The Catalan parliament met Tuesday afternoon. Catalonia president Carles Puigdemont asked parliament to suspend the effects of Catalonia voting “yes” for independence to hold talks with Spain.
However, Puigdemont still maintains the legality of the October 1 referendum in Catalonia, stating Catalans had “won their right to become an independent country.”
For now, Puigdemont seeks dialogue with Madrid.
Catalonia Suspends Declaration of Independence
The Independent reports Catalonia Suspends Declaration of Independence From Spain
The Catalan government has said it is suspending its declaration of independence from Spain and wants to de-escalate the tension in the country.
Premier Carles Puigdemont made the announcement in a highly-anticipated speech to the regional parliament in Barcelona where he said he would seek to enter into negotiations with the Spanish government to move the case for independence forward.
The Catalan leader maintained the legality of the October 1 referendum in Catalonia, and said Catalans had “won their right to become an independent country” but said he will first seek to open a dialogue with Madrid.
CNBC reports Puigdemont Asks Parliament to Suspend Results of Independence Referendum.
Puigdemont said in a speech Tuesday the current relationship between Catalonia and Spain is unsustainable. He asked for parliament to suspend the effects of Catalonia voting “yes” for independence to hold talks with Spain.
Catalan police have been posted outside parliament in Barcelona, sealing off the grounds to the public.
Delay Move Expected
This move is exactly as many expected. A declaration of independence would have triggered article 155 with Spain sending in military police or army troops.
Last evening Eurointelligence commented:
The Catalan premier has three main options, to call new regional elections, to call for an immediate declaration of independence, or to advise what is variously described as a “deferred”, “soft”, or “symbolic”, declaration of independence. This latter option seems the most likely to us because it maximises ambiguity and uncertainty, which appears to be a goal of the Catalan separatists. An ambiguous declaration would be highly utilitarian because it would allow them to claim that the predictable crackdown by the Spanish government is disproportionate to the threat posed.
Yesterday, El Confidencial released a strategy document supposedly found by the Guardia Civil in the residence of the deputy finance secretary of the Catalan government officials arrested three weeks ago as part of an investigation into the organisation of the October 1st vote. According to the document, whose authenticity has not been denied, the strategy of the Catalan separatists is to trigger such economic and political instability as to force the Spanish government to agree to holding an independence referendum.
Meanwhile, references to the example of Slovenia’s independence are becoming increasingly common among separatists commentators and politicians. Ramón Tremosa MEP’s reading of Slovenian independence is that Slovenia declared independence in mid-1991 and suspended it for six months, during which there were no meaningful negotiations and which culminated in the international recognition of independence. What Tremosa omits is that the Slovenian declaration of independence was followed immediately by the so-called ten-day war, which left 63 dead among Yugoslav army and Slovenian self-defence forces, and that international recognition may had more to do with the escalating war in Croatia.
The Catalan separatists may hope to make Slovenia the weak link in the EU’s position of nonrecognition of a Catalan declaration of independence, especially if Spain cracks down heavily. In recent months, Catalan news outlets have sought the endorsement of the former Slovenian president at the time of independence, Milan Kucan, as well as the current speaker of the Slovenian parliament, Milan Brglez.
Slovenia Road
Inquiring minds may wish to consider a Google translation of an El Periodico article Ramón Tremosa article believes that Catalonia can go to the Slovenian Road, declaring independence and suspending it for some time.
Tweets and Other Opinions
Rajoy Boxed In
Rajoy is boxed in with losing options.
He can hold talks but he said he wouldn’t. And any use of force when calls for dialog are in place will result in widespread condemnation.
Blocking off parliament will prevent the hijacking of the Catalan parliament.
This was a wise move by Carles Puigdemont.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Puigdemont is boxed in with bad options too. Not only is he risking confrontation with Rajoy by declaring independence, but he will also spark a deep rift within the Catalan citizenship itself. Keep in mind that almost all the Catalans who support unification boycotted the referendum. Consequently, the independence vote is not considered legitimate by a substantial portion of Catalan citizens.
True, Rajoy is responsible for making such a mess of the vote, and encouraging unionists not to vote. But that doesn’t change the fact that the vote is NOT a democratic result and Catalan unionists will feel like their voice was never counted if independence is declared.
1. If they wanted their vote to be counted, they should have voted
2. It’s pretty damn clear “yes” won. 700,000 votes were stolen, undoubtedly 90% of so for yes. Nearly 100% of those not voting would have needed to be “no” and they would have had to actually vote as well.
