Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ The Spanish Thread
Posted by: Doctor Death 27th October 2017, 05:35 PM
So this afternoon the Catalan parliament declared independence from the Kingdom of Spain... and Madrid have now approved a plan to impose direct rule.
Both sides seem to be driving each other closer and closer to disaster, surely the EU needs to step in and try and get some calm talks/discussions under way and avoid this stepping up of confrontation. It is clear that the Spanish government are fearful of any kind of free and fair vote but unfortunately that seems to be in my mind the only democratic solution that will solve this crisis.
Mess.
Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 27th October 2017, 05:45 PM
I agree - that is the only solution. The Spanish state does seem intimidated by the idea and hide behind their Constitution, even though there is usually less support for independence in Cataluña than in Scotland. Given a fair vote and a government campaign, it is highly likely it stays, ESPECIALLY with a SENSIBLE approach in referendum of a 65% majority needed to vote for change.
The EU wants to promote 'togetherness' and so won't get involved and the UK can't, weakened by Brexit and also having the Scottish and NI and maybe even Welsh and North East England independence issues post Brexit.
I don't think anything material will change right now and Spain will impose direct rule.
Posted by: Hissin🎇Sparkler 27th October 2017, 06:36 PM
I think personally Catalonia should be allowed a free and fair vote on independence, Spain is being a bit dictatorial I think by denying this.
Its not as if there are were ever any armed independence groups based there (to my knowledge) unlike the Basque Country.
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 27th October 2017, 07:09 PM
the quickest solution would be for the catalonian Parliament to call an election - that would give them a clear idea of how much support there really is for independence. As less than half the electorate voted in the unofficial ref (and presumably non-supporters would refuse to give it credence by voting) it can hardly be called a decisive and clear result. However, for the same reason Brexiteers don't want another vote to sort it out once and for all, neither do the leaders of the Catalan Parliament: fear of losing.
The only option really is to agree to a vote down the line, after Brexit, when the people can see what going it alone may mean to their economy (they would have to leave the EU or else Scotland would have a mighty good reason not to stay in, and Belgium would never agree anyway).
On a biased personal level, some have commented that the movement is based on cultural differences and an unwillingness to fund the poorer parts of Spain because they are relatively wealthy and think they can do even better alone without having to subsidise the rest of Spain. I love Barcelona and the area to bits, but I'm considering holidaying in future in the rest of Spain if it goes independent - the EU bits - or just stick to the Canaries.
Posted by: Doctor Death 27th October 2017, 07:45 PM
I believe that they did offer to hold an election on 20 December but the Spanish government refused this. That tells me that the Spanish government are more fearful of losing IMO (which chimes with their approach to this crisis so far)! Also at the last election explicitly pro-Independence parties gained around 48% of the vote whilst anti-independence parties gained 39%.
Posted by: Suedehead2 27th October 2017, 08:38 PM
The general assumption has been that the separatists would lose a properly conducted referendum. However, since the EU referendum here, the Spanish government probably think that is too high a risk.
On the other point, the EU haven't intervened because it is entirely an internal matter for Spain. It's been strange to hear the Leave supporters who have done little but complain that all EU member states run by Brussels complaining about the EU not getting involved.
Posted by: Hocus Pokus 27th October 2017, 08:45 PM
Does this mean if Catalonia get independence they can enter the Eurovision Song Contest, and have their own Football team in the World Cup and Euros 
Posted by: TheBattenburglar 27th October 2017, 09:21 PM
1. They could enter the Eurovision song contest if they become a member of the European Broadcasting Union in their own right on independence.
2. They could have their own football team, but would need FIFA/UEFA's approval to take part in World Cup/Euro championships. I can't see them doing so willingly, especially given how hard Gibraltar had to fight through the Court of Arbitration of Sport to become members of both bodies, although I do appreciate Gibraltar is a different situation to Catalonia.
