George from Barcelona

You can be pro-independence, but you can't be independent

2017-11-02T12:16:00.004+01:00

The forthcoming Catalan elections called for December 21 by the Spanish government, will not in fact be autonomous, but a plebiscite. The last time there were plebiscitary elections was in September 2015. The outcome of the legitimate, democratic vote led to the establishment of the current Parliament and the Government that have both now been dissolved, with members of the bureau of the Parliament, including Speaker Carme Forcadell, along with President Puigdemont and all his ministers being charged with such egregious allegations as rebellion.

The Spanish government has taken recourse to the now infamous Article 155, and has gone way beyond its scope by removing the Catalan Government, dissolving the democratically elected Parliament, the seat of the representation of the Catalan people's sovereignty, and calling elections, the faculty of which is solely in the hands of the President of Catalonia, as elected by the Parliament.

Thus the Catalan people will have to decide whether to hear the call to vote, or to abstain from partaking. Members of the majority coalition have expressed the idea that this will be an opportunity to once again make patent the contradiction in Spain's stance on democracy, i.e. the government by the people, and the so-called "general interest of the State", i.e. the establishment and the political and economic powers that be. The fact is that it will be a plebiscite between the 155 Bloc, represented by the Spanish government's (very) right-wing Partido Popular with the opposition "socialist" PSOE and Ciudadanos right-of-centre Spanish nationalists on one hand, and the victims of the application of Article 155 on the other.

The former are those who have led the Catalan Government and Parliamentary majority to take such measures as they have just to give voice to the citizens of Catalonia in a referendum, while the Spanish reaction was to send in riot police to aggressively repress a totally peaceful democratic vote attacking citizens who showed no violence whatsoever. Such is the attitude of Spain's so called Constitutional Bloc, that which approved the application of Article 155 in the Spanish Senate authorising the dissolution of a democratically elected Parliament and the Government it had endorsed.

And what if the latter win? What if the resulting Parliament once again shows a pro-independence majority, as the latest poll by a clearly pro-Spanish nationalist digital newspaper, El Español, countenances? Not a problem for the Senate's deputy speaker, Pedro Sanz, who stated in also pro-Spanish nationalist La Razón that if an outlaw (sic) majority wins they will apply Article 155 once again.

You can be pro-independence in "democratic" Spain, but you cannot be independent!

Why Catalonia Must Declare Independence

2017-10-09T11:19:00.002+02:00

The vast majority of the people of Catalonia, possibly of that in Spain, and certainly in Europe and the world, want dialogue, i.e. negotiations between Catalonia and Spain. But how? The Spanish national-ist government refuses to come to the table. In fact, the various governments of Spain have been contrary to flexibility with Catalonia since the Spanish majority parties that have governed in Spain both became marginal in Catalonia. They both depended on elections results in Catalonia, so were prepared to horse-trade with the (now) infamous Jordi Pujol.

But not now. Can't have any horse-trading with those "Nazionalist" (their word) Catalans! So history repeats itself. The Catalan government finds it really difficult to bring itself to believe that there is the goodwill to go to the table without a strong hand.

And there is no stronger hand, if any at all, than having declared independence. Otherwise the Spanish will carry out their threats to bring the whole government of Catalonia, including its President, the bureau of the Parliament, including its Speaker, the former President of Catalonia and his ministers, before the courts (which they have already done with some) with the will to have them imprisoned.

So how to proceed? Well, since the Spanish government have had the Constitutional Tribunal suspend what was to be today's Catalan Parliamentary session suspended 'preventively', President Puigdemont should tomorrow propose a vote by Parliament to approve his declaring independence shortly, perhaps within the following 48 hours, as provided by the Law of Transition passed by the Catalan Parliament, though suspended, again preventively, by the Constitutional Tribunal.

Unfortunately, he has no other option, and it would thus leave the ball in the Spanish government's court. Will they then come to common sense and sit down at the table to negotiate without preconditions, or will they take the extreme measure of calling a State of Emergency with the army taking the streets in Catalonia?

The Catalan Government Conference in Madrid

2017-05-23T15:15:00.000+02:00

“Spain does not have so much power as [to be able] to prevent so much democracy”

Catalan President Carles Puigdemont

On the evening of Monday, May 22, 2017, the Catalan government, represented by its President, Vice-President and Foreign Minister, held a conference at Madrid City Hall to explain what Catalonia wants when she calls for a Referendum.

The event was a perfect mise-en-scène of the political situation in Spain: missing from the auditorium were the Spanish government, along with the self-denominated Constitutionalist parties —the governing Conservative Partido Popular, the Social-Democratic PSOE, and the Liberal Ciudadanos— i.e. those who oppose any prospect of holding a referendum in Catalonia on what form of administration the nation wishes for itself.

Outside were demonstrators calling for the imprisonment of the Catalan leaders and the outlawing of the Catalan pro-independence parties. Most were members of the Falange Española y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, the party upon which the Franco dictatorship was ideologically buttressed and which, unlike its Italian Fascista and German Nazi brethren, is still legal in Spain.

Those who were present there represent the two earnest vectors of change, the players who are ready to find a way forward for Spain, and not the stonewalling conservatism of the status quo established immediately after the death of the dictator who had vanquished the democratically elected governments of both Spain and Catalonia after the Civil War sparked by the military uprising of General Francisco Franco.

Those who were present at the conference were the two basic proponents of change in Spain: the Catalan movement for a democratic referendum —who are not necessarily pro-independence, about 80% of Catalans want a referendum, although of these many would not vote yes— and Podemos and its associated movements and regional parties. Of these, Pablo Iglesias (the leader of Podemos), Manuela Carmena (Mayor of Madrid), Gerardo Pisarello (Deputy Mayor of Barcelona), along with Spanish business, trades-union and grass-roots leaders, were there to hear the Catalan government have its say in Madrid.

The problem Podemos and their associates have is that they are very unlikely to garner a sufficient majority before the three major so-called Constitutional parties who have no intention of making any real changes to the status quo.

The majority in the Catalan Parliament, which goes from far-left anti-capitalist CUP, through Social-Democrats Esquerra Republicana and Center-Right Liberal PDEcat, to Christian-Democrats Demòcrates, along with a large representation of independents, all back the Catalan government in it's efforts to hold a referendum on the political future of Catalonia.

The head of the Catalan government, President Carles Puigdemont, along with his VP and Economy Minister Oriol Junqueras, and the Foreign Minister Raül Romeva, made it clear at the conference that Catalonia wants a pact with Spain to hold an agreed referendum, an accord on the timing and the question. The conference was held in order to expound Catalonia’s intentions not only in the political sphere, but also among the economic, diplomatic and cultural communities of Spain, as well as for the foreign correspondents who rarely hear the other side of the story as they are usually posted to Madrid. These were present at the conference and they heard more than just the headlines they are bombarded with daily in the anti-Catalan Spanish press and media.

__________________________________________

This is a transcript (in Spanish) of Mr. Puigdemont’s speech.

"Permítanme que empiece mi intervención agradeciendo una vez más su asistencia y dando las gracias, de manera especial, al Ayuntamiento de Madrid y a su alcaldesa, por brindarnos la oportunidad de podernos explicar en este espacio municipal. No tengo ninguna duda que hoy el pueblo de Madrid está muy dignamente representado por su alcaldesa y su actitud de compromiso democrático, que contribuye a las soluciones allá donde otros, que tienen mayor responsabilidad, siembran de problemas el camino que deberíamos recorrer juntos para salir del desencuentro, el desencanto y la desconfianza.

La intención inicial del Gobierno de Catalunya era dirigirnos al conjunto de los españoles en el Antiguo Salón de Sesiones del Senado, considerando la función de representación territorial que tiene la Cámara Alta, que entendíamos como el escenario adecuado para fomentar el diálogo que debe presidir la acción política. Pero, como conocen ustedes, desgraciadamente no fue posible porque la Mesa del Senado no consideró oportuno que se celebrara en esta institución una conferencia sobre el referéndum de Catalunya. Al parecer se puede pedir el uso del Senado para todo tipo de actividades, incluso privadas, pero no para que el gobierno de Catalunya vaya a explicar qué está pasando, por qué está pasando y qué se propone que pase. No había nada de ilegal ni de ilícito en nuestra solicitud, no hubo ningún informe jurídico en contra de nada. Nos dijeron que el Senado no es para nosotros, que no es nuestro, que lo de la cámara de representación territorial sólo era solo un eslogan.

Fue el enésimo rechazo al diálogo, y seguramente no será el último aunque, ya lo advierto, no van a caber muchos más. Ese rechazo a explicarnos en Madrid desde el Antiguo Salón de Sesiones del Senado es aún más contradictorio si recordamos lo que afirmó con meridiana claridad el ahora presidente del Gobierno, el señor Mariano Rajoy, durante su intervención en la sesión de investidura después de las segundas elecciones a Cortes, el día 30 de agosto de 2016. Dijo entonces que la cuestión catalana era, y cito textualmente, “el reto más grave que tiene planteado España en estos momentos”. Resulta altamente contradictorio que ante “el reto más grave que tiene planteado España” -lo que pone en evidencia que sí se dan cuenta de la existencia del problema y de su magnitud, cosa que es de agradecer sinceramente- no se permita ni tan sólo hablar -lo que pone en evidencia la irresponsabilidad de no hacer nada serio, sincero y real para abordar el problema.

Los gobernantes, sea al nivel que sea, tenemos la obligación de no mirar a otro lado cuando reconocemos un problema. No hacer nada ante algo que tú mismo identificas como “el reto más grave que tiene planteado España” se puede describir de muchas formas pero no como una actitud responsable. Aunque tus recetas le puedan parecer alejadas a la otra parte del problema, hay que poner encima de la mesa lo que tú consideras que va a ser útil para solucionar tan grave reto.

Desde Catalunya lo hemos hecho, hemos puesto encima de la mesa lo que a nuestro entender va a contribuir a mejorar nuestras relaciones y va a convertir en más eficaz y próspera la necesaria colaboración que debe y deberá existir entre Catalunya y el Estado Español. Respetamos que la otra parte considere justamente lo contrario, pero carece de argumentos sólidos si es incapaz de, una vez reconocido el problema, actuar de otra forma como si ese problema vaya a desaparecer por alguna razón que nadie alcanza a descubrir.

Si para el presidente Rajoy y su Gobierno, así como para las formaciones políticas que le prestaron su apoyo en la investidura (PP, Cs y, hasta ayer al menos, el PSOE), una de las máximas preocupaciones es Catalunya, hoy le invito formalmente a abordarlo con la misma trascendencia y gravedad que conllevan los términos de su declaración del 30 de agosto de 2016.

