Spanish elections and politics III / Pedro Sánchez faces a new term as PM

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

With an agreement which sows distrust in the court system of a liberal democracy and explicitly states that the executive and legislative branches of government will investigate the conduct of the judiciary branch, whether this is electorally a bad move for the "good guys" should be the least of one's concerns.

Amnesty is a well-accepted means by which liberal democracies attempt to defuse social tensions so sharp they might otherwise tear them apart. Whether doing so is a good idea or not certainly depends on the specifics of a situation (I'm certainly not a fan of Togliatti's amnesty on fascist officials or Mitterrand's amnesty on the Algiers coup leaders, for example) but it doesn't "undermine the judiciary" in and of itself. The judiciary has done its job, but the will of the people is the ultimate sovereign.

In terms of defusing social tensions, the amnesty law is not precisely having a very promising start. In fact, it has had the opposite effect on wider society, with one half of the country up in arms as a direct result of it being proposed. And can you really say that this is the will of the people when three and a half months ago we went into a general election with PSOE claming they would never grant amnesty? Would there still be a parliamentary majority for it in a new election?

I agree with you that amnesty does not in itself undermine the judiciary, and have always supported the view that it is constitutional under our current legal framework. It is a perfectly valid reconciliation tool, but in every Western democracy where it has been used, the legitimacy of the court system has not been put into question. Like you said, the judiciary did its job; and then the State decided to exceptionally forgive certain crimes in the name of social peace.

However, this amnesty is being granted under the premise that the courts wrongly convicted the individuals that are set to benefit from it. The PSOE-Junts agreement implies that the judiciary is inherently biased against the Catalan independence movement, while specifically stating that parliamentary commissions will be established to investigate judges and their conduct. This would set a dangerous precedent, and all judicial associations from the left, right and center have been quick to condemn the language used.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

So all amnesty, ever, is inherently anti-rule of law, because it overturns a court decision? I don't follow this logic. The legislature makes the laws.

The only thing undermining the legitimacy of the judiciary are the judges making political statements against elected politicians because they are personally offended.

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

So all amnesty, ever, is inherently anti-rule of law, because it overturns a court decision? I don't follow this logic. The legislature makes the laws.

Firstly, I think you should re-read my post. And secondly, do you believe a simple majority in an elected legislature is entitled to throw out any court sentence it deems fit, for any reason whatsoever?

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

So all amnesty, ever, is inherently anti-rule of law, because it overturns a court decision? I don't follow this logic. The legislature makes the laws.

Firstly, I think you should re-read my post. And secondly, do you believe a simple majority in an elected legislature is entitled to throw out any court sentence it deems fit, for any reason whatsoever?

I think so, probably yes, especially in a parliamentary system. If enough people are voting for politicians who want to overturn a conviction, that is not too far from those same politicians abolishing the law which defines said crime, which is considered normal politics.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm confused. If these judges' mandates expired years ago, why are they in a position to make statements like this?

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

I think so, probably yes, especially in a parliamentary system. If enough people are voting for politicians who want to overturn a conviction, that is not too far from those same politicians abolishing the law which defines said crime, which is considered normal politics.

But that’s a complete breach of equality before the law and the separation of powers, if a Parliament can arbitrarily choose which individuals get punished under the law and which not. And even if we accepted this, parties that at the time openly rejected an amnesty law won 79% of the vote at the general election (including over 55% in Catalonia). Where is the mandate for it?

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

I'm confused. If these judges' mandates expired years ago, why are they in a position to make statements like this?

There is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about it and they are well within their right to emit a statement (which was supported by all but one of the progressive judges). The fact that they are acting members does not remove their ability to exercise certain functions.

And it’s not just the General Council of the Judiciary publishing a statement voicing concerns about the agreement. It’s also every single judicial association, including the left-wing ones such as Judges for Democracy and the Progressive Prosecutors’ Union; the Madrid bar association, the tax inspectors union, the work inspectors’ union, the Spanish Diplomats’ Association, and many others.

