Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 07, 2017, 07:45:38 AM
-
I have, as noted elsewhere, loved visiting Catalonia for years, and have a deep love of Barcelona as a city that feels to me twinned with my own beloved Glasgow in its chippy gallusness. Last year on Catalan national day I went to the gathering of 700,000 campaigning for independence. The attitude of the Spanish govt seems counterproductive to me, and the idea that they could oppose a vote were it to be a yes, foolish. That said, I think that any yes vote needs a substantial majority to be effective, certainly at least 55/45.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41177428
-
Whatever the merits of independence for Catalunya are - I cannot see Spain allowing it. The region is the main driver for Spain's economy. Were they to secede it would leave Spain significantly weakened both politically and economically. Spain's government will fight it all the way regardless of the wishes of the people of that region.
It could become very, very difficult. (And I think that may be an understatement)
-
Indeed, and here is the evidence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41191327
-
Very worrying, also ballot papers being seized and mayors being asked to speak out against the referendum or be arrested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41284764
-
Go for it, Catelonia!
-
No. that's madness .. the effect would be chaotic. And not change the spelling either.
-
No. that's madness .. the effect would be chaotic. And not change the spelling either.
So you think Catalonia shouldn't vote for independence because Madrid wants to deny them the possibility to vote for independence?
-
No.
I don't think Catalonia should vote for independence, because they and everyone in the rest of Spain would end up worse off. Madrid should allow them to vote, if they don't, Catalonia should continue pressing its case within the existing constitution and legal system.
Why imply I have a view I didn't state?
-
No.
I don't think Catalonia should vote for independence, because they and everyone in the rest of Spain would end up worse off. Madrid should allow them to vote, if they don't, Catalonia should continue pressing its case within the existing constitution and legal system.
Why imply I have a view I didn't state?
I asked a question based on your statement, and the context in the thread.
Why do you think that would be worse off? Small countries can and do exist successfully.
-
Nothing wrong with small countries, but how they fare depends on the political and economic environment they exist in. Given the history of conflicts within Spain I am not optimistic wrt. good relations.
This article (http://uk.businessinsider.com/economics-of-catalan-secession-from-spain-2016-2?r=US&IR=T) by Alfons López Tena and Elisenda Paluzie considers the main scenarios.
My opinion (for what it's worth) is that they should pursue the accord reached after the 2006 referendum, pressing for constitutional and legal amendments.
-
Whatever the merits of independence for Catalunya are - I cannot see Spain allowing it. The region is the main driver for Spain's economy. Were they to secede it would leave Spain significantly weakened both politically and economically. Spain's government will fight it all the way regardless of the wishes of the people of that region.
It could become very, very difficult. (And I think that may be an understatement)
I agree. Catalonia can no more leave Spain than Bromley can leave Greater London.
We do it the civilised way. All the towns and villages within the borough have their own individual boundary signs, all of which contain the Horse of Kent. There is no reference to "London".
-
Nothing wrong with small countries, but how they fare depends on the political and economic environment they exist in. Given the history of conflicts within Spain I am not optimistic wrt. good relations.
This article (http://uk.businessinsider.com/economics-of-catalan-secession-from-spain-2016-2?r=US&IR=T) by Alfons López Tena and Elisenda Paluzie considers the main scenarios.
My opinion (for what it's worth) is that they should pursue the accord reached after the 2006 referendum, pressing for constitutional and legal amendments.
Except the issue here is that the chaos choice is Spain's and the 2006 referendum is challenged by Spain. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the history causes real problems but that's why we are in this situation and why there are problems with your option, in that it was the challenges to 2006 that gave pushed the independence referendum.
Now with the attempted suppression of democracy by Spain, voting no to independence has become voting yes to that suppression.
-
I agree. Catalonia can no more leave Spain than Bromley can leave Greater London.
We do it the civilised way. All the towns and villages within the borough have their own individual boundary signs, all of which contain the Horse of Kent. There is no reference to "London".
Mmm, I don't think Spain = London, Bromley = Catalonia is a valid 'analogy'.
-
Very worrying, also ballot papers being seized and mayors being asked to speak out against the referendum or be arrested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41284764
Worrying that Catalonia is moving forward in defiance of Spain's constitutional court, you mean.
-
Worrying that Catalonia is moving forward in defiance of Spain's constitutional court, you mean.
No, it's an elected govt, and sending the police in and using the court here is deeply worrying.
-
No, it's an elected govt, and sending the police in and using the court here is deeply worrying.
But it is part of Spain and thus subject to the Spanish constitution and courts. They are moving ahead with this referendum in defiance of Spain's constitutional court. Why do you think that is not worrying?
-
But it is part of Spain and thus subject to the Spanish constitution and courts. They are moving ahead with this referendum in defiance of Spain's constitutional court. Why do you think that is not worrying?
I do think it is worrying. But the isse as I see it is Spain is signed up to self determination at an international level. Trying to deny that and democracy is more problematic to me.
-
Except the issue here is that the chaos choice is Spain's and the 2006 referendum is challenged by Spain. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the history causes real problems but that's why we are in this situation and why there are problems with your option, in that it was the challenges to 2006 that gave pushed the independence referendum.
Now with the attempted suppression of democracy by Spain, voting no to independence has become voting yes to that suppression.
How can any vote in an illegal poll have any validity?
-
I do think it is worrying. But the isse as I see it is Spain is signed up to self determination at an international level. Trying to deny that and democracy is more problematic to me.
It is a political and legal issue and the solution must be sought through the legal and political systems in place, including the EU institutions.
-
It is a political and legal issue and the solution must be sought through the legal and political systems in place, including the EU institutions.
And beyond since the self determination part is linked to Spain being in the UN. The shutting down of that by Spain is problematic and I think holding a ballot is not something that can be seen as anti democratic. I am sure you can imagine plenty of situations where following some laws would be problematic.
-
How can any vote in an illegal poll have any validity?
How can an illegal restriction of a democratic vote have validity? Your position seems to be that Rosa Parks was wrong to sit down where she did on the bus.
-
hmm, argument by crap analogies again?
-
hmm, argument by crap analogies again?
No, it isn't an argument- it's trying to find out where you think the limits of believing that you should obey laws extends to. It's a use of the reductio to see if that's what you think - as I suspect you don't.
-
Well, I don't have any grand philosophy about when laws should be obeyed or not, but a more pragmatic approach.
If you have good access to the legislative and judicial systems put in place by a reasonably fair and democratic state, you should continue to use them. If you don't have these and are suffering an intolerable denial of human rights, by all means break the laws if you think it will help your cause.
The whole heroism of Rosa Parks action was that it sparked a demonstration that finally led to a number of similar cases to actually be considered in court, and leading to subsequent reform.
If you think the UN principle of self determination can be used to obtain Catalonian secession outside of EU Court rulings - success is very unlikely even if the opposing parties were to escalate to the use of violence.
-
And beyond since the self determination part is linked to Spain being in the UN. The shutting down of that by Spain is problematic and I think holding a ballot is not something that can be seen as anti democratic. I am sure you can imagine plenty of situations where following some laws would be problematic.
Whilst I get your general gist, I think the UN's stance on 'self-determination' is for former colonies that seek independence, not what might be considered integral territories of the country itself. Of course, at what point you draw the line and say 'this is the country, this is a dependent territory' colours that distinction.
Spain's 'stick their head in the sand' attempt to pretend the opinion isn't there is just fomenting the discord, they need to deal with the issues; this stifling of expression is just going to ramp up tensions.
O.
-
Both sides are digging as hard as they can and will probably get sucked into a sink hole :(
-
Both sides are digging as hard as they can and will probably get sucked into a sink hole :(
Given the history, it's not easy to see that calling for a vote after elections, is equivalent to refusing to recognise that. I am fearful for what may happen, and part of me understands your position but I also think that arguing there is a simple equivalence here is both anti democratic and a simplistic pragmatism that would doom progress.
-
My position is just that what is needed is negotiation and constitutional reform, not symbolic votes that can't count.
