Speech by the President of the Government at the Plenary Session of the Lower House of Parliament

Lower House of Parliament, Madrid

Mr Speaker of the Lower House, Ms Rovira, Mr Turull, Mr Herrera, representatives of the Parliament of Catalonia, Honourable Members,

The reasons that move me to speak here today go beyond the actual words of the initiative that we are debating. Coming to this Chamber to present this Government's position is for me an exercise of responsibility.

Those who have presented this Bill have opted to transfer the debate on their proposals to the seat of popular sovereignty. I consider that is the correct decision. To debate in this chamber is a sign of the primordial role that the Lower House of Parliament has in our democracy. It means recognising and respecting the representation that is exercised here for all Spanish people, with no exception.

That is why I am speaking here. Beyond agreeing or not with the delegation or transfer of certain powers, I would like to speak to all the citizens, and particularly the citizens of Catalonia, to tell them that as President of the Government, I am and will be the President of the Government of all.

I work for the welfare of all. I fight for their rights and for their freedoms, which we have achieved with the efforts of all of us and which we conserve here today between us all. That is why I support that Catalonia should remain in Spain, because I cannot conceive Spain without Catalonia and Catalonia outside Spain and Europe. Because for me this is not only a question of legality or weighing up the balances; it is a question of feelings, of ties, of shared history and of the future.

Honourable members,

Today I am going to talk about the challenge that some aim to present the State with: a project for a rift for which this Bill is only an instrument. I am speaking here to repeat something that all citizens know, even those who have defended this initiative here today: that there is no democracy without law.

I am also taking part to explain to all the citizens, particularly those in Catalonia, how much binds us together and the risks involved in a project for a break-up. Today I want to talk from my conviction that together we all win and divided we all lose.

That is the framework for debate, which is not only about laws, honourable members it is also about feelings.

And having said that, permit me to move on to the substance of my speech.

What you, the representatives of the Parliament of Catalonia, have asked from this Parliament - not the Government of Spain, not its President of the Government, but this Parliament - is that we should delegate to the Catalonian Government the powers to authorise, call and hold a consultative referendum so that the people of Catalonia can declare on the collective political future of Catalonia.

Before this request, you announced through the media to the Government of Spain and to this House that on 9 November this year you would carry out a referendum with two questions:

"Do you want Catalonia to become a State?"

If so, "Do you want this State to be independent?"

And you offer us an agreement, as we have just heard here. The agreement consists in us saying yes to this decision that you have unilaterally adopted.

Commissioners of the Parliament of Catalonia, honourable members, I will explain in a friendly fashion why it seems to me that the request cannot be met.

The reasons I will give go beyond my political position, my programme of government, my ideas, my opinions or my interests. They are based on the only area within which I can move in a matter such as this one: law and duty. What the law authorises or rejects, combined with what the duties of my position demand or prohibit.

Honourable members,

What we have heard earlier, in the reading of the Government's Communication, may be summed up in a few words: it is not possible to agree to what is being requested by the Parliament of Catalonia, because the Constitution does not allow it. It does not allow it because, regardless of what use is given to it, it is a power that may not be delegated.

The Parliament of Catalonia claims for the Catalan Government the powers to authorise a referendum. It has decided to ask the Parliament of the Nation to transfer, to give it, the capacity, the powers, to authorise this referendum itself.

Honourable members,

A referendum is a manifestation of a fundamental right: the right to political participation. As such, and by the authority of our Constitution, it must be regulated by Basic Law and the State has exclusive power to regulate the conditions under which it is exercised.

The Constitution also attributes to the State the exclusive competence on matters of the referendum, such as authorising or refusing the call for a referendum. That is the complete and sole content of the powers. And this State authorisation is the guarantee of the right to political participation that the Constitution recognises for all Spanish people.

In fact, honourable members, if you examine the exclusive powers of the State in our Constitution, it is clear that they are the powers that affect all the people of Spain, their rights, their nationality, equality... That is the idea of State included in the Constitution, as in the immense majority of constitutions: that of administering what is common, what those creating the constitution did not want to leave in the hands of other administrations because it was important to all, and equally to all.

Honourable members,

Over these exclusive powers was established the caution that although some functions could be delegated, none of them could be transferred in its totality. The State should always preserve the title to its powers in order not to leave the citizens, their rights and their equality unprotected; or if you prefer, not to deprive the State of its main reason for being and existing.

In other words, Honourable members, the title to the exclusive powers may not be delegated. Honourable members, if this Parliament, this one, should have the power to transfer the title to all exclusive powers, this Parliament could have the possibility to liquidate the Constitution and the State itself without the involvement or approval of all the people of Spain. That is the issue, honourable members.

