The explanation is very long, it cannot be summarized in two lines.
But basically it can be said that a part of a country that has never been independent cannot decide to become independent.
THE party cannot make decisions that affect the whole
for example:
Can the smallest town from Texas to Mexico declare war?
Notably after the Brexit vote.
That’s not what they were saying in the UK media in 2014.
But basically it can be said that a part of a country that has never been independent cannot decide to become independent.
All that means, if it holds of a place, is that it was never not a colony. That seems a goofy argument against independence. Most of the 80 or so countries that have gained independence since the UN was created would not survive this criterion.
Can the smallest town from Texas to Mexico declare war?
There is nothing in the US Constitution against secession, the seminal Supreme Court ruling on it just gave conditions for it. Also, “smallest” is misleading in this particular case; the population of Catalonia is larger than that of at least 12 of the 27 member states of the EU.
Speaking as a neutral who generally dislikes secession on principle, your arguments are, ironically, swaying me to the side of the independence movement.
4 Likes
This is a case of a majority imposing their will onto a minority by the use of force, repression, and lawfare.
Not because something is legal under some jurisdiction we can automatically deduce that is is right or fair. We should be more critical of laws and do not follow them blindly. Even in societies that are democratic in general. As you surely know, all forms of discrimination have been legal in some country at some point and some still are legal nowadays. For example racial discrimination in the USA or Apartheid in South Africa were perfectly legal.
Catalans ask to exercise the right of self determination and choose their own future, in a peaceful way and using democratic tools such as a referendum. If this is illegal under current laws it’s the laws that we should change, and not the heads of the citizens split open and people thrown in prison for dissenting.
4 Likes
European regulations automatically expel any party that is secession, legally or illegally.
Without exceptions it is included in its constitution.
With the consequent border since free circulation is allowed inside.
no European country would allow access from an illegally secessioned country because all have independentist regions. everybody.
This is a natural thing due to its long and difficult history.
I have not found more than this article, I do not know what you have heard there.
But what he says in this article is “Mai says”.
Spain’s position is this.
If Scotland becomes independent from the UK in a legal way, it will have no problem in entering according to the legal way of doing so.
If Scotland becomes independent by force, that is illegally, it will say no to entry into Europe.
Spain understands that secession is legally possible and does not contemplate more options than legal ones.
What Mai says draws him from “he will not encourage any secessionist movement” said by the foreign minister.
I understand that you have made a free interpretation of this text.
It is logical that Spain does not want to get in the middle of an issue that is not theirs favoring any of the parties.
Spain does not say that Catalonia cannot be independent, but to be independent there is a legal path by which it will have to follow.
Catalonia is not a colony, so the UN will not accept independence by force.
There is a path consigned in the Spanish constitution, which includes a binding referendum.
I don’t know if I understand the truth well, I’m using google to translate.
I think this part should not have been well translated because what you answer to me has nothing to do with what I wanted to say.
It is not a problem of country size
It is a problem that a part (about 20%) of the country cannot decide what happens to 100%.
The example of the town of Texas was only to show how crazy this possibility was.
I understand that if (hopefully never happens) Mexico would attack a small town in Texas, the answer would be taken by the US in full.
Sorry to hear this.
I do not master your language and for me it is an effort to translate everything.
We are many Spaniards who believe that there is a strong misinformation on this matter.
I made no interpretation of that text, since I was talking about British media in 2014 not Spanish media in 2017. For example, this:
His [Rajoy’s] intervention confirms long-held suspicions that the Madrid government will resist the Scottish government’s plans because of its rejection of Catalonian independence, which has seen large marches in Barcelona in favour of secession.
You also wrote:
It is a problem that a part (about 20%) of the country cannot decide what happens to 100%.
Unless they become independent of that country, which has never happened in the US but could.
I understand that if (hopefully never happens) Mexico would attack a small town in Texas, the answer would be taken by the US in full.
If Mexico attacked any US state of course the US military would intervene, but Texas does have its own autonomous military force, the Texas State Guard, that answers only to the elected government of Texas. Part of the autonomy that comes with being a US state is the right to defend yourself against tyrannical intervention from the federal government.
I think there was a misunderstanding.
The use of google translate is not ideal.
I think I had not understood you:
Spain will not veto the entry of Scotland or ever thought about it but if it is true that it would force that it would not agree with a quick entry, it would force it to do what any new country has to do to enter, that is true.
did you mean that ??
I have looked over on wikipedia and what I have read is that you cannot leave us.
I have read something about Texas and about California.
It is very frustrating not being able to understand you at all.
May I ask where you are from?
I am from Granada, Spain, Greetings!
I just read this, about what California would have to do to become independent.
