[iagovar]

IMO the accusation of terrorism is too much, but honestly some of the actions are worrying. I'm against the Catalonian independence, so everyone knows where I'm coming from, but I understand why so many Catalonians are angry and protest for.

But I also understand what different police forces are facing. You get actions like putting trees and blocks of concrete on railroads, making it very dangerous for passengers and workers. They can't just let that happen. And they see this people is using P2P technology which is almost impossible to control, so they use all legal means at their disposal. I'm not a legal expert but I'd bet that going through the terrorism route is the only way they have to do something about it.

We could argue for years about what's legitimate and what's not, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the police forces to do nothing.

[rtkwe]

> And they see this people is using P2P technology which is almost impossible to control, so they use all legal means at their disposal. I'm not a legal expert but I'd bet that going through the terrorism route is the only way they have to do something about it.

Framing it another way they're using trumped up terrorism charges to invoke powers that were not meant to be used against protests. Police powers are intentionally limited so that the full force of the state doesn't come crushing down on people speeding and using over blown charges to access those additional powers is very reminiscent of past slides away from democracy.

> I don't think it's reasonable to expect the police forces to do nothing.

That's the problem there's always more a police force can do, restricting that impulse to order and action is important to resist the slow slide towards police states.

[lostphilosopher]

This is a fundamental question any government or citizenry has to ask itself:

Under what circumstances, if any, should the police stand down?

[rtkwe]

It's a very tough question and not one that's ever really answered formally. The US Constitution has a vague definition but the line has been redrawn and erased so many times.

[smsm42]

In theory, it's an easy question: when nobody's natural rights are being violated, police should not intervene. In practice, of course, no police force ever limits themselves to that, so the question becomes - how much the citizens would agree to tolerate and under which sauce? Experience shows, that the first is "a lot" and the second is "depending on how much you scare them, if you are good at scaring, you can pull off practically anything".

[deltron3030]

>I'm against the Catalonian independence, so everyone knows where I'm coming from

The question is if a democracy can be called democratic if it's impossible/unlawful for minorities to secede. I also think that a secession wouldn't be the smartest choice, but that's a totally different matter.

A functional democracy implies that the whole has to arrange itself democratically with the parts it consists of, if not it risks degrowth, parts that split off from the whole and form their own units.

Enforcing unity therefore can't be democratic because it lacks democracy at the lowest level. A functional democracy regulates itself through trade offs and common sense. If the outcome of that is something you're opposed to you still have to accept that if you want to live in a real democracy, not just a hypocrite simulation of it.

[iagovar]

> The question is if a democracy can be called democratic if it's impossible/unlawful for minorities to secede. I also think that a secession wouldn't be the smartest choice, but that's a totally different matter.

I don't think I'm in position to have a long discussion about this in english, but I thought about it and reached no conclussion.

If I'm against the Catalan independence it's basically because of practical reasons. I don't think it will solve any problem, but create many more, make many people from Catalonia and from outside miserable and it's also the question of how this momentum has been achieved, which actors have been involved, and in what way.

Currently the independence movement is probably, and for the most part, outside the control of PDCAT and ERC, which are the two main independence parties.

But I can't just erase my memory and forget how it got here, and on what arguments.

I have Catalan friends and relatives, as well as two ex-girlfriends, so I don't live in a television reality (exclusively), and the situation hurts me a lot, and I can understand how the Catalan perception of events develops, and I am perfectly aware of the failures of the Spanish state, but I can only be in favour if I do a very selective memory exercise.

All this without forgetting that there is a legal way, which is to reform the constitution. But it is difficult and requires a political capital that the parties that (now) are idependent have burned long ago.

And I can imagine what a politician sitting in his office thinks when he observes that he has never had better material and symbolic conditions, and that if he wanted support from other regions he would have to recover the capital lost in the last, I don't know, fifteen years.

[deltron3030]

Yeah, economically it would be likely a disaster without quick integration into the EU on a higher level. That's another topic, why can't the EU sort them out?

Or why can't they rejoin with Spain after trying and failing? I don't think that people would deal with a failure like that, they'd vote to rejoin, and the bond would be stronger afterwards.

I think their movement wouldn't have gotten that much steam with a legal possibility to secede though.

I'm interested in the mass psychology behind it, why Spain and their politicians think that it's a good idea to point out that the constitution of Spain and their unitarian aspects are untouchable.

[dcabrejas]

> I'm interested in the mass psychology behind it, why Spain and their politicians think that it's a good idea to point out that the constitution of Spain and their unitarian aspects are untouchable.

I can give you my point of view as a Spanish person. I am not part of the goverment by any means. Just a normal citizen living in the middle of the country.

The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

The goverment of Spain has a responsability to protect all citizens. Independece creates problems for all those people. It also costs the country millions of euros that have been invested in the region. It will have an impact on people across the country if the economy slows down, not only there. Therefore it is a decision that needs to be taken by the whole country, not only people in that region. Suggesting anything else is ludicrous.

Spain is a country, catalonya doesn't have the power to raise its middle finger to everyone else in the country whenever they please just like any other region in the country. We are one, period.

