There’s
more than a little irony in the way that some who have previously argued that
the EU has too much power over the affairs of member states are now suggesting
that the EU should have done more to intervene in the affairs of a member state
in support of the Catalans voting yesterday.
It underlines the reality of the EU – it is an organisation formed by a
coming together of member states, and those member states continue to hold the
real power. It’s the exact opposite of
what the Brexiteers told us. That an
organisation of member states supports the position of those member states
should be no surprise to anyone; it’s an argument both for becoming a full
member state and for greater democratization of the organisation.
Those controlling states
invariably believe that they are part of the natural order of things, and that
they are – or should be – eternally indivisible wholes. That’s as true for Spain as it is for the UK,
and in both cases the central authorities attempt to justify their actions by
demanding that everyone accept their definition of national identity. So the British nationalists in the UK demand
that we accept that the nation is the UK and that other identities are of lesser
validity in the same way as the centralists in Spain demand that all within the
territory of Spain accept that they are Spanish. And both seek to retain current boundaries
and authority.
Unfortunately
for them, people don’t always feel the sense of identity that they are told to
feel, and many of us feel quite relaxed about having different and overlapping
identities at the same time. But
identity isn’t the only determinant of what is or should be a state; more
important even than that is the idea that the people living in any area
ultimately have the absolute right to decide how they shall be governed, by
majority decision. It means that there
are two, and only two, methods of holding existing states together. The first is by the consent of the people and
the second is by the use of force.
Yesterday, the central authorities in Spain abandoned all pretence at
following the former of those routes in favour of resorting to the latter.
Can
it work? Well, history teaches us that
it has usually worked for long periods in the past; most modern states were
formed and subsequently held together largely by the application of force and
often appalling levels of violence over decades or even centuries. But that was in the past: I doubt that a
twenty-first century ‘democracy’ can effectively maintain unity for long by the
use of force in an age where the reality of events is immediately known across
the world, as well as by those directly affected. That only leaves the ‘consent’ route.
The
thing about consent is that it is, to adapt an over-used phrase, a process
rather than an event. Consent is
expressed in the everyday actions of millions of people in the way that they do
or do not accept the established order and interact with the state. It is not something which happens on a
specific date when a specific generation turn out to vote on a specific
constitutional proposal. An event like
that does not – and cannot – bind successive generations for all time. To
try and maintain the fiction that it does – which is effectively the position
of both Madrid and London - is to ignore both history and the reality of human
expression. Consent once given can be
withdrawn at any time; people always have the right to determine their own
future, a right which includes both keeping things as they are and choosing an
alternative.
Yesterday’s
use of force by the Spanish central authorities will almost certainly turn out
to be counter-productive from their own viewpoint, although I suspect that
there are many more twists and turns to come.
The Spanish Prime Minister has succeeded in proving what Cnut set out to
prove to his courtiers centuries ago – that it is impossible to turn a tide
merely by ordering it to stop – even if that was the complete reverse of his
intention. Worse, he shows no sign of
realizing what it is that he has proved so clearly.
Posts
6 comments:
It's nothing to do with identity, national, sexual or otherwise. It's to do with the rule of law.
Laws can be changed but there are certain ways of legally going about this. Try to circumvent such legality and you will face the full might of the law. This is what happened yesterday in Catalonia. Nothing more.
If the Scottish SNP had tried to hold a referendum in Scotland without the consent of the UK parliament I suspect we would have witnessed similar scenes on our television screens. Legal niceties don't apply in such circumstances.
I think this morning the civilised world owes a big debt to Spanish forces of State.
kp
"It's nothing to do with identity, national, sexual or otherwise." Really? And your basis for saying that is what exactly, other than simple assertion of what you believe that the truth should be? Catalans have fought for centuries to protect their language, identity and autonomy, and to argue that that sense of identity has nothing to do with the current situation or desire for greater autonomy is to ignore reality. Whether identity does or should lead to greater autonomy, or even independence, is an entirely reasonable subject for debate; but arguing that the existence of that sense of identity has nothing to do with the situation is just plain silly.
