Tag: EU

Civil resistance in Catalonia

The Spanish government’s attempt to send in the Guardia Civil is being resisted by Catalonian dockworkers as well as the regional government.

More than 4,000 members of Spain’s Guardia Civil are being dispatched to the troubled region amid concerns over divided loyalties in the autonomous community’s own police force, the Mossos d’ Esquadra. Spanish authorities wanted to house the Guardia Civil officers on four cruise ships – two in Barcelona, one in Tarragona and another in Palamos.

But as thousands took to the streets to protest against the detention of Catalan officials, local dock workers joined the backlash. The Assembly of Stevedores of the Port of Barcelona announced that workers would not provide any services to boats carrying security forces, a decision it said was taken “in defence of civil rights”.

Colleagues in Tarragona quickly followed suit and the Catalan government then denied permission to dock in Palamos – which, unlike Barcelona and Tarragona, falls under regional rather than national control.

The moves to disrupt the deployment comes amid seething anger in Catalonia over the arrests of 14 people, most of them high ranking Catalan officials, during preparations for a referendum that has been declared illegal by Spain’s constitutional court.

Dramatic scenes unfolded across Barcelona and other Catalan towns as the Guardia Civil mounted 41 raids targeting government and presidential departments, as well as warehouses containing election material.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs and legalities of the matter that have been debated here over the past few days, it is apparent that the Catalonian secessionists are currently winning at the moral level of war despite the relative restraint of the Spanish government. This would suggest that they will continue to gain support from previously neutral parts, within and without Catalonia.

Hotel Catalonia

In Spain, you can vote out, but you can never leave. It seems only fair to give the Spanish government’s side to the question of Catalonian secession and its recent actions in response to the Catalonians.

After learning about the searches and arrests made on Wednesday morning by the Civil Guard at various Catalan government agencies, regional premier Carles Puigdemont called a news conference to convey his position to the public opinion and the media. The gravity, but above all the falseness of the accusations that he made, now force us to debunk them one by one, for the sake of rigor and freedom of information. We believe it to be a basic tenet of democracy that public authorities cannot lie to citizens with impunity.

1. “The government of the Generalitat has today been the target of a coordinated aggression by the Interior Ministry’s police forces.”

False: the searches and arrests conducted on Wednesday inside various government agencies were carried out by the Civil Guard, not on the orders of the Interior Ministry or of the Prosecutor’s Office – rather, it was on the order of the judge at Barcelona’s 13th investigative court, as a result of legal proceedings that began a long time ago. As such, the Civil Guard acted in its role of “judicial police.”

2. The goal of the operation was to “suspend the activities of the (Catalan) government,” a government that holds “democratic legitimacy.” 

False. The Catalan government’s activities in all areas where it has devolved powers by virtue of the regional charter, the Estatut (education, health and so on), have not been suspended. The Catalan government has no power to organize a secessionist referendum and it knows this; the Constitutional Court has informed it of this fact. So there has been no suspension of the Catalan government’s activities. On the other hand, while it is true that the Catalan government was appointed by a majority of the deputies who were elected at the regional election of September 27, 2015, this kind of legitimacy (which does not even represent a majority of the people who voted that day) does not give them a mandate to repeal the Estatut or to organize activities that violate the law, as the Constitutional Court has also reminded the Govern. What defines a democracy is not the existence of majorities – all political regimes have them – but rather the fact that democracies cannot disobey the law with impunity. The Catalan government has no power to organize a secessionist referendum and it knows this

3. “This aggression lacks legal backing,” it “violates the rule of law” and the European Charter of Rights, and is “a de facto suspension of self-government and a de facto application of a state of exception.”

It is all false. The police intervention not only took place under the aegis of the judiciary, it was in fact ordered by the latter and has the backing of the Constitutional Court. It therefore falls within the boundaries of the rule of law, of which the independence of the judiciary is a basic pillar (in contrast with the aim of the breakaway laws that were dictated by the secessionist bloc and later suspended by the courts). Nor can one say that Catalan home rule has been suspended, since nobody has invoked Section 155 of the Constitution, which would allow central authorities to temporarily intervene in Catalonia’s affairs. What’s not been applied either is the National Security Law, which would allow the government to take over all law enforcement agencies. There is no state of exception, because not a single civil right has been suspended, as shown by the freely exercised freedom of demonstration on the streets of Barcelona to protest acts ordered by the judiciary.

