It's a mystery. And complex to decipher, beyond insults or unconditional approval. In this text, Carles Puigdemont, the former President of the Generalitat who went to Belgium and remains on the run from Spanish justice, explains his political positions in several conversations with his inner circle in Brussels and Waterloo. This newspaper tells its hard core about the negotiations with the socialists, the amnesty law proposal, the judicial war – also known as lawfare – and the future of the legislature. Puigdemont's analyzes and projects, as well as his career, are key to explaining the coming times in Catalan and Spanish politics: idolized by his own people, scandalous by his opponents and criticized by many Catalans as well as the majority of Spaniards, they became a kind of Rosetta Stone to unravel the unknowns of the political period that began in the 23rd century. The seven votes of the Junts were decisive for the investiture of Pedro Sánchez in return for the amnesty, a law that can take months and which must survive several appeals in court.
The amnesty is the most pressing issue in Parliament, which has just registered the amendments for the entire Spanish right and is waiting for partial amendments from the nationalists. The Junts leadership suggested the PSOE leadership “count on the PP” to bring it to a successful conclusion, according to sources consulted in the above-mentioned talks. But the socialists responded that this was “impossible” given strong opposition from the conservatives, says Waterloo. Secessionist Nationalism intends to submit several amendments to the bill before January 16 “incorporating elements that were not assumed at the end of the negotiations.”
Of course, out of the conviction not to jeopardize its feasibility: “The amnesty is approved, it is a carefully crafted text,” comments the former president – who postpones any official interview – usually to those close to him. This judgment is particularly valid in view of the “very well-crafted” preamble. There was harmony and careful cooperation among technicians, the sources consulted added. And they explain that the expected upcoming meeting of their leader with the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, will not take place immediately, but they maintain that it should not be delayed too much. “We understand that Sánchez wants to postpone it to link it to the adoption of the law,” but it is best to arrange this meeting “as soon as possible.” “They are both doing well, that strengthens them.”
This rule is key to the Junts-PSOE agreements (and the Socialists with Esquerra), but Puigdemont's entourage is at pains to emphasize that it does not correspond to the personal interests of foreign leaders, even if it benefits them. And it represents the pillar of the package of agreements that made Sánchez's investment possible. Puigdemont was “somewhat skeptical” about the possibility that the contacts could lead to an agreement, given his experience in negotiations with former President Mariano Rajoy in October 2017, which involved calling regional elections in return that the Generalitat did not intervene in accordance with Article 155 of the Constitution.
It is already known that Waterloo usually makes little distinction – at least publicly – between the two major parties and that its visible leader believes that “between Catalonia and Spain there is no room for love” as it causes disappointments and frustrations. “But we can ensure that there is room for relationships, of course amicable between both parties, so that both parties are satisfied, and that is what we are working on.”
Do you trust the other party? Do you think the pact is moving in the right direction? The answer is one made of lime and another made of sand. It is not known whether this is negotiation calculation or rhetorical convenience towards his supporters, who are more in favor of controversy than agreement. Regarding the gradual fulfillment of the conditions that Junts had set for the PSOE in the negotiations, Waterloo reiterated that the first condition was the recognition of the legitimacy of the independence movement; otherwise everything else was superfluous. Catalan in the EU “is progressing, although not as quickly as would be appropriate”, perhaps a body of the general state administration has not exerted enough pressure, the sources mentioned above point out. His initial suggestion for the mediator was to classify him as “independent” so as not to cause further problems, but “it was obvious that to be truly independent he could only be international.” In short, there is progress , albeit with nuances.
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
But the distrust is still there; at least partially. The sharpest differences of opinion have been defused, “although you never know,” his circle reproduces. On this open issue of lack of trust, “we are just getting started, we are still in our infancy,” but “there is a shared will to rebuild the walkways.” According to the Waterloo Handbook, rebuilding bridges is first of all respect; then the change of narrative on the Catalan question; and third, loyalty, that commitments are fulfilled. There is no route: the concerns at the beginning are the greatest. “We were spied on, they told us that they would take us to Spain as prisoners, even Pedro Sánchez said it, and that is difficult to forget, but at the same time we are politicians,” it says conjugately. Although mistrust is a mirror game and the progressive coalition regrets the lack of recognition of the bridges it has built.
So when it is argued that the PSOE is risking a lot in this challenge, Waterloo claims that after 28-M the socialists started from a very weak position, with no territorial power, hardly any autonomous communities or provincial councils, without a retainer for thousands of freed people : “He was facing a moment of Pasokization,” says those close to the former president, although this emphasis makes it clear that the PSOE won a million votes in 23-J compared to the previous elections. Junts lost support: Didn't Junts have this problem? “Furthermore, and we have another risk, that our people do not understand what we are doing, they do not accompany us.” A certain pragmatism is imposed in these basket weaves. The aim of the pact is not to “build a big building” but “to put one stone on top of another and one after another.” Sometimes they throw them into the most delicate with dialectical provocations that provide ammunition to the extreme right Moments: “Understand that the narrative is important, that another project can only be built on the basis of a disruptive narrative, and that we are starting from very distant positions,” they justify themselves.
From left to right: Laura Borrás, Jordi Turull, Carles Puigdemont and Miriam Nogueras, on November 8th in Brussels. Delmi Alvarez
Is the return to pragmatism that ERC adopted with the pardons the one that Junts is now adopting with the amnesty? Waterloo denies that they are returning to the politics of concrete things as a place they had “left,” adding that their leaders were treated “as plagued, as Trumpists, as racists, as anti-system.” “We are not a religious sect.” Maybe not, but they revere Puigdemont, who is not subject to the democratic control of a party to which he does not belong. The former president “has authority, although he exercises it very rarely, as was the case with the decision to agree with the PSOE: in this case he could not avoid it.” However, they are clear that Their organization is “weird, let’s say” and the manager lacks organic responsibility. “Therefore, we must understand that it was difficult for the PSOE to negotiate in this way, it amounted to a certain recognition of the authority derived from exile.”
