El columnista de The Times, Matthew Parris, alerta que si la independencia de Cataluña no se hace de forma ordenada podría provocar una crisis mayúscula en toda la región del sudoccidental de Europa. El artículo (completo) ha sido publicado hoy en diferentes medios de comunicación anglosajones, como The Australian, editado en Sydney. Si hay problemas en enlace:
Me parece un poco infantil el planteamiento final que hace del referéndum con tres preguntas:
- Sin cambios
- Mayor autonomía
- Independencia
(con dos rondas si hace falta)
Y es que el "sin cambios" y "mayor autonomía" son la misma respuesta. En todo momento se ha buscado mayor autonomía y se seguirá haciendo si no hay independencia. Parar la petición de mayor autonomía no está encima de la mesa.
Al igual que no lo está por parte del Gobierno de España hacer lo posible para que no sea así.
#2: no, no lo es. La noticia que enlazaban no existía (The Times es de pago y no se podía leer). Y lo que saca La Vangiardia son 4 párrafos de resumen (no demasiado acertado, por cierto), enlazando a la noticia de The Times -que no podemos leer-. Por eso no es duplicada...¡¡¡porque nadie había enlazado a la noticia que se pueda leer!!!
THE scene is almost science fiction. Not the gee-whiz optimism of a shiny world to come, but more Blade Runner: a dystopian sense of ambition that overreached itself.
I begin this column from the new terminal of Barcelona's international airport. It is an absolutely beautiful building. And there is absolutely no use for it. So vast and so empty is this brilliantly lit cavern that the security guards speed noiselessly by on two-wheeled Segway machines: smartly uniformed; betruncheoned; bolt upright; vigilant for nothing.
The place is a symbol. A white elephant in the room if ever there was one. It was meant to be a showcase for Catalonia's future as an independent nation. Instead it has become a symbol for over-ambition, political and economic, in the region that now has bigger debts than any other part of Spain. Even before the world economic crisis there was never a business case for massive international airport expansion at Barcelona. Madrid's Barajas airport too has overreached itself, and Barcelona has been playing an anything-you-can-do-we-can-do-better catch-up game. The real rationale behind Catalonia's airport upgrade was to show it is a proper country.
Or "region", as the right-of-centre government in Madrid wants Catalans to see their land. The situation is heading fast for deadlock. Forget Cyprus: among Europe's small nations it is Catalonia that could bring the European project tumbling down. Nowhere depends on Cyprus, but the integrity of Spain and the credibility of the Spanish economy depend on Catalonia: on whether Madrid and Barcelona can manage their differences. A disorderly secession would devastate the whole Iberian peninsula, from Portugal to the Basque Country.
I am returning from rural Catalonia, where it seems that almost every second house flies the new banner of Catalan separatism: a Cuban-style flag with a star in a triangle and the four red stripes of the nation's ancient crest. My family here are almost all Catalanista now. Talking to them and their friends and relations in Catalonia, and seeing the slogans daubed on walls, you would get the impression that the whole people (for Catalans are undoubtedly a people, with a language and history of their own) are solid for independence and will vote that way in the referendum that the regional government is tripping over itself to promise for next year: ideally, they hope, on the same day as Scotland's.
Yet talk to The Times's correspondent in Spain, Graham Keeley, and you get a more ambiguous picture. "In our part of the country," I told him, "anyone who's against independence would feel they were in a tiny minority, and pipe down."
"Exactly," he said. Graham encounters very private doubts among urban middle-class Catalans, and wonders how - in the quiet of the polling station rather than the noise of street demos against whatever is the latest snub from Madrid - the cautious typical Catalan elector would actually vote. Nobody knows.
What polling there is can be read two ways. In June 2005, the earliest record available, only 13.6 per cent wanted independence. Those opting for independence have increased from 24.5 per cent two years ago, to 46.4 per cent in the most recent survey. But the numbers have been levelling off. Whether this cooling is caused by the approach of a referendum, or by unease at the dysfunctionality of the "coalition from hell" that now governs Catalonia, it is possible to conclude that pushing the numbers much above 50 per cent may prove problematic.
