Fascism returns to Spain

[oldtom]

Sadiq would not want to call a referendum since he knows it would be illegal, just as the Catalan one was and is. The Spanish government should face them down and they were right to try to stop the referendum. They should have been much tougher in arresting all those who organised and backed it, including the Catalan leaders who were guilty of treason. That carries the death penalty in Britain..

Regrettably 'flecc', I have to take issue with your view on this topic. I am not convinced that a ballot, or the calling for a ballot, represents an act of treason. I think it's a moot point.

Regardless, the Spanish government chose to disallow it when there was a pretty good chance that the result would favour the continuation of the status quo. Their hold on power though has been rather tenuous for some time and I doubt very much that they will remain in office for too long. Mike Killay, although I disagree strongly with his opinions on several issues, very quickly grasped the potential danger of this situation in Spain when he created the thread. It was always inevitable that the insecure Rajoy administration would resort to pre-1975 tactics to deal with dissenters, rather than engage in discussions.

On a point of accuracy, the UK abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965 and in 1973 in the case of NI. The penalty was retained for two offences, treason and arson in HM dockyards - never used until the final abolition in 1998. A few years later, the ECHR created a protocol which prevents signatories from re-introducing capital punishment so long as they remain members of the EU.

we don't condone civil disorder as a solution.

Perhaps the general population of decent, law-abiding citizens do not condone civil disorder, preferring to protest peacefully as we have witnessed over many decades, but the tory government has no compunction about initiating extreme violence against protesters.....just like other fascist administrations, witness Spain!

Perhaps we need to reconsider the validity of the EU referendum. The reason there was a referendum was because it had arisen as a tory Party manifesto commitment, engineered by the right wing of the tory Party before the 2015 GE. The tories won with a majority which surprised them so the far right immediately put pressure on the weak-willed PM, Ca-moron and his multi-millionaire mate and Chancellor, who hadn't the guts to stand up to the right wing, a right wing bolstered by the UKIP extremists, particularly one, Nigel Farage.

Ca-moron had failed to do his homework and thereafter further exacerbated his personal dilemma by failing to organise the moderates in his party to oppose these right-wing extremists and put the EU on the back burner while the economy was dealt with. As the PM and many senior members of the PCP were pro-remain, I believe they should have organised a serious campaign to get their message across but I now believe their sheer arrogance allowed them to believe the 'Brexit' upstarts would lose heavily and face would be saved, having allowed the nation to speak, manifesto commitment honoured, job done!

I believe it could be argued that to set no minimum turn-out and no substantial margin between for and against was negligent in the extreme and even the mouth on a stick, Farage, acknowledged that if the figures had been reversed, his party would have sought a further ballot in search of a conclusive result.

Once the 'Brexit' lies were uncovered, the ballot result became a sham and should have been declared null and void then timetabled for another occasion with only verifiable facts allowed to be presented by each side.

Tom

 

[flecc]

It is only the English that think that Charles is the Prince of Wales

Yes, I've always known that, he's nothing other than an imposition.

Not only that, his title is invalid, Wales has long been a country legally and therefore cannot be a principality so cannot have a Prince of Wales.
.

 

[flecc]

Regrettably 'flecc', I have to take issue with your view on this topic. I am not convinced that a ballot, or the calling for a ballot, represents an act of treason. I think it's a moot point.

I believe the treason is in the referendum being an attempt by its own citizens to take territory from Spain. Treason against King and Country.
.

 

[flecc]

All the Motorways and railways lead to London. The city has the ability and capacity to easily absorb a few hundred people for a few days.

A few hundred! I had to quote this separately since it was so funny.

London received 19 million visitors last year, many of whom stayed for a number of days. That's nearly a third of the UK population and an average of 52,000 new visitors a day, and you can add all the business people and others unrecorded coming in.
.

 

[Danidl]

I agree.
Scotland or Catalonia could theoretically exist as separate countries.
London on the other hand could not. At the simplest level, where would it draw water? Vegetables and meat could only be raised in small quantities.
All the National structures from the Civil Service to large firms would probably find new HQs outside London.
The rail network could be reconfigured around Reading or Birmingham.
Once you look at it this way, you begin to wonder if London is truly supporting other regions.

