Talk:Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia of 2006

Significance of the statute

What is the significance of the statute? The Jade Knight 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it looks like it might make Catalonia an independent nation, or at least close enough to it.--Kross^Talk 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No chance for secesion or becoming an independant nation. In fact the most leftist and pro-independence party ERC voted NO to the statute for being too light. Pablo2garcia 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see mentions of expanding its autonomy, but if it's going to secede that should be explicitly pointed out. --Kizor 07:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the important question is wether Catalonia will adobt its own national football team. Does anybody know how that will work out. --Moravice 19 June 2006

Unsurprisingly, there is an awful lot more detail in the Spanish and Catalonian articles - can someone please translate some, particular the provisions that the new statute contains, and what its impact is likley to be. There is also this article in The Independent today -

...a new statute that would give Catalonia a greater slice of its income tax revenues, more of a say on immigration policies and stronger linguistic guarantees...

The document controversially refers to the region as a "nation" while falling short of a demand for independence...

The vote is binding and final. If the charter passes, it becomes law because it has already been approved by the Spanish parliament. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the stub tags as the article was of a decent length and did not seem to be lacking any significant information, if you feel that was the wrong thing to do, please revert and say why below. Thanks Smithers 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it. Is Spain a confederation? Does Catalonia has a right to vote for its degree of freedom? Do other regions of Spain have the same right? With respect, Deliogul 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We call them "Comunidades Autónomas", and I have heard we are very much decentralized, in comparison to even Germany, surely much less than the USA. But it is never soverregnity what is allowed. The "estatutos" of each "Comunidad Autónoma" have to be passed by the national parliament, and the spanish constitution does not allow secesion. Pablo2garcia 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another question: does anybody know if Catalonia gets to join the EU right away or how that'd work? Andromeda321 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

More details on "self government the most advanced in Spain" please

How does this compare both with the other provinces in Spain and with say with (any) US state, Quebec in Canada, Scotland & Wales in the United Kingdom, Puerto Rico's "unique status"? Thanks. Jon 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Turnout

Very interesting article, thank you. It currently says about the referendum "although voter turnout did not reach 50%". Does this have any significance in terms of legality? AndrewRT 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if there was a legal threshold, I bet not for this case. But this level is legal. Pablo2garcia 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no requirement on participation, only a majority of yes votes. Still, final turnout will be slightly over 50% after mail votes are counted. --Jdemarcos 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

link to Civil law might be incorrect

I think it might not be "Civil law" to what it is meant to refer, but "Civil code". Pablo2garcia 12:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Catalan nationhood

I’m aware Catalunya isn’t about to break away from Spain to form its own state, but how exactly is the “Catalan nation” defined in the new statute? Who are its members? Anyone who is a permanent resident of Catalunya, or anyone with Catalan ancestry? What about Catalans in the Balearics and in València, are they included in this Catalan nation? And what about Catalans or those with Catalan ancestry elsewhere in Spain?

In the Preamble to the text, it is stated that the Catalan Parliament has officially defined Catalonia as a nation, and that therefore Catalonia adopts its self-government under the Spanish Constitution as a nationality. Citizens of Catalonia are all those who were born in Catalonia and those who, having not been born in Catalonia, are legal citizens in the Catalan territory. People living in the Balearic Islands and Valencia are not Catalan citizens because these are separate autonomus communities, even though the same language is spoken in those regions. Under the new Statute, being a Catalan citizen does not mean that their status is different from Spanish citizenship, because the statement on national status does not imply any kind of political separation from Spain. You may consider the parallel of Scotland and Wales being nations under the British crown and sharing British citizenship with Englishmen. --Jdemarcos 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man.

Featured?

Why the català version of this article it's marked as featured when don't seems to be (i can't find it)? Can some one review this? Rakela 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry by my english, I just love my languaje...

