Tuesday, October 19

Displicence and camouflage – Information

And it is still a first setback, in this case for him third party of those who do not resign themselves “to the fatalism of the conflict”, lament an always unsatisfied demand and try to find, as a remedy, a middle ground between the demands for independence and what the Constitution provides on the unity of Spain.

By frankly saying that they will do it again, the pardoned people have not expressed attrition for having broken the law, nor have they shown indifference in using public funds and the media with which to support unavoidable goals: amnesty and independence.

Starting from the basis that the conflict is, above all, between Catalans, not having a majority support seems to be careless of them, as occurs with respect for the principle of ideological neutrality of the institutions, a basic premise for dialogue between governments and parties .


The law is not an imposition on society, but the instrument with which any democracy is endowed to guarantee coexistence. Nor does ‘moderate’ separatism appreciate justice, especially when it comes to ends versus means.

This could explain that any concession; with respect to the Constitution which, according to the Spanish bishops, “is not a dogma”; it is considered a sign of weakness and is used as one more step towards the end goal.

Without accepting that the mediatrix of the conflict does not exist and appeasement, as history shows, does not work, the most active stagehands of this poorly resolved territorial lace, move in an argumentative equidistance and legitimize civil disobedience, as happened with the celebration. of the referendum, squirt stage that sought to force the reluctant government to the negotiating table.


What has happened since the lay mass, officiated at the Lyceum by the architect of the useful forgivenessWho has the support of the secessionist parties to stay in power?

With unknown diligence, the Council of Ministers has approved the nine pardons: partial, by not contemplating grace for the penalties of disqualification for embezzlement of public funds, and reversible, that is, conditional on not committing a serious crime in a period between three and six years.

After the publication in the BOE and ordered by the TS the release, the exit, extended with an improvised event (relatives, supporters and government authorities) in the immediate campaigns, has served to give tone and reply to the grace.

The electoral promise, negative to pardon, mutated into a variant that weakens the independence of the judiciary and reiterates the mistake made by governments, both on the left and the right, in thinking that the only way to get it right is by accepting what the nationalists, regardless of the adjacent costs.


And after the nonchalance, the camouflage. An extraordinary Council of Ministers approved, swiftly, the first measures compensatory: elimination of the open-air mask, lowering of the VAT of the light and return of the public to the football stadiums and basketball halls.

The pardons, fully constitutional and legal, granted against ¿61-78? % of the Spanish population and 27%? of the Catalan, as well as the opinion of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor’s Office, do not authenticate the reconciliation, based on the existence of red lines: amnesty and self-determination. In view of which, what space is left for this negotiating table to satisfy the desire for separatism?

Coinciding with the apotheosis of the event, the Council of Europe (CoE), an international organization, founded after the Second World War, to defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe, which has nothing to do with the European Union , approved a resolution presented by a Latvian politician who had time to visit politicians in jail and admitted not having read the conclusions of the Spanish judges.

The CoE resolution considers that using public money to finance an illegal project is not corruption, is based on the false assumption that secessionist politicians have been prosecuted for their political beliefs (and not for their actions), and ignores that other politicians from the same parties that share the same belief are in the leadership of the regional government.


This has only just begun, pending issues remain, with their own haggling: the negotiating table; the return of the exiles; the files opened in the Court of Accounts for the management of public funds, diverted for illicit purposes during the process; the three thousand retaliated, pro-independence leaders with pending accounts to settle with justice, for crimes not shielded by the benefits of pardons (disobedience, public disorder, prevarication, embezzlement of public funds and documentary falsification).

As a culmination and with the intention of facilitating a consultation in Catalonia, the investiture block could try the approval of an express reform of article 92.1 of the Spanish Constitution, which does not imply dissolution of the Cortes. The trick is that self-determination would not be voted on, but a decoy: the degree of satisfaction of the Catalans with self-government.

The independence movement would thus achieve a legal instrument to satisfy its wishes and the coalition government would have the definitive argument to give a letter of nature to a constitutional reform in the direction of federalism which, basically, is nothing more than constitutionalize an unequal Spain.


Those Catalans who want to remain Spanish, without being treated as second-class citizens for not complying with the radical commandments, wonder who speaks in their name, since, in the absence of statesmen, Suárez, Tarradellas, the current regents only serve the his.

Hence, the outstanding questions: Why should secessionists have more rights, ignoring the claims of those who do not want a break? Why do assignments to create a favorable climate for the alleged dialogue come from only one party? Is it necessary to believe, as the seditious would like, that the individual rights of those who do not want independence do not exist?

Fernando Savater responds: “In a democracy the right to difference is given, but never the difference in rights. There are no different rights because there are no different citizens, according to their origin or territorial affiliation. What is inadmissible is that the application of sanctions, to those who knowingly violate the Constitution and reject the unity of the citizenry, be considered as ‘revenge’ or ‘resentment’.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *