The judge in Catalonia doesn't mind what it seems to you or anyone: her job is to interpret and apply the law. As the Supreme Court did, e.g., when they sent a Ministro del Interior to prison.
The law isn't written by the Spanish government either, it's written by Congress. A Congress in which nationalistic parties have more representation per number of voters than other parties with a higher number of total voters.
Insinuations that the judges in Catalonia are puppets of the Spanish government ignore the reality of Spain.
In parliamentary democracies "the government" often refers to the current administration in power. "The current government" means "the current PM and their cabinet". So "the government" tends to mean only the politicians at the top of the executive branch.
Oh my god of course it's not, unless by government you mean something broader than the executive branch, in which case you have to include the judiciary too. The three separate powers is the foundation of western democracies.
Yes, a U.S. "administration" is the closest analogy to a "government" in the sense usually used in reference to parliamentary systems when talking about a particular leader's government or a change of government, as opposed to the government of the country ("Europe" is sort of beside the point here, as its more about form of government than geographic location.)
The agencies in the executive branch are 99% civil service people, not political appointees, and they don't change over every four years. The administration is the President, the cabinet, and political appointees, so I think that's the equivalent term.
I think that's correct in an academic sense. But in the day-to-day usage, I think Obama's “this administration” lined up pretty well with Cameron's “this government”.
The thing that changes in a change of "government" isn't the whole executive branch -- most parliamentary systems have a well-developed permanent civil service. What changes are the PM, cabinet, and some subordinate political rather than civil service officers. That's pretty much a precise parallel to a U.S. "administration", not the whole of the executive branch.
I think the distinction stems from the fact that in France for instance if I want to refer to all three branches I say "l'État", but obviously in the USA "the state" is something different. "Le gouvernement" is only the président and his ministres.
Roughly, but the nomenclature is different. It's kind of the opposite of metonymy, it's using the more general word ("government") to refer to the more specific thing (the current set of politicians in power).
No, it doesn’t. It refers to the executive. Whenever we complain about the poor quality of government, (the VA, DMV,) we’re complaining about an organ of the executive (be it federal, state or municipal).
Er, not in the US. E.G. "those government fat cats in Washington" is more likely to mean the Congress (or at least the Congressmen you don't like) than anything else.
In the US, "the government" refers to all three branches. When we complain about the poor quality of government, we're frequently talking about Congress, too.
It most certainly isn't, not in Spain, nor in the US or most other democracies.
Separation of powers:
- Legislative (parliament, congress, senate, house of ..., many names - in Spain I think they call it Cortes Generales and it consists of two chambers, a senate and a congress)
This is wrong for the US, but I don't know the Spanish government structure enough to weigh in there.
The US Government is split into three branches, like you mentioned (Legislative, Executive, Judicial). Those three branches are the government. You are erroneously equating government to mean exclusively the executive branch of the government though.
I have no skin in the game, but I think that in a democracy if you forbid the people from at least expressing a yes/no on whether they should continue to be governed by the group currently governing them, you are breeding discontent.
If a democracy is nominally a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the legitimacy of the government is driven by the continued support of the citizens. If a portion (or region) of your populous wants to no longer be collectively governed by the current group and would instead rather form their own government more attuned to their needs, why not at least let them find out if the other people in their group agree?
I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.
So, to your point, perhaps the judge is just 100% about following the law, even if they disagree. They could just as well be a 'stay' voter imposing their will on others. In either case, the underlying laws that are forbidding the vote, binding or not, are what I find objectionable. But again, I have no skin in that particular game and am just a bystander.
> I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.
You know, this makes sense on the surface, but when you start to think about the details, the trickiness of the situation becomes apparent.
Ok, so we are going to allow seccession. Well, how big a group does it have to be to be allowed to secede? Can I secede as an individual, and make my house an independent nation? A neighborhood? A city? A county? A US State? Each level is going to have its own problems.
Ok, lets imagine we agree on the minimum size we will allow to secede. Let's say we are in the USA, and we decide a state can secede.