El pasado viernes, como recordaran todos ustedes, la vicepresidenta del Gobierno español reveló que en el Consejo de Ministros, y también cito textualmente, “se ha analizado en un informe la exigencia del presidente de la Generalitat de negociar la convocatoria de un referéndum de autodeterminación en Catalunya”. Y a continuación me invitaba a proponer ante el Congreso de los Diputados las modificaciones constitucionales necesarias para poder hacer posible tal demanda.

No voy a entrar a detallar todos los argumentos que centenares de juristas y expertos constitucionalistas han expuesto para demostrar que nuestra demanda cabe perfectamente en el ordenamiento constitucional. Es cierto que también hay juristas y expertos que dicen lo contrario en cuanto a la interpretación constitucional. Sin embargo, son mayoría en uno y otro campo los que señalan que con voluntad política todo es posible. Y ese es el aspecto relevante ante el cual debemos prestar atención. ¿Existe voluntad política para atender la demanda catalana?

Hoy parece, por un lado, que el Gobierno español empieza a describir correctamente de lo que se trata: no se trata de liquidar España ni de negarla. Se trata efectivamente de la autodeterminación de Catalunya, que en ningún caso pretende negar a nadie sino afirmarse a sí misma. Por otro lado, también parece que el gobierno se abre a la posibilidad de negociar el ejercicio al derecho a la autodeterminación de Catalunya si el Congreso avala los cambios necesarios que lo amparen. Un derecho que, por cierto, el Reino de España reconoce y asume a través de la Carta Internacional de Derechos Humanos.

Vuelvo a preguntar: ¿Existe voluntad política para atender la demanda catalana?

Si existe y, por tanto, la propuesta del gobierno no quiere ser ni una trampa ni una invitación a recorrer los mismos caminos ya recorridos por otros (lehendakari Ibarretxe en 2005, representantes del Parlament de Catalunya en 2014), caminos que sólo llevan al fracaso evidente y, a estas alturas, perfectamente innecesario… si existe esa voluntad hay que actuar de manera diferente y sincera. Ir al Congreso sólo como coartada para difuminar ante los observadores internacionales la ausencia de voluntad política del Gobierno del Estado es un error en el cual ya no vamos a participar. La voluntad debe ser sincera; y si la hay, el método debe estar al servicio del objetivo, el método no debe ser ningún problema ni una excusa para encontrar soluciones, como no lo fue hace 40 años para permitir el retorno del exilio del president Tarradellas y la restauración de la Generalitat de Catalunya.

Entonces la actual Constitución aún no existía y la legislación vigente no contemplaba para nada ningún elemento de legitimidad republicana; sin embargo, en reconocimiento a la demanda real del pueblo catalán, el Gobierno de entonces actuó con responsabilidad y no remitió a los que clamaban por el retorno de Tarradellas a comparecer en el Congreso para impulsar las reformas, sino que lideró una solución de Estado que, luego y a través de su incorporación en la Constitución, siguió el curso parlamentario adecuado. Con el real decreto-ley 41/1977 de 29 de septiembre, el presidente Suárez y el jefe del Estado, el rey Juan Carlos I, dispusieron el restablecimiento provisional de la Generalitat de Catalunya, y vuelvo a citar textualmente porqué me parece relevante en estos momentos para entender que el método está al servicio del objetivo superior, “hasta la entrada en vigor del régimen de autonomía que pueda aprobarse en las Cortes”. Habilitaron la solución, alcanzaron el pacto antes de su debate en el Parlamento puesto que tenían voluntad sincera de acuerdo.

¿Cuándo se presentó en las Cortes la solución definitiva? Después que un acuerdo político liderado entre el Gobierno español y la Generalitat, institución, quiero recordar, aún en el exilio, institución no reconocida por la legalidad vigente en aquel momento, un acuerdo para que se aceptara la demanda catalana para el restablecimiento de lo que en la primera frase del mismo real decreto-ley se define como la “institución secular en la que el pueblo catalán ha visto el símbolo y el reconocimiento de su personalidad histórica”.

Es decir, alto y claro: si hay voluntad política, se encuentran los cauces para acordar, a través del sentido de Estado y de una verdadera operación de Estado, las demandas del pueblo catalán pueden ser atendidas.

Si el Gobierno español entiende cuál es su rol y responsabilidad en esos momentos no dudo que encontrará en las Cortes el apoyo necesario para validar los acuerdos a los que llegue con el Gobierno catalán para que se pueda ejercer el derecho a la autodeterminación. Liderado por el Gobierno español, y con el concurso de las fuerzas políticas tanto las que le prestan su apoyo como las de la oposición, un acuerdo de esta naturaleza solo puede salir muy reforzado del Congreso. Y con ello, la democracia española en su conjunto.

Para eso, cuenten con nosotros.

Pero no cuenten para ningún simulacro, ninguna maniobra de dilación ni ninguna escenificación de falsa voluntad de diálogo. Nada que les permita creer que renunciamos a nuestro derecho a la autodeterminación. Trabajemos desde el reconocimiento mutuo y lograremos el mayor avance democrático de las últimas décadas. Pero no engañemos a nadie ni hagamos perder el tiempo a nadie, que ya no nos sobra.

Tal como están las cosas, ¿qué quiere decir y sobre qué hay que dialogar?

Dialogar en política es sentarse en una mesa sin condiciones previas, sin límites, sin tópicos, sin apriorismos y sin reproches. Sin amenazas y sin subterfugios. Hay que dialogar sobre lo importante, sobre lo esencial, sobre lo fundamental. Y creo que un buen comienzo sería compartir la idea que el sentido profundo de la democracia va asociado a una urna; a ofrecer voz y voto al pueblo para que sea él quien decida en última instancia. Deberíamos dialogar sobre ello; es más, deberíamos como mínimo poder dialogar sobre ello sin que nadie tenga que responder ante la justicia por el hecho de proponerlo, ni nadie mandara a la fiscalía investigar ideas. Huir de visiones sacralizantes de los estados y su unidad (ni la del Estado español, ni la del futuro Estado catalán) y acercar estas ideas y los principios sobre los que se fundamenta un Estado, incluso su visión de la unidad, acercar estas ideas y valores a la sociedad a la que sirve. Nada es para siempre, nada es inmutable.

La reclamación de celebración de un referéndum en Catalunya pactado con el Estado español es una apelación constante en los últimos años. No nos rendimos en la exploración del diálogo, porque es aquello que nos exige la mayoría de la población catalana que confió en las fuerzas políticas partidarias del referéndum en las elecciones de setiembre de 2015. Y no nos cansaremos de recordar -hoy, una vez más-, que el verdadero propósito que persigue la mayoría de los catalanes es poder votar, poder expresar su posición sobre el futuro de Catalunya. Unos para decidir la independencia, otros para decidir continuar como una comunidad autónoma del Estado español. La mayoría de los catalanes, también los que no quieren la independencia, esperan ser escuchados y que el gobierno del Estado no les continúe dando la espalda cuando apelan a su responsabilidad para ejercer sus derechos colectivos. Hay también miles de ciudadanos que desearían que el Estado expusiera argumentos legítimamente contrarios a la independencia de Catalunya y no exhibiera todos esos estériles esfuerzos dirigidos a impedir que se pueda votar; maniobras que obstaculizan un derecho democrático que pertenece a todos los ciudadanos catalanes, tanto a los que están a favor de la creación de un estado independiente como de los que no. Miles de catalanes, en resumen, que quieren que el Estado sea parte de la solución y no del problema.

Quizá les sorprenda lo que les voy a contar ahora, pero es la versión palpable con la que se encuentra cualquier observador honesto que se acerque a nuestra realidad: el proceso político catalán se vive cívicamente. Les invitamos a conocerlo de primera mano. No hay la ruptura social que lamentablemente se vende de la mano de esa perversa ingeniería narrativa que tanto daño hace a la democracia. Tampoco hay fugas de empresas en Catalunya, ni perseguimos a nadie por sus ideas, por sus orígenes, por su cultura o por su lengua. Al contrario, Catalunya es hoy un ejemplo de sociedad inclusiva y plural del que nos sentimos muy orgullosos. Una sociedad que, con sus discrepancias y diferencias (por cierto, algo característico de una democracia sana y madura, y que nosotros no percibimos como ningún problema) se ha puesto de acuerdo en resolverlas en las urnas, y se ha puesto de acuerdo en aceptar como no podía ser de otra manera el resultado que de ellas salga. Ese no es el retrato de una sociedad confrontada; es el retrato de una sociedad felizmente discrepante, en ese asunto y en muchos otros, como corresponde a una sociedad democráticamente madura.

A pesar de esta acreditada demanda mayoritaria, sin embargo, hasta la fecha la respuesta siempre ha ido en la misma dirección: deriva centralizadora, incumplimiento de los compromisos adquiridos y judicialización acelerada contra nuestros representantes y nuestras instituciones. Cada semana. E incluso con acciones que van en contra del progreso económico del Estado, como por ejemplo las trabas a la política comercial exterior catalana que ha puesto el Gobierno español en demasiadas ocasiones o las infraestructuras.

El NO a todo es decepcionante. Que las únicas decisiones políticas que haya tomado el Gobierno del Estado en relación con la celebración del referéndum en Catalunya hayan sido perseguir judicialmente a cargos electos (Mas, Rigau, Ortega, Homs, Forcadell, Simó, Coromines, Nuet y Borrás, hasta ahora) es una irresponsabilidad y no acerca ningún acuerdo sino que, justamente, lo aleja.

En los juzgados no se hace política, ni se debería. Negar el carácter político de la demanda catalana y fiarlo todo al trabajo de fiscales y jueces no es la solución sino incrementar el problema.

No pedimos al Estado español que renuncie a sus principios, pero tampoco aceptamos que el Estado español nos obligue a renunciar a los nuestros. Aunque lo intenten, el Estado español no dispone de tanto poder para parar a tanta democracia.

Pedimos lo mismo que expresó en una visita en Girona el 21 de abril de 1990 el entonces príncipe de Girona y hoy jefe del Estado, el rey Felipe VI, cuando afirmó que “la democracia expresa sus proyectos en las urnas”. Cierto. No nos hemos apartado ni un milímetro de esa idea; jamás hemos aceptado ninguna otra formulación de nuestras aspiraciones como nación que no sea a través del ejercicio de la democracia y de la paz.

Los que estamos aquí ante ustedes únicamente deseamos saber qué quieren los catalanes para su futuro, qué desean para sus hijos y para sus nietos; cómo quieren colaborar con sus vecinos y cómo creen que pueden mejorar las relaciones con todo el mundo. Y en democracia la única manera de saberlo no son encuestas ni tan solo unas nuevas elecciones autonómicas sino un referéndum, un referéndum acordado y homologado internacionalmente.

