Oriol Junqueras outlines in this interview the framework of the negotiation to invest Pedro Sánchez. First, the amnesty, but then he claims to talk about self-determination. His reflections come two days before Carles Puigdemont also explains his claims from Brussels.
ERC continues to be decisive in forming a government in Spain. Will there be a president of the Government or will we go to elections?
What seems relevant to me is asking the PSOE if it will prevent there being a progressive majority or will it want to give the right and the extreme right a new opportunity by denying things that the majority of Catalan society considers to be fair, such as amnesty, or as power decide on the future of our country democratically, or resolve Rodalies or underfunding.
What are your conditions to invest Sánchez?
The amnesty is a very important part. We have worked for a long time to move in this direction. We work to obtain the freedom of political prisoners, the return of exiles –a few have been able to return–, to modify the Penal Code and suppress the crime of sedition and modify the embezzlement. Amnesty is fundamental and in the last four years we have paved the way to make it possible now. But it is also relevant that the question of the right to decide is present at the political negotiation table between the governments of Spain and Catalonia.
Should the amnesty law be approved before the investiture?
There is a climate of mistrust, but there are aspects that have come forward. Anything that contributes to changing distrust for trust is positive.
Is amnesty the sine qua non condition for the investiture or are the others at the same level?
It is not the end point of anything, but the beginning point. Without it there is no condition of equality in the negotiation to resolve the political conflict. The amnesty is a necessary condition to start resolving a conflict that necessarily includes the right to decide on the part of Catalan society. It is the necessary but not sufficient condition to resolve the political conflict between Catalan society and the Spanish State.
Thus, self-determination is also a sine qua non condition for investiture? That there be a referendum commitment?
Raising the question of a referendum on self-determination, the conditions in which this referendum must be held, is essential. The PSOE, to the extent that it considers itself a party committed to democracy, also has to be fully committed to the right of citizens in Catalonia to decide on their future.
In the pact to form the dialogue table already in force, it is said that there will be a vote when an agreement is reached on the Catalan conflict. Do you want to change this framework?
Our will is always to give citizens the opportunity to decide on the future of our society through their vote. That is, decide on independence. We are willing to work on how and when. We invite the Government to act with the utmost responsibility.
Why do you think that now there is a feeling that amnesty is possible, unlike in 2019?
In 2019 there was an alternative majority in Congress, of which Ciudadanos was a part, and it became more difficult to talk about amnesty or reach an agreement on it, because it was very difficult for the PSOE to resist the temptation to reach an agreement with Cs. At this time, fortunately, the electoral results mean that there is no alternative to a majority in which the Catalan and Basque independence movement is present. Now, our responsibility, each and every one of us, is to work as coordinated as possible to achieve these great objectives and that is why we will never stop asking Junts for maximum coordination, because it would be easier to achieve more objectives.
The former president Puigdemont made a distinction between speaking and negotiating. Do you do it too?
If we have used these different words on several occasions, surely it is not by chance.
Is ERC already in the negotiation phase?
We are always at the maximum possible. If it were up to us, we would not be in the negotiation stage, but rather in the implementation of the agreements, and we would be voting in a self-determination referendum. Unfortunately, it does not depend only on us. That is why it is so important that the whole of the independence movement coordinates.
Junts practices confrontation with the State?
We celebrate that other pro-independence forces, in this case Junts, join the strategy of forcing the Spanish State to negotiate.
In an interview in La Vanguardia in 2021, you said that the government's attitude was the best in a decade. Do you still think the same?
The attitude of the Government has many shortcomings, many deficits, in many areas. But at the same time it is true that compared to what had happened in the last ten years in the Spanish State, surely there are frankly better aspects. And I will give an example: while on October 1, 2017, the political solution of the government at that time was to beat up the people who were going to vote, now we are discussing how to guarantee negotiations on equal terms, establishing an amnesty as the first step. Is this improvement enough? Is not sufficient. Still an improvement.
Would an amnesty have to include the police?
It would have to include all those who have certainly not committed any crime and who, despite that, have been convicted or are persecuted. This is the first step. And when a police officer sometimes brutally beats a citizen who is acting peacefully, it is clear that the police officer is committing a crime. What is a crime is beating up the voters. No vote. Therefore, the first thing an amnesty has to do is guarantee that no one who has not committed any crime is prosecuted.
If there is an amnesty, there would be people who would not go to prison, while some of you have. From this perspective, was it a mistake not to leave?
I have said many times that my decision was perfectly conscious and that I took it with all the pride and conviction in the world.
Embezzlement reform hasn't worked... Was it done wrong?
No, it has not been done wrong. If someone was sentenced to twelve years of disqualification, such as Raül Romeva or Jordi Turull, because they had allegedly committed a crime of sedition and embezzlement, and those who had only committed a crime of sedition were sentenced to ten and a half years, the proportional part that corresponds to the crime of embezzlement should be a year and a half. The decision of some judges is contrary to common sense, the sense of justice and the sense of mathematics.
It is very likely that an amnesty law will have to pass through the Constitutional sieve.
Surely anything can happen almost everywhere, and in the Spanish State in particular. Some international organizations have repeatedly stated that the decisions taken by the Spanish State and the Supreme Court were absolutely contrary to the general principles of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms. If you ask if these things can happen in the Spanish State, obviously, they can happen.
You already know that there is now a progressive majority in the Constitutional Court. I don't know if that means anything to you.
Some thought similar to what you must have when you ask me the question and probably the readers must have.
Are we entering a competition between Junts and ERC to see who gets the most profit from a negotiation with Sánchez?
For our part certainly not. And the proof is that throughout this interview I have insisted on kindness and the need for maximum coordination. Hopefully this risk that you point out does not exist on anyone's part.
If there was an amnesty, would you run for president of the Generalitat?
I am here to try to help my country in any way I can. I have no urgency or any personal interest beyond the interest in which the whole of our society can establish. I'm here to try to help. This is my job and I do not consider anything else.
What is your relationship with the PSC?
The same as ever. In personal terms very, very little. Or scarce at all.
What do you think that Junts does not close to negotiating with the PP?
Let everyone negotiate with whoever they want. We do not have this temptation. I understand that other formations that have historically understood each other on many occasions have more ease, incentives or interest in dialoguing, speaking or negotiating.
How do you see Urkullu's proposal to reinterpret the Constitution?
We are respectful of the proposals made by others. We understand that those who have an economic agreement and many relevant tools, which unfortunately we do not have, establish a negotiation framework that is perfectly understandable. For us it remains small, short. It is understandable and legitimate that we have a different, more ambitious frame of reference.