Well, in the case we are dealing with, the authorisation to hold a referendum, there would be no other option than to delegate the power. It is a power that is not divisible, it consists exclusively in authorisation. What is being asked for covers the whole content of the power. Transferring it is equivalent to emptying it, in other words, losing the title to it.

To put it another way, the State may or may not authorise a referendum. What it cannot do is to delegate it to others so that they authorise it, which is what you request.

Having said that, I would add: what is also not permitted is to authorise - and I'm not talking now of delegating - a referendum whose aim is radically opposed to the Constitution.

What this referendum aims for, regardless of any euphemisms with which it is camouflaged, is to proclaim sovereignty that does not exist, because our Constitution does not recognise it. As you all know, the Constitutional Court has just made a judgment in this sense.

Honourable members,

Spanish sovereignty corresponds to all Spanish people, to all of them. There are neither regional sovereignties, nor provincial nor local ones. They do not exist and cannot be created, nor can they be admitted, at least not under this Constitution.

And this is very important, ladies and gentlemen, because we are not talking only of Catalonia. We are talking about the whole of Spain, of the interests of Spain, the future of Spain, and of who has the powers to take decisions that affect the whole of Spain; that is what we are talking about.

In all that which affects them Spanish people have the right to intervene, and as is natural, they neither want to nor should they remain silent; nor could we discuss such a deprivation of such a fundamental right.

Honourable members, that is why you are here. That is why you have deposited your request at the seat of Spanish sovereignty.

Since that is the case, as indeed it is, what is the sense of requesting a part of the Spanish people to take decisions in the name of all the rest?

Honourable members,

Neither my Government, nor the Parliament, nor the Parliament of Catalonia, no one, may legitimately deprive unilaterally the whole of the Spanish people, who have sole title over sovereignty, of their right to decide about their collective future.

To sum up, these are the reasons why I think that the request you present cannot be granted. Neither is the power you demand transferable, nor the purpose for which you request it is in accordance with the law. Both of these, to my understanding, clash openly with the Constitution.

Because, honourable members, if as I have just said this Parliament had the capacity to transfer the title to all the exclusive powers, or to break the national sovereignty, this Parliament would be situated above the Spanish people as a whole.

But this is not so because our Constitution was born in 1978 and is, luckily, a child of its time. That is why it allowed us to construct what today, as you all know, is called a Constitutional Democracy; in other words, an advanced democracy that ensures the protection of national sovereignty and the inviolability of the fundamental rights of Spanish people. And it does not protect them against bad weather: it protects them against the government; against majorities; and against anything that is not the sovereign people as a whole; in other words, the whole of the Spanish people.

Honourable members,

Our constitution, like all modern constitutions, honourable members, like all of them, protects national sovereignty and fundamental rights and does so against all classes of threats. That is why it does not allow the changes of government or variations in the majority may impact on them.

What would you think, for example, if a party or coalition of parties came to government with an absolute majority and decided that the Spanish people were not equal before the law, or that the confidentiality of communications was abolished or that no one was free to enter or leave Spain freely? Why is that not even imaginable? Because the Constitution, by good fortune, does not allow it. What is more, it even prohibits that the holders of rights may reject them. It does not allow, for example, that the right to strike is suppressed, even if the workers request it, nor may the right to freedom of expression be renounced, or the rights to meeting and demonstration, among others.

And because of this, it entrusts a High Court with the task of judging the constitutionality of the laws, to be sure that no law passed here - naturally of course, here - harms the values, principles and rights we include in the Constitution.

Thanks to all this, everyone knows in advance that they may be sure that no government, whatever its political principles, will do certain things. Not because it doesn't want to, perhaps, but fortunately, because it can't.

That is the reason, Honourable Members, why the Constitution insists obstinately on prohibiting certain things.

And there is no use, in the face of this unavoidable reality, in clothing claims in popular garb. Some things don't change either with demonstrations or with plebiscites. It is not possible. Now it is not possible. The Constitution was drafted in such a way that it should not be possible.

That is what I want you to understand, even though you may not agree with it; but I want you to understand. It is not a case of a question of political will, or flexibility, finding a meeting point, or that we yield more or less. It is not something that I and Mr Mas, if indeed he had come today, could resolve over a coffee. Even if we had five hundred coffees, we would still be missing what we don't have: the power denied to us by the Constitution.

Honourable members,

That is the reality, unless the Constitution changes; and to change the Constitution there are rules that can't be broken.