If they held the referendum and had a 100% "leave" vote - what would that achieve? - Just demonstrate that no one that wanted to remain as part of Spain felt they could take part in the vote. Referendum results can't count if it is unconstitutional or illegal (as has already been found by the constitutional court).
I fear that the Catalonian governing coalition (can't remember what they are now called- CEDP?) are playing this for populist political reasons without caring where it ends up.
-
My position is just that what is needed is negotiation and constitutional reform, not symbolic votes that can't count.
If they held the referendum and had a 100% "leave" vote - what would that achieve? - Just demonstrate that no one that wanted to remain as part of Spain felt they could take part in the vote. Referendum results can't count if it is unconstitutional or illegal (as has already been found by the constitutional court).
I fear that the Catalonian governing coalition (can't remember what they are now called- CEDP?) are playing this for populist political reasons without caring where it ends up.
Aren't populist political reasons called democracy?
-
hmm . not really .. worth contrasting with Burma/Myanamar?
-
hmm . not really .. worth contrasting with Burma/Myanamar?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.
-
Any dictator can whip up a populist cause to boost their own power without a whiff of democracy getting in.
-
Any dictator can whip up a populist cause to boost their own power without a whiff of democracy getting in.
So who is the dictator in Catalonia?
-
No dictator - just that populist is not equivalent to democratic.
-
No dictator - just that populist is not equivalent to democratic.
So what is a political party in a democracy to do that if they are popular means you can dismiss them, as you did, for being populist?
-
So what is a political party in a democracy to do that if they are popular means you can dismiss them, as you did, for being populist?
Sorry,I don't know what you mean. I didn't dismiss anyone for being populist.
The pro independence coalition has political power, but did not have a pro independence majority in the populace. They must responsibly govern the region and negotiate with Madrid to arrange for another referendum or accord to achieve their aims of further autonomy. Instead of that, they have decided to have a head on confrontation with Madrid, thinking this will boost support for independence in Catalonia, with no care for the long term fallout.
-
Sorry,I don't know what you mean. I didn't dismiss anyone for being populist.
The pro independence coalition has political power, but did not have a pro independence majority in the populace. They must responsibly govern the region and negotiate with Madrid to arrange for another referendum or accord to achieve their aims of further autonomy. Instead of that, they have decided to have a head on confrontation with Madrid, thinking this will boost support for independence in Catalonia, with no care for the long term fallout.
You talked about following populism dismissively. And I am hugely confused here, how do you (a) know they didn't have an independence majority in the populace, and (b) then argue they are being populist by seeking a vote?
Isn't responsibly governing doing what your manifesto says rather than following someone on a message board?
-
There was a referendum last year (or possibly the year before - memory escapes me) with a majority against secession. They cannot claim there was a majority for independence as the coalition itself had no manifesto, but is a post election grouping of different parties.
If they were elected on a "declare independence" platform they would not need another referendum. They do not need a head on clash with Madrid to forward the wishes of the Catalonian people.
I very much doubt there is, and would strongly advise against, anyone following this message board to decide anything about anything!
-
There was a referendum last year (or possibly the year before - memory escapes me) with a majority against secession. They cannot claim there was a majority for independence as the coalition itself had no manifesto, but is a post election grouping of different parties.
If they were elected on a "declare independence" platform they would not need another referendum. They do not need a head on clash with Madrid to forward the wishes of the Catalonian people.
I very much doubt there is, and would strongly advise against, anyone following this message board to decide anything about anything!
Err no there was a referendum which was non official which the no side 'boycotted' which was 80% yes for indeoendence. And of course the Catalan govt was electecon a hold referendum promise, not declare independence.
-
Err no there was a referendum which was non official which the no side 'boycotted' which was 80% yes for indeoendence. And of course the Catalan govt was electecon a hold referendum promise, not declare independence.
Ah yes , that's right. It was 2014 .. as the turnout was low, about 48%, probably because of the "No" side boycott, generally this was taken as a "No" vote.
In any case, if they want more autonomy or independence they need a legal and official poll. You don't get that by holding one that has already been found to be not legal. As their policy is to have a referendum they need to get changes to the Spanish constitution and laws. What use a repeat of the 2014 outcome?
-
Ah yes , that's right. It was 2014 .. as the turnout was low, about 48%, probably because of the "No" side boycott, generally this was taken as a "No" vote.
In any case, if they want more autonomy or independence they need a legal and official poll. You don't get that by holding one that has already been found to be not legal. As their policy is to have a referendum they need to get changes to the Spanish constitution and laws. What use a repeat of the 2014 outcome?
No, it wasn't generally taken as a no vote.
It's already not a repeat of the 2014 referendum because of the actions of the Spanish. The arresting of peopke for attempting to hold a vote shows that it is being treated differently.
-
From what I am hearing the Spanish Attorney General is filing a petition that those protesting in support of the referendum are participating in sedition.
If get confirmation will post.
Can't believe how under reported this is.
-
And Madrid taking control of Catalan police
http://catalannews.com/news/item/spain-takes-control-of-catalan-police
-
How can an illegal restriction of a democratic vote have validity? Your position seems to be that Rosa Parks was wrong to sit down where she did on the bus.
The dispute is that the Catalonia vote might be unconstitutional. The ban applies only until the courts have decided that it is constitutional (or forever, if they decide it is not).
What part of the US constitution banned Rosa Parks from sitting where she liked?
-
Aren't populist political reasons called democracy?
No, they are called mob rule.
-
Neal Ascherson on Catalonia.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/23/catalans-not-alone-across-the-world-people-yearn-to-govern-themselves
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41439787
Tractors roll into Barcelona to support vote.
Just to recap on the rules of the referendum:
- Simple overall majority
- No minimum turnout
- Unilateral declaration of independence within 48 hours of a yes vote
- Still possible to negotiate a political solution on the night of the vote
-
As ever with such votes, I would like it to have something more than a simple majority for change.
-
One take on the situation
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/only-catalans-can-set-the-ne-plus-ultra-to-their-independence-aspirations-1.3238294
-
And from the UN High Commission in Human Rights
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22176&LangID=E
-
Given this, the question of turnout becomes so distorted that I cannot see how there will be sufficient to declare anything. In the long run though I suspect this will do nothing but increase the support for independence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41452174
-
I'm finding the scenes in Spain completely shocking. An EU country sending in riot police to stop people voting? Wtf?
-
Indeed, appalling. But this is how it was scripted. They fell into the trap like the idiots they are. The EU itself has tried to stay well clear so far.
Over here, the government has not let the SNP build up support through escalation in the same way, by carefully negotiating and/or giving way at/on key points.
-
The election has already been declared unconstitutional. All they had to do was ignore the result and, as you say, figure out concessions and negotiate.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41457238
People have been hurt in clashes with the police. :o
-
I still can't believe it.
-
The election has already been declared unconstitutional. All they had to do was ignore the result and, as you say, figure out concessions and negotiate.
They could have put changes in place after 2006 and 2014 referendums. This time Madrid could not ignore a "yes" result as it would have been binding with immediate effect - ie. leading to a declaration of independence and direct confrontation.
If the referendum had been legal, even with the unreasonable simple majority, no minimum turnout rules, the chances are that the vote would have been "no" with an end to the matter for some time.
Now, there is no valid vote and further confrontation and instability inevitable.
-
Good if long set of blogs on the constitutional issue
http://verfassungsblog.de/the-catalunya-conundrum-part-1-how-could-things-come-to-such-a-pass/
-
The election has already been declared unconstitutional. All they had to do was ignore the result and, as you say, figure out concessions and negotiate.
Except that if the polling happens the separatists can use a strong yes vote as a moral mandate to keep pushing. When it became clear what the result was likely to be the Spanish authorities had to do what they could to call the result into as much question as possible - they can't afford to have that information out there, even if doesn't have any immediate legal weight behind it.
O.
