Catalonia

[invergowrie arab]

37 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

I'm sure the Catalan government could make the necessary arrangements.

 

What would happen if local authorities in Scotland withdrew co-operation  for a national vote?

Who would monitor the electoral register, send out polling cards, run the postal vote, register agents, staff the polling stations, appoint counting agents, pay staff , book venues for the poll and count, conduct the count, return the count, transport ballot boxes etc

It literally takes tens of thousands of staff who have to be trained, monitored and paid to run an election. A national or subnational government would struggle to run it in one local authority

[Tibbermoresaint]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You know, constitution, law. stuff..  No equivalent of the Edinburgh Agreement. It will have no validity whatsoever outside the people organising and supporting it.

On 23 December 1990 Slovenia held a referendum on independence. This was not in accord with the Yugoslav Constitution and there was no agreement with the Belgrade government.

Is Slovenia independent or not?

[welshbairn]

Just now, Tibbermoresaint said:

On 23 December 1990 Slovenia held a referendum on independence. This was not in accord with the Yugoslav Constitution and there was no agreement with the Belgrade government.

Is Slovenia independent or not?

Does Yugoslavia still exist?

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Does Yugoslavia still exist?

It did in December 1990.

[John Lambies Doos]

The will of the people can't be ignored. If a yes vote doesn't lead to a better settlement then get your Franco books out... it will be civil war

[NotThePars]

Tibbermoresaint is going to be a great addition to the forum.

[Tibbermoresaint]

5 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

 

What would happen if local authorities in Scotland withdrew co-operation  for a national vote?

 

Has this ever happened? Is it likely to happen?

[Ad Lib]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Its precisely what they should do. They could even offer to hold a fully binding one that a Yes votes moves to the next stage of altering the Spanish constitution @Ad Lib could explain better than me what would happen then.

For Catalonia to secede from Spain requires a constitutional amendment. As an aside, this is also what the Supreme Court of Canada said about Quebec and Canada's Constitution.

The big difference is that, while Canada's constitution has a sane supermajority threshold for constitutional amendments, whereby you need a simple majority of the Commons, a simple majority of the Senate, and 7 of the 10 provinces comprising at least half Canada's population between them to ratify an identical resolution, Spain's constitution is, put politely, "fucking mental".

For the Spanish Constitution's special provisions to be amended (which includes the indivisible sovereignty clause) requires:

1. A vote of 2/3 of both Houses of the Spanish legislature on the principles of a constitutional amendment

2. A Spanish General Election

3. A vote of 2/3 of both Houses of the Spanish legislature on the particulars of a constitutional amendment

4. A Spanish-wide referendum on the proposals

So by necessity any secession referendum result would be advisory and not just in an academic sense. The constitution deliberately requires that changes be negotiated in the spirit of "consenso" by which the 1978 arrangement was arrived at in the first place.

Another key difference between Catalonia and Quebec is that nothing in the Canadian constitution would prevent Quebec from holding a secession referendum; it merely provides that it cannot unilaterally secede. By contrast, the indivisible unity clause of the Spanish Constitution, combined with the fact that legislating to hold any "referendum" is a matter for the Cortes Generales (Spain's legislature) under the constitution,  means it is very difficult to see how Catalonia or any other nacionalidades could lawfully hold one unilaterally.

One former member of the Spanish Constitutional Court has opined explicitly that he thinks the Spanish Government could lawfully hold an advisory referendum of the Catalan population on secession. Politically unlikely as that is, it is theoretically a tenable constitutional argument that that's where the power lies. However, Rajoy's government maintains, because of an ambiguous older case about an attempted referendum in the Basque Country, that the Spanish Government itself would be behaving unlawfully if it did that. The long and short of this is that you might, as a matter of Spanish Constitutional law, have to go through the above constitutional amendment process just to allow the Catalans to hold a referendum, which they might lose anyway, and which could not guarantee independence even if they win!

If my viva goes well in December, a much longer spiel than this one on this and related issues will be available at all niche book shops.

[John Lambies Doos]

