It is not presented again for the Spanish Congress. The reason?

In my professional life, I've never exceeded eight years in the same job. I was eight years in the Gipuzkoa Parliament, first as head of cabinet and then as a Member. “Now that you’re about to end up in working life, aren’t you going to comply with that law?” I wonder.

You know, you always speculate...

There is no more. The match of being a candidate asks you, "Are you willing to introduce yourself?" ". In my case, I called Joseba Egibar, head of the county, and I said, "I've made the decision to leave." He was surprised to think of something else. I explained my reasons to him. Of course there are no absolute reasons, or few.

What is the balance of the Madrid experience?

Personally, it has been very enriching. Changing context is very enriching for everyone. When you change context and go to new jobs, you get rich. I have seen it in practice. I had to learn a new trade, because I had not been a parliamentarian until then. I knew the office of politics, in the Council of Gipuzkoa, but not precisely that. I know very little about Madrid, let alone the politics of Madrid on that occasion. In these eight years, I've known what politics is, what people are in politics, what relationships are like between people. I have learned the trade, not only as a parliamentarian, but I have been able to know the politics from within, more specifically what the internal constitution of Congress is. I know a lot more than when I went.

He worked as a journalist and became a politician. How does the media view politics from the political point of view, how does it view politics from the journalistic instinct?

I play a game in that, I do so with conviction, and that is: I have defended the media between politicians and politicians among the media. Both are necessary. On many occasions, some media want me to “make politics” and some politicians want me to “manage the media”. I have not defended either. Balance is needed, and that is not at a good time. The bad time in which balance is found makes both politicians and the media take a bad picture. Both are very low in the ratings, because each one does not respect the other's.

We have a lot to learn from those who work in these trades.

Yes. The politician, I have no doubt that he does not properly address this issue of communication. It seems to him that this is the case. In other words: “I say whatever I want and in any case, and the journalist has to know how to make a good headline. Moreover, the journalist must write better than the text I would have written.” No, no, that is the task of a politician, communication is his task. It will be the media that does its own thing. On the other hand, of course, the media must be told not to put politicians in the mouths of what they mean. Don't write without information and with bias.

He has given two legislatures in Congress. Take an eight-year review.

I have known the same time as President Zapatero lived. I arrived in Madrid and got the impression that it was the president who did not think it was the president [Zapatero], but the one who was in the opposition [Rajoy], who had never thought it was not going to be the president. This produced an imbalance. Therefore, the first four years were necessary to stabilize it on both sides. Zapatero came as an angelito and reality slowly taught him: “Listen, you are the president.” You are president, in a context, in the world of the power relations of politics. Sometimes it seemed like I was going to invent a new world. For example, when he brought the Spanish Army out of the Iraq War. A lot of people said: “This will fix everything.” But power is power. Your empire is not on the fringes of this world. He also came to realism. During the second term of office, there was a crisis that I had not dreamed of at all and, in general, no one had thought of it. Imagine that in his programme it was written that unemployment was going to disappear.

But how did you see pp?

Aznar had just left, and for us, for example, it seemed that he was going to change the world. Rajoy came, he had a lot of problems in the game, a lot of problems. So he had to start governing his world, finding a form of opposition. I have an honor. Zapatero lost the first vote in the Congress of Deputies, for a motion that I myself had tabled. The motion referred to the TAV. We, IU, CIU, etc. We already had those votes, and for the first time we got the PP to vote for us. So, pp and others won Zapatero. In other words, the PP has gradually come into the normalized parliamentary game, so normalized, I understand him, and I tell him that after eight years he will go back to rule him.

In the meantime, what has been the experience or contribution of the PNV?

Adaptation to the first legislature was very harsh. Remember that lehendakari Ibarretxe came to Congress and gave him an answer. Despite having passed Aznar’s mandate, we realised that the PSOE had no good position. Then came the decision to expel the PNV from the Basque Government, by merging PSOE and pp. We were angry, of course, but we managed to readjust as a group, to consolidate our situation. And we started, as we said, to win a vote with the PP and to move from left to right to get ours.

They have reached agreements with the PSOE, somehow "bound" by the economic crisis.

Yes, but, as with us, I could reach agreements with others. He needed some votes, and he could have received them from CIU or ERC. But that is what we have achieved, it is the skill of a parliamentary group. Discovering your role in the context that conditions you.