Señoras y señores, no somos ningún desafío; somos los representantes de un pueblo que quiere expresar su futuro en las urnas. No somos ningún soufflé, ni una enfermedad, ni fruto de ningún trastorno emocional. Recogimos la gran frustración del 2010, cuando la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional pulverizó el pacto, sí el pacto, que habíamos alcanzado, también, como se nos propone hoy, pasando por el Congreso de los Diputados. El Estatuto de Catalunya fue una propuesta pactada, aprobada y refrendada por mayorías, y aspiraba a convertir a los catalanes en lo que muchas generaciones de catalanismo político habían anhelado, es decir, ciudadanos de primera. Ciudadanos a los que nadie les pediría ya que dejaran de ser catalanes si querían ser tratados igual como los demás ciudadanos del Estado, en todos los aspectos de su vida. En inversiones, en financiación, en cultura, en lengua, en proyección internacional... Eso fracasó, lo sabemos todos. No sé si todos lo lamentan, pero créanme muchos de los que ya éramos independentistas en aquellos momentos aún lamentamos aquel inmenso error.

Pero en aquel momento decidimos algo nuevo; algo para lo que, al parecer, la política española no estaba preparada ni estaba esperando: decidimos dejar de lamentarnos, de negociar compensaciones en aquel mercadeo que tanto nos ha perjudicado para sacar algo de lo perdido, y decidimos decidir. Tomamos conciencia que verdaderamente nunca habíamos pintado nada, sólo habíamos sido un espejismo de utilidad que, en la práctica, siempre favorecía a los mismos y jamás, como se ve dolorosamente hoy, jamás sirvió para acabar con las ineficiencias, el cruce de intereses y el fundamento para la corrupción. En Catalunya y en España.

Por eso, gracias a la decisión que tomamos en 2010, hoy hablamos desde la esperanza y no desde la frustración y el victimismo.

Somos, por tanto, representantes de una corriente de fondo que ha renovado de manera muy profunda el catalanismo mayoritario.

Pero deseamos que el referéndum para Catalunya sea pactado con el Gobierno español. Es la opción más plausible para todos. A imagen y semejanza del Reino Unido y Escocia. Estamos dispuestos a hablar de todo y con todos: la pregunta, la fecha, los requisitos de participación y su validación. Estamos ya sentados en la mesa de negociación y no nos levantaremos sin un acuerdo, si hay voluntad sincera de llegar a él. La oferta de diálogo es permanente.

Sin embargo, también queremos dejar claro que jamás renunciaremos a que los ciudadanos catalanes voten para decidir el futuro político de Catalunya si el Gobierno español sigue empeñado en el NO a todo. A pesar de todos los obstáculos que encontraríamos en ese escenario, no tenemos ningún derecho ni ninguna legitimidad para no cumplir con nuestro mandato, un mandato que fue legítimamente expuesto y avalado en las pasadas elecciones (fíjense, nadie, ningún fiscal ni ningún juzgado nos impidió proponer a nuestros ciudadanos lo que hoy intentamos cumplir).

Llegados a este punto, quiero realizar, con énfasis, con convicción, un llamamiento a la sociedad civil española y al conjunto de las fuerzas políticas para que hagan suya la vía del acuerdo sincero. Tenemos abierta una invitación permanente dirigida a todos aquellos que compartan con nosotros que debemos encontrar respuestas políticas a las demandas que formulamos desde Catalunya.

A propuesta del Parlamento de Catalunya, y con el impulso del Gobierno que presido, el 23 de diciembre del año pasado se constituyó el Pacte Nacional pel Referèndum, que reúne a miles de entidades sociales, económicas, políticas y culturales, con el propósito de instar a los gobiernos de Catalunya y del Estado español a alcanzar finalmente el acuerdo que establezca las condiciones y las garantías justas y necesarias para la celebración del referéndum reconocido por la comunidad internacional, y cuyo resultado habrá de ser políticamente vinculante y efectivo. El pasado viernes los representantes del Pacte Nacional presentaron públicamente medio millón de firmas de apoyo, adhesiones individuales y colectivas recogidas en menos de tres meses de campaña.

Sería sensato no despreciar esa realidad. Porqué es sobre ella y sobre el largo camino recorrido por el Parlament de Catalunya en la defensa del derecho a la autodeterminación que fundamentaremos la propuesta formal que vamos a dirigir de manera inmediata al Gobierno español.

El diálogo se tiene que establecer sin restricciones para poder hablar de la fecha del referéndum: cuándo debería celebrarse y en qué condiciones. Les escucharemos y decidiremos conjuntamente cuál sería la mejor, sin apriorismos. Las garantías, no tengan ninguna duda, serán el resultado. La validez la dan los resultados, como ha sucedido en todos los precedentes de referéndums.

El diálogo tiene que servir para definir la pregunta a realizar, una pregunta que no conlleve confusión y que todo el mundo sepa qué significa votar “sí” y qué significa votar “no”.

El diálogo tiene que fijar los resultados para poder considerar válida la respuesta y el compromiso de implementarla. Tiene que fijar, por tanto, un acuerdo sobre la mayoría necesaria y sobre la agenda compartida para corresponder de forma responsable con la decisión de los catalanes.

Esperaremos sus propuestas. Esperaremos porque la democracia española y la catalana se lo merecen. Esperaremos hasta el último minuto de la prórroga. Pero que no quepa ninguna duda de que, si no se articula una propuesta pactada por ausencia de voluntad del Gobierno español, el compromiso del Gobierno de Catalunya con su pueblo es democráticamente inviolable. Celebraremos el referéndum y será a partir de entonces cuando ofreceremos nuevamente una propuesta de diálogo y de negociación. Pero el objetivo ya no será celebrar el referéndum sino invitar al Estado español a implementar sus resultados y a contribuir a la transición del nuevo Estado catalán, un nuevo Estado que mantendrá los lazos fraternales con España que nadie ni nada podrá seccionar.

Muchas gracias".

Much said of Catalan President's "Referendum or Referendum", but there's more

2016-09-30T09:58:00.000+02:00

Much has been said and discussed about Catalan President Carles Puigdemont's "Referendum or Referendum", i.e. a referendum will be held whether the Spanish governement approves it or not. But there is another point journalists seem to be evading and many commentators have missed: the laws of disconnection.

These laws include a bill on an Internal Revenue Service, which is already being expanded to meet the requirements of an independent state, and a Social Security Bill, which will go beyond the current management of the Health Service to include all aspects of social care and welfare such as pensions, family support and unemployment benefit.

But there is also a third critical law which is to be passed before the referendum is held in the second half of September 2017: the Legal Transition Bill. The opening article of that bill will read something like "Catalonia is an independent republic." In other words, it will be a de facto unilateral declaration of independence.

Pro-independence actors, both the political parties and the civic grass-roots organisations such as the Catalan National Assembly (ANC) and Omnium Cultural, have always argued against the idea set forth by Spain that "independence is illegal" and that an independent Catalonia would "wander in empty space". The third law of disconnection, the Legal Transition Bill will guarantee there will be no legal vacuum, no illegality, no void. All current Spanish law not superseded by Catalan legislation, as well as all international treaties signed by Spain, will remain in force guaranteeing rule of law.

This is, in effect, what was backed by the Vote of Confidence in the Catalan Parliament yesterday, even though there has been much vociferation by the press and by unionist parties and commentators on the Referendum. The Junts pel Sí coalition, including Christian-Democrat Conservatives and Liberals though to Social-Democrats and Socialists, along with the far-left CUP, have thus set the ball rolling towards the completion of the Roadmap for Independence set forth at the beginning of the current Catalan Parliament within the 18 months it established, even though it had at that time seemed wildly optimistic.

Letter to an unloved spouse

2016-01-12T09:25:00.002+01:00

Original in Catalan by Mateu Ciurana

Listen Spain. I want us to separate. I would not have imagined just a few years ago that this would come to an end like this, but there's no future in what we have. I see you as an unpleasant husband who mistreats and exploits me.

I don't regret having loved you and trying to save our relationship, but you always held me as your property. I have served you and you have shown me off. You have told me that you love me, out of the side of your mouth, and only when you wanted something from me. It is very sad, after what I have done to make things better.

There are still things I like about you, I don't mind admitting it. Your lovely Spanish language for example. What a shame you haven't shown much interest in me all these years. We have a common history and a child together, but now I want to break with you.

I know your strategies well. You will say that, without me, you will be nothing, that we need each other. For you, the way to fix things is for me to give up being what I am. Do you realize that? I never thought I could feel the unlove I feel for you now. I'm sorry.

Now we need to agree and see how we share things out and how we raise the children. I know I will have to pay a settlement. No problem. Let's talk about it and do some figures. You never could stand that I earned more than you. With the generosity I have always shown you. How absurd!

I could reproach your not seriously accepting the way I am and my wish to live my way. What we had could have been great, but now I want to say goodbye. Amiably, if possible. Until now you didn't believe I would take this decision, but that's not my problem. What will you do? Do your best to maintain some form of dignity, if you can.

I'm looking forward to living my own life, and I have many projects. Don't say that phrase you like, attributed the mother of the last Muslim king of Granada (Cry like a woman for what you could not defend like a man), because in addition to male chauvinist, I'm sure it's false. Take it as you wish, but I want to leave you.

I wish you luck. Goodbye, Spain!

FDI in Catalonia Grows Fourfold Despite Independence Process

2015-12-10T12:22:00.003+01:00

Catalan exports account for a quarter of Spanish foreign trade

Despite the ongoing process towards independence of Catalonia, foreign direct investment, or FDI, has grown almost fourfold, a survey by Catalan employer's association Foment del Treball shows.

According to this study, the process towards independence is proving to be no hindrance to economic growth in Catalonia, contradicting what the Spanish government and other unionist lobbies argue.

Foment del Treball yesterday presented its Economic Situation Report [PDF, in Catalan], which indicates positive data for the Catalan economy. Foreign investment in Catalonia grew almost fourfold during the first half of the year. Growth in Catalonia stood at 280%, the strongest increase recorded in the whole of Spain, which overall has grown by 73%. In absolute terms, investment over the first half of 2014 grew by €1.4 bn. The vast majority of foreign investment –88%– comes from OECD countries, with 65% coming from European Union member states.

In response to journalists' questions on the effect of the independence process on the economy, the authors of the Foment report said that investments are not decided overnight. As Foment Chairman Joaquim Gay de Montellà said a few days ago, it was not true that companies were fleeing, and any relocations that had occurred depended more on tax policy issues.

