The shit in Spain falls mainly in the fan

[Valmy]

Languish truly is dying.

Languish never was that big on The Simpsons.

I mean I was pretty big on The Simpsons but even by the time Languish was born it was no longer a good show.

[Barrister]

Languish truly is dying.

Languish never was that big on The Simpsons.

I mean I was pretty big on The Simpsons but even by the time Languish was born it was no longer a good show.

But that bit was from Homer at the Bat, arguably the greatest Simpsons episode of all time!

You people disgust me.

[Valmy]

But that bit was from Homer at the Bat, arguably the greatest Simpsons episode of all time!

You people disgust me.

I mean don't get me wrong, I love the episode it totally kicks ass...but it was also almost 30 years ago so I have a hard time just pulling out references to it.

[Barrister]

But that bit was from Homer at the Bat, arguably the greatest Simpsons episode of all time!

You people disgust me.

I mean don't get me wrong, I love the episode it totally kicks ass...but it was also almost 30 years ago so I have a hard time just pulling out references to it.

Pathetic.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - the whole point of the matter is that it is binding, so people have to think long and hard about it.  Non-binding opens the door to people voting "Yes" just to "send a message".

But surely it has to be non-binding because the referendum decides a single issue but then it's normal politics that needs to work out how that happens and the terms.

I will support any secessionist movement if two qualifiers are met:

1. The human rights of the people in the seceding territory are being abused in some way.

2. The population overwhelmingly supports it.

Hency why South Sudan I support, Scotland and Catalonia I do not.

But it doesn't address the issue of say Scotland voting 55% 'Yes'. In that situation the majority of voters have withdrawn their consent from part of the constitutional settlement (it's the same with leaving the EU). It's wrong to continue to impose that once consent is withdarwn.

I don't think Brexit is really relevant to the discussion.  It didn't involve a section of a country leaving, but rather an already sovereign nation withdrawing from a treaty in accordance with provisions for withdraw included in the treaty to start with.

Yeah, but the EU is more than just a treaty. For example it has concepts like "EU citizens" who can directly enforce their European rights. It's a fairly involved organisation which does give individuals rights which means UK citizens have lost those rights by withdrawing.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Those treaty rights existed as they were implemented in British law, at the end of the day the British legal system always had ultimate authority and Britain sovereignty because compliance was voluntary. I am sure the EU has a process for wielding sticks at members who just refused to adhere to EU laws but it's still a compulsory process. Compare this to the U.S., a Federal state, a U.S. State Governor can be arrested for refusing a Federal judge's court order, no EU court has that power over a British PM.

[OttoVonBismarck]

But it doesn't address the issue of say Scotland voting 55% 'Yes'. In that situation the majority of voters have withdrawn their consent from part of the constitutional settlement (it's the same with leaving the EU). It's wrong to continue to impose that once consent is withdarwn.

And you just simplify it--which by the way, I've noticed you always do when talking about Scottish separatism. You put forth a theory on secession that is incompatible with modern values, and is more representative of a time when states were the dominions of crowned kings, and not the domains of plural peoples.

[Sheilbh]

Those treaty rights existed as they were implemented in British law, at the end of the day the British legal system always had ultimate authority and Britain sovereignty because compliance was voluntary. I am sure the EU has a process for wielding sticks at members who just refused to adhere to EU laws but it's still a compulsory process. Compare this to the U.S., a Federal state, a U.S. State Governor can be arrested for refusing a Federal judge's court order, no EU court has that power over a British PM.

No. But the UK courts could over-rule Parliament to implement European law, it's the only circumstance where the UK courts have that authority - which came from the European courts. Also the treaty rights and other legal rights are sometimes implemented by the UK, sometimes they don't need to be they are in UK law because they are directly enforceable European law.

It's not a federal country but it's a lot more than a treaty organisation like, say, NATO.

And you just simplify it--which by the way, I've noticed you always do when talking about Scottish separatism. You put forth a theory on secession that is incompatible with modern values, and is more representative of a time when states were the dominions of crowned kings, and not the domains of plural peoples.

You say simplify, I say boiling down

[OttoVonBismarck]

Can't Parliament just pass a law changing the court's authority (including its authority to review said law) at basically any time?

[Sheilbh]

Can't Parliament just pass a law changing the court's authority (including its authority to review said law) at basically any time?

No or maybe. Our constitution changed on this. Parliament by signing up to Europe made us subject to European law. One of the principles of EU law is the supremacy of EU law, so if it conflicts with member state law, then EU law prevails.

