Twenty-four hours have gone by since the accord reached between the Spanish Socialists (PSOE) and Together for Catalonia (Junts) which enabled Pedro Sánchez to push forward the main decrees, the 'omnibus' package and the anti-crisis measures, in exchange for a series of political concessions to Carles Puigdemont's party that range from the devolution to Catalonia of competency on immigration issues, through Article 150.2 of the Constitution; the deletion of Article 43bis of the law on civil procedure, which, according to some legal interpretations, could be a threat to the Catalan amnesty; and the reform of the Spanish companies act, through the modification by the executive of the decree passed by the People's Party (PP) government in 2017 to allow companies that left Catalonia then to return. Twenty-four hours, and the political impact has not diminished either in Madrid or in Catalonia.
The PP's response has been to call a demonstration in Madrid on the last Sunday in January to express its rejection of this new pact: the right-wing party has announced that it will carry out a non-stop political, judicial and social offensive. The PSOE's reaction has concentrated more on calming the discomfort of the Catalan Republican Left (ERC) for having been left out of the picture in this negotiation, the first talks of significance held in the Congress of Deputies. ERC has combined the strategy of minimizing the pact reached by its electoral rivals with sessions on the divan after seeing the front pages of the press this Thursday in Madrid and Barcelona. The way the Republicans had seen it, there was no prize to be distributed and within the perimeter of the playing field with the PSOE there was only a 'yes' or 'no' vote on the decrees. After ERC had confirmed its affirmative vote and with the conviction that Junts would vote no, the only thing that seemed clear was that the decrees would be rejected.
Now they have found that the decrees have gone ahead - Junts is still at the negotiating table with the PSOE - and, in addition, the move has gone down sufficiently well, at least, for party leaders to appear on Catalan radio and television arguing that it shows that their votes in Madrid have a price. Whether this is a little or a lot depends on the opinion of each person; but since political parties move according to moods, there were some who enjoyed making Madrid shout at them, while at the same time ERC maintained a weighty silence about its own policies in the Spanish capital, along with the heavy burden borne by the Catalan government, which is juggling multiple hot potatoes in the areas of health and education, as well as a drought that isn't giving any respite.
Junts is still at the negotiating table with the PSOE and has shown that its votes in Madrid have a price
As the icing on the cake, a sociological observatory, the Institute of Political and Social Sciences (ICPS) - a think-tank in the political orbit of the Catalan Socialists (PSC), whose president is the rector of the Universitat Autònoma, Javier Lafuente, while its vice-president is the president of the Provincial Council of Barcelona, Lluïsa Moret - reveals that Carles Puigdemont would be the preferred candidate to occupy the Catalan presidency for 19% of those surveyed. When asked for a single name without having a list to select from, they cited the Junts figure.
The ICPS study obviously has to be put in context, since there are no elections at present and, as of now, Puigdemont is not even a candidate. But at a time when all signs have their importance, an endorsement of this nature instills confidence in the political line currently taken by Junts. It is noteworthy that among ERC voters, Puigdemont obtained more support (19.3%) than the current president of the Generalitat, Pere Aragonès, with 16.9%. Of course, both far behind the support from the ERC electorate for Oriol Junqueras (34.1%).
When politics is as fluid as at present, everything is ephemeral and anyone who takes things for granted and considers then immovable will be wrong. But it would also be a mistake for those who refuse to study the subterranean changes in electoral choices that can occur depending on the successes or mistakes that each party might make. Or, to be more precise, on the public's perceptions of these.