Plan Ibarretxe

According to my interpretation of Article 5 of the "Plan Ibarretxe," it looks as if my family would be allowed dual citizenship or at least dual benefits of Basque citizenship should this pass.

Question: What would Madrid do with regards to allowing/restricting my ability to work in Euskadi should this pass the Basque parliment?

Madrid wouldn't do anything.

Only if the spanish parlament decides to approve this document (a highly remote possibility) would you be able to have a "basque nationality" (or dual for that matter). But never mind either; if the document is approved you won't be able to work in a Basque Country with a 30% unemployment rate.

Fernando

That speaks to my main question: Even with "autonomy" I assume that such a plan would not fly in Madrid, and that it would be "vetoed" by the National chamber.

I have no doubt, though, that if I was able to get it, that I would be able to work in the Basque Country, regardless of the unemployment rate. Tengo enchufes de sobra y un MBA...

Even autonomy has its limits. I guess that federal government in the USA won't let pass a plan from, let's say, New Mexico, which would state things like New Mexico's citizens would have a different nationality other than american, or that in any moment New Mexico can decide to be an independent country.

This plan, no matter it was presented by the basque government and voted by the basque parlament, is against our Constitution, which is the ultimate law to judge any other law in our country, and which was voted for in 1978 by the majority of the spaniards, including the basques (who voted for and participated in its design).

Fernando

Interesting analogy. New Mexico has been a rogue state for quite some time, too. All of those illegal New Mexicans crossing the border into Colorado looking for a better life!

Actually I figured Madrid would have none of it if the plan was as I'd understood it. I can always dream, though...

Ibarretxe has won the polls in the Basque Country, but he hasn't got enough support to make this plan reality.

Plan Ibarretxe is over.

It is not over, it is in a stand-by. Nationalists have not abandoned their main principles and theories.

And what's worse, our Government has changed its mind: now they seek the peace by giving the reason to terrorists, with the aid of their government allies: catalonian independentists and communists.

These are not good times for Spain.

Fernando

I don't recall our goverment "giving the reason to the terrorists" (that's agreeing with them)

When you're willing to "negotiate" with terrorist and give lead to them, you are obviously giving them enough thresh hold to "reason" that all of the murders that they have committed are justified. Now the government wants to negotiate with them, how do you explain the four bombings this weekend? Is this how we are to negotiate? Do you really think these groups deserve someone listening to them? I'm sorry but to me it's very clear that these people do not want to negotiate anything.

In the last eight-ten years, the government has done everything possible to weaken ETA, and they seemed to be doing a good job, radicals were fewer, they were kicked out of the parliament, with the help of the US and the anit-terrorist laws many of them were captured and put under arrest, buying illegal armament was almost eradicated, etc etc, and now, with this new government mentality, all of the sudden they have come back into the spotlight with the idea that they have enough rights to demand their liberation.....

I just can’t believe people can be so blind.

Negotiation "if ETA stops terrorist attacks".
Now it's not the case.

That "if" doesn't make sense, "if" just yesterday there were four bombings.

And "if" we are to negotiate "if" they quit their terrorism, and we clearly see that they haven't quit their attacks, then should we negotiate?

Let me remind you that certain political parties have already been caught negotiating" and the government has had to admit that there has been some type of contact. The news papers today stated that the government does not want to make any public statements and they're behind closed doors, yesterday TVE1, drastically changed the subject and spoke about other issues instead of giving headway to the bombings, while on other channels it was the main event.

What type of government permits this, and still has the nerve to smile on camera and say, "we are negotiating"

I don’t understand why a government would permit those political parties that are in close contact with ETA to remain in the parliament and to continue to viscously spread their ultimate ideals, even giving them the liberty to defend such hideous acts.

Whatever, I agree with quique. Plan Ibarreche is over, citizens have spoken. Now it's time to go on, to seek peace and a better future.
Police action against terrorism is right, and it will continue. That's the way, and political radicalism is not it. I'm glad the Ansar 'dark times' are over.

Things have changed... for the worse.

We have a socialist government supported by communists and catalonian independentists (whose leader agreed with ETA not to commit assasinations in Catalonia, no matter what they did in the rest of Spain).

Yesterday there were 4 bombings with 3 injured. Our president didn't mentioned the injured, nor did he condemn the bombings. He just said how radical PP was.