One encounters a curious naivety about independence here. It has yet to dawn on many that Scotland (whose separatists many Catalans associate with) will probably vote "no". They look surprised, even dismayed, when one points out that acceptance of a new, sovereign Catalan state by the international community would not be straightforward; that membership of the EU would not be automatic; that there would be huge resistance (especially from France and Belgium) to the precedent, while whatever trading relationship was finally agreed might be pretty ungenerous; and that there would be sulphurous rows about the apportioning of Catalonia's share of Spanish debt. I'm not sure how far all this has sunk in.
And arising perhaps from a small-nation resentment of a boss-nation's dominance, separatists do not strike me as having understood the terrible vulnerability to them of the rest of Spain. What would any impression of disintegration do to bond prices? What would it do to inward investment? Does Catalonia - one of Spain's richest and most productive regions - understand that if its largest trading partner should sink, so would Catalonia?
The damage Catalan separatism could do to what would be left of Spain is at the same time an argument against separatism and a potentially lethal weapon in the hands of separatists. But it's the ultimate weapon. Barcelona and Madrid are in the situation that at the height of the Cold War we used to call MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the old story of the scorpion and the frog, again: one sting, and both would drown.
Madrid is playing hard-ball. In public at least the governing Popular Party of the uncharismatic Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, displays a stiff-necked Castilian contempt for Catalan hopes, insisting that Spain's regions are constitutionally forbidden from voting on independence. There has even been wild talk of sending in the army. This has united all the large parties in Catalonia (even the Catalan Socialist Party, which would campaign for a "no" to independence) behind an insistence on Catalonia's right at least to ask its people the question.
My own view is that if Madrid holds to its insistence that a referendum would be illegal, if Barcelona proceeds with plans for a referendum anyway, if Madrid rattles sabres before polling day with sufficient ferocity, and if the Spanish bond market doesn't react by visiting a plague on both their houses, then there's a good chance the separatists would lose. That may be the PP's brutal calculation. But the risks are immense; one gaffe during the run-up, one insult from the PP, could tip things the separatists' way; and even if the separatists lost, "victory" for Madrid would be bitter, wreaking enduring damage on the brotherhood of the peoples of Spain.
There is a way to avoid this cruel gamble. Two men have it in their power, if they can each take the pain of a partial climbdown, to end the impasse. One is Artur Mas, the President of Catalonia's government and a political moderate. The other is Rajoy, also from the moderate part of his party. He has undertaken to thwart a referendum, should concede one and should undertake to respect its conclusions.
Mr Mas, who has (only latterly) pushed for full independence, should concede a three-choice referendum. Voters would order by preference (1) status quo; (2) greater autonomy; or (3) full independence. If none received an absolute majority, second preferences would be counted.
Option 2 would probably win at the first count. If it did not, it would certainly win at the second. Catalonia could then proceed in an orderly way towards the nationhood it craves and deserves, but within the Spain so dear to the hearts of millions of Spaniards. Mr Mas, however, would have to endure Catalan obloquy not so much for offering devo-max as for trusting Madrid to deliver it. For Mr Rajoy the obloquy would be for conceding anything at all to Catalonia.
Enduring obloquy, however, is a burden of statesmanship. And here in Spain, statesmanship is in awfully short supply.
#18 Es votar negativo porque no están permitidos los enlaces a páginas que piden un registro. Y a google no se puede enlazar. Pero si no me equivoco, si lo que ha hecho #20 se hace en un blog, poniendo el enlace a la fuente, y se sube, yo diría que no es duplicada (claro, que por si acaso yo lo dejaría claro en el primer comentario...)
#22 Veo que llevas aquí desde 2011 así que seguro que no es la primera vez que te lo encuentras... ¿Has visto la película Idiocracia? Personalmente pienso que es nuestro futuro...
editado:
de hecho por eso digo lo de dejarlo bien claro en el primer comentario, para los que son de gatillo rápido..
#13 Quizá solo es de pago según de dónde proviene la visita... Visitas directas desde google pasan, desde agregadores de noticias no... Pues no tiene arreglo eso...
