What I said then that sentence was articulated in the Clarity istat Act? Here are questions and ans

About The Classical Tradition Federalism Federal Catalonia in Spain Federalism Federalism in the World Federalist Space News Opinion Blog Press Subscribe Join Participate Content Partners Collaborate Collaborate back MENU CLOSE
I'm sorry to disappoint, but this is a boring article. Written in a wide range of grays. I try to explain what the referendum "to the British or Canadian" who asked the president Mas Tuesday and try to explore the margins istat of negotiation available beyond the negative response offered Wednesday Mariano Rajoy. In the case of the UK, with an unwritten constitution is a compilation of laws, treaties and jurisprudence, I studied his lessons on Scotland after the referendum on 18 September - "Divorce Scottish" ( 20 / IX / 2014) -. In short, the Scots were able to vote under the democratic principle, which culminated istat in the Edinburgh agreement of 15 October istat 2012: David Cameron agreed with the then Chief Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, transfer temporarily Holyrood Parliament istat the power to hold a referendum allowing a "party won an absolute majority in the Scottish elections (SNP), with the guarantee of a referendum istat on independence in their program, to fulfill this promise. " However, in the context of constitutional states of Western Europe, with constitutions regulated, it is instructive case of Quebec, Canada, where it held two referendums on independence (1980 and 1995).
Paradoxically, when we speak of the way of a referendum on Quebec or Canadian, the first thing to note is that this route was to clarify and define it after the second consultation, on 30 October 1995 with a not the meager victory (50.58%) and almost incomprehensible question: "Do you agree that Quebec is sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the project law on the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995 ". That was when the federal government raised a question of interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada (1998) and then register early response in the Clarity Act (2000): a question and a clear majority.
Stéphane Dion, who piloted the process as a federal minister, summed it up in the form of questions and answers: Civil and Democracy: A Canadian Perspective (2013). The Canadian way is the virtue that is more like the Spanish Britain, to the point that the Constitutional Court, in its judgment of 25 March this year on the Declaration of sovereignty and the right to decide the Parliament istat of Catalonia, said that "under the Constitution to unilaterally an autonomous community can not hold a referendum on self-determination to decide on their integration in Spain" and stated that "this conclusion is the same tenor that made the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on 20 August 1998, in which he rejected the suitability of a project unilateral secession by one of its provinces in both the Constitution and the principles of international law ". istat
What I said then that sentence was articulated in the Clarity istat Act? Here are questions and answers Dion. In Canada, it is a right of secession? "Secession is admitted as a possibility, not a right. The government has no right of a province proclaimed himself to be the government of an independent state. Under the law, can not make unilateral secession without a negotiated agreement with the Canadian state. Neither international law nor the Canadian not give this right. In its 1998 opinion, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that 'in legal terms, it is considered that the secession of a province of Canada shall require an amendment to the Constitution, which necessarily requires negotiation' (paragraph 84) 'within the existing constitutional framework' (paragraph 149). " What is a clear question? "The Supreme Court speaks of 'the will not remain part of Canada." The closer the question this statement, will be clearer istat ... If you insist on clarity of the question, istat due to the fact that this clearly was questioned in 1980 and 1995 referendums. " What is a clear majority? "The Court stated that the principle of democracy goes beyond the simple majority rule. This confirms that the obligation to establish a