This police crackdown will only increase the international and public opinion support to Catalonian independence. Bad move, Spain.

Insane response from the Spanish. What were they thinking.

I'm a Spanish republican and strongly disagree with those seeking independence (I think provinces should possess complete autonomy if they so wish but should remain integrated with the country to some extent i.e. there should be no border, share a passport, pay some taxes, and help elect the federal government).

That said, the Spanish conservatives are so fantastically backwards they have made it very difficult to find some sort of middle ground... their admiration for the use of force, control, and repression is nothing short of repulsive, and it's hard to blame catolonyans for wanting to depart even if for that reason alone.

Fools.

I share your views, RC8. Don't think we need more borders, more nation states. Its always wrapped in freedom but usually results in the opposite. This is the worst way to go about dealing with it, though.

The people of Catalonia have a right to self determination IMO.

But the controversy was not sparked by a desire for self-determination. It would be fallacious to say that that's why things have gotten so out of control.

Pro-independence forces are basically rogue catalan Brexiters, who proposed an unconstitutional referendum to settle the issue once and for all and with no parliamentary debate (even within the Catalonian parliament!).

I don't think Brexit was an example of democracy and self-determination and the catalan version is somehow worse. If asking misinformed people to vote yes or no on an arbitrary extremist proposal in a poorly regulated referendum is 'democracy', I don't care for it.

Still, I don't condone the pathetic spanish government response to the whole thing.

Clrnc wrote:

I don't get why can't Spain let them hold a legal vote. This is illegal, but if the conservatives let them hold it they might not lose. It was more of 50-50.

But now after all these police violence, everyone will want Catalonia to go solo.

Part of the problem is that Spain has an excellent proportional representation legislative system where every vote counts. 

For those of us who understand democratic processes on those terms, the idea of a referendum to settle an issue as delicate as this one is bizarre. 

Referendums are far more palatable to those used to first-past-the-post electoral systems where the winner takes all.

There is no such thing as a perfect democracy and nor will there ever be -it's always a compromise. You'll have rogue parties pulling at the threads of society whether you're in the US, the UK or Spain - it's normal.

But painting 43% who voted one way or the other as misinformed never ends well because, frankly, no one is ever fully informed when they cast their vote anyway but that's as close as you'll get. Plus referendums tend to attract a higher turnout than average so you'll have a high degree of voter engagement to compensate for any misinformation spreading. At the very least they get to lie in the beds that they make and it's a lot better to deal with a couple of years of chaos than have this hang over everyone's head for a life time which is likely what this will end up being.

Moreover, both Quebec and the Scottish referendums have shown that it is possible to handle in a reasonable manner and tackle the problem head on.

Coombs wrote:

I share your views, RC8. Don't think we need more borders, more nation states. Its always wrapped in freedom but usually results in the opposite.

Does it though? I don't have any studies or numbers but I always feel (depending on circumstance) governing a smaller population with shared interests is easier.

For example, I would totally understand if HK went independent and can see how that would suit the local population.

Mirth wrote:

There is no such thing as a perfect democracy and nor will there ever be  -it's always a compromise. You'll have rogue parties pulling at the threads of society whether you're in the US, the UK or Spain - it's normal.

But painting 43% who voted one way or the other as misinformed never ends well because, frankly, no one is ever fully informed when they cast their vote anyway but that's as close as you'll get. Plus referendums tend to attract a higher turnout than average so you'll have a high degree of voter engagement to compensate for any misinformation spreading. At the very least they get to lie in the beds that they make and it's a lot better to deal with a couple of years of chaos than have this hang over everyone's head for a life time which is likely what this will end up being.

Moreover, both Quebec and the Scottish referendums have shown that it is possible to handle in a reasonable manner and tackle the problem head on.

I think the problem is not how people vote in a referendum, it's the referendum itself and its winner-takes-all implications. It's a terrible way to settle conflicts, it leads to polarisation and gives the ideal platform for these rogue parties to battle each other out with nonsense arguments on both sides.

If a region wants to enjoy greater autonomy it makes sense that they may collectively decide that this is so, and that they may gradually acquire more autonomy. If that doesn't work for them, they might seek greater levels of autonomy, etc. They might end up as an independent country or region eventually, but the transition will have ensured that other stakeholders' interests were also taken into account to some extent.

I lived both in the United States and Canada, and I find that the Canadian path to independence was far more enriching than the American independence, for example. 

Mirth wrote:

There is no such thing as a perfect democracy and nor will there ever be  -it's always a compromise. You'll have rogue parties pulling at the threads of society whether you're in the US, the UK or Spain - it's normal.

