Two incidents in the pro-independence process have shown this week that the epic has faded. It is about the return of the former councilor Clara PonsatÃi from the conviction of the suspended president of the Parliament, Laura Borrà s. Both are part of the group of independents who joined Junts as militants or sympathizers (when this formation governed) without coming from Convergència. Activists now turned into free verse, if not apostates, from the party that created them and who stop other sectors from opting for greater pragmatism. These factions are not a minority, but they are complex against accusations of handing over to the enemy. Two cases with effects on Spanish justice and politics.
Junts has tried to use PonsatÃ’s return to Barcelona to demonstrate that, while his “exiles” defy Spanish justice, those from ERC agree to their return passing through Madrid first. It is curious that Ponsatà has ​​already said that she will not vote for Junts because she considers that they have succumbed to submission to the Spanish State, although she herself did not dare to return until the approval of the reform of the Penal Code that ERC to negotiate with Moncloa and that he has allowed them not to accuse him of sedition. Since he can only be charged with disobedience, Ponsatà would not go to prison under any circumstances. It is ridiculous that Junts intends to praise the supposed bravery of his ex-counselor by opposing her to ERC and that she erects herself as a heroine when she knows that, in the worst case, she would only spend two nights in a dungeon. The republicans are waiting for the return of their general secretary, Marta Rovira, who can return without risk of going to prison, even if she prefers to wait to make sure that the pending appeals against Llarena’s interlocutory that replaces sedition are resolved for disobedience This judicial step is planned for April, which allows the Republican leader to participate in the electoral campaign. In any case, it is sterile to turn the post-process into a competition between Junts and ERC to appear like gallant patriots when the moment has changed.
In the Supreme Court they already assumed that Ponsatà would appear one of these days after the elimination of sedition. The MEP, who has returned to Brussels, has been summoned for the 24th and has already made it clear that she will not go before judge Pablo Llarena. But he will possibly set foot in Catalonia again. what will happen then The likely scenario is that she will be arrested and transferred to Madrid, where she will be arrested for a maximum of 72 hours before appearing before the judge. Once in front of Llarena, he will tell her that he does not recognize any Spanish court, but this procedure allows the prosecution not to be paralyzed, for which she will be tried in rebellion. And then she will be released. It is also likely that Ponsatà will choose a day before a full session of the European Parliament, to emphasize that the judge infringes her immunity as a MEP.
The question to be clarified is the different interpretation of immunity by the Supreme Court and the defense of Ponsatà or Puigdemont. As he has expressed in his interlocutors, Llarena cites protocol number 7 on immunities of the EU to distinguish between the situation of a European parliamentarian in the State where he was elected and the rest of the members of the. According to this criterion, immunity in Spain would be subject to domestic law and the parliamentarian could be arrested as long as the petition is then requested to the Eurochamber to try him. PonsatÒs defense considers that the MEP enjoys total immunity except for flagrant crime and, in particular, when he was on his way back from a meeting of the European Parliament. As you can see, PonsatÒs movements are not improvised at all. You have to ask yourself then, what would happen to Puigdemont?
To begin with, the ex-president is no longer charged with sedition, but with aggravated embezzlement, which carries heavy prison sentences. But if Ponsatà managed to get the Supreme Court on appeal or the Constitutional Court or some European instance to give him the right, more doors would be opened for a return of Puigdemont, even if it was fleeting, and he would enjoy immunity. It’s an unlikely scenario. But his defense has insisted that he will be able to set foot on Spanish territory this year. Puigdemont is awaiting the European court’s ruling on his immunity, which some sources place around the summer. But it is possible that the TGUE limits itself to indicating whether or not it enjoys this privilege, without specifying under what conditions. In this case, the Supreme Court will again interpret the same as with PonsatÃ: that immunity in Spain does not prevent him from being arrested if the petition is immediately requested in the Eurochamber.
It is in this sense that the case of Ponsatà seems like an essay on the future of Puigdemont. Together, the situation of the ex-president remains pending. And to this uncertainty, there is now the conviction of its president for crimes that have nothing to do with the process, no matter how much she and Turull insist that it is a case of law fare or judicial war. The Spanish Penal Code is particularly harsh in cases related to corruption, modified in response to scandals in recent years. The judges have sentenced Borràs to four and a half years in prison, but they are asking the central government to pardon her so that she does not enter it. Too many views to be about law fare.
But the sentence sends the ball into the roof of Pedro Sánchez, who has already suggested that he is not ready to forgive a case of corruption. He does not foresee it at the moment with José Antonio Griñán, why should he do it with Borrà s? Who would ask for it in the name of a leader who starts the confrontation with the State?
A final note must be added to all of this: what would happen if Junts’ votes are decisive to invest Sánchez as president after this year’s general elections? His Government is supported by a string of parties including PDECat, but not Junts. Polls point to the disappearance of the former in favor of the latter. More difficult still.