-
Except that if the polling happens the separatists can use a strong yes vote as a moral mandate to keep pushing. When it became clear what the result was likely to be the Spanish authorities had to do what they could to call the result into as much question as possible - they can't afford to have that information out there, even if doesn't have any immediate legal weight behind it.
O.
Well yes, but sending in riot police isn't the way to go about it. This isn't going to end well, is it?
I'm pretty sickened by the spineless silence from the majority of EU leaders too. Bravo that man from Belgium and some chap in Estonia.
-
It would appear the police have used a lot of unnecessary violence, in an apparent attempt to punish the Catalonian voters! >:(
-
This time Madrid could not ignore a "yes" result
Of course they could. The vote was illegal.
as it would have been binding with immediate effect - ie. leading to a declaration of independence and direct confrontation.
It would not have been binding at all, it was illegal.
-
Well yes, but sending in riot police isn't the way to go about it. This isn't going to end well, is it?
This is true. It would have been better to let the vote go ahead and then just ignore it. Instead they have some fairly horrifying video to contend with.
-
Except that if the polling happens the separatists can use a strong yes vote as a moral mandate to keep pushing. When it became clear what the result was likely to be the Spanish authorities had to do what they could to call the result into as much question as possible - they can't afford to have that information out there, even if doesn't have any immediate legal weight behind it.
O.
The "result" was obvious - most of those opposed to the declaration of independence would not vote in an illegal poll. But the conservatives in Madrid had opposed any changes to the constitution to enable such referenda.
-
Of course they could. The vote was illegal.
It would not have been binding at all, it was illegal.
They "ignored" it in 2014 so why not this time? Trying to physically prevent the vote and sending in riot police - just for fun?
They should have given orders to the police to not engage physically with any citizens attempting to vote.
-
Seen a couple of different posts elsewhere on what happened in Catalunya yesterday, saying well there were mistakes on both sides, or the decision to hold a vote was provocative,. Can I just suggest to anyone who wants to make this sort of false Trumpian equivalence that they thank the people who went before then, who didn't always follow the rule of law for the rights they have now instead of pissing on their memories?
Those going to vote were, despite the vacuous posturings of some apologists of thuggery , not 'breaking the law'. It's not an individual law and there is nothing against holding such a vote, it's just of no constititional value, and might lead to those elected officials who have a duty to uphold the constitution to be held on that breach. Those pensioners beaten up were attacked while acting in a legal manner. Those that minimise that, are complicit in it.
-
thank the people who went before then, who didn't always follow the rule of law for the rights they have now instead of pissing on their memories?
Can you cite some significant advancements made by breaking the law in a country that was already a democracy.
Those going to vote were, despite the vacuous posturings of some apologists of thuggery , not 'breaking the law'. It's not an individual law and there is nothing against holding such a vote, it's just of no constititional value
Which is why the Spanish government would have been better off letting it go ahead and then ignoring it. I hope we can all agree that, no matter the legality of the vote, sending riot troops in to stop people from voting was a seriously bad idea on several levels.
-
Can you cite some significant advancements made by breaking the law in a country that was already a democracy.
Women's suffrage.
1912 was a turning point for the British suffragettes as they turned to using more militant tactics, chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to post box contents, smashing windows and occasionally detonating bombs. In 1914, at least seven churches were bombed or set on fire across the United Kingdom, including an explosion in Westminster Abbey aimed at destroying the 700-year-old Coronation Chair, which despite its proximity to the bomb, survived with only minor damage.
-
Women's suffrage.
Right, so you count a country in which half of the adult population could not vote as a democracy, do you? Interesting.
-
Seen a couple of different posts elsewhere on what happened in Catalunya yesterday, saying well there were mistakes on both sides, or the decision to hold a vote was provocative,. Can I just suggest to anyone who wants to make this sort of false Trumpian equivalence that they thank the people who went before then, who didn't always follow the rule of law for the rights they have now instead of pissing on their memories?
Those going to vote were, despite the vacuous posturings of some apologists of thuggery , not 'breaking the law'. It's not an individual law and there is nothing against holding such a vote, it's just of no constititional value, and might lead to those elected officials who have a duty to uphold the constitution to be held on that breach. Those pensioners beaten up were attacked while acting in a legal manner. Those that minimise that, are complicit in it.
Good post!
#Catalunya
-
Right, so you count a country in which half of the adult population could not vote as a democracy, do you? Interesting.
What would you call it?
-
What would you call it?
I wouldn't call any country that does not allow women (i.e. usually slightly more than half the adult population) to vote a democracy. I'm not sure what I'd call it, but that is not at issue. Sorry your example was crap, please try again.
-
I wouldn't call any country that does not allow women (i.e. usually slightly more than half the adult population) to vote a democracy. I'm not sure what I'd call it, but that is not at issue. Sorry your example was crap, please try again.
Thanks for the irrelevant diversion of what you wouldn't call it.
Tonight on BBC1: somebody who isn't Carol Kirkwood won't be telling us what the weather isn't going to be tomorrow ::)
-
Thanks for the irrelevant diversion of what you wouldn't call it.
You were the one who started that diversion.
Tonight on BBC1: somebody who isn't Carol Kirkwood won't be telling us what the weather isn't going to be tomorrow ::)
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm looking for examples where breaking the law in a democracy led to beneficial change. You tried to cite an example where half the adult population had no say in who governed them. That is not a democracy. Now you're trying to deflect with some bullshit about how you have to call it some other name for it not to be a democracy and you are trying to blame me for your derail.
-
You were the one who started that diversion.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm looking for examples where breaking the law in a democracy led to beneficial change. You tried to cite an example where half the adult population had no say in who governed them. That is not a democracy.
But when I asked you what you thought it was you were as much use as Anne Frank's drum kit.
Now you're trying to deflect with some bullshit about how you have to call it some other name for it not to be a democracy and you are trying to blame me for your derail.
No; I'm trying to clarify what political system you think the UK had prior to the Representation of the People Act 1918 if, as you say, it wasn't a democracy.
-
What would you call it?
"repugnant, barbaric, primitive, superstitious" obviously.
I'm looking for examples where breaking the law in a democracy led to beneficial change...
Irish independence? And the continuation in NI leading to the Good Friday Agreement and power sharing?
Although NS's Rosa Parks example is more reasonable - breaking the law with non-violent demonstrations or protest to make a point - accepting any penalty for the cause, and bringing injustice to light.
-
"repugnant, barbaric, primitive, superstitious" obviously.
Irish independence? And the continuation in NI leading to the Good Friday Agreement and power sharing?
Although NS's Rosa Parks example is more reasonable - breaking the law with non-violent demonstrations or protest to make a point - accepting any penalty for the cause, and bringing injustice to light.
Reasonably sure that Jeremy "Excitable" P probably won't accept the Irish Free State/Irish Republic c. 1920s/1930s (say) and 1950s USA as democracies.
-
Can you cite some significant advancements made by breaking the law in a country that was already a democracy.
Which is why the Spanish government would have been better off letting it go ahead and then ignoring it. I hope we can all agree that, no matter the legality of the vote, sending riot troops in to stop people from voting was a seriously bad idea on several levels.
Well you have to define democracy as you gave (a) introduced it as a condition, and then (b) gone for a no true democracy approach. I appeared to live in a 'democracy' in 1979 when two friends "broke the law' by a same sex kiss. Are you saying that in 1979 it wasn"t a democracy.
As to your second point, it was precisely the non agreement that I had seen and the equivalence of pensioners not actially breaking any law being beaten by bid sticks with that beating.
-
Seen a couple of different posts elsewhere on what happened in Catalunya yesterday, saying well there were mistakes on both sides, or the decision to hold a vote was provocative,. Can I just suggest to anyone who wants to make this sort of false Trumpian equivalence that they thank the people who went before then, who didn't always follow the rule of law for the rights they have now instead of pissing on their memories?