[pmontra]

I understand that but I think that the economic objection doesn't carry much weight: I guess that Catalonya paid its own share of the infrastructure of the other regions of Spain. Same thing with Brexit: the EU benefited from having the UK in the Union (money and not only that) and viceversa. Then the UK voted to go and they go (well, maybe, the way they're handling it is so weird.)

I think it ends up to what people living in a part of a country / union want to do, if they want to be one or not. My impression from far away was that the last time they had a kind of vote in Catalonya it was like about half of the people living there wanted to secede and half didn't. Probably not enough given the circumstances but I'd like to live in a place with clear procedures for secessions. I'm not (most of us don't) even if the EU has them for its member countries.

[dcabrejas]

Sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges. The EU is not a country, it is a club of countries. The EU doesn't and never will have the power to choose whether a member state can leave or not. That's how it is. So it is wrong to compare a region of a country seceding than comparing a country leaving the EU. Which is more similar to a country leaving NATO for example.

[tassl]

> The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

That is not true. Most of the investment in trains, port, highways in Catalonia started as private investment, mostly because it was one of the first places where they were being built (roads and train are the best examples).

And in the more recent years, and considering public investment, Catalonia is clearly under invested (specially Rodalies, according to most news and friends in the area). The budget for transportation is lower than the GDP and population in average, and most years less than half the budget is executed [1][2]

In terms of airports, 1/2 of the revenue of the airports in Spain come from Barcelona's airport [3].

The more I look at the numbers, the more clear it is that Spain's interest in Catalonia is $$$.

[1] https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2018/10/02/companias/... [2] https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20190120/454182028060/... [3] https://www.elperiodico.com/es/economia/20150327/el-prat-aen...

[_vrmm]

Are you kidding me? The connection between madrid and barcelona came after madrid and sevilla (very logical in an economical sense). The highways are payed by us (by tolls) thanks to president Pujol and his friends (irony). Only tolls in rich regions. Our trains (renfe) lack a total need of investment for years. Catalunya gives more money to the rest of Spain than it receives, because it’s one of the economic motors of Spain. We are self sufficient.

Yes I see the problem as you point out, we pay too many things, Spain cannot afford losing us. That’s the only reason you want to keep us, economic matters. At least talk about other reasons to keep us united, not just money. It’s not just about money! It’s culture, it’s many years of oppresion, of not letting a nation decide it’s laws... like the ‘estatut’. it’s not reconizing dictatorships that have hurt so much Catalan culture... a lot of people don’t feel any attachment to Spain, we do not share the government attitude, culture, language... Spain has to learn it’s a multicultural country, Spanish is not the only language...

[dcabrejas]

Also, what do you plan to do with the half of catalans who don't support independence? Oppress them perhaps? Neglect their culture and language? It's turtles all the way down

[dcabrejas]

How does Spain oppress people who speak another language exactly? I thought it was totally legal to speak catalan everywhere in catalunya including schools. Am I missing something?

[Oletros]

> , Spain cannot afford losing us

Spain can afford it

By the way, all the part about dictatorship, oppression and the rest is false.

[filomeno]

> The infrastructure of catalunya (high speed trains, ports, highways, etc...) have been paid by all spaniards during many, many years. Like ways, may people from all over Spain live and work in catalunya and viceversa.

It's not like it was paid only by people from outside Catalonia. In fact, the catalan people, pay taxes as well, and that money was used to fund developments outside Catalonia too. And this not only happens at a country level, there are for example funds from the European Union like the ERDF. Does that mean that Scotland should never leave the UK (and therefore the EU) because their roads -for example- have been paid by the european people for many, many years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Regional_Development_...

[dcabrejas]

No, that's just one of the reasons. Again EU and Scotland aren't a country. I don't know why people just keep comparing different things like they are the same?

Do you want to propose a solution to people who live in catalunya and don't want independence? A referendum is a stupid idea frankly, it divides sociaties between those who want to leave and those who want to say.

People in catalunya only want independence because they are richer. What happened to solidarity?

They just want to kick Spanish people out (by the way they are spanish too in spite of all their bullshit), becuase they see them as the Nazis saw the Jews.

Let's call things by what they are. We aren't going to stand by and abandon half if catalan people who don't want to lose their rights to live and work in Spain.

You can do that in other countries if you want.

[ErneX]

To the EU this is an internal matter, plus, most of the countries of the EU have regions with similar intentions (of secession), it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

Plus new state members of the EU have to be approved by every current member IIRC.

[repolfx]

The EU is absolutely happy to interfere with internal matters when it suits them, to a huge degree. Look at how they have been treating Poland and its reforms of its court system. Or look at how the EU is trade sanctioning Switzerland due to a dispute over Swiss internal working regulations.

The Commission is all about "European values" and how they're going to impose penalties when a country is doing something unaligned with their own agenda. But their agenda is to destroy all European nations and merge them all into one super-nation controlled by itself. As part of that they desperately want people to feel patriotism and nationalism towards their new nation called Europe, not existing countries. See how disrespecting the EU flag is now illegal in some countries.