These are our rules for living together, the only ones that count; the only ones that are in force because, Honourable Members, the Constitution has put a lid on the past and opened up a new chapter in our life together. It would not occur to any Frenchman in the Fifth Republic to appeal to the rules of the Fourth. It would be ridiculous. And the same is true in Spain. It is no use to appeal to the past, because constitutions are like wills, Honourable Members: the last one voids all previous ones.

Each constitution is a new beginning in history that leaves all accounts settled. That is why we vote in a referendum: so that what is solemnly agreed between all can oblige all.

No one imposed the Spanish Constitution on anyone in 1978, no one. In Catalonia, for example, it was backed by 90.4% of the citizens who turned out at the polls, well above the average of Spain as a whole. They did so because they wanted to, in their own interest, for whatever reasons, they did not consider that it was a muzzle; what's more, they considered it was a guarantee. And they did not think it was a shackle, but rather a safeguard.

That was the most genuine, the freest and the most authentic self-determination of Catalonia.
Representatives of the Parliament of Catalonia, honourable members,

That is what the law says. And I as President of the Government am obliged to comply with the law and don't ask me, don't ask me not to do so. Ask me anything else, but don't ask me to break the law, don't ask me to breach national sovereignty. I am obliged to comply with the law and everyone who is here is also obliged to comply with the law.

Honourable members,

I could end my speech here; I could end here, because I have already given the reasons why I think that we cannot agree to what you have asked of us. But as I told you at the start, I want to go beyond that because, given this reality that I have just explained to you and that you yourselves understand cannot be breached - you yourselves - you have tried to find distracting manoeuvres to deviate the focus from the fundamental question and shift the debate to other areas.

Honourable members,

In recent times we have listened to some statements that, quite sincerely, I believe only serve those who want confrontation, a break-up and division to justify their own project and that do not help us at all in living together, nor in concordance, nor progress. Allow me to give you my opinion on this issue as well. Honourable members, let me give you my opinion; I am going to tell you what I think, just as you said what you thought.

It is not true that in Catalonia people suffer from unbearable oppression; it is not true, honourable members. It is not true that the Catalan language is persecuted, or that Catalan culture is smothered; it is not true. It is not true that obstacles are put in the way of economic development, or that welfare is being torpedoed; it is not true. And nor is it true that people are not assisted with their difficulties or that a discriminatory treatment is applied to them compared with other autonomous regions; it isn't true.

Nor is it true that in civilized countries, when a region wants to separate, the door is opened so that it can leave taking with it a part of common territory. That does not happen, honourable members, in any part of the world, not in any.

And don't talk about Scotland because as you know or should know, it is a very different historical and constitutional case. In fact, if Scotland had half or even a quarter of the powers that Catalonia had, they wouldn't be bothering themselves with it.

To sum up, honourable members, I can't admit - I can't admit and that is why I say it here - a hypothetical history of grievances. Nor can I admit the story of oppression. In all sincerity, I can't accept it because it's not true. I don't see it that way.

Honourable members,

I see things in a different way. I see these centuries of common history; centuries of shared union, generations of Spanish people united in a common destiny, in the hopes, successes, difficulties and in the differences, which in democracy we have always resolved with the desire to reach understanding.

I have also lived - I have myself lived it - what we have done together in recent years, which have been times of prosperity and concord. Honourable members, our Constitution has been the great exponent of all this: not only has it given us a democratic system and the guarantee of our rights; also a level of self-government without equal in our history and in countries similar to us. Never in history, never, has Catalonia had a level of self-government as it has today; never, thanks to the Spanish Constitution. And all this, the democratic system, the rights of Spanish people and the system of self-government, would not exist if it weren't for the Spanish Constitution.

Honourable members,

Under the watchful eye of this Constitution, in 2007 Catalonia reached a per capita income of 120% of the average of the European Union; 120% under this Constitution. And it is no coincidence that since 1978 the growth of our country has been much higher than that recorded by any of the OECD countries.

Honourable members,

Despite the crisis we are living through, we all together form a part of a successful history of progress that puts Spain among the five countries in the world that have made the most progress in the last fifty years. But that is also why I cannot share your discourse.

Forgive me the presumption, forgive me please, but perhaps I believe more in Catalonia than you do. At least I do not feel the need to demonstrate at all times that Catalonia exists. I am aware that it exists, that it is one of the mainstays of our country. You can't understand Spain without it, in the same way that Catalonia would be incomprehensible without the rest of Spain.

