Catalonian Independence Vote...

[Johnny1A]

It's getting tense in Spain.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/859746/catalonia-referendum-latest-madrid-spanish-government-legal-bid-block-independence-vote

This has implications beyond Spain, especially with regard to the EU.  Right now, I suspect that the last thing Brussels wants is Catalan independence, or at least not declared in defiance of Madrid.

[Warren Ellis]

Spain seems to be cracking down harshly on it. I mean Jesus, has Spain always been like this?

[Þorkell Sigvaldason]

Just some thoughts, in no particular order.

Democracy is only about 40 years old in Spain. 

Spain has regions that are fairly distinct. Some of them may be autonomous, Catalonia is one of those, I don't recall which others are also. 

The Basques had a somewhat violent separatist movement (ETA) for decades. 

Regional differences were fairly harshly suppressed during Franco's time in power. For example it was illegal for Catalans to speak Catalan in Catalonia (or for that matter anywhere in Spain). It is said that during that time the only place you could get away with speaking Catalan was at Nou Camp (FC Barcelona's stadium).  

[Johnny1A]

Not to defend Franco, so much as observe that there was a reason for the policy, other than malevolence.  Nation-states have a diversity problem, which is that they aren't very good at accommodating cultural diversity.  The necessity of building up loyalties to the nation tends to grind away culture diversity, and cultural diversity provides a disruptive tendency to nationalism, because it calls into question the definition of 'we', 'us', and 'them'.

[Þorkell Sigvaldason]

Funny. Other European countries have diverse groups within their borders and as far as I know the authorities have seen no reason to ban a language or display of some cultural heritage.

The first point that came to mind is that about 150 years ago significantly less than 50% of the population of France spoke the language we know as French. There are still regional dialects in France, but there many many more who speak French.

[Johnny1A]

But that's exactly the point.  In order for a Western-style, Westphalian 'nation-state' to operate, its people have to think of themselves, emotionally identify, as part of that nation (which is distinct from, though obviously related to, the state).  The more different cultures, languages, religions, and other competing sources of difference exist, the more fracture lines are present and the harder it is to sustain a sense of 'we' across the nation.

France is relatively young as a state.  That is, the current constitution and republic is only a few decades old, though it has roots of continuity with the pre-WW II French state, naturally.  Even that state went through several incarnations post-French Revolution.  But there was always something that could be reasonably called 'France' throughout those various governmental states.  France as a state has been destroyed and reborn many times over the last few centuries, but the French nation is old, arguably dating back a thousand years.

Ditto England and Scotland, in a sense ditto Germany, though its political continuity is far more broken than France.  But the idea of Germany meant something even during the post Holy Roman Imperial balkanization, it too has national roots going back into ancient times.  The modern German state could be said to date back to immediately post World War II, German political unity to the 1870s, but Germany is older.

Spain (and Italy) are like Germany in that it was only recently unified in modern forms.  But it's not clear that their existence as nations has anything like that depth.  Which makes them far more vulnerable to internal disunion and far less able to tolerate diversity safely.  There's a sense in which they are fragile, or potentially fragile.

(The UK is a different sort of hybrid, England, Wales, and Scotland are old, the UK is much younger, and tensions are emerging along the fracture lines that would have been seen as unthinkable just 50 years ago.)

[Johnny1A]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 7:56:46 PM UTC-5, Þorkell Sigvaldason wrote:

The first point that came to mind is that about 150 years ago significantly less than 50% of the population of France spoke the language we know as French. There are still regional dialects in France, but there many many more who speak French.

To add to my point, that's exactly what the independence-minded Catalans (and some others) are afraid of.  They don't want their language, outlook, culture, etc. to become a regional dialect, to be more-or-less subsumed into Spain.   Yet 'Spain' must want exactly that.  The national interest of Spain as a whole is served by the Catalans (and other distinctive subcultures) becoming assimilated into a common Spanish-ness.

So the question to some degree boils down to "Am I a Catalan or a Spaniard?"  Optimists insist that there is no contradiction, history and experience tell us that they are to some degree exclusive.  One identity must take precedence.

[Johnny1A]

The Catalans (or at least their regional government) appear to be backing down, at least for the moment, though it's not clear whether this is a full-bore backdown or just a tactical stall.  The head of the Catalan state seems to have agreed to 'delay' the declaration of independence pending 'talks' with the central government in Madrid...whatever that means.

For their part, the Spanish government under Rajoy is saying that any talks must preclude independence a priori.  So it's not exactly clear where this goes from here.

