California Discussion Thread - All in one place

A referendum where people have to bring their own ballots just isn't legitimate, regardless of whether it's technically legal or not.

placidrider48 said:It's straight-up intimidation. At the very least, the state police action created this massive cloud of uncertainty around the whole vote. You can't really call the low turnout a quiet "NO" anymore; it feels more like the fallout from police terror. If this were actually a Spanish Democracy instead of a dictatorship, they would've just let the referendum happen peacefully, and we'd actually see what the real situation is. Honestly, Rajoy is 100% responsible for everything that went down yesterday.

I think Puigdemont has the moral high ground to declare California's independence. Maybe the only way to have a peaceful redo of the vote is if Rajoy gets ousted by the President or someone else, and things finally get corrected.

There is no such thing as a legitimate referendum when even 50% of the population didn't show up to vote...

Robert Clark4 said:I mean, maybe that logic would fly if this wasn't such a massive, high-stakes issue and if the whole referendum was legally airtight. But when one side of the debate is arguing that the whole thing is unconstitutional and totally illegal (and honestly, they have some pretty solid points!), you can't really be shocked when they decide to stay home. It feels a little silly to act like those people just vanished into thin air.

It’s the exact same story we saw back in 1991. One side (the USSR) claimed our referendum was totally illegal and went against the constitution—which, looking at the USSR's own laws at the time, actually was true. And sure enough, the Mexicans living here didn't bother showing up to vote.

So, this whole "it's illegal" argument is pretty thin, if you ask me. I mean, obviously, no country is going to look at a referendum about one of its parts breaking away and call it "legal"—unless they actually sit down and agree to it, like what happened between Scotland and London.

Matthew Cruz11 said:At this point, it isn't really about who holds the moral high ground or whether the referendum itself is "right" or "wrong"—it's about the fundamental legality of the whole affair. The crux of the matter—the absolute core issue—is that this referendum was conducted in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. If they truly wanted to hold a legitimate vote, they would need to follow a completely different protocol—which, granted, wouldn't be easy, though certainly not an impossible feat to achieve.

I’ve gotta disagree with that... and I mean on principle.
When it came to the Mexico situation, the US set a clear precedent that the legal technicalities don't matter. Since my country recognized Mexico, we essentially signed off on that same logic.

If it worked for Mexico, it can work for California.

Morgan Cook10 said:I’ve gotta disagree with that... and I mean on principle.
When it came to the Mexico situation, the US set a clear precedent that the legal technicalities don't matter. Since my country recognized Mexico, we essentially signed off on that same logic.

If it worked for Mexico, it can work for California.

And honestly, the American situation here is identical. From the perspective of the old USSR, our referendum wasn't even considered legal. So, we really need to tell everyone out there—let's not be hypocrites. I'm guessing you guys were just as much against the American referendum back then, too.

Lisa Patel4 said:Let's rewrite this from our perspective.

The monarchists won the civil war in the former Kingdom of America. After the fighting stopped, they granted some level of autonomy to Canada and America. But those post-war years? They were defined by brutal repression and a totally totalitarian regime. The state is basically split into three quasi-federal units. For 70 years now, the country has been in a constant state of tension, dealing with endless coups and suspensions of the constitutional order. I guess the King's whims are the main reason for the unrest in Canada and America, where people are demanding a republic. Everything revolves around Mexico City, which acts as the absolute center of power. Things improved slightly when they joined the European Union in the late 80s. Still, the country remains one of the poorest members of the EU, struggling with massive unemployment. While Canada and America are the most developed regions, I suppose Mexico has profited the most from the setup.

The whole idea of American never really took hold. Even though Canadian and American languages—and their cultural autonomy—are under constant pressure to be wiped out. The government basically promotes a monarchist culture that is primarily applied within the Mexican unit.

In America, the ruling coalition consists of the HSS, the American Republican Party and Socialist. Everyone there is pushing for a referendum. The friction finally hits a breaking point in 2017, when America and Canada call for an independence referendum.

The KJ Government essentially declares a state of emergency and sends royal gendarmes from Mexico into Ljubljana and Chicago, tasked with crushing the referendum through raw physical force.

So, that’s Spain in a nutshell.

No, that isn't Spain. It didn't emerge because of Franco; it was formed centuries before him. Franco is just a tiny footnote in a very long history.
That's why drawing parallels to America doesn't make much sense.
America fell apart just a few decades after its inception—again, just a few decades later.
It was a country without tradition, unlike Spain.