4. Various acts including “indiscriminate raids, even inside private homes” and other measures such as “the closure and blocking of websites” represent “an assault on democracy.” 

False: the searches on Wednesday were not indiscriminate, they were individualized as part of the judicial police’s operation. And it was the prosecutor’s office, following the Constitutional Court’s resolutions, that ordered the closure of a website that aimed to apply a law (passed on September 6 to facilitate the referendum) that had already been suspended by the Constitutional Court; the website provided details about the illegal ballot and instructions on how to carry it out.

5. “We condemn and reject the totalitarian and antidemocratic attitude of the Spanish State” and after its actions “we consider that the (central) government has crossed the red line separating it from authoritarian and repressive regimes” and that “it doesn’t respect the chief elements of democracy.”

This accusation is not new. Carles Puigdemont has previously argued that, politically speaking, Spain is like Turkey. But the reverse is the case: Puigdemont is, like Erdogan, the one who is shielding himself behind the majority, ignoring the separation of powers and breaking the law, violating the Constitution and the Estatut and using the institutions to push forward an illegal referendum without guarantees. Spain, a member of the European Union, is recognized as a democracy by all the relevant international organizations. The announcement of the ballot is the culmination of a project to repeal constitutional democracy

6. “We citizens have been called to the polls on October 1 to defend democracy in the face of a repressive and intimidating regime.” 

False: the announcement of the ballot is not about defending democracy, but rather about the culmination of a project to repeal constitutional democracy, to repeal the charter of self-government; and to cause the fragmentation of the Spanish rule of law, as embodied in the suspended breakaway laws paving the way for a referendum and for the transition to an independent republic, which were approved in the regional Catalan parliament on September 6 and September 8, 2017 inside a chamber that was half empty as most opposition deputies walked out in protest against the fact that their parliamentary rights were being denied. Intimidation has been carried out by secessionist groups, among them the radical left-wing CUP party, which has put up posters with photos of Catalan mayors and councilors who are in favor of compliance with democratic law.

7. “We are defending the right of Catalans to freely decide their future” 

The assumption that Catalans currently cannot decide their future in free elections is false: they have participated in 35 fully democratic elections since 1977 (at the local, regional, national and European levels) and in three referendums (the ratification of the Spanish Constitution and, on two occasions, of the Catalan Estatut); they enjoy self-government; and the region’s parties are fully present inside the Spanish Congress and Senate (and in the European Parliament, as Spaniards), as well as in many other public institutions.

8. “What is happening in Catalonia isn’t happening anywhere else in the European Union” 

This is the only assertion by Puigdemont that is actually accurate. Unfortunately, in the European Union we have nationalist leaders in both Hungary and Poland who want to put an end to the separation of powers and revoke the systems of laws and liberties currently in force. Luckily, as is also the case with Catalonia, this type of behavior has no place in the EU.

I can’t say I find this to be a convincing refutation of the Catalonian people’s right to self-determination, but I will note that by the Spanish government’s standard, it is very clear that neither the USA nor the EU subscribe to the basic tenets of democracy.

Crackdown and resistance in Catalonia

Spain is cracking down on the Catalonian secessionists, causing more neutrals to support secession:

I just got of the phone with Josep Maria Sole Sabaté, my friend and a leading Catalan historian and public intellectual. He was nothing short of breathless as he described the helicopters  flying overhead stated flatly that he was in the the midst of a coup being carried out by the Spanish State.

He wanted to get in touch with me and others “out there”  because he was not sure how much longer free communication would be available to him and other out in the street protesting against he Spanish central government’s arrest of members of the Catalan Autonomous government.

As of this writing at least six agencies of the Catalan Government have been the object of forced police searches and thirteen, mostly mid-level members of the Catalan government have been arrested.

The homes of two the leading architects of the incipient Catalan state,  Carles Viver Pi i Sunyer and ex Spanish judge Santi Vidal, have been searched by police.  The headquarters of the far-left CUP, part of the pro-vote coalition in the Catalan Parliament, has been surrounded by police.