"It's to do with the rule of law." I accept that the referendum was illegal under the Spanish constitution; that is beyond doubt or argument. However, is that argument enough? Don't forget that the referendum took place as a result of a law passed by the Catalan Parliament - according to that law it is entirely legal. And that law was passed by a duly-elected majority in that parliament. Now, of course you would respond that that law was outwith the jurisdiction of the Catalan parliament according to the Spanish constitution, and you'd be right. But where does the right to make law come from? That, I suspect, is the fundamental difference between us here - I believe it comes from the people, bottom up. Only if you believe it comes from the King, top down, can the centre legitimately claim the right to over-rule the democratic decision of the people's representatives. That is a view to which you are entitled - and it is, after all, the basis of the UK Parliament's 'sovereignty'. But it isn't my view.
"Laws can be changed but there are certain ways of legally going about this. Try to circumvent such legality and you will face the full might of the law. This is what happened yesterday in Catalonia. Nothing more." Oh how nice it must be to be able to support the extant law of any state with such certainty, regardless of what it says or requires. It's a very simplistic view of a highly complex situation. Yes, of course it is possible to change the Spanish constitution so as to allow Catalunya to choose independence if it wishes. But it's impossible to do that without the support of a majority across the whole of Spain. And it's impossible when faced with central authorities who refuse even to contemplate the idea. To take a simplistic legalistic position in such circumstances is to support the idea that the people in Catalunya only have such rights to self-determination as people in other areas may permit. And that is, in effect, no right to self-determination at all, and in essence anti-democratic.
You have every right to believe that no region or nation which finds itself part of a larger state should ever have the right to self-determination. We'd never agree on that, of course - but it would be an honest position to take. There is, however, nothing honest about simply defending the status quo based on existing law, however it was made and whatever it says. It's an excuse for avoiding debate about right and wrong or about the rights of individuals and groups.
"I think this morning the civilised world owes a big debt to Spanish forces of State." It seems that we probably can't even agree on the meaning of the word 'civilised'.
How many countries in the world are independent today by following the rule of law?
Probably only the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Most Independent countries have to do so by force. The UK govt supported "separatists" in the Balkans, the perception seems to be - this is Europe we are democratic we will not require force to gain independence.
More importantly if the UK Govt supports the Madrids Govt definition of the indivisibility of the Spanish State, they should be handing back Gibraltar to Madrid pronto, as Madrid sees Gibraltar as part of Spains Indivisible State.
Your interpretation on the EU silence and lack of action is not proof that they don`t do such things, I think that their intervention on domestic matters in Poland and Hungary tells another story.
However, the optics of what happened in Catalonia is not good, with the central police breaking into buildings to take (steal) ballot boxes, as the EU has built its image on the soft fluffy things of life which is intended to hide the reality of it being an Empire in everything but name, with its head of state, parliament and anthem. Like so many Empires of the past, it has to defend its sovereignty against nationalist uprisings, but to defend the fluffy image it will remain silent in great part on this delicate incident.
I recall in the 70`s those in Plaid who pushed for the “Yes” vote to join, put the case that countries like Wales and Scotland would achieve their freedom far easier, as issues like border posts and currency would not be an issue and the international community would nod it through- how wrong they were.
We saw this when Obama told the Scottish people not to vote for independence and Trump issued a similar statement about the vote last weekend. If I recall my history these men are/were head of a country that by-passed a referendum (they would not have won it anyway) and went straight into an armed rebellion- funny old world!!
I think Anonymous 18:00 has a point.
Caerfyrddin yn cefnogi Catalunya/ Carmarthen supporting Catalunya
Market clock
7 to 7.30
Thursday 5th October 2017
Spirit,
Apologies for the late posting of your comment - it got lost in transit somehow.
"Your interpretation on the EU silence and lack of action is not proof that they don`t do such things, I think that their intervention on domestic matters in Poland and Hungary tells another story." I'm not sure that it does. What it tells us is not that 'the EU' takes a different view but that the member states take a different view. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of a comment on another post.
"Like so many Empires of the past, it has to defend its sovereignty against nationalist uprisings..." You and I take a different view about whether the EU is an empire or not, but let's leave that aside for a moment and assume that you're right on that. Even if you are, the independence of Catalunya (or Wales, Scotland...) doesn't threaten that empire one iota if those breakaway countries want to remain part of the EU, which they generally do. What it threatens is the smaller 'empires' (to use your word) of the member states. Whether Catalunya is part of the EU in its own right or by dint of being part of Spain is utterly irrelevant to the EU in the grand scheme of things. This underlines the contention that the EU acts in the interests of the existing member states.
Post a Comment