Puigdemont and Urkullu in Palau, in June 2017 / JULIO CARBÓ
Lendakari Iñigo Urkullu has decided to allow the personal documents – others that involve third parties – of his mediation in the events of October 2017 of the Catalan sovereignty process to be made public. In principle, Urkullu wanted to keep the texts secret until the judicial journey of the ‘procés’ prisoners ended, but on the 23rd, he gave permission to access them. Although he has not explained the reason, no one escapes the coincidence with the autumn 2017 version that Carles Puigdemont gives in his book ‘I explain. From investiture to l’exili ‘. In this regard, it must be remembered that Puigdemont already disagreed with the lendakari’s account of his mediation when he testified in the ‘procés’ trial at the Supreme Court.
As for his relationship with Puigdemont, the most prominent revelation in Urkullu’s documents is that the then ‘president’ did not want to reach the unilateral declaration of independence (DUI). “On October 9 Puigdemont tells me, with witnesses, that the next day he did not want to proceed to DUI in the Parliament de Catalunya,” Urkullu writes in his notes. In another moment, he assures that the then general coordinator of the PDECat, Marta Pascal, and, indirectly, Oriol Junqueras, told him the same thing.
The Lendakari’s confession confirms the bluff thesis, revealed by the ‘ex-counselor’ Clara Ponsatí, and endorsed in the Supreme Court ruling in which the ‘procés’ is defined as a deceitful device ’or’ mere reverie ’.
However, in his book, Puigdemont insists on the classic version that his intention was to declare DUI to immediately suspend it with the aim of trying to negotiate with the Government. They also disagree at the beginning of the negotiations. Puigdemont assures that they were at the initiative of Urkullu while the Lendakari affirms that it was the ‘president’ himself who “asked for help”.
As for the other key point, it is clear from Urkullu’s account that Mariano Rajoy never gave guarantees of not applying article 155 in the event that independence was not declared and elections were called. Urkullu tried to convince Rajoy that there had been no DUI (statement that lasted eight seconds) in the plenary session on the 10th so that he would not activate the 155. «There has been no vote and, certainly, it cannot be declared what has not existed», writes the Lendakari to Rajoy. Puigdemont had only asked him for “hints” that 155 would not apply, Urkullu writes the day before the DUI on October 27.
Urkullu’s papers dismantle the epic versions of October 1 and October 27, from which the account has been fed ever since, especially of the ‘former president’ resident in Waterloo. What actually happened was much more complicated, much more confusing and much more doubtful than those explained now, especially by Puigdemont himself. The epic of October 2017 is far from the reality of what happened and its protagonists cannot continue defending the facts without an iota of self-criticism, let alone repeat that they would do it again.