Catalonia was once a vast principality, proud of its language and its own institutional system. After coming under the umbrella of the Spanish monarchy, it actively resisted centralist policy. Later, it would resist occupation by the armies of Napoleon Bonaparte. Later still, it would become industrialised faster than the other regions, experience a cultural rebirth and a huge upswing in workers’ struggles, shot through with anarchism. It was established as an autonomous region between 1914 and 1925 (Mancommunitat), until liberties were suppressed by the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera. In 1932, it regained its status, la Generalitat, as part of the Republic.
During the Civil War, the people of Catalonia showed heroic resistance and did not fall to Franco until 1939. Obviously, it then lost its autonomy and the Catalan language was banned. It would not regain its independence and its own parliament until the Spanish constitution of 1978. Compensation for the tragic past came in the form of active promotion of the Catalan language and, in 1993, the adoption of the national anthem. Under the Socialist government, a new status of autonomy was adopted by the Spanish Parliament in 2006, but this differed significantly from the Catalan project. In 2010, the constitutional court ruled against the Catalan linguistic immersion model. Budget cuts began to feed into the general discontent. Pro-independence movements gathered strength and pace, but dialogue with Madrid, with a government now in the hands of the Conservatives, was all but impossible.
Following the controversial referendum in which 90% of voters backed the proclamation of the Catalan Republic, this was voted through by the Parliament of Catalonia on 27 October 2017 (see EUROPE 11893/1). The Parliament was dissolved by Madrid and new elections were held in December 2017 and the new President of the Generalitat, Quim Torra made a speech that was pro-independence in flavour. Catalan society is without question divided over the issue, but nothing has been resolved.
It is true that the individuals behind the proclamation of independence did not adhere strictly to the letter of the law in all matters, but theirs was a bloodless revolution. The police crackdown on ordinary citizens turning out to vote harked back to the days of Franco. For the first time ever in the history of the European Union, civilians were prevented by the public authorities from going to cast their votes. At the time, in this column, EUROPE asked some very pertinent questions about the failure of the Commission and Council to act in the situation (see EUROPE 11886/1 and 11901/1).
The refrain that was trotted out at the time, and which we are still hearing now, was that the EU only talks to national leaders and does not get involved in the domestic affairs of the member states, and that the rule of law takes precedence over democratic expressions. However, this situation was a regional matter. Common regional policy has existed since the 1970s; it was set in place by the Single Act, the Treaty of Maastricht instituted the Committee of the Regions. The Commission, hunched over its maps and sheets of statistics, follows developments in each of the regions very closely. Most of the regions have an official representation in Brussels. The principle of subsidiarity does not stop at the level of the capital cities. In 2015, the Commission even started to produce regional Eurobarometers. The regions basically see the Commission as an ally in their economic development and overall balance.
The EU undeniably played a part in the peace agreements in Northern Ireland in 1998 (known as the Good Friday Agreement) and has even created a special budget to support peace initiatives. Perhaps it shouldn’t have got involved in the domestic affairs of a member state that has for many years been an exemplary parliamentary democracy in which the rule of law prevails? After the Brexit referendum, President Juncker had an official meeting with the First Minister of Scotland, the notoriously pro-independence Nicola Sturgeon, when the United Kingdom was still a member of the EU.
All these elements add up to an understanding as to why the legitimate elected representatives of Catalonia pinned their hopes on the institutions of the EU at least to provide some form of mediation. The regional Eurobarometers of 2018 show that Catalonia’s confidence in the EU is, by some distance, the lowest of any region of Spain as, by an even greater margin, is its confidence in the central government. There is something very wrong with this picture.
There is no call for any of the EU institutions formally to step forward in the role of self-proclaimed mediator. But it would be very helpful to offer the services of a small team with a mandate to listen to the opinions on either side and work with all parties to develop an imaginative and appropriate subsidiary architecture. The Spanish, who as a nation pride themselves on the depth of their passions, will not get out of this on their own.
In the wake of the events of 1 October 2017, Charles Michel was the only head of government of the EU who tweeted: “Violence can never be the answer! We condemn all forms of violence and reaffirm our call for political dialogue”. In an interview with the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir on 14 October 2017, when asked if mediation was needed, he replied: “we still expect dialogue to be undertaken. Only once we have seen the definitive breakdown of dialogue should we be asking whether there is a need for international or European mediation” (our translation).
The fact that the court room has been chosen as the exclusive venue to ‘resolve’ a highly political problem marks the breakdown of a dialogue that never began. Charles Michel will take up his duties as President of the Council on 1 December. His comments of 2017 are still relevant: let us hope that inspiration is drawn from them.
Renaud Denuit