Does it require a simple majority? 2/3rds vote? 3/4ths? We have a constitution for a reason, to protect the minority from the majority. We have decided the majority can't do certain things (like establish a state religion, or ban the practice of minority religions), but do we allow a secession vote to be an end-run around that idea? Could a majority just vote to secede and create a new nation that doesn't have the protections for minority viewpoints?
How do we even do the vote? Do we vote as individuals, or do our state representatives make the decision?
Ok, suppose we set decide an individual votes, and you need 2/3rds to vote to secede. Well, who gets to vote? Let's imagine it is Texas voting to leave; does Joe, the guy who moved from California 3 weeks ago get to vote in the secession? What about the guy who moved there 3 years ago, but lives a quarter of the time in South Dakota? What about people who own houses in Texas but live somewhere else?
I think a big part of this comes down to the fact that once you are a single nation, there is no longer a clear definition of who would have standing to secede. I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it. The entity that can make the decision to break apart is only the entire country; if Texas wants to secede, it would have to be as a decision the entire country makes together, since that is the unit of sovereignty that exists.
This is not impossible to organise. Scotland and the UK were in a very similar situation, and determined answers to those issues perfectly well, and held a referendum in which it was closer than expected but Scotland opted to remain part of the UK.
Spain has instead opted to prevent a vote of any kind taking place. Perhaps Spain is different, but I'd imagine that rarely goes well -- it seems to me that the fastest way to get someone to want independence is to tell them they can't have it.
And Spain was a dictatorship until 1978 (still well within living memory). Rushing in to arrest people for printing ballots seems like a way to stir memories of governments Madrid would probably prefer not to be associated with.
If one or more regions of the United States tried to do this, they would likely be arrested at gunpoint by SWAT teams and jailed indefinitely under terrorism laws for treason against the state. Spain is being relatively kind, comparatively.
I think you’re over complicating things and also not recognizing key differences.
Catalonia is a large autonomous region in present Spain with its own independent history, culture, and language which the government of Spain is trying to repress both historically and currently. For example, they limit the number of hours in school in which students are allowed to learn their own mother tongue. That’s nothing compared to what Franco did in outright banning Catalonian nationalism and thought.
The US was formed under different circumstances and laws. States joined with certain expectations. It does not have the same history or same struggles — it has different ones.
People in Spain dont move around like people in the US do. There is a notion of being part of a historical ethnic group in Catalonia and being raised in its mother tongue. Regardless, you have a large bloc that’s been there for many generations that can vote as single coherent bloc.
You can never rely on a majority to protect a minorities rights.
- Catalonia has never been an independent country. It was part of the Aragon Kingdom.
- The only mother tongue that students are limited to use in Catalonia is Spanish. All public schools use only catalan, except for Spanish language classes, which are treated as a foreign language, like English.
Spanish is not treated as a foreign language. What the fuck. Why is everyone spreading so many lies about Catalonia? Spanish is treated at the same level as Catalan. We do Spanish literature and grammar, which is not the case for English or French.
If anybody wants to know the truth, you can just go to the official Catalan Goverment education page: http://xtec.gencat.cat/ca/inici/
The page itself it's only in Catalan, with no translation into Spanish available. If you as a parent only speak Spanish, tough luck, you don't have the right to get to know official information about the education of your child in the official language of your country.
If you are curious, you can see the obligatory contents of any course (called Seqüències didàctiques). For instance, 1r ESO (roughly first high school year):
http://xtec.gencat.cat/ca/curriculum/eso/sequencies/
The only subjects that are not in Catalan are "Llengua castellana i literatura" (Spanish language) and "Llengua anglesa" (English language).
It is true that the education is mainly in Catalan, but I fail too see what's so bad about this? It's ironic that the people that complain that the education is in Catalan are those that do not live in Catalonia; the Catalans that complain about it are an extreme minority. Furthermore, Catalans are around in the middle in terms of Spanish level if you look at all the communities. You know what the problem is? You guys have a sense of superiority. We have been teaching in Catalan for a long time and we have never had a single issue, but you want to impose your language when we have been doing fine in a bilingual culture. Most TV channels are in Spanish, and people speak in Spanish in the streets all the time. And then you wonder why we want to leave Spain?