Today Rubalcaba (the governments speakerman) has stated today that, since there has been no killed, it seems like if ETA has a tacit truce.

All these smells very bad, with a government which is (it seems) willing to negotiate with terrorists. The unique negotiation with terrorists is when and where they abandon their activities. Any other thing is giving the reason (implicitly) to them: "Hey, you should kill to achieve at least part of your objectives".

Frankly, I prefer by far "Ansar dark times" (which weren't) than a populist and demagogic government.

Fernando

I doubt very much that the Madrid Government will ever accept "dual citizenship" as a rule, made other than by their own governing body. I can understand why it wouldn't happen, because it could open the doors to serious repercussions.

On the question of ETA, and the bombings, I believe that the arrests, and crowing about having "cut the head off the serpent," did more to help ETA rebuild than it did to hurt them. There are always willing participants in Basque Country, because of what they perceive as "oppression."

You don't have to believe that philosophy, but they do in Basque Country, so all the ranting and raving that people do against it doesn't mean a damned thing unless you sway the people that live there through political change.

When it comes to how the existing government can handle ETA, everyone should remember that this government in power came into existance by surrendering to terrorist force from outside their own borders. Why would anyone expect differently when it came to dealing with terrorism inside their own borders. It's only a matter of time until they surrender to the terrorist demands again.

History does repeat itself.

If you're referring to the withdrawal of the troops from Iraq, I have to disagree. In my opinion it's exactly what any government should do if more than 70% of their citizens oppose having them there (and they were a majority even before the terrorist attack, right?). Using the attack and people's fear in the elections, on the other hand, is another thing.

Wolf: Since the capture of ETA's bossess almost half a hundred terrorists have been captured, some of them very important. The good thing is that these arrests have contributed to the longest period without assassinations since ETA's birth. The socialist government is (thanks God) continuing Aznar's policy by pressing ETA and arresting every possible terrorist.

But it is not the same in the political part of the issue. The Government has allowed Batasuna be represented in the Basque Parlament by intentionally not issuing the judges to investigate the link between their new party (Basque Lands Communist Party) and Batasuna.

What a pitty.

Fernando

Pia, I don't vote a party to let them manage the country by the polls. I expect my government to take decissions based on the information they have (information that may not be shared to the common citizen) the best possible way to protect my interests and those of my fellow countrymen, no matter how unpopular it is.

Fernando

Fernando,

What concerns me most about ETA is that the "new leaders" may well be a lot more violent than those of the past. The lack of deaths due to bombing may just be a lull in the storm, while they rebuild their network. It's happened before, and I don't see why it won't happen again.

I agree with you on the political issues. Not everything can be decided through "popular vote." If that was the case, there's a strong chance we would never have gotten into WWI or WWII in Europe.

Americans were supportive of the war in Asia at the beginning of WWII due to the attack on Pearl Harbor, but were skeptical on entering the European war. That was obvious by the fact that we hadn't entered it until the bombing in Hawaii.

Pia, I understand your point of view as well. People should have their voices heard. But, if that's the case, why aren't the voices of the Basques being heard in Madrid?

Wolf

But don't you think making this decision was wrong of the previous government in the first place? I don't mean that governments should spend their days reading polls, of course not, but I also don't think they should take their countries into wars that are strongly opposed by the people. I understand your point if it is that withdrawing the troops so shortly after the attack send out signals to the terrorists that they were successful, but as I see it, the troops should never have been sent there in the first place.

Pia,

On a special note, weigh the following.

The majority of people in Spain believed they should not be in Iraq. They elected a government that would remove the troops immediately. You indicate that's the right thing to do.

Yet, when the majority of Americans support the death penalty in the US, and elect a government that supports it, you'd say it's wrong?

I'm afraid that people judge issues way too often on their own personal beliefs instead of the broader picture of what the right course of action should be.

That's even the case when dealing with ETA, and the fact that the new government is opening up dialogue with separatist groups.

No, I personally (like most europeans) see the death penalty as immoral, and I wouldn't want the EU to include any countries that think differently. This means that I think it's wrong for people to support death penalty, not for a government to act accordingly.

We're probably too far from the actual subject again, but I think joining a war to defend a country from a foreign threat is different from joining a war on the attacking side.

Error. The Government is trying to open up dialogue with a terrorist band and its doubtfully legal political party, not with separatists.

