The decision of the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid to reject the suspension of the electoral advance agreed by Isabel Díaz Ayuso, should lead the Madrid Assembly table to desist from the appeal and assume its defeat. The judges have resolved a difficult conflict, which they themselves describe as unusual, with a ruling that only resolves a request for precautionary suspension and that, theoretically, does not prevent further discussing whether the dissolution of the Madrid Chamber prevails or, on the contrary, the motions of no confidence filed by the left. The court is very prudent in not judging the merits of the matter, which reserves it to the final sentence, but as the Madrid Assembly Table raised its request for a precautionary suspension, it has had no choice but to resolve in favor of the president of the Community of Madrid with a thesis that is already final. The central argument of the judges is that the dissolution of the autonomous Parliament occurred with the signing of the corresponding decree by Díaz Ayuso and that subsequent publication in the Official Gazette of the Community of Madrid is only necessary to publicize the electoral process. The legal reasoning contained in the order is much more complex, but maintains the clarity of the argument: motions of censure cannot be used to neutralize the power of the regional presidency to dissolve the Assembly, once the dissolution decree has been signed.
The majority parties in the Table of the Madrid Chamber can persevere in the legal dispute, but without the precautionary suspension of the dissolution, the electoral process is underway, the parliamentary functions reduced to those of the permanent Delegation and, in political terms, the Ayuso government remodeled in light of the new situation. It will be very difficult – in the judicial world few things are impossible – for a two-way process, which confronts the Assembly with the Madrid Government, already in person and deploying all its legal artillery, make the Supreme Court of Madrid change its criteria. His reasoning is based on a mere chronology of events that will not be modified: dissolution is preferred to motions of no confidence. If the opposition to Díaz Ayuso accepts the risk of continuing to add judicial defeats to the policies, it is within its right to force the Assembly’s lawyers to maintain the appeal, but the order of the Supreme Court of Madrid is a call to leave alone the Madrid Assembly will no longer use it in partisan disputes. The dissolution of the Chamber was prior to the motions of censure, period.
The political consequence of this judicial decision is that the parties that presented the motions -PSOE and Más Madrid- have been portrayed – poorly portrayed – with the trick with which they wanted to leave Ayuso without the statutory power to dissolve the Autonomous Assembly and the people of Madrid , without voting. And Ciudadanos, who chairs the Madrid Parliament Board, has given the PP an added argument to the reasons why the coalition government broke up. The entire strategy agreed by the PSOE with Citizens against the PP has been a failure: Murcia does not win and Madrid anticipates any move by Arrimadas with the Socialists. What started in Murcia has become a national political movement, perhaps the trigger that the center-right needed for an internal reorganization. The order of the Madrid judges adds a more dramatic tint to the chain of failures that have been blocked by the PSOE and Cs, who wanted to join in a process of reciprocal interests at the expense of the PP and are paying the cost of not having measured the consequences of their decisions and the real strength of the popular.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism