Saturday 14 October 2017

President Puigdemont's Address to the Catalan Parliament

On 10th October 2017, President Puigdemont addressed the Catalan parliament to report on the results of the Independence Referendum that had been held on October 1st. I present below my translation of his address. I used Google Translate to do most of the work, and then went through it, checking it against the original and putting it into grammatical English. The responsibility for the accuracy of the translation is therefore mine, and I welcome any suggestions people might have to improve it.

I give the English version; the original text can be found here. The video of the address can be seen here and (with a simultaneous translation) here.

I will post my thoughts on the Catalonia situation in a few days.

__________________________________

I present myself before this Parliament at your own request to present the results of the referendum held on October 1, and to explain the political consequences that arise. I am aware, as surely many of you also are, that today I also present myself before the people of Catalonia and many other people who have fixed their attention on what is happening today in this room.
We live in an exceptional moment, of historical dimensions. Its consequences and effects go far beyond our country and it has become clear that, far from being a domestic and internal affair, we have, as so often, had to listen to those who neglected their responsibility by not wanting to know what was happening. Catalonia is a European affair.
From my appearance do not expect threats, nor blackmail, nor insults. The moment is serious enough that we all accept part of the responsibility that belongs to us in the imperative need to de-escalate tension and to not contribute, either with word or gesture, to increasing it. On the contrary, I want to address the whole of the population; Those who have mobilised on October 1 and 3, to those who did it on Saturday in the demonstration advocating for the dialogue and those who did it massively on Sunday in defence of the unity of Spain. And those who have not mobilised in any of these announcements. Everyone, with our differences and discrepancies, in what we understand and in what we do not understand, we form one people and we must continue to do it together, come what may, because that is how the history of the peoples seeking their future is made.
We will never agree on everything, as is evident. But we do understand, because we have already shown it many times, that the way forward can only be democracy and peace. That means respect for what you think differently and find how to make collective aspirations possible, with the benefit that this requires a great deal of dialogue and empathy.
But what I will explain  to you today is not a personal decision, nor anybody's obsession: it is the result of October 1, by the will of the Government that I preside over having maintained its commitment to convene, organise and carry out a referendum on self-determination, and of course the analysis of the later events that we have shared within the Government. Today we are here to talk about the results of October 1 in Parliament and that’s what we will do.
We are here because on October 1 just gone, Catalonia carried out the referendum on self-determination. It did it in not just difficult, but extreme conditions: It is the first time in the history of European democracies that a polling day has unfolded in the midst of violent police attacks against the voters queuing to deposit their ballot. From 8 in the morning until the closing time of the schools, the police and the Civil Guard hit defenseless people and forced emergency services to attend more than 800 people. We all saw it, so did a world frightened  by the images that were being received.
The goal was not only to confiscate ballot boxes and ballots. The goal was to provoke generalised panic and that people, seeing images of indiscriminate police violence, would stay home and give up their voting rights. But the political leaders of this ignominy missed their target. 2,286,217 citizens overcame fear, left home and voted.
We do not know how many tried it without success, but we do know that forcibly closed schools represent a census of 770,000 more people.
More than two million two hundred thousand Catalans could vote because they overcame fear, and also because when they arrived at their school they found ballot boxes, envelopes, ballots, tables and a reliable and operational census. The police operations and records of the weeks before, in search of ballots and ballot boxes, did not prevent the referendum. The arrests of senior officials and civil servants also did not stop the referendum. Wire-taps, surveillance, computer attacks, the closing of 140 websites, tampering with mail, did not prevent the referendum. I repeat: despite the effort and the resources devoted to fighting it, when the citizens arrived at the polling stations, they found ballot boxes, envelopes, ballots, tables, and a reliable and operational census.
