There's no denying it. The technical data, both from one side and from another during the discussions, make me dizzy. When I look for them, I may have a predisposition to lean to one side or the other for a variety of indirect reasons, and in most cases more than technical reasons led to my so-called common sense. But in this search for data, I want to be open and try to disentangle the dizzying data on both sides, to compare them, to bring the hyperbole of some and others to their measure... Finally, I have learned something else to the point of making the impression, but for that very reason I am aware of this feeling of being different: I have more and more gaps in my knowledge of these issues. As it is said: the more I learn, the deeper the awareness of my ignorance.

However, in the middle of the data dance on the discussion stage, you see these special steps that change the rhythm; these rounds of feet, arms, necks, bellies, hips and waist that round off the visibility of the dance. Behind the simple threads of dance, you perceive different aesthetic instincts to antagonistic dancers. And it is these aesthetics that move you, rather than simple data steps, to prioritize a dancer and reject the mash-mash-mash-mash-mash.

An excellent example: three years ago, in February 2008, we had the opportunity to read to the Basque Government’s Minister of Public Works in the debate on AVE, in defense of the train, of course. An interview, and the journalist, who was not neutral at all, made the counselor speak more than he wanted. Well, in the midst of the intricate dance of data, he threw: “The last debate in Parliament took place in November: 85% voted for the infrastructure.” And “in Parliament there are representatives of all citizens.” So it's just...

The argument seems like a rodeo of the counselor’s belly to give a touch of aesthetics to the simple dance of the data. A controversial aesthetic, too, because I would assume that 85% of Members are as stunned by technical data as I am, who know no more than I do about the need for this TAV. Although it could have happened that, if I had been an elector of the Basque Country, part of that 85% had been selected by me, that does not mean that my vote is a signature under the blank page, resolutions that the elected ones would then write to their will in all matters. There are texts on the voter’s signature, not written in it, but in which, unlike others, popular consultations and referendums are required for some issues, as symbols of participatory democracies.

In fact, the reporter asked. Here’s the answer, from the anthology, that pushed me more than all the technical data to reject AAV: “If we accept our institutional system, of course. Otherwise, we are entering into a different discussion. In that case, he would be using the questionnaire not to decide so much about the train, but to attack the institutions.” That’s right in the middle of the data dance around the belly, hips and buttocks as an embellishing aesthetic about democracy! Popular consultations, which are a symbol of participatory democracy, were turned into a destroyer of democracy by the councillor if the people were in favour of abandoning the AAV plan in their womb by a majority.

I get dizzy, yes, technical data often. But the aesthetics that often follow them bring me back to my instinct.