Which countries' independence nowadays would you say are the biggest historical flukes?

Status
Archived
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
And who paid the Atlantic?

Oh please. The Atlantic is American, not British. It is an extremely well respected journal, so you trying to smear it doesn't wash, and is a typical tactic of a nationalist.

Me? A strange nationalist, born in the Cape, with a former Hungarian Jewish woman and another Czech woman, a Czeh passport´s son, born in Olomouc and living in Brno and me living since 2017 with a Thai woman, ... a nationalist who has no flag at home... curious ... but yes, I do not shut up when someone manipulates either out of ignorance or evil ...

Your background makes no difference whatsoever. Your views are apparent in your posts, and the fact that you repeat the views of the Spanish nationalists. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
 
Joined Jan 2017
7,817 Posts | 3,302+
Republika Srpska
This suspended law was completely opposite to the Spanish Constitution and was thus rightfully suspended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offspring
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
Sorry, it was actually in the link you posted:

I quoted the relevant passage:
"10 MPs voted against the declaration and 53 MPs refused to be present during the illegal vote, after the legal counsels of the Catalan Parliament advised that it could not take place as the law on which it was based had been suspended by the Spanish Constitutional Court. "

(emphasis mine)
Convenient, that.

You seem terribly ill informed here. Not only about Spain, but about laws.

I imagine that you know what it the hierarchy of laws?

I means that an hierarchical inferior law can’t go against a superior hierarchical law. For most countries that I know the most superior hierarchical law is the constitution. Even if it is not written, as it is the unusual case of the UK.

Using your quote: "10 MPs voted against the declaration and 53 MPs refused to be present during the illegal vote, after the legal counsels of the Catalan Parliament advised that it could not take place as the law on which it was based had been suspended by the Spanish Constitutional Court. "

Note that the legal counsel of the Catalan Parliament, I repeat of the Regional Catalan Parliament, even advised that “it could not take place”.

And why did the Constitutional Court suspended the regional law? Well… because it was illegal, it was against the hierarchy of laws. Naomasa298, pardon me to say, this is basic understanding of how laws work.

Let me quote you on other post:

Yes, that is the view of Spanish nationalists.



It seems Catalonians speak Spanish better than everyone else in Spain.

The use of the public school system to indoctrinate in the Catalonian independence, and to falsify history in the history schoolbooks, is not only view that way by the Spanish nationalists, it can be view by anyone that knows the situation, including apparently your source, The Atlantic, implicitly recognized.

But the question of language and identity is much more complicated, as is Catalonia’s history of using its classrooms to foster unity. If this has impact or not in the political opinion of the future adults, it is not easy to say, but we are teaching those kids fiction. Ideological fiction.

By the way, most Catalonians speak well Spanish, because Spanish, Castilian, is the mother language for the majority, as The Atlantic’s article, your source, also noted.

Please, please, read the article that you linked. It is balanced. Albeit it is a limited view is such a short piece.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Note that the legal counsel of the Catalan Parliament, I repeat of the Regional Catalan Parliament, even advised that “it could not take place”.

And why did the Constitutional Court suspended the regional law? Well… because it was illegal, it was against the hierarchy of laws. Naomasa298, pardon me to say, this is basic understanding of how laws work.

It was suspended because of a clearly political decision by a supposedly independent court. Any country where a court makes judgements based on a direction given by a government is one where the judicial system is untrustworthy. That's what courts do in Russia, not

Please, please, read the article that you linked. It is balanced. Albeit it is a limited view is such a short piece.

I read the article in full. It seems to lay out the situation very well.

As I said earlier, if the Spanish government simply allowed the referendum to go ahead, it would almost certainly have won it. People in Catalonia didn't really seem to want independence. But instead of engaging, the government took a heavy handed approach more reminiscent of China than a modern Western state.

A government should never prevent the expression of the democratic will of the people just because they think they might lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baldtastic
Joined Jan 2017
7,817 Posts | 3,302+
Republika Srpska
The law was obviously completely contradictory to the Constitution. The law provided for a binding referendum on independence and clearly stated that if the option for independence wins, Catalonia was to be declared independent within two days. This is at odds with the Spanish Constitution which is based on the "indissoluble unity". The Constitution is clear, there can be no independence. The Spanish Constitutional Court was completely correct in suspending the Catalan law. It was unconstitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offspring
Joined Dec 2011
13,583 Posts | 5,948+
Iowa USA
The law was obviously completely contradictory to the Constitution. The law provided for a binding referendum on independence and clearly stated that if the option for independence wins, Catalonia was to be declared independent within two days. This is at odds with the Spanish Constitution which is based on the "indissoluble unity". The Constitution is clear, there can be no independence. The Spanish Constitutional Court was completely correct in suspending the Catalan law. It was unconstitutional.

Yeah, that what's Tulius explained and there is really no other side which isn't a salute to anarchy.
 
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
It was suspended because of a clearly political decision by a supposedly independent court. Any country where a court makes judgements based on a direction given by a government is one where the judicial system is untrustworthy. That's what courts do in Russia, not

That is your opinion, that clearly contradicts the principle of the hierarchy of laws.

I read the article in full. It seems to lay out the situation very well.

Here we agree. Even if the article is short. Unfortunately, doesn’t address directly the teaching of history, and I say this because we are in a history forum.

As I said earlier, if the Spanish government simply allowed the referendum to go ahead, it would almost certainly have won it. People in Catalonia didn't really seem to want independence. But instead of engaging, the government took a heavy handed approach more reminiscent of China than a modern Western state.

I agree with the first part, don’t agree that much with the conclusion. Rajoy was incompetent in dealing with the situation. Implementing the law that way, albeit legal in a democracy, was a clear political error. The equivalence to China, with Russia, or with the... is arbitrary from your part, so I will advance on that.

A government should never prevent the expression of the democratic will of the people just because they think they might lose.

Except, that that specific referendum was not the expression of the democratic will of the people, because it was not democratic. As already noted.

The law was obviously completely contradictory to the Constitution. The law provided for a binding referendum on independence and clearly stated that if the option for independence wins, Catalonia was to be declared independent within two days. This is at odds with the Spanish Constitution which is based on the "indissoluble unity". The Constitution is clear, there can be no independence. The Spanish Constitutional Court was completely correct in suspending the Catalan law. It was unconstitutional.

And you don’t even need to study law to understand that. As Naomasa298’s quite well quoted, even the legal counsel of the regional Catalan Parliament said that.
 
Joined Mar 2013
30,120 Posts | 16,087+
👻
Last edited:
Oh please. The Atlantic is American, not British. It is an extremely well respected journal, so you trying to smear it doesn't wash, and is a typical tactic of a nationalist.



Your background makes no difference whatsoever. Your views are apparent in your posts, and the fact that you repeat the views of the Spanish nationalists. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
That is an ad hom.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
The equivalence to China, with Russia, or with the... is arbitrary from your part, so I will advance on that.

Well, as evidenced by the law that China is bringing in on Hong Kong, the comparison is valid.

Except, that that specific referendum was not the expression of the democratic will of the people, because it was not democratic. As already noted.

It was the democratic will of the people of Catalonia, which in this instance, is what matters.

See, if the people of Catalonia had said "we want to remain part of Spain", no one would be complaining that the Spanish people didn't have their say.

Let's suppose the situation were reversed. Everyone in Spain except in Catalonia votes for Catalonian independence. Catalonia votes no. Are you then saying Catalonia would be expelled from Spain? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. So why would the reverse be true?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baldtastic
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
That is an ad hom.

Actually, it isn't. He's saying he's not a nationalist. I say the evidence, as presented by his posts, say otherwise. His background is irrelevant to the argument. Saying he's a nationalist because of his background, in spite of any contradictory evidence, would be an ad hom.

Unless you think I'm actually calling him a duck.
 
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
Well, as evidenced by the law that China is bringing in on Hong Kong, the comparison is valid.

Humm, is China a democracy? It is rhetoric, you don't need to answer.

In democracies there are three pillars and a separation of powers where there is the executive branch, the legislative and the judicial. The executive is elected by the people. All are under the law that is produced by the legislative branch. Does this happen in China? It is rhetoric, you don't need to answer.

