Catalan independence referendum, 2017

walshb

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I get what you're saying but the Spanish authorities fell into a trap of their own making. No matter the cause, the image of riot police against the masses has always been a powerful emotive image. Once emotion is injected into these situations, they tend to go up a notch, and the argument will be made that Madrid is now once again the oppressor rather than just the unwanted countryman. Like what happened in the North so many times, attempts to stamp state authority were fumbled by the fact that security forces lost control (in this case - of themselves) and needlessly fuelled further tension. From what I can see, the separatist protesters showed a reasonable degree of restraint and I don't believe that a lack of riot police would have driven Catalonians to 'anarchy' and destroying their own cities.

The key here was restraint - declare the referendum illegal and keep police action to a minimum. The referendum passes but the claim can easily be made that (a) it was unconstitutional so has no legal effect and (b) the world would to a certain extent recognise that the majority of those who go out of their way to vote in an illegal referendum will be pro-separatism. So the referendum result, while invariably a PR victory for the separatists, would have been blunted somewhat by the caveats.

Now all you have is the PR victory of the referendum passing -- and the 'bonus' of a gallery of the classic propaganda image of shielded, dark-uniformed and baton wielding heavies suppressing the [purported] will of the people.

I was kind of thinking this too. Could Sapin not simply have denied or refused to accept the referendum?

Still, the wider point is that they could not seen to allow this kind of action. It was illegal, and they were kind of forced to prevent its happening.

I don't like seeing any person getting hurt, but sometimes people put themselves in harms way and do get hurt. Those Spanish police are humans too, in an extremely volatile situation. They had to enforce the law, and in doing so they met resistance and people. They had to enforce the law with some level of firmness due to them not knowing what could transpire.

In a perfect world we could all sit down, have a chat and a cuppa and resolve these situations. We are not in a perfect world, and law and order are always hanging on a thread, hence the absolute need for action and decisions and firmness at times. We cannot have a systme that is soft and allows possible chaos and anarchy and law breaking with no consequences. That applies in Spain or any other country with law and order,.

Catalans were warned that it was illegal and that action would be taken to enforce the law of the land.

CruelCoin

walshb wrote: »

The whole of Spain will decide on their country and their laws and how their people live.

Should the English have been consulted when the Irish wanted independence?

Since when did the right to self-determination become null and void?

CruelCoin

CruelCoin wrote: »

Should the English have been consulted when the Irish wanted independence?

Since when did the right to self-determination become null and void?

Should the 26 counties be consulted on whether the 6 remain part of the UK?

The thing that confuses me most about the situation is the unthinking support of SF etc for the Catalans. It is through the looking glass stuff. Surely what is good for Catalonia is good for Northern Ireland, or are there some 'nations' that can't be split and some that can?

GalwayMagpie

walshb wrote: »

Not surprising that social media is awash with people supporting Catalonia and slamming Spain.

Catlans were warned that this referendum was illegal. Spain were dead right to enforce the law. Of course, then when there are clashes and physical altercations the Spanish are made out to be heavy handed. What else do people expect in these hostile situations where 1000s of people are gathered, many very angry and intent on causing trouble.

Spain, as an EU Government should be supported by its fellow neighbors and partners in the EU on this.

You cannot have or allow or be seen to be soft on such issues. There is such a fine line between stability and harmony AND chaos and anarchy.

The whole of Spain will decide on their country and their laws and how their people live.

I didn't see this, I saw military police beating civilians, and the civilians show enormous restraint in not fighting back.

Stephen Hawkins football boots

Rivera is calling for article 155 to be invocked. This revokes Catalunyan self rule.

CruelCoin

Deleted User wrote: »

Should the 26 counties be consulted on whether the 6 remain part of the UK?

No.

The people of the north should have the sole right as to whether they want to remain part of the UK. Self-determination goes all ways.
However, whether or not the republic would want to take them in post-split would be an entirely separate debate and referendum.

