[robhu]

Baloney.

People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No because otherwise Yes would win and that would provide a lot of momentum to leave.

Again, this is the sort of argument used by anti-democratic regimes to discredit referendums and elections. "Oh of course Yes won, there is a large silent majority of No voters who feel so strongly about this subject they thought it would be better not to express their vote and prevent a Yes landslide" (said no serious person ever)

[alexasmyths]

"Baloney. People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No because otherwise Yes would win and that would provide a lot of momentum to leave. "

No, this has already happened in other referendums, people 'boycott it' or don't vote.

Why would anyone but 'supporters' even vote in an unofficial referendum?

As it happened in Venezuela and many other places:

https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/2017/07/30/polls-open-in...

[robhu]

Your link is very confused. It talks of a referendum in the title but this isn't in the article.

The Consitutent Assembly wasn't brought about by referendum it was created by presidential decree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Constituent_Assembl...

The opposition did not take part in the election (not a referendum) where there is good reason to believe the result would be rigged so there was no way to vote for them. As you well know the situation in Venezuela is incomparable to the situation in Catalonia. Maduro has arrested the opposition and has totally destroyed the country.

The referendum in Catalonia is valid because the Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.

The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”

So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, the Spanish government are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians. This is an illegal and wholly immoral act. It is not sufficient to declare that it is 'illegal' for them to attempt self determination.

[alexasmyths]

"The referendum in Catalonia is valid because the Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination."

The Spanish courts have rejected this, and the most official statements coming out of the EU by Junker, stand by Madrid's position.

Your Wikipedia quote is not relevant in this case. Both legally and pragmatically.

For example: the city of Manchester cannot separate from the UK by referendum.

The city of Montreal, as I mentioned, contemplated this during the Quebec referendum and it was squashed.

By the UN's vague definition, and 'individual' could claim that their 'home' is sovereign.

Also, legally, the UN has no jurisdiction in this affair.

But most pragmatically - the referendum is invalid because it's not being conducted properly. The state police are shutting down polling stations, urging people not to vote, indicating that 'it's invalid' therefore deterring a lot of people from voting.

There is zero legitimacy in this referendum, legally.

Popularly it will be a different thing.

[robhu]

You realise that it's not up to the Spanish courts to work this out right? Similarly the EU is irrelevant here. What is critical the interpretation of the UN when it comes to whether UN enshrined human rights are being violated.

We don't listen to Kim Jong-un when he or his courts declare that his citizens rights are not being violated, and neither is the interpretation of the Spanish courts very relevant.

Junker is not a UN human rights expert, he's a politician who has a history of making statements not because they are true but because they support his political aims. It's ridiculous to think that his statements have any meaningful bearing on determining whether Spain are violating international UN laws which they have signed up to. What matters is the understanding of the UN experts on those laws.

When the UN says '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies” they are saying that Spain has broken international law, laws that it is a signatory to and so has to obey.

The city of Manchester and the Catalonian people obviously have very different properties among those which are relevant to self determination as you are well aware. I know you realise this so I won't engage with your facile comparison further.

Your pragmatic argument fails for the same reason that: "Mugabe: The election is invalid because I ordered the police to go around beating up and arresting everyone who might not vote for me. Therefore the election has no legitimacy, because errr... I intentionally tried to ruin it because I was afraid of the people?"

Of course it will have legitimacy 'popularly' if you go around smashing the skulls of black people you create a situation where public support for them surges. Spain (and your) attempt to evilly suppress the Catalonians and deny them their fundamental human rights is morally evil and rightly draws support to their side (regionally and internationally).

[bprieto]

What do you think would happen if some racist group would held a referendum in USA about restoring Jim Crow laws?

Will the majority of voters would go out to vote No? Or would they just ignore the loonies?

[robhu]

Could you please explain how to you 'some racist group' is equivalent to the Catalonian regional government, the democratically elected government of 7.5 million people?

[bprieto]

Both would be having an illegal referendum.

Make it some major of a southern village, or even the whole State of Alabama, if you prefer. It would't make the question about Jim Crow laws more legitimate.

[robhu]

The legitimacy of 'Jim Crow laws' would be determined by how people voted - and presumably people would vote No. The 'legitimacy' of a referendum is related to who is trying to organise it - here it is the democratically elected government of 7.5 million people - that's why your initial 'some racist group' was a poor analogy.

Your analogy is totally invalid anyway. This vote is not equivalent to a call for racism, it's a call for self determination. The Catalonians have a fundamental moral right to self determination. From Wikipedia: The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. ... self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples. The UN have also been very clear specifically on the referendum that regardless of whatever regional or national laws there are, Spain MUST respect the fundamental rights (which trump constitutional or national laws because of their fundamental nature) of the Catalonians. The UN said '[Spain must ensure they] do not interfere with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and public participation [of the Catalonians].' They go on to be very clear "Regardless of the lawfulness of the referendum, the Spanish authorities have a responsibility to respect those rights that are essential to democratic societies”

So to be clear - according to the UN office of the high commissioner of human rights, it is the Spanish government who are acting illegally in violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians.

[kgwgk]

The political parties opposed to the “process” (who by the way got a majority of the votes in the last local elections) are telling people not to participate. With the exception of Podemos, or whatever is the name of that coalition, which doesn’t have a clear position.

[robhu]

Of course they are, if you think you're going to lose a referendum you can try the "if No don't vote, that way we can delegitimise the result" card. That they do so doesn't invalidate the referendum any more than it would with any other anti-democratic leader or organisation that tried to prevent the populace being able to clearly and publicly vote.

[kgwgk]

The referendum is invalid from the get-go. You said that “People who think they should remain part of Spain will go out to vote No”. Do you really think they will? Maybe you’re right and they won’t pay attention to the “anti-democratic leaders and organizations” (!) asking them not to participate...

[robhu]

The referendum is invalid from the get-go.

This is just a bald assertion.

Yes I do think that people who care about the results of a referendum will go out and vote because that is what people do when they care about the result.

I also believe you that some of the people opposed will not vote, but that they do this because those opposed to a democratic referendum fear the likely result will go against them does not invalidate the referendum.