The UK courts had that issue come up, they asked the ECJ and the ECJ said these laws were incompatible and the principle of supremacy means the European law prevails. The UK courts implemented that and basically said that by signing up to the EU, Parliament had ceded sovereignty over certain areas to the EU and it was for the courts to implement European law in those areas. There were a few judges in the last 30 years who said, obiter, that if Parliament expressly passed legislation with the intention of repudiating a piece of European law then the courts should uphold that UK law, but it was never tested and I think the courts probably would have followed the European law. In that case the European Commission can enforce against the UK through the European courts, I think largely with fines and sort of sanctioning the UK government, but I think that's quite rare.

From memory when this principle was established was around the time Maastricht was being negotiated so this court case did play it's part in kicking off Euroscepticism because it was seen as a huge shift in our constitution.

[Josquius]

I said it can join Spain, not be a country. I don't see this sort of thing being as much of a problem as new monacos becoming independent. Really I'd say its advisable in case of secessions to give border areas a choice.
For a similar example in the UK there are those in Berwick who talk of joining Scotland, particularly in case of independence

What about non-border areas? Is choice only for small areas in priviledged geographic locations? Are your rights to self-determination defined by arbitrary geographic location?

I covered that in my earlier post too. It becomes a lot more complicated with exclaves et al, though if its under EU auspices then why not.
Theoretically a full checker board situation should be possible even with appropriate international agreements between the two parties.
Realistically you'll need to consider the viability of the exclave, its reasons for being, etc...

[celedhring]

The Guardian has discovered the clowns over at INH 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/09/catalonia-pays-3-to-firms-linked-to-shakespeare-was-catalan-theory

Catalonia pays €3m to firms linked to theory Shakespeare was Catalan
Media companies linked to institute that also claims Leonardo da Vinci, Cervantes and Columbus were Catalan

Stephen Burgen in Barcelona

The Catalan government had paid €3m (£2.6m) in subsidies to media companies with close links to a body that claims that Shakespeare, Cervantes and Columbus – among others – were Catalan.

The figures were revealed in a parliamentary answer given by Pere Aragonès, the Catalan vice-president, who said the money had been paid since 2012 to two media companies owned by Albert Codinas, the joint founder and current president of the New History Institute (INH) – one of which shares an address with it.

Núria Llorach, the president of the body that overseas TV3, the Catalan public broadcaster, also revealed that it had paid €184,000 for the rights to screen six INH documentaries.

The programmes include claims that Spain covered up the role that Catalans played in the European discovery of the Americas, that Miguel de Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, wrote in Catalan and had his true identity disguised by the Spanish Inquisition, and that Leonardo da Vinci was Catalan.

The Cervantes documentary claims that the giant of Spanish literature was in fact Joan Miquel Sirvent, a Catalan from Alicante in south-east Spain – nowhere near Don Quixote's La Mancha – and that "Cervantes" and Shakespeare were one and the same person. Among author Miquel Izquierdo's abstruse arguments is that will, seré in Catalan, and am, soy, together mean "I will be and am". According to Izquierdo, "from here it's clear" that it refers to Sirvent.

The institute, which was founded in 2007, has produced books and documentaries that support the theory that Columbus was Catalan and that Erasmus of Rotterdam was his love child. The explorer Francisco Pizarro, who is generally believed to have started life as a swineherd in Extremadura in western Spain, has also been recruited to the Catalan pantheon, as has Saint Teresa of Ávila, the Christian mystic descended from Jewish conversos.

Mainstream Spanish historians despair at the attention given to these theories by otherwise respectable media.

Vicent Baydal, a history of law professor in Valencia and the co-author of Pseudo History Against Catalunya, said the people behind the institute "are not even [academic] historians, they're people who have no idea, who don't understand historical methodology and don't even know how to look for or read historical documents".

Gabriel Rufián, the spokesman for the pro-independence Catalan Left party, urged the region's government to stop funding the INH last year. "No pseudoscience or pseudo-history should be funded with public money," he said. "It only serves those who wish to portray us as small, ridiculous and angry losers."

[The Larch]

Duh, everybody knows Columbus was actually Galician. 

[Sheilbh]

It's happened again!
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jun/22/experts-call-for-regulation-after-latest-botched-art-restoration-in-spain

[Richard Hakluyt]

A Murillo too............probably worth millions............but "lets get that chap who fixed the kitchen chairs to sort out our old masters"