Honourable members,

I love Catalonia, as I do the rest of the regions. Not simply as something to which I feel a close sympathy, but as something that is part of me. I value a great deal what they contribute to us with their diversity, their language, their culture, their business and innovative spirit of the Catalans, their love of work and of work well done, "la feina ben feta". Honourable members, I value the immense contribution made by Catalonia to our past, to our present and, I am sure, also to our future. And what is important is not that I value it; I am just one person. What is important is that these words that I have just said represent the vast majority of Spanish people who do not live in Catalonia, although they have nothing in common with the ideas that I defend.

I am sorry, Honourable Members, but for legal reasons, and also for the reasons I have just explained, I can't accept your arguments and I also can't accept - and please understand properly what I am going to say to you, because it may be distorted by some - let's say by some - the true meaning and scope of things.

For example, no one doubts the real right to decide. All the Spanish people exercise it as a matter of course. Is there another reason for going to the polls? We do so to decide. On 41 occasions Catalan citizens have turned out at the polling booths since democracy returned to our country.

Honourable members,

Those who live in each region have the right to choose who governs their region, but they don't have the right to decide what we must do with Spain. Each Catalan, just as each Galician or each Andalusian, is a co-owner of the whole of Spain, which is an individual good. And no Spanish people are owners of the province they occupy, just as no neighbours are owners of the streets through which they pass. Autonomy does not mean the transfer of sovereignty; it does not grant the ownership rights over the land, but the responsibility to govern it according to the law.

Honourable members,

The right to decide on your political future is held by all the Spanish people as a whole and not only by part of them. I do not have the right as a Galician to decide on the future of Galicia without taking into account the criterion of the rest of the people of Spain, because what you are claiming with the right to decide, what you are doing - listen carefully to what I am going to say to you - perhaps without realising it or without wanting to, is to deprive the rest of the Spanish citizens of their right to decide what they want their country to be. That is what is happening.

Honourable members, one part may not decide on the whole. That does not occur in any constitution in the world, in none. There is no constitution in the world that says that a part may decide on the whole, and ours does not either, unless it is amended by those with the right to decide, which is the whole of national sovereignty.

Honourable members,

The other argument they use is to state that the referendum is a democratic exercise, and thus healthy, and that voting enshrines the essence of democracy. How is it possible, they say, that a democrat should prohibit a vote?

No doubt about it, voting is a democratic right. It is. But not anywhere, or in any way, nor on any matter. Voting is democratic, yes. Democracy can't be understood without the ballot box, yes; but a ballot box is not enough for an act to be democratic. What is missing? Respect for the law. The essence of democracy is respect for the law. In other words, the aim is - and, honourable members, this is very important , really, if we want to be and we are and have the right to be, a serious democracy - not to recognise another authority above that of the citizens than the law. That is democracy.

Honourable members,

The essence of democracy is that everything, including voting and everyone, including the parliaments and governments, must abide by the rules. Being democrats involves accepting this obedience to the law. That is why it is said, and rightly so, that democracy is the rule of law.

To sum up, honourable members, neither does the law allow you to satisfy your claims nor can your arguments be admitted, at least for this speaker.

But I would not like to end this speech without talking about something that you do not talk about: of the consequences for the citizens who live in Catalonia of what you propose, because that is also very important: that people should be well aware of what is being proposed to them.

You paint an idyllic future in which everything turns out well; the inconveniences do not appear, not even in the small print.

Honourable members,

I believe that when someone talks seriously, they should explain both the advantages and the disadvantages. We have never heard anything about the latter, not even do you put forward the proof - I repeat, the proof - that Catalonia would be poorer, that it would leave Europe sine die, without the euro, the UN and international treaties.

Have you explained to the citizens of Catalonia that they would lose all those rights that correspond to them in Spain as Spanish citizens, because they would no longer be so, including the right of entry and free movement in their own country and in all the European area?

Have you explained to them that they would lose their advantages as Europeans, among others the Community funds and the agricultural aid, and that they would also end up outside the Single Market, with all that means for such a strong economy as is the Catalonian one in the global world?

Do you know what this could mean, leaving the ECB, for financial institutions in Catalonia, and for all those people who have their savings there, either as deposits, pension plans or investment funds?

I won't go on, but I could take some time in explaining here what the consequences of this decision are.

I'm sorry, but one of you said in their speech: "They say that we wander in space." I have never heard that expression. I believe that what you are offering is the closest thing imaginable to the island of Robinson Crusoe.

Honourable members,

The very least that you could ask of those who present the project for a break-up is that they should explain sincerely the consequences of their projects. When someone is proposing to people a situation in which they are obliged to choose, to opt, or to reject part of what they now have, they should have the honesty to also explain the risks and costs of this rejection. I believe that is the least that you could ask of responsible public leaders and, of course, the minimum that the citizens of Catalonia deserve, who have the right to know.