So I want to give recognition to all the people who made this logistic and political success possible. To the volunteers who slept in the schools. The citizens who kept the ballot boxes at home. To the printers that printed the ballots. Data professionals who devised and developed the universal census system. To the workers of the Government. To the Yes voters of and the No voters, and to those who left their vote blank. To so many anonymous people who gave their grain of sand to make it possible. And above all, I want to send my affection, my solidarity and my warmth to all those wounded and ill-treated by the police operation. The images will be recorded in our memory forever. We will never forget it.
We must recognise, and denounce, the State action that has managed to introduce tension and restlessness in Catalan society. As President of Catalonia, I am well aware that there are currently many worried, distressed people, even scared of what is happening and what might happen -  people of all ideas and tendencies.
Gratuitous violence and the decision of some companies to move their company headquarters - a decision, let me tell you, more of a narrative for the markets with no real effects on our economy. (What has real effects on our economy is the Catalan 16 billion euros that are forced to change their headquarters every year). These are undoubtedly facts that have blurred the environment. To all those people who are scared, I want to send you a message of understanding and empathy, as well as serenity and tranquillity: the Government of Catalonia will not divert a millionth of its commitment to social and economic progress, democracy, dialogue, tolerance, respect for differences and willingness to negotiate. As President I will always act responsibly and taking into account the 7.5 million citizens of the country.
I would like to explain where we are, and above all why we are where we are. That today everyone looks at us, and above all, that today everyone listens to us, I think it's worthwhile to come back to explain.
Since the death of military dictator Francisco Franco, Catalonia has contributed much to the consolidation of Spanish democracy. Catalonia has been not only the economic engine of Spain, but also a force for modernisation and stability. Catalonia believed that the 1978 Spanish Constitution could be a good starting point to guarantee its self-government and its material progress. Catalonia was thoroughly involved in the operation of returning Spain to European and international institutions after 40 years of isolation and autocracy.
Over the years, however, it was seen that a new institutional edifice emerged from the Transition, which in Catalonia was seen as a starting point from which to evolve towards higher levels of democracy and self-government, the hegemonic elites of the state understood it not as a starting point, but as an arrival point. Over the years, the system not only ceased to evolve in the direction desired by the people of Catalonia, but began to consolidate.
In line with this finding, in 2005, a large majority, 88% of this Parliament - I repeat, a majority of 88% of this Parliament - following the procedures set by the Constitution - repeat, in accordance with the procedures established by the Constitution - approved a proposal for a new Statute of Autonomy, and sent it to the Congress of Deputies. The Catalan proposal unleashed a campaign of genuine Catalanophobia, tackled irresponsibly by those who wanted to govern Spain at whatever cost. 
The text that was finally submitted to a referendum in 2006 was already very different from the initial proposal of the Parliament of Catalonia, but nevertheless it was approved by the citizens who went to vote. The participation was 47% of the census, and the votes favourable to the Statute were 1,899,897. I would like to emphasise that this was 145,000 votes fewer than the Yes to independence on October 1.
The state, however, was not satisfied with that first cut. In 2010, four years after the entry into force of the Statute, a Constitutional Court formed by magistrates elected by the two major Spanish parties, PSOE and PP, issued a statement of faithless record that cut back the Statute for the second time, and modified the content that had already been voted by the people in referendum.
This is worth remembering, and underlining. Despite having followed the procedures set forth in the Constitution, despite having behind 88% of the Parliament of Catalonia, and despite the popular vote in a referendum, legal and agreed upon, the combined action of the Congress of Deputies and the Constitutional Court made the Catalan proposal an unrecognisable text.
And I should like to remind you, and underline this, too: this unrecognisable text, doubly chopped back and not the one voted for by the Catalans, is the law currently in force. This has been the result of previous attempts by Catalonia to modify their legal and political status through the constitutional channels, that is, humiliation. But this is not all.
