The President of Madrid, Isabel Diaz Ayuso, during the institutional statement that she gave this Thursday at the Community headquarters following the agreement between the PSOE and Junts.Zipi (EFE).
The opposition has taken advantage of the change in position of the PSOE and its leader Pedro Sánchez regarding amnesty for those convicted, prosecuted or accused of the trial. In fact, before the July 23 elections, the Socialists denied that this was constitutional and boasted that they had not given in to the independents’ claim. The signing of the agreements with Junts and ERC to promote the installation of Sánchez has led to an exaggerated increase in criticism from the PP and Vox, which even claim that the pact turns Spain into a dictatorship. Professor of Constitutional Law Juan José Solozábal, Doctor of Law Mariola Urrea and Judge Ximo Bosch, member of the Association of Judges for Democracy, expose the false reports spread by leaders of the right and the extreme right.
“This is a dictatorship”
The Madrid president of the PP, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, assured this Thursday that the pact for the amnesty law ends democracy. “They took advantage of the temptation that Franco was coming, the extreme right, the black and white people… and they smuggled in a dictatorship through the back door.” She herself admitted in an interview on Antena 3 how striking her statements were. “I understand that people might say, ‘That’s far-fetched, isn’t it?’ Sure, you walk down the street and they still don’t ask for your ID. We are not there yet, but if you think it is an exaggeration, you live in a happy world, a world of yesterday (…) If a government is legislative, executive and judicial, it is a dictatorship. The moment journalists, politicians… can’t speak (…) The moment voices take precedence over the laws, it’s dictatorial because we can do whatever we want.” The boss Vox’s Santiago Abascal expressed a similar sentiment: “The final coup against democracy has been launched. The PSOE and Junts coup plotters have sealed their threat to national unity with an agreement that implies the abolition of the rule of law, the beginning of the end of democracy and a very clear threat to national sovereignty. The autocrat of the previous legislative period is not satisfied, in this legislative period he wants to be a direct dictator.” For his part, the leader of the PP, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, said that the agreement represents “another milestone in the erosion of democracy in Spain” and compared it Agreements with “other attacks” on the system such as 23-F, the ETA terrorism or the unilateral declaration of independence by Catalonia in 2017.
For constitutional law professor Juan José Solozábal, these statements are “exaggerations” that do not correspond to reality. “In the democratic system we have,” he recalls, “the Constitutional Court is the means that ensures that the constitution and the rule of law prevail. These alarming statements do not correspond to the situation, there is no effective threat to democracy.” Judge Ximo Bosch of the Judges for Democracy Association agrees: “The measures that are being negotiated are within the framework of the rule of law and all the institutions of our constitutional democracy according to the agreement.” Mariola Urrea, a doctor of law, adds: “Neither the amnesty law nor the political debate about resolving the conflict in Catalonia weakens Spain as a constitutional state or as a democracy, but on the contrary strengthens it.” This hinders many people There is no need to doubt whether this is timely, appropriate or justified, and this debate, even from a position that contradicts the mechanisms of grace, is not only possible but also reasonable. What is not the case is staging violent demonstrations or resorting to coarse language to incite fear among citizens.”
The end of the criminal code…
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
The Madrid president even suggested that the penal code and the law would no longer work: “At the moment we are both [le dijo a su entrevistadora, Susana Griso] We decided that we’re going to keep the cameraman’s car that’s recording us because it’s two of us against one and that man is going to say, “Yeah, but there are some laws that protect me.” “The moment they Laws no longer apply, that two against one goes beyond what the judges themselves say, it’s a democracy without law, that’s something different.” The leader of his party, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, explained: “The rule of law for everyone is being sacrificed (…) This is a blow to the foundations of justice.” Abascal, who at the beginning of his intervention linked the shooting of Alejo Vidal-Quadras to the attacks by Hamas, government partners and the amnesty, went further: “ We must be aware of the danger we face.” “Putting criminals out of prison to stay in power is just one step away from putting innocent people in prison to stay in power. “
Abascal (vOx) calls for civil resistance:
“Putting criminals out of prison to gain power is just one step away from putting innocent people in prison to maintain that same power… or the dictator in the dock, or those of us who oppose this coup , in prison.” pic.twitter.com/qGk2vau5Gv
– Captain Bitcoin (@CapitanBitcoin) November 9, 2023
Solozábal clarifies: “The Criminal Code continues to apply.” “The amnesty is a measure of clemency that excludes criminal liability for an act, but it does not mean the abolition of crimes.” Bosch insists that there are “certain situations and certain people” and “the Criminal Code will not be changed, which means that these behaviors will not be covered by the amnesty in the future.” The law only affects the past.” When asked whether Article 155 of the Constitution could be reapplied if necessary, answered both lawyers said “yes”.
…and the end of the separation of powers
The agreement, explained Feijóo, “undermines the separation of powers and humiliates the judiciary.” Both the PP and Vox agree on this approach. Urrea reiterates that this is completely false. “Amnesty is an instrument of clemency, the processing and approval of which rests with the legislature, unlike pardon, which is the responsibility of the government. It needs to be processed as organic law, i.e. with a very large majority, and after a consultation process in which all political groups can take part and submit amendments. In this case, the executive does not even promote the law because it is in office, and the function of the judiciary, which is responsible for applying the law, remains intact. The lawyer also recalls that “a group of parliamentarians can appeal to the Constitutional Court and that a judge, if he has doubts about the constitutionality of the law when it is his turn to apply it, can first raise a question of unconstitutionality .” the Constitutional Court and “The process is suspended until I have made a decision.”
Urrea, Bosch and Solozábal consider the intervention of the members of the General Council of Justice against the amnesty to be quite unusual. The first states: “The statements of the APM [la Asociación Profesional de la Magistratura, que aseguró que la amnistía es “el principio del fin de la democracia”] They do not have the slightest legal rigor and are crude and unsuitable for people who are professionally concerned with the knowledge and application of the law. However, I do not believe that they violate the separation of powers, even if they may cause doubts among citizens about the impartiality of the law and the judges. But the General Council of Justice is a constitutional body and has decided to decide on a law that it does not know, that is extravagant and over which it has no power if it exists, because it will have the character of a law Since it is not It is not a proposed law, but a draft law, it can be deduced that there is a political intention behind it. If this is the case, it interferes with the separation of powers. And all of this takes into account the fact that their mandate has expired five years ago, which affects their legitimacy.” “It seems particularly serious to me,” adds Bosch, “that a constitutional body is issuing political statements.” “It is a very serious matter “We must be careful with the actions of each branch of the state. These statements seemed unwise and out of date to me, even though I didn’t know the text.”
“There will be a referendum”
It is not in the agreement, but both the PP and Vox have assured that the PSOE accepts the self-determination referendum in Catalonia. “You can’t tell from the text,” explains Mariola Urrea. “What it contains is a profound disagreement: the PSOE considers that the solution to the conflict in Catalonia requires legal development and junts through the referendum, that is to say, it contains nothing new and is certainly not consistent with the referendum .”
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_