Those going to vote were, despite the vacuous posturings of some apologists of thuggery , not 'breaking the law'. It's not an individual law and there is nothing against holding such a vote, it's just of no constititional value, and might lead to those elected officials who have a duty to uphold the constitution to be held on that breach. Those pensioners beaten up were attacked while acting in a legal manner. Those that minimise that, are complicit in it.
Worthy sentiment, except for the last sentence which is ballcocks. Everyone knew this could happen, as we feared throughout this thread. Rajoy should have ensured it could not - we all know that sending armed police, including batons and shields, into a confrontational situations greatly increases the risk of violence and police abuse. They should have stood by and done nothing after their efforts to halt the arrangements the day before.
We also all know that it is very likely that there is worse to come.
-
Good post!
#Catalunya
Yeah, they need cheerleaders in this madness...
-
Worthy sentiment, except for the last sentence which is ballcocks. Everyone knew this could happen, as we feared throughout this thread. Rajoy should have ensured it could not - we all know that sending armed police, including batons and shields, into a confrontational situations greatly increases the risk of violence and police abuse. They should have stood by and done nothing after their efforts to halt the arrangements the day before.
We also all know that it is very likely that there is worse to come.
so you think playing down violence and beatings for pensioners behaving legally isn't being complicit and somehow that's just wrong because it's bollocks? So you think calling an argument a name like say 'barbarian social mores' makes you right?
-
Yeah, they need cheerleaders in this madness...
Yeah cos saying people shouldn't express their beliefs is useful in this madness...
-
so you think playing down violence and beatings for pensioners behaving legally isn't being complicit and somehow that's just wrong because it's bollocks? So you think calling an argument a name like say 'barbarian social mores' makes you right?
No one here is "playing down" any violence. How can anyone be complicit in an attack only after the event? Minimising it is just that.. and mostly opinion irrelevant to the actual event, that we don't need.
Right about what? That's not an argument.
-
Yeah cos saying people shouldn't express their beliefs is useful in this madness...
Yeah, they need cheerleaders in this madness...
If a people wish to express themselves in a peaceful, non-violent, democratic way, then, yes, I'm happy to supp9rt them.
Independence is not a load around their necks, it's the lodestone of their identity.
-
No one here is "playing down" any violence. How can anyone be complicit in an attack only after the event? Minimising it is just that.. and mostly opinion irrelevant to the actual event, that we don't need.
Right about what? That's not an argument.
Nice to see your objective statement about a subjective matter. If you try and excuse people beating people up, then surely you become complicit as you are justifying it? You indulge people in doing it. You give them a belief it is right.
You appear to have missed or ignored the quote referencing your position as regards Outrider? Given I quoted the line that seems odd.
-
Noce to see you put ypur subjective opinion, as objective,
But as to the complicit part, ypu think thst it"s not bad to beat pensioners and try and explain it, and that seems to me what minimising it does, then yep, complicit.
Note you appeared to miss your hypocrisy as regards Outrider.
Sorry, I am not following .. probably time I gave up.
It is definitely bad to beat up pensioners. When people beat up pensioners it needs to be explained and, hopefully, prosecuted. Anyone who does not care about the beaten up pensioners, or claims that it is not serious is, in my opinion, wrong but that does not mean they have any part in the crime. Assuming they are not actually involved in the case, it is just an opinion - of similar value to mine.
Can't see what this has to do with the discussion with Outrider. Your "argument": "Those that minimise that, are complicit in it" is not an argument - it is a logically confused accusation or slogan. A bit like "those that are not with us are against us". I did call it "bollocks" but hopefully have explained why. If you had said "Those that minimise it are reprehensible barbarians" I would have just taken it as your opinion.
-
Sorry, I am not following .. probably time I gave up.
It is definitely bad to beat up pensioners. When people beat up pensioners it needs to be explained and, hopefully, prosecuted. Anyone who does not care about the beaten up pensioners, or claims that it is not serious is, in my opinion, wrong but that does not mean they have any part in the crime. Assuming they are not actually involved in the case, it is just an opinion - of similar value to mine.
Can't see what this has to do with the discussion with Outrider. Your "argument": "Those that minimise that, are complicit in it" is not an argument - it is a logically confused accusation or slogan. A bit like "those that are not with us are against us". I did call it "bollocks" but hopefully have explained why. If you had said "Those that minimise it are reprehensible barbarians" I would have just taken it as your opinion.
Sorry, but I don't see the problem. Not a clue as to why you aren't following. If you argue against something being a crime then you end up supporting those who commit that as a crime. If you justify something as being reasonable, then if someone agrees then ypue have helped them to think that.
As to the whole thing with Outrider, you thought just calling an argument something like 'barbarian social mores' was bad, but then you used the argument in precisely the way you objected to, but wasn't used by Outrider, by calling it bollocks.
-
... If you argue against something being a crime then you end up supporting those who commit that as a crime. If you justify something as being reasonable, then if someone agrees then ypue have helped them to think that.
Yes, but it doesn't follow that you are also guilty of the crime - unless you actively induced them into it. I don't think, say, taking drugs should be a crime but that provides zero help for anyone caught taking drugs. Huxley, Leary, Burroughs, thought and wrote that taking some drugs was fine, but they are not complicit in any drug crimes thousands that read them may have been involved in. Individuals are responsible for the actions they take - not those of others.
Or take the recent case of the medical student that stabbed her boyfriend - many think either her crime was mitigated or at least she should not suffer the normal penalty for it - it does not mean they are supporting her in stabbing any more boyfriends.
As to the whole thing with Outrider, you thought just calling an argument something like 'barbarian social mores' was bad, but then you used the argument in precisely the way you objected to, but wasn't used by Outrider, by calling it bollocks.
Outrider put forward "barbarian social mores" as an argument against segregation, which it is not - it is an expression of his opinion of segregation (- btw I have no problem with that opinion). Similarly "bollocks" was my opinion of your assertion that ".. are complicit in it" - not intended to be an argument against it.
-
But when I asked you what you thought it was you were as much use as Anne Frank's drum kit.
You mean I didn't answer the question
No; I'm trying to clarify what political system you think the UK had prior to the Representation of the People Act 1918 if, as you say, it wasn't a democracy.
Why? Why does it matter? I'm more concerned that you are claiming a society in which half the adults are disenfranchised can be considered a democracy.
-
You mean I didn't answer the question
Exactly.
Why? Why does it matter?
Because - as NS pointed out in #77 - you introduced the term without definition, so saying that a particular political system at this or that time wasn't a democracy is meaningless. Without saying what one is, saying that such-and-such a place isn't is just waffle.
-
Well you have to define democracy
Government by the people is the literal definition. However, I think that is is reasonable to extend that to government chosen by the people
I appeared to live in a 'democracy' in 1979 when two friends "broke the law' by a same sex kiss. Are you saying that in 1979 it wasn"t a democracy.
In which democracy in 1979 was a same sex kiss illegal?
-
Exactly.Because - as NS pointed out - you introduced the term without definition
Excuse me for using a common term while expecting other people to understand what it meant.
I honestly though that it would be completely uncontroversial to deny that the UK with half its population disenfranchised because of their sex was a democracy. It clearly wasn't.
-
Excuse me for using a common term while expecting other people to understand what it meant.
I honestly though that it would be completely uncontroversial to deny that the UK with half its population disenfranchised because of their sex was a democracy. It clearly wasn't.
Clearly not.
So when - according to you - did the UK achieve democracy? We know you think it wasn't a democracy in 1918; is it now? If so, when, between 1918 and 2017, did it happen?
-
Reuters are reporting that independence will be declared on Monday. It's difficult to believe this has moved so fast, but Madrid will surely not just accept this. The king seems to have inflamed things even more.
-
Spain could be out of the EU quicker than us.
-
Gerry Hassan being reasonable
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/gerry-hassan/are-we-all-catalans-now-why-scotland-is-very-different
-
A court stops a meeting of an elected parliament? Mmm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41514398
-
Catalan police chief in court on sedition charges. I would have thought we are surely at a position where if the EU is to maintain any credibility it does have that it needs to somehow step in. The wringing of hands stuff isn't going to cut it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41523250
-
You've noticed wringing of hands? I hadn't thought the EU had gone that far.