From their perspective Catalonian independence = more countries = harder to unite Europe. Therefore it's fine to crush the resistance. "European values" have mysteriously gone missing.

[squiggleblaz]

I would've thought more countries = easier to unite Europe. Each country has more of an incentive to be united and less of an ability to separated if there's many small independent countries.

Someone wants to have a European Civil Code, and they say "but I already know the rules to trade with 30 million people". When you cut up the countries, they say "but if I want to trade with someone an hour's drive away, the rules are different - it's better to unify".

There's more boundaries where rules change, so there's more motivation to smoothe them out.

There's less power for each individual government, because their voice is 1 in 60 instead of 1 in 28. You'll quickly come to an understanding that the rules of European decision making have to be standard federal rules, rather than some compromise between federal and international rules.

The motivation for European integrationists is absolutely and solely for Catalonia and other places to become direct members of Europe.

[gls2ro]

I think nationalism and its more “accepting form” patriotism so far, in history, had a net negative impact. I am reffering at relations between states.

I also think that we have a wide range of problems which cannot be solved at national level.

So why it is bad if EU wants to have less of that?

One of the initial premises of EU was to facilitate cooperation between states which were at war for lenghty periods of time. And by facilitating collaboration the making them feel more “together”.

[carlmr]

>Or look at how the EU is trade sanctioning Switzerland due to a dispute over Swiss internal working regulations.

The Swiss aren't in the EU.

[Discombulator]

> That's another topic, why can't the EU sort them out?

What do you think the EU should even do about this, based on which principles? To me this is entirely unclear.

There is no right to secede from a country, in fact, the territory is usually part of the identity of a country, also legally speaking.

[dcabrejas]

100% people talk about the catalonya issue like they should just be able to break free without understanding the first thing about the issue. It just proves that people are so easy to manipulate with propaganda-like videos that catalonya pro-independence parties put online. I wonder what they would think if it was their countries that were trying to be broken.

[aianus]

I’m from Canada and we let the separatists have a referendum and tried to change their minds. The referendum failed. I don’t know anyone who took it personally or wanted to invade Quebec to make them stay or violently stop the vote.

Quite frankly I find it baffling that people care so much about violently forcing provinces they don’t even live in to stay in their country.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

> There is no right to secede from a country

> legally speaking

I don't see how any of these things matter.

If there's no right, if there's no legal means, then wage war. Die trying.

I'm not suggesting I support either position, but pointing out that, ultimately, laws and opinions don't matter.

[logjammin]

_Wage war. Die trying._

Yes. That's ultimately why the Cataluña thing is a paper tiger issue: Catalans are too rich and too soft to really break away.

I'm not saying they're not allowed to have grievances, nor that they don't have any legitimate ones, but these people live extremely comfortable lives in a highly (_highly_) autonomous part of a relaxed, modern, Western nation. The independence stuff is mostly posturing. There's a good saying in Spain about this these days, roughly translating to "Catalans don't want to secede; they want to be secessionists."

It's cosplay revolution, and the rest of Spain has a good case for losing its patience with it. They want to break away, but no, sorry, the rest of the country is not allowed to have a say in the matter? Some Catalans (a minority, everyone seems to forget!) want their own country, but they also want it to be handed to them voluntarily by their "oppressor" in Madrid? They want to commit crimes but they expect not to be sent to jail?

At this point I'd almost be grateful for a Catalan Lenin of some sort; at least then we'd know there's an adult in the room.

[ErneX]

Constitution reform is the only way and yet lots of people keep pointing to other things, this is the reason we are stuck in this situation now. That road is long and requires actual politics, what they have done is taking a shortcut to nowhere.

[ivalm]

Catalan are not majority of Spain. They cannot themselves change the constitution, yet they do not want to stay in Spain. So it's a fake "way." The majority should not be allowed to bully the minority.

[ErneX]

So if I don't want to be part of the new Catalonia I can secede my home or join with a few neighbors to be independent from Catalonia? We have a constitution for something it's a not a Chinese vase to glance at it.

[tassl]

The argument of "I can secede from my home" is reductionist, simplistic and overall insulting to any group of people that want independence from the country they depend on or have fought for independence in the past.

Most countries today are independent even though it was illegal for them to become independent before they did. Poland or Estonia would still be part of the Russian empire. Austria and Hungary the same country, same with Czech Republic and Slovakia would still be Czechoslovakia. Malta and Cyprus would be part of the UK. And this is just a quick look to Europe of the 20th century.

We can go back and argue that the US couldn't/shouldn't be independent of the UK. And Cuba part of Spain. The question remains the same: why do people, outside of a territory, control the political status of this territory, going against international law?

"Article 1 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

What Spain is saying, and some Spanish people justifying, is that Catalonia doesn't have that right, and Catalans should never freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Then reinforce that lack of freedom with charges of sedition if you try and charges of terrorism if you protest.

[Jare]

But if Catalonia secedes, the majority (they're not, but for argument's sake) of independentist catalonians will be bullying the minority of non-independentist catalonians, right?

It's turtles all the way down.