The leader of the Catalan National Congress Jordi Sanchez and the head of Omnium, a major Catalan cultural organization, Jordi Cuixart, has called Catalans to come into the streets and they have responded with a massive presence.

The mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who has been  highly ambivalent regarding the referendum that is scheduled too take place on October 1st, has now come out firmly for the referendum and against the crackdown taking place.

This response would appear to increase the chances of what looked to be another failed vote for secession into violent separatism. It all feels a bit unreal, however, considering that the real struggle appears to be over which government has the right to collect subsidies from the European Union, the Spanish central government or the Catalonian regional government.

Catalonia: the litmus test

Is the globalist’s neo-liberal world order actually rooted in democracy or not? What happens in Catalonia over the next three months has the potential to completely unmask the neo-liberals’ dubious claims to democratic legitimacy:

One of those crises that no one saw coming is about to rear its head in a very unlikely locale: Catalonia, Spain’s richest province, where the local government has scheduled an independence referendum on October 1.  Of course, some observers – e,g, Julian Assange – did see it coming, but the current trend to find “fascists” under every bed in America may have obscured our ability to detect them where they really live – in Madrid, where the federal authorities are threatening to arrest Catalonian politicians who advocate independence.

Madrid has mobilized 4,000 police to stop the referendum. They are seizing election materials, shutting down web sites, and invading the offices of newspapers: they have threatened 700 pro-independence mayors with arrest and prosecution.

The Spanish position – upheld by the country’s Constitutional Court – is that only the federal authorities can call a referendum, and that in any case all Spanish voters, not just those resident in Catalonia, must be allowed to vote on the question of Catalonian independence. So much for the right of self-determination…. Catalonia’s bid for self-determination is an ideological litmus test, one that tells us everything we need to know about the main forces contending for power in the world. The reason is because the crisis is taking place on the terrain of Europe, in the very midst of the “free” West. Since forever and a day we have been told that the “democratic” West doesn’t commit acts of mass repression against their own people: that the right of “self-determination” is universal, and that that liberal democracy is not about to mimic the methods of, say, Slobodan Milosevic, and put down a popular uprising by force. These methods – they claim — are the exclusive province of “illiberal” regimes, like those in Russia, Belarus, and now Hungary, which has been moved into the “illiberal” camp by its refusal to allow an invasion by Middle Eastern migrants.

Except that the threats and repressive measures of “democratic” Spain have exposed this conceit as nonsense. As October 1 approaches, and Madrid prepares to crush the Catalonian revolution with brute force, the myth of the “democratic” West is being shaken to its foundations – with the growing prospect that violent repression will bring the whole dilapidated edifice down on the heads of the people, both Spaniards and Catalonians alike.

There are no shortage of good reasons to question the sensibilities and the wisdom of the Catalonian secessionists. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that Catalonians will be better off under self-rule than Spanish rule. But all of that is irrelevant with regards to the question of whether the neo-liberal world order stands, as it claims, on a foundation of democratic legitimacy, or if that is merely a false mask for the Divine Right of Moneylenders.

Catalonia’s case for independence

A summary of the conclusion of European legal experts on Catalonia’s case for independence:

As   a   result   of   their   research   and reflections,   the   authors   come   to   the  following conclusions and recommendations on the Right to Decide and the Catalan Government’s call for an independence referendum in October the 1st:

1. The   evolution   of   the   negotiating   process   between   the   Catalan   and   Spanish governments since the re-establishment of democracy in 1977 through time has allowed us to   identify   key   moments   of   a   deteriorating   political   relationship   where   the Spanish government has  gradually  renounced  the  accommodation  of  Catalan  territorial  demands. The evolution of this relationship sheds a new light on the tortuous path towards the legally binding referendum on political independence to be held on the 1st October 2017.

2. The upsurge  in territorial  demands  towards  political independencewas  put on the political  agenda  by  organized  Catalan  civil  society  immediately after  the  passing  of  the Constitutional  Tribunal  ruling  in  2010. Additionally,  there  has  been  a  clear  shift  in  popularterritorial  preferences, moving  from  preferences  asking  for  the  maintenance  of  the  current “status quo” to demands of “political independence,” irrespective of people’s age.

