Quote: (10-08-2017 08:53 PM)Mekorig Wrote:
Leonard, the "YES" vote got about 2.044.038 of a totally questioned total of 5.313.564. A very dubious voting, were you can vote in multiple places, or already filled ballot boxes present. The voting was a sham made by a very corrup political leader that use the independentism to avoid going to jail for their illegal bank accounts in Andorra.
It was very dubious indeed. On the morning of the vote, the separatists announced their ‘
universal census’, which allowed one to vote wherever one pleased. This was quickly taken down by the Civil Guards, leading to the manual recording of votes ― and I needn’t explain why such disorder would be conducive towards an effectively indefensible result. Small towns were reporting vote counts
above their entire population; a well-known example is Palol de Revardit, in Girona, where the turnout was
283.05 per cent. When confronted, the separatists argued these excess electors were merely neighbouring residents who feared ‘police repression’ in other towns. This, however, is nothing compared to the
street-side voting, where no control whatsoever existed.
There also reports, as you say, of people
voting multiple times and of
boxes being pre-filled, as if anticipating the result. Many have filmed themselves voting multiple times, providing us with additional proof of the results’ worthlessness. All pretence of democratic validity was renounced with the abolition of the
Sindicatura Electoral, ostensibly established to guard the illicit referendum’s transparency. Few have noted that the abolition of this organ
(a) made any legal guarantees inconceivable and
(b) stood in violation of the Law on the Referendum on Self-determination. The Generalitat may boast of the doubtlessly inflated ‘yes’ count and neglect to mention the doubtlessly inflated, yet insufficient, turnout, but it is clear that their greatest victory on 1 October was in the realm of publicity and their international depiction, especially in view of their temporary success at having
l’Estat espanyol catalogued as some sort of autocratic, extra-European state.
Many here do not seem to have brought the legal question into consideration; they have assumed, it seems, that there is an irrevocable and absolute right to self-determination (and, consequently, to secession) that allows all bodies politic to be ceaselessly dismembered as the fickle crowd sees fit. This is an error. States naturally seek to protect their territorial integrity, and it is entirely legitimate for them to do so; no-one, after all, speaks ills of Finland for retaining the now-demilitarised Åland Islands, and though loyalties may vary, one finds many defending Serbia’s claim to Kosovo or Georgia’s to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
If these settings are too exotic or sour, let us return to the Mediterranean. The United Kingdom and Spain have a long-standing dispute over Gibraltar; the former, despite vigorously defending its claim, does accept two limitations resulting from Spain’s right of first refusal:
(a) Gibraltar cannot be a made a constituent country of the UK, like Wales or Scotland, and
(b) it cannot be granted independence. Thus, even Westminster, which allowed the independence referendum in Scotland, accepts that international law recognises the aforementioned limitations to the right to self-determination of peoples.
If this were insufficient, one need only employ the words of the the Canadian Supreme Court, which, in its
Reference re Secession of Quebec, wrote: ‘The various international documents that support the existence of a people’s right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state’s territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states.’ Canada, of course, permitted two secession plebiscites; unlike Spain, it was born a
confederation. But, the point stands: Spain’s constitutionally enshrined indivisibility is nothing exceptional; indeed, France (Article 89), Germany (Article 21), Italy (Article 5), Norway (Article 1), and
Estonia (Article 2) have constitutions entrenching their borders and forms of government.
I think I’ve over-extended myself, but if anyone’s interested, I can write paragraphs upon paragraphs dismissing the notion of a historical Catalan identity based around separation from Spain. History ― the extension and configuration of the
Spanish March, James I’s sayings, the fervently patriotic poetry of the Renaixença, the laurels of the Catalan volunteers in Morocco, Balmes, Verdaguer, &c ― makes the endeavour quite easy; the historiographic deformation of recent years, whilst perverse, is easily refutable. If my legal reasoning does not suffice, I can cite more opinions and more constitutions, including that of Switzerland.
Before anyone accuses me of being a Castilian oppressor, I’ll say one thing: I am Basque with some PNV-voting relatives. I should add that I don’t care for liberal constitutions or the tawdry spectacle of democracy. My preferred system is more atavistic, for Hispanicity is more suited to
fueros than Jacobinism.