To my own astonishment, and after a full 36 hours of hard thinking to try and escape this conclusion, I am in intellectual honesty obliged to reconsider my lifelong support for the European Union, due to the unqualified backing of the EU Commission for the Spanish Government’s dreadful repression in Catalonia.
This is very difficult for me. I still much favour open immigration policy, and the majority of Brexiteers are motivated at base by racist anti-immigrant sentiment. Certainly many Brexiteers share in the right wing support for Rajoy’s actions, across Europe. I have been simply stunned by the willingness of right wingers across the internet, including on this blog, to justify the violence of the Spanish state on “law and order” grounds. It is a stark warning of what we might face in Scotland in our next move towards Independence, which I have always believed may be made without the consent of Westminster.
But not all who oppose the EU are right wing. There are others who oppose the EU on the grounds that it is simply another instrument of power of the global 1% and an enforcer of neo-liberalism. I had opposed this idea on the grounds it was confusing the policies of current EU states with the institution itself, that it ignored the EU’s strong guarantees of human rights, and its commitment to workers’ rights and consumer protection.
I have to admit today that I was wrong, and in fact the EU does indeed function to maintain the global political elite, and cares nothing for the people.
The Lisbon Treaty specifically incorporated the European Charter of Fundamental Rights into basic European Union law.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Spanish Guardia Civil on Sunday contravened the following articles:
Article 1: The Right to Human Dignity
Article 6: The Right to Liberty or Security of Person
Article 11: Freedom of Expression and Information
Article 12: Freedom of Assembly and Association
Article 54: Prohibition of Abuse of Rights
I would argue that these were also breached:
Article 21: Non-discrimination
Article 22: Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Diversity
The European Commission is obliged to abide by this Charter by Article 51. Yet when the Spanish government committed the most egregious mass violation of human rights within the European Union for a great many years, the EU Commission deliberately chose to ignore completely its obligations under the European Charter of Fundamantal Rights in its response. The Commission’s actions shocked all of intellectual Europe, and represented a complete betrayal of the fundamental principles, obligations and basic documents of the European Union.
This is the result. The disgusting, smirking Margaritas Schinas of the European Commission refuses to face up to the intellectual vacuity of the EU’s position. He is also lying, because he claims to be limited in matters beyond the Commission’s competence, when he knows perfectly well that the EU Commission is ignoring its obligations under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
That video was a key factor in persuading me, after 44 years of actual enthusiasm for the EU, it is no longer an organisation which I can support.
900 people were so injured by the Guardia Civil that they had to go for formal medical treatment. Officers, in full riot gear, baton charged entirely peaceful lines of voters, smashed old ladies on the head with weapons, pulled young women by the hair and stamped on them on the ground, threw people down flights of stairs, fired rubber bullets into people sitting on the street and broke a woman’s fingers one by one.
To take the “legalistic” argument, even if you accept the referendum was illegal (and I shall come to that), that in no way necessitates that sort of violence. It could be argued the referendum’s result had no legal effect, but the act of the referendum itself is in that case a form of political demonstration. If that involved abuse of public funds, then legal consequences might follow. There was no cause at all to inflict mass violence on the voters. The actual violence was absolutely disproportionate, unprovoked and undoubtedly met the bar of gross and systematic human rights abuse by the Spanish state.
Yet the EU reacted as if no such abuse had ever happened at all, and the world had not seen it. The statement of the EU Commission totally ignored these absolutely shocking events, in favour of an unequivocal statement of absolute support for Rajoy:
Under the Spanish Constitution, yesterday’s vote in Catalonia was not legal.
For the European Commission, as President Juncker has reiterated repeatedly, this is an internal matter for Spain that has to be dealt with in line with the constitutional order of Spain.
We also reiterate the legal position held by this Commission as well as by its predecessors. If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union.
Beyond the purely legal aspects of this matter, the Commission believes that these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation.
We call on all relevant players to now move very swiftly from confrontation to dialogue. Violence can never be an instrument in politics. We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein.
I speak fluent diplomatese, and this is an unusual statement in its fulsomeness. It contradicts itself by saying “this is an internal matter” but then adding “these are times for unity and stability, not divisiveness and fragmentation” which is an unequivocal statement of opposition to Catalan independence.
The Commission later claimed that to comment on the violence by the Spanish Authorities is beyond its competence, a plain lie due to Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what was in fact outwith Commission competence was this statement of opposition to Catalan independence.
It was also extremely unusual – in fact I cannot think of another example – of the EU Commission specifically to endorse by name Mariano Rajoy, let alone immediately after he had launched a gross human rights abuse.
Condemnation would have been too much to expect; but these gratuitous endorsements were a slap in the face to anybody with a concern for human rights in Europe. Also, in diplomatese, I should have expected the mildest of hidden rebukes in the statement; I would have been annoyed by “The Commission is sure the Spanish Government will continue to meet its obligations under the Charter of Fundamental Rights” as too weak, but it is the kind of thing I would have expected to see.
Instead Juncker chose to make no qualification at all in his support for Rajoy.
