mjr wrote:Psamathe wrote:mjr wrote:Does it? Think carefully: do you want to argue that Franco's Fundamental Laws (under which the constitution drafters were elected) were a democractic decision-making system? Or that a referendum offering only a choice between the flawed constitution and continuing the Franco-era system gives democratic legitimacy to it?
Also, doesn't a UN Resolution (the right to self-determination) overrule what Spain claims to be law (no possibility of self-determination)?
I don't know if UN resolutions override Spanish constitution. If it does (or there is a case to be heard that it does), take it to court and fight the Constitution. You can't just have one part of a country unilaterally deciding that part of the Constitution that does not fit their personal ideology can be just ignored as though it did not exist.
Why not? Isn't what self-determination essentially is: one part of a country unilaterally deciding that part(s) of a Constitution that does not fit their shared ideology can be ignored?
Psamathe wrote:I'm not arguing for or against or justifying Franco's anything, UN's anything, Spanish anything, Catalonian anything, Barcelona's anything. I'm suggesting that the Constitution needs to be obeyed and if there are conflicts then take those to court and have the matter resolved and don't just have some people breaking the law/ignore bits of the Constitution that do not suit their personal aims at the time.
You are effectively arguing that the Franco system was democratic when you say that the current Spanish constitution was decided democratically - and that's ignoring Franco's exiling and executing Catalan nationalists in the 1930s-40s: "[1930s Catalan President] Companys is the only incumbent democratically elected president in European history to have been executed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llu%C3%ADs_Companys - their numbers and influence will still have been depleted when the current Spanish constitution was drafted in the 1970s. Do you think it's still democratic if the electorate to which the result applies (apparently forevermore according to the Spanish constitution) still bears the scars of ethnic cleansing?
Trying to delay Catalan self-determination by tying it up in court cases would be immoral and illegal. It's a very negative approach.
As I've seen it reported, Spain got together a Constitution and had a referendum about it an dit was accepted.
I thought the Spanish Constitution was passed by referendum in 1978 and Franco died in 1975.
I'm just arguing for rule of law and not having different groups deciding to ignore laws or bits of constitutions that do not suit their personal agendas.
Should Mclaren F1 drivers decide they can ignore speed limits because they are good drivers and their cars can handle the speed safely?
The idea of laws is that people obey them or argue/challenge them through due process to have them legally changed or rejected.
How can a country have a rule of law if different people/regions decide that they don't like some of those laws and so just break them - result is no law.
As I said earlier I'm not arguing about Frano, Spain, Catalonia, Barcelona or anything, just that if you have laws either obey them or have them changed. You keep throwing in about Franco, democracy, Catalan Nationals, ethnic clensing, etc. but bottom line is that Spain has a legal system and laws that apply to the entire country with no option for bits to be ignored for the personal ideologies for specific regions/cities.
I neither argue that Spanish law is morally right nor wrong. If Spain wants to keep or change it's laws then that's the business of Spain and the Spanish people. But it is the law.
Ian