Catalan Independence? Democracy dies in Spain.

Referring to the above and 3539 this is the picture that will be presented to the body of the Spanish people.

Today ABC and La Razon publish the fact that the lady in 3539 was scared and that the proof of rebellion is closer.
Despite the fact that her testimony in the court does not conform in several instances to her testimony the day after the fact.
In the building there was complete security and it was simply the question of leaving in which she was offered various options. So rattled was she that the papers and IT that she was so preoccupied about protecting that she went straight home and then only the next morning went to the judge to hand it over.
This lady is a follower of Unidad Nacional Española who advocate using the army in Catalunya.

There seems to be a script that is enlarging the facts and painting this picture of violent rebellion.

When the prisoners get railroaded it can only produce more indignation here and more problems further down the line. The problem will never be solved like this, it's just what Spain has always done.

Legally this should never have come to court, the politicians should have received a form of administrative punishment such as being prohibited from political office for a period of time however short or long, and perhaps fines.

Spain is different.
An article by John Carlin who also mentions how the trial is being presented to the Spanish people. One Spanish editor said "The good of Spain comes before the news."

In Spanish not Catalan.

It must be a condition of miscegenation that one dedicates more time than is strictly necessary to compare the virtues and vices of the races or places or cultures from which they come. It is not in my case a purely biological, geographical, or cultural issue, since my mother is Spanish, my father was British, I have lived half a life in five countries where Spanish is spoken and three in which English is spoken. Thus, the questions one asks oneself and the conclusions one makes must contain, if one is honest, many nuances. Today I will try to make it easier for me. I'm going to limit myself to one question. Which country is making the most ridiculous, Spain or England? No. I'm not going to focus on football. There, thanks to Real Madrid and Manchester United, the answer this week is too easy. I will focus more on politics, society and, in the Spanish case, the law. What defines England today is the suicidal impulse behind Brexit, proof that the syndrome expressed in the phrase "Long live death!" Is not limited to the Hispanic world. What puts Spain in doubt is the trial of the Catalan political prisoners, a symptom of the resurrection of a right similar to the one that Mario Vargas Llosa portrays in his books, which was supposed to be buried in the Valley of the Fallen.
Both countries have good arguments. They are both making a fool of themselves. Now, I'm not going to lie. I like Spain more than England, Latin more than Anglo-Saxon. If they tell me that I have two more years left to live, I'm going to Spain on the next flight and I'm not moving. I prefer the people. There is more sympathy, more connection and more enjoyment and therefore, deep down, more philosophy: you live more in accordance with the truth that life is short.

But as far as making a fool of yourself, if at the end of the month the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without an agreement, that is, if you launch yourself from an airplane without a parachute, there is a good chance that there will be no difference between the members of the British Parliament and the cast of Monty Python. It may also be that the jester in chief Boris Johnson becomes prime minister of the old democracy.

But meanwhile, today, this week, Spain is world champion. The ridicule becomes more ridiculous, more laughter provokes the greater the distance between the seriousness on the surface and the stupidity in the background. As with the character of Inspector Clouseau, so pompous and at the same time so foolish in the films of The Pink Panther.
Seeing one of the witnesses this week in the trial that is taking place in Madrid against a dozen Catalan political figures, it was impossible for me not to think about Inspector Clouseau. The witness, there to support the imaginative thesis that the twelve fomented a violent rebellion, was a man named Enric Millo.
Even without the inestimable contribution of Mr. Millo the trial was already an epic clowning. The prosecutors of the Spanish State argue that there was violence when there was no violence during a referendum that was not a referendum on October 1, 2017 in Catalonia.

But there they continue, a month later, and with each day that passes the sense of ridiculous grows. They touched bottom, or I hope, with Mr. Millo. Find your intervention on YouTube. Mr. Millo is the former delegate of the Spanish Government in Catalonia. In the most dramatic part of his testimony he told that he spoke with some policemen who had suffered the terrible consequences of having confronted parents, grandparents, grandmothers and young people who left their homes on October 1 and went to a polling station in certain schools imagining that they were going to vote for the independence of Catalonia.

"The testimonies," said Millo, "were shocking." Tremor, according to the Royal Spanish Academy, means "to make something tremble". When I think of the word shocking, images of the Nazi era or of a 17-year-old girl who was stabbed to death by a stranger in a park here in London last week come to mind. For Mr. Millo, shocking means something else.

