- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 1,764
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yeah, well maybe the US should just invade Canada and Mexico and take them over......
Same situation here.
That wasn't the case in the UK. No one asked the people of the UK. It was a decision taken purely by politicians, just as no one is asking the people of Spain.
Don't lie to me! We all know it's cause your prettier!
Yeah, well maybe the US should just invade Canada and Mexico and take them over......
Same situation here.
The big difference is that no one raised constitutional objections in the UK. Constitutional objections have been raised in Spain. If Spain's constitutional court upholds those objections, then the constitution would need to be revised to permit such a vote. Spain's political leaders will heed public sentiment prior to making any such consequential move, as any democratic society should.
I guess thats one of the beauties of not having a written constitution as the UK, you can make it up as you go along.
The Catalans get stuck in 'the constitution doesn't allow it' argument made by Madrid against allowing any independence referendum
If we had done so 300 years ago, then yeah, it would be the same. Oh, and by the way, we that did already and now parts of those countries are now US states or parts of US states...
I guess thats one of the beauties of not having a written constitution as the UK, you can make it up as you go along.
The Catalans get stuck in 'the constitution doesn't allow it' argument made by Madrid against allowing any independence referendum
A state that is forcing a region or constituent nation to remain within the state against the wishes of the people of that region is itself inherently unstable. It is being held together through coercion. We have already had the commander of the Guardia Civil (paramilitary police) stating that he believes that if called upon, he would be prepared to use any means necessary to prevent the Catalans holding a referendum.
There is no broad consensus of the appropriate constitutional and legal framework for the future. The Catalans are being forcibly prevented from expressing their democratic will.
Russia - that bastion of democracy and occupier of Crimea - disagrees:This has been perhaps the most democratic poll ever held.
No, I'm not saying that at all.So what you're saying is you support the right of any minority group anywhere in the world setting up shop within the territory constituted by a lager demographic and then holding a referendum for independence and then expecting the larger demographic going along with such a thing?
You obviously don't know much about Spanish politics. The radical nationalism resides within the ranks of the PP-led national government, anti-regionalist and Castilian-supremacist. The Catalan independence movement is much more republican in nature than it is nationalist.I thought socialists were supposed to be anti-Nationalistic, what you're talking about is radical nationalism.
Sort of voluntary ethnic cleansing?Furthermore; the Catalans have complete freedom of movement they are not being held within the state against their will they are free to leave the state at any time they choose and move elsewhere within the EU or whatever country that will take them.
Simpleχity;1063778424 said:Russia - that bastion of democracy and occupier of Crimea - disagrees:
Guardian | Russia cries foul over Scottish independence vote
This is true. It demonstrates that a constitution can't always be seen as a bulwark of democracy. Sometimes having a codified constitution is a block on democracy - eliminating choice and outlawing dissent. It protects the state, it protects itself, it corrals political debate within it's limited scope.The big difference is that no one raised constitutional objections in the UK. Constitutional objections have been raised in Spain. If Spain's constitutional court upholds those objections, then the constitution would need to be revised to permit such a vote.
On what basis do you assume that? A truly democratic state would consider the ongoing sentiments of its electorate and the welfare of all its subjects. Spain, like the vast majority of liberal democratic states, restricts its democratic ambitions rigidly within a four-yearly, elective dictatorship.Spain's political leaders will heed public sentiment prior to making any such consequential move, as any democratic society should.
This is true. It demonstrates that a constitution can't always be seen as a bulwark of democracy. Sometimes having a codified constitution is a block on democracy - eliminating choice and outlawing dissent. It protects the state, it protects itself, it corrals political debate within it's limited scope.
On what basis do you assume that? A truly democratic state would consider the ongoing sentiments of its electorate and the welfare of all its subjects. Spain, like the vast majority of liberal democratic states, restricts its democratic ambitions rigidly within a four-yearly, elective dictatorship.
Scotland is set to become vastly richer over the course of the next few years after scientists have discovered a way to harness the energy of William Wallace violently spinning in his grave.
Pic related:
View attachment 67173236
Scotland is set to become vastly richer over the course of the next few years after scientists have discovered a way to harness the energy of William Wallace violently spinning in his grave.
Pic related:
View attachment 67173236
I don't know that Mel Gibson has offered an opinion on the issue.Scotland doesn't need the advice of a millionaire antisemitic Aussie religious extremist drunk. Even if he paints himself blue.
It declares the 'indissoluble unity' of Spain. There is no get-out, there is no alternative. There is no provision for a constituent region or nation within Spain to secede. If that isn't a block on democracy, what would you call it?I'm not aware of any provision in the Spanish constitution that limits the ability of the Catalans for any other people in Spain to participate in the political process. Absent such provisions, I'm not sure it is fair to describe it as a "block on democracy."
No, not synonymous, but the prohibition of the latter certainly indicates the absence of the former.Democracy and secession referenda are not synonymous.
'Elective dictatorship' is a pretty widely understood concept that suggests that overall parliamentary majorities can work to the detriment of democratic process and can undermine the functions of constitutional checks and balances, such as the judiciary and regional autonomies. Having a codified constitution can have the effect of safeguarding one branch of government from the over-reach of another, but in the case of the Spanish constitution, it appears to conspire with an authoritarian, Spanish nationalist government to stifle legitimate discussion, debate and decision-making on fundamental constitutional matters?I wouldn't term regular election cycles a "dictatorship." In the long-term, domestic support is important to sustaining public policy in any democratic society. Without it, new majorities would ultimately be elected and changes made.
Then I suggest you are not paying attention. It is the central demand of the Catalan majority opinion, and the idea of secession has been a topic about which the leaders of Galicia and the Basque country both spoke loudly and publicly this week. So, that's the elected leadership of almost a third of the population of Spain advocating constitutional change, not to mention the minority advocates within other autonomous communities. What level must it reach for this to be a 'clamour'?Having said that, I see no great clamor in Spain as a whole to overturn the Constitution to incorporate a secession element.
You think that a simple declaration from the constitutional court will end the matter? It will not. While the majority of Spaniards may well support the constitution as currently contrived, Castilians are the largest ethnic grouping after all, it is a clear failing that the constitution has no ability to deal with opinion, no matter how strong, that denies the 'indissoluble unity' of the state. Spain, like the US, seems incapable of conceiving of secession without considering the use of arms and violent coercion, as the head of the Guardia Civil has already intimated they are preparing to do.We'll see whether such a situation emerges when the Constitutional Court issues its ruling. It probably won't, but we'll see what happens. In the end, whether or not there will be pressure to change the Constitution (assuming the court finds there is no secession authority) will be up to all of Spain's people, as every Spanish citizen has a vested stake in the Constitution.
With respect Don, what you or I prefer isn't particularly relevant, but then it appears that what the Catalan people prefer isn't relevant either.Without doubt, I prefer a united Spain, as the kind of oppressive conditions that would justify secession simply don't exist in today's Spain. Nevertheless, I will respect the choice of Spain's people on that matter.
I don't know that Mel Gibson has offered an opinion on the issue.
If he doesn't like it, he can log in and say so.Then don't use his image to promote a silly viewpoint.
I don't know that Mel Gibson has offered an opinion on the issue.
Scotland doesn't need the advice of a millionaire antisemitic Aussie religious extremist drunk. Even if he paints himself blue.
Oh, so Manc Skipper was talking about William Wallis, not Mel Gibson, when he said....Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between an actor and an historical figure such as William Wallace. I mean, they're so similar.
...in that case....Scotland doesn't need the advice of a millionaire antisemitic Aussie religious extremist drunk. Even if he paints himself blue.
I didn't post an image of William Wallis. I posted a picture of Mel Gibson playing William Wallis in a movie. A movie is like a moving picture and with sound.Then don't use his image to promote a silly viewpoint.