One of the most specific and controversial terms of the agreement, which is not usually mentioned, related to the fact that “the only limits” to the pact, according to Junts, should be the international treaties. And therein lies the core of the ambiguity, because many citizens believe that the pact signed with the PSOE lacks an explicit mention of the framework of the Constitution and its current and future compliance: a “We will not do it again.” Waterloo uses a game of understatement and delicacy to address this problem. Article 96 of the Constitution states that signed international treaties “are part of the internal order”: the constitutional framework must be interpreted in accordance with international treaties, as Article 10 states.
And yes, that is literally in the Basic Law. But it is also true that the Junts deputies are preparing to sign the amnesty law, and this is clearly expressed in the preamble so praised by the former president that it is fully enshrined in the Constitution. This rules out one-sidedness, which they continue to defend. At least publicly.
The answer to this argument is classic: “We can never renounce a right that does not belong to us but is a collective right of the people.” “All peoples have the right to self-determination in accordance with the international treaties adopted by Spain.” In contrast In addition, this right operates exclusively in the form of self-government within the state to which a people belongs, and only leads to a right to secession if this cannot be fulfilled because it is a colony or a dictatorship. According to international law, the Puigdemont Circle, to clear up the mystery with a promise of voluntariness and another of safeguards: “We want to negotiate and exploit the path taken.” And in the end you have to use this resource [la unilateralidad, expresión que rehúye, al menos ante este diario] if everything failed later.”
The Junts boss's confidants see “no incompatibility between the amnesty law and the constitutional framework”. Of course, they fall back on the old Pujolist discourse, according to which the Constitutional Court and subsequent governments have interpreted this framework in a “restrictive” way until it becomes “exclusive”. “If someone has the will to go back to basics, the dynamic can change; For example, an advisory referendum is certainly possible and recommended,” they add. The argument is reminiscent of the liberal formulation that “if the right to secession is recognized, the danger of the state being divided is lower, as in the case of Switzerland; and the more it is restricted, the greater the risk to the continuity of the state.”
However, this argument forgets that in 2017 Puigdemont and his people governed exclusively – and under policies declared illegal and unconstitutional – only half of Catalans. At this point there are appeals to the generic: democracy implies political strife. “The UK is not broken by Brexit”; “Let’s not be afraid of debate”; “Let us not confuse the rights of citizens, which apply to everyone, and the national identity, which belongs to everyone.”
The last of the conundrums examined in these conversations is the conduct of justice or judicial warfare. When it was alleged in Waterloo that this matter was aimed at undermining the independence of judges and thus the foundations of the rule of law, the dialectic escalated. The interlocutor assures that “the agreement does not consist of political power reviewing the jurisprudence of the courts.” It's just a matter of “finding out what happened outside the courts, whether there were improper meetings between judges and political leaders, whether there was subjugation or coordination.” And that “of course the higher levels of the judiciary have to decide on the lower levels “, “but they will need information, and the parliamentary commissions will provide it.”
To turn the tables, the Puigdemont circle combines this soft version with the indignant version, claiming that yes “the rule of law must be restored” “because all signs point to the fact that a coup has occurred.” “It is very likely that there were judges who violated the basic rules; “Even when a majority is right, the judiciary and especially its General Council maintain an unbearable tolerance and complicity,” criticizes the most intimate environment of the current MEP.
Even if that were true, Congress would have no authority to appoint or fire judges. “Okay, the chambers cannot dismiss judges, but they must be able to detect irregularities and identify the disruptions in their functioning. And they must create the rules according to which the justice system functions,” emphasize the same sources. The task of the investigative commissions “cannot be to take concrete measures against people, but rather to carry out appropriate legal reforms: The goal is very simple: Spanish judges should be just as independent as German judges.” The thinness of the wires, this giving and Taking, this yes, but no, but maybe, is the hallmark of the Puigdemont conundrum.
No, categorically: “I will not do tarradellas,” Carles Puigdemont assured a visitor in a sentence that his supporters consider unfinished. His refusal to return with a massive and spectacular reception could be due to the difficulty of achieving it. But the argument is that the first to benefit from the amnesty law should be the protesters, those who were in the Electoral College organization, the grassroots people who still face uncertainty about their future today.
And his obsession is not to support the criticism, which he has aimed primarily at personal gain. Although his legal advisers consider that from the moment of the adoption of the law and even in the event of a judicial appeal, he will be able to return immediately without charge, since the arrest warrants and other protective orders automatically expire, according to their interpretation of the Preamble and Article 4.
The format of return has not yet been thought out in detail, but is being developed on the basis of the dual pursuit of dignity and institutional significance. “By no means as a party candidate,” but in a way that “serves to strengthen the unity of independence,” explain very close sources.
If things happen anything like this, six years in Waterloo will be behind us. Outwardly, his main protagonist rejects the role of victim, he tells his daughters that they are much better off than many people, that they are lucky enough to see each other every 15 days, even though his confidants have seen him complaining about a bottle of Viladrau. Water that he brought with him from a fellow countryman excited him. .
And sometimes he admits to family and friends, perhaps not wanting to offer a weak side, that he could spend “his whole life” there, that he already has a long political career behind him. Well, even if he forgets that he sometimes insulted them viciously, Europe is his home. “I am a European,” he announces to his people, “I feel at home and I am touched by the picture of Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand shaking hands,” referring to the photo of both in the Verdun cemetery , 1984, at the age of 70 . Years after the start of the first great war. “I feel like a child of this European adventure.”
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_