"An agent explained to me," he said, trembling, "that he had fallen into the Fairy trap." The Fairy trap? What could you be referring? I asked myself. To some method of torture patented by the American soldiers against the jihadists imprisoned in Guatánamo? (Fairy, in its most vulgar use, would be translated from English as a queer). Or the world famous green dishwashing detergent patented in the perfidious Albion in 1950?

Mr. Millo was referring to the detergent. Now, please, to the most sensitive readers I beg you: stop reading the words that I quote below. "The Fairy trap," explained Mr. Millo, consisted in "pouring detergent into the entrance of certain schools so that when the police entered they would skid and fall to the ground." Here you have, ladies and gentlemen, the overwhelming evidence - based on the testimony of an anonymous police officer - that there was violence on the part of the twelve Catalan defendants, that there was rebellion, that they must serve up to 20 years in prison for their crimes ... What a fool! I have covered many trials as a journalist in many countries, but I have never seen anything more absurd. But the best, or rather the worst, thing that takes the gold medal to ridicule, is that apparently in Spain many people take the fairy tale (fairy tale) of Mr. Millo seriously. Like watching a movie by Inspector Clouseau believing that it is a real shocking police thriller. The judges did not laugh.

The Madrid press reported him not only with all solemnity but also interpreted Mr. Millo's testimony as a serious blow to the accused. "The defenses start to get nervous," said one headline. A lot more time is still to pass for this farce of judgment to be concluded.
Please: Enough is enough. Stop throwing public funds into the rubbish. Have the national pride to stop making a fool of yourself in front of the world. Do not confirm the traditional prejudices that many have about the Spaniards.
To solve the case, look for a ten-year-old boy who knows when the emperors are naked. He will give his verdict in five minutes. Violent rebellion? What the **** are you talking about? And by the way, if he is a good boy and does not possess the evil that the sympathy of too many Spaniards hides, he will set the prisoners free.
I'm not following the trial that closely but a couple of things are happening that have been criticised by jurists, among them the renowned Baltazar Garzon.

We are starting with the testimonies of Guardia Civil Officers which seem on the face of it to have changed a bit from their after action reports.
Example a GC on the 20th Sept reports seeing from a vehicle Carmen Forcadell encouraging the crowds. When questioned by the defence it seems that his vehicle was travelling up a wrong way street in the face of a large crowd. Plus the fact that it had already been established that CF was not present at that time.
When asked why he had mentioned it now, 18 months after the event and not reported it in the moment when it was fresh he said "Es que me ha salido ahora." Or translated either "I only just remembered" or "It just occurred to me."
Another reported that on the day he experienced a situation of pure terror. Yet when questioned stated that he had neither needed his weapon nor baton. He stated that the Mossos were not there to help them retire. Yet videos show a large number of Mossos present.
A claim of GC receiving kicks to the head were then admitted not to have been seen personally.

Here we have the rub, Marchena will not allow videos to be shown which would immediately show these testimonies to be false.
He says that the videos will be seen later and in due time when they will be evaluated.
This may be three months down the line and the defence will have to rehash each and every testimony and demonstrate them to be either false or dodgy. Meanwhile a picture is being painted of a scene that fits the Prosecution position and which will be more difficult to refute. People in Spain will have made up their minds well before and any result that frees the prisoners will simply not be understood. Added to the way the trial is being reported most Spanish (60% according to a survey) believe the prosecution is proving it's case. Meanwhile here where the trial is on tv and people can make up their minds the opposite is the case.
Added to the way the trial is being reported most Spanish (60% according to a survey) believe the prosecution is proving it's case. Meanwhile here where the trial is on tv and people can make up their minds the opposite is the case.
Sorry to snip a lot of that but you are intimating that the trial on TV is only in your area.
That isn't true as it's also being shown live in my area as well. No, I haven't watched all of it but just to bring a bit of reality to it.
To add to the above the GC who went into the Generalitat's accounts trying to prove improper use of public monies have not actually been able to demonstrate this.
Plus the Central Government has demonstrated that the accounts were rigorously controlled and not a centime was spent on the Referendum.
Yet the GC were allowed to speculate that, to paraphrase, "well the adverts had to be paid by someone."
Marchena has been very rigorous up to now about not allowing speculation and having questions only related to the matters in hand, yet he has allowed the Prosecution latitude in this which was not allowed to the Defence previously.
Again this allows a certain picture to be painted right now and stay in people's minds and further down the road when it is questioned that picture will be firmly in place.
Surely it should be fundamental to any trial to allow the witness to be fully cross-examined with all relevant details in the moment. To then have to call into question the the testimony of many witnesses in block will seem to be a monumental task when faced with public opinion and memory.