Posted by: Hissin🎇Sparkler 27th October 2017, 09:24 PM
On the other point, the EU haven't intervened because it is entirely an internal matter for Spain. It's been strange to hear the Leave supporters who have done little but complain that all EU member states run by Brussels complaining about the EU not getting involved.
Yes but the Spanish government continue what they are doing with direct rule and not allowing a referendum, support for Catalan independence in Catalonia is only going to go up I can see.
Posted by: Doctor Death 27th October 2017, 10:00 PM
True, but the fact that the EU did not condemn the actions of the Spanish government with the Spanish Guardia Civil viciously attacking peaceful civilians of all ages on 1 October is awful and I can see now why so many of the left were in favour of voting leave.
Posted by: Suedehead2 27th October 2017, 10:03 PM
Probably, yes. I didn't say I agreed with the Spanish government's strategy.
Posted by: Steve201 27th October 2017, 10:43 PM
Up the Republic!!!
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 28th October 2017, 07:48 AM
On the other point, the EU haven't intervened because it is entirely an internal matter for Spain. It's been strange to hear the Leave supporters who have done little but complain that all EU member states run by Brussels complaining about the EU not getting involved.
NIgel "cough" farage. Anything to shit-stir on anything liable to destroy the EU and let his fascist pals gain power all over the place.....
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 28th October 2017, 08:01 AM
Sending in the heavy mob is never a strategy that works in democracies (works very well in non-democracies), that applies to the UK as well as every other country in the world.
That said, while I was on holiday the local TV was taken up with a lot of the sentiment in catalonia at the mo that is anti-foreigner as well as anti-Spain, so that makes it not entirely unlike Brexit - though more recent demos were more specific in aim: to stop foreigners buying up housing and pushing up prices - this means 100% leaving the EU if it is an aim. Effectively what they wanted were tourists on short visits spending money, but not people moving there.
I was amused by the morning BBC interview with a supporter of independence explaining why he wanted it:
"I want a future for my children which will keep them happy and wealthy, HEALTHY....!" slip of the tongue or subliminally accurate....?
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 28th October 2017, 11:22 AM
other way round. The government have just announced elections for December which the Catalonian Parliament were against, preferring to see the illegal, unofficial and mostly unattended referendum as a definitive statement for everyone in Catalonia, which it clearly wasn't.
meanwhile the right-wing UK muckrakers are headlining Project Fear if Spain fails to allow Catalonia to break away: the end of The EU, civil war and catastrophe ahead. It's almost as if they had an agenda rather than an interest in democracy.....
Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 28th October 2017, 12:24 PM
But surely the EU either butts into everyone's business, including UK, or stays out?
I think with Spain's reactions, being the dominant, status quo, established power in control, vs Cataluña, the Other, it has been seen as represssive and Cataluña has won the global media war and people now sympathise with them. This is especially true with how ElPais tried to have an agenda for he state as thick as the Sun's oe Daily Mail's, which only people IN Spain responded positively to. If Spain had reacted differently, with a referendum, needed 65%, then everything would have bren calmer and the world would not have taken as much notice. Nowx everyone thinks of Spain as fractured and Cataluña as repressed and it is the government's frightened responses to blame.
Posted by: Chop-part-freak 28th October 2017, 01:40 PM
I think with Spain's reactions, being the dominant, status quo, established power in control, vs Cataluña, the Other, it has been seen as represssive and Cataluña has won the global media war and people now sympathise with them. This is especially true with how ElPais tried to have an agenda for he state as thick as the Sun's oe Daily Mail's, which only people IN Spain responded positively to. If Spain had reacted differently, with a referendum, needed 65%, then everything would have bren calmer and the world would not have taken as much notice. Nowx everyone thinks of Spain as fractured and Cataluña as repressed and it is the government's frightened responses to blame.
I think you're probably right, but the government also has a duty to take into account the wishes of the 57% who didn't vote for Independence - at least with Brexit the government can claim people had a chance to vote officially with "proper" campaigns and literature, ditto Scotland, but that isn't the case here, The election will be the first test proper, and then if that goes the way of pro-Indie parties one would assume that Spain would be forced into allowing a real democratic vote where the anti-Indie vote can be fairly represented. As I say, it would also become clearer that it will also mean Catalexit (Can I claim to be the first to coin the phrase?) © popchartfreak? That may affect sentiment one way or the other.....
Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 28th October 2017, 02:11 PM
Absolutely!
If cooler heads had prevailed and the state had respondedlogically, offered solutions, and not brute force, this wouldn't have been blow up into such a huge crisis watched across the globe. Now, the, probably minority, independistas have won the media argument.
Posted by: REPUTATION 28th October 2017, 02:40 PM
Good on Catalonia. That’s all I’ll say because I can get heated af about this 
Posted by: TheBattenburglar 28th October 2017, 02:51 PM
To quote someone on Twitter - the Nazis are rising & Spain is on the brink of civil war. The 1930s are back with a vengeance.
Posted by: Steve201 29th October 2017, 06:50 PM
No surprise that a huge economic crisis 10 years before sparked the political unrest!
Posted by: REPUTATION 2nd November 2017, 10:24 PM
https://wingsoverscotland.com/playing-by-madrid-rules/ article explains some of the misconceptions about Catalonia/the constitution perfectly
Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd November 2017, 01:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 3rd November 2017, 01:28 PM
Besides, I am still a firm believer in the 60%+ rule in referendums
Posted by: vidcapper 3rd November 2017, 02:50 PM
Better that than a turnout threshold, as the latter allows opponents to 'sabotage' any referendum by simply boycotting it.
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 08:15 PM
That's called fixing the referendum.
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd November 2017, 08:32 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.
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd November 2017, 08:32 PM
I hadn't noticed you agreeing with the criticisms of the government's changes to the rules on strike ballots.
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 08:40 PM
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
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 3rd November 2017, 09:22 PM
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.
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd November 2017, 09:44 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.
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 09:52 PM
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.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 3rd November 2017, 10:10 PM
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.
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 10:13 PM
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
Posted by: Oliver 3rd November 2017, 10:39 PM
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.
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 10:58 PM
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
Posted by: Doctor Blind 3rd November 2017, 11:04 PM
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.
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 11:09 PM
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
Posted by: Doctor Blind 3rd November 2017, 11:14 PM
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1997 got a 74.29% Yes vote so it is possible to implement a 2/3rds majority rule and still get major constitutional change.
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 11:18 PM
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_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!
Posted by: Oliver 3rd November 2017, 11:30 PM
So, for example, if there was a referendum on criminalising homosexuality tomorrow and 30,000,001 voted for and 30,000,000 votes against, it should be implemented with options available even though 30 million people would be ignored?
Take a vote that is exactly on the threshold. 30 mill v 30 mill - always 30 mill ignored. 40 mill v 20 mill - a chance that only 1/3 is ignored.
Is it better to have a chance at 33% with a risk of 66% ignored, or a system that 50% is always ignored (if thresholds are just met)?
Posted by: REPUTATION 3rd November 2017, 11:32 PM
Take a vote that is exactly on the threshold. 30 mill v 30 mill - always 30 mill ignored. 40 mill v 20 mill - a chance that only 1/3 is ignored.
Is it better to have a chance at 33% with a risk of 66% ignored, or a system that 50% is always ignored (if thresholds are just met)?
That's incredibly extreme though. It's better to have a system that respects democracy and majority vote. It'll never happen anyway though so y'all shouldn't get your hopes up
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 4th November 2017, 12:02 AM
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.
The problem is the Spanish government and people are scared of a referendum and so hise behind the excuse of the constitution forbidding it, as if constitutions are god-written snd unchengeable. They stubbornly refuse even thr notion of a referendum. Meanwhile, the PP cancelled the agreement, using the politicised Supreme Court, that had given Cataluña more powers. The fault for all this starting lies with Rajoy and Spanish stubborness.
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 4th November 2017, 12:04 AM
50% for sweeping constitutional change really is not enough. In such a case, the known must be the way forward. It means there is a divided country, not so unified vision for a grand change for the future. In Scotland, it should be the same.
Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2017, 06:56 AM
I admit there is a degree in logic to that, but it is hardly likely to lead to political stability. If 3/5ths of an electorate vote for change, but are denied it through a 'technicality' it will inevitably generate resentment, and possibly even give birth to political movements who reject democratic solutions, as they no longer trust them.
AFAIK, I've never gotten involved in a thread where the issue has come up.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th November 2017, 10:18 AM
I repeat, there is no evidence that a majority of the people living in Catalonia voted for independence, and the vote wasn't official, regardless of the actions of either side.
The issue is complicated as it also means a Brexit-style vote linked with it. That wasn't part of the illegal vote.
It's also complicated by the decades of violent struggle from other areas in Spain, which would inevitably be reactivated by Catalexit. Spain is in a lose-lose as other areas would claim independence.
Nothing is ever black & white in life. If California declared independence from the USA would it be allowed? No, because they are super-rich and it would harm the USA and provoke potential disintegration of the country as others went the same way (and destabilise the world).
Assume Catalonia goes indie and half the population remain very unhappy about that (Brexit anyone?) then what? Does Catalonia freshly on new borders, non-EU, WTO terms suddenly become a great economic force in Europe, or does everyone suffer financially, get pissed off and decide they were better off under Spain, and suddenly opinion changes and 51% want to rejoin Spain. Then what?
That's why a clear majority is a sensible idea, you get a firm, clear, responsible majority that is unlikely to be challenged regardless of circumstances changing. To not do that you get results based on whims on how you feel on any given day and propaganda. Like Brexit. And ongoing unhappiness. Like Brexit.
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th November 2017, 11:06 AM
AFAIK, I've never gotten involved in a thread where the issue has come up.
The subject of strike ballots has been mentioned several times in this forum.
As for the first point, if the vote falls slightly short of the threshold the "losing" side would be entitled to call for another vote after, say, ten years or if there was a material change of circumstances.
If a simple majority is sufficient and there is a very narrow vote for change there is always the suspicion that the result would have been different if it had been held a week earlier or a week later. At least if there is a threshold and the change vote just scrapes over the line, you know that there would still have been a comfortable vote for change if the timing had been slightly different.
In the EU referendum there wasn't even any allowance for a recount. If you think the court cases over last year's result have been bad, just imagine what would have happened if the majority (either way) had been just a few thousand.
Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2017, 12:01 PM
As for the first point, if the vote falls slightly short of the threshold the "losing" side would be entitled to call for another vote after, say, ten years or if there was a material change of circumstances.
If a simple majority is sufficient and there is a very narrow vote for change there is always the suspicion that the result would have been different if it had been held a week earlier or a week later. At least if there is a threshold and the change vote just scrapes over the line, you know that there would still have been a comfortable vote for change if the timing had been slightly different.
In the EU referendum there wasn't even any allowance for a recount. If you think the court cases over last year's result have been bad, just imagine what would have happened if the majority (either way) had been just a few thousand.
iro strike ballots - I wasn't suggesting it hadn't come up before, only that I'd not seen those threads.
How narrow is 'very narrow'' anyway? 1.25m sounds quite substantial to me.
iro recounts, you can bet Ms Miller would have called her lawyers ASAP if the result had been very close.
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 4th November 2017, 01:27 PM
This is why Andrew and Vidcapper aee against a majority vote - because both have votes they would like to win- Brexit, Scot independence - which would not be favoured by 2/3s. However, it is a VERY resonable number. No matter what the BBC and Tory MPs tell you, the people HAVEN'T spoken, and the issue is still up in the air with basically a 50/50 split of the population and home nations. If you do not score 63%, but are close, well ok, wait until there is a material change or wait a few years when the voting population inevitably changes a little. If the number is FAR from a supramajority, as with Brexit or Cataluña, then there is NO need for change as what you have there is an entirely divided country. Yes, constiutional change WILL take longer, but that is democracy and that is REAL progress - it moves slowly.
