The PSOE and its partners, in the Government and in Parliament, are finalizing how to urgently register in Congress as soon as possible a bill that contains the same modifications to vary the current system of renewal of magistrates in the Constitutional that those parties tried to introduce and approved by an express route of amendments to another law in Congress and that has stopped the court of guarantees unleashing an unprecedented institutional crisis.
Podemos summoned all these formations on Tuesday to agree on an exit and to force the PSOE to discuss how to also reform the law to unblock the expired General Council of the Judiciary in the remainder of the legislature.
PSOE, Unidas Podemos and most of the other allies of the progressive majority of the investiture tried to lower this Tuesday in Congress the tone of the attacks on the political and judicial right in recent days and especially this Monday before the unusual clash between powers of the State caused by that adjusted decision of the Constitutional (6-5).
The Executive and its partners focused on finding an urgent solution to this crisis, which is not over yet, but with the idea of applying it as soon as possible and with the most traditional parliamentary methods.
The least precise party about the meaning of this specific solution turned out to be precisely the PSOE and the members of the Government, although the president himself, Pedro Sánchez, the minister spokesperson, Isabel Rodríguez, and the spokesperson in Congress, Patxi López, emphasized that They will use all the necessary mechanisms, measures and instruments to ensure that the law and the Constitution are complied with, the main institutional bodies are unblocked and the popular will expressed in the last elections, in 2019, is respected.
The idea most supported both by the two partners in the Government and by other formations in which the vast majority of the projects approved in Parliament have settled throughout the legislature, such as ERC, PNV, Más País or PDeCAT, is to appeal for the urgent route to a bill, signed by the two parties of the government coalition and the other formations, according to parliamentary sources.
The PDeCAT spokesman, Ferran Bel, emphasized the importance of this image of consensus "so that Congress's response to the interference of the Constitutional Court can be seen."
The bills are promoted by the parliamentary groups, unlike the bills signed by the Government, and have the virtue of being processed and resolved much faster, if the proposing groups have a quota to be able to register them, something that would be easy to obtain both for the PSOE and for UP, even during the month of January, which in principle is impossible.
Parliamentary sources point out, thus, that the proposal could be simple, brief, and consist of reproducing in its content the
express amendments
introduced and approved last week by those two parties in Congress in four days with the excuse of other legal reforms to the Penal Code, such as the suppression of the crime of sedition and the reduction of penalties for embezzlement.
PSOE and UP tried there to modify the necessary majorities in the system of election of magistrates outside the Constitutional mandate in the event that they did not comply with this obligation within a period of three months and even introduced possible criminal sanctions if they did not comply with this work .
The majority that the Council of the Judiciary is now required to complete these renewals is three-fifths and it was proposed to reduce the most voted applicants in the second vote in case of traffic jams.
That solution did not prosper due to the correction of the Constitution and now it is proposed to insist on that idea,
President Sánchez and other political leaders alluded this Tuesday to the need to now face this new process "with calm, firmness and determination" and openly questioned the unprecedented and unprecedented attitude of blocking what is included in the political, media and judicial right. .
But they began to lower the level of their qualification of the behavior of the Constitutionalist somewhat.
The one who again insisted on the accusation of a "coup" was the UP spokesman, Pablo Echenique.
Even Gabriel Rufián, the ERC spokesman, asked for some restraint and argued that the problem could have an easy solution with the joint bill and ruled out, yes, some more angry reactions on Monday from UP officials who outlined the possibility of a "contempt" of the ruling or street mobilizations.
"Disobedience without a plan is a giant with feet of clay, it's confetti," Rufián warned.
The option of disobeying the TC did not convince Mertxe Aizpurua, from EH Bildu, either, who also chose Íñigo Errejón, from Más País, or Néstor Rego, from BNG, for the alternative of the agreed proposal.
Unidas Podemos and Echenique did not waste the opportunity to remember that the problem with Justice is deeper than an unprecedented action by the Constitutional Court against "the inviolability" and "autonomy" of the Courts and reactivated their proposal to change the law of the Judiciary to unlock that governing body of judges, which has expired for four years.
Two years ago PSOE and UP already registered a similar initiative, which cut the majorities required to apply these systematic renewals, and Sánchez later withdrew it due to the misgivings of the European Union and the complaints of that PP of Pablo Casado, with whom he was in a final phase of negotiation that was later frustrated.
Echenique convened in a neutral room of Congress several parties usually allied to the Government, such as ERC, PNV, EH Bildu, Más País, PDeCAT,
BNG and even Teruel Exists, to discuss the matter.
The appointment became a brainstorm, as Aitor Esteban, from the PNV, later defined it.
Echenique later sent them the initiative registered at the time with the PSOE but with the nuance provided by magistrate José Antonio Martín Pallín, in the sense that the three-fifths majorities in the Chamber (220 seats) could be reduced to absolute majorities with the correction factor of half of the groups in the Chamber (now there would be five).
The Senate will resolve on Thursday between doubts in Congress
Except for new unforeseen events, the reform of the Penal Code that suppresses the crime of sedition and reduces the penalties for embezzlement when it does not involve personal gain will receive final approval from the Senate this Thursday and will be ready for submission to the BOE.
Sources from the Upper House rule out that the text be sent back to Congress, despite the legal doubts raised by the fact that the project has actually been modified by the resolution of the Constitutional Court.
The projects that come out of Congress become final after passing through the Senate, provided that the latter does not introduce modifications via amendments.
Normally, in the event that the Upper House agrees to any alteration, they must return to Congress for ratification.
But the current situation is also unprecedented in this regard.
The text that came out of the lower house will undergo modifications, but not by the intervention of the senators but by the Constitutional, which has left without effect the part of the reform that affected precisely the system of election of magistrates for the court of guarantees.
Should the bill then go back to Congress for confirmation?
Both the political groups and legal sources consulted from both chambers show their doubts about the unprecedented nature of the case,
Official sources of the Senate indicated that now it is the TC and not any political group that has withdrawn and "mutilated" from the text two transitory provisions and another two additional ones, while the rest of the project will be ratified by that Chamber without any modification with respect to what that came out of Congress.
For this reason, these sources understand that the process will be closed in the Senate, an opinion that is also shared by the majority of the Table of Congress, but that is questioned by other members of that government body and experts from various parties, who understand that "the final text does not it is substantially the same as the one voted by the lower house last Thursday”.