[ericmarcos]

The spanish government is trying to ban everything related to the referendum: physical urns, ballot papers, websites and apps, violating the most basic human rights. However, for each ban, 10 new websites/apps/bots will pop up. I created a chatbot so that people can vote at referendumvirtual.cat and it went viral in the last 48h. People will always find ways to excercise freedom of expression and decide its own future in peace.

[euyyn]

It's not the Spanish government, it's the Courts in Catalonia. These are orders from the judge in the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña.

[lsaferite]

Who seems to be backing the Spanish government in suppressing the referendum.

[euyyn]

The judge in Catalonia doesn't mind what it seems to you or anyone: her job is to interpret and apply the law. As the Supreme Court did, e.g., when they sent a Ministro del Interior to prison.

The law isn't written by the Spanish government either, it's written by Congress. A Congress in which nationalistic parties have more representation per number of voters than other parties with a higher number of total voters.

Insinuations that the judges in Catalonia are puppets of the Spanish government ignore the reality of Spain.

[ChristianBundy]

Are you implying that Congress isn't part of the Spanish government?

[roywiggins]

In parliamentary democracies "the government" often refers to the current administration in power. "The current government" means "the current PM and their cabinet". So "the government" tends to mean only the politicians at the top of the executive branch.

[euyyn]

Oh my god of course it's not, unless by government you mean something broader than the executive branch, in which case you have to include the judiciary too. The three separate powers is the foundation of western democracies.

[roywiggins]

This is a US/Euro nomenclature difference I think. In the US "the government" refers to the entire apparatus- all three branches.

[flexie]

It most certainly isn't, not in Spain, nor in the US or most other democracies.

Separation of powers:

- Legislative (parliament, congress, senate, house of ..., many names - in Spain I think they call it Cortes Generales and it consists of two chambers, a senate and a congress)

- Executive (government)

- Judicial (courts)

[lsaferite]

This is wrong for the US, but I don't know the Spanish government structure enough to weigh in there.

The US Government is split into three branches, like you mentioned (Legislative, Executive, Judicial). Those three branches are the government. You are erroneously equating government to mean exclusively the executive branch of the government though.

[627467]

You seem to imply that backing the ref or independence is unanimous or that the Catalan courts are arbitrarily following the bidding of Madrid.

[lsaferite]

I have no skin in the game, but I think that in a democracy if you forbid the people from at least expressing a yes/no on whether they should continue to be governed by the group currently governing them, you are breeding discontent.

If a democracy is nominally a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the legitimacy of the government is driven by the continued support of the citizens. If a portion (or region) of your populous wants to no longer be collectively governed by the current group and would instead rather form their own government more attuned to their needs, why not at least let them find out if the other people in their group agree?

I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.

So, to your point, perhaps the judge is just 100% about following the law, even if they disagree. They could just as well be a 'stay' voter imposing their will on others. In either case, the underlying laws that are forbidding the vote, binding or not, are what I find objectionable. But again, I have no skin in that particular game and am just a bystander.

[cortesoft]

> I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.

You know, this makes sense on the surface, but when you start to think about the details, the trickiness of the situation becomes apparent.

Ok, so we are going to allow seccession. Well, how big a group does it have to be to be allowed to secede? Can I secede as an individual, and make my house an independent nation? A neighborhood? A city? A county? A US State? Each level is going to have its own problems.

Ok, lets imagine we agree on the minimum size we will allow to secede. Let's say we are in the USA, and we decide a state can secede.

Does it require a simple majority? 2/3rds vote? 3/4ths? We have a constitution for a reason, to protect the minority from the majority. We have decided the majority can't do certain things (like establish a state religion, or ban the practice of minority religions), but do we allow a secession vote to be an end-run around that idea? Could a majority just vote to secede and create a new nation that doesn't have the protections for minority viewpoints?

How do we even do the vote? Do we vote as individuals, or do our state representatives make the decision?

Ok, suppose we set decide an individual votes, and you need 2/3rds to vote to secede. Well, who gets to vote? Let's imagine it is Texas voting to leave; does Joe, the guy who moved from California 3 weeks ago get to vote in the secession? What about the guy who moved there 3 years ago, but lives a quarter of the time in South Dakota? What about people who own houses in Texas but live somewhere else?

I think a big part of this comes down to the fact that once you are a single nation, there is no longer a clear definition of who would have standing to secede. I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it. The entity that can make the decision to break apart is only the entire country; if Texas wants to secede, it would have to be as a decision the entire country makes together, since that is the unit of sovereignty that exists.

[wbillingsley]

This is not impossible to organise. Scotland and the UK were in a very similar situation, and determined answers to those issues perfectly well, and held a referendum in which it was closer than expected but Scotland opted to remain part of the UK.

Spain has instead opted to prevent a vote of any kind taking place. Perhaps Spain is different, but I'd imagine that rarely goes well -- it seems to me that the fastest way to get someone to want independence is to tell them they can't have it.

