The former section just says (among other things) that the authorising of referenda is a matter reserved to the Spanish state. The latter announces that the Spanish state is an indissoluble unity.

Obviously, given these sections, no autonomous region of Spain is likely to hold legal independence referenda any time soon. Whether the constitution might be amended in future is another matter, though I doubt it.

Tracer Tong wrote:The former section just says (among other things) that the authorising of referenda is a matter reserved to the Spanish state. The latter announces that the Spanish state is an indissoluble unity.

Obviously, given these sections, no autonomous region of Spain is likely to hold legal independence referenda any time soon. Whether the constitution might be amended in future is another matter, though I doubt it.

So it does seem that there was a possibility of a legal referendum and scope for negotiation all along. The constitution doesn't prevent it.
The state can agree a referendum, which is polling opinion, not dissolving the union, and the constitution can be revised. In addition Catalonia's grievances could be discussed. The whole issue of illegality is at the discretion of the state.

aban57 wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

aban57 wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Amazing how violence against women and old people going to *Vote* is okay if it conforms with someone's fervent love of a political structure. Odd, even.

Amazing how you fail to understand pretty much every point that is made here. Which leads to even more misrepresentation from yourself. Scot never justified violence, he just tried to explain to you that those people were going to vote on an illegal referendum. Noone here denies that Spain shouldn't have repressed the vote so violently. But that doesn't change the fact that the referendum itself was illegal.
Please make an effort to understand this vey simple fact, because the discussion is turning around because you can't figure this out.

He was talking about the voters - "they were voting in an illegal referendum".

So I responded to that, the voters were then attacked, for voting in an illegal referendum. Scot appears to be justifying that. They were voting in an illegal referendum. Silly billies.

Come again ?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote: Scot never justified violence, he just tried to explain to you that those people were going to vote on an illegal referendum.

Are you suggesting that makes the voters criminals? I doubt that.

Do you the difference between a crime and an offence? I am not justifying the police violence which was not necessary. The referendum had been declared illegal.

Talk about

I looks like there's nothing you can do but misrepresent people. Isn't that against the FUA ?

I'm not disputing he has also said he is not justifying police violence.

So why say the opposite ?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

aban57 wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Amazing how violence against women and old people going to *Vote* is okay if it conforms with someone's fervent love of a political structure. Odd, even.

Amazing how you fail to understand pretty much every point that is made here. Which leads to even more misrepresentation from yourself. Scot never justified violence, he just tried to explain to you that those people were going to vote on an illegal referendum. Noone here denies that Spain shouldn't have repressed the vote so violently. But that doesn't change the fact that the referendum itself was illegal.
Please make an effort to understand this vey simple fact, because the discussion is turning around because you can't figure this out.

He was talking about the voters - "they were voting in an illegal referendum".

So I responded to that, the voters were then attacked, for voting in an illegal referendum. Scot appears to be justifying that. They were voting in an illegal referendum. Silly billies.

Where did I say that Ron. Please retract that.
I said the police actions are for another investigation and nothing to do with the illegal actions of the separatists.
The referendum was declared illegal by the country's supreme court. You dont accept the rule of law? Or is it because it is in Spain? The referendum should have never been held.

It is not the way to act in a democracy! Or cant you see that?

Cool. It's not what you meant, I accept you don't support the violence against the voters, rather that the referendum should not have been held in your opinion.

I'll just leave this here. Note this was a direct response from you to my question :

ronmcd wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Who is dissatisfied? Please. Dont insult us anymore. When North America achieves European standards then you may talk but you have a long way to go. Especially America.

I'm not sure Canada has a problem with voters being attacked by national police for daring to vote.

Or breaking the law?

How were the voters breaking the law?

Now, the police ...

Scot Dutchy wrote:They were voting in a illegal referendum. Cant you understand the rule of law?

You should read some international law. The simple basic facts would explain. When you have agreed to a constitution you have to live by it. The Spanish constitution was agreed by a legal referendum for all Spain in 1978. If you want changes you have to get the constitution changed.

People dont have the right to defy the constitution that has been agreed upon by all people. If it was imposed they may have a point but it was not. The same is true in every country with an agreed constitution. The same is true of the UK while not having a written constitution it has sufficient treaties in place to prevent an illegal uprising. Why did not Scotland just declare its independence?

So. Sure. Whatever.

aban57 wrote:So why say the opposite ?

See my post a moment ago. The discussion WAS about voters being attacked. But I accept he has clarified his position.

Q: How were the voters breaking the law?

A: They were voting in a illegal referendum. Cant you understand the rule of law?

