THE SPANISH DIVIDE A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL SPEECHES DESCRIBING THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM ON OCTOBER 1, 2017

Amy de Vries

ANR 1232212

June 11th 2018

Tilburg University

Liberal Arts and Sciences

Bachelor Thesis (840900)

Under the supervision of dr. T.G. Leesen

Second reading by dr. D.J.M.S Janssens

Contents Chapter 1: Identifying the Relationship ...... 3 Introduction ...... 3 The History of the Conflict ...... 3 The Modern Legal Relationship ...... 4 Research Question ...... 5 Methodology ...... 6 Structure ...... 7 Relevance ...... 7 Chapter 2: The Foundation ...... 8 History ...... 8 Ethos ...... 9 Pathos ...... 9 Logos ...... 10 Theoretical Application ...... 11 Conclusion ...... 12 Chapter 3: Four Speeches viewed through the lens of Aristotle ...... 13 Introduction ...... 13 Key events ...... 13 Prime Minister Rajoy: Televised Press Conference on 1 October 2017 ...... 15 Summary ...... 15 Ethos ...... 17 Pathos ...... 17 Logos...... 18 Nigel Farage: European Union Parliament Speech on 3 October 2017 ...... 20 Summary ...... 20 Ethos ...... 21 Pathos ...... 21 Logos...... 22 Felipe VI, King of Spain: State of the Union Address on 3 October 2017 ...... 23 Summary ...... 23 Ethos ...... 24 Pathos ...... 24

1

Logos...... 26 President of the Catalan Government Carles Puigdemont ...... 27 : Catalan Parliament on 10 October 2017 ...... 27 Summary ...... 27 Ethos ...... 29 Pathos ...... 30 Logos...... 31 Chapter 4 ...... 33 Introduction ...... 33 Ethos, Pathos & Logos ...... 33 The Legality of Spanish Constitutionalists ...... 34 The Legality of Catalan Independents ...... 35 History and Economics ...... 37 Conclusion ...... 38 Bibliography ...... 39 Attachment 1: President Rajoy: Press Conference ...... 42 Attachment 2: Nigel Farage: European Parliament ...... 47 Attachment 3: King Felipe VI State of the Union Address ...... 49 Attachment 4: Carles Puigdemont : Catalonia Parliament ...... 51

2

Chapter 1: Identifying the Relationship Introduction On October 1st, 2017 Catalonia and Spain were the focus of the world when the Spanish region of Catalonia held a referendum, asking the Catalonian citizens to vote for or against independence. The referendum brought the Catalonian government on a collision course with the Spanish state. The impact resonated when the National Police, the Guardia Civil, violently intervened in attempt to stop the referendum by using repressive measures, rubber bullets, fists, and batons. This violence resulted in more than 900 seriously injured Catalonian citizens, all while being broadcasted on the television in homes around the world (Dearden, 2017). These scenes have reverberated over news stations for months as if it were the first time this conflict has occurred. This is not the case, since the tensions between Spain and Catalonia have a long history.

The History of the Conflict To comprehend the current conflict between Spain and Catalonia, understanding the relationship and the history they share is imperative. The historical tensions echo into our modern-day world.

Catalonia is a region, situated in the north east of the Iberian Peninsula with, of old, Barcelona as its most important city. In the 12th Century AD, Catalonia and the neighboring kingdom of Aragon were united under a single dynasty. Despite this political union, usually referred to as the Crown of Aragon, Catalonia had managed to maintain its political autonomy, identity and Catalan language (Catalonia, 2018). Since Catalonia has been one of the first Roman provinces in Spain, the influence of Latin had played a crucial role in the formation of the Catalan language. During the Middle Ages both Catalonia and Aragon had prospered because of its flourishing Mediterranean trade.

The marriage of the Catholic monarchs, Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, in 1496 brought about the unification of large parts of Spain (Catalonia, 2018). The unification of Spain gradually rendered Catalonia of secondary importance in Spanish affairs (Rodriguez, 2018). The regional antipathy felt by Catalonia against Madrid and its centralization policy made Catalonia revolt against Spain for the first time in the 17th Century (Catalonia, 2018). During the War of the Spanish succession (1701-1714), Catalonia resisted the accession of the Bourbon

3 dynasty to the Spanish throne, but they were unsuccessful in their military attempt to do so (Austria, 2018). The newly appointed Bourbon king, Philip V retaliated against Catalonia by abolishing its political structures, destroying its political autonomy, and by prohibiting the use of the Catalan language. This introduced a precedent of suppression of the Catalan language that resonates until the 20th Century (Catalonia, 2018).

In the 19th Century, Catalan nationalism revived against the background of the so-called ‘Renaixença’ or Catalan Renaissance (Guibernau, 2013). This cultural movement tried to revive Catalan as a living language through the reintroduction of its own press and theatre. In 1932, after a compromise with the central Spanish Government, Catalonia gained a significant degree of autonomy and the recognition of its language within the Second Spanish Republic by means of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (Britannica, 2018).

Catalonia lost that autonomy after the Nationalists’ victory in the Spanish Civil War (Spanish Civil War, 2018). The Spanish Civil War, which took place from 1936-1939, is described as the struggle between democracy, represented by the Republicans who were loyal to the democratic Second Spanish Republic, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, fascism, represented by the Nationalists, who were led by General Francisco Franco (Catalonia, 2018). During the dictatorship of Franco that lasted until his death in 1975, Catalonia was subjected to the dissolving of their democratic liberties through the censorship of the promotion of the Catalan language and nationalism. Ultimately the autonomy Catalonia had temporarily enjoyed was destroyed (Catalonia, 2018). After Franco’s death, Spain transitioned into a democracy. This transition was marked by the introduction of the Spanish Constitution in 1978 (Catalonia, 2018). In 1979, Spain granted Catalonia a new Statute of Autonomy. Henceforth, the Catalonian government consisted of a Generalitat, which is an executive council headed by a president, and a unicameral parliament (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2018).

The Modern Legal Relationship In 2006 Catalonia was granted ‘nation’ status and with this came a greater tax responsibility for Catalonia, namely that equal to the Spanish central government. In 2010 Spain’s Constitutional Court gave a heavy blow to Catalonia when they struck down portions of their autonomy statute, ruling that Catalonians constituted a ‘nationality’, but that Catalonia was not a ‘nation’(Convergence and Union, 2018). Additionally, the nationalism of Catalonia was

4 offended when in the ruling it was declared that Catalan should not take precedent over Castailian, the other dominate form in Spain of the Spanish language(Catalonia, 2018). This decision was highly criticized by the regional government.

Between 2012 and 2014, Catalonia is gearing up to make its case for a referendum on Catalonian independence under the leadership of regional head Artur Mas. The Scottish independence referendum made Catalonia eager to hold their own independence referendum, which was promised to them in 2010. Mas called for a nonbinding referendum on Catalonian independence to be held in November of 2014 (Convergence and Union, 2018). Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy immediately challenged the referendum and the vote was suspended while the Constitutional Court considered the legality (Catalonia, 2018). Mas proceeded with the referendum but reframed it as an informal citizens poll which produced a result of more than 80 percent of voters favoring independence (Convergence and Union, 2018). The need for an accepted referendum on the independence was only fueled by the results of the 2014 poll. Between 2015 and 2017 there was a constant procession on the part of Catalonia for the referendum and a constant rejection from the Spanish Constitutional Court. In January of 2016 Carles Puigdemont was elected as head of the regional government.

The legal relationship between Spain and Catalonia is not as clear-cut as other examples throughout the world. Catalonia has its own parliament, government and president, police force and public broadcaster. When examining the Catalonian constitution, we can find a range of powers that they hold exclusively, such as promotion of culture, including education, environment, communication, transportation, commerce and public safety (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2018). The powers held solely by the Spanish government include foreign affairs, the armed forces and fiscal policy. In the event of a clash between Spain and any region, the Spanish constitution always takes precedence. The Catalan government resents this authority over their own constitution and this resentment has led to the current events surrounding Catalonia’s independence.

Research Question The research question which will be addressed in this thesis is, “What does the Aristotelian rhetorical analysis of a selection of political speeches, delivered against the

5 background of the most recent pursuit of independence by Catalonia, teach us about the conflict between Spain and Catalonia?”.

The goal of this question is to provide insight into the conflict between Spain and Catalonia through the art of rhetoric. Persuasiveness can be a powerful weapon in any conflict and rhetoric is the ability to see the available means of persuasion in a particular case. It is not primarily politicians that need to be persuaded but the hearts and minds of either the Spanish citizens or the Catalonians that need to be won. On a grander scale, the European Union will also need to take a stand in the conflict. As in all the past revolutions, the impact of this conflict will be felt globally and set precedent for future revolutionaries.

Methodology This study will rhetorically analyze four political speeches, delivered against the background of the most recent pursuit of independence by Catalonia. The speeches consist of 1.) the speech delivered by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy on October 1st 2017, 2.) an address to the European Union Parliament in Strasbourg delivered by Nigel Farage on October 3rd 2017, 3.) a State of the Union delivered by Felipe VI, King of Spain, on October 3rd 2017, and finally a speech delivered in parliament by Charles Puigdemont on October 10th 2017. These speeches are available for viewing via the YouTube channel France 24 and will be sited in each individual speech. The analysis of the speeches is based not solely on a transcription of the speech but also on the delivery of the speech in its original language. The transcriptions of the speeches delivered in Spanish are found from various journalists who have transcribed and translated the speeches to publish articles relating to them. The transcriber will be noted under the title of each speech. The English transcription of each speech is attached in the bibliography.

The rhetorical analysis will identify the speaker, occasion, audience, purpose, main themes and the tone of the speech. Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric,

“It is thus evident that Rhetoric does not deal with any one definite class of subjects, […] that its function is not so much to persuade, as to find out in each case the existing means of persuasion…. It is further evident that it belongs to Rhetoric to discover the real and apparent means of persuasion…”(Rhet.,1.1.14[Freese, 1939]).

6 will direct the analysis of the speeches through dissecting the degree of persuasiveness through pathos, ethos, and logos. Additionally, the use of Aristotle’s rhetorical approach will help to investigate further and achieve insights into the conflict between Spain and Catalonia.

Structure This study will procced, in chapter 2, by offering a brief history of rhetoric and a discussion of Aristotle’s in-depth definition of rhetoric. Chapter 3 offers a rhetorical analysis of the selected speeches. After examining the general form of the speech, the speech in full will be assessed as to its speaker, background information, intended audience, and means of accomplishment through the use of ethos, pathos and logos. In chapter 4, findings and discussion will take place. In this chapter, the research question will be central. In providing an answer, different topics which were brought to the forefront during the speeches will be discussed followed by a conclusion.

Relevance In today’s political setting, the art of rhetoric is changing. In a world where twitter tweets, Facebook, and Instagram posts, and one-liners on the twenty-four hour a day media channels have taken over, it is interesting to find out whether the classical art of rhetoric has lost its place in current political affairs.

The analysis of speeches still proves to create great insight into a situation or conflict. While the intention of this study is not to discover the future path of rhetoric, it has been deemed necessary to touch upon the fact that our political leaders in this current day and age may be lacking in comparison to some of the great rhetorical masters who preceded them. Nonetheless, their speeches will become subject to the same scrutiny.

Consequences of these conflicts are extraordinarily broad, ranging from constitutional composition, to economic anomalies, from international public relations and global law, to nationalism. With such a broad spectrum at stake, it seems natural to begin with words of the leaders spearheading these issues. From these words, may a clearer picture be formed.