There is a way to avoid this cruel gamble. Two men have it in their power, if they can each take the pain of a partial climbdown, to end the impasse. One is Artur Mas, the President of Catalonia's government and a political moderate. The other is Rajoy, also from the moderate part of his party. He has undertaken to thwart a referendum, should concede one and should undertake to respect its conclusions.
Mr Mas, who has (only latterly) pushed for full independence, should concede a three-choice referendum. Voters would order by preference (1) status quo; (2) greater autonomy; or (3) full independence. If none received an absolute majority, second preferences would be counted.
Es decir, que la salida que vé es negociar las condiciones de un referéndum y hacerlo. Albricias. Aunque el que "should concede" algo de entrada es el otro lado, que hasta ahora se ha mantenido inflexible en no hacer referéndum bajo ninguna condición.
Comentarios
Me parece un poco infantil el planteamiento final que hace del referéndum con tres preguntas:
- Sin cambios
- Mayor autonomía
- Independencia
(con dos rondas si hace falta)
Y es que el "sin cambios" y "mayor autonomía" son la misma respuesta. En todo momento se ha buscado mayor autonomía y se seguirá haciendo si no hay independencia. Parar la petición de mayor autonomía no está encima de la mesa.
Al igual que no lo está por parte del Gobierno de España hacer lo posible para que no sea así.
dupe: 'The Times' ve en Catalunya "una bomba de relojería peor que Chipre"
'The Times' ve en Catalunya "una bomba de rel...
lavanguardia.com#2: no, no lo es. La noticia que enlazaban no existía (The Times es de pago y no se podía leer). Y lo que saca La Vangiardia son 4 párrafos de resumen (no demasiado acertado, por cierto), enlazando a la noticia de The Times -que no podemos leer-. Por eso no es duplicada...¡¡¡porque nadie había enlazado a la noticia que se pueda leer!!!
Ahí va el texto completo:
THE scene is almost science fiction. Not the gee-whiz optimism of a shiny world to come, but more Blade Runner: a dystopian sense of ambition that overreached itself.
I begin this column from the new terminal of Barcelona's international airport. It is an absolutely beautiful building. And there is absolutely no use for it. So vast and so empty is this brilliantly lit cavern that the security guards speed noiselessly by on two-wheeled Segway machines: smartly uniformed; betruncheoned; bolt upright; vigilant for nothing.
The place is a symbol. A white elephant in the room if ever there was one. It was meant to be a showcase for Catalonia's future as an independent nation. Instead it has become a symbol for over-ambition, political and economic, in the region that now has bigger debts than any other part of Spain. Even before the world economic crisis there was never a business case for massive international airport expansion at Barcelona. Madrid's Barajas airport too has overreached itself, and Barcelona has been playing an anything-you-can-do-we-can-do-better catch-up game. The real rationale behind Catalonia's airport upgrade was to show it is a proper country.
Or "region", as the right-of-centre government in Madrid wants Catalans to see their land. The situation is heading fast for deadlock. Forget Cyprus: among Europe's small nations it is Catalonia that could bring the European project tumbling down. Nowhere depends on Cyprus, but the integrity of Spain and the credibility of the Spanish economy depend on Catalonia: on whether Madrid and Barcelona can manage their differences. A disorderly secession would devastate the whole Iberian peninsula, from Portugal to the Basque Country.
I am returning from rural Catalonia, where it seems that almost every second house flies the new banner of Catalan separatism: a Cuban-style flag with a star in a triangle and the four red stripes of the nation's ancient crest. My family here are almost all Catalanista now. Talking to them and their friends and relations in Catalonia, and seeing the slogans daubed on walls, you would get the impression that the whole people (for Catalans are undoubtedly a people, with a language and history of their own) are solid for independence and will vote that way in the referendum that the regional government is tripping over itself to promise for next year: ideally, they hope, on the same day as Scotland's.
Yet talk to The Times's correspondent in Spain, Graham Keeley, and you get a more ambiguous picture. "In our part of the country," I told him, "anyone who's against independence would feel they were in a tiny minority, and pipe down."