-
Apparently Switzerland have offered to mediate.
-
Bit of coded opinion here from Daniel Hannan, as regards Brexit, but good stuff
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/madrids-violent-tactics-will-only-push-catalans-towards-independence/
-
So Puigdemont steps back from a declaration. Good. Just need others to step up
-
But people locked up for sedition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41646142
-
And now Catalan autonomy to be suspended. This is very worrying whatever your opinion on Catalan independence is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41678086
-
And now Catalan autonomy to be suspended. This is very worrying whatever your opinion on Catalan independence is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41678086
I agree it is worrying, and something the EU could well do without at present.
-
I agree it is worrying, and something the EU could well do without at present.
They seem to be doing a very good job of doing nothing at the moment.
I find myself in agreement with a lot of Craig Murray's blog
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/10/spain-operating-way-beyond-democratic-legitimacy/
-
They seem to be doing a very good job of doing nothing at the moment.
I find myself in agreement with a lot of Craig Murray's blog
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/10/spain-operating-way-beyond-democratic-legitimacy/
Spain is showing itself up in a very poor light.
If Scotland had voted for independence, however bad a decision I believe that would have been, I hope the Government in London wouldn't have behaved in the same way as Spain.
-
Getting indications that the meeting on Thursday will declare independence. Think this is a mistake despite the intransigence of the Spanish govt.
-
Spain is showing itself up in a very poor light.
If Scotland had voted for independence, however bad a decision I believe that would have been, I hope the Government in London wouldn't have behaved in the same way as Spain.
They might not have behaved the same way but they would not likely have allowed the result to be binding if the circumstances were the same.
-
Bromley independent from Greater London.
Then Orpington independent from Bromley.
Sound good?
-
Bromley independent from Greater London.
Then Orpington independent from Bromley.
Sound good?
And your point is, caller?
-
KENT not "London".
There are two places naned Bromley. One is in historic Kent, and to this day is still 40 % open countryside. The other is Bromley by Bow, in Larndarns historic East End.
There are two places named Moldova.
One is the north eastern province of Romania, I don't like it very much, there is something of a peasant & communist mentality.
The other is historic Basarabia, most of which is de jure the Former Soviet Republic of Moldova. Most real Moldovans consider the inhabitants of the same to be "white gypsies".
You understand now?
-
Not in the slightest.
-
Not in the slightest.
So you really have no idea that some people want their independence from an imposed authority?
-
So you really have no idea that some people want their independence from an imposed authority?
I've got no idea what this specifically has to do with Catalonia becoming/not becoming an independent country, or the actions of the Spanish govt, or the EU
-
I've got no idea what this specifically has to do with Catalonia becoming/not becoming an independent country, or the actions of the Spanish govt, or the EU
I would have thought it very obvious. Independence for Bromley from the imposed Greater London, and from the imposed Greater London President (the so called "Mayor").
-
I would have thought it very obvious. Independence for Bromley from the imposed Greater London, and from the imposed Greater London President (the so called "Mayor").
which seems like a different thread to a discussion on what is going on in Catalonia.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
The Catalans have just declared independence from Spain
-
Well those in the Catalan parliament have voted, despite a boycott from many members, to do so.
-
Well those in the Catalan parliament have voted, despite a boycott from many members, to do so.
I hope there is no more violence.
-
Every good wish for the new republic of Catalonia.
-
Yes, I wish them well, although I have no idea whether this is a truly historic moment, to rank alongside 1916, or something largely symbolic, or a tragic mistake. I guess that Madrid will now be compelled to dissolve the Catalan parliament; after that, who knows. Will Madrid use its troops? Who will resist? Seeing them sing the anthem in the parliament is quite stirring.
-
Maybe Spain'll be out of Europe before us. We could then form a new European alliance based on nostalgia for the Fifties.
-
This sort of thing is catching. Here is a part of a letter to the editor of the Evesham Observer in response to news that traffic problems in the town will not be addressed:
The Doo Dah Party is a new political movement demanding equal lack of access to all and to this end we want a referendum to Evesham leaving the present system and becoming Independent. Evexit would see Evesham become a prosperous community in charge of its own destiny, financed partly by turning Abbey Bridge into a toll bridge for non residents.
We shall build a wall and Wychavon is paying. An Independent Evesham would join the Duchy of Cornwall to enjoy tax breaks and more income would be generated by whale watching trips on the Avon.
Looks serious to me.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41783238
The UK wont recognise Catalonian independence.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41783238
The UK wont recognise Catalonian independence.
I couldn't care less what Westminster recognises.
If a pweople decide to be free, who cares what a septic tank thinks?
-
Gambia apparently recognising Catalunya
-
Gambia apparently recognising Catalunya
Or maybe not.
-
I couldn't care less what Westminster recognises.
If a pweople decide to be free, who cares what a septic tank thinks?
Except that it is very unclear that a people have decided to be free - and therein lies the problem. The whole situation has been dealt with badly on both sides (Catalonian & Spanish administrations) and neither of them are serving the citizens particularly well at the moment.
-
I couldn't care less what Westminster recognises.
If a pweople decide to be free, who cares what a septic tank thinks?
What people has decided to be free?
In what way are the people of Catalonia more free now than they were this time last week?
-
I can only concur with jeremyp's post.
What - exactly - are the people of Catalonia expecting to be free from?
And what are they expecting to be free to do?
-
Agree with the last few posts. And if people want to be free from fear and uncertainty over their futures then they certainly dont have that today.
-
I can only concur with jeremyp's post.
What - exactly - are the people of Catalonia expecting to be free from?
Rule from Madrid, presumably.
And what are they expecting to be free to do?
Whatever the people of Catalonia decide and not what Madrid says, I expect.
-
Rule from Madrid, presumably.
Whatever the people of Catalonia decide and not what Madrid says, I expect.
The Spanish government is democratically elected. It makes bad decisions and good decisions like all governments.
Any government of Catalonia would be the same. Maybe there would be towns and villages in the region that don't like what they do. Should they be allowed to declare independence?
-
The Spanish government is democratically elected. It makes bad decisions and good decisions like all governments.
Any government of Catalonia would be the same.
Exactly what I was going to say, so no argument against Catalonian independence.
Maybe there would be towns and villages in the region that don't like what they do. Should they be allowed to declare independence?
If a town or village thinks it can go it alone, sure, why not.
-
This was an interesting comment:
"Cheers to the new independent Catalonia. Spain should now change its name for Castilla. "Castilla", the true name of the Spanish state. It expresses what is really behind the Spanish pretention to have the imperial right to dominate the whole Iberian Peninsula... We the Portuguese people, have already experienced time and time again what that reckless imperialism means." ~ Silvero Rebelo
-
I can only concur with jeremyp's post.
What - exactly - are the people of Catalonia expecting to be free from?
And what are they expecting to be free to do?
Be a nation, able to determine their own future?
-
Be a nation, able to determine their own future?
They are already in a national able to determine their own future.
-
They are already in a national able to determine their own future.
Presumably at least some Catalonians don't agree when it's Madrid doing the determining.
-
Presumably at least some Catalonians don't agree when it's Madrid doing the determining.
It's not Madrid doing the determining, it is the democratically elected government of Spain. Everybody in Spain had a chance to have a say in who the government are.
There will always be somebody who disagrees with what the government does. The logical conclusion of allowing them to go independent is a lot of little states each consisting of one person.
-
...
If a town or village thinks it can go it alone, sure, why not.
Oh great, back to feudalism. Won't all those pretty young things sent to Barca to seduce the cameras have something to look forward to? Yea!
-
Presumably at least some Catalonians don't agree when it's Madrid doing the determining.
Don't agree about what?
-
Oh great, back to feudalism.
Feudalism was imposed from without, wasn't it?
-
Don't agree about what?
That (in Jeremy's words) "They [Catalonians] are already in a nation able to determine their own future."