7

Chapter 2: The Foundation Introduction

All people make use of rhetoric and its counterpart, dialogue. We use it to discuss a statement, to maintain a viewpoint, defend ourselves and attack those who may disagree with us. Politics are no different, as they also make use of rhetoric. A fundamental aim of political interaction is persuasion. The conflict between Spain and Catalonia encompasses a political interaction between protagonists, who try to convince. By analyzing a number of selected speeches held by protagonists within this conflict, by means of Aristotle’s theory on rhetoric, we will learn more about the roots of the conflict.

History In order to understand the importance and significance of the Aristotelian rhetoric, it is necessary to first understand the history in which rhetoric was born. During the classical period in Athenian history, which runs from 490BC until 323BC, the Athenians largely contributed to the development of western philosophy, drama and historiography (Rothchild, 2007, pp. 4-13). Aristotle is one of the great minds who played an imperative role in the unearthing and building of the theory of rhetoric. The Athenian polis (city-state), characterized by its democratic form of government, allowed an open floor to those present to speak their minds freely on the issues of the day in the popular assembly. This environment, full of disagreement, was the perfect place for the art of persuasion to be born.

The Greek philosophers, Aristotle being one of the first, attempted to describe what happened when persuasion was necessary to settle a dispute (Demirdogen, 2010). Aristotle developed his theory of persuasion by empirically observing speakers within the law courts and political institutions of Athens. The goal was to gain insight in the interplay between sound legal arguments and non-rational factors in order to build up a persuasive discourse (Frost, 1994). He concluded that every orator needs to pay attention to three elements: Ethos (ethical appeal or credibility), pathos (emotional argumentation), and logos (logical argumentation) (Demirdogen, 2010). According to Aristotle,

“Now the proofs furnished by the speech are of three kinds. The first depends upon the moral character of the speaker, the second upon putting the hearer into a

8

certain frame of mind, the third upon the speech itself, in so far as it proves or seems to prove.” Rhet., 1.2.3-4 [Freese, 1939]). Ethos Ethos refers to the character or personality the speaker wishes to portray or present. This is the first element in Aristotle’s theory of persuasion. Ethos forms the ‘ethical proof’ which, when successful, allows the speakers to deliver their speeches while sounding credible to the audience (Braet, 1992). According to Aristotle,

“The orator persuades by moral character when his speech is delivered in such a manner as to render him worthy of confidence; for we feel confidence in a greater degree and more readily in persons of worth in regard to everything in general, but where our confidence is absolute.” (Rhet., 1.2.4[Freese, 1939]). The true credibility is attained by the audience attributing three qualities (Braet, 1992). According to Aristotle,

“For the orator to produce conviction three qualities are necessary; for, independently of demonstrations, the things which induce belief are three in number. These qualities are good sense, virtue, and goodwill…” (Rhet., 2.1.5 [Freese, 1939]). These three qualities are the pillars to the importance ethos plays in deliberative rhetoric. Phronesis, or good sense, can be seen as practical wisdom, arete, good moral character or virtue, and eunoia, goodwill, encompassing approval, sympathy and readiness to help, towards the audience (Cherry, 1988).

Pathos The second element in Aristotle’s theory is Pathos. Pathos can be described as the mood or tone of the speech that instills certain emotions amongst the audience:

“for the judgements we deliver are not the same when we are influenced by joy or sorrow, love or hate”(Rhet.1.2.5[Freese, 1939]). The art of using pathos comes from the persuader being able to access the emotional state of the audience, an ability known as empathy or contemporarily known as emotional intelligence. Examples of pathos according to Aristotle are described as,

“The emotions are all those affections which cause men to change their opinion in regard to their judgements and are accompanied by pleasure and pain; such are anger, pity, fear, and all similar emotions and their contraries” (Rhet..2.1. 8[Freese, 1939]).

9

The ultimate goal of the use of pathos is to bring the audience to a desired decision based on the arousal of their emotions.

Logos Logos is the argumentation by which the speaker appeals to the audience’s intellect or reason. Logos is also dependent upon the audience’s ability to process information in logical ways.

“Persuasion is produced by the speech itself, when we establish the true or apparently true from the means of persuasion applicable to each individual subject.” (Rhet., 1.2.6[Freese, 1939]). For Aristotle there are two types of arguments: deductive arguments, including the syllogism and enthymeme, and inductive arguments (Rhet., 1.2.8[Freese, 1939]). The difference between deductive and inductive arguments is that in a deductive argument when all premises are true, the conclusion is true.

A syllogism is a logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion (Demirdogen, 2010). A syllogism consists of three parts: two premises or propositions that are assumed to be true and one conclusion. The textbook example of a syllogism is the following:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. An enthymeme is a subcategory of the syllogism and, therefore, also consists of premises and a conclusion. The difference is that, in an enthymeme, one of the premises or conclusions is hidden or unstated. An example of an enthymeme is the following:

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

The hidden premise is that fire causes smoke.

In an inductive argument the truth of the conclusion is based on a degree probability drawn from the premises (G. Nandasenaa, 2017). Inductive reasoning computes to the use of examples. A number of instances is collected and then generalized to be applicable to all instances. Aristotle describes induction as,

10

“the proof from a number of particular cases that such is the rule” (Rhet.,1.2.9[Freese, 1939]). He continues further by assessing the argumentative value of enthymemes and induction:

“Arguments that depend on examples are not less calculated to persuade, but those which depend upon enthymemes meet with greater approval.” (Rhet., 1.2.10[Freese, 1939]). Division of a Speech

The classical rhetoricians used a division of five parts to classify argumentation; exordium (introduction), narratio (statement of case), partitio (argument summary), confirmatio (proof of case), and peroratio (conclusion). Within each of these five parts, the rhetorical elements ethos, pathos and logos find their most useful station. The elements are not limited to this division, however it is useful to identify where within the speech they hold the greatest value. This classification is used typically in judicial speeches but will serve as a tool in this analysis for the division of the speech.

Ethos, the emotional component of the speech is valued through the speech however the placement allows ethos to take on different roles. The goal of the exordium is to create receptive audience. In the exordium and narratio are prime candidates for creating a lasting good first impression, to create and show credibility, and express the justness of the cause. Peroratio is where ethos can have lasting effect on the desired outcome by creating a favorable emotional climate to leave the audience allowing for memories of sympathetic facts and arguments.

Pathos are found in the peroratio. They are used to "put the audience in the right state of emotion" and "make the audience feel the right emotions-pity, indignation, anger, hatred, envy, emulation, antagonism."(Frost, 1994). This is the place where the emotional content can be exploited for gains amongst the audience.

Theoretical Application In the selection of political speeches, analysis proceeds on with an Aristotelian analysis including: pathos, ethos, and logos. Each speech will individually be examined devoting attention all three elements. Firstly, the speaker will be investigated by means for viewing the speech as it was delivered. Then a summary of the speech is given. The assignment of ethos, pathos, and logos is defined. The audience will be examined as they become apparent in the

11 speech. As the audience possibilities are vast, and ever evolving in this current time, they will be limited to the countries in which the speeches were delivered and immediately intended and from there the broader audiences will be examined. In the final discussion in Chapter 4, the speeches will be investigated for possible interaction, the thesis question will be addressed, and a conclusion is made as to the relevance of this research.

Conclusion Aristotle’s explanation on the theory of persuasion is as valuable to us today as it was to the Athenians then. Politics in a democratic state can be defined as, “a process whereby a group of people, whose opinions or interests are initially divergent, reach collective decisions which are generally accepted as binding on the group and enforced as common policy” (Demirdogen, 2010). Aristotle’s view on politics was that it was social activity that uses dialogue and persuasion as a means to finding solutions to disagreements. Aristotle’s rhetoric is used to analyze and assess how audiences are persuaded and emotions are rallied.

12

Chapter 3: Four Speeches viewed through the lens of Aristotle Introduction In the analysis of the four selected speeches, the chronological order of events will dictate the structure. These speeches take place during a range of ten days spanning from October 1st 2017 to October 10th 2017 and are given by Mariano Rajoy, Nigel Farage, Felipe VI, King of Spain, and Carles Puigdemont. This is done to link the speeches to the political events. First, a brief timeline of key events, which took place between January 2015 and June 2017 and led up to the request for a referendum, is given. Next, a more detailed timeline depicts the key events, which took place between June 2017 and 10 October. Finally, each of the four selected speeches will be analyzed based on the transcript of the speech as well as a visual-audio recount of the speeches. The transcripts of the speeches are found in as an attachment and the visual-audio recount is cited within the description of the setting of each speech.

Key events In January 2015, the Catalonian President Artur Mas calls for new regional elections to test support for independence after the results of a non-binding opinion poll showed high support for the independence of Catalonia. In the elections of September 2015, separatist parties won a majority, giving them the ability to uphold a platform for independence. In November 2015, Catalonia’s regional parliament passed a resolution, calling for a secession from Spain. In December 2015, the Spanish Constitutional Court struck down the Catalan Parliament’s vote, ruling that the resolution infringed on the national constitution (Stone, 2017).

In January 2016, Carles Puigdemont took over as President of the Catalan regional government. In the beginning of September 2017, the Parliament of Catalonia passed the so- called ‘self-determination referendum law’. The Spanish Constitutional Court suspended this law the day after it was issued, because they held it to be contrary to article 2 of the Spanish constitution, which confirms the ‘indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation’. This decision implied that the upcoming referendum would be illegal. The Spanish government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, took measures to prevent the referendum from taking place. On 15 September 2017 the Guardia Civil seized ballot boxes, which were hidden by the regional government of Catalonia. On 20 September 2017 the Guardia Civil stormed and occupied Catalan government ministries in search of evidence that the Catalan government was

13 breaking the law by proceeding to plan a referendum. In response to these events, protests began. On 1 October 2017, polling stations opened and Catalonians took to the streets to vote in the referendum. A struggle broke out while Catalans tried to maintain open polling stations and the Guardia Civil fought to suppress the referendum. According to Enric Millo, the central government’s chief representative in Catalonia, the Guardia Civil, was set into motion to retrieve electoral material, but found itself doing what it had hoped not to need to do: taking action against individuals (Hannah Strange, 2017). Words such as drama, chaos, and heavy handed policing were used to describe the events of violence which resonated throughout the international community via images broadcasted through social media of police charging crowds of voters, firing rubber bullets into crowds, and using batons (Hannah Strange, 2017). The international community stood by in shock as they watched these broadcasts. The results of the referendum showed that, out of the 43% of Catalonians had voted, a staggering 92% had voted in favor of independence (Stone, 2017).

Endeavored dialogue Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy delivers a speech on 1 October 2017, the day of the referendum. His speech finds itself at the center of international attention as media across the globe broadcast images and stories portraying a violent scene where the Guardia Civil took physical measures against Catalans to stop the referendum. On 3 October 2017 Nigel Farage addressed this situation before the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The same evening, due to the gravity of the political state in Spain, King Felipe VI made a state of the union that strongly condemns the Catalan government’s actions. On 10 October 2017, Carles Puigdemont delivered a speech in the Catalonian Parliament to respond to the events. His speech was anticipated to be a declaration of independence.

14

Prime Minister Rajoy: Televised Press Conference on 1 October 2017 The speech takes place in a conference room where press officials fill the seats and the cameras are awaiting an aired broadcast (Rajoy, 2017). Prime Minister Rajoy enters into the room and immediately takes the podium, where a copy of his speech and a glass of water are ready for him. The background behind the podium is patriotically decorated with a large black and white emblem of the crest of Spain, the national flag of Spain and the flag of the European Union. The presence of the flag of the European Union implies an alliance between the Spanish State and the European Union and stresses the membership Spain holds within the European Union. President Rajoy is dressed simply in a dark suit. The speech begins without any formal introduction. It is obvious that everyone is awaiting Prime Minister Rajoy and he is dictating the timeline. The audience that the speech is being directed towards, is the nation of Spain, and also the international community, specifically the European Union. The speech was broadcasted live and available to all the audiences.

