Vote in the Catalan regional election!

[Crazy_Ivan80]

As the main separatist party is besieged by corruption scandals, the separatist bloc is putting forward a motion to sort of declare unilateral independence (the motion says that "they will begin the process to create a Catalan independent state"). It will get passed by the Catalan parliament next week.

seems madrid is getting desperate

[Valmy]

As the main separatist party is besieged by corruption scandals, the separatist bloc is putting forward a motion to sort of declare unilateral independence (the motion says that "they will begin the process to create a Catalan independent state"). It will get passed by the Catalan parliament next week.

Here I thought the once weighty matter of nations had come down to electoneering farcical garbage where you just had to get a 50.1% of the vote once to win eternal victory. But I guess I was wrong you do not even need a 50.1% majority. You can declare independence with a minority mandate.

What a farce. Catalonia should be ashamed of itself. A bad joke being created right when nation states are heading to the dust bin of history.

[celedhring]

Well, fact is that they can't. Nothing will come out of this.

[The Larch]

Well, fact is that they can't. Nothing will come out of this.

Something will come out, political ammunition for PP towards the national elections.

[celedhring]

Yeah, I'll have to thank the separatists for 4 more years of conservative dicks in power. 

[The Larch]

Yeah, I'll have to thank the separatists for 4 more years of conservative dicks in power. 

You really have to consider joining the tinfoil hat brigade for things like this (registering this initiative just before the national elections), it's as if both PP and the separatists had some kind of wink wink agreement to fan the flames right before elections to favour the other side.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

A bad joke being created right when nation states are heading to the dust bin of history.

lol, rather the opposite.

[garbon]

A bad joke being created right when nation states are heading to the dust bin of history.

lol, rather the opposite.

True. We've too many living fossils / newly born 'old souls.'

[Syt]

A bad joke being created right when nation states are heading to the dust bin of history.

I kind of see the current return to nationalism or social conservatism in some countries as akin to the 1815 restoration or the efforts of the Luddites. Eventually change will overtake them.

[viper37]

Here I thought the once weighty matter of nations had come down to electoneering farcical garbage where you just had to get a 50.1% of the vote once to win eternal victory.

I won't discuss the Catalan experience, but the generalities of your statement.

Countries weren't created with 50%+1 votes either.  In many cases, they were created, they expanded or they maintained themselves at the point of a bayonnet, or for the older ones, swords and lances.  In most countries, the Constitution can be changed by less than 100% of the states/provinces/regions via a dubious democratic process and then, everyone is stuck with it.  Even worst, it ain't done by a referendum, yet, it is totally acceptable to shackle a nation by the weight of the majority in the country, especially if they're of a different culture.  In one example that comes to mind, I can not imagine Canada changing its Constitution and ignoring the fact that Alberta rejects the changes.  I could not conceive Canada changing the rules for a Constitution change and ignoring Ontario's opposition to the measure.  Yet somehow, we're told that if we want to seperate, it has to be done by Canada's will, something the new government has already announced it would never agree to, even if 95% of Quebec were to vote for independance.  But that is democracy.  50%+1, used everywhere else for every vote is just ok, except to seperate a nation from a country.
I'm sorry, this is bullshit.

The Liberal Party governs with less than 40% of the popular vote, yet, they can effect broad changes to the way this country is governed.  They can change the electoral system to rig it to their advantage, they can starve provinces to coherce them to accept their changes, they can pressure foreign diplomats to cut ties with specific provinces, they can cuddle extremists or bomb them at will with 39,5% support.  They decide any member of the PQ is now a terrorist and detain them for a an unspecified lenght of time by using every legal loopholes at their disposal and changing the laws when it need to.  It's not like they refrained from doing it in the past.
All of this and more is legit with 39,5% of the vote.  But independance of a nation with 50%+1 is worst than what Hitler did the Jews.

[viper37]

A bad joke being created right when nation states are heading to the dust bin of history.

I kind of see the current return to nationalism or social conservatism in some countries as akin to the 1815 restoration or the efforts of the Luddites. Eventually change will overtake them.

