "twitting" you more than arguing against you per se.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm assuming the Wikipedia summary will do for this:

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


And if them being conquered gives them the right to secede now, what about the Amerindians? Perhaps they should be asked about whether they would like to regain control over their former lands, too? Not very democratic to forcefully put them into reservations without asking for their consent. And we should be given Eastern Prussia back where our people were forcefully removed by the conquerors...
https://www.facebook.com/prusssianfr...type=3&theater

If they wish to do so, then they at least have an historical legitimacy of a lack of self determination.