Perhaps as a former diplomat I put much more weight on these little things than might seem sensible, but to me they are the unmistakeable tells of what kind of right wing authoritarian institution the EU has become, and why I can no longer offer it my support.
I now want to turn to the wider question of whether the Catalonian referendum was indeed illegal. This argument must always come back to the Charter of the United Nations , which states at
Article 1 (2) To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
It is worth noting that there is no qualification at all on “self-determination of peoples”. It is not limited to decolonisation, as sometimes falsely claimed. The phrase is repeated in the separate UN Declaration on Decolonisation, as the principle plainly is applicable in that context. But it is not limited to that context and appears in the Charter outwith that context.
The question of what constitutes a “people” is a thorny one. NATO were sufficiently convinced the Kosovans were a “people” to go to war for their right to self-determination, while in terms of domestic law of Yugoslavia or Serbia their independence was every bit as illegal as Catalonian independence is under Spanish law. The purveyors of the “illegal” argument, in Spain and in the EU, have never deigned to us why the Kosovans are a “people” with the right to self-determination whereas the Catalans are not.
In this limited sense, NATO and the EU were right over Kosovo. If the Kosovans are a “people”, their right to self determination under the UN Charter could not be nullified by domestic Yugoslav or Serbian legislation. The same is true of the Catalans. If they are a “people”, Spanish domestic legislation cannot remove their right of self-determination. The rights conferred by the UN Charter are inalienable. A people can never give up its right of self-determination. Indeed, those arguing that the Catalans contracted into the current Spanish constitution are heading into a legal ambush as they have already admitted the Catalans are a people with the right of self-determination.
Indeed the Spanish constitution already admits Spain contains separate nationalities. The preamble of section 2 to the Spanish Constitution reads:
Section 2. The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.
Remember, the right to self-determination is inalienable. Once you have acknowledged the existence of different nationalities, the Spanish Constitutional Court cannot legitimately deny their right to self-determination. What it can legitimately do is to judge on their constitutional arrangements within Spain. It cannot legitimately prevent them from determining to leave.
I do not see any doubt that the Catalans are a “people”. They have their own language. They have their own culture. Most importantly, there are over one thousand years of written records of their existence as a separate “people” with those attributes and an extremely long, if in some cases occasionally broken, history of their own institutions.
I do not think it is seriously arguable that the Catalans are not a “people”. It is also the answer to the frankly childish comparison, made by right wingers, to the South East of England breaking away. There is no legitimate argument that the South East of Englanders are a separate “people” in the sense of the UN Charter. The same applies to Northern Italy. Belgium, however, does include different peoples with the right of self-determination, should they choose to exercise it.
The fact that a “people” has the right of self-determination gives them, of course, the right to choose, including the right to choose to remain within their existing state. That right to choose was all the Catalonian government was seeking to offer. The Spanish government and courts are implementing a domestic law, but that domestic law is incompatible with overarching wider rights. As journalists point out in that EU Commission video above, the Turkish courts are correctly implementing domestic law in jailing journalists and academics. It is not enough for Spain to say it is implementing law when the law itself is illegitimate. Jews were “lawfully” rounded up in 1930’s Germany. Gandhi and Mandela were “lawfully” imprisoned.
I will never forget working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as the South Africa (Political) officer in 1986, when the policy of the Thatcher government was explicit that black activists jailed under the apartheid laws were lawfully detained, and that apartheid forces breaking up illegal Soweto demonstrations, in precisely the manner seen against voters in Catalonia, were acting lawfully. Over thirty years, the acknowledgement of the overarching internationally guaranteed basic rights appeared to have made progress. But the EU Commission has just turned its back on all of that.
It is not just the Commission. Macron, May and Merkel have all declared unequivocally against Catalonian independence, while refusing to make any comment at all on the state violence as an “internal affair”. This from Guy Verhofstadt is as good as EU reaction gets, yet it is still entirely mendacious:
I don’t want to interfere in the domestic issues of Spain but I absolutely condemn what happened today in Catalonia.
On one hand, the separatist parties went forward with a so-called referendum that was forbidden by the Constitutional Court, knowing all too well that only a minority would participate as 60 % of the Catalans are against separation.
And on the other hand – even when based on court decisions – the use of disproportionate violence to stop this.
In the European Union we try to find solutions through political dialogue and with respect for the constitutional order as enshrined in the Treaties, especially in art. 4.
It’s high time for de-escalation. Only a negotiated solution in which all political parties, including the opposition in the Catalan Parliament, are involved and with respect for the Constitutional and legal order of the country, is the way forward.
Verhofstadt accepts without question the right of the Spanish Constitutional Court to deny the Catalan right to self-determination, and like every other EU source does not put an argument for that or even refer to the existence of that right or to the UN Charter. He claims, utterly tendentiously to know that 60% of the Catalan people oppose independence. That is plainly untrue. In the last Catalonian assembly elections, 48% voted for pro-Independence parties and another 5% for parties agnostic on the issue. On Sunday, 55% of the electorate voted. A quarter of those votes were confiscated by police, but the votes of 42% of the electorate could be counted and were 90% for Independence. There is no reason to suspect the confiscated ballots were any different. Verhofstadt does at least acknowledge the disproportionate violence to stop the referendum, thus correctly attributing the blame. This is the only statement I have seen from any EU source which contains any truth whatsoever.
