Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Chathaoirleach, agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I hear much talk of law in this debate and in the conjecture surrounding it but there seems to have been no talk of international law and international human rights. The debate here seems to be very selective about which law and who has to obey the law.

The right to self-determination is enshrined in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both approved by the United Nations in 1966 and ratified by Spain in 1977. Article 1.2 of the Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice recognises the right to self-determination. The Spanish constitution of 1978 establishes in Article 96 that international treaties ratified by Spain form part of its domestic legislation and Article 10.2 establishes that the rules on fundamental rights and public freedoms shall be interpreted in accordance with international treaties on the matter.

The Parliament of Catalonia has continuously and unambiguously expressed Catalonia’s right to self-determination. A resolution on self-determination was adopted on 1 December 1989 along with subsequent resolutions in 1998, 2010 and more recently the approval of the declaration of sovereignty and the right of the people of Catalonia on 6 October 2016. This also confirmed a parliamentary majority in favour of independence. UN Resolution 1999/57 proclaimed the indissoluble links between the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the foundation of any democratic society. The International Court of Justice has stated that the only limitation on the right to decide that the court regards as enforceable is the unlawful resorting to force or other serious violations of the rules of international laws. I was in Catalonia on 1 October and nobody could accuse the Catalan people of unlawfully resorting to force or other serious violations. One could certainly accuse the Guardia Civil of this, however.

A recent report by a commission of international experts has concluded that there is no international legal prohibition barring a sub-state entity from deciding its political destiny by assessing the will of its people. EU member states have recognised many former sub-state entities that assessed their people's political will and decided to pursue independence. The EU, therefore, recognises the right to decide. Are we now saying that we, as members of the EU, do not recognise that right? International human rights also respect the rights to free speech. International human rights do not close down hundreds of websites illegally, as the Spanish state did before the referendum. International human rights recognise the right to freedom of assembly. International human rights do not attack civilians at polling stations.

It is obviously quite clear that the relationship between the Spanish and Catalan Governments has deteriorated incrementally since 1977, with less and less autonomy and the blocking by the Spanish state of progressive legislation passed by the Catalan Government on a number of issues, including homelessness, marriage equality, bullfighting and education. The recent referendum was overseen by a team of international independent election observers led by an Irishman, Michael Grange. I will read an extract from his report:

Yesterday we witnessed events that no election monitors ought to ever witness. We hope to never witness scenes of this nature ever again. We saw numerous and repeated violations of civil and human rights. We are shocked that this happened at all, even more so as it is clear to us that it was a centrally orchestrated, military-style operation carefully planned. We are stunned that armed masked officers entered polling stations with the purposes of preventing a peaceful democratic process. Despite these issues, and other difficulties, people experienced trying to vote. I want to emphasise that we did see a day of voting yesterday. We wish to acknowledge the peaceful nature of how the Catalan people acted yesterday. We witnessed many acts demonstrating the strong will of the people which showed that they were determined to have their say and let others have their say through the ballot box, including the elderly and disabled.

As can be expected, there is a lot of disinformation out there. The 43% vote cited reflects the final recorded number of ballots actually counted. This does not include votes in ballot boxes removed by the Spanish police. This, then, is actually a remarkable percentage and surprised even the Spanish Government. On the eve of the vote the Foreign Minister declared that there would be no real voting. Spain did everything possible, both legal and otherwise, to prevent voting: hacking into computer systems; closing down websites; as well as the violence that we all saw on television. The brave people who voted, including a number of wheelchair users, ought to have their voice respected. Do they not deserve to have their rights respected under international human rights law? I think that they do and I think that our country has a role in ensuring this happens.

It is quite ironic that we are hearing so much talk here about obeying the law when we consider some of the players involved in the Catalan situation. It is interesting that the Partido Popular, Prime Minister Rajoy's party, is currently implicated in more than 60 cases of corruption, 31 of which involve 835 party representatives being charged. The response from Rajoy's executive has, from the start of the current legislature, taken the form of a strategic change that consists of disabling the key institutions that uncover and investigate corruption in Spain, namely, the state Attorney General's office and the anti-corruption public prosecutor. This de-activation was designed, I am told by the Minister for Justice, Mr. Rafael Catalá, through the appointment of the state Attorney General, Mr. José Manuel Maza, and the Chief Prosecutor for anti-corruption, Mr. Manuel Moix. The three have been reproached and condemned by the Spanish Parliament for obstructing the investigation of corruption cases, among them caso Lezo. Rajoy's party, then, does not exactly shine as a bright beacon of legality.

It is also interesting that the decision taken in the Spanish Parliament to impose Article 155 has really been taken by three parties: the Partido Popular; the Partido Socialista Obrera Espanol, PSOE; and Ciudadanos.It is interesting that none of these parties has elected MPs from the Catalan region. As such, they do not have popular support in Catalonia, yet they are imposing their will on the 7 million citizens of Catalonia and failing to recognise the will of the region's people in democratically electing Carles Puigdemont as their President and a parliament that wanted the right to self-determination vindicated. I am disappointed the Committee on Procedure has not yet allowed an invitation to be sent to President Puigdemont to address the Seanad. We should not be bossed around by anybody about who can or cannot speak in this Parliament.

I support calls for international mediation, including the calls made by Kofi Annan and the Elders and Amnesty International. We must recognise that this is an international issue of fundamental human and civil rights. We cannot be bystanders in this case which is a challenge to the basic principles of democracy. If it were to happen here, we would seek support internationally. We had to call for international support to mediate in this country in the past and this is what all 7 million Catalans are calling for. Ireland has been, and is viewed as, an honest broker and we have a good reputation internationally with regard to peacekeeping. We could and should play a role in helping to facilitate a process of dialogue. We must wake up to what is taking place without being afraid to call it out.