Lo hice. —Nightstallion (?) 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I love my language too, but I don't use this as an excuse for my poor command of the English one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.215.93 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

staying focused

Ok, I thought this was obvious, but I guess some explanation won't hurt anyone, neither myself: the referendum turnout is essential, because this is the article on the referendum. The percentage Ciutadans got in the 2006 election is not essential in the article on the referendum. Because the referendum was not an election, ballots were either yes, no or abstain, nothing to do with the elections held soon after. That's another story.

to put "(3% of votes)" next to the fact that they got representation is obviously POVish and, what is worse, unnecessary, since their results (the 3%) is quoted where it belongs: in the 2006 elections and the Ciutadans article.

If we were to put here "(3% of the votes)" then we would be starting a stupid polemics, because...why not then putting next to that "which was an unexpected success due to this being their first run in a mature politic system with already five parties in the Parliament, also Ciutadans accused the Catalan media and establishment of purposefully ignoring them and cited overt hostility from some of those, which, all in all, made the 3% look like big news and a result over their expectations"???

Bla bla bla and things of the like which would mess this article which, again, is not about neither the 2006 elections nor Ciutadans, their electoral support, philias and phobias. Instead, this article is about the referendum. Anyone with the slightest curiousity on the events, will click on the Ciutadans or the Elections article and get the facts. But let's please not mix things.

It is also a fact directly related with the referendum that it triggered the dawn of Ciutadans, right?. Then, whether they got 0,03%, 3% or 300% in the subsequent election is treated in the relevant articles.

Mountolive | Talk 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: this is getting stubborn and tiresome: this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. This is an article on the Statute, and readers expect to found data on this issue, not personal POV opinions. In such a short stub-like article, you opened a "criticism" section to include some opinions in it, without any references on the general context. "A number of intelectuals have criticized what they describe as an "identitary obsession" amongst most of Catalan politicians and the media establishment". This is POV. Wich intelectuals? How many of them? There were other intelectuals with distinct opinions?. This way directs towards a mess and a POV reaction.

In my opinion, the whole section should be removed. But I don't want to impose my viewpoint, so I try to improve the section's contents. As you said, the article "is not about neither the 2006 elections nor Ciutadans", so we can remove all these references. If you insist in keeping it, the "3% of votes" data is relevant, because a reader can have the biased impression that a strong change happened in this election, and this is false. Best regards, --Joan sense nick 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is good that we agree that this is getting stubborn and tiresome ;)

in such a short stub-like article you opened a "criticism" section well, how could I not open it if there was criticism? I mean, length doesn't determine content, does it?

And there seems to be general consensus in Catalan politics regarding the whole Estatut thing as a major fiasco to be forgotten as soon as possible and go back to "business/politics as usual": neither their promoters (ERC) nor their rejecters (PP and Ciutadans) were happy with it while PSC also had their serious internal tensions regarding this (paradoxically, the one party which seems less annoyed by this Statute at this point is the main opposition party which did not start the whole discussion: CiU).

And then, to make it even worse, not even half of the population voted. Then, if we take those who voted "no" we have only 1 every 3 people having explicitly supported this Estatut. For a legal corpus of such a relevance (nearly constitutional)...isn't this a fiasco? and, if it is...do we have to hide it? if we have to, then...why?

So, far from being removed, what the section needs is actually some enlargement, including the critic visions of ERC, PP and the tensions in PSC. Also the 1:3 explicit support ratio should be noted. By now, only Ciutadans is listed. The reason is that, indeed, the Estatut was what triggered their move into politics, their foundation principle, which made it impossible to spare the reference.

Removing this section would be POV indeed. I don't claim to be free of personal opinions here, but I try to be as fair as possible. You should do the same and check yourself in the same way.

Now, to say that "this Statute has been generally regarded as a fiasco" would be POV indeed (while possibly true, by the way), but we are not saying that. We are saying that it opened criticism from some intelectuals...which? well, Albert Boadella, Arcadi Espada or Francesc de Carreras are three of them. There are more, but I guess an exhaustive list is not needed, is it?