A complicating aspect of it all is the EU factor.  Brussels came down firmly against secession, and the Spanish government declared that they were acting 'in the principles of the EU' against Catalonia.  Which complicates matters because it adds a new dimension to the debate.  For ex, I could easily imagine a Spanish nationalist being against Catalonian secession...but in the name of Spain, not the EU.  I could even imagine someone who might otherwise side with Spain siding with Catalonia on precisely that point.

Conversely, one reason so many national subcultures and regions have been thinking seriously about such declarations over the last 15 years or so is the existence of the EU in the first place, the perception that 'well, we'd still be part of the EU' and that the EU removes the risk of national warfare or predation among its member-states.  The EU has even tacitly encouraged a certain amount of this sort of thinking at times.

But with Brexit underway (at least in some form), the EU is suddenly nervous about stability and precedents.  So I don't think they're going to be very sympathetic to Catalonia for a while (Scotland might be another matter, or might not).

[Johnny1A]

Now it gets complicated in Spain.  The Catalans haven't exactly backed down, but they've calmed down, or at least hesitated.  Now the politicians in Madrid have to decide exactly how to respond, and in this sort of situation that's devilishly tricky.  Underreact and look weak and encourage more of the same, overreact and maybe alienate people initially on your side and possibly turn a contained problem into a big one.

History holds plenty of examples of both phenomena.

They're talking in Madrid about suspending the Catalan regional government, which is probably technically legal under the Spanish constitution, but is likely to turn some of those Catalans who oppose the independence effort against the central government.  OTOH, it's not clear that there's much short of that that will have any effect at all.

Nor is it exactly clear what the emotional investment among the Catalans is.  The Spanish government keeps asserting that most Catalans oppose independence, the secessionists maintain it's not so.  In fact, it might be that there's a substantial subgroup that oppose independence...but have no love for Spain in particular, or who might be against independence but also consider themselves 'Catalans first'.

OTOH, those Catalans who are firmly pro-Spanish or anti-independence, if they feel neglected or disregarded by the central government if it underreacts...they might lose resolve and start thinking the secessionists have a point.

I do not envy Rajoy this one.

[Þorkell Sigvaldason]

In the recent vote those who favored remaining a part of Spain mostly boycotted the vote because the vote had been deemed illegal. So there apparently is a sizable group of voters in Catalonia which might not favor independence and didn't vote. Whether that group is big enough to have turned that YES into a NO I have no idea. 

[Warren Ellis]

Isn't the Catalan Independence vote illegal, especially due to the fact Catalan ratified the constitution that made it illegal in the first place?

I don't feel much sympathy toward the Catalan independence movement for the fact that they were part of those who ratified and accepted the document that eaid seccession attempts are illegal.

[Aaron Pollock]

And now the Catalonian parliament has officially voted for independence. I can’t see this ending well for anyone.

And apropos of nothing, my spellcheck tried to correct “Catalonia” to “Stalinism”. I hope that’s not a portent.

[Þorkell Sigvaldason]

I presume you're talking about Section 2 of the Constitution of Spain, where it says: "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."

Of course, if the Catalans don't see themselves as part of the Spanish Nation or that their territory is part of "the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards..." there might be a problem. 

Link to the Constitution of Spain

[Johnny1A]

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 11:42:05 PM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

Isn't the Catalan Independence vote illegal, especially due to the fact Catalan ratified the constitution that made it illegal in the first place?  I don't feel much sympathy toward the Catalan independence movement for the fact that they were part of those who ratified and accepted the document that eaid seccession attempts are illegal.

So was the American Revolution.  And the Confederate secession in the USA.  So was the French Revolution, and the Bourbon Restoration.  So was the overthrow of Charles I and the restoration of Charles II.  So was the secession of Panama from Columbia.  And on and on and on.

Past a certain point, it all depends on who you ask whether something is legal or not, and the 'who' that matters is the winner.

I have no strong views about the dispute as such, I don't know enough about local conditions, the history, or the 'players' to venture an opinion about who is in the right.  I do hope this doesn't boil up and over into a disaster, and I don't consider that outcome by any means impossible.

If I'm right in my assessment that the world has entered one of the periodic crisis periods that come along every so often, lots of things that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago could easily happen now.  I also recall that in previous crisis periods, a common prelude to catastrophe was that everybody figured their opponents would 'of course' back down, rather than cross this or that unthinkable line...only to see line after line crossed.

[Johan Larson]

I would guess that very few documents of union and constitutions and what-not specify exit conditions. Nothing in Canadian law did, when the modern Quebec separatist movement got going in the 60s. Way after the fact, the government put the question to the Supreme Court, which affirmed that provinces can in fact leave. But this was after the issue had already been voted on once.