Fernando

The government is not trying to open a dialogue with PCTV, if that's what you are talking about.
The government has proposed that ONCE VIOLENCE HAS STOPPED, a dialogue should be held with the FORMER terrorists.
I don't know if this is right or wrong, I suspect that the government has some important information that we ignore.
I'm right now waiting for the next move, this is uncertain terrain, but I like this more than the former government's inmovilism.
Perhaps PSOE is opening the door to enter into the Basque Government after last polls.
I think it is a positive thing, when PSOE was in the Basque Government some years ago, the nationalist were in a more moderate position and were more firm against terrorists.

Pia,

Like I said, it's based on personal opinion. You stated it yourself. When people agree with you, they are right, when they don't agree, you've indicated they are wrong. I'm against capital punishment myself, but since it's the law of the land in some US states, and people support it, I'll have to accept it. But I'm not going to say that these people are wrong, I'll only say that I disagree with them.

Fernando,

I believe that ETA is a seperatist group. They want total independence, and that's seperation.

Deibid - I agree. At least opening up dialogue might lead to a resolve. Whether or not there will be positive results, nobody really knows. If it leads to a cessation of bombings by ETA, that in itself is a positive gain.

Wolf

Wolf, well then I think exactly like you, and of course it's a matter of personal opinion. Yes it's more politically correct to say that you "disagree with people" but disagreeing with someone is exactly the same as thinking the other person is "wrong", don't you think? The fact that there's no universal right or wrong makes all "rights" and "wrongs" completely subjective and I don't think you have to point out that views are subjective if it's already included in the definition. Haha, now back to the subject.

Wolf said:



Yes, and Al-Qaeda are Allah's followers and Bin-Laden a philantropic millionaire...

When we have to label a collective we use a distinct characteristic that allows us distinguish them from other collectives.

There are separatist groups in the Basque Country (all nationalist parties for example), but what distinguish ETA from any other group is that they form a terrorist band. Moreover, they want not only independence, but the annexion of Navarre and the french Depártment de les Pyrénées-Atlantiques, under the rule of a marxist-leninist regime.

But anyway, I don't think that talking with ETA is a bad idea per sé. However, you must clearly state the limits. With a terrorist band the unique negotiable thing is when and where they leave their terrorist activities, and perhaps how they can adhere to prison benefits.

It is more important what you negotiate than to negotiate.

Fernando

Pia,

There's a world of difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they are wrong. When you say you disagree with someone, you allow that their opinion carries weight, but when you say they are wrong, you're telling them their opinion is totally unacceptable. Not many people will accept being told that their beliefs do not have merit.

Fernando,

I agree on the question of "what is discussed."

As far as ETA establishing a government, that's just a belief stirred up by Madrid to insure that the ardor against Basque independence remains healthy.

The people of Basque Country would never commit to the type of government you've indicated ETA would want. ETA would not be the body that would decide. The Basques would do it through legitimate voting, and it would be a democracy.

I liken the comments about the ETA perception of government as a "bedtime story" intended to keep children in line, by offering an ominous threat if they don't.

Pia writes:

Not being cognitive/moral/situational relativist, I would strongly disagree with the verisimilitude of that statement, Pia. That is not a fact! That may be your cherished belief, but that does not make it a fact. The statement refutes itself!

Well, I disagree with you on this one then.

Wolf, I didn't notice your post earlier. I think we're talking about different things here, of course I'd tell a person I'm discussing with that I "disagree", but for diplomatic reasons. I don't think you make a difference in your mind between disagreeing with someone and thinking they are wrong. And please note, THINKING someone is wrong is not the same as saying they definitely ARE wrong. As I said, it's all about subjective views. And please let's stop this discussion or move it somewhere else, I feel really bad for disturbing the very interesting actual discussion.

Wolf, what you are proposing is we negotiate with someone supported by 15% of basques and who has a gun over the table what to do with our country. Moreover, you say to settle the issue on a voting... how can you be sure the result wouldn't be different if ETA didn't exist?

Think you had to negotiate with Bin-Laden the destruction of the USA.

Fernando

If I'm not mistaken, this has been voted on more than once. And each time the voters have given the 'separatists' less than 15% of the popular vote - in the Basque regions. When you total the votes throughout Spain, the number obviously decreases.

Isn't this democracy in action or am I missing something here ... the votes are in and tallied more than once - no to seperation from Spain (you can read that Madrid for govt. base) and no to all ETA stands for ...

