- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 38,904
- Reaction score
- 14,235
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
How do you know? It has happened before.
Different times and conditions.
How do you know? It has happened before.
Happens in all cases in all countries, so grow up.
It doesn't make any difference that it happens. What is interesting is that you would justify a system without rule of law that way. That, in fact, is what gives it its charming EUpean shine.
It is the rule of law! That is the whole point. The Spanish constitutional court said already back in 2006 that to hold a referendum, either on a national scale or in a region, you would need to change the constitution to make it possible. I know you are an anti-establishment guy who hates Europe and Europeans (while living here ironically), but this whole situation is by the law and constitution. The Catalan separatists knew what they were doing was illegal, and despite this carried it out. They broke the law and now have to take the consequences. So claiming that it is a system without rule of law is beyond moronic and again, the situation has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. That you continue to push this falsehood, only shows your bias and issues for everyone to see. It would be the equivalent of blaming the 2016 Trump election win to the UN or NATO.
You said: "the 8 members were jailed because of what Puigedemont did.. fled the country. The judge considered them a flight risk. Had he not fled, then chances are they would have been released on bail." In other words, the court put them in prison not because of their individual behavior or the nature if their personal situation. They were jailed because someone else had done something.
That is not rule of law in most countries and in none, where freedom is a (real) right.
It is the rule of law!
Though I must admit that the timing of some of these charges is quite suspicious. For example the charge of misapropriation of public funds presumably referred to using public money to sponcer the referendum, and yet he wasnt charged untill the immediate aftermath of the declaration of independence. Which seems to suggest that the authorities were willing to let it slide unless he did something they didnt want him to do. Which just goes to say that the behavior of the judiciary has more to do with what the government deems expidient then what the law actually says.