[wnwnwn]

As I typed the words about Junts, Ayuso right on cue displays the real face of the Spanish “unionist” Right : she wants to ensure all tax of major fortunes goes to Madrid’s coffers rather than Spain’s. Yet for some reason Convergents are the greedy ones, despite following through with their clamor for responsibility (i.e total independence from Spain), as opposed to Ayuso’s Madrid regionalism, which relies on sucking Spain dry of its young talent and its tax revenue in the process, all to be the bean counters of Mercosur, and run a Liz Truss redux operation, only its feasible as Spain will foot the bill for her Trussite paradise, and if Spain won’t foot the bill the Northern European tax payer will, or the ECB. The exact scenario that landed Spain in trouble of course was regional debt not being counted by the brainiacs in Frankfurt, instead they relied on the fact that Spain’s federal level was running a surplus. 

BUT BUT ASI EMPEZO VENEZUELA

Actually, what the spanish "unionist right" wants is more influence of their monied Madrid based financial backers on the country, cutting it off the backers of the regional parties.

[Velasco]

I'm confused. If these judges' mandates expired years ago, why are they in a position to make statements like this?

There is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about it and they are well within their right to emit a statement (which was supported by all but one of the progressive judges). The fact that they are acting members does not remove their ability to exercise certain functions.

And it’s not just the General Council of the Judiciary publishing a statement voicing concerns about the agreement. It’s also every single judicial association, including the left-wing ones such as Judges for Democracy and the Progressive Prosecutors’ Union; the Madrid bar association, the tax inspectors union, the work inspectors’ union, the Spanish Diplomats’ Association, and many others.

I think those associations have the right to state concern over the PSOE-Junts agreement,  even though the mention to the "judicialization of politics" does not necessarily imply delegitimizing the judiciary. Moreover, most of the criticism over Rajoy's policies to tackle the Catalan conflict were focused on the government's lack of political initiarive and the judicialization of the conflict (in other words, Rajoy did nothing to tackle the constitutional crisis and left the problem to the judges).  A different question,  in my opinion, is that confusing mention to "lawfare" (Junts leaders claim they are victims of a lawfare campaign).  In any case, the relevant thing are the contents of the future amnesty law.

In what concerns the General Council of the Judiciary,  a distinction should be made between what's unlawful and what's immoral. It is absolutely scandalous the PP's deliberate obstruction to the renewal of that organism, which probably represents a more serious "break of democracy" than the projected amnesty on Catalan separatists.  Unlike amnesty, I think this situation is unparalelled in Western Europe. Besides, the acting members of the Council lack the dignity required to resign, as well as the conservative members act like PP soldiers. Finally, the statement issued by the Council was over amnesty and not about the deal between PSOE and Junts. In other words, the morally delegitimized members with expired mandates issued a statement on a law that is not yet submitted to Congress

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm confused. If these judges' mandates expired years ago, why are they in a position to make statements like this?

There is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about it and they are well within their right to emit a statement (which was supported by all but one of the progressive judges). The fact that they are acting members does not remove their ability to exercise certain functions.

And it’s not just the General Council of the Judiciary publishing a statement voicing concerns about the agreement. It’s also every single judicial association, including the left-wing ones such as Judges for Democracy and the Progressive Prosecutors’ Union; the Madrid bar association, the tax inspectors union, the work inspectors’ union, the Spanish Diplomats’ Association, and many others.

I think those associations have the right to state concern over the PSOE-Junts agreement,  even though the mention to the "judicialization of politics" does not necessarily imply delegitimizing the judiciary. Moreover, most of the criticism over Rajoy's policies to tackle the Catalan conflict were focused on the government's lack of political initiarive and the judicialization of the conflict (in other words, Rajoy did nothing to tackle the constitutional crisis and left the problem to the judges).  A different question,  in my opinion, is that confusing mention to "lawfare" (Junts leaders claim they are victims of a lawfare campaign).  In any case, the relevant thing are the contents of the future amnesty law.

In what concerns the General Council of the Judiciary,  a distinction should be made between what's unlawful and what's immoral. It is absolutely scandalous the PP's deliberate obstruction to the renewal of that organism, which probably represents a more serious "break of democracy" than the projected amnesty on Catalan separatists.  Unlike amnesty, I think this situation is unparalelled in Western Europe. Besides, the acting members of the Council lack the dignity required to resign, as well as the conservative members act like PP soldiers. Finally, the statement issued by the Council was over amnesty and not about the deal between PSOE and Junts. In other words, the morally delegitimized members with expired mandates issued a statement on a law that is not yet submitted to Congress

Yes, this is what I was asking about. I understand that this body has the right and the ability to make statements like this; I don't understand why expired mandates apparently don't, you know, actually expire for this office. Five years is an awfully long time for a whole group of people to hold caretaker positions.

