Francesc Homs: “We know what has to be done if we’re banned, but it’s best to keep our strategy close to the chest”

Francesc Homs[1] is one step away from being tried by Spain’s Supreme Court for his involvement in the unofficial 2014 independence referendum. He doesn’t believe Rajoy’s gestures and avoids answering what he would do the day after a ban, which he takes as a done deal, although he has got it worked out.

How are you, personally?

Very well. For a separatist and a democrat this, on a personal level, is an honour.

Prime Minister Rajoy is now offering gestures and calling for dialogue. What do you think of that?

There’s a lot of propaganda but once bitten, twice shy. On the one hand they talk of dialogue, and on the other they take decisions through the courts.

PP, PSOE and Ciudadanos are showing a united front.

As heirs to the post-Franco regime, they can still win the process, but they can no longer win the argument, and they don’t even have the courage to say that publicly. Their arguments are so weak that they need the debate and the vote to be held behind closed doors.

You could have requested a rule change for it to be made public.

I did request a public debate in parliament. Theirs was a flimsy excuse and a mistake which shows the weakness of their arguments.

The supporters of the appeal say that justice needs to be allowed to take its course.

At its heart, the debate is whether politics has to be judicialised and whether the separation of powers has disappeared and justice has been politicised.

What did you argue in the debate?

That this process is more political than legal. With examples: how come the Catalan board of public prosecutors sees no evidence of a crime and then is obliged to change its opinion? How come when there is a first complaint the judge dismisses it and now it turns out that I did everything? It’s quite incongruous.

Was there a perversion of justice? Will you report it?

I’m making a political, not a legal judgement. If you were to take what I’m criticising to trial, the judicialisation of politics, I would be taking part myself. Besides, the game is always rigged. Someone, via the courts, wants to alter the composition of the chamber and influence political action.

What do you expect from the Supreme Court?

Politicisation is the setting we’re in, which is the application of a political decision by the PP. By banning some of us, they hope to declare the 2014 referendum illegal, which means declaring 2.3 million people criminals[2].

Do you believe the ban is a fait accompli?

Yes, that’s the most plausible scenario.

You said before the judge that the Catalan government couldn’t stop the referendum because it was in the hands of volunteers. Now you’re describing yourself as politically responsible. Isn’t that a contradiction?

The president and I have declared ourselves responsible, but one of the legal arguments is that we asked for a clarification of the suspension, they wanted us to suspend something which couldn’t be suspended.

If you are banned from politics, what then?

That’s a decision that those of us who have to think about have already thought about, but one has to keep one’s strategy close to the chest.

Do you want to continue in politics?

We have to send an unequivocal message: however many bans they impose, they will not stop the independence process, then we can take specific decisions about names and surnames. You must never announce what you intend to do: that’s stupid.

Does the new Catalan legislation give you the opportunity to carry on working in public institutions?

I’m sticking with my previous answer, because otherwise I would be starting to give details. It’s a war without weapons or deaths which requires tactics and strategy, or else the enemy will destroy us.

Have you, the group of accused, decided on everything?

Those of us who need to talk about it have talked about what we need to. In this cause we are the gazelle and they the lion, the force, the weight of the institutions. But the gazelle has ability and agility.

When do you expect they will ban you?

They’ll ask the Spanish government that, let’s not be naive. It’s fixed.

You say that you’ll play “the match” in the Spanish parliament. That’s difficult to square with the rest of your rhetoric.

Whilst we remain here, we’ll defend our election manifesto and the president’s 46 points to the Spanish government[3].

That could include supporting the Spanish budget?

This question could create a potentially misleading headline. I come to fight the PP and to defend a manifesto that is the opposite of theirs.

________________________

Translator’s Notes:

[1] Francesc Homs is a Catalan politician, currently a member of parliament in Madrid and formerly a minister and spokesperson for the Catalan government.

[2] That is, the 2.3 million who voted in the 2014 referendum, however they voted.

[3] The Catalan president presented a list of 46 requests to the Spanish prime minister earlier this year covering a wide range of topics.