For Catalonia to secede from Spain requires a constitutional amendment. As an aside, this is also what the Supreme Court of Canada said about Quebec and Canada's Constitution.
The big difference is that, while Canada's constitution has a sane supermajority threshold for constitutional amendments, whereby you need a simple majority of the Commons, a simple majority of the Senate, and 7 of the 10 provinces comprising at least half Canada's population between them to ratify an identical resolution, Spain's constitution is, put politely, "fucking mental".
For the Spanish Constitution's special provisions to be amended (which includes the indivisible sovereignty clause) requires:
1. A vote of 2/3 of both Houses of the Spanish legislature on the principles of a constitutional amendment
2. A Spanish General Election
3. A vote of 2/3 of both Houses of the Spanish legislature on the particulars of a constitutional amendment
4. A Spanish-wide referendum on the proposals
So by necessity any secession referendum result would be advisory and not just in an academic sense. The constitution deliberately requires that changes be negotiated in the spirit of "consenso" by which the 1978 arrangement was arrived at in the first place.
Another key difference between Catalonia and Quebec is that nothing in the Canadian constitution would prevent Quebec from holding a secession referendum; it merely provides that it cannot unilaterally secede. By contrast, the indivisible unity clause of the Spanish Constitution, combined with the fact that legislating to hold any "referendum" is a matter for the Cortes Generales (Spain's legislature) under the constitution,  means it is very difficult to see how Catalonia or any other nacionalidades could lawfully hold one unilaterally.
One former member of the Spanish Constitutional Court has opined explicitly that he thinks the Spanish Government could lawfully hold an advisory referendum of the Catalan population on secession. Politically unlikely as that is, it is theoretically a tenable constitutional argument that that's where the power lies. However, Rajoy's government maintains, because of an ambiguous older case about an attempted referendum in the Basque Country, that the Spanish Government itself would be behaving unlawfully if it did that. The long and short of this is that you might, as a matter of Spanish Constitutional law, have to go through the above constitutional amendment process just to allow the Catalans to hold a referendum, which they might lose anyway, and which could not guarantee independence even if they win!
If my viva goes well in December, a much longer spiel than this one on this and related issues will be available at all niche book shops.

Will I get my tenner back?

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Does Yugoslavia still exist?

 

7 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

It did in December 1990.

 

5 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

The will of the people can't be ignored. If a yes vote doesn't lead to a better settlement then get your Franco books out... it will be civil war

Bloodcurdling aspirations for another country here.

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, DrewDon said:

I'm only half-following this from afar, but I'm not convinced that pro-Spain politicians are handling the issue in the most sensible manner; looking at other referendum experiences, concluding that the best strategy is to treat pro-secessionists as criminals strikes me as rather cack-handed.

Maybe the most sensible thing they could do, if possible, is for Spain to find a way for Catalonia to hold a legal, advisory referendum; whilst that would certainly carry an element of risk for the unionists, they would likely have a very good chance of winning such a vote. 

If it's constitutional for the Spanish Government to hold a Catalan secession referendum then it's an absolute no-brainer for them. Even the Catalan Government's own polling agency consistently shows levels of support for being part of Spain at around the 55%-60% mark. The only two times it hasn't have closely dovetailed three month spells in which, respectively, the Constitutional Court declared illegal the last one and when they impeached former Catalan Premier Artur Mas ahead of the second one.

Stopping secessionists from holding a referendum for which they ostensibly have a democratic mandate is a dreadful constitutional strategy. The Canadians (and to be fair, David Cameron's government) got this pretty much spot on, though in the latter case I think it was a mistake only to come up with a temporary political solution rather than create a permanent but qualified referendum right. You want to use the courts to clarify and help you develop political solutions; not to be used as a weapon against nationally pluralist politics. Creating a clear legal route to a referendum makes it so much easier to regulate the process to stop it being rigged, and it makes it easier to justify refusing a second referendum in quick succession and/or taking a more nuanced position than "a Yes vote is binding in all circumstances".

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Ultimately if a part of any country wants to secede and there is a clear majority for secession then it is (despite the "legal" experts) difficult to stop.

The experience of Indonesia and East Timor is a classic example of a state that completely opposed secession who had to accept (however reluctantly) that there was a democratic right to self-determination.

[welshbairn]

24 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Ultimately if a part of any country wants to secede and there is a clear majority for secession then it is (despite the "legal" experts) difficult to stop.

The experience of Indonesia and East Timor is a classic example of a state that completely opposed secession who had to accept (however reluctantly) that there was a democratic right to self-determination.

Indonesia's involvement in East Timor was only since they invaded in 1975.  And they were made to leave by military force. Totally different from Catalonia which has never been other than a participating principality. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by welshbairn

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Has this ever happened? Is it likely to happen?

Are you all there?

Yes it's happening in Barcelona.

This was a response to your assertion that a national/sub national government could run a national plebiscite.

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

Are you all there?

Yes it's happening in Barcelona.

 

So it hasn't happened in Scotland. I'm glad we agree on that. 

[invergowrie arab]

 

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

So it hasn't happened in Scotland. I'm glad we agree on that. 

I didn't say it had. I didn't say it would.

It's what we call an analogy.

[Tibbermoresaint]

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Indonesia's involvement in East Timor was only since they invaded in 1975.  And they were made to leave by military force. Totally different from Catalonia which has never been other than a participating principality. 

This is very interesting but I struggle to see the relevance. 

East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975. Do you consider East Timor to still be a Portuguese colony?

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

This is very interesting but I struggle to see the relevance. 

East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975. Do you consider East Timor to still be a Portuguese colony?

No. Neither do Portugal. or the UN.

Edited September 18, 2017 by welshbairn

[Tibbermoresaint]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

 

I didn't say it had. I didn't say it would.

It's what we call an analogy.

I think you need to find out what an analogy is. You posed a question and I responded.

Do you genuinely believe Catalonia doesn't have the resources to hold a referendum on 1 October?

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, welshbairn said:

No. Neither do Portugal. 

So when Catalonia declares independence from Spain will you consider Catalonia to be part of Spain?.