Summary The speech begins with a general greeting, “ladies and gentlemen”. He aims to create a sense of unity by using terms such as “our nation” and describes himself as “President of every Spaniard”. Although his title is Prime Minister, it was translated as President in the transcription used. He refers to Spain as a democracy, “friendly and tolerant, but also strong and determined”.

Prime Minister Rajoy states his interpretation of the events of the day: “Today, there has been no referendum on self-determination in Catalonia”. By this statement he is making explicit that the referendum which did take place, was illegal and held no authority. He then proceeds by stating that Spain is a strong democratic state which responded to the events of the day and averted a failed strategic attack on democratic harmony and legality, “Today, every Spaniard has been able to see… That it acts with every legal recourse available…”. By stating that Spain had acted “with every legal recourse available” and by excluding the details on the violence used by the Guardia Civil, Prime Minister Rajoy defends and supports the actions taken by the Guardia Civil.

Throughout the speech, Rajoy repeatedly accuses the secessionists of undermining the rule of law and democracy. He illustrates his argument by referring to the plenary session of the Catalan Parliament on the 6th and 7th of September, in which Parliament had issued the above-

15 mentioned ‘self-determination referendum law’, “in just a few hours they wanted to wipe out the Spanish Constitution and the Estatut [Statutes of Catalonia] with a single stroke of a pen.”. He also accuses the secessionists of having “[anti-democratic] conduct and attitudes …, to give just a few examples”.

President Rajoy addresses the Catalans, who supported the referendum. He claims that they were fooled into their illegal participation and understands their frustration. He then demands that they engage in dialogue, instead of breaking the law, to debate their political demands. By doings so, he is trying to win their sympathy. He is also attempting to excuse them for their behavior and allow for them to switch sides in this conflict, allowing the Spanish state to gain support.

Next, he claims that the vast majority of Catalans did not participate in the referendum. He points out that they are “law-abiding people”, supporters of democracy and social harmony. President Rajoy then thanks this group for their civic responsibility and the respect they have shown to the principles that support the Spanish society. Prime Minister Rajoy then takes a moment to thank different political parties for their loyalty to the State. He names judges and prosecutors, state security forces and municipal police and notes their contributions. He also expresses gratitude to the European Union and the international community for their support of the constitutional system of Spain. Throughout his speech, Prime Minister Rajoy is trying to include as many groups as possible within his support base in order to increase the sense of unity. He includes Catalans who voted for and against secession as well as Spaniards and the European Union. After this he defends the actions of the State, “We have done our duty. We have acted, as I said at the beginning, under the law and solely under the law. And we have shown that our democratic State has the resources to defend itself against an attack as serious as the one that this illegal referendum has tried to perpetrate.”.

In conclusion Prime Minister Rajoy reiterates that dialogue within the legal framework of democracy is the only way to resolve a conflict, “Therefore, I intend to convoke all of the political parties with representation in Parliament to reflect, together, on the future that we want to face, together.”. Analysis Aristotle’s three pillars of ethos, pathos, and logos are used to further analyze this speech.

16

Ethos Ethos is present before the speech begins, as Rajoy is the Prime Minister of Spain. Even though he holds great authority due to this position, there are still gains to be won with those parties and peoples who were in favor of the referendum. His personal appearance gives him authority as he is wearing a suit, and he chooses to deliver the speech standing. He speaks very clearly, calmly, and deliberately, creating the view that he is a foundation for the Spanish people to rest upon, but also allowing for his words to be translated for the international community.

Ethos is present, particularly, in the exordium of the speech. In the initial address of the audience, Rajoy explicitly refers to himself as President of the Government of Spain, “I want to talk to all of you tonight as President of the Government of Spain”. The speaker uses his title to elicit qualities that he claims to uphold, such as abiding by the rule of law, and enforcing the law: “I have always believed that my main obligation, as President of the Government, is to abide by the law and to enforce the law. To protect and guarantee democracy. But also to protect harmony and seek consensus.”. Subsequently, he takes his title one step further by reiterating that he is “the President of the Government of every Spaniard”, those who voted for him and those who did not.

Pathos There is a reoccurring theme that the speaker uses to enhance pathos, namely that of calmness. His primary means of doing this is through the use of reassurance. The narratio begins with the speaker calming and reassuring those who supported the referendum by stating that he understands their frustration. He wants those who did not support the referendum to believe that he understands their fear. The speaker wants the audiences to view the reaction of the state (including the ‘attacks’) as being firm but calm. The state’s reactions to the referendum were deliberately in favor and support of social harmony, fueled by common sense, and above all, done in calmness.

The use of blame and praise can also be found with Aristotelian rhetoric known as ceremonial speeches or epideictic oratory.

“Now praise is language that sets forth greatness of virtue; hence it is necessary to show that a man’s actions are virtuous.” (Rhet., 1.9.33 [Freese, 1939]).

17

It is clear that Prime Minister Rajoy is praising those who did not participate and blaming the secessionists for the corruption of those who did participate.

“Amplification is with good reason ranked as one of the forms of praise, since it consists in superiority and superiority is one of the things that are noble. This is why, if you cannot compare him with illustrious personages, you must compare him with ordinary persons, since superiority is thought to indicate virtue.” (Rhet.,1.9.39[Freese, 1939]). The speaker also uses a historical argument. The history of Spain is used to highlight past differences and difficulties and the Spaniards ability to overcome these difficulties by saying, “Throughout our long-shared history, we Spaniards have been capable of overcoming our most painful differences, as well as what seemed to be our most insurmountable difficulties.”.

Logos In the narratio the foundation of the logos is found. The speaker captures the core argument and foundation of the speech in the following formulation, “Today there has been no referendum on self-determination in Catalonia.”. This is due to the strength of the democratic State under the rule of law. The speaker calls the referendum part of a political strategy which violated fundamental rights and damaged democratic behavior. This is illustrated by the events of 6 and 7 September 2017 where, in the Catalan Parliament’s plenary session, the legislation was passed in favor of the referendum. By passing the legislation, the democratic rights of their opposition were taken away.

The speaker uses three examples to persuade the audience that the secessionists are not in favor of democracy, are in violation of the law and halt social harmony; the indoctrination of children, harassment of judges and the intimidation of journalists. The example of the indoctrination of the children is used because the polling stations took place in schools, but also because the Catalan government is responsible for their own education system where they stress the importance of the knowledge of the Catalan language and culture (Vasco Cotovio, 2017). The examples of harassment of judges is an example used to show how the legislation for the referendum runs counter to the Catalan Charter and therefore should never have been passed (Nougayrède, 2017). Reporters without Borders, an organization that scrutinizes freedom of the press claimed that journalist who were against the secession were harassed and intimidated (Nougayrède, 2017). Aristotle indeed advises to use examples,

18

“…we must employ examples as demonstrative proofs, for conviction is produced by these…” (Rhet.2.20.9[Freese, 1939]). In the confirmatio, the State Government is acknowledged for communicating that the referendum was illegal, was not going to be held, and would be in any case inadmissible, but the secessionists continued with their attack on the democratic rule of law despite knowing the consequences that were conveyed by the State. This core argument could be constructed as a syllogism:

Unconstitutional events are inadmissible. The referendum was deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, the referendum is inadmissible. This argument is the very essence of the speaker’s reasoning. Placing the accentuation on the legal conflict while leaving emotions and history faded into background.

19

Nigel Farage: European Union Parliament Speech on 3 October 2017 The analyzed text is an excerpt from the full speech of which the last half is dedicated to the Brexit.

This speech takes place in the EU Parliament session in Strasbourg and is partly broadcasted on television (Farage, 2017). Nigel Farage is introduced as Member of European Parliament and chair of the political group ’Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy’. He is standing and appears to have just stood out of his chair as he adjusts his jacket. The rest of the EU Parliament members are seated. Nigel Farage is dressed in a dark colored suit which is contrasted with the color and print on his tie. From the moment he is awarded the floor, he begins speaking. His speech is very animated with use of intonation and volume changes

There are five cannons of Rhetoric, one of which is actio (delivery). Actio encompasses how a speaker physically preforms the speech through voice and gesture (McKay, 2011). Though it is conceptually simple, it is the most difficult of the five canons to master and is also one of the most important (The Canons of Rhetoric, 2018). Aristotle claims that voice, emotion and tones are important,

“Now delivery is a matter of voice, as to the mode in which it should be used for each particular emotion; when it should be loud, when low, when intermediate and how the tones, that is shrill, deep and intermediate, should be used and what rhythms are adapted to each subject.” (Rhet.,3.1.4[Freese, 1939]). His movements accentuate his speech. By rocking up onto his toes, stretching his height, and by using hand gestures, his body language coincides with the change in his tone. The audience is the European Parliament members, as well as the nations of the European Union.

Summary Nigel Farage begins his speech by attacking Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission since 2014, because he has failed to address the dramatic events, in Spain. He sarcastically describes Spain as, “a European Union member state, that is allegedly a modern democracy”. Mr. Farage explicitly mentions the police of Spain injuring 900 people in an attempt to stop them from voting. He continues by illustrating elderly women being dragged out of the polling stations by their hair, and old ladies with gashes on their foreheads. Whereas Prime Minister Rajoy accuses the ‘secessionists’ of illegal behavior, Farage points the finger at

20 the Spanish government, “Whether or not is was legal nationally for people in Catalonia to have a vote, surely people are allowed to express an opinion.”.

Mr. Farage then accuses Mr. Juncker and the European Union of turning a blind eye to the events. He illustrates his disbelief with giving an example of a fictious similar situation between the Scottish National Party and British police and makes the claim that the United Kingdom would have to go before the European Court of Human Rights for such actions. He then concludes by saying that he is glad the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union.

Analysis

This analysis of this speech will be examined by using Aristotle’s ethos, pathos and logos.

Ethos The speaker is a well-known political figure and because of this there is no need to for him to spend time introducing himself. He does, however, take the opportunity to show that he is more concerned with the national events happening in Spain than the President of the European Commission, Mr. Juncker. This promoted his ethos and allowed for him to be seen as more in tune to the events. He also used ethos briefly by stating that he has called the European Union undemocratic and antidemocratic, proving he was brave enough to withstand criticism in the face of animosity.

Pathos The speaker illustrated how the Guardia Civil injured people who were attempting to vote. He was detailed in his account of the injuries and choose to use examples of injured women and the elderly to elicit emotion. He wants his audience, including the other European Parliament Members, to feel anger because the European Union is not responding to the situation as he believes it should. Aristotle claims,

“…men are angry when the event is contrary to their expectation, for the more unexpected a thing is, the more it pains…” (Rhet.,2.2.8-11[Freese, 1939]). He is also trying to rise indignation. He perceives the treatment that the Spanish state showed Catalonia during the referendum to be unfair. He also sees the reluctancy of the European Union to intervene as unfair treatment. Aristotle speaks about indignation,

21

“…indignation is the antithesis to pity; for the being pained at undeserved good fortune is a manner contrary to being pained at undeserved bad fortune and arises from the same character. And both emotions show good character, for if we sympathize with and pity those who suffer undeservedly, we ought to be indignant with those who prosper undeservedly… Now, all who feel envy and indignation must have this in common, that they are disturbed, not because they think that any harm will happen to themselves, but on account of their neighbor…” (Rhet.,2.9.16-10[Freese, 1939]). Logos In Article 2 of the TEU (Treaty on the European Union) , the European Union explicitly mentions its core values:

“Article 2: The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” (Lisbon-Treaty.org, 2018). Farage states that the European Union is prepared to turn a blind eye and does not have the courage to condemn the Spanish government for its use of violence and violations of the freedom of speech.

