Busted! One of the Most Important Cataloonie Myths goes Down the Drain

"The Constitutional Court of Germany has limited the government budget deficit of each Land to 4% of its GDP." In these or similar words Catalan nationalists have for years argued that those federal entities that are net contributors in favour of poor regions should not be made to pay in excess, and Germany served them as a welcome example. The government budget deficit of Catalonia is said by the Catalan government to now be 8.4% of Catalonias GDP.

Mind that on such argumentation rests the whole "Spain steals from us" and we're poor victims attitude.

The first mention of the German example I could find after a quick search comes from Catalonia's "national TV station" and is dated 2005. In 2009 it was picked up by one of Catalonia's employers associations called CECOT. In March 2011 it was part of the strategy of the government under Artur Mas that had just taken office.

I always found the German example very strange. Never could I find it sourced, it just seemed to have seeped into common knowledge. Moreover, the German and the Spanish systems are wildly different. So over the past months I off and on made it a hobby to find a confirmation on the Internet. All findings of the German CC are published. Nothing there. Nothing in the press either. The next step would have been to interview a German constitutional jurist. I never did.

Today La Voz de Barcelona has taken the lead. In one exhaustively researched article, richly sourced and based also on direct interviews with Spanish and German jurists, LVdB not only debunks the Cataloonie myth, it shows that Germany is not comparable in any way.

Suffice it to say that there the Länder go before the courts, while here the policy of Artur Mas is to put the government in Madrid against the wall: either the fiscal pact that already is waiting in the drawer of Mas's desk, or see Catalonia leave the state.

La Voz de Barcelona has delivered one great journalistic piece. Well worth the read. I am quite sorry I do not have the time to translate it (any volunteers?).

Coda: The Catalanist blogosphere has already picked up on LVdB's article. After quoting the entire article and even translating it into Catalan, the poster called "Nassau" had only a one-phrase comment:

"I know that we are convinced separatists and we don't care much about the government budget deficit; but we have to convince many future separatists who do care about this matter."

With one major argument less now.

Artur Mas Does It Again

The Catalan budget is out, and President Artur Mas will receive the same 144,030 euros (and 12 cents) per annum like last year (in both links see pg. 19). He thus remains the most expensive regional president in Spain, keeping his advantage also over the Spanish Prime Minister (78,000 euros) and even the King (140,519 euros).

Mas is only beaten by Spain's most expensive mayor, Xavier Trias of Barcelona, his fellow partyman. Trias gets 110,000 euros as mayor plus 36,800 from the Área Metropolitana de Barcelona.

On the other hand, the Catalan government has decided on a 3% payment cut for all civil servants, "with the possibility of further cuts later on", as La Vanguardia reports.

Catalan finance minister Andreu Mas-Colell also speaks of possible further "budget adjustments".

Artur Mas's "government of the best" (that, by the way, is the literal meaning of Aristocracy) taking care of its people, "the Germans of Spain", on their way to become the "Holland of the South".

Honni soit qui mal y pense.

Canada, Naturally (continued)

Limitation of characters for a simple comment and the need to dig a little deeper into the issues in order to better reply to the comment of anon 10:54 make this entry necessary:


Certainly, the issues in Spain and Canada (re Catalonia/Quebec) are quite similar. However, the debate in Catalonia, and in all of Spain, is terribly superficial.

It is, indeed, a perfectly Spanish debate in which questions are never solved but left ambiguous until force is ultimately used by one side or the other -or by both- to impose an outcome, not a solution.

The present debate in Catalonia about sovereignty is just the continuation of the debate that (re-) started after the death of Franco. Catalan politicians then like Mas now haven't given up on sovereignty based on "historical rights", and the past 30+ years of Spanish constitution now appear as merely having provided a lull in the debate, never a solution.

Ambiguity was, and is, dear to everybody, be it the Letter of the Constitution v its Spirit, or on a less complex level the Catalan education law that has been declared constitutional several times, yet has been used in Catalonia as a free pass for Catalan-language only education.

Then came the debate about the Catalan Statute of Autonomy and the questions of what is a nation, what are historical rights and what is sovereignty buoyed out of the deep blue waters. As if nothing had happened since these issues were debated to create the present Constitution.

As it is now every day more obvious, these core issues were not really debated but simply mentioned, so that all sides could continue with their respective and conflicting interpretations of the law.

I'm afraid that solution will not come from reaching an agreement, but the use of force will just provide with another outcome that satisfies nobody, like so many times before in Spanish history. Not necessarily the blunt force of armed conflict, but certainly the force of majority vs minority, with no respect for the latter. With every side feeling doubly right, a victimised minority that is actually a majority on some other level. That is taking place not only on the all-Spanish scene, but also on the Catalan one. This country is a matryoshka of ethnic (and social) conflicts.

Catalan nationalist politicians and activists cannot escape the obvious truth that, within Spain, they represent a minority. Hence they appeal to a greater force, international justice, which in effect would make them a majority in Catalonia. Hence the reference to the right of self-determination. Hence the search for precedents, such as Kosovo or Quebec.

