del sistema d'avaluació durant el confinament.

proposta davant el context legal actual

la doble corva de wuhan

o la diferència entre casos reals i casos confirmats, i que mentre els primers reaccionen immediatament a les mesures com el confinament, la segona triga un temps.

de l'origen dels ministeris espanyols i exclusió dels catalans

https://mariolv.carto.com/viz/892bc502-48dc-4fe2-a88b-166085ea41d1/embed_map

En dades: https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2016/11/03/actualidad/1478202328_723969.html

En primers ministres, excloent la breu I República espanyola (1874-1876) només hi ha hagut un català primer ministre, i només durant un dia.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidente_del_Consejo_de_Ministros_de_Espa%C3%B1a

Es detecta el patró, no?

comentari a un article sobre clara ponsatí : de la legalitat del referèndum

l'article original aquí:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/spanish-academics-slam-scots-support-for-clara-ponsati-1-4717121

Els comentaris d'alguns lectors defensen l'actuació d'Espanya, pq el referèndum "era il·legal". En la meva resposta defenso, argumentadament i citant fonts, que el referèndum era legal i legítim.


The new catalan statute of autonomy was approved by 120 of 135
seats in catalan parliament. After some changes where devolution was
reduced, approved also by the spanish parliament. Then approved later by
catalans in referendum. That statute allowed catalans to make
referendums. (https://ca.wikipedia.org/wi... )
The Constitutional court (that is not part of the
judicial system. is part of the political) did an interpretation of the
constitution that reduced more that statute, acting against both
parliament and the population sovereignity, and did it on an illegal
way. The process towards independence began then, there.
For javier perez royo, catedratic of constititional laws, the way in which the constitutional court was acting was a coup d'etat
( https://elpais.com/diario/2... )
The interpretation of the constitution itself was illegal, since was against
the treaties that Spain has signed. And the interpretation should be done, always, according to the frame that those treaties make.
Was illegal also since the composition of the tribunal itself was not according to the law, while was illegal also on other questions, like as example the time
they took to do it. All the procedure was full of irregularities and
illegalities. The statute that the constitutional court did was
different from the original. And was not voted on referendum (as the law
says that should be) so, since 2010, Catalonia is not legally attached
to spain. The main law that regulates it is illegal.
Ater that, a catalan delegation went to the spanish parliament, after huge
demonstrations in catalonia and the support according to polls of more
than 80% of catalan people for a referendum, to ask for a referendum
about the issue or to let catalans to do it.
Spain, according to the
international signed treaties, must have allowed it. But, having 5
different ways to allow it, forbid it.
This was in 2014 (https://www.parlament.cat/w...
Catalans have asked recently for 18 times before they tried to do it on their own. 18 times.
So, the catalan parliament, according to the catalan statute and the international laws (that spain should obey ) approved a law of referendum. The law was legal on all its
terms (ays 6 and 7 september 2017: all the procedure was legal ( https://www.vilaweb.cat/not... ) when the referendum machinery began to run. The constitutional
"court" declared it illegal, but when did it was acting illegally, since
that was against the rights of catalans as a nationality (and the
constitution says that catalans are a nationality). So the constitutional court should have interpreted the constitution according to the rights of catalans and treaties signed by spain, while acted according to the partisanism of the composition of the court (where its president was militant of the popular party: https://politica.elpais.com... )
At the moment of taking place the referendum (1st of october), was not yet illegal since the constitutional court was not yet declared it illegal. it did so on 18 of october (https://politica.elpais.com... The catalan law ofthe referendum was "in suspension" waiting for a decision, so the
referendum was not illegal. As much, was allegal. So the police battoned
paceful people for doing an allegal thing that was not known yet if would be declared legal or illegal.
According to the spanish laws, the laws, referendums are not illegal. Declarations of
independence are not illegal. And they arent also according to the
international law.
All the actions of the spanish state related to this issue, and the list is huge, are illegal. As couldnt be on any other way. does anyone thinks, common sense in mind, that casting your opinion on a ballot is a crime??
Where are the rights of expression, reunion, manifestation..? Were are the most basic human rights or the civil rights?
Defending spain in this issue is clearly puting the defender in the side of the worst of the nationalisms: the imperialism.
Europe talks about rule of law, but is on the side of breaking the rule of law and going against human rights and civil rights.

comentari a un article: whats next for catalonia?