Yes won.
1. No. They considered the referendum illegal, so they did not vote.
2. I think it’s quite possible that majority of Catalan residents are against independence. Yes, the referendum was 90% for independence, but everybody who was for it has voted. The majority of those who were against did not vote (see 1.)
Unfortunately, almost all the Catalans who supported unification stayed home because they were told to do so by Rajoy. The result is that the vote does NOT include the input of unionists. It’s unfortunate that Rajoy was able to sabotage the legitimacy of the vote in this way, but the deed is done.
The point is that there is some not insubstantial number of Catalan citizens who support unification who will be livid if independence is declared on the basis of the vote. Thus, Rajoy has managed to ensure that there will be deep internal conflicts between Catalans if independence is declared.
The same is true is independence is not declared. All the people who voted for independence will feel their votes aren’t counted if there is no independence.
I don’t see any way forward without some major portion of Catalan citizenry feeling their voices were ignored and taking their anger to the streets.
They all lose no matter what anyone does.
Total unity is rare, and an impossibility in this instance. USA citizenry was equally divided when USA declared independence from Britain in late 1700s. Loyalists who supported Britain and were against USA independence either stayed and learned to live with it or left the country. Many against USA independence from Britain moved to Canada, which remained under British rule. In a case like this, one side or the other must win, simply because there are only two choices. Rajoy effectively removed the middle ground possibility of Catalonia having autonomy like Basque country. Thus, Rajoy reduced the choice logic to a binary “either/or.” Not much different than Hillary or Trump, one had to win and the other had to lose because negotiation for a shared presidency was not possible; of course, losing half of population doomed to unhappiness.
The “Yes’ vote did not win. First, prior to any talk of any voting, the estimates of those who would support independence was never more than 40 to 45 percent and those were the best estimates at the time. The much heralded “90 % yes” came from a voter turnout estimated at about 45% at best. That hardly constitutes a majority.
Second, the vote was illegal by any stretch of the rule of law. Remember, either you have the rule of law or you do not. So by defying the courts, the independence groups were acting illegally.
You complained when the police were sent in citing total brutality. WTF Mish. what are the cops suppose to do when those who are acting contrary to law refuse any police commands? Your logic defies description. Either you comply with lawful commands of the police and government authorities or you place yourself outside the law. That is, by the way, what it means to be an outlaw.
So now Spain is suppose to meet with those individual politicians who collectively want to pull off a coup, an act of gross insurrection and rebellion. A minority is trying to force its will on the majority by illegal means and you find nothing wrong with that. Sedition against a constituted legal government is fine by you. You want to suspend the rule of law because you want a particular outcome? You can’t rationalize your way out of an immoral argument.
The “Yes’ vote did not win. First, prior to any talk of any voting, the estimates of those who would support independence was never more than 40 to 45 percent and those were the best estimates at the time. The much heralded “90 % yes” came from a voter turnout estimated at about 45% at best. That hardly constitutes a majority.
Bullshit.
700,000 votes were taken by the police
5.3 million voters eligible
2.3 million yes votes
Guess what?
2.3 million plus 700K is over half the country
Of those stolen votes what % do you care to assign to yes? 80%? 60%? 90%? 50%?
Call it 50%.
2.65 million yes votes out of 5.3 million
If 100% of the people remaining all showed up and 100% of them voted no, guess what?
“Remember, either you have the rule of law or you do not.”
And if “the law is an ass” … if it’s just a tool of the repression, what then? Do you simply accede to the demands of those who would repress you and do nothing? Just because the state wrote a law asserting their dominance and denying people the right to self-determination, do the aggrieved parties somehow become criminals for saying they want out of the marriage? Interesting. Kind of revives the whole concept of legitimized human bondage … only now you dress it up in law and order clothing.
This silly “inviolable rule of law” argument was one we had here in the United States regarding the fugitive slave laws. (Yes, it’s always about someone’s presumed right to enslave.)
The rule of law at that time demanded that escaped slaves not be given sanctuary and be returned to their OWNERS. Get that … black people were considered PROPERTY under the law. Should that law have been blindly obeyed Mr. williambean2014?
I think not. Should people be denied the right to decide who they’re governed by and to whom they’re affiliated? I think not … under ANY circumstances. It’s the natural right of human beings … thugs be damned.
I guess you consider the American revolution nothing more than the illegal act of a minority of insurrectionists “pulling off a coup.”
