[alexasmyths]

"In what way would a referendum where every single person (of voting age) in the region could vote would 'not remotely reflect the actual will of the people'?"

---> Because if it's not official, most people wont't vote.

It's laying saying 'why doesn't an online poll reflect the will of the people'.

It has to be done properly - or not at all.

I for one, think they should probably have it.

[robhu]

It isn't official in the sense that the Spanish government has acted to declare it unofficial in various ways. That doesn't make it unofficial or mean that most people won't vote (if that were really the case the Spanish government wouldn't be using force and arresting lots of people to do whatever they can to prevent it).

In terms of legality according to the UN (as I have linked for you above) it is the national Spanish government who are acting illegally here because they are violating the fundamental rights of the Catalonians, which supersede and regional or national laws / constitutions. Spain has a moral and international legal obligation to not oppose the referendum.

[alexasmyths]

The UN has no jurisdiction.

The EU, which actually has jurisdiction, is basically siding with Madrid, they will only recognize it if it's legally sanctioned by Madrid.

As for the local Catalan 'law' - it can be superseded by the National Courts. Catalonia does not have 'treaties' with the rest of Spain - there are actual laws.

If it's declared illegal - it's invalid. The police are shutting down dozens of voting centres, there's no way to know in the end the degree to which it's 'valid' ergo, it's not.

There is either a clear and legal referendum, or none.

The Catalonians should have had a referendum that was within constitutional boundaries.

What they should have done was worded the question so that it was legal, like 'do you want to attempt to renegotiate our status with Madrid' - or something like that.

[robhu]

The whole point of fundamental rights is that they are fundamental! Wikipedia: 'They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being", and which are "inherent in all human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal'

So they apply to the Catalonians in the same way that they apply to the people of North Korea, they are applicable to the Catalonians even if Spain specifically had a law saying they aren't. Of course Spain is a member of the United Nations and is a signatory to all of the UN human rights laws. So you are quite wrong that fundamental human rights do not apply in Catalonia. These laws enshrined in international treates are 'actual laws' as you put it - and they're serious, far more important and serious than any laws the Spanish government might otherwise pass.

This is all a discussion about what is 'legal', and while you can argue that the referendum is illegal and I can counter that making it illegal is in of itself illegal, this kind of misses the point. If Kim Jong-un passes a law stating it is legal to commit genocide within his borders a defender of his could argue that the killing is 'legal', but what good is it to know that? We know that the right to life is fundamental in the same way that the right to self determination is fundamental - violating either of them are morally abhorrent abominations which must be opposed by any right thinking person.

So we know for certain that Spains actions violate international law, and that their actions and those who defend them are morally abhorrent -- does this invalidate the referendum? You want to argue that the validity of the election is binary, but obviously that is ridiculous. When dictators shut down voting stations or kill voters that doesn't invalidate the entire election. Yes it makes it more difficult to know what would have happened had they not illegally and immorally violated people's fundamental human rights, but it doesn't make it impossible.

In fact if you think about it in many ways it makes the outcome easier to interpret. After all, the overriding reason why any political body acts to suppress the electorate's ability to vote is because they fear the outcome will go against them. When Spain busses in thousands of police to arrest people and occupy schools to prevent a referendum it is obvious that they fear if they don't do that the electorate will be heard and they will lose.

I watch this with quiet fascination - I am not Spanish (or Catalonian), I have no horse in this game. I'm English, and we had a similar situation play out over here, the Scottish people wanted to become independent. Like with the Spanish situation under our national law we had 'no obligation' to allow such a referendum, but I guess the British government have a different approach to our moral and international law obligations, and so the UK government granted the Scottish government permission to have a referendum. The Scots voted to remain in the UK, which I'm very glad about.

For those of us looking at Spain from the outside the actions of the Spanish government look pretty abominable, and the arguments deployed by their supporters in suppressing the Catalonian people are pretty horrifying. I see you energetically defending the Spanish actions on HN and I wonder whether you realise what your words and arguments sound like to someone on the outside who is not a 'true believer' in suppressing the Catalonians.

[alexasmyths]

I'm sorry but vague UN declarations are again, totally not relevant in this case - either legally, pragmatically, or even morally.

They have zero authority on this.

" and the arguments deployed by their supporters in suppressing the Catalonian people"

Really, because ballpark 1/2 of Catalonians wouldn't agree with that at all.

[robhu]

You actually have to demonstrate why you think the international UN law defining fundamental human rights which Spain is a signatory to is 'not relevant' and that the UN has 'zero authority' on interpreting when the UN laws defining human rights have been violated.

Also - by stating that 1/2 Catalonians wouldn't agree you are giving away that 1/2 would. That's the point. If you are suppressing the fundamental human rights of 1 person you're violating them, and you admit they are violating about 3.5 million people's rights.