In fact, only last week Barcelona Chamber of Commerce chairman Miquel Valls denied that companies were leaving because of Catalan independence claims, although he admitted companies may be relocating due to taxes being higher in Catalonia than in other regions, precisely due to the Spanish government underfunding the Catalan administration.

Spain Threatens Catalans with Suspension of Self-Rule

2015-10-19T14:12:00.004+02:00

Spain is no longer governed under rule of law –if it ever was– but is run under rule BY law

The government has once again brandished Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution which allows for the suspension of home-rule after hearing Catalonia's President Artur Mas was considering disobeying his possible disqualification for holding a mock referendum on independence on November 9 last year.

In an interview on a local radio station, President Mas said "Before the state's NOs, there remain only two options: we either bow and kneel, or we stand strong."

Spanish Justice Minister Rafael Catalá and Vice President Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría said last week that the government has the necessary weapons to enforce the law by applying Article 155 of the Constitution, along with a recent amendment to the Constitutional Court's statutes –passed only with the ruling Popular Party votes– allowing the suspension of public officials who do not comply with the Court's rulings.

Both speak as if President Mas had committed a crime, which is in my view pressuring the judges. It should be remembered that the complaint brought against Mr. Mas, his then VP Joana Ortega and his Minister for Education Irene Rigau was ordered by Spain's Prime Minister Rajoy. The Attorney General overruled the prosecutors in Catalonia, who had not considered there was any wrongdoing in holding the mock referendum.

The ruling Popular Party government, along with the Spanish establishment and the mass media they control, are doing their utmost to convince everybody that the referendum, the court case and the support received by the defendants, pressuring the judges and threatening their independence –referring to the crowd that turned up outside the court when President Mas appeared before the judges last Thursday– all respond to a plan orchestrated by the evil Mr. Mas to stay in power at any price.

So, what is so terrible about what happened on November 9? Something called a participatory process, i.e. a civic, festive event where the people deposited non-official, non-binding ballots in non-official, non-binding cardboard ballot boxes. It was in fact a demonstration in which participants were counted one by one: 2.3 million, 1.8 of them favour of independence. Many Catalans –and not just those who joined the crowd outside the court to lend their support to Mr. Mas, nor those who voted for him– are outraged to see how the Popular Party and the Spanish government are acting against the Catalans' elected representatives, arbitrarily and in a spirit of revenge for the utter defeat they have suffered in the last elections, resorting to all and any of the powers of the State –using the laws to impose themselves, refusing to listen to the people of Catalonia.

The European Union, Catalonia and Internal Enlargement

2014-01-19T21:33:00.000+01:00

“Now is the time for the EU to be proactive and develop a policy for dealing with Catalonia's call for self-determination and possible independence. Its current path could well lead to chaos for Europe's grand experiment.”

This is the epilogue to the article titled How the Voters of Catalonia May Change Europe, published on January 16 in the Atlantic Council's New Atlanticist blog.

It is obvious that the Spanish government's stonewalling before the Catalan citizens' demands for a broader view of a democratic so-called Right to Decide, an analogy for self-determination, leaves no leeway for any negotiated solutions and puts the European Union in the predicament of not being able to propose any, as the Commission does not wish to antagonise a member state.

But can the European Union allow itself to be sucked in by Spain's government policy of disdain towards a part of its citizens and its use of legal sophistry to reject its citizens' demands to decide where their future should lie? The EU cannot stand on the sidelines before a new regional paradigm that has become manifest with current European territorial issues such as those of Scotland, Flanders, and of course Catalonia. These will not simply go away and in any case, cannot be justifiably quashed if the EU's principles of respect for minorities and for democracy in general are to be abided by. The EU must take the initiative to find possible solutions, and one of these is Internal Enlargement.

The concept was set forth several years ago by European think tank Centre Maurits Coppieters based in Brussels. Internal Enlargement (PDF) would be an excellent solution for many internal disputes and would strengthen the European Union, not in the sense some fear, of its becoming a federal super-state, but in that of the principles which any and all member states and their citizens should be able to agree on: the EU's Fundamental Values.

The European Union is not simply a loose economic club, an association of states or an international organization. It is a uniquely flexible political construct that has constantly adapted to circumstance and should thus be able to find a way to accommodate the demands of a part of its citizens. Its Member States have relinquished part of their sovereignty to EU institutions, with many decisions made at the European level, facilitating over 60 years of peace, stability, and prosperity. This should continue.

Internal disputes are obviously a threat to this, but as history has shown, threats do not necessarily and should not lead to clashes if solutions are found. But these will not appear of their own accord, and the disputes will not simply go away, as the Spanish government seems to believe. In the case of Catalonia, the issues involved have smouldered for centuries, briefly surfacing again and again, put down by successive authoritarian or dictatorial governments. And in the democratic period, the successor to the last dictatorship of 1939-1976, these issues have obviously not been dealt with successfully.

The citizens of Catalonia —and not the regional government, which had avoided cracking the kernel of the issue until the massive pro-independence demonstration in Barcelona of upwards of 1.5 million citizens on September 11, 2012— have clearly expressed their wish to decide for themselves on how to go about solving the issues, and demand a referendum on the most prickly one, e.g. whether Catalonia should continue forming part of the Kingdom of Spain.

So, with never-ending evolution, working to adapt to each new circumstance and thus consolidating its fundamentals, the EU must find the way to nudge the nation states to accept the primordial element of democracy, the Right to Decide, without browbeating or menacing citizens, and offering peaceful outcomes.

The Right to Self-Determination - A legal analysis

2013-01-29T13:04:00.001+01:00

Analysis by the Human Rights Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association

On January 8, the Barcelona Bar Association (Il·lustre Col·legi d’Advocats de Barcelona) published an analysis by its Human Rights Commission on the legitimacy of Catalonia's claim to statehood.

In almost forty years of existence, the Human Rights Defence Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association has been present in all debates of social and legal relevance in our country, insofar as they could affect fundamental human rights, both individual and collective. At present, when the people of Catalonia are set to take decisions that may determine their future as a nation, the Defence Commission cannot be absent from the fervent, enthusiastic debate that has come about on the right to self-determination. That is why we wish to express our position on the matter, obviously within the corresponding legal framework.

Firstly, it is manifest that the right to self-determination is a basic, universal right of all peoples, as per international law in force since the establishment of the United Nations Charter (Articles 1 & 55) of 1945, and expressly proclaimed in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1966 and in force since 1976. In practice however, the right to self-determination had been internationally recognised much earlier. Consider the United States Declaration of Independence or the creation of new states upon the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires at the end of the First World War. The exercise of the right to self-determination has resulted in the number of sovereign states quadrupling since 1900. Twenty of these new states are the result of secession of a part of one state to establish a new one. Specifically, in Europe there have been 14 cases of secession since 1900: Norway from Sweden (1905), Finland from
Russia (1917); Ireland from the UK (1922), Iceland from Denmark (1944), Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the USSR (1990-1991), Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia from Yugoslavia (1991), Slovakia from Czechoslovakia (1992), Montenegro from the Union of Serbia and Montenegro (2006), and Kosovo from Serbia (2008). The process of self-determination and the creation of a new sovereign state was different in each case – contemplated in the constitution, agreement or unilateral declaration of independence – but all with the ultimate legitimation of the process through the majority decision of the people, expressed freely and democratically in referendum.

One particular doctrinal school in international law has defended a restrictive interpretation of the right to self-determination, considering this applicable only to processes of decolonisation. There is certainly a clear legal framework consisting of a number of United Nations resolutions establishing conditions and procedures to apply this right to colonised peoples. This framework, however, has not been sufficiently developed for the case of non-colonial situations. But notwithstanding the lack of regulation of a right in a specific situation, this does not mean denial of the right, since the right has been formulated in general terms without establishing any exceptions, as is the case of the right to self-determination. Additionally, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in favour of self-determination as a universal right to be respected by all states, erga omnes, in an advisory opinion on the Wall in the occupied Palestinian territories in 2004. Likewise, the ICJ replied in its significant Resolution of July 22, 2010 to a request from the General Assembly of the United Nations on whether the unilateral declaration of independence of the territory of Kosovo proclaimed on February 17, 2008 was in accordance to international law, ruling that there is no regulation in international law prohibiting unilateral declarations of independence and should therefore be considered to be in conformity with international law.

In the case of Catalonia, the exercise of the right of self-determination is being denied by the government and most state institutions in Spain, even opposing putting the question to the people in consultation. This outright opposition is essentially based on two arguments. First, the affirmation that the sovereignty lies collectively in the whole people of Spain. The right to decide on the separation of Catalonia from the rest of the state does not thus correspond to the people of Catalonia separately as it is not a sovereign political subject. The second argument consists of saying that even if this condition were attributable to the Catalan people, the secession of Catalonia from the Spanish state would in any case be illegal as it would collide with current legislation, specifically with the Spanish constitution, which does not recognise the right to self-determination of any territory of the state, and which proclaims in Article 2 “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible home to all Spaniards.”

Regarding the first argument, this is what is known in basic logic as “Petitio principii” (begging the question). It is self evident that if the Catalan people were the subject of sovereignty, it would already be independent. What is at issue is whether the Catalan people meet the required conditions for its right to self-determination to to be recognised, i.e. the condition as a people with the capacity to decide for itself whether to constitute a sovereign state. It should be remembered that the United Nations Charter and the aforementioned international treaties attribute the right to decide to the peoples, not to the states. Thus, the condition of the Catalan community as a political subject with the right to decide cannot be disputed: a one-thousand-year history, its own language, its own civil code, a distinct social and economic structure, its own political institutions, and a manifest will to maintain its own identity expressed over centuries, fully endorse the national purport of Catalonia, likewise recognised in the preamble of its Statute of Autonomy, even in the version curtailed by the sentence of the Constitutional Tribunal.

It is true the current Spanish constitutional framework does not allow for the self-determination of Catalonia. We thus find ourselves before a possible discrepancy between two legitimacies: that of the current constitution and the democratically expressed will of a national community. But it should not be neglected that in a democratic society the law is nothing other than the expression of the will of the people expressed through its political representatives duly constituted as its legislative power. This intrinsically democratic concept cannot assent to the sequestration of the will of the people –in this case represented by the Parliament of Catalonia– in the name of a coercively imposed legality. That is why we consider the Spanish government would have no legitimacy if opposing the decision of the Parliament of Catalonia to give voice to the citizens so as to freely express its majority will –whether affirmatively or negatively– concerning the creation of a sovereign Catalan state. If the outcome were affirmative, the Spanish government would have no legitimacy in opposing a process of negotiation in order to establish conditions of secession and to reach a common agreement on its complex consequences. It would likewise have to make such constitutional and legal amendments as necessary to make the process orderly and equitable. This was the criterion established by the Supreme Court of Canada on the validity of the secessionist referendum in the province of Quebec in 1995. In its advisory opinion of 1998, the Court recognised that a clear majority vote on a clear question would democratically legitimise an initiative in favour of secession and would compel the government of Canada to negotiate the conditions of separation.