They do not see that this leads nowhere. If Quebec is a model for them, then they also have to accept the part where the Canadian Supreme Court says that the right of self-determination does not apply in the way they claim, as superseding national law. Catalan separatists, to which I count Artur Mas, are cherrypicking their arguments, and the only result is that they run into a mountain of fallacies (of their own making).

Let's accept that a clear cut called independence is the way out. Given that conflicts in Spain are rarely resolved and mostly left to simmer on, that is an attractive idea.

If you want to go this way, you have to prove you're serious. You cannot simply replicate the "Spanish way", you must tackle the problems and really solve them.

First of all, you have to stop using fallacies, you have to be sincere. Then you have to adhere to the principles you draw on to defend your position. Then you have to be practical.

Right now everybody debates about the independence of Catalonia, but the questions that would arise from such an independence are being carefully avoided in favour of the beloved ambiguity. The president of Catalonia, Mr Artur Mas, has voted for the independence, not of Catalonia, but of a Greater Catalonia. So what does the word "Catalan nation" really mean? Which territories does it comprise?

How would an independent Catalonia treat its minorities? Would the Spanish-speaking minority (which actually might be a demographic majority) not have the right to be educated in its mother tongue?

These are the two major issues that have to be dealt with. For now they are being avoided, very spanishly, so that everbody can make their own interpretation, and ambiguity rules until force is applied. Again.

So I wonder: is Artur Mas bringing the citizens into a showdown of force with Madrid, or is he just applying social engineering to create a fait accomplit? And will the latter not also end in a showdown with Madrid?

There are, certainly, alternatives to the extremes. The problem is that nobody is leading their way. Everybody seems to prefer to play with fire rather than to look for a compromise.

Canada, Naturally

"Do you think that us Spaniards will one day be able to vote democratically on the possibility that Catalonia stops being part of Spain, following, naturally, the recommendations of the Constitutional Court (sic) of Canada in relation to Quebeq (sic)?"

The president of the Catalan parliament, Mrs Núria de Gispert, received this question in a Q&A session moderated by El País newspaper.

Her answer was: "I think it is appropriate that the Spanish be able to vote [on this matter] one day, but I believe that the Catalans should do so first. Always through the democratic channels."

The 1998 Canadian Supreme Court's Reference re Secession of Quebec has been publicly discussed in Catalonia over the past years. The opinion of Catalan separatists on this matter is perfectly resumed by the "following, naturally" of the above question, sent by someone who gave himself the typically Catalan name of Joan.

Canada is another country, but WTF.

Long live the "democratic channels". And the order of voting: Catalans first. Then all Spaniards. Then we watch Barça-Real Madrid.

Funny Folks No. 7: Matthew Tree

He had to make it here, question of time. Mr Tree's most recent text* is, yawn, about Catalan in Apple OSs. At home Cataloonies cry foul when Catalan is not exclusively used, on the international scene they cry foul when it's not also used.

I will translate the following phrase:

"[...] Of all the 28, Catalan is the only stateless language [or language that is not official on any state-wide level]: a sort of silent recognition, if you will, of its anomalous status within the world's linguistic panorama."

That's easily said and sounds nice to the homegrown nutters who are Mr Trees devoted audience. However, Andorra is a state, and Catalan is the only official language there.

Furthermore, and although this point has now been rendered moot by the foregoing one, he seems to say that it is anomalous that a language is not official state-wide. There seem to be several thousand languages in the world, and only some 200 states. In my universe I can do the math.

Mr Tree hasn't enjoyed Catalonia's education system, but the British one. Simply living here must have done the trick.

(I left a comment to Mr Tree's article and it did get published. He'd been itchy about dissent before, as I revealed in a comment to this entry. So it's good to see that this has changed.)


*Mind that links to Nació Digital become obsolete very fast. Then just search for Mr Tree's blog there and Poma impermeable.

A Bad Day for Justice

Baltasar Garzón has been declared guilty. Why this is a bad day for the Spanish justice system had been explained a few days before the verdict by Francesc de Carreras.

Garzón has undoubtedly gained a place in history. The ICTY and the ICTR had already been created, but the ICC was still in the lobbying phase when Garzón in 1998 made his case against Pinochet. Many lawyers in the whole world have admired his early efforts to make universal jurisdiction a principle to be reckoned with.

Along the line of universal jurisdiction Garzón in 2008 tried to break the Spanish omertà by opening the Pandora's Box of investigating the crimes of the Franco regime.

In Catalonia he would be celebrated for this, had he not rounded up Catalan radicals in 1992. Two factors converged at that time to make Garzón the centre of attention. The first is that part of terrorist Terra Lliure had agreed with Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) to end all armed operations and reintegrate into civil society. Many of this group were absorbed into ERC. But several others refused the agreement, which is why the Spanish state implemented a kind of carrot and stick approach; the stick being the so called Operation Garzón against the remaining terrorists just before the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona. This was the second factor: there were fears that the event could be used for high profile terrorist activity.