I didn’t say independent country. I said it’s an autonomous region.
Regarding the second point, I’m only echoing my friends commentary who is from Barcelona and flew home from San Francisco to vote. I can’t speak for him, but he talked at length about these laws. And I’m talking about language class here — not what language most classes are taught in.
"I don't need to request permission to move to a different state in the United States, I just do it."
Trying to equate EU and Spanish law with USA law is an exercise in futility. The point you are trying to make only makes sense if you consider the EU and its nation-states to be the counterpart to the US and its states. In that case, we are seeing a secession unfold right now with Brexit.
A better analogy would be if a group of counties in a US state wanted to break off and leave not only their home state, but the US overall, to become their own micro-nation, with the option to rejoin the US as the 51st state.
Are you saying that if someone living in Madrid wants to move to Barcelona, they have to request permission from the government?
I never mentioned the EU at all, I am not sure what you mean by that. Catalonia leaving Spain is an internal issue, not related to the EU. I am comparing Catalonia being a province of Spain to California being a state in the US.
My quick answer: 2/3, all the resident citizens, only the people in the region, any size (too small gets impractical and won't happen, if it does ok, good luck to them).
This is impractical already and it's happening: Catalonia wants to secede, but no one has any clue of what's happening afterwards: They'd want to become a separate nation. This nation would require to be recognized. If the Catalan nation would actually be recognized, it would not be part of the EU, thus have (at least initially) border checks, tariffs, no freedom of movement. It probably could keep the Euro as de-facto currency but have no power over its policy. It could apply to become a member of the EU, but a single veto of an existing member would block that. Now, which member might actually go veto a catalanian EU-membership? I can't possibly think of any, maybe you can. Even if not vetoed, this process takes years. What happens to people that live in Catalonia, but self-identify as spanish? What happens to people that live outside Catalonia, but self-identify as Catalonian? Their pensions, their work and residence permits? Their families and livelihoods? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote as well?
To be extra-clear: I don't think the hard-line course that the spanish government is pursuing is good, but I don't consider the forceful push for a referendum against spanish law and constitution is helping either.
So yeah, impractical, idiotic things happen all the time and the minority (in your proposal up to 1/3rd plus quite a few) is dragged into the mess. These things must be negotiated carefully and consider what will happen after secession. A referendum on a full treaty could work, see the separation of Czechoslovakia, but an unilateral declaration is just a mess. (see also: Brexit - where Theresa May just called upon support from the worlds leaders because of tariffs imposed by the US on Bombardier airplanes. If only you could be member of a major, powerful trading block.)
> Now, which member might actually go veto a catalanian EU-membership?
Spain, for starters. Belgium and Italy might consider it as well. Basically any country that has a notable successionist movement.
That's one of the things that was pointed out during the Scottish independence referendum: contrary to the SNP's hope, the EU pointed out that membership was not going to be automatic, and Spain did signal that it was not going to look kindly on Scotland applying to join.
I'm torn on this, and I think in general your statements make sense.
However, you're also arguing that the South in 1861 should've been allowed to secede, or at least have an unemcumbered plebiscite. Or the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq, which may set off regional catastrophe. Is that an accurate reading?
I would agree with your reading and at the same time I also think it is morally sound to go to war with the South to free up the slaves from the South.
Catalonia has been allowed to discuss. It’s just the referendum, as I understand it, that is being banned. I’m trying to think what would happen if California passed an independence referendum whose results were then nullified by the Supreme Court.
Not that guy here but yes as someone who is pro self determination I think the Kurds should be allowed to leave Iraq and the South should have been allowed to secede.
> I personally think any democratic government should allow for succession.
Nitpicking but considering the context of the news item, I think you meant "secession". Edit distance of 2 but makes a lot of difference in the meaning of your sentence.
Well, their job is to interpret the law and weigh in on it's validity. They have a lot of leeway in that task honestly. Unfortunately, they are not immune from politics.