Of course there were other "intelectuals" with different opinions, that is why it says "a number of intelectuals", not "the intelectuals" or "most intelectuals". I can't see the problem with this redaction, frankly.

A reader won't have any impression by saying that they entered the Parliament without the percentage remark. Because we are not saying "Ciutadans won a plurality of seats and became a major force in the Parliament" (which is simply false). Saying, by itself, "it entered the Parliament" obviously speaks of a "small entry", nothing fantastic, nothing boombastic. They just entered. Everyone assumes that, in a context of a mature party system, with already 5 parties in the Parliament, an additional "entry" without any other remark, has to be a modest one.

And then, regarding your concern on the other readers "impressions" (something which seems to be common between Catalanist users, by the way) I said and keep saying that, when they click on the Elections link or the Ciutadans link, then they are directed to the right place speaking of percentages and relative importances. To mention 3% there is not POV, it's essential. And there it is.

As I said in the past: do not worry, because those readers with the slightest interest, will click there and get the facts in the right context. But, to detail here the percentage of a party achieved in a different election is, obviously out of place and, if it is out of place, then it is done with some intention, which makes it unacceptable. Mountolive | Talk 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have introduced a new wording in the hope that it will satisfy your views. Let me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not in the mood of have a discussion on politics here: this is not a forum (I dont want to convince you, because I respect your point of view).

In my opinion this article is on the Statute itself, not on the election nor the 2006's local controversy. All that you wrote above can improve, if you want, the article on Catalan constitutional referendum, 2006.

Note, however, that I don't use to remove data from other users (except clearly false ones). I add data, in order to complete the information. I don't know why you remove the 3% mention. You want to hide it?. I'll replace it, besides your last wording, for the last time. You can remove it once again, if you feel better. I'm bored of that childish game. Best wishes, --Joan sense nick 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people doesn't have to necessarily agree all the time and, in fact, opposed views should improve the articles if reasoned. But it is still a bit heartbreaking to read you saying that "don't know" why I keep removing that mention when you have just above here quite some reasoning and little or no feedback is given to my reasons above.

Also, I offered some kind of compromise which only has got, once again, a "(3% of the votes)" bracket next to it. Feel free to work on other wordings and we may agree, but I keep thinking (until someone proves me the contrary) that mentioning a party's electoral result in an article which is not about elections is out of place and an obvious case of POV.

It is based on those that I have to edit again.

by the way, I think you are right and those remarks I mentioned as a means to expand the article belong better in the Catalan constitutional referendum. I may proceed editing in this regard sometime.

take care. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Translation of "Estatut"

The Catalan word "Estatut" would be better translated as "Charter" rather than "Statute". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.247.254 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Under tha spanish constitution there is a previson for one soecific charter (that of Navarre) for historical reasons (that precede the 2nd republic afaik). So, while a 'Estatuto' and a 'Carta' have the same goal, they differ in some points (namely, the way they need to be approved, and the exclusive right for Navarre to merge into the autonomous community of Basque Country). Also, a charter is a granted right historicaly given, whereas the statutes are prevision of the constitution, much like organic laws. It boils down to semantics, but I would think keeping the translation as is would help to understand the inherent differences. 81.39.5.89 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the article "Draft of New Statute of Autonomy for Catalonia of 2005" be merged into this page. That page doesn't contain a sufficient amount of information to merit having its own article. If/when the present statute of autonomy gets replaced, we can of course have a distinct article on the 2006 statute and its historical relevance. But at present I don't think the 2005 draft deserves its own article. Gabbe (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have completed the merge following a lack of objections here. The two edits are here (source) and here (target). Gabbe (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the article updated?

Following the news, it seems the autonomous state of Catalonia has been declined. What is the current state of it? אילן שמעוני (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708213233/http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/eng/estatut/preambul.htm to http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/eng/estatut/preambul.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205155332/http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/eng/estatut/titol_4.htm to http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/eng/estatut/titol_4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)