Article : http://harvardpolitics.com/world/whats-next-for-catalonia/

comentari:

let me point out some  questions:

1.- About the "slight mayority": according to the results of the last elections done in catalonia the last 21st of december 2018, the different parties and ideologies represented by them obtained the next percentages:
- Ciudadanos (extreme right, spanishness) = 25,3 %
- Partido Popular (center right, spanishness, party that dominates full spain)= 4,3%
Ciudadanos and Partido Popular are the adamantly opposed to independence= 29,5%

- Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya (center left, catalanist, federalist): 13,8%
- Podem-En Comú (Eu-IC) (lefttish, catalanist, federalist, neutral on the indy issue): 7,4%
PSC and Comuns defend a catalan state federated as equal to the spanish state. En comú in particular was neutral on the independence issue, so both had part of the independentist votes.

- CUP (leftish, catalanist, neatly independentist) = 4,46%
- ERC (center left, catalanist, neatly independentist) = 21,38%
- Junts per catalunya (center right, catalanist, neatly independentist) = 21,66%
Cup, ERC and Junts make 47,5% neatly independentist

So there is here a 68,75% of voters backing a catalan state. Thats not a slight majority.
Theres at least a 47,5% clearly independentist, but only a 29,5% clearly anti independence.
Have been more clearly indepentist voters in this 21st elections than there were in the 1st of october referendum (when state terrorized people in order to avoid them to go to vote. More than 2 milion voted then for independence).

You simply cant trust on the surveys done by spain on the issue.
The only way to know if there is a majority of catalans who want independence is to let them express. And that, existing legal ways to be done, cant be done because of the denial of the spanish state. By this way, the spanish state is opposing to more than 80% of catalan people who, independentist or not, think that have the right to express their opinion. And thats not a slight majority either.

2.- After that , you say that is all about selfishness. What would happen if..? (corsica, sardinia, sicily, Venice, Basque country, and so on). About this issue: what about the selfishness of the beneficiaries of the status quo? What about that majority of spaniards who deny a national minority to have rights? Thats not an issue?

Catalans are doing a revolution consisting in trying to change borders, againts the will ot the state within they are, and without the blood that uses to be required to write them on the maps.

3.- Finally: is not a matter of catalan nationalism since the only nationalism in catalonia consists in saying that catalans are a nation. You can call them nationalists if you do the same to any person in the world who defends that his nation is a nation.
The only dangerous nationalism is imperialism, consisting in one nation walking over another. Nazism was imperialism (the III Reich, do you remember?). Spain has a long imperialist tradition (mixed with fanatic religion). USSR was imperialism. Mussolini was imperialism (remembering the roman empire times and with campaign in greece included).The european nationalism itself began as a reaction to the napoleonic imperialism. While the worldwide extension was also a reaction againts imperialist colonialism.

So dont mix the questions, please.
The majority for a catalan sovereighnity is not slight at all (68,75% for statehood, more than 80% for the right of vote)
The question of selfishness should be rethinked.
The use of the nationalist issue is closely a manipulation of the real facts since ignores the real question: imperialism.

thanks for your approach to this issue; sorry for my poor english. Thanks for reading my comment. Have a nice day.

tabàrnia

Tabàrnia és un concepte nascut de l'unionisme que pretèn separar la "Catalunya unionista i productiva" de la "Catalunya rural i independentista".
He creat una imatge, partint d'una imatge creada pels defensors de Tabàrnia, unint els resultats electorals per municipis amb el seu mapa, explicant així que no es tracta de res més que d'una forma de Gerrymandering.