A unilateral declaration of independence, proclaimed by the Parliament of Catalonia, would be justified under international law if the Spanish government were to prevent a ballot to consult the citizens on the creation of a new state or if it refused to accept an affirmative result. In the latter case, the declaration of independence by Parliament would have immediate effect to bestow the new state with political existence. Indeed, this would meet the minimum criteria of permanent population, defined territory and inherent political authority, which define a state as was established by the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, adopted on December 26, 1933. The Convention provides that the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by other states. This principle, known as constitutive theory of the state, was ratified by the opinion of the Badinter Arbitration Committee created by the then European Economic Community on September 27, 1991, to provide answers to legal issues raised by the split of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In its opinions, the Badinter Committee asserts that the existence of states is a matter of fact, without recognition by the international community as a determining condition of statehood.

The crucial issue of the juridical legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence in conflict with legislation was settled by the aforementioned resolution on Kosovo by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The resolution states that upon proclaiming Kosovo an independent and sovereign state, the Kosovo Assembly was not operating as an institution of self-government in the pre-existing administration and within the limits of existing law, but rather that it stood outside its scope and acted exclusively by virtue of the powers conferred by democratic representation of the people's will. The declaration of independence was not intended, therefore, to produce its effect within the existing legal order, but created a new legal entity. In conclusion, the Court considered that as there was no rule in international law that prohibited it, and once it was confirmed it would be impossible to negotiate with Serbia, the unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovo Assembly was not contrary to the international legal order.

On the basis of the above legal arguments, the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights of the Barcelona Bar Association holds that the power to decide on its future, either within the State where it is integrated, or separately to form a new sovereign state, depends on the will of the majority of its citizens expressed democratically and peacefully, is an inalienable right of Catalonia as a national community.

Barcelona, January 2013

Why has Blogger changed the URL for my blog?

2012-03-17T22:13:00.002+01:00

The URL for my blog has suddenly changed. For some reason unbeknown to me, Blogger has decided I should have a .es at the end. But .es corresponds to Spanish sites. I personally may be located in Spain, but does that mean my blog is obliged to be identified as Spanish if it is written in English and means to address an international English-speaking audience?

In any case, Blogger (Google) might have had the courtesy to ask if I would like to be identified as Spanish, or at a bare minimum, to have had the decency to forewarn me of this change!

Why I Support Independence for Catalonia

2011-08-29T18:56:00.003+02:00

First published in Help Catalonia on 24/8/2011

Born and brought up in London, England, of a Swedish mother and a Catalan father born in Paris, France, I think it might be fair to say that I am a citizen of Europe. I have imbibed of several different cultures, with an education at British, French and Spanish schools. I speak five languages, with a smattering of a further two or three. I am thus what might be termed multicultural, with influences from many different points of view, though admittedly “Western”. This world-view, with a clear liberal, democratic bent, means I give cultures that tend to restrict others' freedoms, political or otherwise, very short shrift.

One such culture is Spain's. It has a long history of nationalism whose prime characteristic is a constant obstinacy in imposing its unitary national identity, understood as cultural and political uniformity. Worst of all is that this unitary nationalism does not originally spring from modern nation building, but from an atavistic Castilian trait of a closed, self-sufficient, typically feudal society which survived well into the 19th Century. One has but to read the Spanish literary classics to realise this. Notice, by way of example, that in the Spanish Wikipedia's entry for Literature of Spain —not Literature in Spanish, which is another entry— there is not one single Catalan language author. Catalan authors are set apart in Literature in Catalan, and are thus not essentially considered Spanish.

This Spain that has for centuries been unable to consolidate as a nation beyond the regions of Castilian culture (i.e. Spain not including Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia), even “by whichever means necessary”, be these outright war, attempted cultural and linguistic obliteration, or economic and fiscal seizure, is still today attempting to secure its uniform identity. Thus, the modern Spanish political mainstream, whether Socialist or PP, (never mind the old Francoists) has always been politically conservative and culturally unitary, opposing today's politically liberal and culturally diverse, multifarious milieu.

Opposing this conservatism has been Catalan politics' historical endeavour to change the political culture and structure of Spain. Catalonia, with its distinct singularity, has long been at the forefront of social, cultural and economic advancement, not only in Spain, but also in Europe. It is the most open society in Spain, with 13.5% of its population coming from abroad. Catalonia has long welcomed migrations: between the 16th and the 18th centuries, many French migrated there, escaping from religious strife and civil disturbances, and as of the late 1950s, while Southern Europe, including Spain, was 'exporting' labour to the north, Catalonia was a net 'importer', like the UK or Germany.

But any proposals for a more liberal, federal Spain emerging from Catalonia have lasted but moments in the history of an absolutely illiberal, uniform state. Federalism has been the last stand of those who still hope for a more open Spain, one that should be ready to accept its cultural and political diversity. But there is little hope for federalism, which is, in my opinion and that of many Catalans, what should have been legislated after the Franco dictatorship, but which was not for fear of the centuries-old demands of unitary uniformity by Spanish reactionary conservatives and the military.

The latest Catalan initiative attempting to lay the foundations of a federalising state, the 2006 Statute for Catalonia, was approved by 90% of its parliament's members and was approved in referendum by the citizens with a clear majority in favour. It is obvious that most Catalan citizens are unhappy with Spain as it stands. In a recent poll, a majority of Catalans would vote for independence.

But still today the Spanish government procrastinates with the application and, most importantly, the budget assignations the last Statute requires. It is clear that Spain is unwilling to make any changes, to recognise its own diversity, cultural or political. If the Spanish powers-that-be are not yet ready to accept change, after more than thirty years of democracy and three hundred years of imposition, there isn't much point in carrying on any further with their ground rules.

Independentists like myself move, therefore, that the solution for both Spain and the citizens of Catalonia is Catalan independence.

Catalonia: in search of an exit

2011-04-03T16:07:00.006+02:00

I found Julian Glover's article, Prosperous Catalans may beat rebellious Basques to the exit, in The Guardian on Friday fairly equitable. At least he had made an attempt at speaking to as broadly representative a choice of interviewees as possible.

There was, however, a tinge of distasteful subterfuge: He says that “the Catalan parliament – tellingly – faces the city zoo.” Would it be fair, nay, would it be acceptable, to say that the London Business School or the Central Mosque lie – tellingly – opposite Regent's Park, home to London Zoo?

He also likens the Catalan Parliament to a London gentleman's club because of its red velvet carpets and uniformed retainers. Perhaps much alike the carpeting and the attending staff and doorkeepers at the Parliament in Westminster? Mr. Glover says it “feels no place for a revolution”. But then, does Westminster? Besides, is anyone actually advocating revolution? Besides one or two hotheads, all those who favour independence for Catalonia propose differing strategies for absolutely democratic and properly legitimate process, and that includes those Mr. Glover finds most radical, like Antoni Strubell or Josep Huget.

Besides these objectionable points, there are many other significant issues to be taken up. However, I will take a look at infrastructure, for the time being: Mr. Glover mentions an abundance of “fast roads, new railways and oversized airports”.

First off, the oversized airports. Well, I would say that after several decades of squeezing more that 30m passengers per year into an airport designed to take half that amount, it was about time the capacity of Barcelona airport were enlarged. The new terminal, which started operations in June 2009, has allowed the airport to grow to 55m passengers per year.

As to those “fast roads”, is Catalonia really “awash” with motorways? Well, perhaps they are fast in the eyes of those used to the M25, even though we also have serious traffic problems with our own orbital roads. And if we look at the decades they take to plan, tender and build, I would say they are anything but fast! Besides, most of our truly “fast roads” are toll roads, often with no feasible toll-free alternatives.

One symptomatic example Catalans have particular issue with is the building of a motorway northbound from Barcelona to France to substitute the N-II highway for which the only alternative is a toll road. This has been a stop and go affair for the last 20 years, long before the current economic crisis and consequent budget shortfall. The works have been suspended again and again, and last month the Spanish Minister of Public Works announced there would be no tender for further work in the foreseeable future. The last inauguration was in 2007 (rushed to come before Spanish General Elections) for a 5-mile stretch near Girona. Nothing further has been done since.

As to the new railways we apparently seem to be drowning under, the only new lines built in Catalonia in the past 30 years are for the AVE high-speed trains. The idea behind planning for these arose in the late 1980s and was for a high-speed standard gauge connection northward with Europe (Spanish gauge is broader and rolling stock from other networks cannot travel on the Spanish network, and vice versa). However, the priority was totally twisted! The first line was opened in 1992 between Madrid, the capital of Spain, and Seville in the south. The AVE lines did not reach Catalonia (Lleida) until 2003 and only reached Barcelona in 2008.

There is still no connection with Europe, which was the whole point of standard gauge. Mr. Glover was no doubt confused by the new trains he probably saw when in Figueres, as the high-speed line there only goes north to France. The trains he saw there were in fact French TGVs, and not the Spanish AVEs! After well over 30 years, Catalonia is yet to be connected to standard-gauge Europe!

One can imagine how Catalans feel about Spain, when the Spanish state obviously does not hold Catalonia and its citizens' interests among its priorities, whether for infrastructure or for a host of other issues such as culture (Catalan, that is), the Catalan language, or the acceptance of Catalonia's role in history (the Castillian bias is unavoidably patent). Spain refuses to accept Catalonia as a nation within a multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-national state. As I pointed out in my How Much is Enough?, “the Spanish political mainstream ... has always been ... politically conservative and culturally unitary, opposing today's politically liberal and culturally diverse, multifarious milieu, whether local or global.”

Should it therefore be such a surprise if Catalonia is in search of an exit from Spain in order to manage herself and decide how and where to go from now on?

A History of Spanish anti-Catalan Opinions

2010-11-05T12:51:00.013+01:00

There is a long history of leading representatives of Spanish political opinion that have constantly dished out anti-Catalan sentiment. Is it such a surprise that many Catalans feel very hard done by? And this is how Catalonia is meant to integrate quietly?

1625 – Conde Duque de Olivares, PM to King Philip IV: “Now we have assimilated you and you won't have to spend your money on fighting us, it seems reasonable you pay us in taxes.”

(“Ahora que os hemos asimilado y no tendréis de gastaros dinero en lucha contra nosotros, parece razonable que nos paguéis con impuestos.”)
1725 – José Patiño, governor in charge of administration after the invasion of Catalonia by Spanish and French troops: “... the obstinacy and barbarity of this criminal people (Catalonia) is quite notorious...”

