Letamendia stated that, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, approved by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1966 and in force since 23 March 1976 – ratified by 169 states including Spain –, Euskal Herria had the right to self-determination and, therefore, explained – Goyo Monreal said that, as that Spanish pact was part of the Spanish legislation. What was Letamendia’s proposal?

The proposal for the convening of the referendum was to begin with the Assembly of the Autonomous Community, proposed by a quarter of it, adopted by an absolute majority of the Assembly. In order for the referendum to be successful, an absolute majority vote was needed in each territory of the Basque Country, not in the entire population of the four territories: Araba, Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa and Nafarroa Garaia, an absolute majority. If the result were positive, the Spanish State should recognize the new State and transfer all the functions inherent in its full sovereignty to it.

We would probably have been subject to CAV and Upper Navarre today, but I think it is necessary to stress that the fact that it was expressed unambiguously is that the referendum was for the creation of a new state.

It goes without saying that all the Spanish parties, each with their nuances, opposed and even insulted the Rightists, each more or less. What about Catalans and Basques? Roca Junyent left the room before the vote. Sole-Turá voted against saying that the Catalan communists understood differently the right to self-determination. It was not a testimonial ideological constitution, but proposals that were not accepted by the majority, and that could lead to enormous divisions and tears. The insults of the Spanish right and the ambiguities that the Spanish left seemed to be Sole-Tura; in theory, somehow, but in practice at all.

What about the PNV? Marcos Vizcaya accepted the proposed amendment, but voted as follows:

The PNV has voted yes to the right of self-determination as such a broad sense, but not to its 'criminalization', and the motto that 'I would like those present to turn out to be the most correct and correct thing is to say that they refrain from interpreting different from the ones we have just finished'.

The well-known ambiguities of the PNV. I wanted a Statute of Autonomy and for foreign historical rights to be included in an additional provision of the Constitution. Years later, Mitxel Unzeta explained that in the constitutional debate the PNV did not raise the issue of self-determination. Letamendia and Goyo Monreal did. The Letamendia amendment was approved by the PNV in the Congressional Committee, but abstained in the remaining votes. Why? The UCD told them that it was possible to speak of an additional provision, but not of the right to self-determination. They thought that through the foral pact one could reach a form of self-determination, which, besides being a historical antecedent of the strife, was “politically more venable”.

After the vote on the proposal on Letamendia’s right to self-determination, the vote was 5 votes in favour and 11 abstentions. Those votes were from the Catalans, who voted in favour of independence. Trías Fargas explained the opinion of the majority of Catalan Members:

Gu dugu self-defined. We are in favour of this Constitution (...) We have not voted on Mr Letamendia’s motion for obvious reasons, because we have reached the tone that self111 was a separatist objective, which is not ours.

Trías Fargas was a member of EDC (Esquerra Democràtica de Catalunya) from Barcelona in 1977 and from CIU in 1979. On the point of view he pointed out, Letamendia said he was wrong. The objective of the Abertzale left was not separatism, but independence; and the right of self-determination did not necessarily mean independence, but was intended to give the same opportunities to those who opposed independence and those who were in favour. Of course, if that is to defend democracy, or it can be, but in democracy the Spanish do not fit, at least not so far.