EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 985
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4742 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On November 03 2017 03:29 opisska wrote: Last time I checked, it was 21st century. That people had to fought civil wars for their self-determination in the past is true, but that doesn't make it right, or something worth of adoration. We have largely gotten rid of a lot of baggage from the past, including slavery, racism, bigotry, gender inequality etc... and so we should want to get rid of this absurd idea that people and lands are the property of the state that happens to control them. I don't know exactly what countries have which laws against secession, but if they have and such laws do not present a clear path to a secession of a region with significant majority support for such moves, I consider such laws profoundly immoral and I am willing to support their disregard. We don't need rebellions because we have liberal and democratic states with the rule of law, where no one can really claim to be oppressed by the government*. We still need those laws, however, because the state needs to be preserved - preserving the states assures people and provides stability for people and businesses. The practical consequences of Catalonian secession would include a huge disruption for businesses, devaluation of assets and huge legal costs. Catalonian and Spanish citizens need to be protected against adventurous regional governments, and the laws that offer those protections in this case are laws against rebellion and sedition. There isn't a significant majority support for independence in Catalonia. Either way, the path to independence would have to move through national political instituions, not only regional ones. EDIT: *Obviously exceptions exist. Point was, Catalonians aren't oppressed. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 03 2017 02:29 warding wrote: So Oriol Junqueras, VP of the Generalitat, and eight advisors were arrested without bail. Meanwhile, when danger reared it's ugly head, Puidgemont bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Puidgemont turned about and gallantly he chickened out. Swiftly taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, Puidgemont! + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://scontent.flis4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22852249_10156218148200016_5575944445024787845_n.jpg?oh=6502e2010405ced27a740588ef25af43&oe=5AA73495) You mock him but if anything, this move from the Spanish ""justice"" justifies his flight. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 03 2017 03:29 opisska wrote: Last time I checked, it was 21st century. That people had to fought civil wars for their self-determination in the past is true, but that doesn't make it right, or something worth of adoration. We have largely gotten rid of a lot of baggage from the past, including slavery, racism, bigotry, gender inequality etc... and so we should want to get rid of this absurd idea that people and lands are the property of the state that happens to control them. I don't know exactly what countries have which laws against secession, but if they have and such laws do not present a clear path to a secession of a region with significant majority support for such moves, I consider such laws profoundly immoral and I am willing to support their disregard. Remember that there are a large number of people in Catalonia that do not want to leave Spain. That referendum was not a 100% voter turnout. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10842 Posts
What do we learn from that? | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On November 03 2017 03:44 TheDwf wrote: You mock him but if anything, this move from the Spanish ""justice"" justifies his flight. For him personally, sure. For the cause of Catalonian independence, it proves two things: Puidgemont wasn't willing to walk the walk, and that there really was no gameplan for the post-referendum, it was an underpant gnomes operation. On November 03 2017 03:51 Velr wrote: The big issue I see is that the basques got more independence by bombing shit while the catalans barely got anything for remaining nice and using the official channels. What do we learn from that? Interesting point. You have to analyse the whole game theoretical model, and include your opponent in the model. The strategy you use depends on your adversary. Basques were willing to resort to terrorism, while Catalans flee at the sight of court orders. The most appropriate strategy for the former is probably not the same as for the latter. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18205 Posts
1. You declare independence, and you have the structures in place to actually be independent. You immediately declare that you do not recognize Spain's power to judge you (or the other political prisoners), and there will be a parliamentary session on Monday to decide the next steps. You then ensure that you have (loyal) police barring anybody from entering parliament to arrest anybody. This route may have led to civil war, but that was exactly what they were cruising towards. 2. You recognize that you do not have the power to declare indepence, and you don't do it. You accept that there has to be some other solution, probably working through the national government to change the constitution. You call for elections because you have utterly failed in what you set out to do. What you don't do is a little bit of both. This is the most toothless declaration of independence I have seen. Yet it gave separatists something to hold onto and may very well spark violence despite being an utter failure (item 2) in everything except name. There will be elections in December, and all the political parties have plans to participate (although nothing is certain yet). There's ideas about treating it as (another) referendum for independence, but it will just restart the same tired, and failed, process. To make headway they need to change strategy: either ensure they have the actual institutions in place to be independent, and the support to risk civil war... or ally with other comunidades that are sympathetic to the idea of self-determination. The Balearic islands, the Basque countries, etc. to create a broad platform for constitutional change. Trying to do the same thing again will simply result in the same failure. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