Be interesting what Brussels will have to say about this when it comes up there.
But by then they will all be in jail.
Sorry to snip a lot of that but you are intimating that the trial on TV is only in your area.
That isn't true as it's also being shown live in my area as well. No, I haven't watched all of it but just to bring a bit of reality to it.
I will stand corrected, if it is being shown elsewhere then I am misinformed, but know some people who have trawled Spanish tv channels and haven't seen it. Perhaps because Valencia, where you are, with its Catalan links has more of it.

Certainly the Madrid press is rather selective what they print.

Reality seems to be lacking in a certain number of testimonies I have heard. And may I add naivety in some of the Defence statements as well.
Last edited:
Two parrallell events dominate the scene, the first is the impending elections at the end of the month and the second is the trial.
As to the first, PP, C's and Vox are still all vying for the right wing votes and this means essentially laying into the independentistes. It seems that neither PP nor C's have any real social or economic programme, except that PP want to reduce taxes, and they are relying on anti-catalan rhetoric to garner votes.
Listening to both Casado and Rivera it strikes me that their politics are fairly juvenile in nature, both in their simplicity and their manner in putting it over. The lack of maturity in their discourses I find worrying.
Vox does have a social programme, but a very regressive one in terms of social freedoms and appealing essentially to the atavistic who wish to punish Catalunya, and to those who feel the 'old' or 'traditional' values of catholic Spain.
Casado especially has been harping on about making castellano the vehicular language for schools in Spain, as Rivera also wants, but interestingly for the parties that call themselves condtitutionalist, that is actually going against the constitution which enshrines the different languages and their use in schools.
All the parties are playing the 'get Sanchez out' card because he is in bed with the independentistes, and has made all sorts of secret pacts and that a vote for him is a vote for those who would break Spain. But by constant repitition people will believe this rubbish, especially if they want to.
Meanwhile Sanchez is the only one with any sort of wide-based programme of social policies, while being open to talk to everyone. yet he has also fallen back on tough words for Catalunya, and has stated that they will never get independence. He is very critical of the independence refusal to vote for the budget, despite it being favourable for Catalunya. In this I am in total agreement.

Meanwhile in Catalunya we have a President who is acting far less as a president and far more as an activist chasing symbols. There isn't a lot of governing going on and a new figure is emerging, the 'independentiste emprenyat', or the angry independentiste.
There isn't a lot of government going on, and it seems to be getting clearer that Torra,(and Puigdemont) were hoping to keep the war of the symbols going and on the tail-coats of the trial to lead a great act of disobedience. Each day that goes by fewer and fewer people will be likely to follow that, not because they are unhappy about the apparent injustice of the trial, but because there is no faith in the leadership.
Puigdemont and the others gambled on having a European mediator after the referendum to actually get something from Spain, whether full independence or not. Once that gamble failed there was no Plan B. The independence minded who placed their faith in their leaders now have a vacumn of leadership and no path to go down. When finally someone comes up with a viable idea they will sweep the board. What one has to bear in mind is that these independentistes haven't stopped being so, and will not stop being so as long as Spain maintains its current attitudes. Unless some Spanish politician comes up with a new solution to politically address the problem then the independence minded will not change to be supporters of the union. Madrid simply wants to put a lid on it, the desire to solve the problem constructively I hear in very few voices.
As to the trial, we have had a series of testimonies by policemen with essentially the same story that there was a violent or insurrectionist situation, which the questioning of the Prosecution is actively promoting with their language full of the use of the word violence.
Interestingly there was a German observer who gave evidence as a neutral and testified that he saw no violence in the Catalans on the streets, and this from a very experienced gentleman. The Prosecution wanted him disqualified as a witness, I missed the grounds, but certainly as an independent he contradicted the, up to now, 'official' story.
Meanwhile Marchena seems to be giving indications of partiality in that he crunches the Defence when they apparently speculate or ask for an opinion or evaluation, yet allows the Prosecution more lattitude in this aspect. So the policemen can state that they felt there was a sense of insurrection and this forms part of the story, yet the Defence is not allowed to challenge this as they should. One major discrepancy over this is the use of video which Marchena steadfastly refuses to allow here. On more than one occasion a policeman could have had his testimony challenged by a short audio-visual record, yet while pertinent is not permitted.
One, for example claimed that on the 20th Sept the Mossos took orders from Jordi Sanchez as opposed to his liasing with them. Another claimed to have had a lengthy conversation with Jordi Cuixart yet video evidence would contradict both stories, the latter being shown to have been a minute or two only.