-
Feudalism was imposed from without, wasn't it?
From the point of view of a village in Catalonia, independence is being imposed (well attempted independence) from without.
-
It's not Madrid doing the determining, it is the democratically elected government of Spain.
Yet you've already conceded (#133) that that would also be the case with an independent Catalonia.
-
From the point of view of a village in Catalonia, independence is being imposed (well attempted independence) from without.
From within, surely.
-
Yet you've already conceded (#133) that that would also be the case with an independent Catalonia.
When you say "Madrid" instead of the "Spanish government", you are implying that the Catalonians had no part in determining the composition of that government. That is a falsehood.
-
From the point of view of a village in Catalonia, independence is being imposed (well attempted independence) from without.
Well, mostly Barcelona, city socialists, are not for independence, the main drive for, is from the more right wing rural villages and towns. They think they can pay less tax and stop immigration and so on.
-
When you say "Madrid" instead of the "Spanish government", you are implying that the Catalonians had no part in determining the composition of that government. That is a falsehood.
Given that this is a thread about Catalonian independence you seem somehow to be missing the (fairly central) point that many Catalonians don't want a Spanish government but a Catalonian one.
-
Given that this is a thread about Catalonian independence you seem somehow to be missing the (fairly central) point that many Catalonians don't want a Spanish government but a Catalonian one.
I want a Ferrari, but it turns out you can't just have what you want. Also the dream and the reality often turn out not to be the same. If I got a Ferrari I'd probably find it too impractical to keep.
Spain is already a democracy. Nothing would be achieved by seceding from Spain except masses of bureaucracy and squabbling and eventual ejection from the EU. Catalonia has been a part of Spain for longer than Scotland has been part of the UK and definitely longer than the UK has been part of the /eu and look how swimmingly that is going.
Now they've illegally declared independence, I really can't see this ending well.
-
Given that this is a thread about Catalonian independence you seem somehow to be missing the (fairly central) point that many Catalonians don't want a Spanish government but a Catalonian one.
And you seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that many Catalonians didn't vote because they were told by their democratically elected government that it was an illegal referendum, and the "many" you quote might actually be a minority - although we have no certainty about this until a proper referendum is conducted. In these circumstances I cannot see how anyone can cite this referendum as being legitimate. And as you have pointed out elsewhere on referenda it is the majority view that should take precedence as it is 'democracy' in action - no matter the means by which that democracy has been informed.
-
One of the problems is that the Spanish constitution forbids secession, and seems to forbid any referendum about secession. Hence, illegality seems the only route for indy supporters, unless they are able to do a deal with Madrid. Unlikely at the moment.
-
In order to do this justice now would take a huge post which I don't have time for. Just like to point out that Jeremyp's point about Catalonia being part of Spain for longer than Scotland is extremely questionable given it's really only the war of the Spanish Succesion that the are became part of Spain and that was by conquest, and that's without the very different nature of nation states at the time. Further that it is less than 80 years since the areas was fighting for autonymy and was again militarily subdued and then had rights oppressed for 40 years makes it very different to Scotland. It's easy for people on both sides of the argument to extend the analogy with Scotland or other places seeking or having achieved independence
-
One of the problems is that the Spanish constitution forbids secession, and seems to forbid any referendum about secession. Hence, illegality seems the only route for indy supporters, unless they are able to do a deal with Madrid. Unlikely at the moment.
They can have a new election, where independence is the defining issue.
-
They can have a new election, where independence is the defining issue.
They had an election where that was in the manifesto. That's how we got here.
-
Yes, that's how Puigdemont became president of the Catalan government. If Spain forbids secession, they are going round in circles, and I don't think the Catalan movement has enough forces to push it through.
An odd side issue is that talking to people I know there, plenty of people on the left are against independence, and I think Puigdemont is sort of centre right. But then nationalism crosses the left/right spectrum. There is also a more hard left movement which does support independence.
-
Yes, that's how Puigdemont became president of the Catalan government. If Spain forbids secession, they are going round in circles, and I don't think the Catalan movement has enough forces to push it through.
Not really..
If there had been a mandate for independence, Puigdemont would not have provoked Madrid with an illegal referendum, and could have declared at that point.
The Spanish government (whoever is in power) can't decide these things on a whim... they have to follow the law and constitution. If Catalonia is to become independent peacefully then the constitution has to change.
Unfortunately for those wanting independence the Madrid conservatives have gained politically by contesting or blocking such changes. They need to persuade the Spanish people that they have a workable proposition.
An odd side issue is that talking to people I know there, plenty of people on the left are against independence, and I think Puigdemont is sort of centre right. But then nationalism crosses the left/right spectrum. There is also a more hard left movement which does support independence.
-
Well, if you are trying to persuade Madrid to change the constitution, so as to allow secession, you are in a for a long haul. It reminds me of Irish Home Rule, which was discussed for decades. In the end, Irish people cut the Gordian knot.
Doing it legally is very difficult. The Belgians went in for strikes, street riots, occupation of public buildings, desertion of troops, the famous 'night at the opera', and so on. Different times, of course, (1830).
-
Here's a potted history of the relationship between the two....... http://tinyurl.com/y8opo65j
-
Thanks, Ekim, I've just started reading George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia' that can be found as a pdf online. This is Orwell's 1938 account of the Spanish Revolution and Civil War, from his point of view as a volunteer in the POUM militia.
-
In order to do this justice now would take a huge post which I don't have time for. Just like to point out that Jeremyp's point about Catalonia being part of Spain for longer than Scotland is extremely questionable given it's really only the war of the Spanish Succesion that the are became part of Spain and that was by conquest, and that's without the very different nature of nation states at the time. Further that it is less than 80 years since the areas was fighting for autonymy and was again militarily subdued and then had rights oppressed for 40 years makes it very different to Scotland. It's easy for people on both sides of the argument to extend the analogy with Scotland or other places seeking or having achieved independence
Yeah, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain
Catalonia has been part of Spain since at least the 17th century.
-
Yeah, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain
Catalonia has been part of Spain since at least the 17th century.
As per your link what happened in 1516 was a unification of crowns similar to what happened in 1603 in Britain. The crown of Aragones, where the Principality of Catalonia was, continued to 1716 as a separate entity in an almost federated manner with its own institutions. The defeat of the Catalan Army in the siege of Barcelona on 11 September 1714 can probably be taken as its end. This is why Catalan National Day is 11th September, marking for reasons I have always found odd, a significant defeat. However, 1716 is seen as the equivalent to the 1707 Act of Union.
-
Leaving the 16th to 18th century discussions in the past for a while, tbis latest approach from Spain will obviously calm things down....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41802900
-
Looks like Puigdemont and other members of the govt may be seeking political asylum in Belgium!!!
-
Looks like Puigdemont and other members of the govt may be seeking political asylum in Belgium!!!
Or not: http://tinyurl.com/y93fy838
-
Meanwhile
http://catalannews.com/politics/item/eight-deposed-catalan-ministers-sent-to-prison-without-bail
-
And now request received by Spanish Prosecutor to outlaw the pro independence parties.
-
Court in Belgium on 17th
http://m.france24.com/en/20171106-spain-belgium-catalonia-sacked-catalan-leader-puigdemont-due-court-november-17?ref=fb
-
If this were to be happening in the run up to an election in some Sth American country there would be uproar about the election about to be held as not being free and fair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42221657
-
This is some good news, at least.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42237377
-
Good, they should never have been issued in the first place.
-
Good, they should never have been issued in the first place.
I agree that the optics are bad, but I don't think there was anything improper about the warrants. The people for whom they were issued may well have broken the law.
-
I agree that the optics are bad, but I don't think there was anything improper about the warrants. The people for whom they were issued may well have broken the law.
And the warrants may well be suppressing democracy which could be against EU law.
-
And the warrants may well be suppressing democracy which could be against EU law.
How so?
-
How so?
Obviously this is Puigdemont's argument but it seems at least to have some value.