22

Felipe VI, King of Spain: State of the Union Address on 3 October 2017 This speech opens with Felipe VI, King of Spain, seated behind a desk and against a patriotic background complete with the national flag of Spain and the European Union flag. (Felipe VI, 2017). The King is dressed in a dark suit. On the desk, a sheet of paper is visible, though is not used to read from. The audience that Felipe VI, King of Spain, delivers this speech to is the Spanish nation. Due to the international attention for the referendum in Catalonia, the international community will be indirectly addressed. This state of the union is delivered via televised broadcast, making it live and available to all the audiences.

Summary In the exordium of this speech, the king briefly greets the audience and states he wishes to address “all Spaniards’, implicitly including Catalonians. He does not expand on events that have unfolded in Catalonia. Instead he focuses on the role that the Catalan authorities played in these events and criticizes them for their disregard for the Constitution and their own Statute of Autonomy, “which is the law that acknowledges, protects and safeguards their institutions and their self-government”. King Felipe VI accuses the Catalonian authorities of having systematically infringed on rules to “have shown an unacceptable disloyalty towards the institutions of the state”, of which they form part themselves, to “have violated democratic principles of the rule of law” and to “have undermined Catalan society’s harmony and coexistence”. Subsequently, King Felipe VI summarizes and repeats his accusations, directed at the Catalan authorities by stating that the referendum was “an unacceptable attempt to take over the historical institutions of Catalonia”. He claims that the responsible authorities placed themselves outside the law and outside democracy and tried to break Spain’s unity and national sovereignty.

After the accusations addressed to the Catalonian authorities, King Felipe VI focuses on the response of the Spanish government who has the responsibility to guarantee constitutional order and the normal functioning of the institutions, the validity of the rule of law, and Catalonia’s self-government, based on the Constitution and their own Statute of Autonomy.

In his peroratio King Felipe VI addresses all Spaniards and in particular the Catalans. He commands the Catalans to use the legal tools to defend their ideas, bring about change and reach out to the Catalonians who disagree with the Catalonia authorities. In the second part of the

23 conclusion, he is addressing all the Spaniards who are sad and distressed about the events and sends them “a message of calm, confidence, and hope” and guarantees that they will overcome these troubled and complicated times. Finally, he ends with a message emphasizing the Crown’s commitment to the constitution and to democracy, his dedication to a climate of understanding and harmony and his commitment, as King, to the unity and continuity of Spain.

Analysis The analysis of this speech will be examined by using Aristotle’s ethos, pathos and logos.

Ethos Since the speaker’s position as King gives him authority, he does not need to gain credibility in his speech. His personal appearance gives him authority as he is dressed in a suit. King Felipe VI is the only speaker of the four speeches who delivers his speech while sitting. He speaks in a calm manner, but with a steady voice as he wishes to be seen as a stable foundation for all of Spain and the global audience.

The final words of the speech are ethos by stating that, giving authority to the “Crown’s firm commitment to the Constitution and to democracy, my own dedication to a climate of understanding and harmony among Spaniards, and my commitment, as king, to the unity and continuity of Spain.”.

Pathos When examining this speech, two pillars that become overwhelmingly apparent are pathos and logos. Although the speech begins with rational arguments (logos), the organization of the speech places the pathos more heavily at the end of the speech in the peroratio.

In the exordium, the opening line aims to arouse fear or anxiety: “We find ourselves at a critical juncture for our existence as a democracy.”. A “critical juncture” implies that caution needs to be used for proceeding into “our existence as a democracy”. The use of “our” creates unity among the audience and “existence” in combination with “critical” elicits the fear of “non-existence”. The speaker immediately has the audience enthralled in the conflict. According to Aristotle,

“if then fear is accompanied by the expectation that we are going to suffer some fatal misfortune…” (Rhet.,2.5.10-13[Freese, 1939]).

24

After having addressed all Spaniards, he refers to “certain Catalan authorities”, “For a long time, certain Catalan authorities have repeatedly, consciously and deliberately flouted the Constitution and their own Statute of Autonomy. […] and with their reckless behavior, they may be even endangering the economic and social stability of Catalonia and of Spain as a whole.”. The speaker wants to isolate the ‘Catalan authorities’ in an us-versus-them discourse so that the audience does not feel blame of the accusations made against the ‘Catalan authorities’, even if they are supporters of this group. Aristotle sees blame as,

“The end of those who praise and blame is the honorable and the disgraceful; and they also refer to all other considerations to these.” (Rhet.,1.3.4-6[Freese, 1939]). The speaker continues to use the us-versus-them discourse throughout the speech.

The conclusion (peroratio) of the speech includes a series of messages. The target group of these messages is either Spain as a whole or the Catalan society. “Today I wish to send several messages to all Spaniards and in particular to Catalans.” Unity is created in this opening line by the inclusion of Catalans in ‘all Spaniards’.

The first message is addressed to the citizens of Catalonia ‘to all of them’, “that we have already been living for several decades in a democratic State, which proves constitutional means for anyone to defend their ideas within the law.”. The unification, “In a democratic and constitutional Spain, [allows to] have space to coexist and get along with all their fellow citizens.”. The second message also addresses unity by denouncing the Catalan authorities’ behavior and easing the minds of Catalans who are concerned and anxious about the Catalan authorities’ behavior, “To those who feel that way, I assure that they are not, nor will they be, alone; they have all the support and the solidarity of the rest of the Spanish people, as well as the absolute guarantee given by the rule of law in the defense of their freedom and their rights”. The final message, addressed to all Spaniards, “who are living through these events full of sadness and distress, I send a message of calm, confidence, and hope.”. The pathos of fear evoked by the speaker is now subdued by the speaker. This happens a second and third time, “These are troubled times, but we will overcome them. These are very complicated times, but we will get through them, “…we believe in our country…”, “our democratic principles are solid and strong.”, and “…millions and millions of Spaniards who want a peaceful and free

25 coexistence.”. Another illustration leaves the audience with its final persuasion for a unified Spain, “…we have gradually built Spain in these last decades. And that is how we must go forward, with serenity and determination. On this road, in that improved Spain that we all desire, Catalonia will be there too.”.

Logos Just like Rajoy, King Felipe VI uses the legal argument to support the position of the Spanish government. The Catalonian authorities have systematically infringed on legal rules, been disloyal to the Spanish state, and violated the democratic principles of the rule of law. By organizing a referendum, the Catalan authorities did not respect the decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court, which suspended the self-determination referendum laws. The word ‘systematically’ refers to a prior referendum that was held, in the form of a poll, that had also been declared as illegal. This argument leaves the audience the ability to conclude that the Catalan authorities are notorious for infringing on the law. The speaker is very blunt and clear that there is no other form of interpretation for the actions of the Catalan authorities other than that they violated the democratic rule of law with their actions.

26

President of the Catalan Government Carles Puigdemont: Catalan Parliament on 10 October 2017 This speech takes place on 10 October 2017, 9 days after the referendum took place. The world has stood by watching and speculating about the message that will be conveyed through this speech. The setting of this speech is in the Catalan Parliament. The room is filled with members of parliament. The podium which President Puigdemont makes his speech from, is found in the focal point of the room, with all the members’ attention drawn to it. President Puigdemont is dressed in a suit. He carries with him his speech on paper from which he will read. This is contrary to Aristotle’s advice to memorize a speech (memoria, being one of the five rhetorical canons). Behind him hangs prominently the crest of Catalonia adorned with the Catalan flag and the Spanish Flag to the left (Puigdemont, 2017). President Puigdemont is granted the podium by the chamber to make his speech. The speaker reads his speech, while also making eye contact with the audience of the Catalan Parliament. The speech in its entirety is around twenty-eight minutes long, which in comparison to the other three speeches analyzed, makes this one certainly the longest.

Summary The speech begins by introducing the main topic: the results of the referendum held on October 1st 2017. By stressing that Catalonia is a European issue, Puigdemont makes clear that the audience of his speech are not only the Catalans, but also the European Union. He addresses those who participated in the events of the 1st and the 3rd of October and also those who didn’t participate at all. The idea of dialogue is the main theme of the speech. Against expectations, Puigdemont did not declare independence in this speech, but suspended the effects of the declaration of independence so that a dialogue can take place. Without a dialogue there will surely never be an agreed resolution.

In the narratio, which directly follows the exordium Puigdemont describes the violent police attacks both prior to the referendum being held, as well as during the voting. He then introduces statistical information about the voting turnout.

In the conformatio, it is explicitly noted that the issue at hand has attracted global interest. He accentuates the global audience in an attempt to help them better understand the

27 perspective of Catalonia. This effort begins with a brief Catalonian history, showcasing repressed Catalonia, but moving onward towards a democratic and self-governing Catalonia. The Catalan Parliament approved a proposal in 2005 for a new Statute of Autonomy, wherein they approved defining Catalonia as a ‘nation’. This proposal was changed drastically in textual content before becoming the referendum that was voted upon in 2006. This statute and its textual content is described as being diluted from its original content. This ultimately lead to a law being enforced which was not what was voted upon by the Catalonian people. This is a crucial argument in why Catalonia is trying to modify its status.

Additionally, it is emphasized that over the following 7 years, the Spanish political system has not attempted to repair the harm done in 2010 but have continually insulted Catalonia in the form of other laws and decrees past, lack of investment in infrastructure in Catalonia and being disrespectful towards the Catalonia language and culture. Because of these grievances, Catalans feel that for their culture and society to survive, they must be self-governed and the results of the referendum are testament to this.

The referendum between Scotland and the United Kingdom is used as an example of how Catalonia urged the Spanish government to acknowledge their request. However, all initiatives were rejected with an absolute “no” and even led to politicians being “banned from holding office for having promoted a non-binding participative process without juridical effect”

In summary of the arguments, the Catalan people are described as wanting the freedom to decide for themselves, but always being denied it. This denial is due to a lack of dialogue in the past that has carried on into the present. The speech explicitly points out that the Catalan government had hoped that the speech made by King Felipe VI would have found its place as a moderating role in favor of dialogue between these two institutions, however they were disappointed when this was far from the message sent.

In the peroratio, the people of Spain are addressed, but a differentiation is made between the Spanish state and Catalonia. The speaker pleads for dialogue and political accord. A plea is also made to ignore the media driven image that has been created and try to understand the viewpoint of Catalonia. Next, Puigdemont reiterates that the issue at hand is being closely followed by the rest of the world. He believes Catalonia has earned the right to be an independent state.

28

In conclusion, Catalans are addressed and asked to uphold their beliefs, the Spanish government is addressed and asked to listen, the international community is addressed indirectly and asked for help in mediation, the European Union is directly addressed and asked to become involved in upholding the values of the Union in regards to this situation. All of this is asked in a gesture to reach out in dialogue to resolve the conflict.

Analysis

The analysis of this speech will be examined by using Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos Not only does Carles Puigdemont hold the title of the President of the Catalan government, but he also is introduced as such when he is granted the floor to make the speech. The speaker reads his speech, while also making eye contact with the audience of the Catalan Parliament. The speech is delivered with a clear, calm, and deliberate voice adding to his credibility.

Carles Puigdemont presents himself as a person, who understands the necessity to de- escalate the tension, who is open to dialogue and is willing to take into account different perspectives and suggestions. Throughout his speech he mentions the word ‘dialogue’ 14 times and ‘responsibility’ 6 times. On the one hand, Carles Puigdemont is responding to Prime Minister Rajoy, stating that he is open to the dialogue mentioned in the speech on the 1st October 2017. On the other hand he is addressing the audience who will be disappointed when he suspends the independence declaration by stating that beginning a dialogue is not only the responsible way to resolve this tension within Spain. He believes dialogue is the only way to resolve the situation.

