In 2021, the EA Congress had to be held. He said that in July he was going to need a period of six months. Will it end in February 2022? It
will be held in the last week of February or the first of March, not because I say so, but because the National Assembly has agreed to it. So far it has been delayed by the pandemic, we are in the process and now we have to work on the papers. The important thing is to decide what political direction we are going to take, and that's what we're going to decide among all the affiliates. We will also choose the direction of the party. As set out in our statutes, it will be a very participatory and transparent process. That is where we are not going to move.

The critical sector has asked you for a joint preparation table of the congress to reach agreement on the rules of the game of congress, because otherwise you do not trust you.
They ask for a number of things at the same time, among other things, that the management cannot resort to the last ruling [July 2021] and that the rules of the game of congress be agreed. The latter has neither foot nor head, because the rules of the game are in our regulations. All about the appeal is very curious: they introduced the first complaint to the party and lost it; then they resorted, exhausting all the deadlines to lengthen the process and then, when they are interested, they ask us not to submit resources.

In any case, in that judgment, they have received a great stir, because the judgment says they wanted to use access to the affiliate database to act in favor of Maiorga. The judgment, both in the first and in the second instance, states that some members of the Guarantee Committee acted against the law, and it is assumed that this body should act to safeguard the law.

They request the suspension of the files, but they are not ours, they are provided by some members and the Directorate does not have the power to suspend them. Furthermore, accusations were made against the managers, Iker Ruiz de Egino and Mariano Alava, but they say nothing about it. That is very serious.

And finally, that proposal is made in the media, but when you want consensus, discretion and silence are used to work. So they have no credibility. Forced by them, I also answered them through the media. They are still daily in the press, in a very violent attack, and above all against me.

Let's go back and analyze the reluctance. It all burst into the 2017 Congress. You won by fourteen votes and Pello Urizar went Secretary General...
Note, they are not fourteen members' votes, but compromises, and behind each one there are several votes.

The critical sector considered the distance to be small and mistrusted by the votes behind them, and so they asked for the affiliate census to be seen. It would appear that if that request had been accepted, many subsequent problems would have been avoided.
For starters, the problem isn't that. In a basketball game, no one doubts having won with a point. It's won and it's gone, but they didn't accept that they lost and since then they don't stop questioning it. The nucleus is not the database of the affiliates, in that we have acted very well, and according to the Data Protection Act, and both judgments recognize it.

Industry coordinators have the right to know some data, but not to access the entire database, which by law is not possible. And it's no bad thing that we didn't, because the sentence has now given us reason.

From what I have understood, they are not faithful to what could be behind those fourteen compromises of voting. Can you see that?
They dress the problem as they want, but basically it's that they didn't accept losing. Now, if you win the congress, you'll approve it and it's over, it'll all be over. And if we lose, we will accept it. But if they lose, they will say again that it has been a fraud. Understand? I have never seen the database either.

You speak of part of the judgment of last July, in the case of the database you are right, but in the case of the primaries you did not, and you say that you did not use the proper procedure, harming the candidacy of Maiorga Ramírez.La primary regulation elaborated, debated, increased and approved EA affiliations, like all our
regulations. It says in the judgment that there is a clash between the two rules that we have and that we should renew the rules of the primaries because it clashes with the rules of organisation. My name or name does not appear in the judgment. The sentence does not say that I am ill-appointed, because they have also said so. I am not appointed in a process of primaries, in the face of a power vacuum, I was appointed the National Assembly. Maiorga Ramírez had the opportunity to enter this process, but he did not want it. Therefore, the sentence says that another primary process should be done, but since we are already in the era of Congress, that does not make sense now, because in the same Congress a new direction will also be chosen.

But the judgment also talks about more specific issues. For example, it is said that the list of Northern affiliates passed very late to Ramirez, that he had to get 5 of the 20 affiliates, the same afternoon he had to show up, and that he had no time to get the endorsements he needed. In addition, they had 400 vouchers.

By the decision of the participants, the regulations of the primaries said that we had to obtain five endorsements from each country. The following philosophy is: To be EA Secretary-General, you must have minimal support at the national level. The regulations required me a total of 50 vouchers and I presented 60 cautiously. Then they say that they presented 400, as opposed to my 60. I met the standard, they didn't. I'm going to take as an example a swimming championship, four styles of 400 meters: you have to fill the four and not 400 meters in butterfly. That's what happened.

