Catalonia Megathread: Should Catalonia Separate From Spain?

[Catlander]

The prize of spanish democracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish ... mnesty_Law

Currenly Baltasar Garzón is FIRED as judge by the PP

[The Blaatschapen]

If ICC doomed Franco (in 1945) -> Spain could have been a real democracy -> PP could have been different -> Catalonia could have been celebrated a legal referendum looks like Scotland, Quebec, etc. (today not)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_c ... ndum,_1978
Over 95% of the Catalan voters approved the 1978 Constitution, which states that the unity of the Spanish Nation is indissoluble.

Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.

Why do you hate the Catalan voters?

The British voted themselves into the EU and later voted themselves out.

The Catalans from 1978 are not the same as the Catalans now.

Opinions can change over the years.

[The Archregimancy]

I see you've corrected the ICC mistake.

We're now tasked with this question:

Ask yourself: How is possible that International Justice NEVER sentenced the franquism?

Alright, then... explain for us under which element(s) of international criminal and/or humanitarian law in place between 1945 and 1975 you think Franco could have been 'sentenced'?

Note that this isn't an attempt on my part to argue that Franco didn't engage in significant breaches of human rights; clearly he did. His legacy is profoundly problematic. But you seem to be under the impression that there would have been mechanisms in place following the Second World War under which it would have been possible to 'sentence' Franco. So outline for us, please, how you think this would have worked.

It's possible that you mean 'condemn' rather than 'sentence' (I don't know about Catalan, but I think both would be covered in Spanish by 'condenar'; they have somewhat different meanings in English, though they can be used interchangeably in some contexts). In that case, you're clearly unfamiliar with UN General Assembly Resolution 39:

RELATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS WITH SPAIN

39 (I). Relations of Members of the United Nations with Spain

The peoples of the United Nations, at San Francisco, Potsdam and London, condemned the Franco regime in Spain and decided that, as long as that regime remains, Spain may not be admitted to the United Nations.

The General Assembly, in its resolution of 9 February 1946, recommended that the Members of the United Nations should act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the declarations of San Francisco and Potsdam. The peoples of the United Nations assure the Spanish people of their enduring sympathy and of the cordial welcome awaiting them when circumstances enable them to be admitted to the United Nations. The General Assembly recalls that, in May and June 1946, the Security Council conducted an investigation of the possible further action to be taken by the United Nations. The Sub-Committee of the Security Council charged with the investigation found unanimously:

"(a) In origin, nature, structure and general conduct, the Franco regime is a fascist regime patterned on, and established largely as a result of aid received from, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy."

"(b) During the long struggle of the United Nations against Hitler and Mussolini, Franco, despite continued Allied protests, gave very substantial aid to the enemy Powers. First, for example, from 1941 to 1945, the Blue Infantry Division, the Spanish Legion of Volunteers and the Salvador Air Squadron fought against Soviet Russia on the Eastern front. Second, in the summer of 1940, Spain seized Tangier in breach of international statute, and as a result of Spain maintaining a large army in Spanish Morocco large numbers of Allied troops were immobilized in North Africa."

"(c) Incontrovertible documentary evidence establishes that Franco was a guilty party with Hitler and Mussolini in the conspiracy to wage war against those countries which eventually in the course of the world war became banded together as the United Nations. It was part of the conspiracy that Franco's full belligerency should be postponed until a time to be mutually agreed upon."

The General Assembly, Convinced that the Franco Fascist Government of Spain, which was imposed by force upon the Spanish people with the aid of the Axis Powers and which gave material assistance to the Axis Powers in the war, does not represent the Spanish people, and by its continued control of Spain is making impossible the participation of the Spanish people with the peoples of the United Nations in international affairs; Recommends that the Franco Government of Spain be debarred from membership in international agencies established by or brought into relationship with the United Nations, and from participation in conferences or other activities which may be arranged by the United Nations or by these agencies, until a new and acceptable government is formed in Spain.

The General Assembly, Further, desiring to secure the participation of all peace-loving peoples, including the people of Spain, in the community of nations, Recommends that if, within a reasonable time, there is not established a government which derives its authority from the consent of the governed, committed to respect freedom of speech, religion and assembly and to the prompt holding of an election in which the Spanish people, free from force and intimidation and regardless of party, may express their will, the Security Council consider the adequate measures to be taken in order to remedy the situation; Recommends that all Members of the United Nations immediately recall from Madrid their Ambassadors and Ministers plenipotentiary accredited there. The General Assembly further recommends that the States Members of the Organization report to the Secretary-General and to the next session of the Assembly what action they have taken in accordance with this recommendation.

