The clarity agreement proposed by the President of the Generalitat, Pere Aragonès, in the general policy debate is inspired, as he himself said, by the Canada Clarity Agreementcreated in response to the two referendums on Quebec independence, one of the consequences of which is that no other has been held for more than twenty-seven years.

This standard has its origins in the 1995 referendum and is based on the response that the Supreme Court of Canada, which also acts as a Constitutional Court, gave to questions posed in this regard by the federal government of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1998. and in subsequent discussions.

In 2000, with the independence movement against it, the Canadian Parliament approved the law which lays the groundwork for the executive to negotiate the secession of one of its provinces after a referendum. The agreement specifies that “a clear question which constitutes a clear majority” is necessary and gives full control of the referendum to the House of Commons of Canada.

The text gives the House of Commons of Canada – its equivalent in the Spanish state would be the Congress of Deputies – the power to decide whether the question is “clear”. If you consider that the statement may lead to confusion, it should be rephrased.

It also lets you decide what the percentage is in case the yes wins. With this point, it is implied that a reinforced majority is necessary, ie that an independence process would need support much wider than 50%.

In short, it does not explicitly say what majority is necessary and the Canadian Parliament reserves, a posteriori, whether the majority has been sufficiently “clear”, or whether the question has been sufficiently “clear”. Additionally, you have the power to overturn a decision if you believe any of the principles of the Clarity Agreement have been violated.

Finally, and in the event that a Canadian province such as Quebec positions itself in favor of secession, the Canada Clarity Accord also establishes that it is necessary to amend the Constitution and that this, in turn, requires negotiations involving all provincial governments and the Government of Canada itself.