Anyway, this is just theory compared to what has just happened in Spain.
OK for better or worse, the Spanish Government declared the referendum illegal, but did they really need to suppress it?
And why did the Spanish deputy prime minister declare that the Police (Actually para military GC) were acting in a professional manner when already evidence was mounting that this was not so.
She could easily have given orders for the GC to back off.[/QUOTE
. One can't have ones bread and eat it. You either accept trhat there is a rule of law or that mob rule rules. If there is to be a functioning democracy there needs to be both a court system as well as governnent. My understanding is that the supreme court which is independent of the government of the day viewed the referendum as illegal. If that was the case the government has to act. Just because it was a popular view point and maybe the majority of people in a region want it does not make it democratic.
A country with a written constitution needs to respect it. If you want change that is not accommodated within a constitution then you allow all the people in the state vote on changing the constitution and then you can have a more focussed vote when it is no longer unconstitutional.
Police are needed to maintain order and sometimes very regrettably that can mean banging heads. Did in this instance the police over react.. maybe. I have seen similar wounded elder people in virtually every other public demonstration and gathering whether political or otherwise. ... but you can be sure that the media present will have ignored any provocation which may have preceded the videos extracts. ... As they will have done in others also.


The eu will not have come out in support of any internal group seeking to act illegally. They have come out and advised reflection and restraint.

 

[Danidl]

I agree.
Scotland or Catalonia could theoretically exist as separate countries.
London on the other hand could not. At the simplest level, where would it draw water? Vegetables and meat could only be raised in small quantities.
All the National structures from the Civil Service to large firms would probably find new HQs outside London.
The rail network could be reconfigured around Reading or Birmingham.
Once you look at it this way, you begin to wonder if London is truly supporting other regions.

Anyway, this is just theory compared to what has just happened in Spain.
OK for better or worse, the Spanish Government declared the referendum illegal, but did they really need to suppress it?
And why did the Spanish deputy prime minister declare that the Police (Actually para military GC) were acting in a professional manner when already evidence was mounting that this was not so.
She could easily have given orders for the GC to back off.

. One can't have ones bread and eat it. You either accept trhat there is a rule of law or that mob rule rules. If there is to be a functioning democracy there needs to be both a court system as well as governnent. My understanding is that the supreme court which is independent of the government of the day viewed the referendum as illegal. If that was the case the government has to act. Just because it was a popular view point and maybe the majority of people in a region want it does not make it democratic.
A country with a written constitution needs to respect it. If you want change that is not accommodated within a constitution then you allow all the people in the state vote on changing the constitution and then you can have a more focussed vote when it is no longer unconstitutional.
Police are needed to maintain order and sometimes very regrettably that can mean banging heads. Did in this instance the police over react.. maybe. I have seen similar wounded elder people in virtually every other public demonstration and gathering whether political or otherwise. ... but you can be sure that the media present will have ignored any provocation which may have preceded the videos extracts. ... As they will have done in others also.

 

[Woosh]

Just because it was a popular view point and maybe the majority of people in a region want it does not make it democratic.

the right to vote is one of those fundamental human rights.
if the majority wants a referendum then the Court should not stop it in the first place. The local government tried for 7 years to get their referendum, Madrid says no because they know the result.

 

[oldtom]

My understanding is that the supreme court which is independent of the government of the day viewed the referendum as illegal.

We live in an imperfect world 'Danidl' and you have described in your piece a series of events which would exist in a perfect world.

You have made an assumption about a judicial body, independent of government. Many would disagree with that for similar reasons to those in the UK who believe the judiciary is part of the elite and therefore incapable of providing justice for the common man.

I'm a little surprised to read an Irishman write in such reasonable manner about the need for government to act in order to prevent mob rule. While the Irish difficulties with an unwanted government around the turn of the 19th/20th century may not be identical to those of the Catalans, had your 'reasonable' approach been maintained further, there would have been no Easter Rising. There are many other incidences throughout history whereby groups of people discovered ultimately that only an armed struggle could achieve their aims.

Tom

 

[Danidl]

We live in an imperfect world 'Danidl' and you have described in your piece a series of events which would exist in a perfect world.

You have made an assumption about a judicial body, independent of government. Many would disagree with that for similar reasons to those in the UK who believe the judiciary is part of the elite and therefore incapable of providing justice for the common man.

I'm a little surprised to read an Irishman write in such reasonable manner about the need for government to act in order to prevent mob rule. While the Irish difficulties with an unwanted government around the turn of the 19th/20th century may not be identical to those of the Catalans, had your 'reasonable' approach been maintained further, there would have been no Easter Rising. There are many other incidences throughout history whereby groups of people discovered ultimately that only an armed struggle could achieve their aims.

Tom

Tom you need to go back to 1910 in order to see why the highly unpopular Easter Rising took place and why it in turn led to the highly popular war of independence in 1919. I have always viewed the Easter Rising as a fiasco, irrespective of the mythmaking subsequently. The war of independence was another matter and was as a result of the British government reneging on an agreement made five years previously. The British government had ignored a mutiny by its officer corps in Ireland, and turned a blind eye to the illegal arming of a unionist militia in the northern counties.