Fifty-ninth plenary meeting, 12 December 1946.

Official link:
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RES ... penElement

Link with Spanish (though not Catalan) translation after the English text:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_N ... olution_39


But condemnation is one thing, however welcome; what mechanism do you seriously propose could have been used to 'sentence' Franco in the post-war era?

[United Republic of Lepala]

It would be the Catalans' choice. However, now that Spain took away the referendums, I wholeheartedly support Catalonian independence.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's there choose, but I would love to see a state about cats.

Because yay kittys!

[United Republic of Lepala]

It's there choose, but I would love to see a state about cats.

Because yay kittys!

This.

[The Archregimancy]

I, while defending monarchies to a certain extent, especially the european crowns, understand that most of the catalan people want their independence

Then you may not understand correctly.

While some polls over the last year have given a lead to a 'yes' (for independence) vote, at no point since the 2015 Catalan regional elections has polling shown a majority for independence; it has, however, on several occasions shown a plurality. Polling can be a little tricky to collate depending on whether the question is about support for independence generally or support for the question in the proposed October referendum specifically, but he two most recent polls I can find gave an 8-point lead to 'no' for a general question about independence and a 7-point lead for no in the specific question about the October referendum. Indeed, if polling is tracked from 2011, there's every reason to believe that support for Catalan independence has been in decline since its 2012-2013 peak, when support for independence was regularly polling over 50%.

Link to recent collated polls.

If a fully legally binding referendum were to be held with the support of both the regional and national governments (and it's entirely possible to support holding the referendum as a democratic exercise in self-determination while opposing independence), it's by no means a foregone conclusion that the result would be in favour of Catalan independence.

[Risottia]

fixed some anachronic and basic english terms (I though that ICC works since 1945, sorry).
@Rissotia:
Choose between
a) Fascists that will became to the Democracy ( ONLY if they will be amnestied for their crimes in a special law in parliament) and after will fund a clean politic party to prepare the EU entry, etc.
or
b) Do not give up the power, will raise another dictator and be happy.

Opinions can change over the years.

Which means the pro-independence Catalans have to persuade the rest of Spain (and the Cortes) that the Constitution must be amended, BEFORE they can ask for an independence referendum.


(Btw, as personal preference, I think Spain should just revert to the red-yellow-purple....)

[Catlander]

fixed some anachronic and basic english terms (I though that ICC works since 1945, sorry).
@Rissotia:
Choose between
a) Fascists that will became to the Democracy ( ONLY if they will be amnestied for their crimes in a special law in parliament) and after will fund a clean politic party to prepare the EU entry, etc.
or
b) Do not give up the power, will raise another dictator and be happy.

Opinions can change over the years.

Which means the pro-independence Catalans have to persuade the rest of Spain (and the Cortes) that the Constitution must be amended, BEFORE they can ask for an independence referendum.

This is impossible: Castille + Andalucia + Extremadura are firmly catalanophobes and them own more than 50% of electoral census. We are into a 'democratic' jail.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your title bothers me. I am bothered by this. Should be "A STATE", not "AN STATE"

But in regards to your question yes, I'd like it if Catalonia was a state if they choose to and want their right of self-determination.

[Geilinor]

What does the ICC have to do with this?

If ICC doomed Franco (in 1945) -> Spain could have been a real democracy -> PP could have been different -> Catalonia could have been celebrated a legal referendum looks like Scotland, Quebec, etc. (today not)

That's a massive hypothetical.

[Catlander]

@soldati senza confini: fixed

@The Archregimancy: a veredict look like Slobodan Milosevic

[Geilinor]

The prize of spanish democracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish ... mnesty_Law

Currenly Baltasar Garzón is FIRED as judge by the PP

The article on Baltasar Garzon says that he was convicted for illegal wiretapping.

[Catlander]

The prize of spanish democracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish ... mnesty_Law

Currenly Baltasar Garzón is FIRED as judge by the PP

The article on Baltasar Garzon says that he was convicted for illegal wiretapping.

The police broke as usual protocol in trials: they include new evidences. Was a trap (*). Garzón was suspended by prevarication.

(*) Today TV and media uses the term "las cloacas del Estado" (the sewers of the State) all those dirty maneuvers of goverment. See it in Google (you wll know better Rajoy and his gov)

[Pasong Tirad]

People should be free to exercise their right to self-determination - so, I support the referendum, and will support whatever Catalonians want.

It would kind of suck to see Spain dissolve, though, because a Catalonian secession might snowball separatist movements in other parts of Spain, but it should be their right should they wish to separate from Espanya.