One point I found interesting, the language teacher coming to the fore here, but a GC claimed to have heard the crowd chanting 'mataremos' (we will kill you) as part of his story of violence on the streets. I found this surprising as I have heard various chants during all this, but never that one. Yet pondering it I see a flaw that in Catalan we would need to say 'us matarem'. Assume that the GC is not completely au fait with Catalan and heard 'votarem' (we will vote), which was a common chant during those weeks, and mistook it. Easily done, one observer in Buenas Aires the night they invaded the Falklands heard the crowd chanting 'Chi i King', and it took him time to realise that it was 'Argentina' in their porteño accent.
From an article today, which shows how the Prosecution picture is being painted.

Catalogue of words to be defined: escrache (Street protest directed at a party or parties, often noisy), violence, demonstration or observer. It is the unfinished dictionary of the Procéss. The Supreme Court trial will pronounce on what happened in Catalonia in September and October 2017. Will it be sedition? Disobedience? Rebellion? Politics? From here, the rest of the unknowns of the equation will be solved. For example, if the concept of violence has mutated with time and has ceased to be, as was understood, use of firearms or extreme coercion; if what happened before hotels, barracks or police stations were sieges or simple protests; and it will clarify if the supposed foreign experts who were here on 1-O were observers or visitors. This week there has been a new contribution to the repertoire: period of insurrection, to refer to the space that goes between September 20 and the application of 155.

Some other points arising from the week,
From the dictionary. Esperpento: literary conception created by Ramón M.ª del Valle Inclán in which reality is deformed by accentuating its grotesque features.

On September 20, 2017, the court of instruction 13 ordered records in the Department of Economy of the Generalitat. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered before the headquarters and the judicial committee could not leave until dawn. The two lieutenants of the Civil Guard responsible for the operation pointed to Jordi Sànchez as the leader of the concentration and criticized the passivity of the Major of the Mossos. The Defence maintains that it was a peaceful and festive demonstration. For those who were in the building it was the opposite: it was impossible to leave. One of the officers explained that the corridors formed by volunteers were a chimera. Another said that it was "grotesque" to deal with security matters with Jordi Sànchez instead of with the Mossos. Valle Inclán in the room.

The 20-S is a central episode in the trial. It will have to be defined if it was violent and what is violence today in the supposedly civilized Europe of the 21st century; If it is weapons or blows or if it is no longer tolerated to reach this extreme.

Lt Col Baena was a key commander of the GC involved in the operations in Catalunya at this time. A figure of fairly defined right wing views he is supposed to be behind a Twitter account named Tacitus which expressed views of Catalans and Independentistes which could have been written by Vox. In an interview he admits this yet later denies it. That notwithstanding Tacitus is obviously an informed member of the security forces, and this casts doubts of his testimony, though the Defence can't follow this through. He paints an extreme picture of Catalunya at this time, which I certainly didn't see despite living here, and which was sorted by 155. The picture the Prosecution wants to hear. Yet for me it raises worrying questions about redefining terms to allow for a pre-determined picture to be justified rather than determining what actually happened.

From the dictionary. Insurrection: uprising, uprising or rebellion of a people or nation.

The lieutenant colonel of the Civil Guard Daniel Baena denied being behind the profile of Twitter Tacitus, in which the Procéss was criticized, but in the manner of the Roman historian he left his annals of what those days were, and he expressed it as a drama in three acts In the first, until 20-S, there were protests. The second goes from this date to October 27, when the 155 was applied. The climax of the story. September 20 is the day when everything changed. According to Baena, it is the insurrectional period. There were more than a hundred episodes of harassment of Civil Guard and Police; "Exceptionality was exceeded," he said. Then, after 155, calm returned. The defenses reproached his words, showing that there were no injuries, no arrests and little material damage, to which the commander replied that Catalonia "was a powder keg" and that any action would have caused major damage.