Some of the detainees claimed to have been tortured by the police, allegations that were never investigated in Spain, which in turn in 2004 was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights.

Not to investigate allegations of torture cannot be condoned. Yet it may be pointed out that there appears to be a certain hipocrisy on the side of some Catalan separatists: members of Terra Lliure "killed in action" still receive public homages.

Baltasar Garzón may now put his future in the hands of the instances of universal justice he once helped to create to find a new job, and of the European Court of Human Rights that once was so critical of his actions to revoke the ruling of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo that has now condemned him.

Factories of Idiots

Not enough with the scary teachers. Not enough with letting radicals into the schools to indoctrinate the children even further. Not enough with having cut daily attendance by one hour.

Catalan education minister Irene Rigau, the champion of "linguistic immersion", is now aiming to immerse the children in total and utter bullshit. "The problem is that we have to explain that this Constitution can be interpreted in different ways and that, the way how our Statute of Autonomy has been interpreted, this Constitution has trimmed down the majority will of the Catalans."

Things that make no sense whatsoever seem to make sense to this bonehead. But the message is clear: we will tell the children that "this Constitution" is a dangerous thing, and that we don't want it. And the children will learn that democracy is minority rule, because the will of part of the people of a country is not only above the Constitution but thus also above the will of the entirety of the population.

Catalan schools are on the way to becoming factories of idiots.

Next stops: up is down, good is bad, lies are truth.

"To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."
(George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four)

And we still haven't seen the end of it. Rigau is currently telling the courts that Spanish can be used as language of instruction in Catalan schools, while telling the people via the media that she will not change the present Catalan-only system of linguistic immersion. Her problems with the Constitution reality are here to stay for quite a while.




February 8, 16:00: This is an update for the boneheads, may the normal reader please not feel insulted by my making some points overly explicit.

The core of this entry being the quote of Rigau, let's have a closer look at it. "This Constitution can be interpreted in different ways", is a most inadequate way of putting it. Fact is that any Constitution can (and must) be interpreted, any law can for that matter, and the instances to interpret the laws are the courts. By making it specific for "this Constitution" Rigau implicitly criticises it by showing it as something outstanding/abnormal, and she goes half the way of claiming that anybody, therefore her and her government too, are entitled to their own interpretation.

The second use of "to interpret" is found in the following subordinate phrase, albeit with a different meaning. Truth is, the Statute was not interpreted by the courts. The Constitutional Court conformed the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia to the Constitution, it interpreted the Constitution and rightfully made the adjustments to the Statute of Autonomy it saw necessary so that it be constitutional. This is a wholly different pair of shoes. Yet, again Rigau re-introduces the element of uncertainty, of an interpretation that inherently can be done by many, instead of explaining a legal process that can only be done by the corresponding judicial instances, whose findings are not to be seen as relatives, but have to be seen as absolutes.

Thirldy, Rigau says that it is the very Constitution that has "trimmed down" the will of the Catalans, and this turns cause-effect upside-down. The Constitution was there before the Statute of Autonomy. With this, Rigau now has gone beyond the "simple" misrepresentation of political and judicial facts. She contradicts the laws of physics.

In reality, it was the Constitutional Court that acted. Catalan nationalists have months ago moved from criticising the court to criticising the Constitution itself. They have moved to declaring themselves as standing outside of, and superior to, the Constitution. This alone is a fallacy, because never any change of the Constitution was intended. On the contrary, and in clear breach of normal judicial and democratic proceedings, the attitude was that the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia should be accepted as constitutional because it had been approved by referendum in Catalonia.

Not to give too much space to the conditions under which this referendum took place, i.e. that there was not even a 50% turnout, and even though it is Rigau herself who calls for promoting "critical thinking", the intention of pitting two different pillars of democracy against each other is obvious. Rule of law on the one side, majority rule on the other. As if there were any conflict at all. Above I have already pointed out that the majority will of the Catalans cannot, will not and, as in any other democratic country, must not determine the validity of the Constitution of the whole country, approved in this case not only by majority of all Spaniards, but by majority in Catalonia too.

Rigau's appeal is clear. Based on the populist judgement that the majority has to rule one is tempted to side with that majority. Especially children understand this point easily. Now add the element of estrangement, of our will against what others do. This perception, too, is intended by Rigau. However, under any normal, democratic and professional circumstances, it would be the obligation of the educational authorities to explain the complexity of the legislative process. The checks and balances of the democratic system. The value of a referendum within its legal context. To explain democracy itself.

Rigau rather plays on ignorance and basic instincts.

Rigau's position is an insult to intelligence, it populistically reduces the options, and it is counting on the children's natural lack of sophistication and complex information. This is indoctrination at its dirties, and evidently it is totally Orwellian.

This is how far the situation in Catalonia has degraded, and I am tempted to say: it has degraded even more. Even adults fall for these dangerous manipulations. Critical thinking on the level of 9-year-olds. Propaganda is information. Lies are truth.