To withdraw a lifetime of support for the EU is not a light decision. I have delayed it for hard consideration, so that the emotions aroused by the Spanish government violence could die down. I am also very confident, knowing how these things work, that Rajoy had briefed other EU leaders in advance that he was going to close down the referendum, and their statements of support had been pre-prepared. Diplomatic wheels grind slowly, and I assumed there would be some rowing back from these original statements once bureaucracies had time to react to the excessive violence. In fact there has been no significant softening of the hard line.
In itself, even this incident would not be enough to make me denounce my support for the European Union. But it illustrates, in a way that I cannot deny, an argument that has been repeatedly urged on me and which I have been attempting to deny. The principles of the European Union and indeed the content of its treaties are something I continue strongly to support. But the institution has in fact been overrun by the right wing cronyism of the neo-liberal political class, and no longer serves the principles for which it ostensibly stands. It is become simply an instrument of elite power against the people.
Today, and with a greater sadness than you can imagine, I withdraw my support for membership of the European Union.
————————————————————-
I continue urgently to need contributions to my defence in the libel action against me by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of Daily Mail online. You can see the court documents outlining the case here. I am threatened with bankruptcy and the end of this blog (not to mention a terrible effect on my young family). Support is greatly appreciated. An astonishing 4,000 people have now contributed a total of over £75,000. But that is still only halfway towards the £140,000 target. I realise it is astonishing that so much money can be needed, but that is the pernicious effect of England’s draconian libel laws, as explained here.
On a practical point, a number of people have said they are not members of Paypal so could not donate. After clicking on “Donate”, just below and left of the “Log In” button is a small “continue” link which enables you to donate by card without logging in.
For those who prefer not to pay online, you can send a cheque made out to me to Craig Murray, 89/14 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8BA. As regular readers know, it is a matter of pride to me that I never hide my address.
Craig’s argument would be stronger if he named a single notable government that took a significantly different tack.
I believe the EU Parliament has the power to dismiss the Commission at any time, albeit with a supermajority. Perhaps Craig should campaign for it to do so now?
The petitions page:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/20150201PVL00037/Petitions
(I think Verhofstad’s 60% number comes from 40% of registerered voters voting for pro-independence. To say that 60% are opposed though is nonsense. But 40% of eligible voters is not a mandate for a major constitutional change.)
A mandate for major constitutional change? I believe that in Catalonia 38% of the entire registered electorate voted Yes. In the UK, 37% of the entire registered electorate voted for Brexit.
And your point is… ?
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/i-accuse-ac-grayling-s-denunciation-of-britain-s-craven-politicians-1-5218037
“I believe that in Catalonia 38% of the entire registered electorate voted Yes.”
I don’t.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/915254852112064513
A thoughtful, if sad piece Craig. You have come to the very same conclusion I did. My thinking was almost identical.
I was prompted by Alyn Smith MEP on twitter, when he said that a debate had been scheduled in the European Parliament, and that he hoped to elicit a stronger response. The thought that immediately sprang to mind was “it’s too late”. The time for speaking up in defence of people’s rights was days ago; not days after the fact, and not days after releasing statements absolving Spain of any wrongdoing.
It was right then, that I realised that I could no longer support membership of the EU for Scotland. I still believe we need to stay in the single market, as part of EFTA, with our neighbours in Norway, but I will no longer support the EU as it is.
Lekraw
I believe EFTA is the best way forward for the UK. Only May and her bonkers Tories want to end freedom of movement and freedom of trade. But they are ideologically opposed to all manifestations of freedom.
The Spanish Constitution is part of the problem. It was drawn up when Spain was a very young democracy and the generals were keeping a very close eye on developments. Anything less than “indissoluble unity” could well have provoked a coup; indeed, it still went too far for Tejero and his friends, who tried to overthrow the government by force in 1981. So Spain is in a situation where what was politically expedient 40 years ago is now helping to fuel resentment. That’s why constructions aren’t set in stone.
ANTI-FASCIST
How do you oppose fascists? Ask a man whose father and uncle were jailed and tortured by them. – Yanis Varoufakis
Who has said that you _stay_ in the EU and you _fight_ to change it: to make it more democratic; or social democratic. –
– https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu
It’s a lot easier to make the EU social democratic – and to force it to force the government in Madrid to reach a Federal solution for Spain – or even Catalan independence – than it is to overthrow the would-be Francoist Fascists in Madrid.
Several hundred Europeans have been bashed by thugs in uniform and European citizens are outraged. But in the rest of the world millions have been murdered – bombed, shot, tortured to death, or starved and denied medicine (‘excess deaths’) – by the US, its catamite UK partner and by EU ‘Nazi Legions’ (to quote the esteemed father of peace studies, Norwegian Johan Galtung on Norway’s efforts to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US Empire Neo-Con Nazis in Afghanistan).