Puna,

I don't recall a vote in Basque Country that actually dealt with the issue. The Spanish Government has refused to accept them even having a referendum to see if the people really want independence. Until they allow the referendum, the whole issue of percentages isn't realistic. They're figures put out by the Spanish Government, and they'd be totally in line with point of view.

It would be so simple. Let the people hold their referendum. Let them voice their opinion. At least, if Madrid is right, they could end this question forever. It just isn't happening, is it?

Fernando - The government is going to have to deal with all factions in Basque Country, until they can have a legitimate representation. It's difficult when the Spanish government decertifies their political parties when they won't take a stand against their own people.

I certainly wouldn't deal with ETA as the "head" of any negotiations. If I recall, they weren't even part of the negotiations back in the 90s. They allowed the politicians to do their work.

Wolf, you really don't know how wrong you are about ETA and basque nationalists.

Why should "Madrid" (=>the Spanish Government) negotiate the Basque Country status with a minority of basques who use terrorism as the means to achieve their political goals?

I would want to see what would you say of decertifying political parties if you had a nazi or islamist party which supported terrorism Wolf.

Basques have a legitimate representation in the Basque Parlament, in the Basque Government and in the Spainish Parlament. There are basque nationalist (and separatist) parties in both parlaments, and they seek their political goals by pacific (though highly undemocratic I would say) means.

And one more thing: Our laws and constitution state very specific rules on who and how can organize a referendum.

Could Texas or Austin organize a referendum to declare their independent from the rest of the USA according to your laws and constitution?

Remember that non-nationalist basques are as basque as any other, and they want to be a spanish autonomy.

Fernando

Fernando,

I'm sorry. You're giving us the same old party line about Spanish rights, and not even addressing the rights of the Basques.

That's why there's this sorry mess that exists right now. Expect to see continued attacks, and dumb comments in newspapers on how they've "cut the head off the monster," only to see it come back again, with more bombings, and more violence.

Wolf

:o I stand corrected. Thank you, Wolf.

Was there perhaps an opinion poll(s) run that indicated the vast majority of the people living in the Basque areas were against separation from Spain? Could swear I remember reading statistics on this .....

Wolf, I'm sorry but you are not right. You talk as if the right of the basques were not granted, and that is just not true. I respect any political party who seeks independence but, at the same time, condemns the use of violence. Our political system grants those parties the right to be elected, and, for example, both ERC in Catalonia and PNV in the Basque Country are in the government. If you are basque nationalist you can walk all over downtown Bilbao shouting against spanish government and you will have no problem at all. Don't try to do the opposite.

I have three basque friends, old basque families, which have had to leave the Basque Country. Two of them were elected representatives in two town councils, from PSOE and PP. The third one's father was a businessman threatened by ETA.

As JasMadrid has said, basques have the same rights as any other spaniard. They have their individual and collective rights fully protected.

I have met three basques who had to flee from the Basque Country for different reasons. Half my family has been born in the Basque Country. The uncle of a friend of mine was shot in the head and was in coma for months, until he died. Imagine how was his family. Victims demands not only peace but also justice. You can't negotiate their future with the people who killed their relatives.

As for what the basques think, these are the data from the Euskobarómetro (a collection of ratios measured by one basque university):



As you see, only a third of basques would want independence.



This graphic measures the satisfaction of basques with their current political status (as an autonomy of the spanish state). As you can see 58% is either partially or completely satisfied with their political status. It is true that they majorly want a referendum to decide their political status.

You may see all the data at this page.

Now Wolf, what do you propose? To negotiate independence with the minority who want it because they have a gun aiming at you?

Answer my question please: Do you think the most reasonable way to behave to solve the problem of islamic terrorism is to negotiate with Bin-Laden?

Fernando

When you get right down to the facts negotiating with terrorists is an oxymoron - Terrorist / terrorism does not have the word "negotiate" in the vocabulary - If a terrorist were willing to negotiate and honor his/her word - he/she would cease to be a terrorist.

What I'm understanding is that the vast majority of the Basques (both on the Spanish and the French sides Pyrannes) do not want violence, destruction, threats or worse; they do not want a separate state/country (gracias for the pie charts ).

Whether the current government can succeed in "'negotiating" a peace" remains to be seen; it has not worked in the past but perhaps this time it will ....

This is ETA's will to negotiate: a bombing blast today in which 58 persons were injured.

