|
YF-23 posted:We should not be talking about police violence making voters stay home. quote:By doing that we are already starting to give up our right to a democracy, quote:democratic rights exist at the tolerance of the state, rather than the other way around. Posted Said fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 19, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Posted Said posted:Do you view the American Civil war as the Union being undemocratic? Parts of a country have no "democratic" right to secede. Ah, yes, hanging onto slavery at any cost is literally the same thing as wanting a better representation/self determination. Squalid posted:I have to thank you for these posts GC. Every time you offer your commentary on brexit or Greece or Catalan independence it proves the lie in the Solemn Declaration on European Union, that is the false claim to a common European identity. You look on the misfortune of your fellow Europeans with hungry predatory eyes, no empathy evident in the reflection from your glassy stare. Bring back enlightened absolutism, it's obvious this democracy thing is a failed experiment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Posted Said posted:Do you view the American Civil War as the Union being undemocratic? Parts of a country have no "democratic" right to secede. So uhhh, how legitimate then was the Revolutionary War?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:So uhhh, how legitimate then was the Revolutionary War? The parts of the south that rebelled (the white people) had representation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Stop putting words in my mouth. I already put the mandatory addendum on my first post in this subject that I’m not on the Spanish government’s “side.” Do I have to add that to all my posts so you stay on topic? You can be against someone's but also cede points to them. In this case it's the point about whether state violence should be an effective means of suppressing democracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:The parts of the south that rebelled (the white people) had representation. And so have the Catalans. YF-23 posted:You can be against someone's but also cede points to them. In this case it's the point about whether state violence should be an effective means of suppressing democracy. That referendum is not democracy, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That referendum is not democracy, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's closer to democracy than no referendum at all, which is what was otherwise on offer. They could have had perfectly good elections and get 80% of the vote if they were so sure that Catalans want independence, instead they went with a farce more similar to Franco's referendums than any modern democracy vote. What does that tell you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Honestly the more time passes and the more it looks like merely a political ploy by the Catalan region government rather than the expression of the will of the Catalan people. The way Puigdemont is behaving makes Brexit look like a rational cooperation between competent politicians. And I do not have any confidence in the democratic nature of a hypothetical sovereign nation of Catalonia if it happened thanks to these people's work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
I hope Puigdemont gets arrested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Maybe he's hoping they'll convict him but suspend his sentence 8 seconds later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's closer to democracy than no referendum at all, which is what was otherwise on offer. No it's not. Referendum on independence that don't require two thirds to three quarters of all eligible voters to vote yes are fundamentally and completely idiotic. Direct democracy in general is loving stupid for that matter, the idea that extremely complex issues can boil down to yes no questions that the average person can be offer a reasonably informed opinion on is utterly laughable. The best examples of them actually working is stuff like the marijuana referendum in the US, but things like that are something where the impact is minimal, the reason it wasn't already the case is a massive failure of the legislative prices, the policy in question and the outcomes are easy to understand, and the results can be easily reversed. That voters should be able to decide on difficult or impossible to reverse decisions (read brexit) with 50.1 percent of the people that voted, not even all voters is indescribably insane. tsa fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
tsa posted:No it's not. Referendum on independence that don't require two thirds to three quarters of all eligible voters to vote yes are fundamentally and completely idiotic. Direct democracy in general is loving stupid for that matter, the idea that extremely complex issues can boil down to yes no questions that the average person can be offer a reasonably informed opinion on is utterly laughable. Fat Samurai posted:They could have had perfectly good elections and get 80% of the vote if they were so sure that Catalans want independence, instead they went with a farce more similar to Franco's referendums than any modern democracy vote. What does that tell you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
The referendum might be more democratic, but democracy without the rule of law is worth nothing.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What, like "If pro-independence parties get more than 50% of the votes we'll declare independence"? But just to be clear, I don't think this was a great expression of democracy, except in the sense of resisting an authoritarian-leaning state. That's what happened in Catalonia except they didn't quite make it past the post. A minority coalition suddenly decided their thin control of government made them the sole voice of the country. The whole thing is a farce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
I'd be more sympathetic to a 75% turnout/67% majority or it doesn't represent the will-of-the-people threshold if it were applied to governments as well. If a single law can't be considered to have a mandate without 50%+1 of the eligible population voting in the affirmative and giving 25% of the people the power to veto it by staying home, then I don't see any justification for a government elected with even less support to have the people's mandate to pass whatever laws the reps want. "But that's impractical, that would just stop our government from functioning at all, we'd never be able to hold office and pass laws"  hmm you don't say, an impractical standard is useless for everything except as a convenient excuse for shutting down the subject in question