Throughout the text, President Puigdemont expresses gratitude towards various groups such as, “all of the people who made possible this logistical and political success, the volunteers, citizens who kept polling boxes in their homes, etc.”. This offering of thanks, which is reiterated throughout his speech, exemplifies his image as a virtuous person. President Puigdemont tries to refute the perception Spaniards apparently have of Catalans by stating the following: “we are not delinquents, nor are we crazy, nor are we attempting a coup, nor just some bad people.” He

29 claims the Catalans to be “normal people who ask to be able to vote and who have been willing to undertake all necessary dialogue to carry it out in an agreed manner”. He also portrays being virtuous by striving to respectfully solve the conflict through dialogue and not through escalating the tension. He concludes by calling on the responsibility of everyone, making himself a figure of authority. While asking for help and mutual resolution, he attempts to place himself at the same level as other international authorities in hopes of gaining traction in his quest.

Pathos Carles Puigdemont is amplifying anger among the Catalan audience by referring to the police violence that he explicitly and vividly recalls by saying that the Guardia Civil beat defenseless people and sent over 800 people to the hospital. He arouses anger again when he recalls the history of Catalonia and the oppression they have felt. The Statute of Autonomy of 2006 also provokes anger. Catalonians remember that the text which they felt very strongly about was changed by the Constitutional court from its original content, and still was adopted nonetheless.

Throughout the speech, President Puigdemont addresses the international audience and, particularly, the European Union, by reminding them that ‘Catalonia is a European issue’. President Puigdemont invites the European Union to feel sympathy and pity with the Catalonians. The brief history of Catalonia’s hardships lays the foundation for pity to be felt in the consequences inflicted upon Catalonia by the Spanish government.

According to Aristotle,

“…all that men fear in regard to themselves excites their pity when other are the victims. And since sufferings are pitiable when they appear close at hand, while those that are past or future, ten thousand years backwards or forwards, either do not excite pity at all or only in a less degree, because men neither expect the one nor remembers the other, it follows that those who contribute to the effect by gestures, voice, dress, and dramatic action generally, are more pitiable; for they make the evil appear close at hand, setting it before our eyes as either future or past. And disasters that have just happened or are soon about to happen excite more pity for the same reason.” (Rhet.,2.8.14-16[Freese, 1939]). Another key pathos in this speech is calmness. Aristotle describes mildness and the reasons for use of calmness,

30

“Let us define making milk as the quieting and appeasing of anger. If then men are angry with those who slight them, and slight is voluntary, it is evident that they are mild towards those who do none of these things, or do them involuntarily, or at least appear to be such…” (Rhet.,2.2.23-3[Freese, 1939]). Several times in the speech, words and phrases are used to invoke calmness such as, “de- escalate tension”, “serenity and tranquility” and “lower the tension”. These phrases can be directed at those in favor of the Spanish government but also at the supporters of the referendum. President Puigdemont wants to avoid an angry Catalonia directed at him when he finishes the speech and has not declared independence, as was anticipated, predicted, hoped and fought for. The use of calmness provides an argumentation to support his decision to delay a declaration of independence and focus on dialogue so that the conflict may be resolved in a peaceful manner. He does not want the decision to be based on his own personal preferences but on the necessity to the “de-escalation of tension” for the good of all of Spain.

Logos The history of Catalonia also serves as logos as well as pathos. Showing that the conflict has been an ongoing problem, and the resolution is ignored, giving way to an uprising by Catalonia. When citing the recent history from 2005 onward, some statistics are repeated to further emphasize their value, including the repercussion on the economy which is very important within Spain. All of these historical arguments support the validity of the referendum and the speakers main logos, “…with the results of the referendum on October 1st, Catalonia has earned the right to be an independent state and has earned the right to be respected.”.

The speaker uses historical and statistical support to articulate his main argument, namely that the referendum is valid. During the explanation of historical events he makes use of metaphors to make his meaning clear. According to Aristotle,

“for all use metaphors in conversation, as well as proper and appropriate words; wherefore it is clear that, if a speaker manages well, there will be something ‘foreign’ about his speech, while possibly the art may not be detected and his meaning will be clear. And this, as we have said, is the chief merit of rhetorical language.” (Rhet.,3.2.6-7[Freese, 1939]). The description of “watered down” is used when discussing the 2010 statute and its meaning. This shows that the Constitutional Court has changed the meaning of the original referendum of 2006 in a way that minimizes and belittles the wishes of

31

Catalonia. This metaphor is used twice, to represent both instances in which the statute was changed. This metaphor holds importance because for most of the population watching this speech, 2010 is the most recent past event that directly connects to the current events of the referendum.

Another metaphor is used when describing the conflict that arose when the 2010 Statute was changed, stating; “…the Spanish political system not only has not moved a finger to try to go back and repair this break…”. The personification the Spanish political system, allows the blatant refusal to work together towards a common interest of compromise, to become clear to the audience.

Additionally, many statistics find a place in this speech, serving as support to logos. The number of voters who took part in the referendum, the estimated total persons unable to vote, and the number of closed websites, symbolize the importance of the referendum. The effects felt by the block of the Spanish government on the referendum, serve as ammo in the support of the main argument.

32

Chapter 4 Introduction The central question to this research is, “What does the Aristotelian rhetorical analysis of a selection of political speeches, delivered against the background of the most recent pursuit of independence by Catalonia, teach us about the conflict between Spain and Catalonia?”. The choice of speeches includes 1) the speech delivered by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy on October 1st 2017, the day of the referendum, 2) an address to the European Union Parliament in Strasbourg delivered by Nigel Farage on October 3rd 2017, 3) a state of the union delivered by Felipe VI, King of Spain, on October 3rd 2017, and, finally, a speech delivered in parliament by Charles Puigdemont on October 10th 2017. The speeches are analyzed using Aristotelian rhetoric, focusing on the three rhetorical tools to convince an audience, i.e., ethos, pathos, and logos. From the analysis, it appears that the protagonists in the conflict, such as Prime Minister Rajoy and King Felipe IV mainly use legal arguments whereas President Puigdemont and Nigel Farage mainly focus on pathos to convey their message. Historical and economical arguments make their way to the forefront as support where pathos has the stronghold.

Ethos, Pathos & Logos The rhetorical analysis of this selection of speeches shows that the conflict between Spain and Catalonia encompasses many emotions, which are exploited to gain support by political entities. Since the speakers were key political figures, they upheld authority and credibility was implied in their position. The use of Pathos for persuasion in the speeches is very apparent. Particularly in the speech by Puigdemont, where he uses the historical account of the recent legal history to illuminate and intensify the emotions felt for the referendum of October 1st 2017. The largest portion of the argumentation are logical and rational arguments, which can either be legal, historical or, to a lesser extent, economic arguments. The paramount message from each speech is that dialogue is necessary and that each political entity is willing and ready to engage. For the future of Catalonia and Spain, a dialogue is necessary to begin a compromise. As long as the parties continue to be trapped within their legal reasoning and do not realize that this is not a legal conflict, but a political conflict, a solution to the crisis might not be near.

33

The Legality of Spanish Constitutionalists In his speech, Prime Minister Rajoy’s mainly uses logos to convince his audience and make his point. He highlights the referendum as a defiance and attack of democracy, turning what is essentially a political conflict into a legal conflict. He is backed by the Spanish constitutional court, who had suspended the self-determination referendum law in September 2017, because they held it to be contrary to article 2 of the Spanish Constitution, “which confirms the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation”:

“The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible country of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed, and the solidarity amongst them all.” (The Spanish Constitution , 1978). The weight of the words ‘indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation, the common and indivisible country of all Spaniards’ indeed are paramount. Prime Minister Rajoy also implicitly points to Article 6 of the Constitution, where it states,

“Political parties are the expression of political pluralism; they contribute to the formation and expression of the will of the people and are a fundamental instrument for political participation. Their creation and the exercise of their activities are free in so far as they respect the Constitution and the law. Their internal structure and operation must be democratic.” (The Spanish Constitution , 1978). Article 6 only allows the freedom of political parties when they “respect the Constitution and the law”.

To further emphasize the strength and validity of the rule of law and the Spanish democracy, Prime Minister Rajoy states, “I am not going to close a single door. I have never done so. That is not my way of engaging in politics. I have always offered honest, sincere dialogue. But always within the law, and always within the framework of democracy”. This reference can be indirectly related to Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution (Costa, 2017) which states,

“1. If an Autonomous Community does not fulfil the obligations imposed upon it by the Constitution or other laws, or acts in a way seriously prejudicing the general interests of Spain, the Government, after lodging a complaint with the President of the Autonomous Community and failing to receive satisfaction therefore, may, following approval granted by an absolute majority of the Senate, take the Control of the bodies of the Autonomous Communities Government

34

Delegate in the Autonomous Communities measures necessary in order to compel the latter forcibly to meet said obligations, or in order to protect the above- mentioned general interests. 2. With a view to implementing the measures provided in the foregoing clause, the Government may issue instructions to all the authorities of the Autonomous Communities.” (The Spanish Constitution , 1978). Article 155 consists of two paragraphs in the Spanish Constitution of 1978. This article has never before been used, and is a forceful tool to take full administrative control of Catalonia. As there is a lack of precedent, Prime Minister Rajoy is able to implement Article 155 as broad or as narrow as he wishes, leaving the total seizure of Catalonia possible. That is why article 155 has often been described as the “Nuclear Option” (Minder, 2017). This is a direct threat to Carles Puigdemont, as the ambiguity of the use of this option could directly affect him and his cause. On the 27th of October 2017, the Spanish government imposed direct rule on Catalonia under article 155 of the Spanish Constitution, dissolved its parliament and announced new elections after secessionist Catalan MP’s voted to establish an independent republic.

King Felipe VI’s speech echoed the core argument of Prime Minister Rajoy’s speech. The goal of regaining constitutional order is of the utmost importance and any means necessary to obtain it should be taken. King Felipe VI’s speech gives us an interesting observation into the relationship between Spain and Catalonia. A monarch of a country is often seen as a moderator when difficult situations arise. In this crisis, it is clear from his speech that King Felipe VI has taken a stance alongside Prime Minister Rajoy and shakes his finger in disapproval of the secessionists for the world to see.

Prime Minister Rajoy and Felipe VI, King of Spain both uphold that the democracy of Spain is solid and strong, and this is something they appear to both be very proud of. They also share a sense of responsibility to protect and promote the democracy as they see it as the key to social harmony within Spain, but also use the legal argument, which is an extreme argument, to support their case.

The Legality of Catalan Independents Both Puigdemont and Nigel Farage focus on the violent events, which took place on the day of the referendum, which Prime Minister Rajoy choose to ignore and not to mention. Mr. Farage calls for action on behalf of the European Union to intervene in this exploding crisis since the European Union should protect its citizens from being violently addressed by their own

35 government. He uses the crisis to criticize the European Union and promote his own anti- European agenda.

Carles Puigdemont’s speech is also a call for intervention by the European Union. He elicits help by recalling the violent attacks by the Guardia Civil. He points out that Spain is one of their own member states and he wants the situation to be examined for the moral integrity that the European Union claims to uphold. Throughout his speech he explicitly and repeatedly directs his words to the European Union.

Mr. Puigdemont lays the ground work for the application of Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations (Costa, 2017). It states,

“The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.” (Nations, 1945). Mr. Puigdemont’s relies heavily on Article 1.2 in his speech. He recounts the numerous initiatives of the Catalan institutions and societies for self-determination as proof for unwarranted and absolute negative affirmation of the Spanish government and its institutions (Costa, 2017).

He is implicitly asking the European Union to abide by international law with Catalonia being seen as nation and allowing its peoples the option for self-determination. The European Union sets forth this standard in the EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy, “Without global norms and the means to enforce them, peace and security, prosperity and democracy – our vital interests – are at risk. Guided by the values on which it is founded, the EU is committed to a global order based on international law, including the principles of the UN Charter. The EU will strive for a strong UN as the bedrock of the multilateral rules-based order

36 and develop globally coordinated responses with international and regional organizations, states and nonstate actors.” (Union, 2017).