Since the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal against the Statute voted by the people, the Spanish political system not only has not lifted a finger to try to reverse and repair the breach, but has activated an aggressive and systematic program of re-centralisation. From the point of view of self-government, the last seven years have been the worst in the last forty years: continuous salami-slicing of powers through decrees, laws and sentences; inattention and disinvestment in the basic system of infrastructures of Catalonia, a key element of the economic progress of the country; and a contempt for the language, culture and ways of life of our country. 
What I've summarised here in a few lines, has had a profound impact on Catalan society. To this extent, many citizens, millions of citizens, have come to the rational conclusion that the only way to guarantee the survival, not only of self-government but of our values ​​as a society, is for Catalonia to be constituted as a state The results of the last elections in the Parliament of Catalonia bear witness. 
In addition, an even more important thing happened: in parallel to the formation of the absolute majority in Parliament, there has been a broad and cross-societal consensus on the idea that the future of Catalonia, in any event, had to be decided by the Catalans, democratically and peacefully, through a referendum. In the most recent survey by an important Madrid newspaper (not here, in Madrid) 82% of Catalans express it this way. 
With the aim of making this referendum possible, in recent years the Catalan institutions and civil society have embarked on numerous initiatives before the Spanish government and institutions. It is documented: up to 18 times, and in all possible formats, it has been requested to open a dialogue to agree a referendum such as that held in Scotland on September 18, 2014. A referendum with a date and a question agreed between the two parties, in which the two sides could campaign and expose their arguments, and in which the two parties would pledge to accept and to apply the result through a negotiation that protected the respective interests. If this could have been done in one of the oldest, most consolidated and exemplary democracies in the world, such as the United Kingdom, why could not it be done in Spain as well?
The response to all these initiatives has been a radical and absolute refusal, combined with the police and judicial persecution of the Catalan authorities. Former President Artur Mas and the Excellencies Joana Ortega and Irene Rigau, as well as the Conseller of the President Francesc Homs, have been disqualified for having promoted a non-binding participatory process with no legal effect on November 9, 2014. And not only disqualified, but fined arbitrarily and abusively: if they do not deposit more than 5 million euros in the Spanish Court of Auditors, all of their assets will be seized and they and their families may be affected.
In addition to these, the Bureau of this Parliament and dozens of municipal elected officials have been called upon to express their support for the right to decide and allow discussions about the referendum. Complaints have been filed against the president and the parliamentary board for not allowing the parliament to debate. The last repressive wave against the Catalan institutions involved the arrest and transfer to police departments of 16 officers and public servants of the Government of Catalonia, who had to surrender themselves, without being informed of the accusation that they were subject to. The world must also know that the leaders of the organisations that have led the most massive – and, at the same time, peaceful – demonstrations in the history of Europe are being prosecuted for a crime of sedition that can result in up to 15 years in prison. Those responsible have organised demonstrations that have been admired throughout the world for their civility and absence of incidents.
This has been the answer from the Spanish state to the Catalan demands, which have always been expressed in a peaceful way and through the majorities obtained at the polls. For years the people of Catalonia have been demanding the freedom to decide. It's very simple. However, we have not found partners in the past nor are we finding them in the present.
There is no institution of the State that is open to talking about the majority demand of this Parliament and of Catalan society. The last hope that could remain was that the monarch would exercise the arbitrating and moderating role that the Constitution attributes to him, but last week's speech confirmed the worst hypothesis.
(In Spanish...)
I want to turn now to the citizens of the whole of the Spanish State who are following with concern what is happening in Catalonia. I want to convey a message of serenity and respect, a willingness to dialogue and political agreement, as has always been our desire and our priority. I am aware of the information that is given to them by most media and the narrative that has been put in place. But I dare to ask for an effort, for the good of all; an effort to know and recognise what has led us here and the reasons that have driven us. We are not criminals, nor crazy, nor staging a coup, nor kidnappers: we are normal people who ask to vote, and who have been willing to engage in any dialogue that was necessary to carry it out in an agreed manner. We have nothing against Spain and the Spanish. On the contrary, we want to understand better, and that is the majority desire that exists in Catalonia. Because today, and for many years past, the relationship hasn’t been working and nothing has been done to reverse a situation that has become unsustainable. And a people can not be compelled, against its will, to accept a status quo that it didn’t vote for and doesn’t want. The Constitution is a democratic framework, but it is equally true that there is democracy beyond the Constitution.