-
Let's hope not
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/10/catalonia-braced-violence-judge-orders-seizure-disputed-religious/
-
Obviously this is Puigdemont's argument but it seems at least to have some value.
What is his argument?
I was asking you how the warrants are suppressing democracy. You still haven't answered.
-
What is his argument?
I was asking you how the warrants are suppressing democracy. You still haven't answered.
It was a missed link
See below
http://catalannews.com/politics/item/spain-has-withdrawn-the-arrest-warrant-out-of-fear-puigdemont-says
-
It was a missed link
See below
http://catalannews.com/politics/item/spain-has-withdrawn-the-arrest-warrant-out-of-fear-puigdemont-says
The link doesn't answer my question. It merely reports the opinion of one of the arrestees, which is likely to be biased. You were the one who claimed that the warrants may well be suppressing democracy. What is your argument.
-
The link doesn't answer my question. It merely reports the opinion of one of the arrestees, which is likely to be biased. You were the one who claimed that the warrants may well be suppressing democracy. What is your argument.
Just because someone's opinion may be biased doesn't make their position wrong, that would just be you using the ad hominem fallacy to dismiss the arguments. I think Puigdemont's position has some value, as already stated.
-
Just because someone's opinion may be biased doesn't make their position wrong,
No it doesn't. But you are refusing to tell me why your position is right. I am calling you out, not Puigdemont.
You tell me in your own words why I should believe your assertion that the EAW's suppresses democracy.
I think Puigdemont's position has some value, as already stated.
Why do you think it has some value?
By the way, ad hominem is a fallacy that applies when you dismiss an argument because of who the person is that makes the argument. If I dispute an unsubstantiated statement because of who the person is that makes the statement, it is not ad hominem. Puigdemont has made a statement but not an argument as far as I can see. If you can articulate the argument he makes, all well and good.
-
So why mention his bias if you agree it's irrelevant here? The argument itself is a fairly simple one covered by Puigdemont's vomnentd. If the warrants are used for political purpises then their possible illegality is based on a supression of demicracy, hence the legal idea that they shouldn't be for political purposes.
-
So why mention his bias if you agree it's irrelevant here?
Because other people don't seem to agree that it is irrelevant.
The argument itself is a fairly simple one covered by Puigdemont's vomnentd. If the warrants are used for political purpises then their possible illegality is based on a supression of demicracy, hence the legal idea that they shouldn't be for political purposes.
The assumption there is that the warrants are being used for political purposes. I do not see any evidence that that is the case.
-
Because other people don't seem to agree that it is irrelevant.
The assumption there is that the warrants are being used for political purposes. I do not see any evidence that that is the case.
So if other people think the colour of his skin is relevant - that is an argument for it? Are they biased? You seem confused.
As to whether it's an good argument against it. Don't know but you seem to be saying that your opinion is an argument and Puigdemonts isn't.
-
So if other people think the colour of his skin is relevant - that is an argument for it? Are they biased? You seem confused.
As to whether it's an good argument against it. Don't know but you seem to be saying that your opinion is an argument and Puigdemonts isn't.
I'm not the one making a claim here. I simply note that he has been accused of committing a crime and warrants have been issued to make him go back to Spain to answer the accusations. Puigedemont is the one who claims that they are illegal. His argument for why (as articulated by you here) is "if the warrants are used for political purposes then their possible illegality is based on a supression of democracy". The argument rests on the premise "the warrants are used for political purposes". I see two problems with that argument
1. the assumption that a warrant issued for political purposes is necessarily a suppression of democracy is not proven
2. the premise "the warrants are being used for political purposes" is not proven.
-
I'm not the one making a claim here. I simply note that he has been accused of committing a crime and warrants have been issued to make him go back to Spain to answer the accusations. Puigedemont is the one who claims that they are illegal. His argument for why (as articulated by you here) is "if the warrants are used for political purposes then their possible illegality is based on a supression of democracy". The argument rests on the premise "the warrants are used for political purposes". I see two problems with that argument
1. the assumption that a warrant issued for political purposes is necessarily a suppression of democracy is not proven
2. the premise "the warrants are being used for political purposes" is not proven.
didn't say it was proven- just that it was arguable
-
The report doesn't seem to cover those parties that while not being pro independence are pro referendum which could be significant.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42435684
-
And it would appear that the snap election even with a high turnout has solved precisely nothing. A majority for the independence parties in seats but not votes, and with the prospect that they may struggle to work together. Ciudanos as unionists become the largest party but the PP of Rajoy collapse. Of those parties regarded as pro v anti independence the vote was 47.5 to 42.5. Both sides need to negotiatiate honestly.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/21/catalonia-election-set-to-give-victory-to-pro-independence-parties
-
With this and Rajoy's statement that he will talk only at the moment to the leader of Ciudanos, marginally the largest party but with no apparent chance of being in the government, the problems and a basic lack of honesty in approach continues. And of course Guardiola gets named in a police report
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/23/catalonia-peace-stall-arrests-tensions-judiciary
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/catalonia-referendum-election-pep-guardiola-manchester-city-investigation-spanish-police-support-a8123906.html
-
Or in my view whitewashes the anti democratic actions of the Spanish govt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/25/spains-king-attempts-to-calm-catalonia-crisis-in-christmas-speech
-
Or in my view whitewashes the anti democratic actions of the Spanish govt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/25/spains-king-attempts-to-calm-catalonia-crisis-in-christmas-speech
The Spanish government is trying to uphold the law and constitution of Spain. Yes, they are doing it in a very ham fisted way, but I don't see how they are being undemocratic.
-
NS, if the Mayor London organised a referendum in all the boroughs of Greater London, and the result was that the majority of voters supported the proposal that Greater London should leave the United Kingdom, would you support the majority decision?
-
NS, if the Mayor London organised a referendum in all the boroughs of Greater London, and the result was that the majority of voters supported the proposal that Greater London should leave the United Kingdom, would you support the majority decision?
Not quite sure where even with the false equivalence you could get that from my position this thread. Let's deal with the false equivalence first. The mayor of London is a single elected official whereas the Catalan govt have now had three elections where pro independence parties have been elected on manifestos to hold referendums (not a single in campaigned for action as covered in your post). Now even with that I don't think that any referendum on such change should be a simple majority and I don't think in this situation that either of the polls held are valid.
However, what I do believe is that imprisoning people for carrying out manifesto commitments such as holding a referendum is at base anti Democratic, and even if it is against Spanish law, that law is arguably against the international law they are signed up to in the EU and UN. I think it is antidemocratic to send in police to beat up pensioners who were not as individuals breaking any law. I think it is antidemocratic to state that you will hold no talks with the elected govt ever. I think it is antidemocratic to put a leader of the independence movement for campaigning in a phone call in prison during this latest election. I think it is anti democratic for Guardiola to be named in police reports for expressing an opinion.
-
The fact that, on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances, the agents of the Spanish state have behaved appallingly. I am disgusted by the behaviour of the Spanish police and the judiciary in their reactions to events in Catalonia. However, although such behaviour gives credence to the wishes of Catalonians, it does not give legitimacy.
I was asking you for your opinion on a single aspect of constitutionality. not for a smokescreen of indignation.
-
The fact that, on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances, the agents of the Spanish state have behaved appallingly. I am disgusted by the behaviour of the Spanish police and the judiciary in their reactions to events in Catalonia. However, although such behaviour gives credence to the wishes of Catalonians, it does not give legitimacy.
I was asking you for your opinion on a single aspect of constitutionality. not for a smokescreen of indignation.
I provided that as well covering both the false equivalence and why ignoring that I still wouldn't support it being a vote for independence. It's in the first para of my reply.
-
However, what I do believe is that imprisoning people for carrying out manifesto commitments such as holding a referendum is at base anti Democratic
It's not anti-democratic if the manifesto pledge is against the law.
and even if it is against Spanish law, that law is arguably against the international law they are signed up to in the EU and UN.
Citation needed.
I think it is antidemocratic to send in police to beat up pensioners who were not as individuals breaking any law.