And Ramirez to submit this list on the last day?
I'm not going to go into such big details. The sentence says much more and very important.

Does it make sense for these discrepancies between you to go backwards in the courts? The judges will not solve you the problems you have among you.
Yes, but we did not decide to go to court. They have decided to sue the party and the members' agreements, and they have lengthened so much because they have extended the appeal. The party is in court, it has never happened. They believe that what they lost in the congress, what they have lost permanently in the National Assembly, will win in the courts and in the media.

From the outside we do not know what is happening in the National Assembly, but they have also presented relevant data demonstrating their strength: the 400 quoted endorsements, 600 participants requesting an extraordinary congress, have coordinators from three territories, if I am not mistaken also from the four capitals of the South...
Yes, they represent three countries, but that does not mean that they are all in their favour, and they also do not make that contrast. They asked for a conference, we now have it in place and I hope no one will be put at risk to do so.

The presence of EA in EH Bildu will be one of the central themes of the congress. Critics claim that EH Bildu is a party coalition, but if I am not mistaken this is no longer possible because EH Bildu decided in 2017 to be a party federation. And they agreed with what was then
signed at the Baluarte. They pose a setback of ten years, which is impossible. There is always room to improve our position in HD Bildu, but I see another problem: they have not believed what HD is Bildu. Eusko Alkartasuna EH Bildu. And they argue otherwise, that we are out of EH Bildu and that we have another relationship with him. That's not understanding what EH Bildu is, and taking a step back from ten years.

If they win, a very special situation can be foreseen.
It is your answer, I cannot answer that.

Create EH Bildu when you hear phagocyte, what do you think? We
are EH Bildu parties, but also many people, who don't identify with the inner aspects. That's the direction, attracting people. EH Bildu is called a government, and that is why it needs to be extended to more and more people. I am very much identified with the policies that EH Bildu is pursuing, and I see it every day in the Basque Parliament: in the socio-economic sphere, in the field of social justice, taxation, housing policies, with young people... Another thing is if we talk about faces. But what, are we going to measure the importance of AD based on the people who show up publicly? EA has to live and our faces must appear, but what matters are the policies we make in EH Bildu, the political project. I don't hear critics talk about these everyday policies, they don't come up with political proposals.

In any case, if EH Bildu strengthens, the internal aspects weaken over time. Logic says so. The parties of
EH Bildu are very important, that diversity must be constantly translated, but we must go further, otherwise we will not get out of that roundabout. We have to maintain the balance, but we also have to increase EH Bildu, because we want to change this country and this country. So, the more people the better. EH Bildu is the first opposition force in the CAV. Our goal is to have the power of government, and that's what we're going to put the force on.

EA has had different divisions in 35 years of history. Both sides will come to Congress in very different positions and moving forward together does not seem tender. Are you afraid to be the last EA Secretary General? The same question was asked by
Pello Urizar in 2009 when he had just taken office. I do not think it is the last one, and if we really want this party, we will do everything in our power to keep us alive. Fresh air has to be introduced to fix all this. With so much controversy, our position as a party is weak and I intend to show that the party is not what is appearing in the media. We have history and we have to have it in our heads, but looking to the future.

Citing history, each party will have your history, but they have defended critics Garaikoetxea, Larreina, Ibarrondo... it is hard to imagine that these people want to attack EA.
As I said earlier, the problem is not so political, it is personalistic. I respect Garaikoetxea, what he did at the time and what it means in his party, but being on one side does not help solve the problem. It should be above both sides to help sew the party.

They have just come from Catalonia [Diada] and here too the issue of self-government is boiling. What's the road, there and here? What about the confrontation that has been used so far in Catalonia, the dialogue with Madrid that is now being conducted, or both at once?
Urkullu proposed yesterday [in the plenary of the general debate] to return to the situation before 1839, but it is not understood why he is proposing such a trip to the 19th century, when here we have a broad agreement on the bases and principles for the new status that were agreed in Parliament’s self-government report. What we signed EH Bildu and the PNV and we have a majority between them. We're there, Urkullu doesn't know where he is. Why does Urkullu not welcome this agreement? It's time to play courageously. And the way? Agreement, debate and compromise.