[squiggleblaz]

> But if Catalonia secedes, the majority (they're not, but for argument's sake) of independentist catalonians

If Spain really wanted to quiet down the independence movement in Catalonia, they could actually introduce a democratic, non malapportioned voting system. Americans would be proud of the Spanish non-democratic electorates.

The Spanish have basically gone off and said "how can we make an on-paper proportional voting system repeatedly return majorities for the minority who we hate and who are destroying our country". The problem is, as always, that no politician would ever vote themself out of power, and so no-one in Spain will ever propose a democratic reapportionment.

[ivalm]

That's disingenuous, Catalonia is comparable in size to other EU countries, has it's own language, and has long historic objection to being part of Spain. There are not many subgroups that can have similar claim.

[iagovar]

I don't understand your point. Nobody is the majority of Spain, but certainly most regions are far away of the power Catalans have in their hands, be it because of their population (gets you more seats in the central parliament) or because of the money they manage.

Every region has its own parliament and has representation in the central parliament. If you want something for your region you have to negotiate with others. And most regions have it way more difficult than Catalans to achieve whatever they want.

[ivalm]

Catalan are not fighting 1v1 some other region, they are 1 v rest. Even if every other region is less politically powerful, their sum is more powerful, and their sum benefits from extracting economic output from Catalan. Catalan cannot reasonably get a constitutional change because the rest of the regions benefit from them being part of Spain. Again, it's a one vs rest ordeal.

[anigbrowl]

If the Constitution is too hard to amend then that is as oppressive as any other method. Deliberately making political change too slow to accomplish is how you get revolutions, sooner or later.

[cfv]

It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving. The fascist dictator who formed modern Spain made it so its constituent lands can expel a part of it but no one part of it can choose to leave.

This is the root of why the procés is illegal, and why they are being charged as violent agitators. They are seen as young kids trying to leave their parent's house and taking their bedrooms and console with them.

If they amended the constitution, changed the rules, THEN left, that would change things. Problem is, that's even harder to do, in a country where the aforementioned military dictator died free, of old age, and he and his legacy are greatly revered by a whole lot of people.

[romaaeterna]

Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule. Plato's Crito has Socrates make the point that, even sentenced to death, he was bound to respect the laws of Athens as he was someone who had made the voluntary choice to remain in the city all of his life until then and under those laws.

[xyzzyz]

Right to exit is an important foundation of legitimate rule.

For individuals, sure, and I'm quite sure Catalonians are free to leave Spain and go somewhere else.

[romaaeterna]

Good, I'm glad that we're agreed on the individual right.

Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from?

The answer to each question will have a lot to do with how much you love each one.

Someone who hates Spain and the Spanish would certainly suggest that their course is to be a grubby landlord, trying to get every cent out of a tenant before kicking them out the door. Someone who loves them would hopefully never think of them as the sort of nation that would wish to impose on a free people or steal anything from a people, especially not land or property.

Lovers of Spain, properly, will think of their rights as rights of attraction, and free association, and from the governors to the governed. Haters will think of the Nation's rights as something to be imposed, and their duties as something to be extracted from their subject peoples.

What do you think of Spain? Is it love or hate?

[xyzzyz]

Now what is the right of the group? What rights does Spain as a nation have and what right to do the Catalonians have as a people, and where do such rights come from?

The nation of Spain certainly is sovereign on the territory it occupies, so it is bound only by the rules it imposes on itself (and of course, external powers which might impose other rules upon it). The nation of Spain chose to specify the rights extended to its people through the constitution, and through specific laws. From that, Catalonians, as part of the Spanish nation and subject to its sovereignty for as long as they reside under its jurisdiction, stem the rights Catalonians have as people.

Look, I'm not a lover or a hater of Spain, but what I learned so far about how the world works is that it is divided into countries, which set the rules, called law, on their territories, and get to enforce it. If you don't like the rules, usually there's a mechanism to change those, but if you can't make it work through that mechanism, your only option is to assert your own sovereignty, and hope to prevail over the existing contender. So far, the separatists in Catalonia hasn't been successful neither the former nor the latter. I might sympathize with them, but certainly I do not think that they have any right whatsoever to secede.

[rndgermandude]

>It's neither impossible nor unlawful though, they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving.

Why do they need the approval of people living elsewhere?

[yiyus]

For the same reason they include Barcelona in their hypothetical new country when most people there do not want independence or the same reason a state with 80% of democratic vote has to accept a republican president voted by people "living elsewhere". That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.

[vkou]

> That's just how democracy works, else I can just secede if I don't like the result of the elections.

What's wrong with self-determination?

[close04]

You still do it within the context of existing laws. Democracies rely on leadership by majority so you have to operate within that system.

If it worked the way you imply what would be the limit to what you can justify with “self determination”?

[rtkwe]

It's just the way nation-states are setup, as part of being in the union constituent states give up part of their autonomy. This happens all the way down the governmental ladder. The other states (or regions I'm not sure how Spain is divided so I'll just say states) also definitely have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the whole nation. Over the years money has flowed both ways both from the other states to Catalan and from Catalan to the other states.

[anigbrowl]

This is a general state problem, to be sure. It always ends up as an older generation imposing rules on a younger generation that lacks the political autonomy to change them.