Of course Scot doesn't agree with the police attacking voters. But his response was they were breaking the law. I then characteristically employed some marginally over the top rhetoric and sarcasm.

But my point was valid.

Sendraks wrote:

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote: Scot never justified violence, he just tried to explain to you that those people were going to vote on an illegal referendum.

Are you suggesting that makes the voters criminals? I doubt that.

I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out a simple fact. Whether that makes them criminals depends on Spanish law.

Indeed. Something can be illegal without there being a criminal offence attached to it. Indeed in the case of something like an illegal referendum, there is probably little point in criminalising the activity of voting because it isn't something that can be realistically policed without descending into full blown fascism.

But of course it was policed. Armed riot police were sent in to stop voters voting despite, as it seems there is agreement here, the voters doing nothing illegal.

I think this contrast of the holding of a referendum being illegal and the voting in it not being illegal that is at the root of the spat between Scott and Ron. Innocent voters were abused by the state says Ron (we all agree) and Scott replies "But the referendum was illegal!". At best that's a non sequitur. At worst it looks like excusing the state abuse.
It's not surprising that accusations of fascism have been flying about (not here, I think).

I certainly view it as a serious move towards fascism - especially in light of the apparent economic motive of the Spanish.

COFFEE HOUSE
Franco’s fascism is alive and kicking in Spain

After the demonstration in Barcelona on Sunday, I happened to walk past the city’s main police station. A unionist crowd had gathered to praise the officers who had so brutally suppressed the Catalan referendum the previous week. Wrapped in Spanish flags, they were chanting Viva España and throwing flowers. Then they started performing the Nazi salute.

I hung around to report on it (a video that I shot on my phone was retweeted many thousands of times). The fascists, I realised, had based themselves in a pub next door. I went in, filming on my GoPro, and saw police drinking with far-Right thugs, smiling as they were serenaded with Sieg Heils.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/f ... -in-spain/

GrahamH wrote:I think this contrast of the holding of a referendum being illegal and the voting in it not being illegal that is at the root of the spat between Scott and Ron. Innocent voters were abused by the state says Ron (we all agree) and Scott replies "But the referendum was illegal!". At best that's a non sequitur. At worst it looks like excusing the state abuse.
It's not surprising that accusations of fascism have been flying about (not here, I think).

Once again a load of bollocks which is what we expect these days. It has nothing to do with innocent voters and the police actions. As I have said that is a separate inquiry and has nothing to do with the illegal actions of the Catalan separatists. What they did was against the constitution. The supreme court of Spain declared the referendum illegal and against the constitution or do you have trouble reading? That was before the riots. The referendum should never had taken place.

You seem to have little regard to the rule of law. The constitution is legal and agreed on in a referendum in 1978 when 87% voted for it. Spain is not a Banana republic but once again we get cherry picked reports to substantiate a point of view. Which country does not have fascists or the far right?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

GrahamH wrote: The supreme court of Spain declared the referendum illegal and against the constitution or do you have trouble reading? That was before the riots. The referendum should never had taken place.

Riots? What riots? You mean the voters turning up at poling stations to be beaten back by riot police? Just because there were riot police doesn't mean there were riots. The Spanish state made the referendum illegal and sent in riot police to oppose what would likely have been a perfectly peaceful referendum with voters who were breaking no laws.

And you in no way support that use of violence, do you?
And you don't mind too much about the fascists?

GrahamH wrote:The Spanish state made the referendum illegal

That's not how it works. Catalonia had to require permission to hold the referendum. They didn't ask, so it was illegal. Spain didn't make it illegal, the Catalonia government did.

aban57 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:The Spanish state made the referendum illegal

That's not how it works. Catalonia had to require permission to hold the referendum. They didn't ask, so it was illegal. Spain didn't make it illegal, the Catalonia government did.

That is how it works. If central government stonewalls the issue only illegal action is possible if anything is to be done. It was in their power to make the referendum legal or pursue any other path and they declined to do so. In particular they did not defend the unity of Spain through the ballot box. Tactically that looks like an own goal on the Catalan issue, but maybe they have bigger plans that this is part of.

The Catalan Government has said several times over the last few weeks that proposals for a referendum vote have already been rejected over and over again in the Spanish chamber, without any alternative plans having been proposed by central Spanish Government politicians. Puigdemont said that it "doesn't make sense" to put the Catalan Government plans to a vote in Madrid once again if there is no previous agreement, nor willingness to achieve one, between Barcelona and Madrid. Moreover, he said that the Catalan referendum's legitimacy comes from the Parliamentary majority in Catalonia and the electoral mandate of the parties that won the last election on September 27, 2015. The Spanish Government wants the Spanish Congress to vote, and thus reject, the referendum plans.
http://www.catalannews.com/politics/ite ... -september

You're right. Spain pushed Catalonia until the only solution left was illegal. And Puigdemont fell into the trap, without thinking about consequences. I can't help but comparing him to Farage in a way.

aban57 wrote:You're right. Spain pushed Catalonia until the only solution left was illegal. And Puigdemont fell into the trap, without thinking about consequences. I can't help but comparing him to Farage in a way.