I don't think it's nothing new.  Large, centralized empire dominated by a single ethnicity tend to crumble under their weight and eventually disintegrate as soon a crisis arrive.  Like the European powers that did not survive WW1 or gradually lost their colonial empire following the 2 world wars.
There's nothing different between a Catalan rejecting Spanish central authority than an Algerian rejecting French authority.  Were Algerians morons for refusing French rules? Were Americans disloyal for not respecting the British parliament authority?  I don't think so.  People accumulate grievances over time, people evolve, start feeling differently, sometimes language is an issue, sometimes it's something else.  I see nothing wrong with that.

[Valmy]

I won't discuss the Catalan experience, but the generalities of your statement.

Good. I would enjoy that.

Countries weren't created with 50%+1 votes either.  In many cases, they were created, they expanded or they maintained themselves at the point of a bayonnet, or for the older ones, swords and lances.

Indeed. But it is the current state of the constitution of a state that matters not events that happened centuries ago. 

In most countries, the Constitution can be changed by less than 100% of the states/provinces/regions via a dubious democratic process and then, everyone is stuck with it.  Even worst, it ain't done by a referendum, yet, it is totally acceptable to shackle a nation by the weight of the majority in the country, especially if they're of a different culture.  In one example that comes to mind, I can not imagine Canada changing its Constitution and ignoring the fact that Alberta rejects the changes.  I could not conceive Canada changing the rules for a Constitution change and ignoring Ontario's opposition to the measure.  Yet somehow, we're told that if we want to seperate, it has to be done by Canada's will, something the new government has already announced it would never agree to, even if 95% of Quebec were to vote for independance.  But that is democracy.  50%+1, used everywhere else for every vote is just ok, except to seperate a nation from a country.

Indeed and for obvious reasons. Creation of a country is not a constitutional act, it is a revolutionary one. A constitutional act can be changed or reversed or re-negotiated. The creation of a sovereign state is irreversible and forever. It is not like some election where the 0.2%  undecided people can go 'ok that didn't go well I will vote for the Unionists next time.' You are asking people to make a drastic and irreversible decision that will impact international politics for years if not centuries. It cannot be done lightly and cannot be compared to any old internal passing of a law of changes in a government structure which can be shown to be failures and undone without too much trouble down the road. In those cases that 0.2% undecideds can flip the decision next time.

As a revolutionary act I think it requires two things to be legitimate in my eyes, the Valmy doctrine if you will

1. The central government must have committed abuses on the individual rights of the people of the province that are fundamentally unacceptable. A violation that justifies taking extreme action. This might include making it illegal to perform certain cultural practices, use a local language, practice religion, rights to property, right to not be slaughtered in a pogrom and so forth. And further that these abuses cannot be corrected via the normal and expected levers of government.

2. The revolution should be shown to be supported by an overwhelming majority of the population. And if fundamental and unacceptable violations are occurring it must be the case that an overwhelming majority would be convinced of that.

Numerous new nations have been created over the past 40 years that have met both of these requirements. This is a political revolution and should be treated as such, it should not be given the same level of consideration as the newest city dogshit ordinance.

I'm sorry, this is bullshit.

No it isn't.

The Liberal Party governs with less than 40% of the popular vote, yet, they can effect broad changes to the way this country is governed.  They can change the electoral system to rig it to their advantage, they can starve provinces to coherce them to accept their changes, they can pressure foreign diplomats to cut ties with specific provinces, they can cuddle extremists or bomb them at will with 39,5% support.  They decide any member of the PQ is now a terrorist and detain them for a an unspecified lenght of time by using every legal loopholes at their disposal and changing the laws when it need to.  It's not like they refrained from doing it in the past.
All of this and more is legit with 39,5% of the vote.

Legit maybe, is it just is another question. But that is a matter for Canadians to debate.

But independance of a nation with 50%+1 is worst than what Hitler did the Jews.

Nonsense. Hitler waged a political revolution with only 33% support.

[Valmy]

There's nothing different between a Catalan rejecting Spanish central authority than an Algerian rejecting French authority.  Were Algerians morons for refusing French rules? Were Americans disloyal for not respecting the British parliament authority?  I don't think so.  People accumulate grievances over time, people evolve, start feeling differently, sometimes language is an issue, sometimes it's something else.  I see nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is. Democracy and Republican government are impossible under this divisive and destructive doctrine.

[viper37]

Indeed. But it is the current state of the constitution of a state that matters not events that happened centuries ago. 