3. Catalan popular demand for a referendum on political independence has been largely justified by the democratic “Right  to  Decide”, which has evolved from the more traditional and  long-standing legal framework to the “national right to self-determination”. In other words, demands   for   political   independence   have   been   legitimized   by   a   democratic principle invested in the Catalan people, reinforced by the repeated denial to accommodate Catalonia’s demands by the Spanish government.

4. From   an   international   law   perspective,   it   appears   clearly that   there   is   no international legal prohibition barring a sub-state entity from deciding its political destiny by assessing the will of its people. Both case law and state practice support this conclusion. State  practice  demonstrates  that  numerous  geographically  diverse  sub-state  entities  have expressed  the  will  of  their  people  regarding  independence.  The  practice  occurs  both  with and  without  the  consent  of  the  national  state.  Many  sub-state  entities  have  achieved independence  after  assessing  the  political  will  of  their  people. EU  member  states  have recognized  many  former  sub-state entities that assessed their people’s political will and decided to pursue independence.

5. As  regards European  Law,  in  the  absence of  specific  Treaty provision  on the right  of Self-determination for a European people without a Statein the territory of the EU, EU law does  not  forbid  the  exercise  of  its  Right  to  Decide  for  a  European  people  within  the  EU. There  are  even  numerous  Treaty  provisions  that  indicate  that  if  such  Right  were  to  be exercised,  EU  and  its  member  States  would  react  positively  to  a  new  European  State candidacy  to  join  the  EU.  Recent  and  consistent  practice  clearly  points  that  way.  Further, both  as  a  collectively  exercised  human  right  and  as  a  fundamental  norm  of  international Law, EU recognizes the Right to Decide.

6. As  regard  the  constitutionality  of  the  claim  for  the  Right  to  Decide, it  is  necessaryfrom  an  empirical  viewpoint,  and  fruitful  from  a  normative  one, togive  up  the  quest  for  a supreme  constitutional  interpreter. What  is  crucialin  a  constitutional  state that  is  faithful to the ambitions of constitutionalism isthe ongoing dialogue about, and engagement with, constitutional values and principles. Only this will make the constitution a living document, infused by the competing interpretations of values and principles that, by their very nature, admit various readings and conceptions. The quest for the final word is useless, illusory and possibly lethal from the political viewpoint of a healthy deliberative community.

7. In  that  respect,  the  debate  is  much  more open  than  what  one  might  think  at  first sight   by   examining   too   rapidly   the   basic   features   of   contemporary   constitutionalism, especially as it is illustrated by the Spanish constitutional system. Far from being disruptive of  the  constitutional  project  that was  adopted  in  1978,  the  Catalan  claim  to  the  Right  to Decide  on  its  political  future  precisely  testifies  to  a  genuine  commitment  to  the  ongoing constitutional dialogue that is legitimate in an open society.That is why simply dismissing this claim as “unconstitutional” cannot be an attitude that lives up to the high standard of political morality that is imposed by the ideal of constitutionalism.

8. Democratic  legitimacy  at  Catalan  and  Spanish  levels  may  both  be  legitimate,  even though  the  principle  of  external  preference  limits  the  capacity  of  Spain  to  permanently oppose the democratic choice of Catalonia. However, when conflicting political legitimacies compete,  there  is  a  duty  for  democratic  authorities  to  negotiate.  This  is  confirmed  by  the observation  ofinternational  practice  that  in  almost  all  instances,  the  sub-state  entity  and national state negotiate the contours of the assessment of political will.

9. Further,  in  a  genuine  liberal  democracy,  rule  of  law  may  not  trump  democratic legitimacy, nor the other way around; therefore, in a modern democratic State, rule of law and  democratic  legitimacy  need  to  be  reconciled and  cannot  in  the  long  term  remain opposed.  In  the  context  of  a  vote  of  self-determination,  as  is  the  case,  the  national framework  will  inevitably  be  inappropriate  because  the  existing  democratic  processes  to address the issue did not allow for a solution or a process to emerge. A change of scale thus appears necessary by justifying either locally or internationally(or both)the organization of a  referendum. If  Spanish  national  Authorities  deny  the  right  to  Catalonia  to  negotiate  its Right  to  Decide  within  the  Spanish  political  framework,  then  the  only  path  left  for Catalonia’s Authorities is the call for a self-determination referendum.

