Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LEADER OF CATALONIA Carles Puigdemont last night described the Spanish government’s move to remove his administration’s autonomy yesterday as bearing the hallmarks of the dictatorship of Francisco Franco.
Puigdemont and his ministers – who sparked Spain’s worst political crisis in decades by holding a banned independence referendum – will be stripped of their jobs and their ministries taken over under measures laid out by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy.
After hundreds of thousands of protesters flooded Barcelona’s streets yesterday to show their anger at Madrid, Puigdemont said Rajoy was guilty of “the worst attack on institutions and Catalan people” since Franco, calling for the parliament of the semi-autonomous region to meet urgently.
Franco ruled Spain with an iron fist from 1939 until his death in 1975, and among other repressive measures took Catalonia’s powers away and banned the official use of the Catalan language.
Cautious, though, Puigdemont did not once say the word “independence” as Spain and the rest of the European Union waits to see if he will carry out his threat to declare a breakaway state.
Barcelona police said 450,000 people joined a protest in the regional capital earlier, many chanting “freedom” and “independence” and waving Catalonia’s yellow, red and blue separatist flag.
Madrid could take direct control over Catalonia’s police force and replace its public media chiefs, with Rajoy saying he had no other choice, faced with a grave threat to Spain’s national unity.
Elections for the semi-autonomous region must be called within six months, he added.
The measures must now pass through the Senate – a process that will take about a week – but Rajoy’s conservative Popular Party (PP) holds a majority there and his efforts to prevent a break-up of Spain have the backing of other major parties.
The Catalonia crisis could cause a “dangerous dislocation”, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told the Journal du Dimanche, adding that he hoped the elections would “clarify the situation”.
‘The game could end badly’
Home to 7.5 million people, wealthy Catalonia fiercely defends its language and culture and has previously enjoyed control over its policing, education and healthcare.
Madrid has the power to wrest back control of rebellious regions under Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, but has never used it before.
Rajoy said the measure was a last resort as Puigdemont refuses to drop his threat to declare independence based on the results of the 1 October referendum, which had been ruled unconstitutional.
“This was neither our desire nor our intention,” Rajoy said.
We are applying Article 155 because the government of a democratic country cannot accept that the law is ignored.
Oriol Bartomeus, politics professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, said the central government was taking a huge risk.
“The game could end badly, very badly for Rajoy’s government,” he told AFP, adding civil servants and protesters could rise up against the measures.
It’s going to be like a colonial administration, and independence supporters will see it as an occupation.
Though she opposes the independence drive, Barcelona mayor Ada Colau deplored Madrid’s decision, tweeting: “Rajoy has suspended the self-government of Catalonia for which so many people fought. A serious attack on the rights and freedoms of everyone.”
Despite the political chaos in Catalonia, Barcelona’s football team continued their merry way at the top of La Liga by beating Malaga 2-0 at the Camp Nou.
Other than the usual cries in favour of independence in the 17th minute to mark the fall of Catalonia in the Spanish War of Succession in 1714 and sporadic chants of “freedom”, it was business as usual for Barca.
Elections by June
Allowing 54 days for campaigning, new elections would fall in mid-June at the latest.
Separatists of all political stripes, from Puigdemont’s conservatives to the far-left, have dominated the Catalan parliament since the last elections in 2015, holding 72 seats out of 135.
Prosecutors said yesterday they would take former journalist Puigdemont to court for “rebellion” if he makes any attempt to declare independence, a crime punishable with up to 30 years in jail.
Puigdemont says 90% backed a split from Spain in the referendum, but turnout was given as 43% as many Catalans who back unity stayed away while others were hindered from voting by a police crackdown.
Catalonia is roughly evenly split over whether to go it alone, according to polls, with supporters saying the region pays too much into national coffers while their opponents argue the region is stronger as part of Spain.
The crisis has worried the EU as it struggles with Brexit and taken a toll on one of Spain’s most important regional economies, with nearly 1,200 companies shifting their legal headquarters elsewhere in a bid to minimise the instability.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Fabulous, if not dystopian piece Simon. I have to say, the increasing grip private corporations have on everything from our newsfeeds, to our diets, to our medical data is truly frightening. What’s even more frightening though is people’s lack of interest; I give you Alexa, Google Home etc.