The battle is not over. It hasn’t even begun, in Varoufakis’s terms. –
– The Battle of Cable Street – How to oppose Fascists for slow learners –
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiZFyYkcnf4#t=4m40s
Johan Galtung
“If you use violence at someone very very clever at violence and much better equipped than you are, it is not necessarily a sign of immorality, it could also be a sign of stupidity. Or both. These two categories don’t exclude each other.” @6.28
– ‘Celebrating Peace on Johan Galtung’s 80th birthday at Voksenkollen’ – Part 5 – Youtube –
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIbtvD83EWE#t=04m50s
The European Union is all about keeping power in the hands of those who have it. If the ideology of a country is in line with those who continue to dominate it has nothing to fear. If a country does not share that ideology, like Ukraine under Yanukovich, or Yugoslavia under Tito it is fair game for partition or division.
When the Maidan protests took place you could not get them off the main TV channels at prime time. I recall the coverage ran from before Christmas right through to February when the first deaths occurred. Once Yanukovich had gone and western puppets Yatsenyuk and later Porky Poroshenko were in place the job was done. Despite some 10,000 people having been killed in the first civil-war for almost a century, the Z*onist-neocon owned establishment thought that unworthy of reporting.
Our liberties, not just those of Catalonians but all of our liberties, are vanishing under our noses without even a a word of protest. This is how Facebook and Google deal with free-speech. We are living in times that Kafka in his darkest chimeras could not have dreamt up.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/youtube-bans-syriangirls-video-about-her-facebook-ban-hate-speech/ri21120
Bravo Craig, at last you have taken the ‘red pill’ and seen the EU for what it truly is and you can now begin to face up to other truths about the EU that you have perhaps shielded your eyes and cognitive senses from noticing before.
Sadly even if the Catalan people achieve independence it appears that the right wing led governments of the Catalan region will continue with neo-liberal agenda and pro-austerity policies.
As Alex Lantier and Alejandro López write on wsws.org:
“French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire spoke for the entire European ruling class when he made clear that the bloody images of mass police repression in Catalonia did not trouble him.
“All these decisions are matters of Spanish sovereignty,” Le Maire told RTL radio. “What would we say if the Spanish government started giving opinions on the situation in France, on the ways we handle our issues of public order? All these decisions belong to the Spanish government, and they are its exclusive responsibility.”
The European Commission echoed Le Maire, handing Rajoy a blank check for new onslaughts against the Catalan population, signed by the entire European Union. In a statement published online yesterday placing its seal of approval on Madrid’s repression, it declared: “We trust the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy to manage this difficult process in full respect of the Spanish Constitution and of the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined therein.”
Reaching new lows of hypocrisy even for the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, the Commission added, “Violence can never be an instrument in politics.”” ……
“The ruthless crackdown in Catalonia is a warning to the European and international working class. While Franco has been dead for over 40 years, the class forces that sustained his regime are still in place, and the democratic forms of rule that existed over this period are rapidly eroding. Anytime the ruling class meets serious opposition, it resorts to dictatorial methods—unhesitatingly mobilizing police, military police and even the army as it suppresses opposition.”
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/03/cata-o03.html
I recommend to all readers – especially those whose knowledge about Spain and Catalonia derives from recent propaganda – an excellent article which has just appeared on the website of the European Council for Foreign Relations.
It is entitled “Three myths about Catalonia’s independence movement” ; the three myths are
1/. A legitimate and democratic referendum process unjustly constrained by the Spanish state
2/. “Post-Franco” Spain clamping down on “democratic Catalonia”
3/. Myth Three : Serbia vs Kosovo comparison.
The reference is http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_three_myths_about_catalonias_independence_movement
A load of absolute bile from a right wing Spanish nationalist, USA educated “security expert”. I think people would be better advised to read what I wrote. If they prefer to read CIA sponsored stuff, there are plenty of other sites they can go to.
Agreed – this is the sort of crap you can read any day of the week in El Pais, or watch nightly on Spain’s 24h state news channel. You’re welcome to it if that’s your bag, but remember Orwell’s quote about how in Spain a lie doesn’t have to meet even the minimum criteria of truth that you would expext other countries…
CIA sponsored? Bile? I would say read both and make up your own mind.
It will not sit pretty with SNP voters but it shows the process of how and why Catalans are screwed with out political/constitutional reform first. Also shows up the febrile minds of independence at any cost supporters.
Why “absolute bile”? It’s another point of view which deserves as much consideration as what Craig wrote. I realise however that other points of view tend to get short shrift on this blog. Rather than dismissing it summarily as absolute bile you’d do better if you told readers where, in your opinion, the ECFR article is wrong and/or telling untruths (in your opinion).
Interesting I’m well aware of what the USA based ‘Council on Foreign Relations’ is all about (the name is a clue but i think you probably need to reverse it) and who were allegedly some of the key players, names like Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Rockefeller, Kissinger, the Clintons etc, but I hadn’t heard of the ‘European Council on Foreign Relations’ (EUCFR) until now.