[Battista Minola 1616]

With an agreement which sows distrust in the court system of a liberal democracy and explicitly states that the executive and legislative branches of government will investigate the conduct of the judiciary branch, whether this is electorally a bad move for the "good guys" should be the least of one's concerns.

Amnesty is a well-accepted means by which liberal democracies attempt to defuse social tensions so sharp they might otherwise tear them apart. Whether doing so is a good idea or not certainly depends on the specifics of a situation (I'm certainly not a fan of Togliatti's amnesty on fascist officials or Mitterrand's amnesty on the Algiers coup leaders, for example) but it doesn't "undermine the judiciary" in and of itself. The judiciary has done its job, but the will of the people is the ultimate sovereign.

Speaking of amnesties you might not be a fan of... you'd think members of a party founded by Manuel Fraga would be more receptive to this concept.

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

Speaking of amnesties you might not be a fan of... you'd think members of a party founded by Manuel Fraga would be more receptive to this concept.

Alianza Popular was the only party that did not support the amnesty law of 1977. Manuel Fraga stated at the time that “a responsible democracy cannot continuously grant amnesty to its own destroyers”.

[Zinneke]

Speaking of amnesties you might not be a fan of... you'd think members of a party founded by Manuel Fraga would be more receptive to this concept.

Alianza Popular was the only party that did not support the amnesty law of 1977. Manuel Fraga stated at the time that “a responsible democracy cannot continuously grant amnesty to its own destroyers”.

 the PP, C's and Vox all were running campaigns  basically saying they would ensure the Catalan nationalist leaders were jailed. How is that any different to what you were saying about the legislative not interfering with judicial process.

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

Before engaging with Spanish politics, I highly recommend factoring in the shameless sectarianism, whataboutism and intellectual dishonesty under which, to one extent or the other, all sides operate and of which the above post is a prime example.

[jeron]

Speaking of amnesties you might not be a fan of... you'd think members of a party founded by Manuel Fraga would be more receptive to this concept.

Alianza Popular was the only party that did not support the amnesty law of 1977. Manuel Fraga stated at the time that “a responsible democracy cannot continuously grant amnesty to its own destroyers”.

Which was of course bs, because it had nothing to do with democracy. Fraga and other francoists wanted amnesty for themselves but not for the people who opposed the dictatorship and who were still in jail. That is the reason they opposed the amnesty law

[Zinneke]

Before engaging with Spanish politics, I highly recommend factoring in the shameless sectarianism, whataboutism and intellectual dishonesty under which, to one extent or the other, all sides operate and of which the above post is a prime example.

Sorry, no, there is a clear difference here, on both a moral and legal level. And I'm calling out your hypocrisy, as well as all the organisations you cite. Because apparently if right-wing parties run on a platform of wanting to imprison specific individuals, this does not merit joint statements from legal organisations (or to take another example, a member of the highest court in the country attending a political rally in Plaza Colon). But an amnesty law calling for an investigation into the practices of the Spanish judiciary in targeting Catalans who put papers in ballot boxes is "golpe de estado".

https://twitter.com/jurgenvontopfer/status/1723074373752389651

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

Before engaging with Spanish politics, I highly recommend factoring in the shameless sectarianism, whataboutism and intellectual dishonesty under which, to one extent or the other, all sides operate and of which the above post is a prime example.

Sorry, no, there is a clear difference here, on both a moral and legal level. And I'm calling out your hypocrisy, as well as all the organisations you cite. Because apparently if right-wing parties run on a platform of wanting to imprison specific individuals, this does not merit joint statements from legal organisations (or to take another example, a member of the highest court in the country attending a political rally in Plaza Colon). But an amnesty law calling for an investigation into the practices of the Spanish judiciary in targeting Catalans who put papers in ballot boxes is "golpe de estado".

https://twitter.com/jurgenvontopfer/status/1723074373752389651

You want to equate two different things, both of which you heavily misrepresent, because if you did not you might have to ask yourself the uncomfortable question of whether, perhaps, there is a non-nefarious reason why so many groups are raising their voice.

