I believe that not all conflicts can be resolved by voting, it is an assertion that can be explained without many arguments. You're going to think of examples of oppression, where we directly think the same opportunity for a solution based on minority/majority play is unfair. The examples that you have come to the forefront are, of course, those relating to violations of fundamental human rights, because in such cases it is precisely the unacceptable to condition the solution of the conflict to the result of a vote for the mere fact of having fundamental rights. Their violation is a crime, either by majority or by being protected.

Of course, the quantity variable must be taken into account. Because in order to make our will possible, we need to have strength, and that influences, of course, the number of people when it comes to measuring the size of our strengths and weaknesses for strategy. But if that is the case, it cannot call into question the legitimacy of our cry or our complaint.

International self-determination law is one of the fundamental elements. The United Nations Assembly itself recognizes that it is the first of fundamental human rights, and to the extent that it is the requirement of all others. By losing national independence, a people loses their own right to live freely and emancipated in their territory. I mean, everything.

This right is proclaimed by a people when they lose their freedom under the influence of imperialism, not before. Just because it doesn't need it. It lives in its natural, free and independent state on its territory, and if no one attacks this situation of natural freedom, why should it benefit from this right? The proclamation of a right is an arrangement which the rightholder has + in the face of a violation, which would only make sense at that time. If the
claim of the right to self-determination has an implicit denunciation of imperialist aggression, how has anyone come to think that the right to self-determination is to decide between freedom and captivity?

To think that self-determination is to organise a referendum is, first and foremost, absurd, because who would freely choose to be captive? To follow, it is wrong, a mere falsification of the meaning of this right.

If what protects self-determination is for a people to be able to live freely in its territory, how can we imagine it as a vote in which freedom stands at the same level and the domination that is intended to be banished? How will we use an instrument designed to liberate itself as a means of recognizing an invasion as democratic and legitimate? Moreover, none of the peoples has been liberated in this way. Unless the apparatus of occupation is still present and the demographic substitution inherent in domination is accepted.

But the most serious thing is the denial of our national conflict: the domination of the Basque Country, the existence of imperialism and the occupation regime. The simple approach of continuing in the current situation of dependency as an opportunity, as the current regime is a democratic regime and recognition of legitimacy.

Villagers, don't you notice? Have we come to despair that will allow us to exercise our freedom in one vote? Where has our dignity remained?

And the representatives of ‘people’. Follow on your blind path and diffuse project, in selling our principles. But wolf. Do not do so in the name of Self-determination or of the People. It has nothing to do with that.