A quick search shows that the EuCFR was according to Wikipedia: “is a pan-European think tank…..founded by Mark Leonard together with 50 European politicians, business leaders, public intellectuals and activists…….has offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Warsaw and Sofia, with London serving as headquarter. When ECFR was founded in 2007, the Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris and Sofia offices were opened at the same time”
“Mark Leonard (born 1974) is a British political scientist, and author. He is the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations ECFR which he founded in 2007. He is the son of Dick Leonard, the writer and journalist, and Irène Heidelberger-Leonard”
“Richard (Dick) Lawrence Leonard (born 12 December 1930) is a British writer and journalist, writing as Dick Leonard, and also a former British Labour politician. He is a pro-European social democrat and a disciple of the late Anthony Crosland……From 1974 to 1985 he was Assistant Editor of The Economist. He served as Europe Correspondent in Brussels for The Observer (London) from 1989 to 1997. He remained in Brussels until 2009 and wrote on Belgian politics in The Bulletin, and on European affairs in The Guardian (London), the Financial Times, the Times Literary Supplement, European Voice, and other newspapers in several countries.
Dick Leonard has been a Visiting Professor at the Free University of Brussels and a Senior Adviser at the Centre for European Policy Studies. He lives in London.”
So that’s quite clear no, no bias, vested interests or propaganda here folks, this huge organisation is just a ‘think tank’ to promote European ideals, I can’t imagine how much it costs to set up, run or who funds it or what they payback they hope to gain from its work, but definitely no axe to grind. OK I hope you all got that.
See below for source of quotes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council_on_Foreign_Relations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Leonard_(director)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leonard
Does that mean you will withdraw your support for Scottish independence and throw your hat in with the Brexiteers?
No.
HOWARD ZINN ON CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
“And no, we mustn’t be pessimistic. We mustn’t be cynical. We mustn’t think we’re powerless. We’re not powerless. That’s where history comes in. If you look at history, you see people felt powerless and felt powerless, until they organized, and they got together, and they persisted, and they didn’t give up, and they built social movements. Whether it was the anti-slavery movement or the black movement of the 1960s or the antiwar movement in Vietnam or the women’s movement, they started small and apparently helpless; they became powerful enough to have an effect on the nation and on national policy. We’re not powerless. We just have to be persistent and patient, not patient in the passive sense, but patient in the active sense of having a kind of faith that if all of us do little things—well, if all of us do little things, at some point there will be a critical mass created. Those little things will add up. That’s what has happened historically. People were disconsolate, and people thought they couldn’t end, but they kept doing, doing, doing, and then something important happened.”
“And I’ll leave you with just one more thought, that if you do that, if you join some group, if you join whatever the group is, a group that’s working on, you know, gender equality or racism or immigrant rights or the environment or the war, whatever group you join or whatever little action you take, you know, it will make you feel better. It will make you feel better. And I’m not saying we should do all these things just to make ourselves feel better, but it’s good to know that life becomes more interesting and rewarding when you become involved with other people in some great social cause. Thank you.”
– Howard Zinn – Democracy Now, January 2, 2009 –
– https://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/2/placeholder_howard_zinn
More –
– See Comments, including ‘US NEO-CON NAZI NONCE EMPIRE – 2’, by “Ex Pat” to Julian Assange Interviews Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali, 26th June 2012 – Information Clearing House –
– http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31708.htm
Thank you for this very well considered, and painfully honest post on a decision which has surely caused a lot of grief. Like any divorce, I suppose. I believed in the EU with all my heart until it did what it did to Greece. It’s terribly sad, when we are forced to conclude that an institution in which we truly believed has lost its soul.
By the way, how much does that weasly bastard Schinas get from the public trough to lie like that? If it’s more than the minimum wage without benefits on a zero hours contract, that’s worth a LEAVE vote all on its own.
In its essence neoliberalism is solely about further enriching the richest at everybody else’s expense, while pretending there are superior moral justifications for privatisation, deregulation, liberalisation, austerity .. and, yes, the permanently open door to millions of low-wage workers. Given the transparent motivations behind the rest of the EU’s neoliberal agenda, I’m very surprised you believe that the policy of unrestricted mass immigration is inspired by anything other than a desire to decisively suppress the cost and power of labour in western Europe. (With the additional advantage of realising the neoliberal end-goal of ahistorical societies / cultures across a technocratic superstate devoted to the interests of Big Capital).
http://www.voltairenet.org/article198141.html
” In 2013, when the Pentagon and the CIA had deployed the jihadist hordes in Syria and maintained a war of position, Saudi Arabia created yet another terrorist organisation in Mecca, the Faith Movement (Harakah al-Yaqin). This group, which declared that it was an assembly for the Rohingyas, is in reality commanded by the Pakistani Ata Ullah, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan [9]. The Saudi regime housed the largest community of male Rohingyas, after Burma and before Bangladesh, with 300,000 male workers without their families. ”
So, let’s see, Myanmur’s claim that the Rohinga Muslim are terrorists, turns out be partially true. this is the CIA recruiting islamists , again , against its enemies Russia and China.
What other fake news have our so,so so sincere world leaders been concocting?:
http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting.html
Sorry to stoop to the level of our so, so, so, sincere world leaders. Where’s RobG?
It is time for all of us to reconsider our allegiances, not just Craig, and just about the EU.
The USUK and IS are making up the narrative of opposition, let the reader understand what is meant by that.