(“… es bien notoria la obstinación y barbaridad de este pueblo criminal…”)
1906 – Revista “Ejercito y Armada” (“Army & Navy” magazine): “Catalonia must be made Castilian ... Think Spanish, speak Spanish and behave as a Spaniard, be it willingly or by force.”

(“Hay que castellanizar a Cataluña … Hay que pensar en español, hablar en español y conducirse como español, y esto de grado o por fuerza.”)
1907 – La revista militar (The Military Review): “The Catalan problem will thus not be solved with freedom, but with restriction; not by palliatives and pacts, but by iron and fire.”

(“El problema catalán no se resuelve, pues, por la libertad, sino con la restricción; no con paliativos y pactos, sino por el hierro y por el fuego.”)
1927 – La revista militar (The Military Review): “Think Spanish, speak Spanish and behave as a Spaniard, be it willingly or by force.”

(“Hay que pensar en español, hablar en español y conducirse como español, y esto de grado o por fuerza.”)
1927 – Writer Juan Llarch: Imposing the use of Spanish in Catalonia is doing them a paternal favour, like making a short-sighted, rebellious child wear glasses”

(“Obligar a usar el castellano en Cataluña es hacerles un favor paternal, como lo es obligar a un niño corto de vista y revoltoso, a ponerse unas gafas.”)
1934 – Spanish PM Manuel Azaña: “someone I know assures me that, as a rule of the history of Spain, Barcelona should be shelled once every fifty years”

(“una persona de mi conocimiento asegura que es una ley de la historia de España, la necesidad de bombardear Barcelona cada cinquenta años.”)
1938 – Spanish army general Queipo de Llano: “We will transform Madrid into a garden, Bilbao into a large factory and Barcelona into one huge plot of land”

(“Transformaremos Madrid en un vergel, Bilbao en una gran fábrica y Barcelona en un inmenso solar.”)
1939 – Military Governor Aymat: “Catalan dogs! You are not worthy of the sun that shines on you!”

(“¡Perros catalanes! ¡No sois dignos del sol que os alumbra!”)
1968 – La Vanguardia editor Luis de Galinsonga imposed by the Franco dictatorship authorities: “All Catalans are shit.”

(“Todos los catalanes son una mierda.”)
1968 – Spanish minister for Information and Tourism under the Franco dictatorship, Manuel Fraga Iribarne: “Catalonia was occupied by Philip IV, it was occupied by Philip V, who vanquished it, it was shelled by General Espartero, who was a revolutionary general, and we occupied it in 1939 and we are ready to bear our rifles again. So, you know what to expect, and here is my musket ready to be used again”

(“Cataluña fué ocupada por Felipe IV, fué ocupada por Felipe V, que la venció, fué bombardeada por el general Espartero, que era un general revolucionario, y la ocupamos en 1939 y estamos dispuestos a coger de nuevo el fusil. Por consiguiente, ya saben ustedes a que atenerse, y aquí tengo el mosquete para volverlo a utilizar.”)
1977 – Lawyer Jorge Carreras Llansana: “There is nothing other than Spaniards who live and work in Catalonia. A Spaniard who comes here, comes to a Spanish region and cannot ever be considered an immigrant.”

(“En Cataluña no hay más que españoles que viven y trabajan. Un español que viene aquí, viene a una región española y jamás puede ser considerado como inmigrante.”)
1981 – Real Madrid president Santiago Bernabéu: “I like Catalonia, despite the Catalans”

(“Me gusta Cataluña a pesar de los catalanes.”)
1984 – Spanish PM Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo: “Emigration of Spanish-speaking people to Catalonia and Valencia is to be encouraged, so as to ensure the implicit feeling of Spanish sentiment is maintained.”

(“Hay que fomentar la emigración de gentes de habla castellana a Cataluña y Valencia para así asegurar el mantenimiento del sentimiento español que comporta.”)
1984 – Spanish lawyer and politician José Prat: “Catalans are only important when they write in Spanish”

(“Los catalanes sólo son importantes cuando escriben en castellano”.
1984 – Spanish PM Felipe González: “Terrorism in the Basque Country is an issue of law and order, but the real threat is the distinctiveness of the Catalans.”

(“El terrorismo en el País Vasco es una cuestión de orden público, pero el verdadero peligro es el hecho diferencial catalán.”)
1986 – Spanish lawyer and politician José Rodríguez de la Borbolla: “Andalusians are intelligent enough not to trust the Catalans.”

(“Los andaluces son bastante inteligentes para no confiar en los catalanes.”)
1992 – Spanish politician Alejo Vidal Quadras: “Only an infirm mind can conceive of the segregation of Catalonia”

(“Només una ment malaltissa pot concebre la segregació de Catalunya.”)
1993 – Jerez mayor Pedro Pacheco: “Basques and Catalans are vultures ready to pick on the carrion.”

(“Vascos y catalanes son buitres prestos a recoger la carroña.”)
1994 – Spanish politician Mercedes de la Merced: “I am worried about the Guardia Civil (Spanish Gendarmes) coming under Jordi Pujol, today the President of the Generalitat (Catalan government), and tomorrow under any lunatic that might preside.”

(“Me preocupa que la Guardia Civil pueda llegar a depender de Jordi Pujol, hoy Presidente de la Generalitat, y mañana de cualquier loco que la pueda presidir.”)
2001 – Spanish politician Txiki Benegas: “For me, being a nationalist and being cultured and intelligent is incompatible.”

(“Para mi, ser nacionalista y ser culto e inteligente, es incompatible.”)
2001 – King of Spain, Juan Carlos I: “... nobody has ever been forced to speak Spanish; it was the several peoples who, of their own free will, made Cervantes' language theirs.”

(“… a nadie se le obligó nunca a hablar en castellano; fueron los pueblos más diversos quienes hicieron suyo por voluntad libérrima, el idioma de Cervantes.”)
2005 – Spanish politician J. C. Rodríguez Ibarra: “Don't you feel any shame? Can you be such cretins? (…) Not enough money for health? Well, you shouldn't have spent it on having an autonomous police force, on three television channels. Everyone spends on what they want, but then don't come wailing, my friends. (…) I don't know of any budget assignation that says: transfer from one region to this one. And if it does exist, please exclude me. They can stick their money where the sun doesn't shine.”

(“No les da vergüenza? ¿Se puede ser tan cretino? (…) ¿Falta dinero para la sanidad? Pues no se lo hubieran gastado ustedes en tener una policía autonómica, no se lo hubieran gastado ustedes en tener tres televisiones. Cada uno se lo gasta en lo que quiere, pero después no vengan ustedes llorando, amigos. (…) No conozco ninguna partida presupuestaria que diga: transferencia de renta de esta región a ésta. Y si existiera, que por favor me borren. Que se metan los cuartos donde les quepan”.)
2006 – Spanish radio host César Vidal: “A Valencian who considers himself Catalan is like a Jew who admires Hitler.”

(“Un valenciano que se considere catalán es como un judio que admirara a Hitler.”)
2006 – Spanish politician Alfonso Guerra: “We have scrubbed down the [Catalan] Statute”

(“Nos hemos cepillado el Estatut.”)
2008 – The mayor of the village of Agón in the neighbouring autonomous community of Aragon: “Let the Catalans die of thirst, the youth are sick of Catalan oppression”, “The village is likely to take justice in its own hands and destroy the transfer pipes and other facilities if they don't get proper compensation for the bother the Generalitat (Catalan government) has caused them”

(“¡Que los catalanes se mueran de sed, los jóvenes estan hartos de la opresión catalana”, ”Es muy probable que el pueblo se tome la justicia por su mano y destruyan las tuberías del trasvase y otras instalaciones, si no reciben justa recompensa por las molestias que la Generalitat ha causado.”)
2009 – Spanish lawyer and politician Alicia Sánchez-Camacho: “We cannot allow Catalan to be the vehicular language in [Catalan] schools”

(“No podem permetre que el català sigui la llengua vehicular a les escoles.”)

From historian Joaquim Ullan's Cathalonia blog.

You might also like to have a look at my Catalan Independence and Political Activism: A very brief history.

Spain: Fascism's last refuge in Europe

2010-02-08T10:04:00.011+01:00

Toni Strubell, the Coordinator of the Dignity Commission, has sent the following letter to the international media condemning Spain's refusal to eradicate the remains still present in many villages and towns of the dictatorship of General Franco, Europe's last fascist government and ally of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. He also decries Spain's obstacles to inquests into crimes committed during the dictatorship and it's opposition to any kind of official inquiry or truth commission.

Dear Sir,

I would very much like to call your attention to worrying events coming from today's Spain. Last February 4th, Spanish newspapers reported that a National Audience judge, Baltasar Garzón, is to be put on trial and possibly suspended. What was his crime? Having dared to try and open up an investigation into the mass graves and other crimes perpetrated by the Franco regime (in Valencia alone, mass graves holding over 26,300 post-war Franco victims have recently been discovered). That very day the newspapers also informed that the huge fascist monument honouring the cruiser Baleares in Palma bay (the pride of Franco's fleet sunk by the Republicans after having shelled thousands of fleeing refugees on the coastal roads of Andalusia) is not to be demolished. It is to be conserved. What must Spanish democrats and relatives of the victims make of this? Can anyone imagine the same occurring with a monument dedicated to a Fascist-manned warship in any other part of the democratic world? Furthermore, on February 5th newspapers informed that the Basque Parliament, where Spanish Constitutional parties at present hold a majority (due to the illegalization of the Basque left party) voted against instating a Truth Commission (such as the one established by Nelson Mandela in South Africa in the early nineties) to discover the truth about the crimes of Franco. What in heaven's name is happening in Spain? I think it is high time democrats all over the world be informed about the huge democratic deficit that exists today in Spain. Europe largely ridded itself of Fascism in 1945. The one place it lives on is in Spain, where 56 streets in Madrid still bear the names of Franco generals. The sooner the whole world knows the truth about Spain, the sooner we can start to put an end to so much iniquity and disgrace.

Toni Strubell i Trueta
Coordinator of the Dignity Commission

The former head of State, General Franco (left), with his successor to be, the then Prince Juan Carlos of Spain, at his side at a Fascist rally in Madrid in September 1975

Spanish Government Forbids International Flights to Barcelona

2009-06-10T10:57:00.006+02:00

Barcelona-El Prat airport cannot operate flights to and from 23 countries because several international bilateral agreements signed by the Spanish government forbid them. These agreements, which establish priority for Madrid's Barajas airport, include one European country, six in Latin America, eleven in Africa and one in Oceania. This information has been garnered by the Barcelona Chamber of Commerce in a report analysing 80 bilateral treaties currently in force in Spain. Although 42 of these include Barcelona and 15 are open to include the airport if an airline shows interest, the report reveals that 23 treaties explicitly exclude Barcelona, of which 20 name Madrid-Barajas as the operational airport, and 13 of these consider the latter airport exclusively for operation of flights to and from the corresponding countries.

