In politics, it is essential to win the battle of the story. Whatever, with advantageous explanations or irrefutable arguments. The drama is that the truth does not always manage to prevail, hidden beneath the interests of the parties. But, at the very least, it would be necessary to demand that the story be well constructed.
We have been mulling over the issue of amnesty for weeks, but no one has put together the story of why it should be granted. The argument about why the independentists demand it to give their votes to Pedro Sánchez is not valid, even if it is true. The truth is under the cobblestones, as the rebels of May '68 said about the beach.
Yesterday, Sumar presented a legal opinion on the amnesty, which the leaders of the party wanted to differentiate from the amnesty proposal. This is the good thing about academic documents: if you don't like them, you can write others. About twenty experts endorsed a ruling from the last ten years, which would allow 1,400 people to be amnestied and 13 cases to be closed, even accepting that it is a maximum proposal.
One of its editors is the former lawyer of the Constitutional Court Joaquín Urías, who accepted in the TV3 program Tot es mou that the story is missing, arguing that this is one of the points on which independentists and socialists cannot agree, Well, the former want to delegitimize the judiciary, because in their opinion there was no crime in 1-O and the latter flatly refuse, accepting only that the measure is based on strengthening coexistence.
It will not be easy to agree on a story that does not end up running the amnesty law aground in negotiations or in the courts. The independence movement went through the Statute and the Constitution, and problems of coexistence at this point do not seem to exist in Catalonia. By the way, if the amnesty recognized that no crime was committed, it would give legitimacy to repeating the order.
It will be difficult to sustain a plausible story. In the PSOE they are inclined to affirm that the leaders of the process were well convicted, but there are reasons to wipe the slate clean. The problem is knowing which ones. It seems like they are studying it.