I’m not saying that the violence in Catalonia is a diversion. I’m not saying it was a false flag.
I’m saying that it was designed and planned by the political elite to make us the gullible public turn for emotional help to our leaders, the ones who are screwing over the whole world.
So it’s not just the EU we should be chucking. It looks like Russia and China are the only ones with any sense left.
Wow !
This is astonishing !
Craig Murray, Eurosceptic !
Welcome to the anti-imperialist Left, Craig.
All you have to do now is to renounce illusions about the cure-all benefits of national separatism in general and Scottish nationalism in particular, and nothing will remain about which to disagree with you!
Otro mundo es possibile !
Scottish Labour’s Brian Wilson still hasn’t tweeted anything about the state violence in Catalonia. After he tweeted against Catalan nationalism in the days before the vote.
Brian would appear to be quite tolerant of fascist nationalism. It’s only civic democratic nationalism he hates.
“It is worth noting that there is no qualification at all on “self-determination of peoples”. It is not limited to decolonisation, as sometimes falsely claimed”
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.
http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm
The court stated in its opinion that under international law, the right to secede was meant for peoples under a colonial rule or foreign occupation. Otherwise, so long as a people has the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within an existing nation state, there is no right to secede unilaterally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_re_Secession_of_Quebec
That’s a judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada, Fred, not the International Court of Justice. It is exactly on a par with the Spanish Constitutional Court.
I would add to that, your first quote is from a qualifying paragraph, which qualifies this one:
“Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.”
It is an act of ludicrous intellectual dishonesty to present one without the other.
I assumed anyone interested would follow the link I posted so they could read the entire doccument looking for loopholes if they wanted to.
The paragraph you posted did nothing to negate the one I posted, quite the opposite.
I do wish you would stop putting up the straw man of racism. Multiple people including myself have unequivocally proven it is but a small subset of the overall Brexit pressure cooker. Please do not use intellectual honesty and then be intellectually dishonest.
Glad that you at least care for Catalans, if not for Greeks, and glad that the EU penny has finally dropped for you, however you’re still a few pennies short on other matters, but one pair of blinkers at a time !
I am obliged to reconsider my support for Craig Murray.
“I still much favour open immigration policy, and the majority of Brexiteers are motivated at base by racist anti-immigrant sentiment.”
Come on Craig, you’re better than that! Many Brexiteers are racist, but the majority? IMHO You’re not doing yourself any favours.
Craig, the Commission is appointed directly by the heads of each state. It is therefore no surprise that it reflects the views of the central governments of each member state. That in of itself is no reason to withdraw support for the EU… without the EU the governments of the member states would still take the same line so what would be achieved by breaking up the EU? The answer, if there is one, is to push for the directly elected European Parliament to have the power rather than the Commission. But regardless, Spain would be doing what it did whether the EU exists or not. I really don’t follow your logic on this one.
“the majority of Brexiteers are motivated at base by racist anti-immigrant sentiment. Certainly many Brexiteers share in the right wing support for Rajoy’s actions, across Europe. ”
File under “wishful thinking”. The people you’ve been sneering at for years have seen the inherent corruption, democratic contradictions and tyrannical instincts of the EU far clearer than you – and never feel the need to dress it up in the wankspeak of “intellectual honesty”.
I have always been a leaver for socialist and democratic reasons, in the tradition of Tony Benn and Peter Shore. The Maastrict and Lisbon treaties were described by Tony Benn as repressing the governments ability to respond to recessions by supressing government deficts and direct money issue from the central bank. I agreed with his criticism of the unelected commissioners.
The social chapter seemed to be the only worthy thing about it, plus some of the regulations. But all of that is now gone, leaving unfettered banks crippling Greece and the corporations trying to tear down regulation through TTIP and CETA.
Many voted leave for the wrong reasons, not knowing that there were many moral reasons for doing so, but never mind.
Also, the EU did nothing when Macron signed away many workers rights recently – so much for protecting workers!!
You seem to have reached a conclusion I came to myself quite some time ago. I also used to support the EU enthusiastically, but have not done in recent years, and I voted leave in the UK referendum unlike a majority of Scots.
My position is precisely the one you say has been urged on you: a “leave” position barely acknowledged in the debate. Instead all sorts of other motives have been attributed to me unthinkingly. It has not been easy to be lumped in with strange bedfellows and assumed to share their views
To me, the EU did start out as an admirable thing. But then the social chapter(shorthand) and the economic element were seen as complementary. That was true all over the west in the post war period, but had remarkable effect in the EU in so many ways. I would go so far as to say that the economic part of the project was in service of the social part: but it is arguable they were equal
Since the rise of neoliberalism there has been a huge change. It has been masked by the continued use of the language of the post war consensus, and I would argue that the reason for that mask is that most people still hold the values in the ascendant in that period
The change has been a long term project of the elites and it has been slowly and carefully implemented. But it amounts to this: Social goals and economic goals have been altered from being seen as complementary and have been set in opposition to each other. By now it is received wisdom that social progress harms economic progress and so there has to be a choice. Thus there is a war rather than shared goals: and in that war, quite simply, the particular ideological economic system of the neolibs won.