And Spain was a dictatorship until 1978 (still well within living memory). Rushing in to arrest people for printing ballots seems like a way to stir memories of governments Madrid would probably prefer not to be associated with.

[azinman2]

I think you’re over complicating things and also not recognizing key differences.

Catalonia is a large autonomous region in present Spain with its own independent history, culture, and language which the government of Spain is trying to repress both historically and currently. For example, they limit the number of hours in school in which students are allowed to learn their own mother tongue. That’s nothing compared to what Franco did in outright banning Catalonian nationalism and thought.

The US was formed under different circumstances and laws. States joined with certain expectations. It does not have the same history or same struggles — it has different ones.

People in Spain dont move around like people in the US do. There is a notion of being part of a historical ethnic group in Catalonia and being raised in its mother tongue. Regardless, you have a large bloc that’s been there for many generations that can vote as single coherent bloc.

You can never rely on a majority to protect a minorities rights.

[morganvachon]

"I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it."

Trying to equate EU and Spanish law with USA law is an exercise in futility. The point you are trying to make only makes sense if you consider the EU and its nation-states to be the counterpart to the US and its states. In that case, we are seeing a secession unfold right now with Brexit.

A better analogy would be if a group of counties in a US state wanted to break off and leave not only their home state, but the US overall, to become their own micro-nation, with the option to rejoin the US as the 51st state.

[pmontra]

My quick answer: 2/3, all the resident citizens, only the people in the region, any size (too small gets impractical and won't happen, if it does ok, good luck to them).

[bkohlmann]

I'm torn on this, and I think in general your statements make sense.

However, you're also arguing that the South in 1861 should've been allowed to secede, or at least have an unemcumbered plebiscite. Or the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq, which may set off regional catastrophe. Is that an accurate reading?

[NetStrikeForce]

I would agree with your reading and at the same time I also think it is morally sound to go to war with the South to free up the slaves from the South.

[mattnewton]

The south was allowed to assemble, talk and vote on it, but the north didn't recognize the secession as legitimate. Those are separate issues.

[Trundle]

Not that guy here but yes as someone who is pro self determination I think the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq and the South should have been allowed to secede.

[skytreader]

> I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.

Nitpicking but considering the context of the news item, I think you meant "secession". Edit distance of 2 but makes a lot of difference in the meaning of your sentence.

[lsaferite]

You are indeed correct. How embarrassing. :/

[kgwgk]

Judges siding with the law doesn’t seem surprising, does it?

[lsaferite]

Well, their job is to interpret the law and weigh in on it's validity. They have a lot of leeway in that task honestly. Unfortunately, they are not immune from politics.

[pfortuny]

You could also say that tbey are applying the existing law...

[jorgemf]

I am one of the persons who think this is not the way to do the things and there should be an open debate. (and also that both sides are wrong right now). As we lack of this open debate about the independence I am interested to know your opinion about it, as how independent Cataluña wants to be. Does it want to be an associate state, or a completely independent state (that would also need to enter the Europena Union by its own)? This is something it is still not clear for me, and I have the feeling that some politics don't want to discuss it because their goal is to get rid of corruption trials and with any independence they will achieve it.

[Osmium]

> Does it want to be an associate state, or a completely independent state (that would also need to enter the Europena Union by its own)? This is something it is still not clear for me,

Hmm, maybe if you want to know what the people of Cataluña want, maybe we should ask them? Perhaps by holding a referendum to get their views on the matter?

(Note that a similar situation in Scotland was addressed by doing exactly this. The referendum was done begrudgingly, and certainly was not popular in Westminster, but it did happen, as it should have -- even though I'm personally glad they voted to remain.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> Perhaps by holding a referendum to get their views on the matter?

Playing devil’s advocate. Referenda may prematurely compress a multidimensional discussion space into binary options. There’s no “I’d prefer to stay in Spain if X, Y and Z.”

[Osmium]

True, I was being slightly facetious. That's why the wording of the question is so very important, e.g. in the case of Scotland there was no "third option", which would have been further devolution of powers.

[jorgemf]

I am asking directly a catalan because our country didn't want to have that debate. This is a binding referendum, they have other open referendums before with low participacion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_self-determination_ref... ), in none of them the question I am making was made that clear.

[NetStrikeForce]

The question couldn't be clearer. I'm not sure where the confusion comes from? Is that how bad are people in Spain informed these days?

Question: Do you want Catalonia to be an independent state in the form of a republic?

[jorgemf]

It doesn't state whether to be an associate state or not. Some politics want to be independent but as an associate state to Spain, that means to remain in the EU and be part of Spain for most things.

[NetStrikeForce]

It says independent, which means "not associate".

[euyyn]

> I created a chatbot so that people can vote at referendumvirtual.cat and it went viral in the last 48h.

By the way, nice bot! I loved that it lets you pick a language. I'm using all this fuss myself as a chance to learn Catalan.