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:That's what happened in Catalonia except they didn't quite make it past the post. A minority coalition suddenly decided their thin control of government made them the sole voice of the country. The whole thing is a farce. GaussianCopula posted:The referendum might be more democratic, but democracy without the rule of law is worth nothing. VitalSigns posted:I'd be more sympathetic to a 75% turnout/67% majority or it doesn't represent the will-of-the-people threshold if it were applied to governments as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Truga posted:Ah, yes, hanging onto slavery at any cost is literally the same thing as wanting a better representation/self determination. Slavery is what they wanted to do with their autonomy. You're basically arguing that self-determination is only ok if you're not doing anything bad with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's closer to democracy than no referendum at all, which is what was otherwise on offer. For the referendum to have been democratic and legal it should have been calling whole of spain to vote. It was not legal and thus not democratic
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
My god, how are you back at this circulatory and completely irrelevant to reality argument again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Slavery is what they wanted to do with their autonomy. You're basically arguing that self-determination is only ok if you're not doing anything bad with it. Ah yes, that little-known example of philosophical self-determination known as "slavery".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:How is requiring 75% of all eligible voters to vote for something democratic? You might think it's preferable, but is it more democratic? I think the nature of the vote (that one of the options is essentially irreversible) makes the additional requirements more democratic. The decision of independence has a pretty big, largely irreversible effect on a large percentage of the population that can't actually vote for it (anyone under 18).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:For the referendum to have been democratic and legal it should have been calling whole of spain to vote. It was not legal and thus not democratic I really don't understand this argument, and have seen it a lot. Why does the rest of Spain get to vote? In the hypothetical case that 100% of the Catalans want to leave, and 70% of the Spaniards don't want Catalonia to leave, how is forcing Catalonia to stay a democracy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:The Crimean Tatars should have voted in the referendum based on whether they wanted to join Russia or not. The referendum was not made any more illegitimate through their non-participation. I find this and your whole argument bizzarre, because despite the distinction you make between referendums organised in more or less democratic states and those in totalitarian states, the net effect of referendums on any issue of secession/independence or otherwise major politicial importance still is a perfect way to create or strengthen divisions in society , and pick a winner between the sides not through a process where the rights of citizens including minorities are guaranteed, but through one where only the size of the divided groups matters. And what makes this worse is that in the Crimea specifically, getting reannexed to Russia for the Crimean Tatars implied entirely predictable renewed persecution, while with the 'little green men' around the outcome of the referendum was a foregone conclusion. So of course they didn't participate - their participation would have helped legitimise the fundamentally illegitimate, and I don't understand at all why you think they should have. But in Catalonia too, and in Brexit Britain, the issue of secession/ leaving the EU have also become really divisive, to varying degrees. The supporters of remaining in the EU are now routinely described as 'remoaners' in the tabloids, and judges trying to ensure that the exit happens through the parliamentary process as 'saboteurs' who should be 'crushed', or even as 'enemies of the people'. In both cases, leaving the EU and leaving Spain entails a loss of rights, guaranteed by EU law and/or national law. So why should you at all be forced participate in a process where that is a possible outcome, and grant it legitimacy? If that means casting electorates as 'unreliable', then so be it, because they pretty much are. Majorities have in the recent past happily voted to deprive minorities of their rights, or created means to oppress them economically or physically. That's a very important part of why modern democracies so strongly protect the status quo, because it should not be assumed that the electorate will always vote to protect the rule of law and human rights. Pluskut Tukker fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Making massive, irreversible, changes based on 50%+1 of whoever shows up is absolutely ridiculous. All questions of legality aside, at the very least there needs to be a clear, long-term consensus about the issue before triggering such drastic actions as brexit, independence, or getting annexed by little green men. The Catalan government set the threshold for themselves quite low, and now have no idea what the gently caress to do now that they crossed it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
The funny thing is Catalonia does require a 66% majority in Parliament... To make changes to their statute of autonomy. Declaring independence isn't that important, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