To me it boils down to either utter stupidity and a complete lack of foresight with regards to what becoming a country actually entails. or The utter disillusion that nothing but pulling out the big guns actually means anything to Spanish government and even ten steps back now are a step forward in the long run, due to breaking the stalemate they found themselves in. More or less a desperate suicide attack. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9270 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On November 03 2017 03:29 Silvanel wrote: Puidgemont place (like any criminal) is in jail. He did something illegal, he should face consequences. Why would anyone advokate ignoring crimes commited by politicains is beyond me. As soon as there are laws that prevent you from pursuing a political position, this becomes a very murky water. This belief that the legal system is above everything is absurd and it just proves that you are currently in a position, when the law is convenient for you, nothing more. Politicians should be as free to pursue policies as possible. Independence is a policy. From the technical standpoint, Spain is able to have laws against such policy, but I don't see how upholding such law for the sake of it being law is noble. We in Czech Republic had a law forbidding people from ever leaving the country unless approved by the ruling party, Saudi Arabia has a law against women doing almost anything without a man etc.. Something being a "law" doesn't make it right. Actually, this nicely relates to the Czech situation even more, because the last to last government here was basically overthrown by law enforcement, which was however probably just acting on behalf of some power groups. You never want your country to be ruled by law enforcement, that's dictatorship, you want your country to be managed by elected politicians. On November 03 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote: Remember that there are a large number of people in Catalonia that do not want to leave Spain. That referendum was not a 100% voter turnout. I am perfectly aware of that, I watch the situation closely not only in press but also through my friends there (I happened to even be physically in Barcelona on the day of the referendum). However that is just not the point. The fact that the Spanish authorities refused to let the referendum happen alone undermines their claim of moral high ground, as well as the fact that they have declared to ignore it no matter the result. My problem is basically just this: even if Catalonians overwhelmingly wanted to leave, it would not be not up to them and that is just wrong, as much as it is wrong in the case of the Kurds for example. On November 03 2017 03:37 warding wrote: There isn't a significant majority support for independence in Catalonia. Either way, the path to independence would have to move through national political instituions, not only regional ones. And how is that acceptable? Why are you so keen on letting other people decide on Catalunyans' future? There are more Spaniards than Catalunyans, so by your logic, it is completely "democratic" when the former vote over the latter against the secession, right? This is simply called "the dictatorship of the majority" and the whole point why the development of democratic systems is so complex is to avoid exactly that. Anyway, your attitudes on politics are terribly childish. It's not a game, it's about lives of ordinary people. Your propensity to suck up to the power structures is disgusting. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On November 03 2017 04:27 Plansix wrote: Democracy doesn’t mean holding a vote and then the thing that was voted for happens. Independence is serious business and not something that is just allowed at the whim of a referendum and a simple majority. Other nations cannot support independence movements when they are allies with controlling nation, it would sour future relations for decades with either party. Independence is always a fight and it’s one that takes an entire generation, not a month or a year. Yes, this describes the current state of affair. Why should we support it, just because it happens to be status quo? There is a literally almost endless list of things that "used to be that way" and then we eventually knew better. I agree that simple majority isn't a very convincing argument, but to be fair, do we have something significantly better? I just wish people stopped clinging to the concept of states as if it was something great and glorious. Once the fluidity of the organisation of people into units becomes the accepted norm, we are gonna laugh at this rigid medieval epoch when people would get stuck in borders drawn by power hungry monkeys for centuries unless they were willing to kill other people for it. And you are not right about the international support either. If enough people in the world get their heads out of their asses and start pushing for the right of everyone's self-determination, there will be no problem in supporting that internationally. Remember, the politicians are the representatives of the people, the government should serve, not rule and we should be pushing for that at every front. Supporting the conservation of current border and the outdated concepts around sovereignty is directly against this flow and will come to bite people who do that eventually. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 03 2017 04:36 opisska wrote: Yes, this describes the current state of affair. Why should we support it, just because it happens to be status quo? There is a literally almost endless list of things that "used to be that way" and then we eventually knew better. I agree that simple majority isn't a very convincing argument, but to be fair, do we have something significantly better? I just wish people stopped clinging to the concept of states as if it was something great and glorious. Once the fluidity of the organisation of people into units becomes the accepted norm, we are gonna laugh at this rigid medieval epoch when people would get stuck in borders drawn by power hungry monkeys for centuries unless they were willing to kill other people for it. And you are not right about the international support either. If enough people in the world get their heads out of their asses and start pushing for the right of everyone's self-determination, there will be no problem in supporting that internationally. Remember, the politicians are the representatives of the people, the government should serve, not rule and we should be pushing for that at every front. Supporting the conservation of current border and the outdated concepts around sovereignty is directly against this flow and will come to bite people who do that eventually. Nations are not perfect, but they provide stability, structure and conflict resolution that does not involve violence. The alternative to that is conflict and warfare. Independence movements are normally followed by open conflict and outside interference. You see this brave new world beyond nations, where self determination rules. That just sounds like a lawless land where someone finally decides that self determination means they can kill to take what they want. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10137 Posts