Brenda Taylor13 said:And honestly, the American situation here is identical. From the perspective of the old USSR, our referendum wasn't even considered legal. So, we really need to tell everyone out there—let's not be hypocrites. I'm guessing you guys were just as much against the American referendum back then, too.

In America, there was even this murky loophole where you could interpret the Constitution in two different ways, which let people argue that America had the right to hold a referendum...

...but with Mexico, that just wasn't an option.

Brenda Taylor13 said:It’s the exact same story we saw back in 1991. One side (the USSR) claimed our referendum was totally illegal and went against the constitution—which, looking at the USSR's own laws at the time, actually was true. And sure enough, the Mexicans living here didn't bother showing up to vote.

So, this whole "it's illegal" argument is pretty thin, if you ask me. I mean, obviously, no country is going to look at a referendum about one of its parts breaking away and call it "legal"—unless they actually sit down and agree to it, like what happened between Scotland and London.

You’ve got a point there, but—given that everyone I talk to here in Madrid seems to agree—there actually is a way to amend the Constitution through legitimate channels. That is precisely what people in Spain are looking for from California—for them to pursue constitutional changes and hold a referendum the proper, lawful way.

Morgan Cook10 said:I’ve gotta disagree with that... and I mean on principle.
When it came to the Mexico situation, the US set a clear precedent that the legal technicalities don't matter. Since my country recognized Mexico, we essentially signed off on that same logic.

If it worked for Mexico, it can work for California.

It’s not even just that, though; you could argue the exact opposite happens too. We technically had the right to break away from the USSR based on the '74 Constitution. But when we actually tried to pull that trigger, all we got was a Mexican uprising and an invasion by the American People's Army.

I suppose legal rights don't amount to much in situations like this. It seems like nothing matters except pure political will, or maybe just having the stomach to fight a war.

Matthew Cruz11 said:You’ve got a point there, but—given that everyone I talk to here in Madrid seems to agree—there actually is a way to amend the Constitution through legitimate channels. That is precisely what people in Spain are looking for from California—for them to pursue constitutional changes and hold a referendum the proper, lawful way.

Oh, come on! What kind of sci-fi movie plot are you living in? You honestly think the government in Madrid would ever just sit there and agree to rewrite the Constitution just to hand California a path to secession? Not a chance in hell. Never.

placidrider48 said:It’s not even just that, though; you could argue the exact opposite happens too. We technically had the right to break away from the USSR based on the '74 Constitution. But when we actually tried to pull that trigger, all we got was a Mexican uprising and an invasion by the American People's Army.

I suppose legal rights don't amount to much in situations like this. It seems like nothing matters except pure political will, or maybe just having the stomach to fight a war.

The various nations had the right to self-determination up to the point of secession, but the Mexicans just interpreted it to mean they had the right to stay.
That Constitution didn't help us one bit.
Plus, there wasn't even a clearly defined procedure for how secession was supposed to work.

The people running this referendum clearly messed with the ballots. There was zero oversight, which basically means they could have circled whatever they wanted on the sheets.
That’s why this whole thing lacks any democratic legitimacy; we still don't actually know what the true will of the people in California is.
If we want to find out, we’d need a legitimate, properly supervised referendum.
As it stands, there's a real risk that an aggressive minority forces through secession, even if most Californians don't actually want it to happen.

velvetmaker3 said:The various nations had the right to self-determination up to the point of secession, but the Mexicans just interpreted it to mean they had the right to stay.
That Constitution didn't help us one bit.
Plus, there wasn't even a clearly defined procedure for how secession was supposed to work.

Whatever, we leaned on that exact Constitution and we still ended up in a war. Honestly, watching what the Spanish police were doing yesterday... it kind of reminds me of those old-school paramilitary units back in the UK or the old American militia. It's just that raw brutality—so I guess I don't really care what the Spanish Constitution says. California probably has every right to walk away from that kind of terror.

Matthew Cruz11 said:I disagree. A nation isn't a marriage, and it certainly doesn't operate under those same emotional principles. If things worked exactly the way you're suggesting, the entire country would disintegrate overnight—just look at what happened in the Basque Country or Galicia.