The Catalans, being Catalonian and not Spanish in ethnicity and spirit, should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to reform Aragon or not.

walshb

GalwayMagpie wrote: »

I didn't see this, I saw military police beating civilians, and the civilians show enormous restraint in not fighting back.

And you can be sure plenty of incidents where people were in the line of fire and capable of attacking the police. The police cannot afford not to do anything. You don't have to physically strike/fight to cause problems and possible reason for retaliation from a police force in riot gear. That is how volatile these situations are for police.

Just me, but I would not be at all near a riot cop who is trying to enforce the law. It's well known that whether you like it or not you may get struck if you are up close enough. Is it right? Well, it's always been the case. The riot police don't have time to be interviewing every person about their intentions in these situations.

Riot police are entitled to use force. I am sure plenty of them are normal decent human beings who do not want to use force. It's just unfortunate that at times their job requires them to.

And, no way I would tar them all with the same brush just because there may have been some who were a little too heavy handed.

Any person putting it up to riot police or obstructing them or giving lip is asking for trouble, whether right or wrong, they are asking for trouble, because that is exactly what happens in these situations. No use crying foul after you get physically beaten or hurt. It's what riot police have to do at times. It will never change.

EagererBeaver

Deleted User wrote: »

CruelCoin wrote: »

Should the English have been consulted when the Irish wanted independence?

Since when did the right to self-determination become null and void?

Should the 26 counties be consulted on whether the 6 remain part of the UK?

The thing that confuses me most about the situation is the unthinking support of SF etc for the Catalans. It is through the looking glass stuff. Surely what is good for Catalonia is good for Northern Ireland, or are there some 'nations' that can't be split and some that can?

Plenty of shinner inspired Facebook revolutionaries as a result of this. SF had some boots on the ground observing yesterday.

Make no mistake - this is no socialist revolution. This is Catalan nationalism Vs Spanish nationalism.

ArthurDayne

walshb wrote: »

I was kind of thinking this too. Could Sapin not simply have denied or refused to accept the referendum?

Still, the wider point is that they could not seen to allow this kind of action. It was illegal, and they were kind of forced to prevent its happening.

I don't like seeing any person getting hurt, but sometimes people put themselves in harms way and do get hurt. Those Spanish police are humans too, in an extremely volatile situation. They had to enforce the law, and in doing so they met resistance and people. They had to enforce the law with some level of firmness due to them not knowing what could transpire.

In a perfect world we could all sit down, have a chat and a cuppa and resolve these situations. We are not in a perfect world, and law and order are always hanging on a thread, hence the absolute need for action and decisions and firmness at times. We cannot have a systme that is soft and allows possible chaos and anarchy and law breaking with no consequences. That applies in Spain or any other country with law and order,.

Catalans were warned that it was illegal and that action would be taken to enforce the law of the land.

But that's exactly what happened -- the authorities were not soft and they enforced the law with a fairly high degree of firmness.

And what was gained? Have the separatists learned their lesson? Will they now go off and think twice about doing the same again on any other given day?

I appreciate that hindsight is a wonderful thing -- but this referendum, by the very fact that it was declared illegal, was always going to pass in a de facto sense anyway. It was an un-loseable situation for the separatists but at least the Spanish government could have stood by the caveats I mentioned previously and not evoked memories of Madrid-sponsored oppression which still lingers very much in the collective consciousness of Catalonians.

Instead, they have walked into a painfully obvious trap and made an unwinnable scenario a lot worse.

The rule of law exists in a delicate balance between State enforcement and State restraint. Madrid messed up.

A Dub in Glasgo

walshb wrote: »

And you can be sure plenty of incidents where people were in the line of fire and capable of attacking the police. The police cannot afford not to do anything. You don't have to physically strike/fight to cause problems and possible reason for retaliation from a police force in riot gear. That is how volatile these situations are for police.

Just me, but I would not be at all near a riot cop who is trying to enforce the law. It's well known that whether you like it or not you may get struck if you are up close enough. Is it right? Well, it's always been the case. The riot police don't have time to be interviewing every person about their intentions in these situations.

