Urkullu’s proposal is coldly picked up in Spain without closing doors
- Lehendakari Urkullu proposes a constitutional convention to deepen the debate on self-government in the Spanish state and to make a genuine recognition of the plurinational state.
The proposal, which he presented this Thursday in the letter published in El País, basically consists of a constitutional convention on territoriality to take further steps in self-government, interpreting the Spanish Constitution more broadly, without the need to reform it. The objective would be to recognize the plurinational character of the Spanish State and to achieve a new pact that would make bilaterality a reality.
The Lehendakari considers that it is time to overcome the provisions of the Spanish Constitution in 1978. It recognizes that it was then that an effort was made to recognize the national characteristics of the State, but through LOAPA and other centralizing laws it says that the plurinational state was finally abandoned and a process of recentralization was imposed, which resulted in the extension of the formula of “coffee for all”, with the path opened to the Historical Territories until the formation of the State of the autonomies.
Urkullu says in his opinion article that until the 18th century the Spanish State was plurinational and that this situation should be recovered. As he has done on other occasions, he has set as an example of bilaterality the economic concert that comes from then and considers that this model should be extended to the political sphere.
It proposes two steps to achieve this new pact with the State. First, to establish a pre-agreement on self-government in which the basic principles for the new coexistence are determined, such as compliance with the provisions of the statutes, recognition of plurinationality, bilaterality, the system of guarantees or the capacity to decide. Secondly, within one year the Constitutional Convention itself would be convened, a space to discuss the previously established and propose a new pact. However, nothing is specified in the composition of this area.
Ready to listen, no more
It is post-election time in Spain and the PP and the PSOE try to form a government. But not only will they, not even with their closest allies, but the Basque and Catalan nationalists will be key to government decisions.
In this context, the Urkullu proposal has arrived, which nobody has closed the doors violently, but which has been coldly collected. From the Government of Spain, the PSOE and the PP have spoken several voices on the subject, showing different positions. The government has taken the proposal well: it is fine to speak, we are prepared to do so; the proposal is respectful, but that is not our way. More or less. The PSOE spokesman has been more demanding: yes, one could speak, but the border is the Spanish Constitution, which today perfectly defines what the territorial model of the state is.
Similar positions have also existed from the PP lines: they respectfully reflect the proposal, but the current Spanish Constitution is the only reference and limitation. And from some autonomies governed by them, like the presidents of the governments of Andalusia and Galicia, have also spoken in this sense: it is good to speak, but if we speak, it will be “café para todos”, that is, to equate the competences of the other autonomies with those of the historical autonomies, and in no case for the latter to have more rights. They have not used those words, but behind their message is that.
The Catalan Government has also shown a very clear attitude: they welcome the proposal with respect, but its foundations are self-determination and amnesty, and will continue to work on these paths. In this regard, it has been stressed from different points, such as the Gara newspaper, that the lehendakari Urkullu now uses the “power of decision” and not the “right to decide”.
As Urkullu explains in the letter, from Euskal Herria nothing can be imposed on the State, but not on the State or on the nations, and therefore, among the principles one should take into account the “decision-making capacity” agreed by pact. It doesn't delve into it, but between two subjects you would decide what you want. Besides being a curious way of deciding, it has not gone unnoticed that he leaves the “faculty”, namely: “questioned decision-making capacity”.
Sometimes I don't know if it's too much. That we're eating a pipe, that we're talking about anything else, that we're bringing it up. We like to speak aloud, to leave almost no pause, to cover the voices, to throw a bigger one. Talk about each one of them, each one of them, what we... [+]