El mapa dels resultats electorals es troba aquí (clicar aquí).
Explicació del Gerrymandering en anglès https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering i en castellà https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

La imatge obtinguda és aquesta:

(actualització 31-I-'18) Al español inquieto por el auge de la derecha extrema: tranquilo. 

Que no te engañen. El fanatismo recalcitrante y religioso que viste el nacionalismo español es una sobrecompensación para que no se note que lo que une España es el miedo y el odio, fundamentados en el Derecho de Conquista, el autoritarismo, la represión y la ignorancia. Viendo como funcionan los medios españoles y qué leyes se hacen, la solución que se da es más ignorancia y más represión. De modo que la conciencia nacional española se fundamenta en el temor y el conformismo propio de súbditos de un reino. 

Si compartes esos valores y odias, desde la ignorancia y el desprecio a quienes se atreven a quejarse, no tendrás ningún problema con el Estado.
La mayoría de españoles seguirá votando partidos consevadores (fruto del miedo); y sus principales graneros de votos seguirán siendo los conjuntos de población menos instruidos, más monolingües y más presos de la ignorancia. Son mayoría. Así que el futuro de España, tal y como la conocemos (pobre, corrupta y antidemocrática) está garantizado por generaciones.

comentari a un article: "els catalans no tenen dret a la independència"

https://theconversation.com/even-if-separatist-parties-win-the-catalan-election-international-law-doesnt-provide-a-right-to-independence-86900

