Catalonia independence vote

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Rhiannon]

I'm finding the scenes in Spain completely shocking. An EU country sending in riot police to stop people voting? Wtf?

[Udayana]

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. 

[Rhiannon]

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.

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41457238

People have been hurt in clashes with the police.

[Rhiannon]

I still can't believe it.

[Udayana]

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.
 

[Nearly Sane]

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/

[Outrider]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[floo]

It would appear the police have used a lot of unnecessary violence, in an apparent attempt to punish the Catalonian voters!

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Anchorman]

 
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

[Shaker]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Shaker]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Shaker]

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.