The right should remember that some concepts in politics are like bees. The more you avoid them, the more they surround you. The more you try to move them away, the more exposed you are to pollination. This is the case with the amnesty debate, already naturalized, with which they definitely do not guess the key. The General Commission of the Autonomous Communities in the Senate has been a big mistake that has served for: one, that the PP is on par with the ERC; two, Pere Aragonés, to that of the president of Murcia, and three, to accredit the PSOE's emptiness as an award-winning audacity; meanwhile, Pedro Sánchez crosses the Mória mines. "At the height of" means "in tune", "to the same degree", so that no one gets angry. If this was exactly the message that the PP and ERC wanted, nothing to object to. Both won, then, we just need to be told "what".
You see, often in word fights, the one who doesn't utter a word wins and the one who speaks, says. In the case of changes of opinion, as with the "amnesty", which groups the Spanish in yes or no, the most powerful thing is to say why. When a politician speaks clearly, he usually has few friends left, but the ones he does have are genuine. The one who shows character wins. And having character in politics does not mean maintaining a single, rigid and inflexible concept of ideas. A part of our politics is usually wrong in this aspect. The most praiseworthy character is the one who knows how to perfectly alternate as a leader rigor with benevolence, seriousness with humor, inflexibility with compromise, punishment with oblivion. In other words, what happens from one chamber for "punishment", the Senate with 155, to another for "forgetting", Congress with amnesty. Don't tell me that Aragonès' return to the Senate asking for "an agreed referendum" is not full of symbolism.
It is clear that the PP did not fall at this point. The amnesty is not what the PP needs; it is also there, in the PP. It is the main long-term beneficiary. The amnesty erases the red mark left by that bee's sawn thread. So much so that he excludes himself from it. As with pardons, if there was no definite no in the amnesty, it would have to be invented. Yes and no are healthy symptoms, typical of a quality democracy. It should also be noted that it is not necessary to vote for amnesty in new elections, nor to carry out a consultation. I remind you that deputies do not have an "imperative mandate", as indicated in article 67.2 of the Constitution. In these times when the conflict in the Middle East relativizes everything, for example, the independence movement's request for "an international mediator", it is also worth remembering that no one voted for José María Aznar and there was no consultation for the Iraq war.
From punishment to oblivion, therefore, a decade of territorial conflict to forget, barren, which only brought sadness and frustration. It is not amnesty by investiture, even if it happens today, here and now. There are three specific moments in any advanced democracy: punishment (155), forgiveness (pardons) and oblivion (amnesty). Whenever there is a dispute, there is a party that must take the first step to overcome the discord. The pardons were that bridge, wide and strong, towards total reunion. They changed the climate of discord that had settled in Catalonia and Spain and were done in a context without illegal actions in Catalonia. There was only one exception, ex-president Quim Torra's disobedience which earned him a disqualification and which he complied with. Law and politics reigned, as they do now, and will continue to do so. It helped Catalonia turn a corner, something accredited, and now it's up to all of Spain. The Spanish Government took that first step and Congress completes it with the amnesty.
It should not be forgotten that the process was a peaceful movement. I still remember Mariano Rajoy having to ask confusedly and by letter if independence had really been declared for a few seconds. Good thing that in Europe they are not much in the case of this. Independence, on the other hand, must burn in this final stretch the wise words of Diego Martínez Barrio in 1936: "The first is amnesty. Now don't ask for more." Living trapped in the symbolic is Aragonès' therapy session in the Senate. The speaker is an unnecessary figure. If you really want to seal a "historic commitment" you don't need the UN.