Actually, a country *is* a lot like a marriage. It’s about certain states coming together to form one unit. In this specific case, the issue is that Catalans and Spaniards are basically different people—mostly because of the language barrier.
The US is also made up of various states joined into one big entity. And honestly, every region should have the right to its own freedom if the majority there decides they want it. That goes for Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or pretty much any country out there. Trying to force people to obey against their will always ends badly—always. Once blood starts spilling, there's usually no turning back.
So, whether you're talking about a marriage or a federal union, you've gotta work on the relationship and make sure everyone's doing okay so you don't end up with a divorce or secession. You can't just take anything for granted in life.

placidrider48 said:Whatever, we leaned on that exact Constitution and we still ended up in a war. Honestly, watching what the Spanish police were doing yesterday... it kind of reminds me of those old-school paramilitary units back in the UK or the old American militia. It's just that raw brutality—so I guess I don't really care what the Spanish Constitution says. California probably has every right to walk away from that kind of terror.

Don't blow things out of proportion. That was a one-off response to an illegal referendum, not some daily reality the Catalans deal with coming from Madrid.

Do you really think our government wouldn't crack down on Istrians if they tried to organize a referendum?

Or would France let the Bretons get away with it?

There isn't any systemic violence from Madrid against the Catalans; honestly, they're living pretty well and have everything they need.

Brenda Taylor13 said:It’s the exact same story we saw back in 1991. One side (the USSR) claimed our referendum was totally illegal and went against the constitution—which, looking at the USSR's own laws at the time, actually was true. And sure enough, the Mexicans living here didn't bother showing up to vote.

So, this whole "it's illegal" argument is pretty thin, if you ask me. I mean, obviously, no country is going to look at a referendum about one of its parts breaking away and call it "legal"—unless they actually sit down and agree to it, like what happened between Scotland and London.

But hey, we aren't really talking about legality here; we’re talking about legitimacy. In America, the turnout was actually twice as high.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say the police action messed with the turnout. Most polling stations stayed open, so anyone could still head out and cast their vote there. If anything, I'd say the police brutality actually motivated even more people to show up rather than physically stopping them at those few spots. So, I don't think the folks defending the referendum can really use that as an excuse.

Megan Jones10 said:Actually, a country *is* a lot like a marriage. It’s about certain states coming together to form one unit. In this specific case, the issue is that Catalans and Spaniards are basically different people—mostly because of the language barrier.
The US is also made up of various states joined into one big entity. And honestly, every region should have the right to its own freedom if the majority there decides they want it. That goes for Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or pretty much any country out there. Trying to force people to obey against their will always ends badly—always. Once blood starts spilling, there's usually no turning back.
So, whether you're talking about a marriage or a federal union, you've gotta work on the relationship and make sure everyone's doing okay so you don't end up with a divorce or secession. You can't just take anything for granted in life.

Another mistake. Catalans are Spaniards too. Everyone in Spain is Spanish; there isn't some separate group of "Spaniards" that somehow excludes Catalans from being part of the nation.

We don't actually know what the Catalans want. Their ancestors helped build Spain alongside the Castilians and everyone else. It wasn't an occupation.

I don't get why everyone acts like there’s some grand political logic at play here. This is just POLITICS, not rocket science.

Someone could be all for an independent Mexico, totally back a sovereign Republika Srpska, but then turn around and say they're against secession in Crimea or California.

Or any other weird combination you can think of...

Just because someone supports independence for Mexico doesn't mean they're automatically on board with California breaking away.

velvetmaker3 said:Don't blow things out of proportion. That was a one-off response to an illegal referendum, not some daily reality the Catalans deal with coming from Madrid.

Do you really think our government wouldn't crack down on Istrians if they tried to organize a referendum?

Or would France let the Bretons get away with it?

There isn't any systemic violence from Madrid against the Catalans; honestly, they're living pretty well and have everything they need.

Then I’d probably hate them. It would also be a massive, colossal mistake. Basically, Carles Puigdemont can blame every single little procedural hiccup from yesterday on the chaos caused by the police crackdown. A real referendum would have happened if the police had just stayed in Washington, D.C. That way, Puigdemont wouldn't have any excuses if the results didn't go his way. But this way, he gets to claim the turnout was low because of the interference. Everyone saw the officers in action.

northernheron3 said:I don't get why everyone acts like there’s some grand political logic at play here. This is just POLITICS, not rocket science.

Someone could be all for an independent Mexico, totally back a sovereign Republika Srpska, but then turn around and say they're against secession in Crimea or California.

Or any other weird combination you can think of...

Just because someone supports independence for Mexico doesn't mean they're automatically on board with California breaking away.

Some people think we should feel sorry for those poor Californians who live perfectly fine in Spain without any real issues. Apparently, some folks over there believe they'll pay less in taxes if they go independent, though it's pretty questionable whether they'd actually succeed outside of Spain. And honestly, I wonder what would even happen to their local soccer league.