It was the democratic will of the people of Catalonia, which in this instance, is what matters.

You are being repetitive and circular. Already answered. There was not “democratic will of the people of Catalonia” in the pseudo-referendum. It was a fraud in only one part participated. It was like in those elections in dictaroships where the only candidate has 99% of the votes.

See, if the people of Catalonia had said "we want to remain part of Spain", no one would be complaining that the Spanish people didn't have their say.

Again, the “people of Catalonia” didn’t said nothing because there wasn’t a valid referendum. There were regional elections and the independentists had almost the majority of votes, and had the majority of seats. The party that won the elections was the Ciudadanos, that opposes the independence.

Let's suppose the situation were reversed. Everyone in Spain except in Catalonia votes for Catalonian independence. Catalonia votes no. Are you then saying Catalonia would be expelled from Spain? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. So why would the reverse be true?

Suppositions like that are good for the speculative sub-forum. Unrelated.

Naomasa298, I already understood that I will not gain much with this conversation, I will not learn more, and I am in the forum to learn and to have fun. The conversation has been repetitively boring and circular. Good night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offspring
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Humm, is China a democracy? It is rhetoric, you don't need to answer.

*Exactly*. So when a country that is supposedly a modern democracy imitates an authoritarian dictatorship, the comparison is more than valid, it's disturbing.

In democracies there are three pillars and a separation of powers where there is the executive branch, the legislative and the judicial. The executive is elected by the people. All are under the law that is produced by the legislative branch. Does this happen in China? It is rhetoric, you don't need to answer.

Given the political decisions taken by the Spanish courts, separation of powers doesn't seem to be the case in Spain.

You are being repetitive and circular. Already answered. There was not “democratic will of the people of Catalonia” in the pseudo-referendum. It was a fraud in only one part participated. It was like in those elections in dictaroships where the only candidate has 99% of the votes.

There was absolutely no fraud. I've already explained to you what the principle of self-determination involves. At no point has that ever involved the vote of the people of the governing power.

Again, the “people of Catalonia” didn’t said nothing because there wasn’t a valid referendum. There were regional elections and the independentists had almost the majority of votes, and had the majority of seats. The party that won the elections was the Ciudadanos, that opposes the independence.

The only reason the referendum wasn't "valid" is because the court declared it so. The expressed will of the people who voted would be the same either way. If I tell you you can't express your opinion on Historum, it doesn't mean you don't still hold that opinion.

Suppositions like that are good for the speculative sub-forum. Unrelated.

So you avoid the question, probably because you have no valid counter-argument to it.

Naomasa298, I already understood that I will not gain much with this conversation, I will not learn more, and I am in the forum to learn and to have fun. The conversation has been repetitively boring and circular. Good night.

You can stop responding at any time.
 
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
At no point has that ever involved the vote of the people of the governing power.

I am only posting again because I hope you understood badly my posts. If not, you are using a strawman,

For the rest I already answered, but found this curious:

So you avoid the question, probably because you have no valid counter-argument to it.
The thing is… sorry, I didn’t noticed that your fictional scenario was an argument that I could make a counter-argument. I don’t agree or disagree with your scenario. It is your fiction not mine.

You can stop responding at any time.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. And, again, good night.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Last edited:
Can you list the countries where unilateral secession is legal?

Can you list all the countries where even talking about it gets you landed in jail?

How many secessions have ever been bilateral?
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
I am only posting again because I hope you understood badly my posts. If not, you are using a strawman,

For the rest I already answered, but found this curious:

And you can't answer this point either, so you avoid it.

The thing is… sorry, I didn’t noticed that your fictional scenario was an argument that I could make a counter-argument. I don’t agree or disagree with your scenario. It is your fiction not mine.

It's not a fiction. It's the other side of the argument that everyone in the country should have their say. So respond to it, if you have a counter-argument - but you don't.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. And, again, good night.

Apparently, it didn't stop you from responding to the last post. I'm not holding my breath.
 
Status
Archived

Trending History Discussions

Top