"Exactly," he said. Graham encounters very private doubts among urban middle-class Catalans, and wonders how - in the quiet of the polling station rather than the noise of street demos against whatever is the latest snub from Madrid - the cautious typical Catalan elector would actually vote. Nobody knows.
What polling there is can be read two ways. In June 2005, the earliest record available, only 13.6 per cent wanted independence. Those opting for independence have increased from 24.5 per cent two years ago, to 46.4 per cent in the most recent survey. But the numbers have been levelling off. Whether this cooling is caused by the approach of a referendum, or by unease at the dysfunctionality of the "coalition from hell" that now governs Catalonia, it is possible to conclude that pushing the numbers much above 50 per cent may prove problematic.
One encounters a curious naivety about independence here. It has yet to dawn on many that Scotland (whose separatists many Catalans associate with) will probably vote "no". They look surprised, even dismayed, when one points out that acceptance of a new, sovereign Catalan state by the international community would not be straightforward; that membership of the EU would not be automatic; that there would be huge resistance (especially from France and Belgium) to the precedent, while whatever trading relationship was finally agreed might be pretty ungenerous; and that there would be sulphurous rows about the apportioning of Catalonia's share of Spanish debt. I'm not sure how far all this has sunk in.
And arising perhaps from a small-nation resentment of a boss-nation's dominance, separatists do not strike me as having understood the terrible vulnerability to them of the rest of Spain. What would any impression of disintegration do to bond prices? What would it do to inward investment? Does Catalonia - one of Spain's richest and most productive regions - understand that if its largest trading partner should sink, so would Catalonia?
The damage Catalan separatism could do to what would be left of Spain is at the same time an argument against separatism and a potentially lethal weapon in the hands of separatists. But it's the ultimate weapon. Barcelona and Madrid are in the situation that at the height of the Cold War we used to call MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the old story of the scorpion and the frog, again: one sting, and both would drown.
Madrid is playing hard-ball. In public at least the governing Popular Party of the uncharismatic Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, displays a stiff-necked Castilian contempt for Catalan hopes, insisting that Spain's regions are constitutionally forbidden from voting on independence. There has even been wild talk of sending in the army. This has united all the large parties in Catalonia (even the Catalan Socialist Party, which would campaign for a "no" to independence) behind an insistence on Catalonia's right at least to ask its people the question.
My own view is that if Madrid holds to its insistence that a referendum would be illegal, if Barcelona proceeds with plans for a referendum anyway, if Madrid rattles sabres before polling day with sufficient ferocity, and if the Spanish bond market doesn't react by visiting a plague on both their houses, then there's a good chance the separatists would lose. That may be the PP's brutal calculation. But the risks are immense; one gaffe during the run-up, one insult from the PP, could tip things the separatists' way; and even if the separatists lost, "victory" for Madrid would be bitter, wreaking enduring damage on the brotherhood of the peoples of Spain.
There is a way to avoid this cruel gamble. Two men have it in their power, if they can each take the pain of a partial climbdown, to end the impasse. One is Artur Mas, the President of Catalonia's government and a political moderate. The other is Rajoy, also from the moderate part of his party. He has undertaken to thwart a referendum, should concede one and should undertake to respect its conclusions.
Mr Mas, who has (only latterly) pushed for full independence, should concede a three-choice referendum. Voters would order by preference (1) status quo; (2) greater autonomy; or (3) full independence. If none received an absolute majority, second preferences would be counted.
Option 2 would probably win at the first count. If it did not, it would certainly win at the second. Catalonia could then proceed in an orderly way towards the nationhood it craves and deserves, but within the Spain so dear to the hearts of millions of Spaniards. Mr Mas, however, would have to endure Catalan obloquy not so much for offering devo-max as for trusting Madrid to deliver it. For Mr Rajoy the obloquy would be for conceding anything at all to Catalonia.
Enduring obloquy, however, is a burden of statesmanship. And here in Spain, statesmanship is in awfully short supply.