[rndgermandude]

That's all fine and dandy, but it presumes the participating states actually want to be part of the union. Otherwise it's tyranny in my humble opinion.

[rtkwe]

I think it depends massively on the situation involved and the state we're talking about. Without suppression beyond "you don't get to just leave" I really hesitate to call it tyranny.

It also seems like if we follow that all the way down where does the fracturing stop and how do you maintain a larger society? Does every sub division of administration have that same right to just say screw the rest of you I'm going home? Allowing it all the way down seems like a ticket straight to fractious setup of loosely associated towns and cities. There's reasons we built up the larger groups over time and part of accessing those benefits requires gluing those partisan impulses together to resist tribal urges.

[yiyus]

We have a constitution that was voted in referendum in 1978. Most people in Catalonia voted in favor of these constitution, and Catalan parties have been an essential part of the governments we have had since then. Moreover, not even half of people in Catalonia (more or less) want independence.

[xeromal]

You could use this argument for the South (US) in 1800s

[SiempreViernes]

It's a tightly integrated part of the economical and political system, the people elsewhere would also be severely affected. Why is it obvious that they get to break the system unilaterally?

[rndgermandude]

The UK is tightly integrated into the EU economical and political system. They are breaking away unilaterally. The reason they can do so is that they wouldn't have entered in the first place if there was no instrument to leave again like this (Article 50).

The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago. And yet Spain says they have to stay no matter what. This doesn't sound right to me.

[pjc50]

Article 50 was retrofitted: at the time of joining the EC (as it was then) in 1973, there was no defined mechanism for leaving.

[kgwgk]

> The Catalans never voluntarily agreed to be part of Spain as far as I know. They were essentially annexed a long time ago.

When did that happen?

[pmontra]

Actually Article 50 is quite new, it's from 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...

[logfromblammo]

Generally, it's so that the national polity can invest in specific regional polities without fear that they'll take the money and run, or abscond with strategic assets critical to the development of other regions.

It's basically a checklist item for a negotiated diplomatic withdrawal, to avoid triggering a knee-jerk military suppression of the unlawful rebellion. If "the rest of the country" does not agree, and won't negotiate, secession is still possible, it just means winning the civil war.

[maximente]

it would be ridiculous to expect a colony of a monarchy to be expected to overthrow the government in order to "legally" split off. i'm not sure why this is any different - if they win, then the new country obviously won't be held to whatever rules the old one had. this is sort of the nature of the game - successful nations splitting off get to "live to tell the tale".

[JetSpiegel]

Not to mention the current Prime Minister (he's only PM because the support of the pre-independence parties) dragged his feet for months instead of start discussing a federal Spanish state or some other solution. Radio silence until the procés.

[droithomme]

> they just need the rest of the country to agree with them leaving

I wonder if the American colonies which seceded from Great Britain in 1776 received the agreement of King George or of the people of Great Britain in general. Secession without consent of the sovereign was not part of their law, so the action was clearly illegal and unethical and the colonists simply in the wrong, do you think? Also there is the matter of them using violence and acts of terrorism as part of their secession process. Clearly wrong, correct?

[david-gpu]

The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process.

In contrast, the US was a colony of the UK with no direct representation. Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that.

The potential independence of Catalonia is a complex matter and these simplistic comparisons are unhelpful.

[tassl]

> The comparison is flawed because Catalonia, like all other regions of Spain, is represented in the Spanish parliament through a democratic election process.

That's irrelevant for minorities; it's the tyranny of the majority.

> Also note how, just like in Spain, the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede, and in fact there was a civil war when some states tried to do just that.

That's false.

[droithomme]

> the US Constitution today does not allow for a state to secede

This is completely untrue. The US Constitution has no such clause. Let's have a wager. We both transfer $10,000 to an independent bookie. Then we each submit our evidence that the US Constitution prohibited secession in 1861. An independent panel of judges rules and winner takes all. I'll give you 30 minutes to accept the wager and transfer your contact info.

The War between the States was an illegal war. Because the Northern Aggression won and wrote the textbooks of course they justify their illegal actions, just as the US currently justifies its illegal war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Disagree? Under what legal theory does the US have the right to seize Syrian oil fields as it is currently doing? That's the latest action this week. There are similar absurd and illegal claims of the US government going back centuries. What legal theory do you think the US claims for their seizure of native american lands and parallel mass genocide? Are you aware it's not the Doctrine of Conquest, but the Doctrine of Discovery that the US Supreme Court cited as legal justification? That the first Christian to eye lands held by non-christians permanently and irrevocably has sovereign ownership of the lands, as well as the right to enslave and kill the "pagan" populace. Do you believe this Doctrine of Discovery is a valid legal principle? Or do you agree the US has no legitimate legal claims whatsoever over the much of its territory, which it seized through genocide and deceit and spurious insane pseudo-legal principles. The Doctrine of Discovery has as much validity as the spurious claim that there was anything questionable or illegal or especially unconstitutional about southern secession, and as much rational basis as the european and puritan claims that witches can be detected by attempting to drown them, pile stones on them until they asphyxiate, or that werewolves are responsible for crop failure.

