I

One of the greatest idiocies of the Late Capitalist democratic-imperialist state is that there can be such a thing as an illegal referendum, when it comes to nations within the state wanting to leave it. It seems to the present correspondent that even in an authoritarian state, it would be foolish for such a law to be written, and that amongst the states that wear democracy like a fancy wig and cape to strut about in, that it would be entirely implausible that such a law could be written. Apart from anything else, to do so would be to inscribe in law (albeit in a negative form) the desire on the part of certain peoples for a referendum. Let us take as a study two cases: that of the Forever United Completely Kingdom, and the Kingdom of Spain.

Now these are Kingdoms that recognise democracy as a good and precious thing. But there is no democracy under Capitalism, there is no democracy under a monarch, and both of these states are—congruent with being monarchies—agglomerations of multiple nations thrown together by the tedious routine of dynastic marriages, squabbles, alliances et cetera, and not nation-states at all, and therefore uniquely vulnerable to the claims of internal nations imprisoned within, who see that the logic of the nation-state applies elsewhere—certainly all over Europe—but not to them. 

And so these desperate and disunited Relics are goaded into a little spiteful energy by the question of separatism, Scottish, Irish, Basque, Catalan and others. In fact both gain in unity in the heartlands by virtue of the ideological Drive to extinguish the rights of the internal colonies towards their frontiers.

II

The Spanish constitution of 1978, cornerstone of Spain’s democratic transition, does refer to the nationalities: in a sentence emphasising “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation”, the text says that it “recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions of which [the Nation] is composed” (translation courtesy of the Senado de España). A Nation of nationalities; autonomy in unity: constitutions are awkward things. A 1980 law makes clear that referenda not mandated by the State are illegal:

La autorización para la convocatoria de consultas populares por vía de referéndum en cualquiera de sus modalidades, es competencia exclusiva del Estado.

The authorisation for the calling of popular consultations by way of referendum in whatsoever of its modalities, is an exclusive competence of the State.

So the most elementary act of democracy, a plebiscite, is against the law, if called by a nation within the Nation, even if the people had elected to the leadership of that nation a party or parties who would act upon the people’s wishes for independence.

As usual, your correspondent has an ancient grudge to bring to bear upon this issue. Various hacks in the London-based media boasted in 2010 that the people of Catalunya would not want independence now that Spain had won the World Cup. This is infuriating on two fronts: many of the Spanish team were from Catalonia, suggesting that an independent Catalonia would have a strong and potentially World Cup-winning soccer team of its own; people do not primarily make a decision about their right to self-determination based on a sporting event—to believe that they do shows the fundamental bread-and-circuses attitude of a lazy imperialist.

III

Turning to the Irish bit of the Celtic Question first, the English Government is in the awkward position of having committed in writing in an international agreement to a Reunification Poll, but has found that it is able to argue endlessly about the wording so as to keep the zombie statelet indefinitely under its control.

The new Imperial Consul to the Occupation has been clear that a referendum cannot be held in Ireland as there is no evidence to support the calling of one, while making it clear in addition that nothing can have the status of evidence for the purposes of his, or his successors’, decision-making on the matter: not demography, not party-vote, not number of seats, not opinion polling. Asked to clarify the criteria, he replied:

No. Because there is a criterion already […] a border poll shall be called by the Secretary of State when he or she is of the view that in the event a poll took place a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for a united Ireland.

In the absence of any proof being admitted that such a poll would be successful, we are left with the conclusion that only a successful border poll can constitute proof that a border poll may be held, and nothing else. Citizens, here we see the Imperialist Aporia: the criterion for the decision is the decision itself having being made! 

The universal church has abandoned limbo, but something of limbo exists in the colonies. Macdara is of course of the opinion that the Republic should decide when a poll is to be held, instructing the Viceroy to undertake the appropriate arrangements to end the zombie status, end limbo, end the aporia, end the Occuptation.

The best possible arrangement would of course be for the Republic itself to organise the poll in the north-east of the country alongside the logistics it must undertake in the rest of the twenty-six county State. Of course any such move would be called illegal. 

Readers may note that Macdara leaves aside here the question of applying the Logic of referendum at all to a settler colonial context, though he is personally sympathetic to the argument that those who have broken into a house and stayed there should not have a vote on whose house it is.