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th November 2017, 02:58 PM
How narrow is 'very narrow'' anyway? 1.25m sounds quite substantial to me.
iro recounts, you can bet Ms Miller would have called her lawyers ASAP if the result had been very close.
As would Farage. That's my point.
Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2017, 03:03 PM
Whereas everything is sweetness & light when you ignore what more than half of those who voted decided...
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th November 2017, 03:06 PM
Have you seen the requirements for passing an amendment to the US constitution?
Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2017, 03:10 PM
Yes.
But we didn't even have a vote about *joining* the EEC!
Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2017, 03:57 PM
Gov'ts tend to avoid letting the public directly decide on just about *anything* if they can possibly help it, instead using the bullsh1t claim that an election win gives them the mandate for just about anything.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th November 2017, 04:30 PM
Correction, just so I can underline this point yet again endlessly: as DID Farage at 4am when he thought Leave had lost, the huge hypocrite was saying "This is not the end of the story, when it's this close we demand another vote" All I am doing is repeating his sentiment. Can't have it both ways, either a close result is the end of the matter or it isn't. Farage already made his views clear - though he has lied about that ever since. Flim Flam Man who will say and do anything to get his way and who has no actual moral principles at all.
Funny how he wants the Catalonia non-democratic unproven vote to be allowed as it undermines the EU, as opposed to actually undermining democracy, which he doesn't give a shit about when it produces results he doesn't like.
Heil Hitler, eh, Nige, what were those songs again? Met any nice Nazi descendants lately?
Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th November 2017, 04:36 PM
No, however recent polling showed for the first time in a while Yes with a small lead...
Independence Referendum
Yes: 53 (+6)
No: 47 (-6)
Clearly the 'strategy' by Madrid is really working wonders.
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th November 2017, 04:39 PM
But we didn't even have a vote about *joining* the EEC!
At that point we hadn't had a referendum about anything ever. The principle of the UK being a representative democracy was rigidly applied.
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th November 2017, 04:41 PM
Funny how he wants the Catalonia non-democratic unproven vote to be allowed as it undermines the EU, as opposed to actually undermining democracy, which he doesn't give a shit about when it produces results he doesn't like.
Heil Hitler, eh, Nige, what were those songs again? Met any nice Nazi descendants lately?
Correction to your correction. I was referring to what would have happened if Remain had won by a few thousand votes. With no provision for a recount Farage and Arron Banks would have launched legal action within days.
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 4th November 2017, 05:55 PM
Clearly the 'strategy' by Madrid is really working wonders.
Didn't I predict precisely this in one post or another??
Repression does NOT and NEVER will win the hearts and minds. Spain lost this issue the second they sent their storm troopers in and was sealing their fate by being too stubborn to allow a referendum.
Of course, it is still not 2/3 majority but if the polls keep changin like that...
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 4th November 2017, 05:56 PM
Absolutely!!
Posted by: REPUTATION 4th November 2017, 06:37 PM
And you support it because you oppose Brexit, it’s all politically motivated
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 4th November 2017, 06:39 PM
No, no, I have always supported a supremajority vote in referenda. It is a logical position.
I accept BOTH Scottish vote AND Brexit are not settled for now.
Posted by: REPUTATION 4th November 2017, 07:32 PM
I accept BOTH Scottish vote AND Brexit are not settled for now.
Well my argument against supermajorities is the same regardless of political stance so so don’t make assumptions ta.
Posted by: vidcapper 5th November 2017, 06:59 AM
A flawed principle, as any policy not endorsed by the main parties, however popular it might be with the public, has no chance of becoming law.
About the only means to achieve it would be starting a new party from scratch, as happened with UKIP - and even then it took over 20 years for their influence to grow strong enough to achieve any concessions from the main parties.
Why should a referendum need a super majority, when HOC votes which regularly cause significant change, are decided by a simple majority?
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 5th November 2017, 01:51 PM
1.) It is a representative democracy. Referendum are a special circumstance.