[t_rope]

Well, talking about the US, a group of states tried to secede from the union and there was quite a large war to stop them.

It's not legal for a state to secede from the US at all without other states agreeing to it.

[xyzzyz]

Catalonia is free to try to win the war of independence, of course, just like the US did.

[dmaldona]

In order to have a healthy democracy we first need the rule of the law.

Constitutions are made to define the foundations of those laws and protect citizen minorities against majority abuses: what if 80% of the population of a region decides to expel the other 20% because of whatever reasons?

The fact that the state tries to preserve the integrity of the country is necessary to keep the rule of the law. For if it just renounces to a region, its power to enforce its law is lost in such region.

Now let's assume a particular region decides to secede. That region's people, industry and such is the product of a historical process: there has been some migration, investments in the region and outside the region, etc... Thus, in case of secession under what law its decided how that secession is done? Who has legitimacy to define the rules of the law?

[nitwit005]

It's not entirely sensible to talk about "rule of law" when it comes to secession. Most countries exist in violation of some earlier set of laws. They were part of some nation and broke away, or they replaced their own government with another form through revolt.

[ErneX]

I think you meant "secession". A really small minority is actually revolting, thankfully. Lots of pro-independence people are protesting peacefully. There's also the other side that don't want to hear anything about seceding that are just looking at these events unfold pretty worried.

[nitwit005]

Yes, thanks. My brain refuses to see typos and I just read back what I intended to write.

[vidarh]

In order to have a healthy democracy, we first need legitimacy. In other words, those who are part of the entity need to consider it to have authority.

Nobody should be surprised if an entity you can not leave if the majority oversteps their perceived bounds ceases to have legitimacy in the eyes of those who are forcibly prevented from leaving.

By all means seek to ensure all interests are taken into account, but you don't do that by holding people against their will.

[My favorite discussion on the topic of democratic legitimacy is Robert A Dahl's "After the Revolution? Authority in a good society" (Yale University Press) that goes through this issue in a very approachable way]

[zozbot234]

> The question is if a democracy can be called democratic if it's impossible/unlawful for minorities to secede.

Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue." The U.S. have been a republic (what you call a "democracy") for the entirety of their history as a nation, and yet unilateral secession is clearly forbidden.

[AsyncAwait]

I think OP is asking whether such countries, including the US, are indeed democratic, or just called that like Congo is called democratic, (not to the same degree obviously, but the same principle).

[wang_li]

Can a country be called democratic if me and six friends are not allowed to draw a random border around a house and then vote to murder the residents with only our votes counting because only those inside the arbitrary border we drew are allowed to vote?

[AsyncAwait]

Ugh. By your logic once India was conquered by the British, all attempts at independence were six friends drawing a random border around their house.

[vidarh]

Unless the residents you vote to murder are also given the same freedom to secede and draw a border that excludes you because they do not consider your rule legitimate, this certainly would not be democratic.

Your analogy illustrates why a right to secede matters: It is the ultimate peaceful (if the right is protected) tool for those who feel disenfranchised, whether by being robbed off the chance to vote or because they are a persistent minority, to ensure that either their rights are protected because the government do not want them to leave, or that they have an escape hatch against a majority abusing their power.

It is saying "we no longer accept that this government legitimately represents us," and the right and ability to do that seems to me to be the most fundamental concept of democracy - but only if it is extended to everyone, which takes away the problems of your example; you and your six friends would have no rights to draw a new border that includes other residents without they too having a say, including the right to themselves secede if you do not offer them something they are willing to see as legitimate.

As such it provides an important incentive against over-reach and towards negotiated settlements that does not exist when there is no realistic mechanism for a minority to vote for their region to leave.

You can mitigate the need for a right to secede by giving sufficient protections for minorities against the choices of the majority; but whenever secession gains substantial support, that is evidence that whatever mechanisms are in place are insufficient.

To me, a government that feels a need to deploy police to stop a region from demanding independence is inherently illegitimate.

At the same time, I am all four having secessionists be made to understand the consequences, in that if you a house and decides your house should secede, then fine, but you e.g. have no inherent right to then be allowed to cross the border, or expect your new neighbouring state to provide you with any services, and you can expect them to act with force to protect the interests of any of their citizens resident on "your territory" who do not want to secede and who are not offered sufficient protections - including their own right to secede from "your state" and rejoin their preferred state.

In practice I think that taking such a right to secede to it's full consequence would minimize actual uses - anyone wanting to do it would need to take into account the problems of whether or not they'd e.g. end up with enclaves, eroded borders, exclaves, and whether they'd even end up with a contiguous territory of significance at all if they have majority support in a region but also lot of resistance, and would be forced to actually negotiate to solve such issues in a way that is not inherently detrimental to both sides. At the same time this would also apply to the state you seek to leave.

[pvaldes]

> To me, a government that feels a need to deploy police to stop a region from demanding independence is inherently illegitimate.

And to the rest of the planet is totally legit

Deploying police when there are serious disturbs by groups of organised people that are purposely preventing people from leading a normal life, ravaging and creating really dangerous situations for everybody is: NORMAL.