Last thing: Funny how the rule of law only seems to apply to those who would seek to challenge the existing corrupt order … never those … banksters come to mind … who routinely commit crimes and corrupt the system, yet are never subjected to to any penalties under the supposed rule of law.
So many false arguments, where to begin. Again, either you have the rule of law or you do not. There is no maybe. But our man made rule of law in not like that of physics. No one ever breaks a law of motion, never. The behavior of physical objects is in absolute abeyance to the physical laws of physics. Humans, while they are physical objects and subject to the laws of physics, also have several other dimensions that mere objects do not.
One of the greatest misconceptions in life is that the individual is supreme over the group. The facts of human behavior show us otherwise. We live our lives as balancing acts between our individuality and our various group memberships. In fact, group membership is extremely important to our survival, more so than many might suppose.
So it is that group membership gives us a set of rules by which we live. The rules were never carved in stone back when we lived in tribes but we all knew them in a more than general way. Cooperation was the first rule of survival and it still is. Cooperation means agreements made individually and severally. That is the basis of human law. Even our moral precepts are based on human behavior. And human behavior runs from the practical, such as doing stuff like food gathering or community defense, to emotional stuff such as caring for children and other members of our families. So it should not be surprising that the history of law, in general, reflects both the practical and the emotional living of our respective lives.
One of the problems that occur when tribal societies emerge into larger communities is that there are more variations in the rules that individuals and groups wish to follow. So to avoid confusion the leaders try to agree on a standard set of rules. Here we run into the first problems with human behavior standards because we are all “Lawyers” at heart and seek every possible exception we can find. We call this the human condition. So the more populated the world becomes the more complex our interactions as both individuals and group members become. We try to keep the “lawyers” at bay but codifying our laws into more or less absolute rules and concepts. We do this by convention because the anarchy that would rule us would destroy us. And because we like a certain amount of structure in our lives because it is reassuring. Humans need structure in their lives, it is a necessary evil.
But you want to play “Lawyer” and argue moral equivalence and moral relevance and all manner of exception, then claim the moral high ground. Yet by your own words you are hoisted on your on petard. You have no answers, only criticism of mock issues.
Was the American revolution a coup against a legal government? Of course it was. and it was done by a minority of the population. Did you ever read otherwise in most history books of good repute? Oh, to be sure we couched our reasons in the name of liberty and freedom and rights of man (well, that document would come a bit later in another counbtry), but out leaders were, for the most part, trained lawyers. and a good lawyer, just as any Jesuit, can argue a case for the devil and win.
Have we, as a country, become not only corrupt, but at home with that corruption? Why yes, why would you think it not so? We should vote the bums out of office but what do we do? we re elect those same bums. Why? Because they serve our interests, or so we like to believe. Oh, we talk about natural rights as if such things really exist, but we make sure our own rights are first, natural be damn. The truth is that there are no natural rights carved in stone somewhere and enforced by some natural policeman and some natural court that exists somewhere. Oh, we write about it,, but there is no ultimate Hall of Justice existing in the universe to insure compliance with Natural Justice.
Okay, so no one consulted you about what laws should or should not exist and about the enforcement or non enforcement of such things. Whoopee crap! No one is knocking on my door either for that similar response. I only have one vote (unlike some who seem to have many votes) and I have only my sense of morality and my willingness to obey the laws. Disobeying laws I find oppressive has consequences that I may not wish to endure. You see, it is always a choice. Do I work to remove or change such laws I find odious or do I “break” them? Which is the better path or is there a better path? Is the group, the culture, the community, the nation always right in its assumptions as to what laws should or should not be? That question tends to assume an absolute moral standard, one that will find little agreement in a world of seven billion individuals. I do not believe you could get one billion individuals to agree on an absolute moral standard. You might get lucky and find a million individuals to agree on an absolute standard but even then I have my doubts. You see, while we can create moral standards, they are and never will be absolute standards. We have to settle for morals as general principles of agreement among individuals. One might think law should be this way but we have the habit of wanting absolute justice and never realizing such a thing is impossible. Hell, we can’t agree of relative justice. So be content with what the community can agree upon. Otherwise try to change the opinions of others.
General strike worked on Rajoy. Always does.
It’s worth noting that Slovenian quickly won the war (partially because of defections from Yugoslav army and because Croatia was keeping most of the Yugoslav army busy).
It’s possible that if a war started in Catalonia, many soldiers would defect too. However, Catalonia is nowhere near as ethnically homogeneous as Slovenia was, so things could get very complicated.