It requires 66% parliamentary majority to change the president of the local TV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Making massive, irreversible, changes based on 50%+1 of whoever shows up is absolutely ridiculous. All questions of legality aside, at the very least there needs to be a clear, long-term consensus about the issue before triggering such drastic actions as brexit, independence, or getting annexed by little green men. The Catalan government set the threshold for themselves quite low, and now have no idea what the gently caress to do now that they crossed it. Elman posted:The funny thing is Catalonia does require a 66% majority in Parliament... To make changes to their statute of autonomy. Declaring independence isn't that important, apparently. You know when all of that would've been really useful though? If they had been presented with a comprehensive reform package by the Rajoy Government that addressed all the concerns the independence movement has capitalised on, those systems ensuring democratic consultation would've ensured a viable and permanent resolution of the conflict currently playing out. Of course, the Spanish government did no such thing and chose to wage legalistic warfare on the Catalan state. The unfortunate side effect of all that abuse of course is that all those laws and institutions meant to preserve democracy then lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people. And suddenly you're here, where it doesn't actually matter how many people actually voted because the rule by police baton is the whole whole point of the affair. I don't know why you need to have this explained to you repeatedly, but legitimacy just doesn't matter when the forms in which they're supposed to be enbodied in are illegitimate and abused to begin with. lollontee fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Any argument regarding legality went out of the window when the Spanish government decided to use violence to prevent a bunch of civilians putting marks on pieces of paper. You don't get to violently suppress a referendum and then claim that it's invalid because not enough people voted in it. The correct thing to do would have been to say, "We don't recognise this referendum, it does not bind us legally, but we are willing to listen to any concerns the people of Catalonia have and come to an understanding" and make good faith efforts to improve the situation. That's too much to ask for apparently, gotta go and brutalise some civilians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Spanish politics seem really loving dumb Thank you, that's the impression I've been trying to give on this forum for years now, every time I post something about Spanish politics. I'm going to leave this here for y'all's viewing, this video has caused quite a stir in the past couple of days on Spanish Twitter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wouNL14tAks I especially like the claim that the police brutality on Oct. 1st was something hitherto unknown in Europe. Where the gently caress was this lady during 15-M and the indignados movement? Plenty of people got their heads busted for voicing their discontent in mass demonstrations back then too. DXH fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
DXH posted:I especially like the claim that the police brutality on Oct. 1st was something hitherto unknown in Europe. Where the gently caress was this lady during 15-M and the indignados movement? Plenty of people got their heads busted for voicing their discontent in mass demonstrations back then too. For reference: The Mossos caused more injured and put more people in the hospital (proportionally*) than the Guardia Civil did, and they didn't even had the excuse that "a judge told us to do it". *121 injured, 2 people in the hospital vs more than 800 and 4 people in the hospitals
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You're basically arguing that self-determination is only ok if you're not doing anything bad with it. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, are you saying you have a problem with that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:16
|
|
Elman posted:The funny thing is Catalonia does require a 66% majority in Parliament... To make changes to their statute of autonomy. Declaring independence isn't that important, apparently. Actually they can't declare independence which is why there is no special rule increasing the threshold for doing so.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
What does an "illegal referendum" even mean? I suppose it means that there is no weight to the outcome of it (from perspective of Madrid-Spain), not that the physical act of the ballots is against the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
Wow, that's a really lovely, manipulative video. Wouldn't be surprised if it had the exact opposite effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:What does an "illegal referendum" even mean? I suppose it means that there is no weight to the outcome of it (from perspective of Madrid-Spain), not that the physical act of the ballots is against the law. Yeah, throwing ballots into boxes can't be illegal in a democracy. Referendum being "against the law" can at most mean the state can decide to ignore its result. Beating people up for putting papers into boxes is just 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:20
|
|
Namarrgon posted:What does an "illegal referendum" even mean? I suppose it means that there is no weight to the outcome of it (from perspective of Madrid-Spain), not that the physical act of the ballots is against the law. It means that the authorities holding the referendum do not have the legal authority to do so, which almost certainly makes them guilty of crimes several crimes, given that they are using state resources in a way that is not allowed furthering an agenda that is not within their authority. As for the people voting, they are probably not guilty of any crimes, but I don't see how that is relevant in the current situation anyway, given that no one argued that the peaceful voters who did not prevent the state from enforcing legally binding rulings are going to be charged with any crimes for voting.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:they are probably not guilty of any crimes, but I don't see how that is relevant in the current situation anyway You mean besides almost a thousand people getting brutalized by the police? Are you a loving goldfish?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
This is so overwrought and cynical. Revolting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:48 |
|
Truga posted:You mean besides almost a thousand people getting brutalized by the police? Are you a loving goldfish? Did you read my post? If they tried to prevent the police from enacting the law the situation changes. I'm talking about peaceful people who went into the polling station, voted, and then left. I too would like to be independent of the poorer regions of my country so that I keep more money. Let's make this a European movement - rich regions independence movement (R²im) GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:29
|
|