This happened in the UK and in the EU, though more slowly in the latter. But the deed is long done. And we see the results now, if they were obscure to many before
It does not have to be this way. But the EU as currently constituted is what it is: and it will not change unless it is forced to do so. In Greece the truth was clear: and in Spain it is also clear: and bolder.
This really is bizarre – about the only thing that the EU has ever done that is not wholly destructive for the general population of Europe is to refuse to leap aboard the Catalan independence bandwagon. Perhaps when they realize the harm that this can do to European people they will promptly reverse course and start agitating for the break up of Spain.
Interesting to note that the EU support of Nazis in the Ukraine, the economic destruction of Greece, a money printing program designed to transfer money from poor to rich, their refusal to accept democratic and legally authorized votes in variety of member states and their ongoing attempts to blackmail the British only caused an increase in your support for this nefarious organization. The very first time they fail to cheer on an act of brazen illegality you withdraw your support for them.
I refer you to Yanis Varoufakis.
Yes, yes, yes. I have just finished reading Varoufakis’s “Adults in the Room: my battle against Europe’s deep establishment”. It’s an extraordinary and shocking book. But after that experience, Varoufakis’s response was not to reject the EU, but to reclaim it for Europe’s people – by democratising it. I implore you Craig to look at the Democracy in Europe by 2025 movement (www.DiEM25.org)
Excellent post regarding Catalonia. We can’t expect any help from the EU here, because their number one priority is getting paid. If Spain starts breaking up, who’s gonna pay back all the bail-out money?
With this in mind, I must ask you Craig to please reveal what you know about Albert Rivera and the Ciutadans party – some detail involving German security forces that you alluded to years ago. Is there a story there?
El Rey ha hablado
“We are living through very grave moments for our democratic life. And in these circumstances, I want to address all Spaniards directly. We have all been witness to the events that have happened in Catalonia, with the final goal of the Catalan government being to illegally proclaim the independence of Catalonia.”
“For some time, certain authorities in Catalonia have repeatedly, consciously and deliberately not complied with the Constitution and their Statute of Autonomy, which is the law that recognises, protects and defends historical institutions and self-government.”
“With their decisions, they have systematically violated legally and legitimately approved rules, showing an inadmissible disloyalty towards the powers of the state. A state that those very authorities represent in Catalonia.”
“They have shattered the democratic principles of every state of law and have undermined harmony and coexistence in Catalan society itself, even, unfortunately, dividing it. Today, Catalan society is fractured and in conflict. These authorities have scorned the affection and sentiments of solidarity that have united and will unite all Spaniards, and with their irresponsible behaviour might even put the economic and social stability of Catalonia and all of Spain at risk.”
“Summing up, all of that has led to the unacceptable attempt to appropriate the historical institutions of Catalonia. These authorities, in a clear, emphatic manner, have placed themselves outside of the law and of democracy. They have sought to shatter the unity of Spain and national sovereignty, which is the right of all Spaniards to decide democratically on their life together.”
“That is why, faced with this situation of extreme gravity, which requires the firm commitment of all with the general interest, it is the responsibility of the legitimate powers of the state to ensure constitutional order and the normal functioning of our institutions, the validity of the state of law and self-government in Catalonia, based on the Constitution and its Statute of Autonomy.”
“Today, I also want to send several messages to all Spaniards, particularly to Catalans.”
“To the citizens of Catalonia—all of them—I want to reiterate that we have lived for several decades in a democratic state that offers constitutional paths for any person to defend their ideas within the respect for the law. Because, as we all know, without that respect, democratic coexistence in peace and liberty without that respect is not possible, in Catalonia, or the rest of Spain or anywhere else in the world. In constitutional and democratic Spain, you know you have a space for harmony and meeting with your fellow citizens.”
“I know very well that in Catalonia there is also much worry and anxiety about the conduct of regional authorities. To those who feel that way, I say to you that you are not alone, that you have the full support and solidarity of other Spaniards, and the absolute guarantee of our state of law in defence of your liberty and your rights.”
“And to all Spaniards, who live with the unease and sadness of these events, I send you a message of calm, confidence and also of hope.”
“These are difficult times, but we will get through them. These are very complex times, but we will push forward. Because we believe in our country and we feel proud of who we are. Because our democratic principles are strong and solid. And they are strong and solid because they are based on living together in peace and liberty. That is how we have built Spain over the last few decades. And that is how we must continue along our path, with serenity and determination. On that path, in that better Spain we all wish for, we will also find Catalonia.”
“Bringing my remarks, meant for all Spaniards, to a close, I underline once again the firm commitment of the Crown with the Constitution and with democracy, my dedication to understanding and harmony among Spaniards, and my commitment as King to the unity and permanence of Spain.”
Please stick with what you know, and leave the legal analysis to others.
The EU Charter of fundamental rights applies to the EU when it acts (or fails to act) and to the Member States when they are implementing EU law. It does not apply to Spain when it is sending paramilitaries to beat up peaceful protesters. That may be wrong, but it does not contravene the EU Charter.
Of course, that is not to say that Spain has not failed to uphold the basic values of the EU as referenced in art. 2 TEU, it just means that referencing the Charter is wrong.