Constitutions are often imposed by the central authority, at gunpoint or threat of.
I can not remember when the US Southern States voted for the abolition of slavery, yet, it became a fact.  It was not democratic in any way, since the Federal government had to forcefully reintegrate them in the Constitutional Union, expel opponents and place people sympathetic to their cause to get these post war amendments to pass.
The 1867 Constitution (British North American Act) was an act of freewill of sort: you chose between remaining a standalone British colony or you chose to unite yourself with other colonies to protect your borders against a possible American invasion.  It was a simple vote in the parliament of the time, where English was the only language authorized, in a French province.  It won by two votes.  These people were certainly not representative of the Quebec population at the time and they were predominently loyalist descendents.
So, what a particular Constitution says in regards to independance or autonomy of its constituants, I tend to not put that much Faith into that.  If a Constitution says discrimination against blacks is legal and any contestation of that is a crime, is it a legit Constitution?  At a time, it would have been so in many places in the world.

You are asking people to make a drastic and irreversible decision that will impact international politics for years if not centuries. It cannot be done lightly and cannot be compared to any old internal passing of a law of changes in a government structure which can be shown to be failures and undone without too much trouble down the road. In those cases that 0.2% undecideds can flip the decision next time.

I'd say going to war with a country, or retiring your troops from a conflict zone can impact international politics for years if not centuries too.  Yet, we don't require every citizen to vote on it.  In Canada, the Prime Minister could decide without asking the parliament what to do.  Harper innovated by having the MPs vote on his proposals to extend the Afghan mission.  Trudeau did not even bother when he made the decision to remove our CF-18s from Irak and Syria.

But still.  Beyond the Constitution of a country, there is international law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_international_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

Spain, like Canada, has already announced it would never recognize independance of one of its constituants.  That puts both countries in violation of international law on the subject.

The British government, despite the obvious lie about change (where's the change? )during the campaign acted like a mature and responsible government: negotiate before hand how things will be done.   That Canadian and Spanish governement simply acted like pricks.  I think that warrants the Catalan decision.  I much prefer a referendum to determine independance, but in any case, Spain would never agree to it.

As a revolutionary act I think it requires two things to be legitimate in my eyes, the Valmy doctrine if you will

1. The central government must have committed abuses on the individual rights of the people of the province that are fundamentally unacceptable. A violation that justifies taking extreme action. This might include making it illegal to perform certain cultural practices, use a local language, practice religion, rights to property, right to not be slaughtered in a pogrom and so forth. And further that these abuses cannot be corrected via the normal and expected levers of government.

The British government never did anything like this against the Americans, yet they rebelled.  But the American government certainly did some of that to its native population, to its black population, ot its Southern population*
The French government never did anything like this against the Algerians either.  Or against the people of Indochina.  Not on a large scale, actually.  I don't think the British mass slaugthered Afghanis or Egyptians, yet they seeked independance.


*The way the Southerners saw things, slaves were property.  Forbidding slavey = attack on rights of property. Therefore, the South was justified in its secession of the US... interesting.  Lettow would be pleased of you

2. The revolution should be shown to be supported by an overwhelming majority of the population. And if fundamental and unacceptable violations are occurring it must be the case that an overwhelming majority would be convinced of that.

The US revolution was supported by what, 25% of the population?  The French resistance, was it 80% of French for independance and 20% for Germany?  I doubt it very much...  And we could argue the case against nazism was pretty strong.

Numerous new nations have been created over the past 40 years that have met both of these requirements.

Numerous new nations have been created over the past 40 years that have not met both of these requirements.
Numerous new nations have been created over the past 100 years that have not met both of these requirements.
Numerous new nations have been created over the past 500 years that have not met both of these requirements.

Legit maybe, is it just is another question. But that is a matter for Canadians to debate.

It's a general principle.  Nowhere in the Constitution of Canada is it required to have a vote of 50%+1 for anything.
Yet, suddenly, a new rule should be invented.

[viper37]

Yes there is. Democracy and Republican government are impossible under this divisive and destructive doctrine.

there nothing divisive and destructive here.  Except the Spanish government attitude.
If you refuse independance to a people instead of negotiating, what you see is stuff like this.  More&more people flock to the cause and they radicalize themselves.  Next, the Spanish government sends in the army and they're surprise the people react violently.