This meant, for example, the shielding of the Economic Concert.

Yes, among others. I still do not appreciate what has been achieved with the APR. With Zapatero we came to a very special arrangement. It's not just whether you're going to do the TAV or not, but let the Basque Government do a large part of the TAV. The TAV will be prepared by the Government according to a provision of the Economic Concert and the Council of Foreign Ministers. If that had not been done, I very much doubt that the TAV would be done in Gipuzkoa. It was going to be done from Burgos to Bilbao, by Vitoria, but the Guipuzkoan ramal... Moreover, that is to guarantee the exercise of our competence, since the Economic Concert is not a rhetorical issue.

TAV quoted: In Gipuzkoa there are many sectors against.

Yes. But that's another debate.

But how do you see this issue?

I see that in all societies there have always been and are opposed to the high-speed train. I’ve seen it in Congress, asking all Catalans or others to “do it at home quickly.” I did not ask everyone in the head, on the contrary, not wanting the TAV has made me think more about myself than anything. In fact, in the debate in Congress, the Mediterranean or Atlantic Corridor was chosen. Europe and the state must be connected on the one hand to the Pyrenees. That has always been the case. Because you can't give a large corridor from the summits, but from the corners. The Norteko ferrokarril also did it. So, what sense does it make that what has always been the connection channel is not the connection path of the TAV?

The time has come after ETA. Is this a necessary reshaping of the socio-political framework of the State?

Yes, but not because of the peace process, but because it is needed. Let us not think that things are going wrong. We have long been sounding in the PNV – and also with the PP and PSOE deputies – and I have always argued that remodeling is essential, likes or dislikes. The question is how it is done, because it can be done without you, or against your opinion or counting on your opinion and in an agreed context. One thing is the peace process, and another is the strong restructuring that, in this context, the socio-political economic reality in the administration and economy of the State demands of us. That is the task of the next legislature.

Amaiur will be present in the Spanish Courts. Candidate Iñaki Antiquity has told us on these pages that they will participate in the measure. What is more, if any, it would now be inconsistent to act normally in daily politics ...

If they don't make more inconsistency, they're going well. I bet they will make huge inconsistencies here and there. I do not know what it is to participate as much as possible. On Monday yes, and on Wednesday no, in the morning yes, in the afternoon no.

(...)
It is a question of being a parliamentarian or not, working or not. There is no more. Another thing is to be a parliamentarian and not to work, to work in a limited way by paying salaries. Everyone has to see what they want to do. There are a lot of ways to justify things, but that doesn't worry me, they'll know.

In other words, according to them, there are laws that are not going to go unapproved, for example, because they are not in Madrid.

If you don't do more than that...

It's pessimistic.

In fact, until now, the inconsistent thing was to go to Madrid. What do you want now? Bleach the head. We will see what it is to be coherent or inconsistent.

You're undecided. First has been the effect of Bildu, now comes Amaiur.

One thing has been done wrong: many things have been tied to things that were not needed, how many things have been conditioned ... You will be legalized if... There is the agreement of the anti-terrorist law or prison policy. That is, you have to do a socialization job, be it ETA or not. Some people like to mix everything, I don't. I did not need ETA to leave the violence for me to be a democrat, I did not need that to give my support to what ETA has shot at. Democracy has its laws and you cannot condition them. They come to our area, to politics, we will see if they continue to defend what they defended four – or eight or twelve – years ago.

But for example, Bildu is not just the Abertzale left.

I usually say that it is a meeting point for people without a party and that it is a party without people.

However, the PNV was the one that hit the most in the Gipuzkoa elections than Bildu, in a way, was the defeat of the PNV.

The beating took place in the management of electoral results, not so much in the general as in the autonomous elections. Because in democracy, you have to manage the vote. If my party had reached an agreement with the PSOE or with the pp and removed Bildu, that too would have been democratic. However, I do not know if everyone would agree. Democratic management has taken place and brought us to this situation, agreement. I believe that the management of the votes was not what I needed, but the poor outcome of the PNV, and that it has led to a kind of “failure” as you say. I feel like that...

You didn't match the match on that.

I did my best not to leave Bildu the Council of Gipuzkoa. My position is personal, for a thousand reasons, because it was interesting for the Gipuzkoans to have another government.