The first would require a referendum proposal approved by two-thirds of the Californian legislative chambers or a public initiative with the signatures of 8% of the votes held in the last state elections, which would be voted in the following and whose approval would require the favorable vote. of 55% and a minimum participation of 50%. The next step would be the formal proposal for an amendment to the US Constitution that would overcome the “consensus of the States” established in the sentence “Texas v. White ”—which declared any unilateral secession unconstitutional—: the approval of at least two-thirds of the US Congress and Senate, and three-fourths of the state legislative chambers. In summary, a reform of the maximum state and federal laws, protected in both cases with supermayories.
It is easier for Catalonia to become independent from Spain.
A better process, at least when writing:
Google translate using proper grammar.
Reverse translate the result.
Google translate again, back to original language. Correct grammar.
Google translate again to desired language.
Repeat as necessary until mistakes in grammar no longer appear.
4 Likes
No, what I meant was what I said: that the UK media frequently reported in 2013-2014 that Spain would veto Scotland joining the EU because of the Catalan example. It is possible that they were misreporting, or that Rajoy was saying one thing to the international press and something else inside Spain.
May I ask where you are from?
I am from Chicago, but lived for years in the UK (including Scotland), and currently live in Hawaii (where there is an active sovereignty movement).
formal proposal for an amendment to the US Constitution
There is no prohibition to secession in the US constitution, so nothing to amend. (The Articles of Confederation arguably did have such a prohibition, and the Texas v. White decision references those articles, which were superseded by the constitution.) There would either need to be an overturning of the ruling – which is certainly something the current court would be open to – or “consent of the states”, which would probably take the form of legislative action, not a constitutional amendment, and so not require a supermajority.
It is easier for Catalonia to become independent from Spain.
But doesn’t your constitution specifically mandate “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation”? And how can independence happen if even the first step – a referendum in the province – is interrupted by the government sending in the national police to beat up the people it claims are its equal citizens?
2 Likes
And it gets worse, even if you followed all required procedures you still had one more obstacle.
The Spanish constitution designates the Spanish army, acting under its own will, as the ultimate guardian of the unity of the country.
http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/articulos.jsp?ini=8&tipo=2
It’s very abnormal to have this in the constitution of a democracy.
This is not a minor issue, at all.
After the 2017 referendum the head of the army (the king that was appointed by the fascist dictator, is not subject to public scrutiny, has total legal immunity, and is not elected btw) entered politics and sided against the Catalans and threatened them.
This is an unprecedented move in a democratic country.
I think it’s a big red flag for a democracy to designate someone you can’t elect, backed by military power, as the ultimate judge of what is allowed according to his own interpretation of the constitution.
5 Likes
If California politicians ran a referendum about independence, that would be protected political speech. It wouldn’t land them in prison for 20 years.
5 Likes
Once I was the king of Spain! Now I comment on posts at boingboing.
3 Likes
If a higher instance had forbidden it.
They have not put them in jail for that reason, they have put them for stealing to mount it and mount it outside the law (it was done without economic transparency) I do not remember the penalties or if there were any but they are less clear.
The ones that you say have gotten 20 years are really 12 years for the one who seditions the most.
What are the crimes of rebellion and sedition and how are they punished?
crime of “rebellion against the authority of the United States or its laws” is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in jail and disqualification from public office, while the maximum punishment for persons who "conspire to overthrow the Government of States United "will not exceed 20 years in jail
the news “bursts once and for all the great myth” created by the campaign for permanence in the United Kingdom, which won a majority in that consultation
I found that news, it seems that it was all about the politicians there.
Scotland is not a topic that is talked about a lot here, the truth is not a case that has nothing to do.
It is not what I read here.
This is the most read newspaper in Spain, I don’t think they lie about something so easy to check.
The exit process involves changing parts of the constitution, convening the referendum and I think that even calling elections.
smooth
Europe is full of monarchies, experiences in Spain with the republic failed.
The Catalans voted the constitution where that king was elected with more than 90%.
The king only asked that the law be fulfilled
What I have seen in point 2 is that you must follow an organic law, it says nothing of what you say.
I have not sought that law but you know that it can be changed.
wikipedia
The Constitution recognizes the king’s person absolute inviolability and outlaws all responsibility on his part, whether political or legal; but the Constitution establishes the invalidity of all acts of the Crown holder that lack the endorsement regulated therein, which corresponds to the President of the Government, the ministers or the president of the Congress of Deputies, depending on the case.
The king does not send anything in Spain, is a kind of diplomat specialized in dealing with regimes ruled by kings or sultans or things of those
That’s not how our legal system works in the US. The Feds can forbid it all they want, the right is guaranteed in the Constitution.
Again, the only prosecutors/court that would consider a state referendum “rebellion and sedition” would be badly corrupt ones. We’re as close as we’ve been to that in 60-70 years, but still far from that kind of corruption.