You believe that when Viktor Orbán or PiS interferes with the judiciary, it's wrong. When a left-of-centre government does it, it's right. When Donald Trump says the justice system unfairly targets him for political reasons, he's wrong. When Carles Puigdemont says it, he's right. When the British Tories complain about "lefty lawyers", they're wrong. When Podemos complains about "right-wing judges", they're right.

You don't judge actions by themselves, you judge them by your phillia or phobia towards those who perform them.

[Zinneke]

Before engaging with Spanish politics, I highly recommend factoring in the shameless sectarianism, whataboutism and intellectual dishonesty under which, to one extent or the other, all sides operate and of which the above post is a prime example.

Sorry, no, there is a clear difference here, on both a moral and legal level. And I'm calling out your hypocrisy, as well as all the organisations you cite. Because apparently if right-wing parties run on a platform of wanting to imprison specific individuals, this does not merit joint statements from legal organisations (or to take another example, a member of the highest court in the country attending a political rally in Plaza Colon). But an amnesty law calling for an investigation into the practices of the Spanish judiciary in targeting Catalans who put papers in ballot boxes is "golpe de estado".

https://twitter.com/jurgenvontopfer/status/1723074373752389651

You want to equate two different things, both of which you heavily misrepresent, because if you did not you might have to ask yourself the uncomfortable question of whether, perhaps, there is a non-nefarious reason why so many groups are raising their voice.

You believe that when Viktor Orbán or PiS interferes with the judiciary, it's wrong. When a left-of-centre government does it, it's right. When Donald Trump says the justice system unfairly targets him for political reasons, he's wrong. When Carles Puigdemont says it, he's right. When the British Tories complain about "lefty lawyers", they're wrong. When Podemos complains about "right-wing judges", they're right.

You don't judge actions by themselves, you judge them by your phillia or phobia towards those who perform them.

You've got me wrong based on amalgamation and jumping to bizarre conclusions based on me being nominally Left and critical of Orban, etc. for example on the subject of the Israel protests, I actually defended the idea that legislative chambers should have a level of oversight on the judiciary, I just believe the majorities should be strong. But in this case saying Sanchez wants to "Orbanise" Spain or do what Netenyahu was doing, is totally wrong and feeding the far right "golpistaaaa" rhetoric.

I am as big a critic of the judicialisation of politics in Britain or Israel, as well as politicisation of the judiciary in the US, as I am of the bias and lawfare methods used by judges and prosecutors in Spain by means of lawfare. My own country has a political class composed almost exclusively of lawyers who also act as jurists next to their political job, which I find contemptuous.

The difference is unlike far right arseholes in Britain I don't necessarily want judges to be "crushed" violently, just disbarred

you are just acting the moderate hero on the issue but the evidence is there that the Spanish judiciary is biased against Catalan nationalists...when the Catalans organise a referendum they attribute misuse of funds based on things like...one missed school day. Meanwhile Ayuso awards contracts to her brother and is given a slap on the wrist. Get real hombre.

[Peeperkorn]

you are just acting the moderate hero on the issue but the evidence is there that the Spanish judiciary is biased against Catalan nationalists...

I really hope that's the case.

[Estrella]

you are just acting the moderate hero on the issue but the evidence is there that the Spanish judiciary is biased against Catalan nationalists...

I really hope that's the case.

Thank you for making such a convincing case for Catalan separatism.

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

You've got me wrong based on amalgamation and jumping to bizarre conclusions based on me being nominally Left and critical of Orban, etc. for example on the subject of the Israel protests, I actually defended the idea that legislative chambers should have a level of oversight on the judiciary, I just believe the majorities should be strong. But in this case saying Sanchez wants to "Orbanise" Spain or do what Netenyahu was doing, is totally wrong and feeding the far right "golpistaaaa" rhetoric.

I am as big a critic of the judicialisation of politics in Britain or Israel, as well as politicisation of the judiciary in the US, as I am of the bias and lawfare methods used by judges and prosecutors in Spain by means of lawfare. My own country has a political class composed almost exclusively of lawyers who also act as jurists next to their political job, which I find contemptuous.

The difference is unlike far right arseholes in Britain I don't necessarily want judges to be "crushed" violently, just disbarred

you are just acting the moderate hero on the issue but the evidence is there that the Spanish judiciary is biased against Catalan nationalists...when the Catalans organise a referendum they attribute misuse of funds based on things like...one missed school day. Meanwhile Ayuso awards contracts to her brother and is given a slap on the wrist. Get real hombre.