But this legal situation is not the only, and not even the main drawback to the growth of Barcelona airport. The heritage of Iberia as the Spanish flag-carrier and exclusive monopoly for regular flights for 40 years still weighs heavily, particularly with AENA, the State monopoly operator of Spanish airports, aerodromes and heliports, which depends on the Spanish government's Ministry of Public Works and Transport and manages not only the administration of civilian air transit, assignation of slots and navigation control, but also commercial operations, including all airport premises, offices, car parks, shops, bars and restaurants, etc.

The Spanish government says it is considering renegotiating the older treaties to remove the legal obstacles for certain Spanish airports "although this is not an easy process", according to the Ministry's sub-director of Air Transport. This makes clear that these obstacles exist, and even the sub-director admits that if an airport is not included in the government's bilateral treaties, it cannot open routes with the countries in question. It is not hard to come to the conclusion that the Spanish governments have had and have a distinct tendency to favour Madrid over Barcelona, whether directly and explicitly (via government treaties) or indirectly (via AENA).

From the article “El Prat té vetada la possibilitat de vols amb 23 països” (3/24: Catalan public television news service)

Thousands Demonstrate in Brussels for Independence

2009-03-10T03:36:00.000+01:00

15 reasons why Catalonia can no longer form part of Spain

2009-02-22T22:26:00.003+01:00

Because Spain prevents the Catalans from deciding our political future.
Because official Spain is allergic to the Catalan language and culture.
Because the 10% of Catalonia’s GDP that is creamed off by Spain devastates our economy.
Because repressive sentences passed by Franco are still in force.
Because Catalonia is prevented from participating in international sport.
Because Spain systematically ignores U.N. calls against impunity for the Franco regime
Because the mass graves of Franco’s victims are still uninvestigated.
Because Spanish courts systematically overrule Catalan laws.
Because many Spanish streets are still named after Nazis and Fascists.
Because Catalans are a constant target of prejudice and abuse.
Because Spain never apologized for executing our President in 1940.
Because Catalonia wants to contribute to the future of Europe.
Because Catalonia wants to share its language with all Europeans.
Because Catalonia needs a constituency for its own MEPs.
Because Catalonia wants France and Spain as amiable neighbours on friendly terms.

No European can fail to understand this

The Economist :: One last, brief point

2008-11-22T09:45:00.010+01:00

It has been said here in Catalonia that Michael Reid, the editor of the recent special report on Spain in the Economist, was not received by several Catalan political leaders due to agenda incompatibilities. Not speaking to an Economist journalist preparing an in depth report is perceived here as a grave mistake, given the newspaper's profound influence on the opinion of high level decision makers in international business and politics.

However, shouldn't Mr. Reid and his report also be criticised on this point (along with several others, as in my "How much is enough?") for having failed to obtain crucial information and contrasting opinion to include in the report for a more precise picture of Spain in general and Catalonia in particular, as ought to be required by The Economist to maintain its usual consistently high standards?

How much is enough?

2008-11-10T07:30:00.013+01:00

It is revealing to read the comments on the article titled “How much is enough?” in this week's Economist special on Spain. It shows just how polarised the discussions on Spain's devolution to its “autonomous communities” can be. Attacks on nationalism can be really quite fierce, as nationalism (always “regional”, of course) is seen as a threat to the Spanish nation's unity and cohesion.

This confrontation between perceived local nationalist parochialism and what is wishfully understood to be Spanish broad-minded liberalism, as seems implied in the Economist's article, lies paradoxically in Catalan nationalism's historical endeavour to change the political structure of Spain, and Spanish nationalism's constant obstinacy in imposing it's unitary national identity (i.e. uniformity), while subduing that of Catalonia. It is obvious, thence, that the Spanish political mainstream, whether Socialist or PP, (never mind the old Francoists) has always been, in this sense, politically conservative and culturally unitary, opposing today's politically liberal and culturally diverse, multifarious milieu, whether local or global.

Herein lies the difficulty of Spain for the past 300 years. This Spain that has for centuries been unable to consolidate as a nation beyond the regions of Castilian culture (i.e. Spain not including Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia), even “by whichever means necessary”, be these outright war, attempted cultural and linguistic obliteration, or economic and fiscal seizure, is still today attempting to secure its uniform identity. The article mentions that “Catalan and Basque nationalism are creations of the late 19th century”. This is true, not only of Catalonia but also Spain, France, America, etc., if one accepts “nationalism” as described by orthodox modernists, such as Marxist philosopher Eric Hobsbawm or functionalists such as Ernest Gellner. But if one is to consider current trends of study, nationalism is not only a “modern” (i.e. 18th & 19th century) phenomenon, but it also has pre-modern origins, as described by Anthony D. Smith's thesis of ethnosymbolism. This is made clear by the history of Catalonia and its struggle for self-rule and its political activism, the history of which goes back a long way (see my Catalan Independence and Political Activism: A very brief history).

A closed, parochial society?

The parochial nationalism that is unable to adapt to post-modern society, with its radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language, is not in fact Catalan nationalism, but that of Spain. Catalonia, with its distinct singularity, has long been at the forefront of social, cultural and economic advancement, not only in Spain, but also in Europe. It is the most open society in Spain, with 13.5% of its population coming from abroad. Catalonia has long welcomed migrations: between the 16th and the 18th centuries, many French migrated there, escaping from religious strife and civil disturbances. During the last quarter of the 19th century and the whole of the 20th, Catalonia had a net influx of migrants. As of the late 1950s, while southern Europe, including Spain, was 'exporting' labour to the north, Catalonia was a net 'importer', like the UK or Germany. Between 1950 and 1975, the population of Catalonia grew by 75%, from 3.2 million to 5.6 million. In the first years of the 21st century, the foreign-born population has grown from 181,596 (2.9% of the total) in 2000 to 939,321 (13.1%) in 2006.

This obvious attraction felt by many hundreds of thousands of migrants does not say much for this image that some hope to sell of a closed, parochial society. Indeed, some months ago, Spanish (non-Catalan) tourist business leaders tried to put over the idea that having our own language somehow hurt our tourist industry. However, the Spanish 'region' that receives most tourists is in fact Catalonia, with 15 million visitors, 25% of the total received by Spain (2006, the last year for which official figures are available), followed by the Catalan-speaking Balearics, with 10.2 million foreign tourists. In other words, two regions with protectionist Catalan-language policies are the most successful in drawing foreign visitors.

Devolution or Federalism? Independence!

The Economist's article describes the estado de las autonomías as a successful process of devolution, and that there have been more and more transfers of powers over the last 30 years. But here lies another paradox: these transfers are no more, and are in fact less, than those that were stipulated by the 1979 Statute for Catalonia. The 2006 Statute was passed because it was clear that the process supposedly governed by the previous one had come to a standstill. Worse still is the fact that the date by which the financial arrangement for the new Statute was to come into force has come and gone, with the Spanish government still stalling on the issue.

Furthermore, devolution is, as described by Wikipedia...

“... the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a state to government at subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. It differs from federalism in that the powers devolved may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure, unitary.

Any devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed by central government in the same way an ordinary statute can be. Federal systems, or federacies, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. Australia, Canada and the United States have federal systems, and have constitutions (as do some of their constituent states or provinces).”

The latter is, in my opinion and that of many Catalans, what should have been legislated after the Franco regime, but which was not for fear of the centuries-old demands of unitary uniformity by Spanish reactionary conservatives and the military. This was, after all, what had essentially led to Franco's military uprising and the Spanish civil war: the Catalans had been given an inch and had tried to take a mile. The democratic government of the nineteen-thirties had in many ways devolved more than today in the democratic give-and-take.

And there lies the question: How much is enough? Well, enough is what the citizens decide they want, isn't it? That is the whole point of democratic rule. The Catalan parliament voted for the new Statute by 90% of its members, and it was approved in referendum by the citizens with a clear majority in favour. But still the Spanish government procrastinates with its application.

If the Spanish powers-that-be are not yet ready to accept this, after thirty years of democracy and three hundred years of imposition, there isn't much point in carrying on with their ground rules. Independentists move, therefore, that Spain's solution, for both the Spanish and the Catalans, is Catalan independence.

Catalan and the European Union

2008-01-31T12:00:00.002+01:00

The European Union is made up of 27 member states, with an aggregate of 23 official and working languages. Catalan is not one of them, although its speakers are granted certain linguistic rights: they may use Catalan in written communication with the Council of the European Union, the Commission, the Economic and Social Committee, the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman, as well as in the Committee of the Regions.

Catalan is spoken in three member states: Spain – in the Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Valencia, Aragon (in La Franja, a strip neighbouring Catalonia) and in Murcia (in the town of el Carxe); France – in the Pyrénées-Orientales department (known as North Catalonia); Italy – in the town of l'Alguer (Alghero). It is also the official language of Andorra, a small non-EU country in the Pyrenees.

However, although spoken by some 9.1 million European citizens the language is not officially recognised by the EU. Does this mean that there are different linguistic rights accorded to different citizens of the EU, depending on their mother tongue? It cannot be argued that this is an issue of economic rationale, that this is a so-called minority language: Catalan is spoken by more European citizens than either Danish, Estonian, Finnish, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Slovak or Slovene, and about as many as Bulgarian or Swedish. All of these are recognised official and working languages in the EU, but not Catalan.

This is not democratic: Catalans are not a minority, we are a discriminated, colonised people.

Join the Facebook Cause to Defend Europarl.cat, stop europarl.cat from being closed down and get the official Euro-Parliament website translated into Catala.

Björk Declares Independence

2008-01-18T08:30:00.001+01:00

On the 2^nd of this month, indie webzine Pitchfork published an interview with singer, musician and actress Björk. Björk is Icelandic and still keeps her country in mind, even though she is an international megastar with a manifest, unquestionable multicultural and multidisciplinary style. She is the daughter of a union leader and a politically active mother. You could hardly identify anyone further from the image of provincial nationalism or right-wing jingoism. She does not, however, renounce her roots.