2.) Oh PLEASE do not hold the UK up as some shining beacon of democracy. It SHOULD be a 2/3s vote in parliament for major constitutional change too.
3.) HOL should not exist.
Posted by: vidcapper 5th November 2017, 03:00 PM
Do you object to a 2nd chamber in general, or just our unelected one?
Posted by: Buttered Muffin 5th November 2017, 03:37 PM
The unelected one. A second house is a great check and balance ... when elected and with appropriate powers.
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 6th November 2017, 09:27 AM
Ok this just became a whole lot more real for me. The Education minister currently held on bail in Belgium with an EU Arrest warrant out for her, Clara Ponsati, is one of the people I worked for at St. Andrews. 
But shook right now. She is a fab woman, an absolute riot.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 22nd December 2017, 08:48 AM
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/943972048531066881
So the result of the new elections hasn't changed anything, pro-independence parties still hold the majority of seats in the Catalan parliament. I think the Spanish government will have to accept the fact that the only way to solve this crisis is compromise and talks otherwise the secession movement will continue to build.
Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2017, 10:45 AM
So the result of the new elections hasn't changed anything, pro-independence parties still hold the majority of seats in the Catalan parliament. I think the Spanish government will have to accept the fact that the only way to solve this crisis is compromise and talks otherwise the secession movement will continue to build.
Agreed - if governments compromise in time, then controversial votes can be avoided...
Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2017, 01:01 PM
There's not much to compromise on - they are already semi-autonomous, and unless I misunderstand the results in a referendum style vote based on total percentage (rather than scraping through on seats) then the status quo won the day. So not in any way a strong case for independence, even ignoring the people who didn't vote.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 22nd December 2017, 02:22 PM
This wasn't a referendum? Did you see police beating the shit out of voters?
The fact remains that a pro-independence majority has been elected in the Catalan parliament, despite the hindrance of the leadership being in jail or in exile, and on a record 84% turnout. Rajoy’s Partido Popular party are reduced to just three seats.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2017, 09:10 PM
The fact remains that a pro-independence majority has been elected in the Catalan parliament, despite the hindrance of the leadership being in jail or in exile, and on a record 84% turnout. Rajoy’s Partido Popular party are reduced to just three seats.
No, nor did I see any Remain MP's getting murdered. Your point?
My point, if it were a referendum, it would have gone-ish a narrow lose for independence, because referendums dont elect based on who voted where (or else Scotland would now be staying in the EU), it's based on a total vote.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 22nd December 2017, 09:29 PM
My point was that you cannot draw direct conclusions about support for independence other than to say opinion is very much divided.
Compromise would be to allow a fair and legal referendum on independence with a supermajority required to change the status quo - not much to ask.
Posted by: Candlelit Snow 22nd December 2017, 09:55 PM
The fact remains that a pro-independence majority has been elected in the Catalan parliament, despite the hindrance of the leadership being in jail or in exile, and on a record 84% turnout. Rajoy’s Partido Popular party are reduced to just three seats.
Popular Party party is how that translates
Posted by: Doctor Blind 22nd December 2017, 09:57 PM
The Spanish do irony then!!
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd December 2017, 09:58 PM
After their approach to the referendum, I'm surprised they ended up with 3 seats!
There's issues with the way it was handled on both sides, but Rajoy sending in the federal police to beat the shit out of people carrying out their democratic right is a disgrace.
Posted by: Andrew. 22nd December 2017, 10:27 PM
My point, if it were a referendum, it would have gone-ish a narrow lose for independence, because referendums dont elect based on who voted where (or else Scotland would now be staying in the EU), it's based on a total vote.
Actually Indy parties got more voters than the unionists in Catalonia this week, neutral parties meant they didn’t get 50%.
Posted by: ChristmasEve201 22nd December 2017, 11:00 PM
I have no respect for the Spanish government any longer after what happened in October!
Posted by: ❄The Snow. 22nd December 2017, 11:27 PM
But of course not all voting for independence parties would vote for independence, same as not all SNP voters in Scotland want an independent Scotland.