Did Catalunya experience an insurrection between September 20 and October 27, 2017? How to explain those days with continuous demonstrations and queues to get the bank accounts of the territory? Did the independence exist and was legality repealed? In the age of the internet, are weapons necessary to rebel?
It's all about painting pictures, and did the GC and NP get harassed in their hotels or were there simply (noisy) protests by indignant Catalans where nobody was hurt? Who decides?
The Court, but some of these definitions could easily rewrite judicial definitions and erode legal rights and freedom of expression not just for Catalans but all of Spain.

From the dictionary. Escrache: popular demonstration of protest against a person, usually from the field of politics or the Administration, which is held in front of his home or in a public place to which he must attend. A string of GC reported the harassment suffered in barracks and hotels in Barcelona, Lleida, Girona, La Seu d'Urgell, Manresa, Valls, Gandesa and Igualada. They also declared Mossos, who in Sabadell protected a judicial procession and received as much as the members of the GC, which showed that their leaders did not work together (read Cobos and Trapero) but the base suffers the same. For the Defence they were legal demonstrations.
A lieutenant of the Civil Guard of Manresa even spoke of a performance, but he described how things can change in an instant: "Until someone lights a fuse", something that can happen. Then the outcome is unpredictable.
In any case, in the Courtroom you can hear military terms that are not reassuring for the future. The dictionary that the court will write will define what happened in Catalonia in September and October of 2017. It will name the situation that was lived and whether it was symbolic or not; if there was peace or violence. A few days when some politicians hid behind prosecutors, judges and security forces and others went all the way to the collision, without considering the consequences. Insurrection is the title of a song of the Last of the Row. It tells a story of truncated loves, but its first phrase comes to mind for this period. "Where were you then, when I needed you so much?"

Where the GC talks about lighting a fuse there is speculation about potential in a situation, possibly based on his prior experience, not about what actually happened. This seems to be what Llarena claimed, that there was a potential rather than actual violence.
But the Prosecution is talking about actual violence as if it were commonplace and a real rebellion.

There are those on this forum with experience in NI who saw real violence on the streets and yet there was no claim of rebellion. The demos in France show street violence to a level never seen here, yet they are just disturbances.
Definitions will be important.
Another thing.

It seems that the JEC (Junta Electoral) has not just ordered all Yellow Ribbons out of Government buildings on the grounds of them being political, (they aren't) but have ordered TV3 during this electoral period to refrain from using certain terms, such as exiles and political prisoners.
This on the grounds of being against the principals of political and social pluralism and contravenes neutrality.

I might consider that in a different light if they prohibited other media from using terms such as golpistes (coup d'etaters) and seditionists. Goose gander and sauce does not seem appropriate here.

Also TV3 was rated by Europe as being the least partial of Spanish TV Channels.
Observadores internacionales confirman que TV3 es la televisión más plural del Estado Español
Finally today Josep Borrell the Spanish Foreign Minister stormed out of an uncomfortable interview by a British journalist on German TV.
Accusing the interviewer of lying he stormed off. When he calmed down he still said he was being bullied but the interviewer said that he was not there to ask him the questions he liked.

If the Spanish position is solid and sustainable he would not have needed to lose his rag.

Full interview
Edit to add.
The interview also touches arms sales and Gibraltar. Borrell is a disaster, as well as being rude and insulting. Interesting to watch.
In the court we have heard GC claim that on 1oct they didn't use batons but defended themselves with shields. Videos of the locations they were in show the untruth in this. But they are not allowed to be shown at this time.
That insults were flying from the crowd is unsurprising but presented as evidence of violent behaviour.
One policeman stated that they went into an old folks home in search of the urns and one claims he broke a finger there. Again a video shows the old folks just standing around offering no resistance to the well equipped police.

But today was the turn of the Mosso who was I/C liason and co-ordination with Perez de les Cobos and the other police forces for the 1oct. He came across as very matter of fact and his testimony contradicts PdlC on several counts.
The defence asked for a face to face with the two witnesses so their testimony could be evaluated. The judges considered in private and said that the time was not right to do this at the moment.
Time for PdlC to prepare?
This week a second Mosso who was a commander, Molinero, also testified on the same lines as lopez the I/C liason/planning, and he also contradicted De Los Cobos saying that he was fully aware of the Mosso plans and gave his go ahead.

The Prosecutor pointed out that not a single Mosso was hurt on 1 Oct,with obvious implications. Yet to my mind it simply highlights the different ways of doing the job. It also begs the question as to what was the role behind the police actions.
The following post is an article that I wholeheartedly agree with and talks about something I have mentioned more than once, which is an underlying authoritarianism in Spain, and Spanish thinking.