But painting 43% who voted one way or the other as misinformed never ends well because, frankly, no one is ever fully informed when they cast their vote anyway but that's as close as you'll get. Plus referendums tend to attract a higher turnout than average so you'll have a high degree of voter engagement to compensate for any misinformation spreading. At the very least they get to lie in the beds that they make and it's a lot better to deal with a couple of years of chaos than have this hang over everyone's head for a life time which is likely what this will end up being.

Moreover, both Quebec and the Scottish referendums have shown that it is possible to handle in a reasonable manner and tackle the problem head on.

Spot on. I don't agree with the rhetoric of the Brexit campaign but I disagree with the idea that it wasn't democratic. The majority of British voters chose to leave the EU, if thats not self determination what is? You can't just discount it because there was a load of shitty propaganda involved. Every election and referendum has plenty of misinformation.

RC8 wrote:

I think the problem is not how people vote in a referendum, it's the referendum itself and its winner-takes-all implications. It's a terrible way to settle conflicts, it leads to polarisation and gives the ideal platform for these rogue parties to battle each other out with nonsense arguments on both sides.

If a region wants to enjoy greater autonomy it makes sense that they may collectively decide that this is so, and that they may gradually acquire more autonomy. If that doesn't work for them, they might seek greater levels of autonomy, etc. They might end up as an independent country or region eventually, but the transition will have ensured that other stakeholders' interests were also taken into account to some extent.

I lived both in the United States and Canada, and I find that the Canadian path to independence was far more enriching than the American independence, for example. 

I understand where you're coming from but the reason you'd hold a referendum in the first place is when it's a highly contentious issue which almost evenly splits the population that the government cannot (or will not) make a decision on. In that case does it really make a difference if you vote with your head or your heart?

This was definitely the case behind the Brexit vote but also as far back as 90s with Danish referendums on the EU and the French referendum. In all cases these were serious matters around national sovereignty that the government felt was too political toxic to make and - by its very nature - a winner takes all scenario. And now those results (which were extremely close) ended up shaping the Europe you see today. By contrast, if the UK had a referendum in 1992 - I would argue that we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. Instead what we saw was closer to what you described - a half in, half out slow transition that pleased no one and frustrated many - in Europe and locally.

I don't want to talk about Spain and Catalonia since obviously I'm not in tune with the whole history behind this but I agree that the solution you put forward is a more suitable way of gaining independence but how likely is that to happen?

Referendums are great entertainment.

I don't think that majority rule decisions are in the spirit of democracy at all. In fact, I'd say they are entirely anti-democratic and should be seen as the exclusionary, mob-rule, and (usually) nationalist, regressive, and fascistic processes that they really are.

Anything that essentially provides the same level of nuanced decision-making as a civil war is very stupid to willfully impose on a people.

I think that's veering into hyperbole territory. Switzerland have held 180 referendums in the last 20 years and I doubt you'd accuse them of any of the above!

As ever the criticism should lie with the implementation rather than the theory.

Sure, if majority rule was the only way a country made decisions, then yes it's prone to being hijacked and subverted but that's true of most other forms of government. However, it can also be useful in forcing governments to make decisions they would otherwise be unwilling to make - which is usually the context in which they are deployed.

For instance, the Brexit vote was shambolic but I don't think the decision to hold a referendum was wrong since it was a topic that was dividing the country for a while and either outcome would alienate a large proportion of the country. However, it was organised incredibly poorly with very little preparation being made before hand. Equally, for an example of a referendum that was held successfully, I'd point out the Scottish independence referendum which was well organised and the outcomes were debated beforehand with a relatively clear plan of action in plan - certainly the contrast with what's happening in Spain is stark. In the case of Switzerland, referendums do lead to inconvenient and embarrassing positions - but, from what I gather, it forces them to compromise and come to a more nuanced position after all.

The country is probably more split now than it was before re Brexit, the only real difference is both sides view each other with disdain.

The reality is a large proportion of the population vote without knowing what they’re really voting for and as Brexit and Trump have shown they’re far more likely to be swayed by bullshit than anything else. They don’t give a shit about what the experts say. I personally find the idea of putting the fate of a country in the form of referendums in the hands of the people rather terrrifying.

People need to be reempowered politically, but I'm not convinced majoritarian democracy is the way to do it.

I am convinced, however, that the population's political maturity has a lot to do with its ability to effect change. Powerless people have childish politics.

I like referenda. We have them anytime a change in the constitution is required. So for instance we had the gay marriage referendum a couple of years ago. Our next referendum will about an amendment in the constitution that bans abortion in basically all circumstances. No system is perfect but I'd rather allow the electorate to decide on these things than politicians who are terrified of making changes that will anger small, powerful lobbies.