@Diarmaid Twomey: Corporations control governments when it’s supposed to be the other way around. Ireland was probably targeted for its light touch regulation.
I mean in the U.S. the corporations literally author the vast majority of bills passed in Washington and the people voting on them have little clue about their contents and it takes a couple of business days to get the 10,000 page document into law.
Welcome to late stage capitalism ladies and gentlemen.
We should all be concerned at such a proposal, your DNA is unique to you , why should a private company acquire your genetic code and use it for profit or God knows what purpose in the future. Be careful if you are asked to sign any documents in this regard and if you are not comfortable with this, just say no.
@Honeybee: Ní féidir sclábhaíocht ar Éire. But, yes, read and say Nó if you don’t comprehend..
Let the government make it illegal, is it not already??
@Mick McGuinness: “. . . The State has pumped approximately €73.5 million into GMI . . .”
@Mick McGuinness: I’d like to know whether the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, any Minister, or any other office-holder has a beneficial interest. Why else would the State be pumping money into a secretive private concern?
@Fachtna Roe: look it up. Not that difficult.
Whats the point of GDPR if things like this are happening???
@Lydia McLoughlin: GDPR is a smokescreen to prevent you finding out these things are happening. Data Protection is worthwhile, but GDPR seems to be used to tilt the scales in such way as to balance Freedom of Information.
@Fachtna Roe: this is a complex area of data protection , your ill informed comment about GDPR does not help as it is completely inaccurate and just plain wrong. GDPR is no smokescreen , it is a large global regulation that required a lot of work and is designed to deter organisations from misusing data collected with some very heavy financial penalties (eg 4% of global turnover is a lot of money just for abusing somebody email data ) – it is not a ‘smokescreen’ – as for the GMI issue in the piece – the author makes a very good case as to why we should not allow privatisation of our genetic data – I would go a step further and point out the risks that this genetic data can be used by private companies in the future ( especially insurance companies ) if they remain unregulated – to risk profile and refuse health cover and life cover or else more likely ‘charge more’ money for individuals they claim are riskier to cover due to their ‘genetic history’ – that level of data abuse really will need the governments to legislate and protect citizens from.
@Dave Hammond: Waffle. Plus, GDPR is an EU regulation.
Neither the author nor his employer are medical professionals. This is a medical project and yet the legal profession feel emboldened to make judgements in the collection of anonymous data that may prove beneficial for future medical research.
This is an ongoing issue, where the pursuit of narrow legal interests out ways the public good. This occurs regularly in medical negligence cases where impossible legal standards are imposed on imperfect medical practices and the outcome deemed negligent and therefore cash generating.
Not all areas of life should be subject to the whims of lawyers, their legal arguments or the interests that employ them to do so.
This incessant creep of legal interference in areas they are not qualified to make judgements in does a disservice to us all.
Any possible leak of data, possibly trivial, from this study should not be considered important enough to interfere with initiatives which may have beneficial outcomes for public health.
Not all data is created equal, and the current fetishisation of the protection of innocuous information is pointless and almost certainly negative for future research.
@Gerard Carthy: Well done for missing the entire point Gerard. In case you forgot the legal profession exist to protect citizens through the use of laws. Just cause you’re a medic doesn’t give you a licence to obtain and process people’s most private data because you say it will be of use for private ends.
@Diarmaid Twomey: Exactly right.
@Diarmaid Twomey: I feel so protected every time I have to answer stupid data protection questions to pay my own bills. Or try to interact with a bank. Or move electricity supplier. Or prove I’m the same person to my own bank. Or hear that the legal profession are going to make swings hazardous implements that need supervision at al times from now on in the pursuit of a narrow and depressingly idiotic argument.
And you thin I’m missing the point and should be grateful to be treated like a child?
@Diarmaid Twomey: it’s the state that exists to protect citizens, not the legal profession per se.
@Gerard Carthy: Gerard if you feel private corporations being made tell you when and if they are processing your information is akin to you being treated like a child, fair enough. That’s your prerogative. However, don’t insinuate that a legal professional, or anyone else for that matter, who expresses concern about private corporations profiting from the processing of private medical data is being pedantic or some sort of pain in the *asre! Feel free to join MAGA rallies and eat chlorinated chicken, if the medical professional (who obviously are above us all) tell you to, but I’ll stick to wanting my data and rights protected and vindicated, thanks very much.