Thank you for clarifying your stance on liberal democracy and freedom of thought by coming out in favor of purging the court system on ideological grounds. And I am sure you posses a great knowledge of legal matters, perhaps even a law degree, which allows you to accurately and unbiasedly opine on the conduct of judges in a foreign country. It can hardly get more objective than this post.

Leaving irony aside, you believe that there should be a “strong majority” for this so-called “judicial oversight” by the legislative branch, yet you support the pushing through of this system with a bare majority of less than 180 votes out of 350 in Spain. Could you also elaborate in detail about why exactly you believe misuse of public funds is an unwarranted charge to make on Catalan nationalist politicians who organized the 2017 referendum?

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Coalición Canaria llega a un acuerdo con el PSOE y respaldará la investidura de Sánchez

With Junts, PNV, & CC added to the investidura, Sánchez has the support of every party except PP Boks & United Paramount Network

[Zinneke]

You've got me wrong based on amalgamation and jumping to bizarre conclusions based on me being nominally Left and critical of Orban, etc. for example on the subject of the Israel protests, I actually defended the idea that legislative chambers should have a level of oversight on the judiciary, I just believe the majorities should be strong. But in this case saying Sanchez wants to "Orbanise" Spain or do what Netenyahu was doing, is totally wrong and feeding the far right "golpistaaaa" rhetoric.

I am as big a critic of the judicialisation of politics in Britain or Israel, as well as politicisation of the judiciary in the US, as I am of the bias and lawfare methods used by judges and prosecutors in Spain by means of lawfare. My own country has a political class composed almost exclusively of lawyers who also act as jurists next to their political job, which I find contemptuous.

The difference is unlike far right arseholes in Britain I don't necessarily want judges to be "crushed" violently, just disbarred

you are just acting the moderate hero on the issue but the evidence is there that the Spanish judiciary is biased against Catalan nationalists...when the Catalans organise a referendum they attribute misuse of funds based on things like...one missed school day. Meanwhile Ayuso awards contracts to her brother and is given a slap on the wrist. Get real hombre.

Thank you for clarifying your stance on liberal democracy and freedom of thought by coming out in favor of purging the court system on ideological grounds. And I am sure you posses a great knowledge of legal matters, perhaps even a law degree, which allows you to accurately and unbiasedly opine on the conduct of judges in a foreign country. It can hardly get more objective than this post.

I honestly don't care about the typical legalese argument. I do think democracy is being eroded from within liberal democratic institutions by judges and prosecutors (whether left or right) and I can list the issues with the Spanish judiciary once I get to my PC. But your r/iamverysmart and understand liberal democracy act isn't impressive. If you can't see how the Spanish legal system is fundamentally biased that's your problem.

eaving irony aside, you believe that there should be a “strong majority” for this so-called “judicial oversight” by the legislative branch, yet you support the pushing through of this system with a bare majority of less than 180 votes out of 350 in Spain.

The difference here is that Sanchez is not doing what Netenyahu is doing. Sanchez is not Orbanising Spain, as far as I can tell he is not amending the constitution either. Maybe you should join in the Cara al Sol chants on the street if you think this is anywhere near the kind of judiciary to legislative power grap you think it is. I'm sure you'll meet plenty of defenders of liberal democracy there.

Could you also elaborate in detail about why exactly you believe misuse of public funds is an unwarranted charge to make on Catalan nationalist politicians who organized the 2017 referendum?

It may not be unwarranted in Spanish law, but when Ayuso awards contracts to her brother for significant amounts but is a free woman while political leaders of a minority community are jailed for organising the activity of putting papers in boxes as part of the manifesto they were elected on, I think you have a sick judiciary yes.

[peterthlee]

If every vote from separatist parties is needed for the continuum of the government, how long would it last?

Also, could the political right win an absolute majority in the foreseeable future?

[Former President tack50]

If every vote from separatist parties is needed for the continuum of the government, how long would it last?

Also, could the political right win an absolute majority in the foreseeable future?

If we are pedantic, CC and BNG, both with a single seat each, can be dropped. That being said, BNG won't ask for much (basically more money for Galicia) and CC's support really seems a last ditch effort to keep the money tap flowing but they have no leverage over Sanchez

Realistically it's going to come down to Puigdemont. And the next Catalan election will have a lot to do with how the Spanish government evolves