Gibraltar is a colony in nowadays Europe from the Spanish point of view. The very same conflict, the very same treaty (Utrecht) that lead UK to retain Gibraltar was the one used to put Catalonia, until then a sovereign independent state, in the hands of Castile. Why Gibraltar is a colony and not Catalonia?
Before begin to mock about this point of view, pay some attention to some facts.
1st: Spain, as a name, belongs to the Imperial Roman period. Was used to call the peninsula. another examples are italica or Britannia.
2nd.: Several cultures and states appeared in the middle ages there: a muslim spain, divided in several kingdoms, and a christian spain, also divided in kingdoms and states. Some of them were Leon and Castille (together the Crown of Castile). Others were the Kingdom of Aragon and the Principality of Catalonia, both sovereign states, together the Crown of Aragon.
3rd: You know nowadays the kingdom of spain and the spanish languages. Coming back to the meaning of words and the comparision with Brittain, would be like talking about the kingdom of Britain and the British language. If is a nonsense for Scots, english, irish and welsh, its a nonsense too for catalans, portuguese and others. Spain never was a kingdom (as ive said, several kingdoms and crowns. Does not exist a so called "kingdom of spain" in history). Saying that castilian idiom is the spanish idiom you are saying that the other hispanic idioms are not hispanic or not idioms? : there is not exists a single spanish language, as there is not exists a single brittish language. Catalan is known for around 10 million people. What are we going to say to them? that they are not spanish or that their idiom is not an idiom?
As you can see, until now ive not said any lie. Do i? but things begin to have another shape.
4th: in kingdoms, you have a king, usually there by the will of god. that king is above the rest of subdits, the common people, under him. The 1st of the subdits is the prince, from latin, primus inter pares, the 1st between equals. uses to be the heir, but is not different from the rest of common people. That happens when you have a kingdom. But when you have an independent principality, you dont have a guy above the rest of the people. Your prince, the chief of state, is a primus inter pares. is like the others. that kind of state is, someways similar to a republic. Examples? Andorra is a co-principality. Monaco is a principality. Venice was a republic for hundreds of years. So catalonia was a sovereign independent state in the form a principality. Never had a king above: didnt had its own king; the king from aragon was not king on catalonia. was king only inside the aragon kingdom.
To understand this: Catalonia had its own parliament (corts catalanes); the ruler, to have access to the throne, had to swear to obey to the catalan laws (catalan constitutions). That parliament was the sovereign. and the count of barcelona used to act as if was a king.. so the parliament (the General of Catalonia) created a comission of deputies to represent that parliament between parlamentary sessions: the deputy of the General, also called Generalitat. There was elections to those chairs each 3 years and political parties also (biga and busca) in the XIVth and XVth century.
5th: the crown of aragon was a union of states as a commonwealth , where each state retained its own sovereignity and where the chief of state was someone shared. The king of aragon was not king on catalonia. common issues should be debated in special sessions with several parliaments together in a neutral place.
6th: you can appreciate how things worked when you see that feudalism laws were abolished in catalonia in 1486 after a civil war, after was shortly declared a republic there. a very interesting period. A republic was also declared in the xvii th century ("are the men who create kings and not kings who create men" said pau claris, the president then of the generalitat, in his speech in the catalan parliament, when republic was declared). that republic lasted a few decades, ending in 1659, when was recovered the principality form and all catalan institutions were respected. also its sovereignity.
7th: Was in use of that sovereignity that Catalonia took part for Charles and candidate to the then spanish monarchy (a monarchy is not a kingdom. is several states sharing a chief of state : monos = one. Archos = power). Now you can understand what happened in 1715 with the Nueva Planta decrees: all catalan institutions were abolished and Catalonia became part of Castille. Catalan language was banned, catalan universities erased, the list of repressive actions would be far too long for this post. And then, there, begins the "kingdom of Spain" that is in real the kingdom of castile. And is that way that castile idiom becomes the "spanish idiom", castile laws "the spanish laws", castile kings "the spanish kings", and that catalonia has since then a king for 1st time.
8th: the Nueva Planta decrees are still law, and still in force! Still nowadays are source of law! (https://www.diarilaveu.com/noticia/21070/el-tc-es-remet-al-decret-de-nova-planta-per-justificar-leliminacio-del-dret-civil-valencia#.WYl8YJrC1U-.twitter)
9th Also since then, catalonia tried to recover its own institutions and sovereignity. And also since then has had repression. AS example: all the catalan presidents of the catalan mancomunity 1st, and Generalitat later, the maximum leaders of catalonia, in the xx th century, all of them experienced jail, exile or a firing squad. And im talking about ellected leaders. From puig i cadafalc ,macià, companys, irla, tarradellas, to pujol. Current president of the Generalitat is in exile. his predecessor has had deep problems with spanish justice because made happen a consultation to the catalan people.
Another example: in the last 3 centuries, with the exception of the short 1st spanish republic (1846-1847), only one catalan and only for 1 single day has achieved the chair of prime minister in spain. in 3 centuries! for a "region" that is the wealthiers of the country and one of the most populated. while, since the nueva planta decrees came to life, has had always, year after year, paying much more to spain than it has received (fiscal defficit), with differences ranged from 8% to more than 10% (the spanish american colonies had that numbers in 7,5%).
Indeed nationalism is bad, but not the nationalism that just consists in saying that your nation is a nation. The bad nationalism is the imperialism, that consists in saying that your neighbours nation is not a nation. And that nationalism is the castilian one, called spanish, not the catalan, that just consists on saying "eh, happens that im a nation". The worse nightmares of nationalism came from the hand of imperialism, dont forget that.
I assume that spain is much better when is ignored. And indeed we ere ignored by europe while we suffered the dictatorship of primo de rivera, or when sufered the attack of fascism on the 2nd republic, or when we suffered a 40 years dictatorship again on the franco regime. We are used to be ignored by europe, and specially catalans we are used to be just left alone while we were smashed. But i cant admit that you say that we dont have the right to be considered a nation just because you prefere to ignore spanish history and spanish reality and because your life is more confortable with the spanish regime.
We have rights. We are not repressed? we are not a colony? There are not human rights violations? Just because we have been extremly peaceful and cautious, because we know that we are alone and that europe doesnt give a shit about democratic principles, rule of law or peoples rights.

pd. i can give you source links for most of things told here. if you need them, just ask. but a simple check on wikipedia would make you a good favour. next time you write about spain, check some sources first.

pd2. sorry about my poor vocabulary and my grammar mistakes. im not used to write english. and thanks for writing about us at least.