If there is to be a rule of law it must apply to all. In this instance in Spain, Catalonia agreed to a constitution in 1978, which accepted that it was part of a whole. The whole peoples of Spain , including those in Galicia and the south need therefore be included in any subsequent vote.
We in Ireland have a written consitution, it may be inconvenient, to all of us at various times, but it is the best guarantee for all. I am not talking about abstract notions for an ideal world , but how problems are dealt with in mature democracies.
Talking about the value of votes, the central plank of the SF IRA arguement for legitimacy, was that they were able to argue that the last time a vote had been taken of all Ireland was in 1919.,and therefore they were the legitimate descendents of that first Dail. It wasn't until the all Ireland poll after the Good Friday Agreement, that that was rectified. It is considerations of this that make any support of the limited vote last Sunday fraught.
I might expect a supreme court to be conservative, but I would also expect them to follow the law in the Constitution. Have you evidence that they did not do so here?. The way to change a consitution is to hold a referendum. Have the Catalans canvassed sufficient support , particularly outside their region to start that process?

 

[mike killay]

*+-

Tom you need to go back to 1910 in order to see why the highly unpopular Easter Rising took place and why it in turn led to the highly popular war of independence in 1919. I have always viewed the Easter Rising as a fiasco, irrespective of the mythmaking subsequently. The war of independence was another matter and was as a result of the British government reneging on an agreement made five years previously. The British government had ignored a mutiny by its officer corps in Ireland, and turned a blind eye to the illegal arming of a unionist militia in the northern counties.

If there is to be a rule of law it must apply to all. In this instance in Spain, Catalonia agreed to a constitution in 1978, which accepted that it was part of a whole. The whole peoples of Spain , including those in Galicia and the south need therefore be included in any subsequent vote.
We in Ireland have a written consitution, it may be inconvenient, to all of us at various times, but it is the best guarantee for all. I am not talking about abstract notions for an ideal world , but how problems are dealt with in mature democracies.
Talking about the value of votes, the central plank of the SF IRA arguement for legitimacy, was that they were able to argue that the last time a vote had been taken of all Ireland was in 1919.,and therefore they were the legitimate descendents of that first Dail. It wasn't until the all Ireland poll after the Good Friday Agreement, that that was rectified. It is considerations of this that make any support of the limited vote last Sunday fraught.
I might expect a supreme court to be conservative, but I would also expect them to follow the law in the Constitution. Have you evidence that they did not do so here?. The way to change a consitution is to hold a referendum. Have the Catalans canvassed sufficient support , particularly outside their region to start that process?

Danidl,
The All Ireland referenda only allowed Irish people to vote, exactly what has taken place in Catalunya.
Yet you seem to suggest that all of Spain should have been involved in the Catalonian referendum?
Therefore, should all of the UK have participated in the Irish votes and also the Scottish vote?

 

[Danidl]

*+-

Danidl,
The All Ireland referenda only allowed Irish people to vote, exactly what has taken place in Catalunya.
Yet you seem to suggest that all of Spain should have been involved in the Catalonian referendum?
Therefore, should all of the UK have participated in the Irish votes and also the Scottish vote?

I am not suggesting , I am asserting that because the Spanish constitution , to which the Catalans were apparently highly delighted to accept in 1978, stated that Spain was indivisible, that other regions have a vested interest and yes would have a right to vote.
However any such vote would currently be unconstitutional as it goes against an article in the constitution. What would be needed before that is a vote by all Spain to amend their constitution . Perhaps the Catalans should have canvassed their colleagues and fellow citizens in the other regions when the reforms agreed/ wrestled? by / from the government were deemed unconstitutional.
In regard to the irish and Scottish cases and their desire to leave the UK... maybe.
That would be a case for your constitution.. . Except you don't have one.
The competent authority .. The U.K. parliament decided not to consult its own people and accepted that the MPs spoke for them.

 

[oldtom]

The way to change a consitution is to hold a referendum. Have the Catalans canvassed sufficient support , particularly outside their region to start that process?

I couldn't say 'Danidl' but while it is all very well for you (or I) to sit and objectively pontificate about these events, as I mentioned previously, democracies that fail to take account of all their peoples are always susceptible to public unrest. A caring government will enter into dialogue with people who feel they have been disenfranchised by government and try to bring about an accord. The Spanish government is a hard-line outfit, most of its senior members having been brought up under Franco's reign when public order was maintained through brutal violence or the threat of violence as required.