Mr. Puigdemont implies that they [Catalan secessionists] are not delinquents but just normal people who seek being free to be able to decide about their political status, pursue their economic, social and cultural development and through the use of succession they are exercising of the right to self-determination (Costa, 2017). Puigdemont portrays Catalonia to the European Union as a permanent minority which may not govern themselves nor become what they want to be and through this he is legitimatizing their right to self-determination through the interpretation of international law as defined by the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the secession of Quebec (Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998). The allowance for the exercising of the right to self-determination in the Canadian constitutional system negates the invoking of the right to self-determination to secede unilaterally. Mr. Puigdemont attempts to show that they do not have this right through making it explicit that the Spanish governments has refused them the right all 18 times they have requested it.

History and Economics In his speech, Mr. Puigdemont outlined the history of Catalonia and Spain, using a historical argumentation to support Catalonia’s claim for independence. Beginning with the death of Francisco Franco, Catalonia is deemed ‘the economic engine of Spain’ as well as a ‘modernizing and stabling influence’. This is the only place where economics is brought into the light. This important argument shows that Catalonia is responsible for one fifth of Spain’s total Gross Domestic Product, which is significantly unproportioned to the relatively small size of the region (Henley, 2017). Mr. Puigdemont describes the Spanish Constitution of 1978 as being seen by Catalonia as a point of departure for self- government but the dominant elite of the state saw it as a point of arrival, and this lead to a halt in evolving Catalonia in the direction they wanted to achieve and ultimately devolving their goals. Prime Minister Rajoy also makes some comments on the historical aspect of this conflict. He states to experience the act of self-determination as yet ‘one more episode in a strategy attacking democratic harmony and legality’. Prime Minister Rajoy also comments on the ‘shared history’ and being committed to ‘progress’.

37

Conclusion In conclusion, the main findings of this research show that there is a great deal to be learned from Aristotelian rhetorical analysis of modern day speeches. Within the four speeches it was found that logos comprised the largest portion of persuasion. In the speeches immediately following the referendum that took place on October 1st 2017, Prime Minister Rajoy and Felipe IV King of Spain focused the attention on the legal argumentation. Nigel Farage gives a speech directly to the European Union where he used pathos to lay heavy weight on the moral values the European Union vowed to uphold. After almost two weeks had passed since the referendum had taken place, Carles Puigdemont delivers his speech full of pathos in a plea to remember the hopefully not forgotten past and the values Catalonia had fought to preserve.

The legal aspects were veiled in the logical argumentation such as Catalonia’s right to self-determination, the European Union’s obligation to uphold the UN Charter, and the Spanish Constitutions relationship with the Catalonian’s Statute for Autonomy. History found itself linked in both pathos and logos when presented. The historical accounts not only served as argumentation but also as a conviction for the continuation of supporting the values Catalonia exclaims. The economical argumentation comprised a smaller portion of persuasive power but was made explicit.

What does the Aristotelian rhetorical analysis of a selection of political speeches, delivered against the background of the most recent pursuit of independence by Catalonia, teach us about the conflict between Spain and Catalonia? It teaches us that underneath all the social media stories, posts, and tweets that we gather our news from, there is a deep-rooted history void of insufficient dialogue that has led to a continuous conflict. This conflict has erupted on legal, historical and economical levels and on an international and global scale. The parties involved are being summoned and pleaded with to begin a dialogue. Dialogue is paramount in the resolution of the conflict between Spain and Catalonia.

38

Bibliography (2018). Retrieved from Generalitat de Catalunya: http://web.gencat.cat/en/generalitat/estatut/estatut2006/titol_4/

Aristotle. (1975). Art of Rhetoric. In J. Freese. London: Harvard University Press.

Braet, A. C. (1992). Ethos, Pathos and Logos in Aristotle's Rhetoric: A Re-Examination. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 307-320.

Britannica, E. (2018, May 27). Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/art/epideictic-oratory

Catalonia. (2018). Retrieved from https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/Catalonia/20756

Convergence and Union. (2018). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/Convergence-and-Union/389142

Costa, J. (2017, April 20). DIPLOCAT. Retrieved from Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia : https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/LINK_ECDFIL20170927_0002.pdf

Demirdogen, Ü. D. (2010). The Roots of Research in (political) Persuasion: Ethos, Pathos, Logos and the Yale Studies of Persuasive Communications. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 189-201.

Frost, M. (1994). Ethos, Pathos & (and) Legal Audience. 99 Dick. L. Rev. 85 , 85-116.

Hannah Strange, J. B. (2017, October 1). Catalan referendum: Riot police 'fire rubber bullets' at crowd as they block voters at besieged polling stations - latest news. Retrieved from The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/01/catalan-referendum-spanish- riot-police-force-way-polling-station/

Lisbon-Treaty.org. (2018, April 07). Retrieved from http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the- lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/2- article-2.html

McKay, B. M. (2011, January 26). Classical Rhetoric 101: The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Invention. Retrieved from The Art of Manliness :

39

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/classical-rhetoric-101-the-five-canons-of- rhetoric-invention/

Minder, R. (2017, October 20). The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/world/europe/catalonia-article-155.html

Nations, U. (1945, October 24). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

Nougayrède, N. (2017, October 20). The Catalan case is persuasive. But that way lies ruin . Retrieved from The Guardian : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/catalan-case-persuasive-ruin- separatists-nationalism

Puigdemont, C. (2017, October 10). France 24 . Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9QRcXpQHc4

Rajoy, M. (2017, October 1). Ruptly. Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0YBVFWpc-E

Reference re Secession of Quebec, 25506 (Supreme Court of Canada August 20, 1998).

Rothchild, J. A. (n.d.). Introduction to Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE. Wayne State University.

Stone, J. (2017, October 27). Catalonia’s independence: How did it happen? A timeline of key events. Retrieved from Independent : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catalonia-independence-what- happened-spain-timeline-events-referendum-latest-a8023711.html

The Canons of Rhetoric. (2018, May 27). Retrieved from https://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0 205943586.pdf

The Spanish Constitution . (1978, 12 27). Retrieved from Boletin Oficial del Estado: https://www.boe.es/legislacion/documentos/ConstitucionINGLES.pdf

40

Union, E. (2017, September 14). The European Union at the United Nations. Retrieved from European Union External Action : https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu- un_relations_fact_sheet.pdf

Vasco Cotovio, I. S. (2017, October 1). Hundreds injured as Spain cracks down on Catalan referendum. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/01/europe/catalonia- spain-independence-referendum-vote/index.html

41

Attachment 1: President Rajoy: Press Conference Translation found: http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Embajadas/HELSINKI/EN/Noticias/Pages/Articulos/20171002_N OT1.aspx

“Ladies and Gentlemen, I wanted to talk to all of you tonight as President of the Government of Spain. A great nation, one of the oldest in Europe and one of the most developed in the world; a mature, advanced democracy, friendly and tolerant, but also strong and determined, which constitutes a State under the rule of law, guaranteed for all. Our nation. I have always believed that my main obligation, as President of the Government, is to abide by the law and to enforce the law. To protect and guarantee democracy. But also to protect social harmony and seek consensus. To be the President of the Government of every Spaniard—of those who voted for me, and of those who never will. This is what I have always done. And this is what I want to talk to you about this evening. At this time I can tell you emphatically what we have seen throughout the course of the day: Today, there has been no referendum on self-determination in Catalonia. Today, every Spaniard has been able to see that our democratic State under rule of law maintains its strength and validity. That it responds to those who defy it. That it reacts to those who would subvert it. That it acts with every legal recourse available in the face of any kind of provocation. And that it does this efficiently and calmly. Today, what we have seen is not some kind of consultation; rather, it was just a show. One more episode in a strategy attacking democratic harmony and legality. An episode disconnected from reality and from the majority of society, and which therefore has been an unmitigated failure. With this irresponsible political strategy, the secessionists have tried to steal the voice of those who think differently from them. They have violated the most fundamental rights and gone beyond the most basic limits of democratic decorum. We could clearly see this in the plenary session of the Parlament [Catalan Parliament] of 6 and 7 September, when in just a few hours they wanted to wipe out the Spanish Constitution and the Estatut [Statutes of Catalonia] with a single stroke of a pen, at the same time as they were liquidating the democratic rights of every member of the opposition.

42

To claim that the arbitrary actions and abuses that we have seen since then could pass for democratic exercises is to make a mockery of the very essence of democracy.

We have seen conduct and attitudes that are repulsive to anyone who believes in democracy and should ever never be repeated again: indoctrination of children, harassment of judges and intimidation of journalists, to give just a few examples. I want to make it crystal clear that those responsible for these events—for those that have occurred today and for those that have brought us to this point—are solely and exclusively those who have promoted the violation of the law and the breakdown of social harmony. Foremost in my thoughts are the many, many Catalans who have been fooled when they were called to participate in a mobilization that was illegal, logistically chaotic, and without any kind of guarantees. I understand the frustration that they might feel today, and I am sincerely saddened by it. But I am also telling them that the way to debate their political demands can never be to break the law or to impose on others, but rather, to engage in a loyal dialogue in which everyone can be heard and understood. I want to affirm before all of Spain that the vast majority of the people of Catalonia have not wanted to play along with the script written by the secessionists. This is indisputable. Today, the vast majority of Catalans have shown that they are law-abiding people, in the noblest sense of that expression. Without noise and without fuss, they have ignored the call to the polls, and in doing so they knew that they were taking the side of democracy, the side in favour of social harmony. I would like to thank them most especially. They have shown signs of great civic responsibility and of the utmost respect for the principles that underpin our society. They have been able to resist the onslaught of the worse kind of populist practices. They need to know that all Spaniards appreciate their attitude. With a stance of respect for peaceful and legal coexistence, together we have built and will continue to build a nation that has been able to construct a full-fledged democracy and a common commitment to wellbeing and progress. Throughout our long shared history, we Spaniards have been capable of overcoming our most painful differences, as well as what seemed to be our most insurmountable difficulties. We have been an example for the entire world due to our capacity to believe in ourselves and to make progress with every step. And that is also true today.

43

The Government has maintained at every moment that this referendum was not going to be held. And this has been known for months to those who have promoted this act of defiance. They admitted as much this week. They recognised it with absolute clarity yesterday. And today, they have confirmed it. They knew that the referendum was illegal, inadmissible, and impossible. But they decided to go ahead, and to promote a veritable attack on the rule of law and our democratic model. A conscious, premeditated attack, to which the State has reacted firmly and calmly: the referendum that aimed to wipe out the Spanish Constitution has not existed. It has been avoided with the foundation of the law, with the support of those who believe in democracy, with the determination of the courts, and with the actions of the State security forces. Here, I would like to thank the political parties that have shown their loyalty to the State in these difficult circumstances; to thank the judges and prosecutors who have applied the law without fear of the harassment that has targeted them; to thank the State security forces and municipal police. They have done their duty, and fulfilled the mandate they received from the courts. It would have been easier for all of them to look the other way as such a serious attack on our legal system was perpetrated—but they did not. They have all responded loyally, with a commitment to democracy and to the rule of law. I would also like to highlight and express gratitude for the unfailing support of the European Union and the entire international community which, at all times, has understood that what was at stake here was the validity of our constitutional system. And I want everyone to know that we have done what we had to do. We have done our duty. We have acted, as I said at the beginning, under the law and solely under the law. And we have shown that our democratic State has the resources to defend itself against an attack as serious as the one that this illegal referendum has tried to perpetrate. Today, democracy has prevailed because the Constitution has been fulfilled. From the beginning of this senseless process, and throughout today, we have seen how some have tried to circumvent the law, breaking the bonds of social harmony, and the limits of public order.

