The intention of Pere Aragonès is to authorize a referendum on independence for the government of Spain. Or at least the executive, with which he maintains a relationship with his superiors in Congress and a relationship in parliament through the PSC, recognizes this right of the region.
The unilateral march on the back of the ERC – but not oblivion – after the secessionism faded with the rule of law in 2017, the objective is now to look at the example of the clarity of the Canadian law. However, the Constitutional Court declared that such an initiative did not meet the Constitution.
Three constitutional and territorial governance process experts consulted by the ABC confirm this. Teresa Freixes notes that the Constitution “provided the possibility that a referendum on self-determination could be held, which would be a reason for secession because self-determination is designed for colonial conditions and stated that the Constitution should be changed for this to be possible.” of the so-called separation laws, “the separation laws”, “to confirm this criterion and to be declared unconstitutional”.
Josep Maria Castellà, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Barcelona, reports that such a referendum as outlined by Aragonès “does not fit in the Constitution” because it only allows “autonomous referendums to be held on independent questions. expertise, for example, in Spanish classes in Catalan classrooms, public authority and not of the constitution, as against the political community with the aspiration of changing it.” “Article II of the Constitution is prevented,” he adds.
Freixes, who shares the former’s need for constitutional change, at least adds that this is not enough. “Nothing is enough, because the treaties of the European Union also prevent secession in any Member State” and “European institutions have stated that self-constitution or secession cannot be part of a Member State”.
Although Josu de Miguel Bárcena agrees with his colleagues, the Constitutional “has shown since 2008” that it is impossible, with the current constitutional plan, to hold a regional self-determination referendum so that the autonomous community can exercise self-determination. “, opens a “doctrinal” path that defends “consultation before the exercise of secession”, which will serve as “a political and not a legal manifestation of the will of the territory”.
Conditions for Quebec
Barcena, a professor of judicial law at the University of Cantabria, admits that there are no cases like those comparing the transparency of Canadian law to the countries of Spain. After all, what happened in Britain with Scotland, “to adapt to the popular process”, says Bárcena.
Castellà points out the differences between the Canadian and Spanish legal systems (she admits secession and he doesn’t). And remember the law of clarity, the political consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1998 decision after two federal referendums, lays out the “box framework” for secession: the authority of the Canadian Parliament, a clear question and answer, a start. a treaty that does not necessarily end in secession and the right to partition Quebec to the extent that it wins a ‘no’ to secession in a referendum.