I have spent part of each year since the early 1990s in my own home in the province of Almeria which was neglected by the Spanish government for decades even after the demise of Franco.

The citizens of Almeria endured decades under Franco starved of funding for infrastructure, health care, schools or indeed anything. The level of poverty there until the mid-90s was almost third-world and it was a deliberate act of political brutality because the people of Almeria held out against Franco's troops and theirs was the last region of Spain to capitulate. That was probably on account of the fact that Franco had bigger fish to fry in order to conquer all opposition and there was no significant strategic value in committing lots of resources to defeat a rag-tag bunch of peasant farmers in the south-east.

After he became the de facto leader of Spain, Franco deliberately gave the people of Almeria nothing and plenty of it! Any funding was directed to Madrid and to much of the northern part of the country while people in much of the south scratched a living from the soil and reared a little livestock. Even after 1975, nothing much changed for the people of Almeria although other parts of Andalusia did a little better.

One feature of the Franco years which has remained omnipresent until this day is Franco's Guardia Civil, noted for their extreme violence in the 1930s. They are not a normal police service in any way - paramilitary mercenaries would be a better description - behaving as if they are answerable to no-one. The 'Black and Tans' of 1920 Ireland would be a close approximation. We have just witnessed in Spain those paid thugs resort to the old tactics of the Franco era. They should have been disbanded immediately after Franco's death.

This current government is not too far removed from the Franco model of government and I fear we may not have witnessed the last civil unrest because many large groups of people in Spain do feel disenfranchised even though there is ostensibly a democracy in place.

Tom

 

[Woosh]

I am not suggesting , I am asserting that because the Spanish constitution , to which the Catalans were apparently highly delighted to accept in 1978, stated that Spain was indivisible, that other regions have a vested interest and yes would have a right to vote.

it is not so black and white.
the local government has tried to negotiate ever since their declaration of the Initiation of the Process of Independence of Catalonia in 2015.
their demand fell on deaf ears, so their next step is to organize a referendum.
The Madrid government cannot use the police to brutalize people who want to vote. Take pictures of the voters and prosecute them, yes, but beating them up and firing rubber bullets at voters? it's not acceptable in the 21st century anymore.

 

[Danidl]

it is not so black and white.
the local government has tried to negotiate ever since their declaration of the Initiation of the Process of Independence of Catalonia in 2015.
their demand fell on deaf ears, so their next step is to organize a referendum.
The Madrid government cannot use the police to brutalize people who want to vote. Take pictures of the voters and prosecute them, yes, but beating them up and firing rubber bullets at voters? it's not acceptable in the 21st century anymore.

The process of change by referendum of a constitution is the correct way and is actually black and white. It is one of the few things which is.

I am not excusing or condoning the authorities in Madrid,. Sending in riot police is not the way to win hearts and minds. ... But I can list any number of other countries including my own, yours and your adopted country where such actions have been taken. Have you not also seen the blood streaming down the faces after anti austerity marches, after football matches, after anti globalisation marches, after political marches Oldtom makes a similar point and in that I can agree, that the Central government were much too quick to adopt that overt police action.
Oldtom makes another point that this region , the northern regions were more favoured by Madrid than the southern regions he was familiar with. Don't sound like downtrodden to me.

Should Normandy want to secede? Should Cornwall, Should Brittany, and I am aware that there is a quasi independence movement there for decades, by deciding to have a vote of the people in their region, no they are constitutionally bound to the rest of the state.

My reading would have that the Initiation of the Process of Independence of Catalonia in 2015. resulted from a prior failure to have augmented autonomy, as agreed with the central government, which fell foul of the constitution. Am I wrong?. If it were that case, the only path open is a campaign to remove that provision from the constitution. Running a vote as they did , was obviously the wrong and provocative thing to do.
. It would not have been within the gift of the government to negotiate . Governments have to be bound by constitutions.. its the only thing standing between the citizenry and tyranny. As I have said before, the strong don't need the law to protect them, the weak do....
Now I have made my point a few times and there is no more value in my repeating myself.

 

[oldtom]

The BBC news website has this from a few hours ago in Barcelona:

world-europe-41479048

Tom

 

[Woosh]

If it were that case, the only path open is a campaign to remove that provision from the constitution. Running a vote as they did , was obviously the wrong and provocative thing to do.

the local government only has to say that the referendum is not binding.
The result will form the basis for further negotiation.
There is no need for Madrid to jump the gun and refer them to the constitutional court. Madrid knew that the result of the referendum will consolidate the independent movement.
Just look at the polls here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017#Opinion_polls

The yes camp leads by a clear margin.