Honourable members,

I don't want to go on more. I thank you for your presence here. I hope that my words, while not giving you satisfaction, have at least served for us to understand each other a little better.

As I have already said, what you ask cannot and should not be granted. This House cannot accept that you be granted a power that is non-transferable for calling a referendum that has the aim of liquidating the constitutional system. This negative does not mean, as we have sometimes heard, that all the doors are closed. You see that no door that was open before has been closed. That has nothing to do with the fact that you are claiming that doors should be open where there are none, and what is more, than they should be opened for your exclusive private use.

There is a door wide open for those who do not agree with the current state of things: they can begin the procedures for a reform of the Constitution. That is what the Constitutional Court has said.

Whoever wants to modify the Constitution, whoever wants Spain to break up, fragment, change its name, or whatever, instead of asking this House, has to embark on the path of constitutional reform, because it is not in the hands of this House. I repeat, that is what the Constitutional Court itself has also said.

So you see, Honourable Members, that if you are not satisfied, it is not because you are not listened to, or as you tend to say, that you are not understood. Everyone listens to you: the business world, which advises you of the dangers of secession; workers, who are anxious about the uncertainties that some propagate, particularly people looking for work who do not understand that we are distracting ourselves with these polemics; the institutions in the European Union, which have been clear on this, so that no one can say that they have not been warned; the Constitutional Court, which has recalled what the Constitution says; the Government of Spain; I myself, who has repeated things ad nauseam; this House, which is listening today to you and those that aren't because they didn't come... Everyone is listening to you; everyone, honourable members. They are listening to you and understand you very well. And I understand you very well, but I can't recognise in you what, in my opinion, you don't have: you don't have right on your side.

I personally can only assure you once more that I am disposed to dialogue; always, as is obvious, if it takes place within the limits demanded by the Constitution and on those questions that the Constitution allows us to talk about.

Honourable members,

I am the President of the Government of Spain. And I can't engage in dialogue with anyone about what is not mine. I can't engage in dialogue, for example, on the suppression of fundamental rights, because they are not mine; they belong to the Spanish people. Nor can I engage in dialogue about national sovereignty, because that is not mine either. I can engage in dialogue about everything to which the Constitution authorises me to dialogue about, because that is the margin I have. And Mr Mas, if you allow me, can not do so either. He represents the State in Catalonia. The two of us share the same limitations and for exactly the same reasons.

There are many things on which to engage in dialogue, many real problems that are being postponed by trying to deal with things that can't be solved. That does concern me and causes me anxiety. It is happening at a time when Spain, and within it Catalonia, is beginning to see clearly the first signs of recovery in growth and, above all, in employment and in self-confidence.

And now I conclude honourable members. There is a subject that has been very much in the news in recent days. There is much praise for the consensus and concord that presided over the Transition to democracy. Contrary to what those who had not been born back then may think when they listen to what is said today, consensus did not arise because there were no differences or because they were erased; that was not the case. If that period has any possibility of serving as a model, it is because at that time there were the same or even greater discrepancies than today.

Consensus did not arise because no one gave up their ideas. The merit of that time lies in the fact that without dissolving the profound basic disagreements, without anyone watering down their own propositions, we knew, or they knew, how to limit the common area on which to construct a democratic life together. We constructed the building which had to house our differences and we did so because we shared an objective that was as simple as to live together and in peace. It was an objective that in my modest opinion is as attractive today as it was then: living together in peace.

This area of agreement, this common home, we then called the Constitution. Honourable Members, it is a Constitution that did not belong to anyone, but that we all accepted provided that no one could modify it as they wanted. In this, above all in this, lies constitutional loyalty.

It is not possible to praise that consensus and at the same time deny its main result; it would be as contradictory as to applaud the cause and reject the effect. The values of the transition to democracy - consensus, the moral high-mindedness, concord and willingness to live together - are all condensed into our Constitution.

It was not lengthy explanations on the essence of the nation that joined us and that join us as Spanish people, but the willingness to share life and imagine a better future together. Because we feel better together than divided, because we understand ourselves better among ourselves than with anyone else, because we share all our experiences of the past, most of our customs, and, yes, nearly all our blood, as has been recalled here today. And because it is also good for us. Together we form a human group with great possibilities to open a way to success in life and in the world.

All this, what bound us together in 1978 and what still binds us today, all this we vaguely, sentimentally, without any desire to be transcendent, call our motherland. But if you don't like it, we can call it the future; a future of peace, of understanding, of living together and of welfare for all, which we do not have the right to frustrate.

That is all. Thank you very much.