Their heavy handedness would make more people in Catalonia want independence and also increases international sympathy with the Catalonia independence movement.
Posted by: ChristmasEve201 23rd December 2017, 12:17 AM
Exactly right it's complicated - not all SF voters want a United Ireland!
Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 06:48 AM
Compromise would be to allow a fair and legal referendum on independence with a supermajority required to change the status quo - not much to ask.
But that's risky - if the required level was say 60%, and the vote ended up at 59.9%, then you's have almost 3/5ths of voters extremely pissed off...
Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd December 2017, 12:21 PM
It's hardly uncommon for more than a simple majority to be required to change the status quo on a significant matter. After all, certain golf clubs required a two-thirds majority just to admit women as members.
Posted by: Candlelit Snow 23rd December 2017, 12:38 PM
Thrn have another vote in a few years.
Referendums aee awful ways of governing complex or social issues anyway, especially with the right wing brainwashing in UK
Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 02:55 PM
That's hardly comparable - the electorate of such clubs is 100% male!
Referendums aee awful ways of governing complex or social issues anyway, especially with the right wing brainwashing in UK
Change the record! People vote Tory because they expect to be financially better off with them in gov't - not because of 'brainwashing'!
Posted by: Candlelit Snow 23rd December 2017, 03:01 PM
Right wing brainwashing affects more than just people shooting themselves and the country in the foot by voting for that vile bag of rich fat cats.
It also affects referendums, public opinion, etc.
A referendum, i.e a vote, i not the be and end of. If you don't get 60x alright, tey again some other time. Maybe you'll get it. Have a ten year mandatory gap at least between them. Civil rights not up for discussion.
Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd December 2017, 04:22 PM
Change the record! People vote Tory because they expect to be financially better off with them in gov't - not because of 'brainwashing'!
Do you have any qualifications in missing the point? The whole point is that it is perfectly reasonable to have a threshold for, for example, a vote on a region declaring independence if similar rules apply to the running of a golf club. Perhaps I should have used the example of this government's changes to the rules on strike ballots instead.
Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2017, 04:31 PM
It also affects referendums, public opinion, etc.
A referendum, i.e a vote, i not the be and end of. If you don't get 60x alright, tey again some other time. Maybe you'll get it. Have a ten year mandatory gap at least between them. Civil rights not up for discussion.
What id the difference between right-wing 'brainwashing', and left-wing 'campaigning', other than the verb used? Nobody is *forced* to read the Mail, after all...
I'm glad you agree with me about the gap between referenda though - I'd be quite happy to wait until 2026 for another one on the EU.
It might have been a more relevant example.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd December 2017, 06:01 PM
I'm glad you agree with me about the gap between referenda though - I'd be quite happy to wait until 2026 for another one on the EU.
It might have been a more relevant example.
Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is a non-scientific concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject’s ability to think critically or independently,[1] to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject’s mind,[2] as well as to change their attitudes, values, and beliefs.
campaigning - the campaign of a candidate to be elected
One is about control by devious methods including lying, one is about persuading by argument.
Some modern politicians like to blur the distinction, aided and abetted by newspapers using the former
Posted by: ChristmasEve201 23rd December 2017, 09:20 PM
Change the record! People vote Tory because they expect to be financially better off with them in gov't - not because of 'brainwashing'!
They might** (not guaranteed) be richer but this involves destroying the social bonds of society leading to increased crime so overall your life could be actually worse!
Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 07:29 AM
campaigning - the campaign of a candidate to be elected
One is about control by devious methods including lying, one is about persuading by argument.
Some modern politicians like to blur the distinction, aided and abetted by newspapers using the former
The above may be a good summation, but you omit one important factor - propaganda is only *really* effective when ALL sources of info are controlled by one body - normally a totalitarian government. Surely the very fact that you are able to recognise 'propaganda', is in itself proof of it's ineffectiveness?
Surely you're not suggesting the only alternatives are : either criminals taking money from you, or the government doing so?
Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 10:22 AM
At least you can vote the government out if they don't look after your taxes correctly whereas you can do nithjng about big corporations who provide a terrible service offering you say electric/gas/water.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th December 2017, 10:38 AM
I am certainly able to recognise propaganda because I am cynical and intelligent.
Most people, as proven by human history of thousands of years, aren't. Gullibility and stupidity are the main reasons propaganda continues to work on a daily basis. One source is not required. All you need is people willing to believe lies told by one person. The proven lies told by Trump since taking office is approaching 1000, yet people still hold on to their belief. They are therefore gullible and/or stupid. You only have to look around the world to see wars and misery and hatred and lies told and fools willing to believe them.
Your supposition has absolutely nothing to back it up, and mine has centuries of evidence.
Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 11:33 AM
Except change suppliers.
Most people, as proven by human history of thousands of years, aren't. Gullibility and stupidity are the main reasons propaganda continues to work on a daily basis. One source is not required. All you need is people willing to believe lies told by one person. The proven lies told by Trump since taking office is approaching 1000, yet people still hold on to their belief. They are therefore gullible and/or stupid. You only have to look around the world to see wars and misery and hatred and lies told and fools willing to believe them.
Your supposition has absolutely nothing to back it up, and mine has centuries of evidence.
But who taught you what you believe in - and how can you prove it is any less propaganda than someone else's?
Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 12:26 PM
Changing the supplier when the power comes from the same factories or the water comes from the same resevoirs/dams? It's just a way for corporations to make big money. And god love older or less intelligent people who are unable to find the cheaper companies .... survival of the fittest indeed!
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 24th December 2017, 02:21 PM
Have you tried to change water suppliers?
In the NW I have a choice of United Utilities, United Utilities or..... United Utilities.
Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 02:34 PM
Exactly it's a monopoly which the government should take over and distribute on behalf of the people!
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 24th December 2017, 02:42 PM
I don’t understand the point of privatisation of water in England and Wales. Same with rail actually. Both are effective monopolies and were told privatisation is necessary because competition is good. Sure it works for airlines but transportation and water are effectively legal monopolies.
Posted by: Suedehead2 24th December 2017, 03:12 PM
Most people, as proven by human history of thousands of years, aren't. Gullibility and stupidity are the main reasons propaganda continues to work on a daily basis. One source is not required. All you need is people willing to believe lies told by one person. The proven lies told by Trump since taking office is approaching 1000, yet people still hold on to their belief. They are therefore gullible and/or stupid. You only have to look around the world to see wars and misery and hatred and lies told and fools willing to believe them.
Your supposition has absolutely nothing to back it up, and mine has centuries of evidence.
Only 1,000? You haven't been paying attention
Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 03:14 PM
It's because it makes the owners filthy rich so hierarchy is good for EVRRYTHING!
Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th December 2017, 08:04 PM
But who taught you what you believe in - and how can you prove it is any less propaganda than someone else's?
Nobody taught me what to believe in, I'm deeply suspicious of people who want power. I did my own research, and continue to do, and I'm a very good judge of a character, I've never been fooled by anyone or taken in - though I have been naive in my younger days in some ways, but not in things that matter. Facts are not propaganda. They are facts. Man walked on the moon. Fact. Germans murdered million of Jews. fact. The British had an Empire that spanned the world, and now doesn't. Fact. History can be interpreted in many ways, depending on personal bias, and newspapers can distort or report fairly accurately, and it's not difficult to spot them and sort out which is which, ESPECIALLY in these days of the internet - even if it is also used for the spreading of lies and propaganda.
Posted by: will-i-ever 7th February 2018, 05:04 PM
I think the people of Barcelona know better and chose the life they want but looks like the choice is affecting the region https://tranio.com/spain/analytics/barcelonas-real-estate-market-two-months-after-the-independence-referendum_5443/ Fewer people are eager to invest money in Barcelona now, though it was a significant trend the last couple of years. We shall see how this all will turn out.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services