The current regime and the Spanish state powers argue and act accordingly: the Statute of Basque Autonomy (like the rest of the Statutes of Autonomy of the Spanish Monarchy) is confirmed, without prejudice to the constitutional unity of the Monarchy of 1978. Now, in the era of confinement due to the pandemic, seeing the Spanish president talking about videoconference with the presidents of the seventeen autonomous communities, is it difficult to doubt who has the great central power and who manages the delegated power, but as long as the powers are nullified in the 19th century by the lost wars?

After the French Revolution, in the first three quarters of the nineteenth century, the debate in Euskal Herria and in Spain has been absolutely repetitive. What were the distressed outages? Characteristics and hallmarks of the legislative power of the Basque peoples, together with the Basque and the ancestral customs of here, or the concessions and privileges of the Spanish kings, which at any time, like those granted in their day, could be removed from their power?

How many books have been written about that! Joxe Azurmendi, in his last book, The History of Thought in the Basque Country, in just twenty pages (353-370), has given clear ideas on this matter, and, of course, the head of the tensions of the time of the outbreaks naturally flies to the current political situation as those pages are read.

As early as 1802, the Assembly of Bizkaia denounced the attack on the strife: there were many belligerent roles and slaves that were written in the court of Madrid against the strife, and it was difficult and risky to defend the strife in Madrid. In this phase, Aranguren Sobrado, Salcedo Bride, Zamakola, etc. They tried in vain. What was the real problem? As Humboldt had guessed many mornings, the state model was played: Centralized uniformizer or really liberal? The Spanish state model has been antiliberal from the very beginning (p. 354). ).

In August 1839, General Carlist Maroto and Liberal Spartero once again joined the famous Bergara Pact with the promise that the outbreaks would be maintained: the outbreaks are confirmed, but Article 2 established the necessary modifications of the outbreaks so as not to impede the constitutional unity of the Monarchy, which remained in the hands of the Spanish Government, and perhaps the Basque provinces and Navarre would be “heard.” But how they would be “heard” would also be decided by the government, as in Sánchez’s videoconferences with the regional presidents, despite the technological gap.

As it is to be expected, when defending that they were privileges granted or granted by the courts, many Spaniards distinguished themselves, but did they defend the outbreaks? 5. Olano, J.F. Barroeta Aldamar, R. Ortiz de Zarate, P. Egaña and especially M.B. They defeated the Gasteiztarra Moraza. 5. In 1840, Olano counteracted the English model to the French State model. If the past were to be gathered with respect and differences accepted, excerpts and constitutional unity could be easily reunited. P. Egaña argued that constitutional unity could not be confused with constitutional uniformity, and that a fundamental reason for supporting the forces had given stability to Basque society for many centuries, and in arguing for that “nationality” it seemed that it had to be made clear so as not to alarm the Spaniards: “Speaking at the time and time that I spoke about nationality, this senator will know very well that, being those provinces part of Spain, I did not have to talk about a personality other than that of Spain. But since within this great nationality there is a special organization that lives within it with its life apart, that is why I used the word when talking about the Basque provinces” (By the time and time I spoke about nationality, this senator will know well that as part of Spain, I would not talk about non-Spanish nationality. But since within this great nationality there is a special organization that carries within it its differentiated life, that is why it used the word nationality when it spoke of the Basque provinces) (p. 362). ).

Azurmendi is absolutely right to write these words: “Always immersed in Spanish approaches and concepts, the fuerists have maintained an approach characteristic of foral independence and not of the nationality of Euskal Herria to oppose centralist liberalism from a firm stance” (363 pp. ).

As mentioned above, the biggest smoker has probably been Matthew Benigno Moraza (1817-1878). Moraza tried to explain that the excerpts, in law and in practice, were protectors of freedom and democratic, for example, when torture was normal in Spain. And that they were not privileges, but pacts; but also that a deputy argued that the Basques have never done anything for Spain, instead of responding to what they had to do for Spain, where he said that Euskal Herria was evidently monarchic and notoriously Spanish and praised “the great Spaniard of my countrymen”. More ferocious Spain and more passionate foral independentism did not feel confronted. The Spaniards do. And the economic concert was a rest of the excerpts.

The Basques understand that the Spanish Constitution of 78 is being complied with the same or better than the Spaniards when Urkullu exalts shared sovereignty, reached these days of the 19th century, because we have seen clear evidence of this in recent years. And at the same time, we see the convenience, interest or political necessity on the part of the Spaniards in the “recognition” or “assignment” of a competition. And at the same time, increasingly culturally and linguistically assimilated, we are all and all more Spanish, in thought and in practice, without being able to liberate ourselves from that foral nation. It is high time we started the path of political and cultural linguistic sovereignty before we disappear like Euskaldunes, we have it!