(In Catalan...)
Ladies and gentlemen, with the results of the referendum on October 1st, Catalonia has gained the right to be an independent State, and gained the right to be heard and respected.
I have to say that today we are listened to and respected beyond our borders. Yes to independence has won an absolute majority vote, and two years later it has won a referendum under many blows of the truncheon. The ballot boxes, the only language that we understand, say yes to independence. And this is the way I am committed to travelling.
As is known, the Referendum Law establishes that, two days after the proclamation of the official results, and in the event that  the Yes vote is larger than the No vote, Parliament (and I quote the law) "will hold an ordinary session to make a formal declaration of the independence of Catalonia, its effects and to agree the beginning of the constituent process".
There is a before October 1 and an after October 1, and we have achieved what we committed to at the beginning of the legislature.
Having arrived at this historical moment, and as president of the Generalitat, I take the liberty to present the results of the referendum before the Parliament and our fellow citizens, the mandate that Catalonia should become an independent state in the form of a republic.
That is what is to be done today. For responsibility and respect.
And with the same solemnity, both the Government and I myself propose that Parliament suspend the effects of the declaration of independence so that in the coming weeks we may undertake a dialogue without which one can’t arrive at an agreed solution.
We firmly believe that the moment calls not only for a de-escalation of tension, but above all for a clear will committed to advancing the demands of the people of Catalonia following the results of on October 1; results that it’s essential we take into account, in the stage of dialogue that we are willing to open.
It is known that from the very day after the referendum, different initiatives for mediation, dialogue and negotiation have been put in place at the national, state and international levels. Some of these are public and others are not yet. They are all very serious, and they were difficult to imagine just for a while. Calls to dialogue and non-violence have been heard from every corner of the planet; the statement yesterday of the group of eight Nobel Peace Prize laureates; the statement by The Elders (of whom former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is the most prominent member), comprising personalities of great global importance; the positioning of presidents and prime ministers from European countries, European political leaders ... there is a call for dialogue that runs through Europe, because Europe already feels called to account about the effects that may result in a bad resolution of this conflict. All these voices deserve to be listened to. And all, without exception, have asked us to open a period of opportunity for dialogue with the Spanish state.
Today is also about doing this. For responsibility and respect.
I end by appealing to everyone's responsibility. To the citizens of Catalonia, I ask that they continue to express themselves as they have done so far, with freedom and with respect for those who think differently. To companies and economic actors, I ask that they continue generating wealth and not fall into the temptation to use their power to overwhelm the population. To the political forces, I ask you to contribute with your words and actions to lowering the tension. I also ask the same of the media.
To the Spanish government, I ask of you that you listen, no longer to us if you do not want to, but to those who advocate mediation and to the international community, and the millions of citizens from all over Spain who ask that you renounce repression and imposition. In the European Union, I ask that you be thoroughly involved, and guard the founding values ​​of the Union.
Today, the Government of Catalonia makes a gesture of responsibility and generosity, and re-extends its hand in dialogue. I am convinced that if tomorrow everyone acts with the same responsibility, and complies with their obligations, the conflict between Catalonia and the Spanish state can be solved and resolved resolutely, with respect for the will of the citizens.
For us, it will not stand still. Because we want to be faithful to our long history, to all who have suffered and have sacrificed themselves, and because we want a worthy future for our children, for all those people who want to make Catalonia their land of welcome and hope.
Thank you very much.
Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó President of the Generalitat of Catalonia 