44

But what they have faced instead is the calm and common sense of those who know that their rights and freedoms are protected by the legislation in force, guaranteed by the courts, and backed by the rule of law. Today, we all have reasons to trust democracy. We have seen the failure of a process that has only served to sow division, turn people against each other, incite disorder in the streets, and provoke undesired situations. It has only served to cause grave harm to social harmony— something that we must begin to get back as soon as we can. I am saying this loud and clear. I am not going to close a single door. I have never done so. That is not my way of engaging in politics. I have always offered honest, sincere dialogue. But always within the law, and always within the framework of democracy. Social harmony in Spain has always been based on agreements. And it must continue to be so. I will not allow the commitment to concord of the last forty years to be replaced by a handful of people blackmailing an entire nation. They have had many opportunities to desist from their illegal endeavour. And they have not wanted to. We have asked them many times to correct their course. And they have not listened. They had every reason to rectify the error of their ways. And they did not want to do that. I hope that they do so now. And that they do not insist on repeating their mistakes. That they refuse to take another step down a road that, as has been made manifest today, leads nowhere. Tomorrow, we must begin to re-establish institutional normalcy. We are going to do it, as always, firmly and calmly. And also, in a spirit of unity. Therefore, I would like to continue to count on the support of the parties that defend our constitutional foundations. Therefore, I intend to convoke all of the political parties with representation in Parliament to reflect, together, on the future that we want to face, together. Furthermore, first thing tomorrow I will ask to appear before the Congress of Deputies. Ladies and Gentlemen, If there is something that I should highlight from this day, it is the confirmation of the strength of Spanish democracy, the effectiveness of our institutions, the loyalty of our public servants, and the unity and responsibility shown by the vast majority of our citizens. These are very solid foundations for Spaniards—and therefore for all Catalans—after all these centuries, to continue united on the path of freedom, justice, progress, and living together in democracy.

45

Good night, and thank you very much.”

46

Attachment 2: Nigel Farage: European Parliament Transcription found: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-04/nigel-farage-blasts-eu- juncker-over-catalonia-spain-violates-article-2-lisbon-treaty

“Aside from the really important issue of Brexit, I think European citizens, those that do take any interest in what happens here, will be stunned that Mr Juncker comes here for his one appearance in the Strasbourg session this week and there is absolutely no mention made of the dramatic events that have taken place inside a European Union member state, that is allegedly a modern democracy.

One of the reasons that I always wanted Brexit was because I thought the system of law making whereby the Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation was something that would in fact damage, and in the end destroy, any concept of national democracy. And yeah, I’ve called the European Union undemocratic, I’ve called it antidemocratic, but never, ever in my fiercest criticisms here did I think we would see the police of a member state of the union injuring 900 people in an attempt to stop them going out to vote.

Whether or not it was legal nationally for people in Catalonia to have a vote, surely people are allowed to express an opinion. We saw women being dragged out of polling stations by their hair, old ladies with gashes in their forehead. The most extraordinary display and what do we get from Mr Juncker today? Not a dickie-bird. In fact previously we had that the rule of law must be maintained and I think it is quite extraordinary to realise that this union is prepared to turn a blind eye. Can you imagine the British police would have roughed up a couple of Scottish National Party protestors or if something happened against a pro-Remain rally you’d all be screaming blue murder, indeed the calls would be that the United Kingdom must go before the European Court of Human Rights and yet with this you don’t even want to talk about it. Knowing as I do, your advance plans, seven of you members states here with your military police, your euro gendarmerie force, all I can say once again is thank god we’re leaving. ------

Brexit was an act of liberation, it was a voice of national self-determination that cannot and will not be stopped, but through this negotiating process I’m afraid from the start you’ve treated us as

47 if we’re some kind of hostage. Unless we pay a ransom, unless we meet all of your demands, all of your demands, then you won’t even have an intelligent conversation with us about trade heading on from here. There are no guarantees that whatever Mrs May says or does that you will ever, even when we’ve met your demands, that you will ever come to us and want to have a sensible trade agreement. And I have to say, that it is sad, in fact it was pitiful, to see the British Prime Minister in Florence. I heard you say that you thought she was being conciliatory, that she’s been grown up, people are happy with what she’s said. Actually Mrs May I’m sad to say isn’t worldly enough to recognise that when you face up to a bully the one thing that you do not do is try to appease them. She’s begging you to give her a transition period and there’s no guarantee that you will do it.

So I do actually agree with the criticisms that I’ve heard around the room about the mixed messages coming out from the UK government. I just hope that in Manchester the Conservative Party start to say in public what they’re all saying to me in private, that she’s a waste of space, she needs to go, that we need a proper Prime Minister who says to Monsieur Barnier ‘okay, here’s a deadline. Here’s a date, we work towards that date and if we can’t reach a sensible deal on trade and everything else then we are simply leaving and reverting to WTO rules.’ This charade cannot go on for year after year, after all we voted for Brexit.”

48

Attachment 3: King Felipe VI State of the Union Address Translation found at: https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/04/inenglish/1507101494_919786.html

“Good evening,

We find ourselves at a critical juncture for our existence as a democracy. In these circumstances, I wish to address all Spaniards. We have all witnessed the events that have taken place in Catalonia, with the illegal declaration of independence as the final goal of the Catalan executive [Generalitat].

For a long time, certain Catalan authorities have repeatedly, consciously and deliberately flouted the Constitution and their own Statute of Autonomy, which is the law that acknowledges, protects and safeguards their historic institutions and their self-government.

With their decisions, they have systematically infringed legally and rightfully approved rules and have shown an unacceptable disloyalty towards the institutions of the State – a State of which, by the way, those authorities are the highest representatives in Catalonia.

They have violated the democratic principles of the rule of law and they have undermined Catalan society’s harmony and coexistence, unfortunately even to the point of driving a wedge within it. Today, Catalan society is fractured and at loggerheads.

The Catalan authorities have underestimated the affections and feelings of solidarity that have united and will long unite the Spaniards, and with their reckless behavior, they may be even endangering the economic and social stability of Catalonia and of Spain as a whole.

In short, this has been the completion of an unacceptable attempt to take over the historic institutions of Catalonia. Those authorities have unequivocally and categorically placed themselves outside the law and outside democracy. They have tried to break Spain’s unity and national sovereignty, which is the right of all Spanish people to democratically decide on their life together.

Therefore, and in light of this extremely serious situation, that requires everyone’s commitment to pursue common interests, the legitimate powers of the state have the responsibility to guarantee constitutional order and the normal functioning of the institutions, the validity of the

49 rule of law and Catalonia’s self-government, based on the Constitution and their own Statute of Autonomy.

Today I wish to send several messages to all Spaniards and in particular to Catalans. To the citizens of Catalonia – to all of them – I wish to reiterate that we have been already been living for several decades in a democratic State, which provides constitutional means for anyone to defend their ideas within the law. Because, as we all know, without respect for the law, there is no possible democratic coexistence in peace and freedom, neither in Catalonia, nor in the rest of Spain, nor anywhere in the world. In a democratic and constitutional Spain, they know that they have space to coexist and get along with all their fellow citizens.

I am well aware that in Catalonia there is also great concern and anxiety about the Catalan authorities’ behavior. To those who feel that way, I assure that they are not, nor will they be, alone; they have all the support and the solidarity of the rest of the Spanish people, as well as the absolute guarantee given by the rule of law in the defense of their freedom and their rights.

To all Spaniards, who are living through these events full of sadness and distress, I send a message of calm, confidence and hope.

These are troubled times, but we will overcome them. These are very complicated times, but we will get through them. Because we believe in our country and we are proud of what we are. Because our democratic principles are solid and strong. And they are like this because they are based on the wishes of millions and millions of Spaniards who want a peaceful and free coexistence. That is how we have gradually built Spain in these last decades. And that is how we must go forward, with serenity and determination. On this road, in that improved Spain that we all desire, Catalonia will be there too.

Let me end these words, addressed to all Spaniards, by emphasizing once again the Crown’s firm commitment to the Constitution and to democracy, my own dedication to a climate of understanding and harmony among Spaniards, and my commitment, as king, to the unity and continuity of Spain.”

50

Attachment 4: Carles Puigdemont : Catalonia Parliament

Transcription found: https://www.barcelonas.com/puigdemonts-parliamentary-statement-on- referendum-on-catalan-independence.html

“I stand here before Parliament to present to you the results of the referendum held on October 1 and to explain the political consequences derived from it. I am conscious, as I’m sure are many of you, that today I also stand before the people of Catalonia and before many others, who have focused their attention on what happens today in this chamber.

We are living in an exceptional time, of historical dimension. The consequences and effects run beyond our country and it’s evident that, far from being an internal and domestic affair, as we have often had to hear from those who neglected their responsibility by not wanting to know about what’s happening, Catalonia is a European issue.

Do not expect, from my speech, threats, blackmail nor insults. The current moment is serious enough for everyone to assume their corresponding responsibility and for the necessity to de- escalate tension and not to contribute to it, neither through word nor gesture. On the other hand, I wish to address the people; those who came out on the 1st and the 3rd of October, those who went to the demonstration on Saturday to advocate for dialogue, and those who came out massively on Sunday in defence of the unity of Spain. And to those who haven’t come out in any of those gatherings. All of us, with all of our differences, with all our points of understanding and divergence, all form part of the same people, and we must continue to work together, whatever happens, because that is how the history of a people who want to build a future is made.

Obviously, we will never agree on everything. But we do understand, because we’ve already demonstrated it, that the way forward can be none other than through democracy and peace. That means respecting those who think differently, and finding a way to make possible collective aspirations, with the realisation that that requires a large dose of dialogue and empathy.

As you may well imagine, in these recent days and hours many have spoken with me, suggesting both what needs to be done and what needs not be done. All of those suggestions are valid, respectable and appropriate for a moment like this. In all cases where I could I appreciated receiving them, because in each one I’ve heard good reasons which are worth listening to. I have

51 also asked the opinion of many people, which has helped me and enriched the analysis of this moment in time and the perspective for the future, and I want to give them my heartfelt thanks.

But what I’m presenting to you today is not a personal decision, nor is it the obsession of any one person: it’s the result of the 1st of October, of the will of the government which I preside over having maintained its commitment to call, organise and hold a referendum of self-determination, and naturally of the analysis of the following facts which we have shared at the core of Government. Today is the time to talk about the results in the Parliament and that’s what we’re going to do.

We are here because on the 1st of October Catalonia held a referendum of self-determination. It was done in conditions, which were, rather than difficult, extreme. It’s the first time in the history of European democracies that an election day was held in the midst of violent police attacks against voters who were queuing to post their vote. From 8 in the morning until the close of polling stations, the Police and Guardia Civil beat defenceless people and obliged the emergency services to attend to more than 800 people. We all saw it, as did the world, which was horrified as the images came through.

The objective was not only to confiscate ballot boxes and voting papers. The objective was to cause panic and make people, as they saw the images of indiscriminate police violence, stay at home and renounce their right to vote. But those politically responsible for these ignominious acts shot themselves in the foot. 2, 286, 217 citizens overcame their fear, left their homes and voted. We don’t know how many were unsuccessful in doing so, but we do know that the polling stations which were closed down violently represented the votes of 770,000 more people.

More than two million two hundred thousand Catalans were able to vote because they overcame their fear, and because when they arrived at their polling station they found ballot boxes, envelopes, voting slips, constituted voting tables and an operative and reliable electoral list. The operations and police searches of the previous weeks in seeking ballot boxes and voting slips did not prevent the referendum. Phone taps, following people, cyber-attacks, the closure of 140 websites, interference in correspondence, none of these things could stop the referendum. I repeat: in spite of the efforts and resources dedicated to prevent it happening, when the citizens

52 arrived at the polling stations, they found ballot boxes, envelopes, voting slips, constituted voting tables and an operative and reliable electoral list.

