  |
 The Spanish Thread |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 29th October 2017, 06:50 PM
Post
#21
|
|
 Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,151 User: 5,138 
   |
No surprise that a huge economic crisis 10 years before sparked the political unrest!
|
 |
 
|
|
2nd November 2017, 10:24 PM
Post
#22
|
|
 is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
    |
This article explains some of the misconceptions about Catalonia/the constitution perfectly
|
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 01:06 PM
Post
#23
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,829 User: 17,376
  |
No, the logic is flawed in that article.
The vote was not recognised by the Government and declared illegal, therefore any assumptions made on hypothetical scaling-up on percentages wanting independence is seriously flawed. Anyone who DIDN'T want indie and supported the government would have been largely inclined not to vote because it wasn't official and the result wouldnt be recognised as in any way official. To make assumptions that over 50% WOULD HAVE voted for independence based on the proportion of votes counted that were not seized (regardless of whether turnout is 43% or 53%) is a biased convenient distortion of the reality. The only accurate result would be an official referendum. failing that, the only way there can be a relatively accurate clearer picture of the result is to have elections and see what the turnout for pro-Indie parties is. I believe that is what is happening. Everyone can fairly vote for any party they democratically choose to, and the result will make it much clearer what the real attitude is. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 01:28 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,083 User: 18,639
      |
Besides, I am still a firm believer in the 60%+ rule in referendums
|
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 02:50 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
 |
QUOTE(Buttered Muffin @ Nov 3 2017, 01:28 PM)  Besides, I am still a firm believer in the 60%+ rule in referendums Better that than a turnout threshold, as the latter allows opponents to 'sabotage' any referendum by simply boycotting it. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 08:15 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
|
QUOTE(Buttered Muffin @ Nov 3 2017, 03:28 PM) Besides, I am still a firm believer in the 60%+ rule in referendums That's called fixing the referendum. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 08:32 PM
Post
#27
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,672 User: 3,272
     |
QUOTE(REPUTATION @ Nov 3 2017, 08:15 PM) That's called fixing the referendum. No it isn't. If the referendum is about something that will be difficult to reverse (e.g declaring independence or leaving the EU) it is perfectly reasonable to say that support for the measure needs to be higher than 50% plus one. It is standard practice in many countries or organisations to require more than a simple majority to make a constitutional change. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 08:32 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,672 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Nov 3 2017, 02:50 PM) Better that than a turnout threshold, as the latter allows opponents to 'sabotage' any referendum by simply boycotting it. I hadn't noticed you agreeing with the criticisms of the government's changes to the rules on strike ballots. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 08:40 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
|
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Nov 3 2017, 10:32 PM) No it isn't. If the referendum is about something that will be difficult to reverse (e.g declaring independence or leaving the EU) it is perfectly reasonable to say that support for the measure needs to be higher than 50% plus one. It is standard practice in many countries or organisations to require more than a simple majority to make a constitutional change. People can spin it whatever way they like but you're still faced with a situation with a majority of the people being ignored, a vote of almost 60% or 65% being lost is an affront to democracy |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 09:22 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,083 User: 18,639
|
How so? A major change should be agreed upon by more than a teeny tiny majority, as THAT is an affront to democracy and forces nearly 50% of the ecltorate onto a path they did not choose. That is not democratic, it is just mob rule. A 65% threshold to win is MORE than fair for sweeping change.
|
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 09:44 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,082 User: 3,474
   |
I support Catalonia's right to chose it's future (shock horror) but this farce has arisen because both sides have been f***ing morons. Sending the Federal Police in should have drawn condemnation from every human. That the EU chose to stay silent was disappointing, but not surprising given it's history on not commenting on internal matters. The atrocity should have cast aside that particular unspoken rule.
The Spanish government should have had proper discussions on a legal vote with Catalonia with the appropriate democratic safeguards and standards. Reports are that the union option would have won comfortably. The Catalan government pushed ahead with their plan to get a rise out of Madrid and many of their own citizens were injured as a direct consequence of that needless escalation. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 09:52 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
|
QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Nov 3 2017, 11:44 PM) I support Catalonia's right to chose it's future (shock horror) but this farce has arisen because both sides have been f***ing morons. Sending the Federal Police in should have drawn condemnation from every human. That the EU chose to stay silent was disappointing, but not surprising given it's history on not commenting on internal matters. The atrocity should have cast aside that particular unspoken rule. The Spanish government should have had proper discussions on a legal vote with Catalonia with the appropriate democratic safeguards and standards. Reports are that the union option would have won comfortably. The Catalan government pushed ahead with their plan to get a rise out of Madrid and many of their own citizens were injured as a direct consequence of that needless escalation. The Catalonian government were entitled to hold a referendum, they won an election on that promise and Spain refused. As showed in the article I previously posted, any form of change to the Spanish constitution is basically impossible so if they wanted to respect the will of the people they had no choice but to 'break the law', not that how things went from Catalonia were the way they should've but Spain needs to I've received a lot of questioning of this by other SNP supporters/pro EU people on twitter but this has made me greatly considered my EU support, the likes of Merkel, Macron and Jean Cluade Junker coming out in favour of Spain imposing itself on the people of Catalonia was incredibly disappointing. The EU have had the chance to say this shouldn't be happening, this is an affront to democracy but they haven't and have let social democrats and the Catalonian people down. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 10:10 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
  |
I'd agree with others here that a 2/3rds majority (or Supermajority) should really be mandatory for referendums that are for important constitutional changes such as independence.