I'm not sure who will turn out to have come off worse. Rajoy has had the majority of bad press (so it seems to me in the UK) and has further antagonised many Catalans. If he had allowed the referendum and secured 60+% in favour of union , as polls supposedly predicted, Spain would be in a stronger position today, I should think. But maybe he prefers to be seen as a hard man aggressively putting down dissent in a very authoritarian way. Maybe he is deliberately cultivating nationalist / unionist support. Who knows?

GrahamH wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

GrahamH wrote: The supreme court of Spain declared the referendum illegal and against the constitution or do you have trouble reading? That was before the riots. The referendum should never had taken place.

Riots? What riots? You mean the voters turning up at poling stations to be beaten back by riot police? Just because there were riot police doesn't mean there were riots. The Spanish state made the referendum illegal and sent in riot police to oppose what would likely have been a perfectly peaceful referendum with voters who were breaking no laws.

And you in no way support that use of violence, do you?
And you don't mind too much about the fascists?

The referendum was illegal. The police were there to stop an illegal act but to you it was not illegal of course as you support breaking the law and could not care about the rule of law. The riots that followed are being separately investigated and I totally disagree with.

Fascists are really a red herring. There are fascists in every country and you have to live with that but a cherry picked report does not add anything.

aban57 wrote:You're right. Spain pushed Catalonia until the only solution left was illegal. And Puigdemont fell into the trap, without thinking about consequences. I can't help but comparing him to Farage in a way.

Just like the Brexiteers. Never thinking things through.

GrahamH wrote:

aban57 wrote:You're right. Spain pushed Catalonia until the only solution left was illegal. And Puigdemont fell into the trap, without thinking about consequences. I can't help but comparing him to Farage in a way.

I'm not sure who will turn out to have come off worse. Rajoy has had the majority of bad press (so it seems to me in the UK) and has further antagonised many Catalans. If he had allowed the referendum and secured 60+% in favour of union , as polls supposedly predicted, Spain would be in a stronger position today, I should think. But maybe he prefers to be seen as a hard man aggressively putting down dissent in a very authoritarian way. Maybe he is deliberately cultivating nationalist / unionist support. Who knows?

What press are you reading? The anti-EU UK rags? The referendum was not be allowed. Why would he require a stronger position? It was against the Spanish constitution. Declared illegal by the supreme court. Who is being oppressive? He is not allowed to use the rule of law and the legal structures in place in a democratic country? Spain is not a dictatorship any more. Why did not the separatists go through the process of law to achieve their ends but carried out an illegal act?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

GrahamH wrote: The supreme court of Spain declared the referendum illegal and against the constitution or do you have trouble reading? That was before the riots. The referendum should never had taken place.

Riots? What riots? You mean the voters turning up at poling stations to be beaten back by riot police? Just because there were riot police doesn't mean there were riots. The Spanish state made the referendum illegal and sent in riot police to oppose what would likely have been a perfectly peaceful referendum with voters who were breaking no laws.

And you in no way support that use of violence, do you?
And you don't mind too much about the fascists?

The referendum was illegal. The police were there to stop an illegal act but to you it was not illegal of course as you support breaking the law and could not care about the rule of law. The riots that followed are being separately investigated and I totally disagree with.

Fascists are really a red herring. There are fascists in every country and you have to live with that but a cherry picked report does not add anything.

Good, we have disposed of the conflation of voters and riots. The riot police were there to prevent voters from voting.
Voters were not breaking the law as far as we know.

In general I am in favour of upholding the law, but I recognise that the law and the enforcement of it should not deprive people of their human rights or democratic rights to be heard and to vote.

The state may make the law but the state is not always right. As other have pointed out dictators pass unjust laws and unjust laws should be opposed even if it is declared illegal to do so. It's one thing to take legal action against organisers of an illegal referendum, giving them a fair trial, it's an entirely different thing to use force to stop citizens voting.

The fascism issue has particular resonance in Spain because of Franco and Franco's actions in Catalonia. It's important context. I think it figures in separatist sentiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ctatorship
Madrid is doing things now that are like some of the policies of Franco.