Riot police are entitled to use force. I am sure plenty of them are normal decent human beings who do not want to use force. It's just unfortunate that at times their job requires them to.

And, no way I would tar them all with the same brush just because there may have been some who were a little too heavy handed.

Any person putting it up to riot police or obstructing them or giving lip is asking for trouble, whether right or wrong, they are asking for trouble, because that is exactly what happens in these situations. No use crying foul after you get physically beaten or hurt. It's what riot police have to do at times. It will never change.

except there was no riot, the paramilitary police waded into and battered peaceful voters who wanted to put and x on a piece of paper

NoCrackHaving

walshb wrote: »

And you can be sure plenty of incidents where people were in the line of fire and capable of attacking the police. The police cannot afford not to do anything. You don't have to physically strike/fight to cause problems and possible reason for retaliation from a police force in riot gear. That is how volatile these situations are for police.

Just me, but I would not be at all near a riot cop who is trying to enforce the law. It's well known that whether you like it or not you may get struck if you are up close enough. Is it right? Well, it's always been the case. The riot police don't have time to be interviewing every person about their intentions in these situations.

Riot police are entitled to use force. I am sure plenty of them are normal decent human beings who do not want to use force. It's just unfortunate that at times their job requires them to.

And, no way I would tar them all with the same brush just because there may have been some who were a little too heavy handed.

Any person putting it up to riot police or obstructing them or giving lip is asking for trouble, whether right or wrong, they are asking for trouble, because that is exactly what happens in these situations. No use crying foul after you get physically beaten or hurt. It's what riot police have to do at times. It will never change.

Hmmm, extrapolating that theory if someone was killed by riot police, that's just their fault for being in the wrong place?

You're on a dangerous road with this line of thinking - it's not a big jump from riot police cracking heads to something like Bloody Sunday.

Mutant z

Disgraceful scenes yesterday by the Spanish police who attacked innocent citizens for going about what they saw as their democratic right, the Spanish central government has behaved appallingly certainly not the way a so called democracy should act.

walshb

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

except there was no riot, the paramilitary police waded into and battered peaceful voters who wanted to put and x on a piece of paper

No, that is not how it happened. They were charged with stopping/preventing the referendum from going ahead, and in doing so that is when the issue escalated.

Where you there from the start? Or are you going on social media accounts and reports? You need to hear both sides.

People acting all incredulous that riot police had to use force uphold law and order. There was bound to be altercations, as there were people who disagreed with the police enforcing the law, hence the scuffles that resulted in trouble. It's standard human behavior

So, what exactly should they have done?

walshb

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

You're on a dangerous road with this line of thinking - it's not a big jump from riot police cracking heads to something like Bloody Sunday.

Exactly my point. These situations are so volatile that they can escalate to mayhem.

A Dub in Glasgo

walshb wrote: »

No, that is not how it happened

Yes it is how it happened, peaceful citizens getting battered for wanting to put an x on a piece of paper

walshb

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Hmmm, extrapolating that theory if someone was killed by riot police, that's just their fault for being in the wrong place?

Hence why they have to be on full alert. It's their lives initially that are on the line. They are charged with dispersing crowds and upholding the law. They don't go in to kill. They go in to control.

HalloweenJack

A brief but interesting video here which shows a level of respect that should have been afforded to all those who wanted to vote, regardless of their preference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Tsaya4Tu4

ilkhanid

Deleted User wrote: »

Should the 26 counties be consulted on whether the 6 remain part of the UK?

The thing that confuses me most about the situation is the unthinking support of SF etc for the Catalans. It is through the looking glass stuff. Surely what is good for Catalonia is good for Northern Ireland, or are there some 'nations' that can't be split and some that can?

I suspect-I could be wrong-that SF, making a comparison between the situations involving Spain and Britain/Scotland is taking the view that it believes would be contrary to the British view. I doubt they're very big on consistency. For all their supposed sophistication, there's a cohort in Sinn Fein that sees every issue through one lens: 'Are the Brits against it/for it' and choose their position accordingly.