Thursday 10 November 2016

Weighted Votes: Objection 4 - Small parties

Problem: A party might be small because, despite having widespread support, it’s seldom sufficiently clustered to get its candidates over the threshold and into Parliament. An example of this is the Liberal Democrats, who got 2.4 million votes, but only eight seats. Another party might be small because it’s not standing candidates in every seat, but where it does, they get in. In that second case, they might not have many – or any! – votes other than in the seats that they won. The SNP are in this second position at the moment, with 1.5 million votes and 56 seats. Their electoral success would mean that their vote weighting was reduced, as they aren’t aggregating many votes from seats they didn’t win.

Response: Actually, I’m not sure why this is a problem – Weighted Votes will mean that each party’s influence in Westminster is proportional to its support across the UK. Their supporters will still benefit from them having an incentive to maximise their vote, which is the point of WV.

Wednesday 9 November 2016

Weighted Votes: Objection 3 - Over-powerful MPs

Problem: some parties have widespread support, but it’s not concentrated enough to get them over the line in any one constituency. If, by chance, they do get over the bar in one seat and get an MP, that MP is then representing not only their own constituents but also the interests of all their party’s supporters across the country. These are two very different – possibly conflicting – responsibilities, and there is a danger that an MP who wields a million votes will use them to give an unfair advantage to their own constituents, or will sell them to the highest bidder.

Response: Every MP has a dual role – representing her constituents, whether they voted for her or not, and (along with her parliamentary colleagues) representing the interests of all her party’s voters, whether they returned an MP of that party or not. The problem here is real. It’s just that, when this duality is condensed into one person, the conflict isn’t different in kind, it’s just more obvious.

As long as we require MPs (whom we elect to represent their constituents) to also represent their party, this conflict is inherent in the system. Right now, that conflict is used as an excuse to disempower supporters of thinly-spread parties - we tell them that, if they can't get an MP, they don't deserve a voice. That’s what PR is meant to cure. The conflict still exists, we just have to push it onto a different aspect of the system – in this case, the conflict of interest inherent in the MP-Constituency link.

As for the risk of corruption; yes, this is a real possibility, and it’s easier (and cheaper) for a lobbyist to buy one MP with a million votes than three Liberal Democrats, twenty-five Labour or thirty-nine of the fifty-six Scottish Nationalists. This will require laws on honesty and transparency to be passed and enforced, and not just on MPs but on journalists. But the MPs of the larger parties will have every incentive to keep the smaller parties honest, until we can choose a way to dilute the influence of over-powerful MPs.

Tuesday 8 November 2016

Weighted Votes: Objection 2 - Unrepresented Parties

Problem: It’s hard for any small new party to get a toehold in Parliament, and, under the raw WV scheme I’ve described, no-one is representing the opinions of their supporters.

Response: This is not a problem of WV, it’s a problem of how we choose MPs in the first place. We might decide, separately from the WV issue, that we will replace Plurality voting with STV in multimember constituencies, or have a second class of non-constituency MPs. But these are about who gets to represent a party in parliament, and can be decided separately from the issue of proportionality.

However, WV does open a different possibility, which is that a small party might assign its votes to another party that shares its values. Meibion Kernow, for example, might be OK having an arrangement of this sort with Plaid Cymru. Like any Confidence and Supply arrangement, it would have to be easy to dissolve it.

Some parties might not be able to find a partner, either because no other party was pure enough for them, or because no other party would accept the poison chalice of being associated with them. That then stops being the system’s problem.

Monday 7 November 2016

Weighted Votes: Objection 1 - It’s untried

Problem: no-one else has ever tried this system. We have no precedent and no evidence for how it works.

Response: every voting scheme ever used was, somewhere, used for the first time. While it’s true that no other national government is elected this way, if it is ever used, someone will have been the first. Why not us?

But, of course, weighted votes are widely used – not to elect governments, but for meetings of shareholders and for TUC conferences. Company shareholders are no fools, and would not use weighted votes if it weren’t in their interests. Likewise, Trade Union leaders would not accept WV (the Card Vote system) if it didn’t work for them. I think we have enough evidence for WV.

Saturday 5 November 2016

Weighted Votes: Final thoughts (before some additional thoughts)

Now, I've never seen Weighted Votes proposed for national elections, but it's the way companies work - the weight of a shareholder's vote is just the number of shares they hold. It seems to work pretty well for them. It's also used at TUC conference, where it's called the Card Vote - a union's delegation is issued a card with a number representing one vote, plus one vote per thousand paid-up members. It was this that set me thinking how it could be used for parliamentary votes.