I think Spain would do well to follow Canada's example on this issue. Be open to secession by democratic process, but clamp down hard on any attempt to do so by force.

[Johnny1A]

This is starting to look like a chronic condition rather than an emergency, but one that could yet flare up.

The president of the Catalan region has fled to Belgium, and Spain wants him extradited, or at least the Rajoy government wants him extradited.  His presence in Belgium is causing issues there, too.

Belgium is actually a federation of two regions, Flanders and Wallonia.  They speak different languages, and in recent years have diverged economically.  There is considerable sentiment for independence in Flanders, the federal state is increasingly paralyzed by the internal divisions.  Now they've got President Puigdemont, with Spain wanting him extradited, while a lot of secessionists in Belgium see Catalonia as a sort of test run or precedent-setter.

The unionists in Belgium see Catalonia (and Scotland too) as potential precedent-setters, and for that very reason want the Catalan independence movement squelched post-haste.  They'd probably be happy to deliver Puigdemont  to Madrid gift-wrapped.

Brussels itself is physical located in Flanders, though it's legally a separate entity.  That's another complication for the EU, because if Flanders ever seceded from Belgium, or there was a 'divorce' to break up the Belgian state, then the capitol city of the EU would suddenly be located in a new sovereign polity that might or might not be legally part of the EU.  Even of the wanted to be in the EU there would be legal issues about status, and any choices made would set precedents the eurocrats really  don't want to set.

You can bet that eyes in Scotland are watching what happens now closely, possibly also northern Italy and eastern Europe (for different reasons).

[Þorkell Sigvaldason]

Uh, there are three regions in Belgium. Flanders, Wallonia, and the Brussels Capital Region. Granted the BCR is entirely surrounded by Flanders, but it is it's own region, so if Flanders divorced from Belgium there's no reason to assume that BCR would go with Flanders.

[Johnny1A]

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 10:51:37 AM UTC-6, Þorkell Sigvaldason wrote:

Uh, there are three regions in Belgium. Flanders, Wallonia, and the Brussels Capital Region. Granted the BCR is entirely surrounded by Flanders, but it is it's own region, so if Flanders divorced from Belgium there's no reason to assume that BCR would go with Flanders.

In theory, sure.  In practice?  If Flanders were its own region, but not part of the EU, then the EU capitol would be in a territorial enclave surrounded by foreign soil.  All sorts of practical issues could arise from that.  Nor is it clear whether or not Brussels would be the capitol of Wallonia in that case, or not.  On paper its an easy problem to solve, in reality it's a huge can of worms.

The EU would probably prefer, in that case, to let Flanders be an EU member (assuming they wanted that) as easily as possible.  But that sets nasty precedents with regard to Catalonia, Scotland, and northern Italy, where the EU government does not want to give the idea that maintaining EU membership is easy after such breakups...except possibly in Scotland, depending on how Brexit unfolds.

So it would be in their interest to make life both easy and hard on an independent Flanders, but Flanders could make life hard on a recalcitrant EU, too, if the EU capitol was contained entirely inside Flanders territory. 

I suspect that there are a lot of Eurocrats and government officials who regard the secession movements much as American elites regard Trump and his supporters, silently chanting to themselves 'Make it go away, make it go away'.

[Þorkell Sigvaldason]

One of the options mentioned in the whole Scotland situation connected with BREXIT is that Scotland would leave the EU with the UK, then split from the UK and when that is done apply for EU membership. As far as I can see this is the path with the fewest complications but the one that will take the most time. If BREXIT goes through it will be in 2019, assume a year or so for Scotland to split from the UK and then a fairly quick accession to the EU. There's no reason to think that the process would be any different for Flanders (where FWIW I think you're reading way too much into it) or Catalonia.

[Johnny1A]

Well,  the regional election was held in Catalonia...and the separatists appear to have won.  Maybe not an outright, total controlling majority, but enough that they can clearly be call the winners of the election.  Which means...well, nobody is sure what that precisely means now.

The federal government in Madrid still maintains its overall authority, the separatists are not 100% clear on what they think it means.  There are still arrest warrants out, or potentially out, for the Catalonian head of government, if he returns to Spain.  It's not clear that that the separatist win in the election is precisely a mandate for independence.  It might be more of an 'up yours' to the current administration in Madrid.  But it's certainly not a mandate for return to the former status quo, whatever else it might be.

Some of this might be attributable to 'overreach' or 'overreaction' on the part of the Madrid government.  Certainly some observers are spinning it that way.  But I don't know that it's true.

Either way, a lot of business groups and interests are showing signs of pulling out of Catalonia, business hates instability.

All that's clear is that the situation is unstable.