NoCrackHaving

walshb wrote: »

Hence why they have to be on full alert. It's their lives initially that are on the line. They are charged with dispersing crowds and upholding the law. They don't go in to kill. They go in to control.

Hmm, I think my point has gone right over your head....

walshb

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Hmm, I think my point has gone right over your head....

No, it hasn't.

Wrong place wrong time....?

Riot police and citizens through the years have been killed during altercations.We all know this. You didn't make any point.

NoCrackHaving

walshb wrote: »

No, it hasn't.

Wrong place wrong time....?

Riot police and citizens through the years have been killed during altercations.We all know this. You didn't make any point.

No, my point was that you seem to think riot police killing citizen's is acceptable if the citizen's are in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's not acceptable.

seamus

EagererBeaver wrote: »

The terms of the legislation they introduced in early September REQUIRED them to declare independence in the event of a Yes vote within 48 hours of the result.

As for the security forces question, you again don't seem to understand how it works - the Mossos are the regional police force in Catalunya and derive their authority from the Generalitat. Each city has a Guardia Urbana, responsible to local authorities. Then you have the national police force, the CNP under the command of the interior ministry and lastly the Guardia Civil, a police force structured along paramilitary lines that comes under both the interior and defence ministries. The Mossos were officially "taken over" last week, but their leadership, rather than get involved and pick one side or the other,sensibly refused to be drawn on the matter and let decisions be taken locally.

Thanks, that's very insightful.

Ultimately though ArthurDayne's post above hits the nail on the head. Fighting back has legitimised the referendum. The Spanish government could have let them hold the vote, declare independence and then respond with the equivalent of "That's nice, dear". Without legal standing and being able to legitimately claim that the vote was not appropriately representative, you take the wind out of the separatists' sails. They'd have no international support for their claim and at worst Spain might have to have a national debate in a few years' time about areas' rights to secede.

On the military issue, it's kind of irrelevant where the powers are derived from or who's in direct control. Security personnel usually get based at or close to home. And those who don't, make a home in the place where they are based.
In other words, they identify as part of the local population.

Thus, if you start getting heavy handed, you are getting heavy handed with the friends and family of the local security forces, and they're likely to split off and ignore orders from anyone but the officers in charge locally. That is, the Catalan government.

recedite

EagererBeaver wrote: »

What's with the endless reactionary bollocks in this thread? A poster stated that turnout would now be important. I pointed out that turnout would be irrelevant. Nothing to do with the disgraceful scenes today.

Turnout if is vital if you want to claim a democratic mandate.
If you have no interest in democracy, turnout is irrelevant; just claim illegality under Article Blah de blah... no independence.. end of story.

This kind of thing all played out a century ago with Ireland's first Dail. It was declared illegal in London, but it had a democratic mandate in Ireland.

As for the whole police brutality thing, I am going to be contrary here and say Madrid was probably too soft. If you are going to crush rebels, you have to do it properly. Now Madrid has the worst of both worlds to deal with; bad publicity and an independence referendum completed.
On the other hand, Madrid may have used enough violence and intimidation to ensure the turnout is too low to constitute "a democratic mandate".

Turnout was 42% with 90% in favour.
There will be a question mark now as to a whether a 42% turnout is enough to give Puigdemont a proper mandate?

walshb

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

No, my point was that you seem to think riot police killing citizen's is acceptable if the citizen's are in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's not acceptable.

Where did I say such a thing?

Getting hit or struck by riot police I mentioned, and you convert this into my saying it's fine for riot police to end a person's life?

They are entitled to use force, and at times lethal force. That's not me. That is just what they are entitled to use/do.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

The Spanish government could have let them hold the vote, declare independence and then respond with the equivalent of "That's nice, dear". Without legal standing and being able to legitimately claim that the vote was not appropriately representative, you take the wind out of the separatists' sails.