I wish, therefore, to recognise and appreciate all of the people who made possible this logistical and political success. To the volunteers who slept in the polling stations. To the citizens who kept the ballot boxes in their homes. To those who printed the voting slips. To the computer technicians who came up with and developed the universal electoral list. To the workers in the Government. To those who voted yes or no, and those who voted blank. To so many anonymous people who did their part to make it all possible. And above all, I send my best wishes and solidarity to all those injured and mistreated in the police operation. Those images will remain in our memories forever. We will never forget.

We must recognise and denounce that the actions of the state have caused tension and worry in Catalan society. As President of Catalonia, I’m very conscious that at this time there are many people who are worried, anxious and even scared about what is happening and what may come to pass. People of all ideas and political leanings. Gratuitous violence and the decision of some companies to transfer their headquarters, in a decision, allow me to say, more related to their markets than to real effects in our economy (what does have real effect on our economy is the 16 billion Catalan euros which are obliged to leave each year), are facts which without doubt have clouded the picture. To all those people who are afraid, I wish to send them a message of comprehension and empathy, and also of serenity and tranquillity: the Government of Catalonia will not deviate one millimetre from its commitment to social and economic progress, democracy, dialogue, tolerance, respect for difference and a willingness to negotiate. As President I will always act with responsibility and keeping in mind the seven and a half million citizens of the country.

I would like to explain where we are, and especially why we are where we are. Today as the world is watching us, and indeed, today as the world is listening to us, I think it’s worth going back and explaining ourselves.

Since the death of the military dictator Francisco Franco, Catalonia has contributed at least as much as anyone else to the consolidation of Spanish democracy. Catalonia has been not only the economic engine of Spain, but also a modernising and stabling influence. Catalonia believed that

53 the Spanish Constitution of 1978 could be a good starting point to guarantee its self-government and its material progress. Catalonia was deeply involved in the process of returning the Spanish state to European and international institutions after 40 years of isolation.

The passing of the years, however, began to show that the new institutional structure which came out of the Transition, which Catalonia saw as a good starting point towards evolving to new heights of democracy and self-governance, was seen by the hegemonic elite of the state not as a point of departure, but in fact as a point of arrival. With the passing of the years, the system not only stopped evolving in the desired direction for the people of Catalonia, but began to devolve.

Consistent with this finding, in the year 2005, a large majority, 88% of this Parliament, I repeat an 88% majority in this Parliament, following the steps marked out by the Constitution, I repeat, following the steps marked out by the Constitution, approved a proposal for a new Statute of Autonomy, and sent it to the Spanish Congress of Deputies. The Catalan proposal unleashed an authentic campaign of Catalanophobia, tied to an irresponsible manner by those who wanted to govern Spain at any price.

The text which was finally submitted for referendum in 2006 was already very different from the initial proposal from the Catalan Parliament, but despite that was approved by the citizens who voted on it. Turnout was 47%, and the votes in favour of the Statute were 1,899,897. I’d like to point out that that’s 145,000 votes fewer than the yes vote for independence on the 1st of October.

The state, however, hadn’t had enough with the first reduction. In 2010, four years after the entry in law of the watered down Statute, a Constitutional Court made up of magistrates hand-picked by the two main Spanish political parties, emitted an disgraceful sentence which watered down the Statute for a second time, modifying the content which had been voted on by the people in a referendum.

It’s worth remembering this, and underlining it. Despite having followed all the procedures of the constitution, despite being backed by 88% of the Parliament of Catalonia, and despite popular approval in a referendum, the combined action by the Congress of Deputies and the Constitutional Court converted the Catalan proposal into an unrecognisable text. And it’s worth

54 remembering and underlining also: this unrecognisable text, doubly edited and not voted upon by Catalans, this is the current law in force. This has been the result of Catalonia trying to modify its Juridical Statute by constitutional means: a humiliation.

But that’s not everything. Since the sentence of the Constitutional Court against the Statute voted upon by the people, the Spanish political system not only has not moved a finger to try to go back and repair this break, but rather it has activated an aggressive and systematic program of recentralisation. From the point of view of self-government, the last seven years have been the worst of the last forty: continual degradation of competencies through a series of decrees, laws and sentences; inattention and lack of investment in the basic system of infrastructure in Catalonia, a key part of a country’s economic progress; and hurtful disrespect towards our language, culture and the way of life in our country.

Everything that I explain in these short lines has had a profound impact in Catalan society. It’s got to the point that during this period many Catalans, millions of Catalans, have come to the rational conclusion that the only way to guarantee survival, not only of self-government, but of our values as a society, is the foundation of Catalonia as a state. The results of the last elections to the Parliament of Catalonia are a testament to this.

Furthermore, something even more relevant has happened: in parallel with the formation of a pro-independence absolute majority in the Parliament, a broad consensus has been forged that the future of Catalonia, whatever it may be, had to be decided by the Catalan people, democratically and pacifically, through a referendum. In the most recent poll by an important newspaper in Madrid, not from here, from Madrid, 82% of Catalans expressed this idea.

With the objective of making possible this referendum, in the last few years the Catalan institutions and civil societies have generated many initiatives before the Spanish government and its institutions. It’s all documented: up to 18 times, and in all possible formats, opening a dialogue has been proposed to agree a referendum similar to the one held in Scotland on 18 September 2014. A referendum with the date and a question agreed between the two sides, in which both sides could campaign and present their arguments, and in which both sides commit to accepting and applying the result through a negotiation which protects their respective interests.

55

If that has been possible in one of the oldest, most consolidated and exemplary democracies in the world, as the United Kingdom is, why could it not also be done in Spain?

The answer to all of those initiatives has been a radical and absolute no, combined with police and judicial persecution of Catalan authorities. Ex-President Artur Mas and ex-ministers Joana Ortega and Irene Rigau, as with the ex-minister of Presidency Francesc Homs, have been banned from holding office for having promoted a non-binding participative process without juridical effect on the 9 of November 2014. And not only banned from public office, but also fined in an arbitrary and abusive way: if they do not deposit more than 5 million euros to the Spanish Court of Accounts, all of their assets will be embargoed and their families may be affected.

Apart from them, the bureau of this Parliament and dozens of municipal elected officials have been charged for expressing support for the right to decide and permit debates on the referendum. Charges have been brought against the President of the Parliament and its bureau to prevent them permitting the debate to take place. The last wave of repression against Catalan institutions has resulted in the detainment and arrest of 16 officials and public servants in the Government of Catalonia, who had to appear in court handcuffed and without being informed of the accusation against them. The world needs to know too that the leaders of the entities which have led the biggest peaceful demonstrations in Europe’s history are charged with the crime of sedition, which carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. These are people responsible for having organised demonstrations which amazed the world for their civility and lack of incident.

This has been the answer of the Spanish State to Catalan demands, which have always been expressed in a peaceful way and through the majorities obtained at the polls. The people of Catalonia have demanded the freedom to be able to decide for years. It’s very simple. We have not found anyone to dialogue with in the past nor are we finding one in the present. There is no State institution that is open to talking about the claim of the majority of this Parliament and of Catalan society. The last hope we could have left was for the monarchy to exercise the arbitration and moderating role that the constitution attaches to it, but the last week's speech confirmed our worst assumptions.

I now turn to the citizens of the whole of the Spanish state who are following with concern what is happening in Catalonia. I want to convey a message of serenity and respect, a willingness to

56 dialogue and of political accord, as has always been our desire and our priority. I am aware of the information that is conveyed to them by most media and the narrative that has been established. But I dare to ask them to make an effort, for the good of all; an effort to know and recognise what has led us here and the reasons that have driven us. We are not delinquents, nor are we crazy, nor are we attempting a coup, nor just some bad people: we are normal people who ask to be able to vote and who have been willing to undertake all necessary dialogue to carry it out in an agreed manner. We have nothing against Spain and the Spanish. Quite the opposite. We want to understand each other better, and that is the desire of the majority in Catalonia. Because today, for many years now, the relationship isn’t working and nothing has been done to reverse a situation that has become unsustainable. And a people can not be compelled, against its will, to accept a status quo that it did not vote for and does not want. The Constitution is a democratic framework, but it is equally true that there is democracy beyond the Constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen, with the results of the referendum on October 1st, Catalonia has earned the right to be an independent state, and has earned the right to be heard and respected.

I must recognise that today Catalonia is being listened to and respected beyond our frontiers.

The yes to independence won an absolute majority in the elections, and two years later it has won a referendum under the attacks of batons. The ballot boxes, the only language we understand, say yes to independence. And this is the route I am committed to travelling.

As is known, the Referendum Law establishes that, two days after the official proclamation of the results, and in the case where the number of Yes votes is superior to the number of No votes, the Parliament (and I cite the wording of the law) “will hold an ordinary session to put into effect a formal declaration of the independence of Catalonia, its effects and agree the beginning of the constituent process”.

There’s a before and after the 1st of October, and we have achieved what we committed ourselves to at the beginning of this legislature.

Arriving at this historic moment, and as President of the Generalitat I take it upon myself to say, in presenting to you the results of the referendum before Parliament and our co-citizens, that the

57 people have determined that Catalonia should become an independent state in the form of a republic.

That is what needs to be done today, responsibly and with respect.

With the same solemnity, the Government and I myself propose that the Parliament suspends the effects of the declaration of independence so that in the coming weeks we may begin a dialogue without which it is impossible to arrive at an agreed solution. We firmly believe that this moment needs not only a de-escalation of tension but also a clear and committed willingness to advance the claims of the people of Catalonia from the results of the 1st of October. We must keep these results in mind during the period of dialogue which we are willing to open.

It is well-known that since the referendum different mediation initiatives have been put in place, regarding dialogue and negotiation and at national, state and international level. Some of these are publicly known, while others are not known yet. All are serious attempts, and were difficult to imagine happening just a short time ago. The cries for dialogue and for no violence have been heard from all corners of the globe; yesterday’s declaration by a group of eight Nobel Peace Prize winners; the declaration the group The Elders led by the ex-secretary general of the United Nations Kofi Annan and made up of people of great world relevance; the positions of Presidents and Prime Ministers of European countries, European political leaders…

There’s a prayer for dialogue which runs through Europe, because Europe already feels interrupted by the effects of what could happen with a bad resolution of this conflict. All of these voices deserve to be listened to. And all, without exception, have asked that we open a time to give dialogue with the Spanish state a chance.

That is also what needs to be done today, responsibly and with respect.

In finishing, I call on the responsibility of everyone. To the citizens of Catalonia, I ask that we continue to express ourselves as we have done up to now, with freedom and with respect fro those who think differently. To companies and economic stakeholders, I ask that they continue to generate wealth and not fall into the temptation to use their power to influence the population. To the political parties, I ask that they contribute with their words and actions to lower the tension. I

58 also ask this of the media. To the Spanish government, I ask that they listen, not to us if they don’t want, but to those who advocate for mediation and to the international community, and to the millions of citizens around Spain who ask that they renounce repression and imposition. To the European Union, I ask that they get deeply involved and hold up the fundamental values of the Union.

Today the Government of Catalonia makes a gesture of responsibility and generosity, and again reaches out its hand in dialogue. I’m convinced that, if in the coming days everyone acts with the same responsibility and fulfils their obligations, the conflict between Catalonia and the Spanish state can be resolved in a manner that is serene and with accord, respecting the will of the people. For us, this will not stop here. Because we want to be true to our long history, to all who suffered and made sacrifices, and because we want a future of dignity for our children, for all those people who want to make Catalonia their land of welcome and hope.

Thank you very much.

Carles Puigdemont Casamajó

President of the Catalan Government”

59