Name a country in the planet. Whichever country. This is exactly what the government of that country will do in the same situation.

Maybe for a few people is a videogame and lots of fun, but for the rest of us is a rock put in the path of the train when we or our loved ones are travelling. You will eat this rock if I would see you doing that.

For the rest is their small shop set in flames or ravaged. Is huge bills in damages and healthcare that they will have to pay. Is, undoubtely and crystal clear, Terrorism.

And deliberately sending your minions to disturb the peace and convivence of the society, unless you agree to "talk with me" accept my new twisted concept of "democracy" and gave me something for telling my people to stop and go home. Well, this has a name also in any part of this planet and the name is blackmail.

[JCharante]

Wouldn't the analogy be better if you lived in a dorm building, and your friends voted to draw the border around the dorm?

[maxwell]

Perhaps the American Republic ended in 1869 with Texas v. White, succeeded by the American Empire.

[EthanHeilman]

I do not buy the argument that unilateral secession is clearly forbidden in the US and I don't think the American Civil War settled that point. The Confederates stood a decent legal chance to secede from the Union. It was a constitution crisis. Instead the Confederates choose to throw constitutional avenues away and engage in a war of aggression against the North. The South didn't need to raise armies and launch an attack on Fort Sumter. However personally I'm grateful for their gross incompetence both in starting the war and their conduct throughout the war because it brought about the end of Chattel Slavery in North America.

Furthermore I would argue there is a large legal and ethical difference between:

1/ a largely peaceful movement for secession which is suppressed and then responds with riots

2. and a landed gentry rising up in open war and invasion because they lost an presidential election and they want to preserve their right to strip freedom from their countrymen.

[billiam]

I'm sorry but your misreading of American history is substantial. Texas v. White in 1869 made official that which Shay's Rebellion, the annexation of the Texas Republic, and the Civil War had established by actions--that secession in the US is illegal.

[EthanHeilman]

Illegal and forbidden are not synonyms. Political actions especially with respect to territorial integrity can both be illegal and allowed to happen i.e. not forbidden.

>Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue."

My main point was reacting to your statement above. A particular set of wars does not settle those issues.

What prevents a secessionist legal action to be heard by the Supreme court and for them to overturn the Texas v. White decision?

[squiggleblaz]

> Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue." The U.S. have been a republic (what you call a "democracy") for the entirety of their history as a nation, and yet unilateral secession is clearly forbidden.

That's not a fair analogy. If Texas decided, tomorrow, that they wanted to pursue independence, I'm reasonably confident that at no point would the federal government dismiss the state government, arrest their members and throw them in prison. They might say, "We're incapable of having any discussion on the matter until a bill passes the US Congress permitting us to negotiate" or "We'll negotiate, but terms cannot be settled and finally agreed to by us; we will need a constitutional amendment" or "Sure why not". (The US President is, after all, the president of the United States, and so their agreement is tantamount to the consent of the states. Moreover, if US federal power is withdrawn from Texas by the order of the US president, legal or not, such that it takes a revolution to regain it, it's fair to say it's happened, whether it's legal or not.)

[nl]

The section on "Self-determination versus territorial integrity" on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination addresses the different arguments here.

[ErneX]

91% of the people of catalonia voted for the current spanish constitution back 1978, these are the rules of play for all us.

Any change to that constitution should be made by the mechanisms it itself provides, and even in the case a new one is made, it'd have to be voted by the whole country in a referendum.

This crisis has been provoked by irresponsable politicians that have taken shortcuts clearly out of the law in order to secede a whole region of Spain from it, and we also need to keep in mind half of the people from or living in Catalonia do not want to split from Spain.

My 0,02.

[snvzz]

>91% of the people of catalonia voted for the current spanish constitution back 1978,

Many of these people are dead. There was no alternative to this constitution as it happened in a very unstable climate after the death of the dictator, where the constitution was seen as the one way to stabilize the country and advance towards a democracy.

>This crisis has been provoked by irresponsable politicians that have taken shortcuts clearly out of the law

These "irresponsible" politicians exhausted all avenues and did what they did because they had no alternative left to actually act on what their constituents, the people who voted for them, put them in place for.

And the fact people want this is in no way unrelated to what happened to the Estatut d'Autonomia, which defines the relationship between Catalonia and Spain. The current version of the document was written in Catalonia, revised and cut several times until Spain was OK with it, then voted in a referendum in Catalonia and put into effect, only to be cut down dramatically shortly after by the constitutional court, acting on the behalf of a Spanish nationalist political party which gets almost no votes at all in Catalonia. This was perceived as a massive insult to Catalan people.

Not only the situation was not repaired, but Spain's attacks on Catalonia's self government continued. This is the main reason why independence took a hold, perceived as the only option going forward.

>and we also need to keep in mind half of the people from or living in Catalonia do not want to split from Spain.

I have to ask for the source of this data. Certainly not a referendum, nor an election. At best, some newspaper poll.

My 2¢.