@Gerard Carthy: You absolutely do not have a clue.
@Gerard Carthy: ‘the protection of innocuous information is pointless’ – hmm this is very valuable data ( not innocuous information ) – one example is the risk profiling that a private company will be able to use this data to ‘monetise’ such as health insurance – life assurance – corporations and big pharma will be able to target profiles that are more vulnerable based on genetic data – the author is correct to point out the slippery slope that ‘privatising’ this field is going down – I think you are quite incorrect and missing the point to lump this in as potential innocuous data – it is not about a possible leak or the consequences of such a leak that it the concern – it is that the unique genetic data of individuals can be monetized by private companies – that is the risk that the author correctly identifies as very real and very wrong. There is nothing innocuous about the motivations of large private companies wanting to access important private data.
@Dave Hammond: The database in question has no personal identifiers, is accessible on a read only basis and the amount of information that can be accessed at a time is limited. It would be impossible for an insurance company for example to make any commercial use of it. Since we have a community rated private insurance and pre existing conditions are non exclusionary it’s not even an issue.
It amazes me how often access to fairly useless insurance is a reason why data projects should be cancelled. Weird.
@Gerard Carthy: Excellent comment. I would add that in this whole zone of research, a tremendous new vista is opening. The most popular gift now given in some countries, is an ancestry DNA test, which shows those participating, really interesting information on where one came from back the millennia. What it could also show is the presence of problem recessives. A simple App will then allow prospective parents to do a pre check. This will inform them of the chance of their potential offspring exhibiting some life effecting syndrome, hemophilia, CF or the like. This information will allow them to go for I.V. and pre implantation selection, thus leaving the horror story behind. Who could say no to that, but meddling lawyers could greatly obstruct it.
@Nicholas Grubb: That reads like an advert, or a paid comment.
Informative article
Like any economic or military advantage, genetic engeering is unstoppable. Sadly.
If we (the West) ban it others will get an advantage – and like how we destroyed aborigines in the Americas, Australia and Asia with more advanced technology – they will do unto us.
Humanity didn’t decide to move from hunting to farming 10,000 years ago; it had no choice.
Frightening
Isn’t this the second time in a couple of weeks this article (or a slightly different version of it) has been posted on the Journal?
@This Guy: Were you hoping it would be kept a secret?
I have a problem understanding this whole thing. I can understand How a company can profit from this, by selling the information or an old man I.e. me. A sixty year old man, three major health issues identify unknown but how does it affect me with regard to data protection
@Alan Dignam: A situation might arise where health insurance companies would be able to pick and choose who to insure based on risks associated with your genetic makeup. Not a good situation, essentially removing risk for them.
@Alan Dignam: Your DNA is the most unique and valuable thing you received from your parents, and the most unique and valuable thing you give to your children.
It is also the most complicated thing most of us know of, and printed would be a stack of paper 130m high.
You get that complexity free, and pass it on free for the natural purpose.
A corporation is legally a person, but non-living. Think “Corpse” and “Oration”. This is the type of entity that may end up ‘owning’ the code for living people.
The effect on our planet of these dead-people-speaking is hardly positive. Why trust them with the codes for life?
In that corporations are themselves non-living, but require us living people to survive and propagate, they are functionally the same as a virus.
They can sell mine their defective lol
@Aaron92utd: evidently!
@Aaron92utd: so you can pay higher health insurance premiums, or maybe be deprived of obtaining life insurance for that mortgage you applied for? And you won’t know why unless you pay for the results….
If think we should get a % every time our data is sold whether dna or online usage. We should have the right to have it deleted and to block further sales.
It’s our data about us we should have complete control, but also if someone is profiting from the sale of our data we show also profit.
@Davis Payne: Your DNA also contains information about your relatives, and theirs about you; that’s worth a lot more than the few cent you’d be lucky to get from a corporation.
Data is the new oil……
Very interesting series of documentaries about the oil industry.
Part 3 is called “Data is the new oil”
A fairly comprehensive explanation of how data has become a commodity.
have your say