A couple of days in the past, the Congress of Deputies authorised by a majority of 187 deputies a movement introduced by ERC by which the Spanish Authorities was urged to satisfy, instantly, within the dialogue and bilateral negotiation desk with the Authorities of Catalonia emerged from the February 14 elections with the intention to advance the decision of the political battle between Catalonia and the Spanish State. The movement is just not wasted, neither due to what it proposes nor due to the grounds on which that proposal is predicated, collected in its explanatory memorandum. I’ll begin with it as a result of, in any case, what’s included in it’s the plot of what’s provided to the Authorities.

The exhibition begins by gathering ERC’s proposal in relation to the decision of the State’s battle with Catalonia. His provide is obvious: amnesty and train of the best of self-determination; as clear as it’s unconstitutional. Our Structure consists of in artwork. 62, referring to the capabilities of the King, who’s accountable for “exercising the best of grace in accordance with the regulation, which could not authorize normal pardons“, So it appears clear that he won’t be able to do it both with an amnesty. The reason being easy: if the least, the overall pardon, is prohibited, probably the most, the amnesty, can’t be allowed.

Likewise, the Structure says in artwork. 1.2 what “Nationwide sovereignty resides within the Spanish individuals, from which the powers of the State emanate ”, from which it could possibly be deduced that our Structure solely contemplates the existence of a sovereign, the Spanish individuals, who’s the one one from whom self-determination will be predicated, even for his or her suicide. Undoubtedly, one other matter could be to suggest a constitutional reform to alter the aforementioned precepts. This must be accomplished by means of the aggravated reform process.

ERC acknowledges that each proposals, amnesty and the best to self-determination, shouldn’t be in a movement of a parliamentary group, however ought to be introduced properly by the Parliament, both by means of an settlement between the 2 Governments, that of Catalonia and that of Spain, which must be reached on the dialogue and negotiation desk, which is what is basically included in the identical movement.

Lastly, it’s said within the explanatory memorandum that they’re unaware of the political proposals of the Spanish Authorities, in addition to that of the massive state political events. This assertion appears incorrect to me, as a result of usually phrases these proposals are recognized, each from the massive and the small events. I’ll solely discuss with these of those that make up the Authorities, since it’s with the chief energy with whom they suggest that the political battle must be resolved.

Podemos’s method is crystal clear: he at all times defended the best of self-determination, in addition to the necessity to reactivate that dialogue desk, to the extent that its chief said a couple of days in the past that “all events must give in to succeed in an settlement” (The nation, 9-II-21). The latter might indicate that the Authorities would have nationwide sovereignty if it gave the slightest bit in relation to the ERC proposals and, what’s more odd, the Authorities itself. Extra unknown is the place of the opposite pressure that makes up the coalition authorities, so I’ll attempt to receive it from the truth that your parliamentary group has voted in favor of the approval of this movement.

What do you suppose the Socialists supported this movement? To grasp it we have now to replicate on the substance of the matter. A desk for dialogue and negotiation is a desk that hangs over the phrase, so we must always first ask ourselves what do you imply by dialogue and, consequently, what do you need to do with the phrase, what use of the phrase ought to we undertake or if any use is feasible. It appears clear that just one use of the phrase and, subsequently, of dialogue could be justified, when that use is based on justice, as it will be unjustified to abuse the ability of dialogue to commit injustice. In the end, the dialogue is justified whether it is authentic, in any other case it will not be. And when is it authentic? In a democratic state of regulation, this occurs when the house by which freedom is feasible, that’s, the regulation, is revered.

Allow us to then return to the movement and its explanatory memorandum. ERC proposals are clear; additionally these of part of the Authorities. These concepts, amnesty and the best to self-determination, utterly exceed the constitutional framework, so that they could possibly be categorized as unfair and illegitimate. If we deviate from constitutional legality, we lose the grip that may justify our practices. Exterior of such a framework, there are explicit pursuits and, as such, arbitrary.

Likewise, the demand for dialogue to deal with such proposals would solely result in a deepening of injustice, insofar as what’s to be agreed and agreed, in addition to what, consequently, have to be given, refers to points that belong to unique competence of the Spanish individuals, on whom relies upon, in the end, the potential for constitutional reform. Any settlement behind its again implies the violation of the rights and freedoms of its residents.

However, What, then, is the place of the socialist group and, subsequently, that of the opposite aspect of the Authorities? What have you ever supported, when you might have authorised such a movement? It has been stated that “the Authorities has ensured that dialogue will at all times respect the framework of the Structure” (JL Cebrián, The nation, 8-II-21). For my part, it’s clear that they neither defend amnesty nor the best to self-determination, because the ERC itself exhibits.

They’ve restricted themselves to supporting dialogue, the phrase, however in a framework that in itself is opposite to the foundations that guarantee its legitimacy; and this, primarily, not solely as a result of on the desk there shall be proposals that exceed the constitutional board (which in itself wouldn’t be counterproductive if such proposals had been framed inside the constitutional reform procedures), however as a result of the identical conceptual framework that defines the dialogue guidelines out that risk of constitutional reform, on the similar time that it places into query the basic precept of the Structure: the precept of fashionable sovereignty.

The cardinal drawback for socialists is that have admitted a bilateral dialogue between governments that suggests the de facto recognition of equality between each, when that isn’t attainable based on the Structure. It could possibly be in a confederation, however we do not have it but. In accordance with our fundamental rule, the powers, together with the ability of the Authorities, emanate from the Spanish individuals, that’s, from the sovereign. Which means that the Authorities represents a sovereign energy, it workout routines a delegated, non-original sovereignty, so it can not eliminate it. However the Authorities doesn’t train any delegated sovereignty, for the reason that Structure solely acknowledges the best of autonomy to nationalities and areas. In different phrases, the Structure acknowledges autonomy, however not sovereignty. Autonomy is just not sovereignty.

If that is so, it’s not understood {that a} desk has been authorised for bilateral dialogue between two governments that may by no means meet on the identical airplane, which is what would be sure that risk of bilaterality. Therefore, the conclusion that we are able to receive appears apparent: the Socialists have authorised of the improper use of dialogue and the blame will fall on those that authorised of utilizing the phrase as they need to not.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here