The Times
#18 Es votar negativo porque no están permitidos los enlaces a páginas que piden un registro. Y a google no se puede enlazar. Pero si no me equivoco, si lo que ha hecho #20 se hace en un blog, poniendo el enlace a la fuente, y se sube, yo diría que no es duplicada (claro, que por si acaso yo lo dejaría claro en el primer comentario...)
cc #17
#21 Con ese criterio se tendría que votar errónea, pero si te fijas la aplastante mayoría ha votado duplicada como rebaño y/o sin criterio
#22 Veo que llevas aquí desde 2011 así que seguro que no es la primera vez que te lo encuentras... ¿Has visto la película Idiocracia? Personalmente pienso que es nuestro futuro...
#14: https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CE4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fcatalonia-is-a-bigger-timebomb-than-cyprus%2Fstory-fnb64oi6-1226614387880&ei=bohhUcnHGoGO7AawjICIBw&usg=AFQjCNHtlzQzG0_qfwdTK-1h6OkoP6WnLg&sig2=jBt_o9biXRlWVRKt4dwoTw&bvm=bv.44770516,d.ZGU
#13 Quizá solo es de pago según de dónde proviene la visita... Visitas directas desde google pasan, desde agregadores de noticias no... Pues no tiene arreglo eso...
#15: efectivamente, es así, me temo.
O sea que es duplicada de un meneo que no valía por ser también un duplicado de un meneo que no se podía ver porque había que pagar...
Es votar negativo por votar negativo, lo único malo que tiene el envío es que desde menéame pide que te suscribas, pero desde google no, raro.
There is a way to avoid this cruel gamble. Two men have it in their power, if they can each take the pain of a partial climbdown, to end the impasse. One is Artur Mas, the President of Catalonia's government and a political moderate. The other is Rajoy, also from the moderate part of his party. He has undertaken to thwart a referendum, should concede one and should undertake to respect its conclusions.
Mr Mas, who has (only latterly) pushed for full independence, should concede a three-choice referendum. Voters would order by preference (1) status quo; (2) greater autonomy; or (3) full independence. If none received an absolute majority, second preferences would be counted.
Es decir, que la salida que vé es negociar las condiciones de un referéndum y hacerlo. Albricias. Aunque el que "should concede" algo de entrada es el otro lado, que hasta ahora se ha mantenido inflexible en no hacer referéndum bajo ninguna condición.
Hoygan, que en esta noticia me piden registrarme y pagar 1$ los 28 primeros días para poder leerla completa.
#8: es un poco raro, porque yo sí la he abierto sin problema y tengo el artículo completo. La cosa es que desde meneame no puedo abrir el artículo (me pide registro), pero desde el enlace de google: ¡¡¡se puede leer!!!: https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CE4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fcatalonia-is-a-bigger-timebomb-than-cyprus%2Fstory-fnb64oi6-1226614387880&ei=bohhUcnHGoGO7AawjICIBw&usg=AFQjCNHtlzQzG0_qfwdTK-1h6OkoP6WnLg&sig2=jBt_o9biXRlWVRKt4dwoTw&bvm=bv.44770516,d.ZGU
#11: prueba con el enlace de google que pongo en #12
#12 Sí, con el de google sí. Deben usar el refereer para determinar si requiere o no suscripción.
Yo lo intenté dos veces, la primera me pedía contraseña, volvía a abrir el link y ahora ya la puedo leer completa!
Por eso pedimos hacerlo ordenadamente: con un referéndum legal. Vamos, como se hará en el Reino Unido. Que es lo que dice Matthew Parris.
Es que la noticia no es visible.
Por favor, #5: ¡¡¡esta sí es visible!!!
#9 Es visible, claro, si te registras pagando.
#9 No es visible, pide suscribirse.
Seguramente tu has llegado por otro camino y te ha dejado sin ser suscriptor, pero el enlace directo que es el que clicamos nosotros pide eso.
#9 No, no lo es. Pide contraseña.
La anterior fue descartada por fascistas catalanistas.
#1: creo que no fue por esa razón, sino porque la noticia que enlazaban no era correcta
#1 No, la anterior del Times fue descartada porque igual que esta requiere una suscripción para verla.