The lehendakari He wrote 600 pages about his experience as a mediator to try to avoid, in vain, the shipwreck that occurred in 2017 between the Catalan and Spanish governments after the referendum on independence. He tried to prevent the Rajoy government from pressing the red button, the suspension of Catalan autonomy with Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution, which was finally applied. Knowing that he always defended political and non-judicial solutions for political problems, the Lehendakari did not surprise this Friday by celebrating as something “positive” that the executive Sánchez will repeal the crime of sedition. But Urkullu asks to go further. He believes that the Sword of Damocles from Section 155 still remains, the real problem, which can still be applied today to suspend the autonomy of grumpy communities. He believes that the repeal of sedition “calls into question” this article and should naturally lead to the opening of this debate.
Urkullu did not give more details on the statements he made when he arrived at the Basque Parliament, but Lehendakaritza sources consulted by this newspaper explain that the Lehendakari wants to put this debate on the table, talk about an article whose the application depends solely on the parliamentary majorities in Madrid, without any other type of control or guarantee. The Lehendakari did not specify whether he was referring to its repeal or to the search for greater guarantees in its application, but what he wants to emphasize is the arbitrariness of this article and that, Although Sánchez is now proposing an amendment, the PSOE itself has supported the PP in its candidacy.
What does article 155 say?
This article says that, “If an Autonomous Community fails to comply with the obligations that the Constitution or other laws impose on itor act in a way that seriously damages the general interest of Spain, the Government, prior request to the President of the Autonomous Community and, in case of absence, with the approval of the absolute majority of the Senate, he can adopt the necessary measures to compel him to impose respect of such obligations or for the protection of such general interest”. Urkullu wants to sound the alarm, knowing that he will have little time because the Constitution is not going to be reformed and, even less, touch 155.
Urkullu considered the repeal of sedition to be positive as it strengthens political channels, but he asked to address the underlying problem, “what should be the model of the real state in this 21st century”. “The substitution of the crime of sedition reinforces our usual approach that political debates must be underpinned by channels such as dialogue, negotiation and agreement with the aim of political agreement,” he said. ANDThe PNV will collaborate to repeal the crime in Congress.
basque judiciary
The Lehendakari has also developed, already in parliament, its proposal to have a Basque judicial system. He did so after a question from Vox and in front of those who tried to demonize this idea as if he was trying to appoint judges from his rope. remembered that The Basque Country already has its own executive and legislative powers, so it would not be unreasonable to have its own judicial power to interpret and apply these Basque laws. and resolve jurisdictional disputes. He gave as an example compound and federated systems such as Switzerland, Germany, Canada or the United States. They have federal judicial power, but the states are also allowed to have their own courts to interpret the laws of their territories, without prejudice to state courts. supervising and having the final say with the fundamental or constitutional laws of the state.
He cited Articles 13 and 14 of the Gernika Statute, which establish that “with regard to the administration of justice, the Basque Country will exercise in its territory the powers that the organic laws of the judiciary and the general council of the judiciary recognize, reserve or attribute to the government”. He waved again historical rights recognized by the Constitution itself. He added that according to constitutional Court, the main difference between a federal state and an autonomous state is that, in the latter, the legislative and executive powers are divided, but the judicial power is not. “We have our own civil law and arbitration council, and we could consider ourselves a federal sphere,” Urkullu concluded.
“Amateur introvert. Pop culture trailblazer. Incurable bacon aficionado.”
