The group of experts that the Government of Pere Aragonès commissioned in April to prepare the bases of a law of clarity "to resolve the political conflict" between Catalonia and the Spanish State has presented its opinion on October 11, which consists of 64 pages in which a detailed answer is given to the questions that motivated its constitution and that deal with the characteristics, mechanisms and actors of the pact and the function that a referendum should have.
Based on a series of lengthy explanations about the legal fit and democratic legitimacy of a consultation in the image and similarity of the one that was carried out in Quebec, on two occasions, to decide its hypothetical secession from Canada, whose law rejects unilaterality. and establishes the constitutional framework as a principle of the rule of law, the academics' opinion is expressed in five referendum formulas.
Assuming as "ideal" a prior agreement that would grant validity to the result, that is, without the veto of the "Spanish counterpart", the nine experts in law and political sciences, all of them from the university world, have reached a consensus that is translates into different proposals that can be complementary to each other, since they consider that a single possibility is not within the reach of an academic council composed of members who represent "a plurality of disciplines and backgrounds" and with different "political sensitivities."
The first of them would be an initial referendum in the "sub-state territory", which would consist of consulting the citizens of Catalonia about the convenience of the Parliament starting a process of constitutional reform that could consider independence or a new "accommodation" in the heart of the State.
This procedure would present difficulties in terms of its legal feasibility and its result would not be binding, the experts assume, so it would be subject to subsequent negotiations.
The second formula would also be limited to the autonomous community of Catalonia and would take the form of a ratification via referendum of a political agreement previously reached on independence or the new territorial fit, which could be done through the reform of the Statute.
This mechanism would have more legal scope than the previous one and could be the way to complete it, since both are not incompatible.
The third of the proposals involves starting the process of constitutional reform throughout Spain, a formula that has already been put on the table previously with regard to article 92 of the Constitution and for which citizens would be asked if they would agree. agreement to grant Catalonia a consultation on independence or its new accommodation in the State limited to its territory.
The same experts recognize the unusual nature of this route, which, yes, would allow us to know at the same time what the Catalans and the Spanish people as a whole think about it, although it could lead to a "clash of democratic will that is difficult to resolve" if the results were opposite inside and outside Catalonia.
The fourth procedure would also involve a state vote and would involve asking Spanish citizens if they endorse a previous agreement in which the terms of independence or the new fit of Catalonia into the State by their respective representatives had been determined. As the opinion recalls, this type of referendum is provided for in the constitutional reform mechanisms, obligatory if it is an aggravated reform procedure (article 168) or, if it is an ordinary procedure, if so requested by a dozen part of the Congress or the Senate (article 167).
Finally, the members of the academic council propose a fifth formula, which consists of a combination of the previous ones and which would result in "directly establishing a double referendum", which could be carried out simultaneously, both at the same time, or consecutively, first in Catalonia and then throughout Spain, to know the preferences of their respective citizens regarding a "specific accommodation scenario."
This formula would allow several response options and the endorsement participation of "both demos", although it is assumed that, like the third formula, it is unusual "in comparative terms" and could exacerbate "the clash between state majorities and territorial minorities."
