Independent of Bizi. Many of the ideas of the project Recovering our living conditions are deeply criticized, but we are willing to interview with militants of the Bizi movement.

According to Elhuyar's translation, French means independent, sovereign, and sovereignty means independence, sovereignty.

For Bizi, sovereignty is “the re-appropriation of our living conditions”, and “living conditions”, especially the climate and the territory that feeds us (page 7). The usual routine of discharge, emancipation or sovereignty is different.

According to Euskaltzaindia: Independent: Free, independent, non-dependent. For example: Sovereign State of Samoa. Sovereignty = Sovereignty: To own the peoples, not to depend on other peoples. For example: The people had lost freedom and sovereignty.

According to the Le Petit Robert dictionary: Sovereign: It depends on anyone in your area. For example: Sovereign, independent state. Sovereignty: the nature of the State or authority not dependent on another State or authority; Independence. For example, territorial sovereignty.

Bizi, speaking of a “sovereign territory” (3 pp.) It blurs the true brotherhood of the sovereign term, because sovereignty is sovereignty over a territory, that is, the people of a territory are independent or not, not territory. Bizi, speaking of the independent Basque Country (3 pp. ), speaks of the Basque territory, not of the Basque people. As in other words, Bizi speaks of “the establishment of institutions at the service of energy sovereignty” (59 pp); hopefully Bizik sets out his energy for institutional sovereignty.

Bizi therefore gives the concept of sovereign a particularly ecological and economic rumor, being its true political brotherhood.

The true brotherhood of Euskal Sovereign Herria, Euskal Herria is independent, the Basque people are sovereign, but the concepts of the Basque people and independence do not appear in the project. In it, the concept of sovereignty hardly appears with its real political rumour, and when political proposals appear, they do not correspond to the true brotherhood of sovereignty. Bizi's use of the independent concept is incorrect. Let's look at this closely.

In Bizi’s opinion, “our ability to respond in the closest way to our needs is timid, largely because we depend on decisions taken far from us, which often do not adapt to our needs” (12 pp. ), “We must refocus our decision-making methods” (29 pp.) and “democratic system of government” (48 pp. ). We share these views. Bizi also states that this Sovereignty project reflects on the question, which institution is closest to the needs of citizenship? and about “deciding in the people” (p. 11). “Organization of inter-territorial assemblies” (8 p.) We share Bizi's goal of deciding on inter-territorial relationships. But in this article on page 63 there is the reflection initiated, because it says that “here we do not try to concretize which institutions must be provided to our territory, because the people have to become aware of this issue” (15 pp. ). We do not understand why He lives on some issues and not others.

Bizi wants to promote citizen initiatives along with institutional initiatives (19 pp.) and points out that citizen initiatives “must be taken by the three decision-making institutions (Colegio del País Vasco, Colegio Foral de Navarra and Colegio Autónoma de Euskadi)” (20 pp. ). Thus, Bizi does not denounce that they are non-citizen institutions that make decisions rather than citizens.

He says he wants to “recover sovereignty” (60 pp.) For this, they want “more autonomy” if the citizens “feel they are involved in the decisions”, or they are “duly represented through the elected offices” (14 pp. ). In the same vein, he points out that “all axes of energy efficiency, renewable energies … must have citizen participation” (60 pp. ). We would have preferred to read the autonomy that allows citizenship to be decided, and citizenship must decide (and ready) on all those axes of work. But Biz, at the political level, wants to contribute to the “culture of participation” (51 pp.) and “citizen participation” (61 pp. ). “Be represented” and “participate”, therefore, consistent with the concepts of representative democracy and participatory democracy. They are misleading concepts because they make you believe that the people decide, that the people are sovereign, but they are not independent.

Bizik, usu, has contradictory expressions. For example, he denounces that “a very small economic elite acquires power” (p. 29), but at the same time wants the Basque Urban College to have more powers (e.g. 24, 33 and 53), calls for “more autonomy” for the Basque Urban College (p. 14), even for the Foral College of Navarra, if these three institutions do not join the autonomy level of the Basque College.

Bizi says he is “involved in the social, ecological and cultural struggles of the Basque Country” (7 pp. ). Why doesn't it talk about political struggles? Because we believe that Bizi is not committed to real policy, to real sovereignty policy, to the policy of the sovereign Basque Country.

It denounces “emptying and recovering the contents of notions such as the circular economy” (p. 34). With the Independent project, Bizi empties and recovers the notion of sovereignty.

Independent Basque Country: Independence Commission

collectivity