[Nexus of All Realities]

I celebrate independence movements anywhere and involving anyone.

[Luziyca]

Honestly, I don't really give a fuck one way or another. If the people want Catalonia to become sovereign, then let them be sovereign. If they don't, then that's fine.

[Nexus of All Realities]

If the majority of the population wants independence, let them.

I think it should be the majority of the aggrieved populace.

[Kennlind]

Yes. Visca Catalunya. Catalonia is the greatest friend of the Scots

[Kennlind]

If ICC doomed Franco (in 1945) -> Spain could have been a real democracy -> PP could have been different -> Catalonia could have been celebrated a legal referendum looks like Scotland, Quebec, etc. (today not)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_c ... ndum,_1978
Over 95% of the Catalan voters approved the 1978 Constitution, which states that the unity of the Spanish Nation is indissoluble.

Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.

Why do you hate the Catalan voters?

In the 1980 elections, over 55% of people voted for nationalist parties. Why do you hate the Catalan voters?

[The Archregimancy]

@The Archregimancy: a veredict look like Slobodan Milosevic

Yes, I understand what you're trying to say. You think there should have been some sort of ICC-like process to bring Franco to trial post-1945 (even though this was 50 years before the ICC existed).

But I'm not sure you fully understand my points. The points I'm making are that A) the UN did condemn Franco in 1946 but that B) there was no mechanism in place in the aftermath of the Second World for bringing to trial the head of government of a sovereign state that hadn't been a belligerent during the Second World War. Attempting to argue for a Milosevic-like process for Franco is to argue for retrospectively applying early 21st-century international legal procedures to the mid-20th century when those procedures hadn't been formed yet. It's not a defence of Franco's human rights abuses to note that you're taking the global community to task for failing to do something that it wasn't capable of doing in the context of the time. Nor were the Nuremberg trials or their Japanese equivalents direct precedents for putting him on trial since Spain was neutral during the Second World War; the United Nations was not about to invade Spain for the specific purpose of deposing Franco.

Though I suppose we could always disinter him from the Valle de los Caidos and hold a modern equivalent of the cadaver synod.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I fully believe in self-determination. But in Catalunya's case, this is a matter of the Cortes having said, over and over, that they will not approve of a referendum that threatens the unity of the country. In other words, Madrid is not going to ratify a Catalan independence referendum. For that to happen, Catalunya needs to convince the Cortes to change their minds. That's likely not going to happen. At least not as things stands now.

As for state, Catalunya is a province of Spain. In other words, it is already a state as state is synonymous with province.

prov·ince
ˈprävəns/Submit
noun
1.
a principal administrative division of certain countries or empires.
"Chengdu, capital of Sichuan province"
synonyms: territory, region, state, department, canton, area, district, sector, zone, division
"Canada's westernmost province"

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

@The Archregimancy: a veredict look like Slobodan Milosevic

Yes, I understand what you're trying to say. You think there should have been some sort of ICC-like process to bring Franco to trial post-1945 (even though this was 50 years before the ICC existed).

But I'm not sure you fully understand my points. The points I'm making are that A) the UN did condemn Franco in 1946 but that B) there was no mechanism in place in the aftermath of the Second World for bringing to trial the head of government of a sovereign state that hadn't been a belligerent during the Second World War. Attempting to argue for a Milosevic-like process for Franco is to argue for retrospectively applying early 21st-century international legal procedures to the mid-20th century when those procedures hadn't been formed yet. It's not a defence of Franco's human rights abuses to note that you're taking the global community to task for failing to do something that it wasn't capable of doing in the context of the time. Nor were the Nuremberg trials or their Japanese equivalents direct precedents for putting him on trial since Spain was neutral during the Second World War; the United Nations was not about to invade Spain for the specific purpose of deposing Franco.

Though I suppose we could always disinter him from the Valle de los Caidos and hold a modern equivalent of the cadaver synod.

A rather grim but amusing sight that was.

[Rio Cana]

I see you've corrected the ICC mistake.

We're now tasked with this question:

Ask yourself: How is possible that International Justice NEVER sentenced the franquism?

Alright, then... explain for us under which element(s) of international criminal and/or humanitarian law in place between 1945 and 1975 you think Franco could have been 'sentenced'?

Note that this isn't an attempt on my part to argue that Franco didn't engage in significant breaches of human rights; clearly he did. His legacy is profoundly problematic. But you seem to be under the impression that there would have been mechanisms in place following the Second World War under which it would have been possible to 'sentence' Franco. So outline for us, please, how you think this would have worked.