Polls beforehand showed that most people would have voted (including those against) and the majority was likely to be in favour of independence. Therefore Madrid could not have fallen back on that claim.

seamus wrote: »

On the military issue, it's kind of irrelevant where the powers are derived from or who's in direct control. Security personnel usually get based at or close to home. And those who don't, make a home in the place where they are based.

Its highly relevant in a secessionist situation whether the security forces are controlled locally or not. If they were based on three large troopships temporarily moored in the harbour and directly controlled by Madrid, then you can expect them to follow all orders, up to and including orders to suppress the local population.
If they are locally recruited, then not so much. Hence the entirely predictable difference in behaviour between Guardia Civil and the Mossos.

Samaris

There seems to have been little reason for using the amount of force reported. Bearing in mind that any force will look twice as bad on camera, the police know this very well.

The Guardia Civile did not cover themselves with glory and whoever gave the orders (or at least did not give clear orders to the contrary) has just made the situation multiple times worse.

The Golden Miller

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should the 26 counties be consulted on whether the 6 remain part of the UK?

The thing that confuses me most about the situation is the unthinking support of SF etc for the Catalans. It is through the looking glass stuff. Surely what is good for Catalonia is good for Northern Ireland, or are there some 'nations' that can't be split and some that can?

Maybe you should waddle off and look up what terms like "nation" actually mean before you draw up inaccurate parallels. Ireland is a nation divided into two states/statelets, whereas Spain is a state which contains other nations. "Northern Ireland" is not a nation, infact it runs asymmetrical to the meaning.The analogies with Ireland end after partition, unless Catalonia gets partitioned.

It's noticeable that the only argument for those opposing Catalan independence is to hide behind the "law", law drawn up for the very reason of holding Catalonia and a few others against their wishes if it came down to it. They can't actually give a solid reason why a nation, distinct from the state it finds itself in and never asked to be in, shouldn't have the right to self-determination

recedite

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's noticeable that the only argument for those opposing Catalan independence is to hide behind the "law", law drawn up for the very reason of holding Catalonia and a few others against their wishes if it came down to it.

Good point, and even then there is no actual law to say that holding a referendum is illegal. Madrid had to refer it to a constitutional court, which said there was no provision in the constitution for it, therefore it must be unconstitutional, and therefore outside the law.

If you compare that to the much talked about Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which legal mechanism the UK is using to leave the EU, does that mean it would have been illegal for any country to leave the EU prior to the Lisbon treaty?
Its a dubious legal argument to say so. This kind of spurious legalistic nonsense has no standing compared to a legitimate democratic mandate coming straight from the people.

The Golden Miller

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Maybe you should waddle off and look up what terms like "nation" actually mean before you draw up inaccurate parallels. Ireland is a nation divided into two states/statelets, whereas Spain is a state which contains other nations. "Northern Ireland" is not a nation, infact it runs asymmetrical to the meaning.The analogies with Ireland end after partition, unless Catalonia gets partitioned.

I've waddled off and come back with this:
"a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory."

Given the large protestant / unionist population in the north, how is it not a nation? And how is Ireland a 'nation' given that we are very clearly not united by common descent, history, culture or language (see current goings on in Stormont for confirmation of that last point)?

Waddle off and explain that to me.

FTA69

walshb wrote: »

Where did I say such a thing?

Getting hit or struck by riot police I mentioned, and you convert this into my saying it's fine for riot police to end a person's life?

They are entitled to use force, and at times lethal force. That's not me. That is just what they are entitled to use/do.

By your logic Bloody Sunday was justified, after all the march against internment that day was illegal and all demonstrators were warned by the lawful authorities to stay away from the route. The British Army were placed in a difficult situation, they were upholding the law of the land in a volatile scenario.

In other words you're engaging in absurd reductionism, it's the law therefore it's correct. There's a difference between morality and legality. You seem to be unquestioningly supporting the cops because... they're the cops basically. Why aren't you questioning the logic behind that sort of policing? Why can't you respect the right of the Catalans for self-determination?

The Irish Dáil of 1918 was declared illegal by the British and its members weee jailed; was that justified because it was "the law"?