On November 03 2017 04:50 TheDwf wrote: @Acrofales or anyone Spanish: Rajoy's government is minority, right? Is there any way it could be overthrown? Yes it could. But it is not going to happen with the current political climate. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 03 2017 05:14 Godwrath wrote: Yes it could. But it is not going to happen with the current political climate. What is the stance of the PSOE on Catalunya? Do they agree with the solution of a legal referendum? | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On November 03 2017 04:59 Plansix wrote: Nations are not perfect, but they provide stability, structure and conflict resolution that does not involve violence. The alternative to that is conflict and warfare. Independence movements are normally followed by open conflict and outside interference. You see this brave new world beyond nations, where self determination rules. That just sounds like a lawless land where someone finally decides that self determination means they can kill to take what they want. Why do you have to be so stubborn about it? First, just look at how badly the "not involving violence" actually works at any moment someone disagrees with how the borders are drawn on the map. This is not "conflict resolution" at all, it's keeping the status quo by force and it happens almost everywhere someone dares to question the borders. We with Slovakia are actually an almost unbelievable exception to this. Second, why do you have to be so extreme about it? Why violence, why lawlessness, why killing? People nowadays get to decide (through representative democracy) almost anything except which state are they gonna belong to and where the borders will be. Why is it so hard to imagine that the rights will be finally extended to this one remaining area? If anything, it should lead to less killing and less violence, because most violence in the world happens because of someone's will to control an area. To be fair, I am not surprised by these reaction, because for some reason, international politics and national sovereignty belong to a set of areas about which people have to have very strong opinions, always rooted in the status quo for some reason. Like if people saw how things are and decided that this is the only option and then for some reason there happens this weird short-circuit in their brain and they set our to defend this status quo, but the logic for its defense is purely circular. (There are more topics where this happens but I am not gonna name those because that irreducibly leads to the derail of the discussion.) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 03 2017 05:17 opisska wrote: Why do you have to be so stubborn about it? Second, why do you have to be so extreme about it? Why violence, why lawlessness, why killing? Because the thing you want to do away with is what prevents violence and conflict. Historically the ideas of nations, culture, boarders and laws all developed out of a desire to avoid violence and open conflict. Nations did not always exist. They developed after centuries of conflict and thought on what defined people. All the services we know today were mostly created in the last 100 years. Professional police, fire departments or the public libraries(as we know them) were created and refined as public services to the nation and its people. They don’t exist without it. So if nations are going to be replaced, they need to be replaced by something equally robust, not simple self determination. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
50% participation 100% of the votes were pro independence. Hereby I declare my apartment independent. Whoever opposes this is oppressing democracy! | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6262 Posts
On November 03 2017 03:37 warding wrote: We don't need rebellions because we have liberal and democratic states with the rule of law, where no one can really claim to be oppressed by the government*. We still need those laws, however, because the state needs to be preserved - preserving the states assures people and provides stability for people and businesses. The practical consequences of Catalonian secession would include a huge disruption for businesses, devaluation of assets and huge legal costs. Catalonian and Spanish citizens need to be protected against adventurous regional governments, and the laws that offer those protections in this case are laws against rebellion and sedition. There isn't a significant majority support for independence in Catalonia. Either way, the path to independence would have to move through national political instituions, not only regional ones. EDIT: *Obviously exceptions exist. Point was, Catalonians aren't oppressed. Being oppressed isn't a requirement to the right to self determination. The right of self determination is a fundamental principle of international law and in the UN charter. You talk about liberalism yet you have no problem with a state massively limiting it by not giving catalans the ability to choose their sovereignty. Spain as a state has no god given right to exist. It's people give it that right by consent and if they don't want to anymore then they should be allowed to leave. That's liberty. While you're right about the practical consequences, ultimately the decision whether they're worth it or not is not up to you. Brexit is hugely damaging to the UK yet it's their choice and we should.respect it. Yes there's no significant majority for independence so why not just give the catalans a real referendum? It's possible in Scotland so why not in Spain? The whole reason it's only going through regional institutions is that Spain is has no pathway to secession at all. | ||
| ||
