heywood on 28/10/2017 at 16:27
Quote Posted by Kolya
This is probably naive, but what big difference does it make if they want to be part of the EU afterwards anyway?
I've wondered the same thing. But the argument works both ways. How much benefit does a semi-autonomous nation or region like Catalonia derive from having two levels of federal government above them? If the EU continues to become more federalist, member countries with federal systems such as Spain will find their own central governments increasingly redundant.
Pyrian on 28/10/2017 at 17:00
In some ways "seceding" from the EU would be an even bigger deal than seceding from Spain. If they secede from Spain, would they even be able to join the EU without getting in line and going through all the usual motions?
Starker on 28/10/2017 at 21:54
I think the question is more whether they would be able to join the EU at all with Spain against it (if for no other reason than to discourage Basque independence).
Tony_Tarantula on 28/10/2017 at 22:57
Quote Posted by N'Al
I already answered that. Scotland managed to do it, the Czechs and the Slovaks managed to do it, I'm sure there's other examples as well.
That doesn't really answer the question. Difference is those countries had mechanisms for such a movement and allowed them to work. Spain isn't willing to. Don't be an apologist for authoritarianism and jack booted thuggery.
N'Al on 29/10/2017 at 06:13
You being someone who has consistently shown an utter lack of reading comprehension around these boards, it doesn't surprise me you missed the parts where I did speak out against just that, you sanctimonious prick.
st.patrick on 29/10/2017 at 10:22
Quote Posted by icemann
The only time it irks me about independence voting is when it's by a nationality that immigrated to a region over a period of time, then once the percentage of them vs the original populace is high enough they declare Independence. That is bullshit to me.
This happened in Serbia a few years back.
That's not the case here though, and the issue of Catalan national identity vs. Spanish national identity isn't as clear-cut as in Yugoslavia, which bound several distinct nationalities into a federal country, but didn't create any overarching Yugoslav identity (quite on purpose, as that would undermine the role of Serbia as the dominant federal republic). Spain as a country is subdivided into 17 autonomous communities that more-or-less follow the distribution of the four main language groups in the country. Of course you have Spanish (Castellano) speaking people living in Catalonia, the Basque country or Galicia, and there are Catalans, Basques and Galicians living in the Spanish-dominated provinces, but for most of them except the most vocal nationalists (secessionists or proponents of unitary Spain), being Spanish is the "national" identity, while the language they speak is their "regional" identity.
Nicker on 29/10/2017 at 19:02
In Canada, many First Nations were traditional enemies. For a time they allied with the Europeans against each other until it became clear the colonists were their common enemy, determined to eradicate their cultures, if not their peoples.
Today, thanks to joining their voices in national and trans-national movements, First Nations are the fastest growing demographic in Canada. Their cultures and languages are being rescued from the brink.
And that's the irony which is lost on many separatist movements, they are blinded to the very real possibility that their end goals of cultural survival, are better served by remaining part of a political whole greater than themselves.
To continue the example - In 1995, Quebec voted to remain part of Canada by a fraction of a percent (50.6% to 49.4%). But a separate Quebec would have made things worse for French speaking peoples of Canada because instead of being a potent 10% of Canada's population they would have become an insignificant 1% of North America's. If their goal was cultural survival, a victory in 1995 would have been a certain defeat of those aims by now.
Another issue raised by the 1995 referendum were separatists within Quebec, mainly First Nations. Their cultures were forcibly subsumed by the French as the French were by the English. Surely those "nations" have an equal right to separate from Quebec. Quebec said NO, only their claim to sovereignty was legitimate.
Should the Canadian west, the hewers of wood and burrowers for oil, separate? Alberta has about 12% French speaking peoples with a culture largely different and occasionally hostile to Quebec, where their ancestors hailed from. Should they have their own territory?
How finely do you slice it?
More importantly, does cultural separatism benefit from political separation?
Cultural sovereignty should be easier to sustain within a larger political entity if it is valued by all the other cultures in that entity. Valued not only as an essential part of the national character but as allies against destruction, appropriation and diffusion.
For separatists it's a case of winning the war and losing the battle.
Tony_Tarantula on 29/10/2017 at 20:08
Quote Posted by N'Al
You being someone who has consistently shown an utter lack of reading comprehension around these boards, it doesn't surprise me you missed the parts where I did speak out against just that, you sanctimonious prick.
When you vaguely state that there must be some way to do it "properly", there isn't much to comprehend because the statement is little more than a moralistic appeal. Other members have already asked to articulate exactly what specifics that belief is based on (how to "do it properly" when the ruling government is willing to use violence to prevent secession) and you declined to do so while lashing out at those members.
Until you start making some proposals as to how they should "do it properly" then there simply isn't much to comprehend, especially when the examples you've cited would most likely have been met with violence by Madrid if the exact same thing had been tried in this situation.
N'Al on 30/10/2017 at 08:03
Yeah, no.
I already gave multiple examples that other members had no problems comprehending and responding to. Let me humour you with further examples, though, cause I'm such a nice guy: Eritrea, South Sudan, motherfucking Brexit.
Sure, some of these were preceded by years of violent conflict, but the referenda themselves were
democratic and legitimate.
Not so in Catalonia, though. What Puigdemont did is like the governor of New Mexico declaring independence from the United States cause he asked a few of his friends and they thought it was a good idea. Well, whaddya know, (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States) unilateral secession is unconstitutional in the US as well, Spain is hardly unique in that regard.
Kolya on 30/10/2017 at 09:24
Why did Madrid have to answer with such violence though? Why couldn't they just point at the constitution and say: Hold "votes" as much as you like, but to us that's a glorified opinion poll. We respect the opinion expressed in it, but it has no legal weight whatsoever.
Going after the secessionist voters with hard police force was bound to escalate the situation. It's as if they wanted a civil war. So why did they react that way. Genuinely curious.