[ErneX]

Data is actually the Catalonian government statistics office (Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió):

https://elpais.com/ccaa/2019/07/26/catalunya/1564132750_8266...

This and all the recent catalonian parliament elections, you clearly see the split between pro independence parties and not pro independence.

The 1978 constitution is the current rule of law, it can be changed, but that needs political support in the spanish congress. If you want to simply ignore the rule of law because you don't like the constitution or "many of the people that voted for it are dead" that's your problem (sorry to be blunt, but that can't be a serious argument).

[snvzz]

The CEO is just an opinion poll, but it shows that there's a lot of people for independence, if anything.

The two referendums (the older non-binding "consultation", and the newer binding), along with the results of elections, and the fact the current government is pro-independence, are the best data we've got, by mere size of sample.

[ErneX]

There hasn't been a binding referendum because a secession referendum does not legally exists in the current constitution. If the pro-independence side calls for these referendums and we all know those are non-binding, the only turnout those will have are of those who are in favor of secession. Those results cannot be taken in any way seriously.

[zozbot234]

> You get actions like putting trees and blocks of concrete on railroads, making it very dangerous for passengers and workers.

There are laws against doing such things on the books, I'd assume - even if the motive were "just" to block railway traffic. The government should focus on investigating those responsible. It's not at all clear that blocking an app that might have countless legitimate, non-violent uses is the right choice.

[iagovar]

If I was from the police I'd probably want to block the chance to coordinate such attacks, not only do an investigation to track certain individuals. What would be the point to spend many resources to put a guy or a few of them in jail when they can be easily replaced.

[acollins1331]

Sure, that's what you'd want. And everyone in the police here wants video and audio recording of every persons movement at all times so they can solve every crime.

Sometimes the police want bad things.

[commandlinefan]

"A police officer's job is only easy in a police state"

[zozbot234]

Of course it depends how many people are involved in such things, and whether the app specifically is allowing them to coordinate these attacks. Most of the commentary so far has been about demonstrations, sometimes turning into violent riots. Purposely sabotaging/obstructing a piece of critical infrastructure is something rather different, although whether it could be defined as "terrorism" is somewhat ambiguous.

[iagovar]

> whether it could be defined as "terrorism" is somewhat ambiguous.

I won't define it as terrorism, but if you are in the Police and you really have no other legal tool, what do you do? If the boundary is fuzzy enough, they're gonna push for it.

In the end they'll probably have a hard time proving that to a judge, but as a temporary measure they probably think it's useful.

[zozbot234]

Actually, my main point was that it could qualify. Attacks on critical infrastructure have been deemed as such, and the implied risk to human life makes this an even stronger possibility. If these things are actually happening, it's quite appropriate to bring them to light.

[AnimalMuppet]

You don't have to call it terrorism. Vandalism, reckless endangerment, malicious mischief... there are a bunch of different laws that apply.

[nl]

It's worth noting that this conflict has previously had groups who were terrorist (the bomb planting kind).

[hootbootscoot]

it's worth noting that spanish over-reactions may be rooted in memories/fears of ETA, which is an entirely different group from an entirely different region also seeking secession.

the concern is the "suppress this at any cost" approach.

the heavy sentences can be seen as provocative (13 years for holding an "illegal" election is indefensible. it's pure authoritarian slapdown, reeks of hubris, and spits in the face of actual violent crime convictions. you can get less for murder in Spain!)

this fuels sympathy for a movement that otherwise smelled a bit like the "Piadina" secessionists: a rich region seeking to "unburden" itself of it's poorer compatriot region

such is the unreformed state of spanish nationalism that Madridenses literally will see nothing wrong with extreme civil rights breaches by G.C. etc.

let's not forget that Spain just sold a large order of bombs to Saudi Arabia, so the epiphet "terrorist" is not to be taken seriously, as in the American Gov't etc.

I'm in no way interested in Catalunyan independence, but this posturing by the Spanish Gov't looks RIDICULOUS and should be ridiculed as such.

[GonzaloQuero]

This is just a nitpick, but ETA was not the only active terrorist group in Spain. Catalonia also had Terra Lliure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Lliure)

[harperlee]

Please don’t be intellectually dishonest. Murder in Spain is 10 to 15 years but they have been condemned by more than one crime, and that adds up, so you are comparing apples to oranges. One of them is sedition, the other one is akin to embezzlement (they used public funds for pursuing their agenda outside of their public mandate).

Also the sentencing was not the harshest by far: rebellion was dropped, state attorney demanded up to 25 years, and “acusación particular” (VOX) was asking to up to 74 years.

[ohduran]

I've never heard of "Piadina" secessionism, could you please shed any light on that? Can't find anything about it

[pas]

Wasn't this app purposefully made and has been branded as such for this group and their cause?

[tempguy9999]

I am not at all familiar with this situation, but these quotes

> but I understand why so many Catalonians are angry and protest for

and

> But I also understand what different police forces are facing

gives the impression the police may be paying the price for some politicians' bad decisions.

[zadkey]

What in your views would you say are valid grounds to seek independence?

If you are going to say Catalonia shouldn't seek independence, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us on the ethical criteria to seek independence?