“It is true that there is a month left but we will soon know if there is an agreement.” The phrase of the PSC spokesperson in the Parliament, Alícia Romero, in a press conference from the Catalan Chamber denotes that the negotiation for the investiture of Pedro Sánchez could be facing its last days or weeks. Although prudence and discretion continue to be the predominant tone among the Catalan socialists, there are issues that surround the negotiation, beyond the amnesty, that allow us to take Romero’s omen with a certain optimism: the transfer of Rodalies and the possible PSC attendance at the party summit called by President Pere Aragonès.
The socialists do not give a word about the development of the negotiations and unlike ERC, they do not take anything for granted, not even the amnesty. “There is nothing closed in any of the areas,” says the spokesperson. But the transfer of Rodalies, one of the great conditions that ERC sets for there to be an agreement – along with the amnesty and reducing the fiscal deficit -, and the party table in Catalonia, show that there is also a certain rapprochement in the demands of the Republicans .
In the case of Rodalies, the PSC assures that “there is room for understanding” and they remember that last year they already proposed an agreement for the transfer in the Parliament, also in the budget agreement for this year. They assure that “we have not “I have never been against the transfer”, but they warn that there are many technical and economic issues to be dealt with. Among them, the impossibility of transferring routes that are of general interest, that is, those that cross the borders of Catalonia; economic resources; investments, debts to be paid, or the transfer of personnel.
“There are many grays,” they conclude. Therefore, “the discrepancy is not here”, in the transfer, but in the other elements that it would entail. “We will see what the agreement is,” concludes Romero, who assures that this matter is not something that the PSC negotiates with ERC, but that it is the Republicans who deal with it directly with the central government and the PSOE.
The other issue in which the PSC could open itself to participating is the table of Catalan parties that President Aragonès announced on the occasion of the presentation of the report on the clarity agreement, in which five formulas were established for a possible self-determination referendum. The president announced this call by pointing out that he would bring a proposal for a Scottish-style referendum, which scares away the possible participation of the socialists.
In any case, the Catalan party table is a proposal from the PSC. It was born by Miquel Iceta and was held a couple of editions during the mandate of President Torra, but it fell into ostracism since then despite the fact that it was one of the conditions agreed with ERC in the previous inauguration of Pedro Sánchez. The leader of the PSC, Salvador Illa, has been calling for this forum to be held since then and now Aragonès calls it, dressing it as a referendum. The socialists will attend this meeting as long as the president changes the wording and reason for the call, and is not limited to the referendum.
“We have two criteria to participate: that the proposals put on the table are not divisive and we will be if they allow us to open the debate and talk about the issues that can unite us. We will see what the president’s criteria is,” Romero said.
ERC sources assure that this party table will not have the exclusive purpose of talking about the referendum but that the objective is dialogue and that each party will be able to present its own proposals, something that fits better with the demands of the PSC.
Illa’s party considers this party table necessary because it would stage political normalization in Catalonia. But for this to happen there must first be investiture and, therefore, agreement with Junts. The socialists defend that “if there is a conflict” it is not between Catalonia and Spain, but “between Catalans.” Therefore, if the call is “to talk about elements that unite us or that can separate us but that concern us, we will be there; but if it is to talk about what divides us, no,” they conclude.