10.Thus, whatever the conflicting claims of legitimacy put forward by the political actors, international   practice   and   transconstitutional   jurisprudence   show   that   successful   self-determination  processes  always  rely  at  some  point  on  a  negotiation  procedure.  In  that perspective, the experts recommend the exploration of an earned sovereignty negotiating process  within  the  framework  of  the  EU.  This  would  imply  involvement  by  EU  institutions; we consider it possible in the perspective of a negotiation within the EU, fully implying Spain in seeking for Catalonia a constrained sovereignty solution, as a full member of the EU.

It’s a strong point to say that a democratic State cannot simultaneously declare its legitimacy is based on democracy while attempting to deny democratic self-determination to a secession-minded part of its populace. Post-Brexit, the EU is much more likely to support this political fragmentation on the part of its member-states, since smaller microstates are far less likely to believe they can survive without being subject to the EU.

Self-determination in Spain

I wonder if the USA will intervene as energetically on behalf of the independence-seeking Catalans as it has on behalf of others who have successfully pursued self-determination:

Spanish prosecutors said on Thursday they would bring criminal charges against members of Catalonia’s parliament, as Madrid moved to crush the region’s plans for an independence referendum.

Separately, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said he had appealed to Spain’s Constitutional Court to declare the referendum illegal. The 1978 constitution states Spain is indivisible. “This vote will never take place,” he told a news conference. “In making the appeal, we are defending the rights of all Spaniards and all Catalans.”

A majority of Catalonia’s parliament voted on Wednesday to hold the Oct. 1 referendum, in an acrimonious session in which mainstream political parties left the chamber before the vote and pro-independence lawmakers sang the Catalan anthem.

The Constitutional Court has yet to rule on the matter but it declared a 2014 vote on independence illegal. The state prosecutor-general, Jose Manuel Maza, told reporters he had also asked the security forces to investigate any preparations by the Catalan government to hold the referendum. These could involve printing leaflets or preparing polling stations.

There is an air of unreality surrounding the entire affair. But really, if the Catalans genuinely want independence, why should they not have it? The Spanish government doesn’t appear to understand that it is calling its own democratic legitimacy into question.

Let’s face it, no one wants another Spanish civil war. The crazy thing is that an independent Catalonia would almost certainly turn around and demand admittance to the EU.

Border battles in the EU

Diversity and vibrancy suddenly don’t appear to be strengthening trans-European ties anymore:

AUSTRIA has warned it will send soldiers to close the border with Italy in 24 hours if Rome decides to take the “nuclear option” and grant visas to almost 100,000 migrants stranded in the Mediterranean country.

Austria is threatening to close the Brennan mountain pass border with Italy. Desperate Italian officials have said they are considering allowing thousands of migrants out of the country and into the rest of Europe, as they struggle to cope with the 10,000 people arriving every day.

Austria, which shares a border with Italy via Brenner, an Alpine mountain pass, has reacted to the proposals with fury, saying it would immediately introduce border controls in the region.

Yesterday during a border visit, Austria’s Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka said: “Italy granting humanitarian visas to migrants is unacceptable. In that case, we would immediately introduce controls in Brenner.

Let’s see. Option 1: border war with Austria. Option 2: send the invaders back. This really doesn’t seem to be a very difficult decision.

This isn’t an entirely new development. Switzerland already has troops in position on the border just north of Como; they sent a tank battalion to the Como-Chiasso border last year. Which, one assumes, is why we didn’t see pictures of invaders swarming up through Switzerland towards Germany despite it being an obvious route.

How to keep your country

Hungary moves even further to the right:

Hundreds of Hungarian right-wing militants gathered in Budapest to launch a political movement that they hope will run in next year’s parliamentary elections on a platform that includes open racism.

Hungary’s main opposition party, Jobbik, has been moving away from its far-right roots and is staking out a more centrist position. This has created space for new hard-right initiatives.

Three groups held a rally in the suburb of Vecsés labelled “unfurling the flag of the far right”. Although attendance was limited its leaders have reached a national audience in the media and plan to take part in the 2018 elections.