 

[Danidl]

I couldn't say 'Danidl' but while it is all very well for you (or I) to sit and objectively pontificate about these events, as I mentioned previously, democracies that fail to take account of all their peoples are always susceptible to public unrest. A caring government will enter into dialogue with people who feel they have been disenfranchised by government and try to bring about an accord. The Spanish government is a hard-line outfit, most of its senior members having been brought up under Franco's reign when public order was maintained through brutal violence or the threat of violence as required.

I have spent part of each year since the early 1990s in my own home in the province of Almeria which was neglected by the Spanish government for decades even after the demise of Franco.

The citizens of Almeria endured decades under Franco starved of funding for infrastructure, health care, schools or indeed anything. The level of poverty there until the mid-90s was almost third-world and it was a deliberate act of political brutality because the people of Almeria held out against Franco's troops and theirs was the last region of Spain to capitulate. That was probably on account of the fact that Franco had bigger fish to fry in order to conquer all opposition and there was no significant strategic value in committing lots of resources to defeat a rag-tag bunch of peasant farmers in the south-east.

After he became the de facto leader of Spain, Franco deliberately gave the people of Almeria nothing and plenty of it! Any funding was directed to Madrid and to much of the northern part of the country while people in much of the south scratched a living from the soil and reared a little livestock. Even after 1975, nothing much changed for the people of Almeria although other parts of Andalusia did a little better.

One feature of the Franco years which has remained omnipresent until this day is Franco's Guardia Civil, noted for their extreme violence in the 1930s. They are not a normal police service in any way - paramilitary mercenaries would be a better description - behaving as if they are answerable to no-one. The 'Black and Tans' of 1920 Ireland would be a close approximation. We have just witnessed in Spain those paid thugs resort to the old tactics of the Franco era. They should have been disbanded immediately after Franco's death.

This current government is not too far removed from the Franco model of government and I fear we may not have witnessed the last civil unrest because many large groups of people in Spain do feel disenfranchised even though there is ostensibly a democracy in place.

Tom

Spain is not a country I have much familiarity with, I have a better feel for France. . As in my slightly earlier response , I don't think bringing riot police was a very subtle move.
I did hear a story some years ago which might explain the poverty. Its veracity I cannot confirm.

In this narrative Spain would have retained much of the silver and Gold obtained by their south American adventures ., even into the 20th. century.
The Republican forces had taken control of the Treasury, and when they felt that they were in danger of being ousted by Franco, they sent this bullion by train to their comrades in Russia , their fellow socialists for safekeeping. .
When the Spanish Central bank requested it back, after the cession of violence, The response was " What Train?"

 

[mike killay]

I fear we may not have witnessed the last civil unrest because many large groups of people in Spain do feel disenfranchised even though there is ostensibly a democracy in place.

Tom

I fear that it will be like Dublin in the 1920's

 

[anotherkiwi]

Spain is not a country I have much familiarity with, I have a better feel for France. . As in my slightly earlier response , I don't think bringing riot police was a very subtle move.
I did hear a story some years ago which might explain the poverty. Its veracity I cannot confirm.

In this narrative Spain would have retained much of the silver and Gold obtained by their south American adventures ., even into the 20th. century.
The Republican forces had taken control of the Treasury, and when they felt that they were in danger of being ousted by Franco, they sent this bullion by train to their comrades in Russia , their fellow socialists for safekeeping. .
When the Spanish Central bank requested it back, after the cession of violence, The response was " What Train?"

I have heard it to. It's a good story. Highly unbelievable though.

About 43% of Catalans want independence. Maybe they are the Catalan born and bred? Native Catalans are in the minority:

In 1900, the population of Catalonia was 1,966,382 people and in 1970 it was 5,122,567. The sizeable increase of the population was due to the demographic boom in Spain during the 60s and early 70s as well as in consequence of large-scale internal migration from the rural economically weak regions to its more prospering industrial cities. In Catalonia that wave of internal migration arrived from several regions of Spain, especially from Andalusia, Murcia and Extremadura.

Immigrants from other countries settled in Catalonia in the 1990s and 2000s; a large percentage came from Africa and Latin America, and smaller numbers from Asia and Eastern Europe, often settling in urban centers such as Barcelona and industrial areas.

 

[oldtom]

Increasingly, I am finding that I like the slant of Craig Murray, historian and human rights activist, on all matters political.

Here he looks disapprovingly at the mainstream media with regard to their coverage of events in Catalonia on Sunday:

gross-dishonesty-mainstream-media-catalonia

Tom