There is nothing to be negotiated with terrorists, they are to be captured by police and judged by courts.

Fernando

I don't believe anyone indicated that the government should negotiate with ETA. What has been stated is that the government should negotiate with the Basque political parties.

On the issue of support for independence, there were essentially three major options. I do not see the way the vote went as support for the Madrid government. Only 1 in 3 people support federal control. The other 2/3 want independence or autonomy.

If the only issue was independence or remain part of Spain, we might see a completely different outcome, as the voters who would accept autonomy would split into two factions, and there's a very strong possibility that the majority of them would support independence. That's why the government refuses a referendum indicating those two options.

Yes, there are people from Basque Country who have left due to their political beliefs, or those of their family, and/or friends. I think that's a serious problem. People should have the right to voice their disapproval of government, or of those who oppose the goverment, without fear of retribution. ETA I'm afraid does not accept that premise, and terrorizes those who speak out against their actions.

But, like I've indicated before, ETA exists only because there are people who fear them, and because ETA does support some views of a lot of Basques.

The bombings over the last few days are wrong. ETA has done more to stop any negotiations from happening than they'd imagine. It was stupid on their part. At least there was the possibility of some dialogue with Basque political parties, but now that's out the window because of their actions.

I'm afraid the leadership of ETA is becoming even more militant, if that's possible. They seem to want to do nothing but create chaos, without regards to what's best for the people of Basque Country.

Wolf

MM's resident "Professor Emeritus" aka Wolf says

One more betrayal for those that do favor aspects of the Basque political parties agendas by ETa

Wolf, I know that you have the best intention in mind and that you try to be as objective as possible, even if that means being the devil's advocate.

But believe me, giving ETA or its environment the benefit of the doubt is worthless.

They don't care about the future of the Basque Country but only for the future of themselves.

There is nothing to be negotiated with them. And basque nationalists are not a valid interlocutor either. You are assuming that the central government should negotiate with basque nationalists... why? are PP and PSOE voters in the Basque Country less basque?

About the referendum: as you know, our constitution states that a referendum can only be held with the support of two thirds of our parlament (or a million signatures). Our constitution states that the subject of sovereignity is the whole country. Thus, per our laws, a referendum should be voted by all spaniards. If the basque government wanted independence they have the tools (no matter it is difficult).

What you can't do in a democracy is to break the laws.

And there are also the issues you have said:

- who is basque and who isn't? Those who live in the Basque Country? what about inmigrants (from other provinces or countries)? what about basques who have been forced our of their home by menaces (6 bombs against businessmen in the last week for not paying extortion)?

- how valid it is a referendum held in this situation when there is menaced people?

- how can we be sure that the referendum would be definitive?

- what of the people who wanted to remain spanish?

- what about the infrastructures build with spanish money (like Bilbao's seaport, 12000 million euros)?

And then, if at last they get indpendendent, should Navarre join the Basque Country as basques demand? should the south of France? should Castile-Lion give territories basque nationalist demand?

They will be kicked out of the euro and the EU. We will have tariffs to commerce with them. Some big companies will move out of the Basque Country (as Iberdrola or BBVA which have much more business out than in the Basque Country) and unemployment will raise to 25% (as a basque economist stated in an essay).

One last note: the autonomies in Spain (for which a third of basques opted in the poll) have much more autonomy than Northern Ireland, german federal landers or other federal states.

Fernando

What happens with most subversive groups is that if they stop violence then they run out of business. Why would they disarm, surrender and formally enter into politics if they are in politics already and have a more leverage with a gun in their hands. The Spanish government has to offer a great deal for ETA to stop its movement; however, this may amount to unethical. The other options is disarm them, freeze their assets and prosecute its members, however, this has shown to be bloody, expensive, slow and not to solve the problem for once. Can you think of a different approach to solve this issue?

Heavy thought but has anyone ever considered what ETA is really after? I think general consensus is that 'Basque independence' is an emotional term that many can relate to in some degree so it serves the purposes of ETA.

Guess what I'm trying to discover is who really profits and how do they profit from ETA's actions?

Speaking as someone who was working in the building next door (Alcala 496) when the car bomb went off I can wholeheartedly say that I desire nothing more than they put a wall around Pais Vasco and throw away the key, if the majority want it of course and not just the band of cowards that call themselves ETA. You can't talk with someone who has a gun or a bomb behind there back.