Bloomberg in favor of consultation

EDITORIAL

Coincidence would have it that the day after PP leader Esteban González Pons sent a letter to all the members of the European Parliament accusing the Catalan consultation of "going against history", the influential economic news agency Bloomberg published an editorial calling on Rajoy to admit the "mistake" of not allowing Catalans to express their will. This editorial is, so far, the clearest and most resounding support that the Catalan demand for the right to vote has received in the foreign media. Furthermore, it certifies that the blockade of the consultation by the Spanish government is little understood in the English-speaking world, and more specifically in the USA.

The editorial states that "to avoid a possible spiral of disobedience or even violence, Rajoy should go to Catalonia and acknowledge, in person, the mistakes his party has made", and furthermore urges him to "be open to a constitutional reform that would decentralize powers and include a procedure to allow Spain's regions to vote on secession". The editors did not take a position in favor of Catalan independence, on the contrary, but believe that the best way to avoid it is via an "intense debate", like that which has taken place for the past two years in Scotland. It also urged Rajoy and Spanish leaders to campaign within Catalonia promoting the benefits of unity, with the goal of convincing Catalans that the risks that would go along with secession are not worth it. The argument is, from the point of view of democracy and political intelligence, impeccable.

Spain has to ask itself how come, in all this time, it has not been able to convince the English-language media that the best solution to resolve the Catalan conflict is prohibition and immobility. Last May the Financial Times said to Rajoy that the best solution was a federalist constitutional reform, and this September the New York Times mentioned the 9 November consultation and the Scottish referendum as examples of democracy in Europe. It is very difficult to maintain that these prestigious media outlets, representatives of advanced democratic societies, are going "against history" by defending something as simple as the right to express a collective opinion.