That is true. Which pensioners was it?
I think it is antidemocratic to state that you will hold no talks with the elected govt ever.
What if it was in the manifesto of Spain's governing party not to countenance independence for Catalonia? Wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore that pledge?
-
I provided that as well covering both the false equivalence
OK. Suppose three London mayors in a row were elected based on a commitment to make London independent. Now answer the question.
-
OK. Suppose three London mayors in a row were elected based on a commitment to make London independent. Now answer the question.
Again it was answered. I covered both the false equivalence abd what my position would be even if you didn't continue the false equivalence as you did here. Suggest you reread.
-
It's not anti-democratic if the manifesto pledge is against the law.
Sorry, that's philosophical gibberish as it makes support for women's suffrage bad if it's against the law.
Citation needed.
For an argument? You seem a bit confused. For the EU we have already covered this with Puigdemont's position. For the UN see the Declaration on Human Rights on self determination - there's a post earlier on the thread covering the argument.
That is true. Which pensioners was it?
Was it what?
What if it was in the manifesto of Spain's governing party not to countenance independence for Catalonia? Wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore that pledge?
Yep, because if a govt elected on male suffrage to deny women voting would be anti democratic.
-
Again it was answered. I covered both the false equivalence abd what my position would be even if you didn't continue the false equivalence as you did here. Suggest you reread.
No you didn't answer it. The question was whether you would support the actions of Londoners if they took the democratic decision to leave the UK (by electing a pro-independence mayor). You have not answered that question.
-
Sorry, that's philosophical gibberish
Whether it is right or wrong, it is not philosophical gibberish. You should stop embellishing your arguments with irrelevant hyperbole.
as it makes support for women's suffrage bad if it's against the law.
If women do not have suffrage, how can the law be democratic? Spain is a democracy and has been for more than forty years. The laws in Spain are made by a democratic government, therefore to break them is undemocratic.
For an argument? You seem a bit confused.
You made a claim that Spain's law is against EU law and UN law (not that the UN has any jurisdiction). Adding the word "arguably" does not make your point immune to requests for evidence. Either you know of EU laws that Spanish laws contradict, in which case you should be able to provide a citation, or you pulled your statement out of your bottom, in which case we need not trouble ourselves with considering it further.
For the EU we have already covered this with Puigdemont's position.
Puigedemont is currently hiding in Belgium. I don't see any European legal experts leaping to his defence.
For the UN see the Declaration on Human Rights on self determination - there's a post earlier on the thread covering the argument.
Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please point to the article (there's only thirty and I've read them all, so you can too) which you allege Spain is breaching.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
If you were thinking of going for article 21, you should remember that the country that Catalonians belong to is Spain and there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that they should be deprived of any of their rights in respect of determining Spain's government.
Was it what?
Which pensioners was it that Spain allegedly sent the police in to beat up.
Yep, because if a govt elected on male suffrage to deny women voting would be anti democratic.
That's not even remotely similar to what I said. First of all, the Spanish government was not elected by everybody except Catalonians. Secondly, the resolution would be to deny Catalonia independence of Spain, not to deny Catalonians the right to vote in Spanish elections.
-
No you didn't answer it. The question was whether you would support the actions of Londoners if they took the democratic decision to leave the UK (by electing a pro-independence mayor). You have not answered that question.
Yes I have, I apologise if it isn't clear but I thought that by pointing out that even with the more valid route of having a govt of Catalonia rather than a single official on manifestoes on multiple occasions now, I am still opposed to Catalonia being declared independent, on the current basis, and opposed to referendums on simple majorities to support change, that if I don't agree with the more valid process, I wouldn't support what I see as the less valid one as being conclusive.
-
Whether it is right or wrong, it is not philosophical gibberish. You should stop embellishing your arguments with irrelevant hyperbole.
If women do not have suffrage, how can the law be democratic? Spain is a democracy and has been for more than forty years. The laws in Spain are made by a democratic government, therefore to break them is undemocratic.
You made a claim that Spain's law is against EU law and UN law (not that the UN has any jurisdiction).
...That's not even remotely similar to what I said. First of all, the Spanish government was not elected by everybody except Catalonians. Secondly, the resolution would be to deny Catalonia independence of Spain, not to deny Catalonians the right to vote in Spanish elections.
Thanks for making my point for me twice here. It's philosophically gibberish for you to use the argument that something being against the law is by nature anti democratic because as you have illustrated here you don't believe that. You are adding in a number of specific values for a democratic state and then saying that in that case the law applies - however, it's precisely the question of what is democratic that we are discussing. I see the right to look to have self determination, however that is defined, as part of what democracy is, and it's philosophically illogically for you to use the against the ;aw' card there because you don't think law is the determinant of democracy
Adding the word "arguably" does not make your point immune to requests for evidence. Either you know of EU laws that Spanish laws contradict, in which case you should be able to provide a citation, or you pulled your statement out of your bottom, in which case we need not trouble ourselves with considering it further.
Puigedemont is currently hiding in Belgium. I don't see any European legal experts leaping to his defence.
Why is Puidgemont being in Belguim relevant as to whether he's making a good argument?
Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please point to the article (there's only thirty and I've read them all, so you can too) which you allege Spain is breaching.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
If you were thinking of going for article 21, you should remember that the country that Catalonians belong to is Spain and there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that they should be deprived of any of their rights in respect of determining Spain's government.
Actually I was thinking of 15, 19, and 20 - see the opinion I had referred to earlier
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14488.25
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22176&LangID=E
Which pensioners was it that Spain allegedly sent the police in to beat up.
Those that were beaten up by the police with the support and direction of the Spanish govt.
-
Long live Tabarnia!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/16/fictional-region-tabarnia-aiming-leave-catalonia-appoints-president?CMP=fb_gu
-
Thanks for making my point for me twice here. It's philosophically gibberish for you to use the argument that something being against the law is by nature anti democratic because as you have illustrated here you don't believe that.
Why don't you just say "it's wrong" instead of "philosophic gibberish". From here it looks like you are dressing your points up in sophistry because you don't have a good argument.
If a law is made by a democratically elected government then it is undemocratic to break that law. If you don't like a law in a democracy, the correct procedure is to use the democratic process to change it.
The Catelonians are able to participate in Spanish democracy. The suffragettes of the early twentieth century UK were not able to participate in their "democracy". That is why you're analogy was fundamentally broken.
You are adding in a number of specific values for a democratic state and then saying that in that case the law applies - however, it's precisely the question of what is democratic that we are discussing. I see the right to look to have self determination, however that is defined, as part of what democracy is, and it's philosophically illogically for you to use the against the ;aw' card there because you don't think law is the determinant of democracy
Why is Puidgemont being in Belguim relevant as to whether he's making a good argument?
Who said it was? I said Puidgemont was hiding in Belgium and no European lawyers were leaping to his defence as evidence that the Spanish government is not breaking any EU laws. If the Spanish government was breaking an EU law why isn't Puidgemont hauling them through the European courts now. Probably because he has no case.
Actually I was thinking of 15, 19, and 20
15
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Catalonians have a right to a nationality. They are Spanish nationals. The second point allows you to change your nationality, not invent arbitrary new ones.
19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions with- out interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Catalonians have every right to express the opinion that Catelonia should be independent. Nothing here says they have the right to set up a new country within the boundaries of another already existing country.
20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Doesn't say the assembly and association can be a new country. Also, perhaps you'd like to consider how the second point relates to Catalonians who want do not want to be part of a new country.
-
Long live Tabarnia!
What about a homeland for antitheists? How about Uptheirownania ha ha ha ha.
-
What about a homeland for antitheists? How about Uptheirownania ha ha ha ha.
You see sometimes you're funny and sometimes you aren't all ha,ha,ha, at all.
-
What about a homeland for antitheists? How about Uptheirownania ha ha ha ha.
Clearly you are feeling 100% healthy. Time to get off the stage.
-
This isn't going to calm support for Catalan independence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49974289