The interview focuses on her album Volta and particularly on her latest single Declare Independence, whose video ends with Björk bearing the flags of Greenland and the Faeroe Islands. Pitchfork asks Björk about this…

It's Greenland's flag and the Faroe Islands' flag. Iceland became independent from Denmark 60 years ago. We were a colony for 600 years, and we were treated really badly, as all colonies are. And Greenland and the Faroe Islands are still part of Denmark. The song was partly written to those countries. In Iceland's newspapers, there's always some talk about the Faroe Islands and Greenland wanting independence, and Greenland seemed close, but then they found a lot of oil, and Denmark doesn't want to let that go. If you were to go into a local bar and ask about Greenland and the Faroe Islands, people get very feisty. People are very supportive of Greenland and the Faroe Islands getting independence. I think that Greenland and the Faroe Islands have looked a lot to Iceland as an inspiration, the way we set up our bank systems, the way we became more and more independent.

And I thought it was hysterical to say to your friend who is having a lot of problems with his girlfriend, to just say 'Declare independence and raise your own flag.' Maybe it's just my silly sense of humor. But it's definitely written to Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

For the full interview, click here.

Spain's Past: A rude awakening

2008-01-07T11:51:00.000+01:00

An open letter to the Editor of The Economist on their article on the Spanish Historical Memory Law

Dear Sir,

Re. your article on the Spanish Historical Memory Law, I certainly hope Franco is turning in his grave. I am absolutely sure that many others are also turning in their unidentified roadside graves, along with those who were summarily tried and executed by military tribunals. The latter are still recorded as being criminals, and their descendants have suffered all sorts of discrimination through the years. In fact, this is one of the candent issues not dealt with by the Historical Memory Law: that these victims are not cleansed of the implications that having been found guilty by a military court brings. The Law may be to the satisfaction of Spain's prime minister, but it only qualifies the hearings as “illegitimate”, and nothing further. It does not explicitly annul the trials, leaving the victims’ descendants to bear the costs and burden of going through the administrative bureaucracy of having each hearing made void in order to clear their forbearers’ names. This is still worse for those whose sentences were not execution, and who have lived through a life of discrimination, including not being able to claim war pensions because they fought on the “wrong” side. Likewise, the widows of those who have since died, along with those of the executed, have never been able to claim war widows’ pensions and many have suffered consequent impoverishment. You mention that El Pais implies that the victims never lost their dignity. Is there any dignity in a life of discrimination and being forced into destitution?

Where in Italy or Germany, the authorities would not even dream of maintaining statues and other monuments to Mussolini and Hitler, throughout Spain one finds statues, memorial plaques, street names, etc. commemorating Jose Antonio, the founder of Spain’s equivalent of the Nazi party, many right-wing generals who supported Franco’s rebellion against the democratic government, as well as others paying tribute to Franco himself. These are not “few”, as you say in the article: just look up calle or avenida Jose Antonio or Francisco Franco in Google Maps. And that’s just street names. Can you imagine just one “Hitler Ave.” or a “Dr. Mengele St.” in Germany, or a “Mussolini Sq.” in Italy?

As to the repeal of the Francoist laws you mention, about time say hundreds of thousands of Spanish citizens. The fact these laws still exist after over thirty years of democracy, and that the governments that have come and gone have not found it convenient to repeal them because of the so-called “pact of forgetting", just goes to show the lack of understanding that some parties have of the deep, long-lasting pain suffered by the victims of the Spanish Civil war, brought about by an army uprising aligned with the fascist Axis powers the Allies fought later, and the dictatorial regime following that.

To paraphrase the Armenian guide you quote in your article on Turkish and US policy, “Our objective is not to attack this or that political party. It is to ensure recognition of the victims of the first total war of the 20th century, that of the Axis upon the people of democratic Spain.”

Catalan Independence and Political Activism: A very brief history

2007-12-29T14:50:00.003+01:00

Since the end of the War of the Spanish Succession and the defeat of Catalonia by Spain in 1714 after the siege of Barcelona, symbolised annually by the Catalan National "Diada" or Remembrance Day on 11th of September, the Catalan people have constantly been reclaiming their citizens’ rights to freedom and their Constitutions. This struggle has been hidden away by a carefully planned strategy to wipe away the facts and reality of the Catalan polity, its culture and language.

Firstly, the Nueva Planta decrees suppressed the institutions of the lands that were formerly part of the Crown of Aragon (Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and the Balearic Islands), including the dissolution of the Generalitat (Catalan government):

"Having ceased with the entry of the arms of the King, Our Lord, to this City and place, the representation of the Council and Generalitat of Catalonia, the most Excellent Lord Marshall Duke of Berwick and Liria has ordered me to mandate that the councillors and judges of accounts (auditors) of the Generalitat of Catalonia furl all ensigns, cease totally, along with their subordinates, the exercise of their offices, occupations and posts, and surrender the keys, books and all other things concerning the house of the Council and its dependencies...." Decree of dissolution, dictated by José Patiño, President of the Spanish “Real Junta Superior de Justicia y Gobierno” (Royal Superior Committee of Justice and Government) on 16th September, 1714.

Having, with divine assistance and the justice of my cause, pacified entirely by my Arms the Principality of Catalonia, my sovereignty established shall govern therein…” Nueva Planta decree, 16th January, 1716.

The hearings of the Royal Audience (Court of appeals) shall be held in the Castilian (Spanish) language.” Article 45 of the Nueva Planta decree, 16th January, 1716.

The government of Philip V sent his Corregidores (Spanish royal civil servants locally representing the Crown) secret instructions that same year and again in 1727, indicating among other things that “You shall take special care to introduce the Castilian (Spanish) language, to which end you shall make the most tempered and disguised provisions, so as not to reveal our concern”.

The suppression of Catalan identity, went on and on. King Charles III signed a Real Cédula (Royal Warrant) whereby:

“I mandate that the education of the first readings, Latinity and Rhetoric be made generally in the Castilian (Spanish) language, wherever practised, and that the corresponding Courts and Justices take care to enforce its compliance, recommending also by My Council that the Bishoprics, Universities and the Regular superiors keep exact observation and diligence in extending the general language of the [Spanish] Nation for greater harmony and mutual bond.” Article VII of the Royal Warrant signed at Aranjuez on 23rd June, 1768

Yet another Warrant bans Catalan from mercantile records:

“.. that all Merchants and Traders, whether wholesale or retail, Domestic or foreign, shall observe the Law of the Kingdom therein and which provides for Records in the Castilian (Spanish) language.” Royal Warrant signed by Charles III of Spain on 24th December, 1768

This has continued to the present day, with further peaks of repression under the absolutist monarchy and the civil wars during the 1800s, the dictatorship of General Primo de Rivera in the 1920s, and Franco’s regime from 1939 onwards.

Notwithstanding, the Catalan nation, defending her rights, culture, heritage and language, and thus Catalonia’s identity, has resisted without abate:

1734 – “Via fora els adormits” (Get out with thee, ye drowsy), a pamphlet against the Bourbon monarchy, is published.
1736 – A letter is published, addressed to George II and titled “Reminder of the Alliance, made to His Serene Highness, George Augustus, King of Great Britain” appealing for his commitment to recover the freedoms lost when the British crown turned its back on the Catalans after the War of the Spanish Succession.
1760 – The representatives of the Catalan-speaking countries (Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca) submit at the Court of Charles III the first “Memorial de Greuges” (Record of Grievances) in which they denounce the perverse economical, institutional and cultural effects of the regime imposed by the Nueva Planta decrees.
1789 – Revolt in Barcelona against the Quintas, whereby one of every five able-bodied men is conscripted without compensation into the Spanish army to fight wars from which Catalan society is disassociated, and often deployed against the civilian population itself.
1789 – The “Bread Disturbances” break out in Barcelona, Vic, Mataró and elsewhere, brought on by the Spanish government’s economic mismanagement which had led to a famine, particularly due to the increase in the price of wheat, and also meat, wine and oil.
1835 – Further disturbances, the pro-liberal “Bullangues” break out spontaneously against the absolutist monarchy, the church, which supports the monarchy, and the Royal Statute of Prime Minister Martínez de la Rosa.
1842 – Another revolt leads to General Espartero’s bombardment of Barcelona and a successive repression by General Van Halen of the working population, banning al forms of association.
1843 – The “Jamànsia” revolt breaks out in reaction to generalised famine and poverty. General Prim follows Espartero’s example and bombards Barcelona again.
1855 – Workers’ leader Josep Barceló is executed and a general strike is called.
1873 – Republican leader Baldomer Lostau proclaims a Catalan State from March 5th to 7th. The proclamation is called off after the Spanish Prime Minister’s (unkept) promise to withdraw the army from Catalonia.
1888 – A message is presented to the Queen Regent appealing for attention to the Catalan issue.
1892 – The Catalanist Union holds an assembly in Manresa to approve the “Bases for a Catalan Regional Constitution”, a project for autonomy for Catalonia.
1900 – Anti-government riots upon the visit to Catalonia by Eduardo Dato, then minister of "Gobernación" (Home Office in the UK or Justice Dept. in the US).
1919 – The Mancomunitat or “Commonwealth” of Catalonia, which builds up infrastructures in the absence of initiative by successive Spanish governments, approves a project for a Statute for autonomy. This is rejected outright by the Spanish government.
1926 – Francesc Macià organises a foiled plot to invade Spain from Prats de Molló to rid Catalonia of Primo de Rivera’s dictatorship.
1932 – A Statute of Autonomy is finally approved under the Spanish Republic, but this democratic government is defeated after only seven years by a military uprising led by General Franco, who installs himself as Generalissimo at the head of a fascist dictatorship for over 40 years.

Catalan state on Facebook

2007-12-19T11:30:00.000+01:00

Are you a Facebook user? Well, now you can add to your causes. How about advocating for the Catalan-speaking countries' own state?

Facebook's “Catalan Secessionist Cause for an Own State” is the sister of the Estat Propi (Own State) site where those who want to support the cause for independence of Catalonia can show how many of us there are worldwide, and where we are.

The Own State campaign has been created in the Catalan blogsphere, responding to the widespread need to find out what the true popular support is for the achievement of the Catalan Countries' own state.

Aims:

Promoting favourable arguments for Catalan independence
Spreading the Catalan secessionist cause
Convincing people to join the Catalan secessionist cause

Just go and join to show a little flag on a world map. Obviously, most flags show up within the Catalan-speaking countries, and specially in Catalonia. But why not in India, or Australia, or wherever YOU may be? It's really easy!

What is Catalonia?

2007-12-14T00:34:00.000+01:00

Well, for starters, what it isn’t. It isn’t a “region” of Spain, at least not in the political sense. It’s what is known as an “Autonomous Community” (see the Wikipedia entry). The only Spanish Autonomous Community that is formally termed a region is the Region of Murcia. There are articles on the Catalan people, nationalism and independentism in Wikipedia, although some items in the entries are highly debatable, even contentious, so a visit to the discussion page is a must. In any case, I do not intend to compete with Wikipedia. What I hope to do is to lay out different points of view, particularly mine, which is that of an Independentist.

More soon.