The movement, to be called Force and Determination, looks more radical than any organisation targeting a serious political role since the fall of communism, and uses openly racist language to oppose liberalism and immigration.

Balázs László, one of the movement’s leaders, told the crowd of mostly black-clad muscular, tattooed men that Europe showed an ill-conceived tolerance in the face of peril from its existing minorities and the influx of millions more people. “Tens of millions are added to the ranks of the Arabs, Africans and gypsies who will show no tolerance once they realise the power that their demographic significance lends them,” he said. “Our ethnic community must come first … there is no equality.”

That symbol is more than a little reminiscent of Generation Identitaire in France. What is remarkable about this development is that Hungary is already the best-governed nation in Europe, having been on the front lines against Islamic invasion for centuries. I mean, this is how the center-moderate government governs there.

Human rights groups have heavily criticised a vote by the Hungarian parliament to force all asylum seekers into detention camps as the country’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, called migration “a Trojan horse for terrorism”.

The asylum seekers will be kept in converted shipping containers while they wait for their cases to be heard via video-link as part of measures Orbán said were designed to save Europe. He considers the migrants, many of whom are Muslims, as a threat to European Christian identity and culture.

The measure was fiercely opposed by civil liberties groups in the country and some socialist MPs but was nevertheless passed overwhelmingly by 138 votes to six with 22 abstentions. Support came from Orbán’s Fidesz party and the far-right Jobbik.

It’s important to keep pushing right because as the nationalist parties of the right, the mere act of governance is going to necessitate various compromises. As long as an uncompromising element remains outside of governance, there will be political force to counteract the leftward drift towards ill-conceived tolerance.

And as Hungary grows and prospers while the more tolerant nations of Europe burn and are overwhelmed by rape and violence, the appeal of the Right is only going to grow. Does this look like Germany to you?

The Polish example

This speech in Poland by the God-Emperor sounds promising.

President Trump will ask other European nations to “take inspiration” from Poland, which has rejected refugee resettlement, in a speech later this week.

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told reporters Thursday that President Trump will deliver a speech in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square, which symbolizes Polish heroism. He is flying to Poland next Wednesday and stopping there before he attends the G20 summit in Hamburg.

McMaster said that Trump will deliver a “major speech” in which he will “praise Polish courage” and its “emergence as a European power.” The nation is currently ruled by a nationalist Christian party that has rejected refugee resettlement and mass immigration.

Of course, the President’s message would be more meaningful if he would follow the Polish example and reject refugee resettlement and mass immigration in the USA too.

The Czech example isn’t bad either:

The Czech parliament is working to liberalize the country’s gun laws, allowing people to better defend themselves. The reason for this new policy is safety, as well as practicality; in light of recent attacks in neighboring countries, the Czech government recognizes that disarming people puts them in danger, and that broad European gun control policies are ineffective. The Interior Minister said it best when he asked parliament to “show [him] a single terrorist attack in Europe perpetrated using a legally-owned weapon”.

Step one: stop the importation

The Mayor of Rome calls for a halt to migration:

Rome’s mayor, Virginia Raggi, on Tuesday asked the interior ministry for migrant arrivals to the capital to be suspended. “I find it impossible, as well as risky, to think up further accommodation structures,” said Raggi in a letter sent to Paola Basilone, the prefect of Rome, in which she called for a “moratorium” on further new arrivals.

The mayor cited as reasons for the request the “strong migratory presence” in the capital and “the continued influx of foreign citizens”.

According to the most recent figures published by the administration, on January 1st 2016 there were approximately 364,632 foreigners living in Rome, amounting to 12.7 percent of the total population.

This was more or less the same as the previous year, but represented an increase of 6.2 points since the year 2000. And according to the Roman Observatory on Migration, Lazio is the Italian region with the second highest number of migrants, outdone only by Lombardy.

Across Italy as a whole, around 8.3 percent of the population is foreign, according to Istat figures which were also released on Tuesday.

In Rome, around half of the foreign population were from Europe, with Romania the best represented country.

Stopping the inflow is the first step. The next step will be in the next 4-6 years, when the outflows begin.