It's possible that you mean 'condemn' rather than 'sentence' (I don't know about Catalan, but I think both would be covered in Spanish by 'condenar'; they have somewhat different meanings in English, though they can be used interchangeably in some contexts). In that case, you're clearly unfamiliar with UN General Assembly Resolution 39:

RELATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS WITH SPAIN

39 (I). Relations of Members of the United Nations with Spain

The peoples of the United Nations, at San Francisco, Potsdam and London, condemned the Franco regime in Spain and decided that, as long as that regime remains, Spain may not be admitted to the United Nations.

The General Assembly, in its resolution of 9 February 1946, recommended that the Members of the United Nations should act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the declarations of San Francisco and Potsdam. The peoples of the United Nations assure the Spanish people of their enduring sympathy and of the cordial welcome awaiting them when circumstances enable them to be admitted to the United Nations. The General Assembly recalls that, in May and June 1946, the Security Council conducted an investigation of the possible further action to be taken by the United Nations. The Sub-Committee of the Security Council charged with the investigation found unanimously:

"(a) In origin, nature, structure and general conduct, the Franco regime is a fascist regime patterned on, and established largely as a result of aid received from, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy."

"(b) During the long struggle of the United Nations against Hitler and Mussolini, Franco, despite continued Allied protests, gave very substantial aid to the enemy Powers. First, for example, from 1941 to 1945, the Blue Infantry Division, the Spanish Legion of Volunteers and the Salvador Air Squadron fought against Soviet Russia on the Eastern front. Second, in the summer of 1940, Spain seized Tangier in breach of international statute, and as a result of Spain maintaining a large army in Spanish Morocco large numbers of Allied troops were immobilized in North Africa."

"(c) Incontrovertible documentary evidence establishes that Franco was a guilty party with Hitler and Mussolini in the conspiracy to wage war against those countries which eventually in the course of the world war became banded together as the United Nations. It was part of the conspiracy that Franco's full belligerency should be postponed until a time to be mutually agreed upon."

The General Assembly, Convinced that the Franco Fascist Government of Spain, which was imposed by force upon the Spanish people with the aid of the Axis Powers and which gave material assistance to the Axis Powers in the war, does not represent the Spanish people, and by its continued control of Spain is making impossible the participation of the Spanish people with the peoples of the United Nations in international affairs; Recommends that the Franco Government of Spain be debarred from membership in international agencies established by or brought into relationship with the United Nations, and from participation in conferences or other activities which may be arranged by the United Nations or by these agencies, until a new and acceptable government is formed in Spain.

The General Assembly, Further, desiring to secure the participation of all peace-loving peoples, including the people of Spain, in the community of nations, Recommends that if, within a reasonable time, there is not established a government which derives its authority from the consent of the governed, committed to respect freedom of speech, religion and assembly and to the prompt holding of an election in which the Spanish people, free from force and intimidation and regardless of party, may express their will, the Security Council consider the adequate measures to be taken in order to remedy the situation; Recommends that all Members of the United Nations immediately recall from Madrid their Ambassadors and Ministers plenipotentiary accredited there. The General Assembly further recommends that the States Members of the Organization report to the Secretary-General and to the next session of the Assembly what action they have taken in accordance with this recommendation.

Fifty-ninth plenary meeting, 12 December 1946.

Official link:
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RES ... penElement

Link with Spanish (though not Catalan) translation after the English text:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_N ... olution_39


But condemnation is one thing, however welcome; what mechanism do you seriously propose could have been used to 'sentence' Franco in the post-war era?

Seems the UN overdid it. There tough policies against Franco fell hard on the Spanish people. International isolation plus bad economic policies coming from Franco 's government were a drag on the economy and food supplies. Not until the 1950's was Spanish agriculture able to get to the level they had in 1935. Before 1949, Argentina came to Spains rescue by selling them grain to help feed Spain. But in 1949 shippments stopped since the Spanish government was way behind payments. This chaotic situtation took a 180 degree turn for the better when the US and Spain signed agreements in 1953.

[Risottia]

Which means the pro-independence Catalans have to persuade the rest of Spain (and the Cortes) that the Constitution must be amended, BEFORE they can ask for an independence referendum.

This is impossible: Castille + Andalucia + Extremadura are firmly catalanophobes and them own more than 50% of electoral census. We are into a 'democratic' jail.

"They're Catalanophobes and want to keep us in the jail that is the country whose Constitution we voted for!"
Go on, that's sure the way to open them to the possibility of amending the Constitution. Uh uh.