The deputy of the CUP Eulàlia Reguant has warned the suspended president of the Parliament, Laura Borràs, in an interview on ACN, that when she links her legal case with political persecution, she harms the “reprisals”. Reguant admits that the interim as head of the presidency of the chamber “is not good”, but she leaves it up to ERC and JxCat to deal with how to resolve the situation. “It is they who have created or contributed to creating this problem,” she justified.
JxCat has submitted a petition to the Parliamentary Board to reconsider the suspension of Borràs. But the CUP -which is represented in the body with the third secretary, Carles Riera- will reject it. Thus, the anti-capitalists will remain firm in the application of article 25.4 of the regulations of the Catalan Chamber, which establishes that the Board “must agree to the suspension of parliamentary rights and duties immediately” once the act of opening the oral trial is final. in cases of accusation for crimes related to corruption.
The TSJC sent Borràs to trial for the alleged division of contracts when he directed the Institució de las Lletres Catalanes (ILC). “It was time for Borràs to step aside and, if he did not step aside, for democratic hygiene and responsibility, suspend her from functions,” argues Reguant.
Along the same lines as the President of the Government, Pere Aragonès, Reguant considers that the interim at the head of the Presidency of the Parlament “is not good”. But he thinks it’s up to Republicans and Junts to address it. The leader of the PSC, Salvador Illa, pointed out in an interview on Catalunya Ràdio that there are “mechanisms” to replace Borràs, beyond the pacts between government partners. But Reguant insists that it is these two independence groups, which have a government pact, who must find the solution. Despite the discomfort that it has produced among some sectors of Junts and in ERC, the CUP does not foresee that the Government will break up for this reason.
Does Borràs have reasons to feel persecuted? Reguant believes that there has been some political persecution, but that the cause for which she will go to trial “does not have any political origin.” In fact, she says that if it were not corruption, they would not have applied 25.4. “It is a case of corruption that is magnified and of which more ball has been given by the will of the powers of the State to dirty the independence movement with corruption, but the origin of the cause is not political,” she asserts.
Regarding 25.4, the anti-capitalists explained that they are in favor of modifying it if it is to “improve its wording”, but in no case to eliminate it. “There have been jurists who have said that it was unclear, so let’s specify it.” In any case, the deputy believes that if the regulation is changed it should be to address other issues, such as shielding the chamber from hate speech. “You should make sure that hate speech doesn’t happen in Parliament, and not just have to give warnings to the speaker. If necessary, turn off the microphone,” she suggests.