While it could be extremely simple to implement WV – it would require the tellers in the division lobbies to add up a column of numbers, rather than just count heads – it could also be part of a more comprehensive change. So, for example, the electorate could have two separate votes at the polling station, one for your local MP and one for your preferred party (and this second vote would be the one that  determines the party's weighting in Parliament). This is the system used in New Zealand, but they don't have WV, they use the party vote to allocate additional members from party lists.

The beauty of WV is that we could have proportionality right away, in a form that gives an extremely low Gallagher Index; and then add other components, such as the separate Party Vote, or Score Voting, or AV+, or rolling bye-elections, at a later date.

Friday 4 November 2016

Weighted Votes – how it might work

Each party is allocated all the votes that were cast for them, whether in places where they won or where they lost, and shares them among their MPs. So all the Green votes in (say) Hartlepool or Falkirk are bundled up and (in this parliament) Caroline Lucas casts all 1,157,613 of them.

This would mean that, in this parliament, a Conservative MP gets to wield a vote worth 34,244, a Labour MP’s vote is worth 40,290, and Douglas Carswell gets a hefty 3,881,129. Now, I hate the idea of Carswell having four million votes, but his party won those votes, and those voters deserve to have their voice heard. If they are not heard, the system is maximising the utility of people who support establishment parties. For the greatest happiness of the greatest number, our utility function must include the happiness of UKIP supporters.

Why do I hate the idea of one MP – whether Carswell or Lucas – representing the interests of a million or four million supporters? In one sense it’s no different from sharing that job across a dozen or a hundred or three hundred MPs. Except that, of course, having three hundred MPs means that extremists within a party don’t get things all their own way, they are moderated by their moderates. A single person wielding four million votes may be swayed by some idée fixe - or by lobbyists, or by misunderstanding, or by money – and just press on regardless in a way that a member of a larger party can’t.

What we have here is an inevitable contradiction. Proportional representation, combined with retaining the one-constituency-one-member link, unavoidably means that an underrepresented party has to have more power per MP than an over-represented party.

If we want to prevent some consequences of a system, we should look at what laws, and what transparency, will produce the effect we want. The arguments for getting money out of politics (including state-funding of parties) are well-known. I won't go over them here.

Overall, WV has all the benefits of other PR voting systems; but it still maintains the constituency link, doesn't require voters to learn a new system, doesn't create two classes of MPs, and enforces near-perfect proportionality . In WV the constituency link can be kept, because the power of a party in parliament is not governed by how many MPs it has, but by how many votes it has. This also reduces the importance of boundary changes and encourages honest (i.e. non-tactical) voting. As long as the party you support can get at least one MP, your vote counts.

(What if a party can't get even one MP? I would propose that a small party could do a deal with a slightly larger one that allows them to allocate their votes to that party’s MPs, though both TUSC and Britain First might have problems finding anyone willing to be associated with them. More about this in a later post.)

But, crucially (for me) WV means that the temptation to campaign only to floating voters, in marginal constituencies, is greatly weakened. The touchstone of electoral success would become the greatest happiness of the greatest number, not the greatest happiness of the most fickle.

For example, at the moment there is no benefit to the Labour Party in getting more people in Barnsley to vote Labour. Dan Jarvis already gets 55% of the vote, and would actually only need 33% to still win and be the MP, because of how the other parties divide up the vote. But with WV, it makes sense to get your voters out in numbers. Just edging it is not enough, you want the weight. The result is that candidates are competing for everyone's vote, not just their main opponent's soft fringe. Voters get wooed. Hard.

And, knowing that their vote has an effect, voters will be more likely to turn out. A Labour Party supporter in Maidenhead (Conservative majority of 29,000) has very little incentive to turn out and vote, other than as a slightly ineffectual protest. But under WV, their vote is just as useful (in terms of electing a government) as that of a Labour Party member in Gower (Conservative majority of 27). All those people, of whatever party, who say “why bother voting? My vote won’t make any difference” will now see that – whether they are voting for or against a dead cert in their own constituency – their vote will strengthen the hand of their favoured party.