This thread is permanently archived
Spain/Catalonia/Germany: Spanish central government stops arrest warrant against ex-catalonian president
| FREE CATALONIA!
| The catalonia independence thing is rich people trying to lower their taxes and using the people as pawns to do it.
| >>366496 well the rich people ARE Catalonia, so they are trying to lower their own taxes, and I'm not sure who the pawns are?
|
| >>366615
The median Catalonian is richer than the median anywhere else in Spain, so relatively speaking yeah.
| Not to say that there aren't folks who are poor, but part of the idea behind separatism is to support them as well. Due to its wealth the Catalonian state loses more in taxes to the central government than anywhere else in Spain, & many Catalonians feel that money would be better put to social programs at home. Of course, that'd be to the detriment of the poor down in Extremadura, but that's nationalism for you.
| By no small coincidence, Spain's other most restive separatist region, the Basque country, had the 2nd highest median income in the nation last I knew.
| >>366690
Even thought the median is better than the average value, it still says not much about the distribution of wealth. There can be 20% of the population be poor as fuck. Also it doesn't say where the wealth comes from. With or without independence there still is a European and a global market. E.g. some of the catalonian moneybags could be businessmen that benefit from exploitation of immigrants who work under slavery-alike conditions in the huge spanish agriculture.
| The main issue for catalonian separatists is the central government of the spanish "kingdom" (yes, formerly it is a fucking monarchy), which are a bunch of conservative and fascist douchebags.
Of course the catalonian independence movement is influenced by rich catalans who want to sink taxes and stuff. But for left movements it is totally okay to ally with capitalists to get rid of feudal anachronisms and franco-fanboys in madrid. Everything else comes after.
| >>367031
You have such ire for the monarchy, but if it weren't a monarchy it'd be a military dictatorship. Let's not forget it was the previous King who talked down the army officers who'd taken parliament hostage with a mind to restore the junta.
| >>367367
The King just did it is own interest and not for the people. His goal was primary to save monarchy from the fascist. Previously the monarchists collaborated with the fascists to save monarchy from socialists. Monarchy is something retarded, and as long European countries have it, it weakens europes morally Position against the even more retarded gulf-monarchys.
| Spanish translation to democracy was mainly pushed by leftists even though king wanted to apeass the masses
| >>367393
It doesn't matter why he did it, contrarily that's the greatest benefit of monarchy imo. The monarch has all their eggs constitutionally glued in the same basket, & they're stuck there for life, unlike a President who's in charge for a couple terms, largely unaccountable after he plans to retire anyway, & can always move to Fiji with his graft gotten millions & be no worse off. The monarch serves the nation because the interests of the two are inextricable from each other.
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SNfVB1VfAN_AQxKQQRpbU8kLNI-KRC5MwA/view?usp=drivesdk
Video from a friend at the polling place during "illegal" Catalan independence vote. Let's also remember that Catalonia is not just a part of Spain that wants to leave, they have an entirely separate history and language dating back hundreds of years. It certainly adds legitimacy to their desire for independence, and it is not all about money.
| >>368156
Because old Louis didn't understand it was not in his interest to allow poverty to run rampant. It's only natural for people to chase out a shit ruler of any variety, just like the presidents of Armenia, Georgia, & the Ukraine, they crop up in all imperfect systems of government (that is to say, all forms of government which have ever existed).
| >>368409
And you see no difference in
A) an probably democratically elected president who's obligated to a constitution (which probably is also democratically legitimized)
B) A monarch who is chosen by "birthright" and probably legitimated by "god(s)" ruling absolutely
?
Feudalism and Monarchy are Anachronism, which is not of any usage in an industrialized World. Birthright (by law) and religious legitimation are things which belong to the past. And capitalism will follow...
| >>369021
Straw man.
The king of Spain is not an absolute monarch & is far more constitutionally bound than would be a president.
That aside, yes, I believe that a corrupt ruler who deviates from the common good is equally worthy of disdain & rebellion no matter what his title, no matter what his mandate.
| >>369273
So what if I find your beloved ruler corrupt? Who decides it? The raging Lynch-mob? Another probably corrupt ruler? I mean look at Ukraine. Do you really believe the new regime is less corrupt and shitty than the old one? Or what about all the monarch families involved in dubious business, including the Spanish. It's just a joke to believe they are not corrupt.
| >>369433
I'm describing a process of overthrowing a regime, do you expect me to say there's some authority capable of judging whether or when that becomes necessary?
Does one need a specific mandate for revolution in communism? If so, it's the people's right?
I might venture that whoever or whatever you believe the government should be responsible to, that party has the prerogative & responsibility to judge whether a ruler is too compromised by his own interests to serve theirs.
| I said in my first post on the subject that monarchy was desirable to a point because the ruler's interests were more reliably linked to those of the nation than would be those of a transient republican ruler, allow me to clarify. That statement is predicated on the notion that if a ruler deviates from the public interest he will be removed from power. The king has more invested in his nation & so more to lose than the president, not just for himself but potentially for his family.
| >>369721
>The king has more invested in his nation & so more to lose than the president, not just for himself but potentially for his family.
At least the monarch and his family have somthing they can loose, compared to the masses of nonehave peasants under them.
| >>369833
True, but usually they fell soft. It's unfortunately an exception that people of authority get lynched or at least end up as a nonehave, no matter how much they fail. If a billionaire looses 90% of his money, he still is a rich bitch. Meanwhile the social net for the nonehaves is melting away since the mid 90s. Because corrupt "economists" said it's not necessary anymore because it's evil communism. Market will solve everything. Hallelujah!
This thread is permanently archived
| Spain no longer wants germany to deliver them the (Ex-?)President of the (Ex-?)Spanish Region Catalonia Carles Puigdemont. He became a leading figure in catalonian independence movement and had to flee from the Spanish central government who accused him for treason. On his short journey through Europe he was arrested in march in germany. But germans could not deliver him to spain without permission of german courts, which recently did not recognize the accuse for "treason".