1 Like
That is a strange argument coming from someone who a few paragraphs up said that the UK newspaper articles, asserting that Spain would veto Scottish entrance into the EU, were wrong.
There is nothing in the US constitution forbidding secession, that is also easy to check. To get past the court ruling in Texas v White, a secessionist only needs (a) a newer court ruling, or (b) to satisfy the ruling’s “consent of the states” clause. Courts overturning earlier court decisions is not common, but they do refine earlier decisions quite frequently. (b) does not explicitly require a constitutional amendment, though that would certainly work. I suspect what would happen, should a state decide to secede, is they would ask Congress to pass legislation affirming their right, and, should it pass, opponents would then challenge it in the Supreme Court, where Texas v White would either be refined or overturned.
Some US states, such as New York and Vermont, have the right to secede explicitly written into their ratification documents. (Amusingly, Vermont itself seceded from New York.)
I don’t think Calexit is going to happen soon – especially since it seems to be a Putin plot – but it would be easier than the process seems to be in Spain, and certainly the process leading up to it would be less bloody than the horrorshow we’ve seen in Catalonia.
1 Like
There are some concepts that I understand can be difficult to grasp, or sound weird, for someone that was not raised in Spain. Let me say something that I think will make what Jorge is trying to explain here much easier to understand:
Imagine a world where the fascist won the war.
This is Spain.
Being an openly fascist dictatorship made relationships with the democratic neighboring countries difficult and this isolation hampered economic progress.
The nazis designed a system that would allow them to save face abroad but still allow them to keep the actual power, and not be tried by their crimes.
This is the current Spanish “democracy”.
Would not you also want out?
2 Likes
It is consultation that is prohibited in the constitution.
Not on a whim.
Because that question generates political problems when it is not binding and can be used to obtain economic returns.
Not only was there a referendum, illegal and that the international community claims was falsified, there were people who voted up to 4 times.
There were also thefts of money and private data of people. use of the Catalan police to generate disturbances, laws of disconnection from Spain were enacted, they were applied against the majority ignoring the legal procedures and forcing them, after part of the defendants have escaped while awaiting trial.
a whole set of crimes that have been ruled in a court that is sedition
Spain has never been against the re-entry of Scotland. (Neither left parties nor right parties)
Spain does not want quick entry without the process that all new states that want to enter must go through.
The position of Spain is the same since joining the EU
everything you tell me about what politicians say in the UK is new to me, I don’t say that newspapers lie, I say that politicians only say the part that interests them and people think that Spain has said something more than not has said. (strange behavior for a politician!)
I understand that there are states that can regain their independence, I understand that Vermont or New York do so and are in their right, I suppose it is something similar to the case of Scotland. (is sovereignty subject, a historical right)
Catalonia is not and never has been a state, it is an administrative unit, the state is Spain, it is a part of a country (an economically rich part) that wants to become independent.
Within Catalonia there are parts that want to leave and parts that do not, then they will give the option to become independent to the parties that do not?
The answer is no (they have already clarified it to the protests of these parts that do not want to become independent).
Horrors amplified with videos of Turkish police and selected by the same independence.
In Spain, when someone realizes that he is not right, he often uses the Nazis to try to win the debate.
Arguments: Spaniards = Nazis then a violent and independent minority can do what they want.
It is curious that the Catalans are not considered Nazis since it was the favorite province of Franco.
Spain is in the European Union, to enter the rest of the states studied its constitution and said it is democratic and the proof of them is that it is within the European community.
Not trying to win anything here just trying to provide context and help people understand and reach their own conclusions.
Because I’m sure that this concepts of having a king appointed by a genocidal dictator, being beaten by the police for no apparent reason, keeping people in jail without trial, condemning people for “terrorism” without credible evidence, may be out of place in a real democracy but are better understood in the mindset of a dictatorship that was forced to transition but was allowed kept its essence.
I encourage anyone to investigate, don’t take my word for it. I was also surprised and ashamed that the fascist were allowed to continue in power in Spain inside the “democracy”. You will soon realize that the dictatorship power structure was essentially transitioned to the current system. The genocide of the dictatorship was not investigated or tried. The key people in the government were kept in place. Go check their names.
The dictatorship members created their own party (first AP, now PP). The families that extracted the riches of the country getting advantage of war crimes and repression where allowed to keep it all and continue to exert their influence today.
It’s not unusual to see members of PP and other parties defend the values of the dictatorship, saying that it was a period of greatness for the country, or even refuse to condemn the dictatorship. Also participate in religious ceremonies to honor the dictator.
And no, I’m not saying that Spaniards are fascists. Just that they are still living in a regime that is the direct heir of a fascist dictatorship. They also suffer injustice and repression.
3 Likes