The only solution to this mess would have been for the Spanish government and the now former Catalan government to conduct talks which would hopefully lead towards a legal, fair and proper referendum on independence just like the 2014 one for Scotland. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 10:13 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Nov 4 2017, 12:10 AM) I'd agree with others here that a 2/3rds majority (or Supermajority) should really be mandatory for referendums that are for important constitutional changes such as independence. The only solution to this mess would have been for the Spanish government and the now former Catalan government to conduct talks which would hopefully lead towards a legal, fair and proper referendum on independence just like the 2014 one for Scotland. Up to 66% of the voters being ignored is absurd. This seems to be the new favoured option amongst the hardcore scottish unionist side  |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 10:39 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Buzzjack's Finest Alcoholic.
Joined: 19 November 2011
Posts: 10,365 User: 15,367
    |
What would you suggest then Andrew? I also agree that for such massive changes there needs to be more than a simple majority, 2/3rds seems about right.
|
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 10:58 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
|
QUOTE(Oliver @ Nov 4 2017, 12:39 AM) What would you suggest then Andrew? I also agree that for such massive changes there needs to be more than a simple majority, 2/3rds seems about right. Why though? That's basically saying that the people can't be trusted and are stupid (which is POSSIBLE but very patronizing) and to say that up to 67% of them could be ignored against 33 is incredibly undemoratic and I can't see how anyone couldn't think this. The government of this country is a huge change but no one says the winning party needs 2/3rds of seats or votes, and I think Suedy made the point about elections being different because you can kick out governments, there's been a lot of talk of a second referendum for Brexit and particularly Indy Tbh a lot of the talk about there having to be a benchmark in terms of vote seems very politically motivated (a lot of people against Scottish independence are very for it, a lot of people against Brexit) and btw I despite Brexit |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 11:04 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
50/50 implies a divided nation, either side of that you have a bit of a grey area and then from about 66.6/33.3 you have a clear majority or mandate IMO.
Within that grey area you have enough evidence to support further votes in the future, which will likely happen with Scottish independence in the next decade or so. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 11:09 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Nov 4 2017, 01:04 AM) 50/50 implies a divided nation, either side of that you have a bit of a grey area and then from about 66.6/33.3 you have a clear majority or mandate IMO. Within that grey area you have enough evidence to support further votes in the future, which will likely happen with Scottish independence in the next decade or so. Perhaps but that doesn't mean you have to outlaw the vote. Keep options open and keep responsibilities on the table for the future but deliver the majority vote. It has been quite hilarious to see all the Unionist-left who lambasted the SNP after Indy Ref 1 for even raising the topic of a ''divisive'' 2nd referendum all for this :') Under that system then no political party for many years, possibly ever has had a clear mandate, even Nicola in 2015/16 and Blair in 97/01 
|
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 11:14 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(REPUTATION @ Nov 3 2017, 11:09 PM) Perhaps but that doesn't mean you have to outlaw the vote. Keep options open and keep responsibilities on the table for the future but deliver the majority vote. It has been quite hilarious to see all the Unionist-left who lambasted the SNP after Indy Ref 1 for even raising the topic of a ''divisive'' 2nd referendum all for this :') Under that system then no political party for many years, possibly ever has had a clear mandate, even Nicola in 2015/16 and Blair in 97/01 Well a referendum is completely different. First off there are only 2 options on the ballot paper! The Scottish devolution referendum in 1997 got a 74.29% Yes vote so it is possible to implement a 2/3rds majority rule and still get major constitutional change. |
|
|
|
|
3rd November 2017, 11:18 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
is in hibernation
Joined: 24 August 2014
Posts: 11,385 User: 21,161
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Nov 4 2017, 01:14 AM) Well a referendum is completely different. First off there are only 2 options on the ballot paper! The Scottish devolution referendum in 1997 got a 74.29% Yes vote so it is possible to implement a 2/3rds majority rule and still get major constitutional change. Not impossible but very difficult, I'm fairly sure that's the only case? As I said I'm not completely dismissing your arguments, I think if it is a close vote then all options need to be kept on the table for the future but the first thing that should be done is implement the majority vote as that's the only really fair way! |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 25th April 2024, 12:44 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