Verhofstadt accepts without question the right of the Spanish Constitutional Court to deny the Catalan right to self-determination, and like every other EU source does not put an argument for that or even refer to the existence of that right or to the UN Charter.
I am at a loss to figure out what that reference to the UN Charter is doing there. There is nothing about self-determination in the UN Charter, except a passing reference in art. 1(2). As a matter of international law, there is no question that the Catalan people are not entitled to secede unilaterally. Literally two seconds of Googling will give you a dozen blog posts from the last few days/weeks by international law scholars setting out the relevant analysis. (I’d post them here but then my comment would be held up in moderation.)
Here is Opinio Juris this week talking about Kurdish secession, presumably a slightly less inflammatory topic: http://opiniojuris.org/2017/09/28/kurds-right-self-determination-andor-secession/
For anyone looking for something of manageable length (and in English), the UK Constitutional Law blog had two interesting posts this morning:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2017/10/03/elisenda-casanas-adam-the-referendum-on-catalonian-independence-the-position-of-the-catalan-authorities/
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2017/10/03/javier-garcia-oliva-the-referendum-on-catalonian-independence-the-position-of-the-spanish-authorities/
(In German and English there are a dozen or so from the last week or two on the venerable Verfassungsblog.)
Somewhat older key authority is the Supreme Court of Canada In Re: Secession of Quebec, holding that Quebec did not have the right to unilaterally secede, as a matter of Canadian constitutional law and international law. (This position was subsequently accepted by the authorities in Quebec.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_re_Secession_of_Quebec
Martinned,
The Supreme Court of Canada says Quebec must not be independent. Wow, there’s a fucking shock! It’s not the International Court of Justice, is it?
Any two articles on why Catalan must not be independent – both written by Spaniards! There’s a shock, eh?
Away and fuck yourself, establishment shill. I really can’t be bothered with you right wing cant just now.
You misunderstand, I think the Catalans should be allowed to have a referendum, and I think the international community should say so. But that doesn’t change the position at international law.
I am glad to hear it. You might have cited it at the start. I have become very short of temper with those following the Francoist line.
Of course, the ICJ famously ducked it in its advisory opinion on Kosovo, but there’s still some interesting stuff in there.
http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf
Of course the ICJ “ducked”, There is no ICJ ruling on it and the national rulings upholding their own “national” integrity are valueless in this context.
Since you set such a high bar, I dug out the one international law textbook I have as a pdf, Shaw (2008).
It discusses three other ICJ cases, all three of them in the context of decolonisation/foreign oppression: Namibia, Western Sahara, and East-Timor. After observing that all three of these are about non-self governing territories, it discusses In Re: Secession of Quebec as an example of a case about self-determination outside the non-self governing territories setting.
But I guess if you think that case is valueless, that must be right.
It is worth noting that there is no qualification at all on “self-determination of peoples”. It is not limited to decolonisation, as sometimes falsely claimed.
This is true. The difficulty is that a people that is part of a larger democratic polity already exercises self-determination., particularly if there is regional autonomy, as in Spain. That is why there is no instance of state practice or jurisprudence around the principle of self-determination (and you forgot art. 1 ICCPR, which may well be the most important source) outside the context of decolonisation.
The Kurdistan OJ article I mentioned earlier sets out the orthodox position at law quite clearly: http://opiniojuris.org/2017/09/28/kurds-right-self-determination-andor-secession/
I have no interest in seeing any more articles or opinions by bought and paid for lawyers in the employ of states arguing for the status quo. If you can bring me an ICJ judgement other than the Kosovo one – which undeniably favours my argument more than it does yours – then bring it. Otherwise stop posting this crap. “Other right wing establishment lawyers agree with me” is not an argument.
Craig, I’ve just emailed you.
Leaving aside the legal issues, I wonder how you, as an experienced diplomat, could ever expect the Commission to condemn the violence more clearly than “violence can never be an instrument in politics.”
Also, Verhofstad’s 60% is actually an understatement. The most recent opinion polls have support for independence at 30%-35%.
http://www.politico.eu/article/catalonia-referendum-independence-want-to-vote-not-secede/
Well, 55% of voters managed to cast a vote on Sunday despite police violence which must have deterred many. of those, the votes of 12% of voters were confiscated and presumably destroyed by police. But there is no reason to imagine they differed from the 90% pro-Independence tally of the 42% of voters whose votes could be counted.
But whatever the result would have been last week, I should be astonished if support for Independence is not hugely higher this week.
That would have been more meaningful if there weren’t widespread reports of multiple voting.
Don’t take my word for it, Jon Worth went to take a look: https://jonworth.eu/catalan-referendum-violence-never-answer-politicians-sides-getting-wrong/
(And before you accuse him of being a shill for the establishment too, his blog is full of stories about his work for/with the German Green Party and, in the past, the UK Labour party.)
Polls are polls.
We would know what support for independence stood at if there had been a peaceful referendum. There wasn’t so we don’t.
To me, the people who prevent gathering of evidence, or who destroy it, should be assumed to have done so to further their case: and therefore the evidence destroyed can be assumed to fall on the other side.