The problem with Unilateral Declarations of Independence is that, if outside powers recognize them, they become, effectively, externally imposed border changes. Externally imposed border changes often lead to war which is what the 1648 Westphalia agreement was intended to prevent. It’s far better for border changes to be agreed on by all parties as was the case the Czechs and Slovaks divorced during the ’90s.
Also, the Kurdish drive for their own state has led some Kurds to commit ethnic cleansing of those who oppose them in both Syria and Iraq, as many Kosovars did in Serbia, despite the Western accusations that Serbia was the guilty party.
I want to side with Catalonia and eastern Ukraine in their respective drives for political autonomy. But I wouldn’t side with the YPG or PKK Kurds despite the fact that some Kurds have been mistreated. Nor the Kosovars. Most of all, I don’t want the US government sticking its nose (and US troops) where it doesn’t belong, even if I side ‘our’ government, which is rare.
The future arrived October 1st.
EU doesn’t condemn the Spanish violence against unarmed, nonviolent citizens.
“Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans sides squarely with Madrid.”
http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-defends-use-of-proportionate-force-in-catalonia/
Ironically, the best solution, arguably the only solution, for the Spanish and the Unionists is to have a referendum in Catalonia about independence. They might have pulled it off before by doing the vote but I an no longer sure whether the Unionists could actually win now. However, their silly arrogance prevents them from providing a referendum. They could amend their precious Army-approved constitution to allow for a referendum but that would go against their Castile-centric tradition. This resistance to change, this inability to recognize reality just might bring about what they so very much want to avoid in the very end: the Republic of Catalonia. Catalonia would suffer at first but they would come out of it. Spain without Catalonia would not be a kind of large Portugal. At least Portugal has been able to pay off much of its debt to the banksters. No, without Catalonia, Spain would become a kind of large Greece, unable to pay off the ever increasing debt to the banksters. This is why the Spaniards are so against giving up Catalonia. The powers that be in Spain, or the EU, could care less about the Unionist people in Catalonia. It all comes down to money in the end. Just money.
The EU would just tax Catalunya and redistribute the wealth / lost revenues to Spain. Oh – it will be part of their condition for re-entry into the EU. Total waste of time, deckchairs on the Titanic etc. unless Catalunya voluntarily remains outside the EU (which is never going to happen imho).
EU would take their cut for bloated pensions etc before sending money to Spain.
Amusing comment on ZH where someone said that in response Rajoy could invoke article 155, and then immediately suspend it. Suppose we could eventually end up with a situation like North and South Korea.
Well…hmmmm….many Catalans felt deceived that the declaration was not clearer, but after saying the motion of automatic declaration was suspended, parlament still went on to sign the declaration. CUP is asking for a clear timeframe for the suspension to end. Did any vote on suspension take place? It does look like the independence members of parlament have taken personal control if not, and makes their route seem less legitimate.
Either way, Spanish prosecutors have stated clearly that what has taken place is sedition. So I expect the Catalan leadership will be soon arrested. The Spanish government reaffirms that it will not negotiate with those acting outside the Spanish legal framework.
So it looks more like a soft confrontation will take place ( to start at least), and not a fierce face off upon open declaration. Whose hands this plays into I am not sure, the half declaration took some steam out of events, but there seems to be no alternative negotiated route either, leaving room for different protests to take the fore, maybe strikes etc., while Spain remains under the pressure of continued scrutiny.
Understanding the meaning of the speech.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLy2igiW0AAm9rE.jpg
https://twitter.com/BenjAlvarez1/status/917839969414254594
I suggest that the Catalonians might do well to recognize that no-one serious (and hence in a position to aid them) cares about: –
1. Spanish police actions during the referendum that saw some 900 people injured;
2. Upholding the principle of self-determination for a bunch of chancers who would only bring unwelcome problems for too many important others were their wishes granted;
3. The referendum, whether it was legal or illegal, whether it expressed the settled will of the people or it does not, how many voted and for which outcome.
In that light, Catalonia might recognize it is friendless in this world and shape its course accordingly. Mr. Rajoy certainly will be.
I agree. In a globalist world, everyone will turn a blind eye to whatever happens short of armed conflict. Then the UN would get involved eventually. Catalonia has two choices. Declare independence and prepare to fight or do basically nothing except symbolic gestures.
you are a typical american :
all trouble and revolutions outside US is good
this idisqualifies you on world politics
keep writing on economy !! PLEASE !!!!!!