Now this doesn't mean that I don't like Spain or Spaniards, the opposite is true, it is a fascinating country with a great deal of history and generally friendly people. It's not a bad place to live, especially when I remember waiting for the bus to go to school in the dark of midwinter and the freezing wind whistling down the Tyne Valley and finding its first obstacle in the bus stop.

But there is a dark side to their character, and the more I read about their history, dominated by the Catholic Church with a huge difference between rich and poor, the more clearly I see it.
This Church allied to the monarchy inculcated an intolerance for those who think differently that is still present in great swathes of society. It is present in the 'A por ellos' and the silence of so many liberals who normally are quick to express opinions on democracy.
It's there and allows people to close their eyes to what would other wise be a ticket to the Outrage Bus, or perhaps El Autobus de la Indignidad. It is not interested in dialoguing with the Independentistes but simply telling them to shut up and reimposing more 'spanishness'.
It worries my sense of democracy.

But perhaps more serious, or just as serious is that just now the Villarejo case is underway showing the dirty war against Podemos and later the Catalans using illegal methods which undermine democracy, and that it came from the very top. Those are the people who claim to be defending democracy in public while throwing it overboard wherever possible.
Gloria Serra, - L'autoritat al poder.
(After a rant by an Andalusian affiliated to IU -very left wing almost communist- if I have my facts right.)

Our Sevillian friend has suddenly become serious, in the midst of a sarcastic conversation about political news, and he lets rip: "What we need is someone strong, with authority, who takes the reins of the country with force and puts order for once and for all once "
A colleague asks the question we all have in mind: "So, are you going to vote for Vox?" "I did not say that, I do not think of voting, I have two daughters and I do not like where they are going. But we need authority and order. "
His reflection has left us astonished, just a few minutes ago he told us that in Andalusia many voted for Vox without knowing much about whom they voted for and now they regret it. But, beyond electoral analysis, the words about authority and order have accompanied me all week. The dreams of a leadership exercised by force have not disappeared yet in Spain. Half a century of democracy has failed to dissolve the caudillismo hidden in the collective unconscious. Is authority preferred over responsibility, credibility or pactism, characteristics more useful in democracy than force? Is order and silence preferred to the cacophony of voices and dissidence typical of a plural society?

Perhaps the outcome of the next general election will help answer these questions about how Spaniards want their leaders to be. For the moment, what has become clear is that one of the biggest scandals of perversion of democracy that the country has experienced since the LAGs is practically unnoticed in the pre-campaign. I refer to the interested broadcast that Commissioner Villarejo is doing of all the business, political, administrative and mediatic commissions that he received to find shortcuts, advantages and illegal ways to those who do not want to submit to the law in order to achieve their objectives.
This is the case, apparently, of the Ministry of the Interior when it was headed by Fernández Díaz under the presidency of Mariano Rajoy. For a patriotism based exclusively on ending the "enemies of Spain" as it were, lying, manipulating or extorting, some police commanders were charged with breaking the law in the name of a superior good. The attempt to discredit Podemos to stop its electoral growth joins with the so-called Operation Catalunya to do the same with the leaders of the independence movement. The methodology is calibrated: to invent reports and disseminate them through journalists sympathetic to the ideas or directly purchased media. It's the "for them" black on white: it does not go against people who have committed a crime. It goes against ideologies or political proposals. This has an ugly name and is called a dictatorship: that is how the autocratic police have behaved, whether they are called Stasi, DINA or Gestapo.
Perhaps these patriots with a giant flag and a blow to the chest have momentarily achieved their goal. But they have not saved Spain, but the worst version of the country, the dead killed in the ditches, the exiles and the reprisals. They have not killed the adversary, they have killed democracy, manipulated their institutions and corrupted their souls. Is this the authority and order that some miss?
Looks like Spain blocking Catalan MEP's from taking their posts seems to be a little unpopular

Puigdemont and Comin received well over a million votes for the EU Parliament. After the defeat within Spain his plan is to keep Catalunya in a high profile in Europe so it becomes an openly european problem rather than being swept under the carpet.
Of course people are unhappy that he can't take up his post, between Spain and the EU it means that all those voters have been ignored.
Yes I am aware of the arguments that it was impossible for them to become EMPs due to Spanish regulations, but that just makes the problem a bit thornier. The ball is now in Europe's court.