It's an enigma. And complex to decipher, beyond reproach or unconditional adherence. Carles Puigdemont, the former president of the Generalitat who left for Belgium and remains on the run from Spanish justice, explains his political positions in this text through several conversations with his inner circle in Brussels and Waterloo. Its hard core reports to this newspaper on the negotiations with the Socialists, the proposed amnesty law, the judicial war – also called lawfare – and the future of the legislature. Puigdemont's analyses and projects, as well as his trajectory, are key to explaining the coming times in Catalan and Spanish politics: idolized by his own people, scandalous by his adversaries and criticized by many Catalans as well as by a majority of Spaniards, they have become a kind of Rosetta stone to unravel the unknowns of the political time that opened up on June 23. The seven votes of Junts were essential for the investiture of Pedro Sánchez in exchange for amnesty, a law that can take months and that will have to overcome several appeals in judicial instances.

The amnesty is the most immediate issue in Parliament, which has just registered the amendments to the entire Spanish right and is pending partial amendments from the nationalists. The leadership of Junts proposed to the leadership of the PSOE "to count on the PP" to bring it to a successful conclusion, according to the sources consulted in the aforementioned conversations. But the Socialists countered that this was "impossible" given the Conservatives' staunch opposition, Waterloo says. The secessionist nationalism intends to present several amendments to the bill before January 16, "incorporating elements that were not assumed at the end of the negotiations."

Of course, from the conviction of not jeopardizing its viability: "The amnesty will be approved, it is a meticulously prepared text," the former president – who postpones any official interview – usually comments to those closest to him. This judgment is especially forceful with regard to the "very elaborate" preamble. There has been harmony and meticulous joint work by the technicians, the sources added. And they explain that the long-awaited pending meeting between their leader and the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, will not be held immediately, but they maintain that it should not be delayed too long. "We understand that Sánchez wants to postpone it to associate it with the approval of the law," but the best thing to do is to schedule that meeting "as soon as possible." "They're both doing well, it reinforces them."

This rule is the key to the Junts-PSOE agreements (and of the socialists with Esquerra), but Puigdemont's entourage is at pains to stress that it does not respond to a personal interest of the exiled leaders, even if it benefits them. And it is the pillar of the package of agreements that allowed Sánchez to be invested. Puigdemont "was rather sceptical" about the possibility of the contacts crystallizing into a pact, given his experience in negotiations with former Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in October 2017 to call regional elections in exchange for the Generalitat not intervening through Article 155 of the Constitution.

It is already known that Waterloo usually distinguishes little – at least publicly – between the two major parties, and that its visible head considers that "between Catalonia and Spain there is no room for love", as this generates disappointments and frustrations. "But we can make sure that there is room for relations, of course consensual between both parties, so that both parties are satisfied, and that's what we're working on."

Do you trust the other party? Do you think the pact is moving in the right direction? The answer is one of lime and the other of sand, it is not known whether by negotiating calculation or by rhetorical expediency in the face of his followers who are more in favor of controversy than of the agreement. Regarding the progressive fulfilment of the conditions that Junts proposed to the PSOE in the negotiations, Waterloo states that the first condition was that the legitimacy of the independence movement be recognised; otherwise everything else was superfluous. Catalan in the EU "is advancing, although not as fast as it would be", perhaps some body of the general administration of the State has not pushed enough, the aforementioned sources point out. As for the mediator, his initial proposal was to describe him as "independent" so as not to cause more problems, but "it was clear that to be truly independent he could only be international." In short, there is progress, although with nuances.

But the mistrust is still there; at least in part. The harshest disagreements have been defused, "although you never know," his circle reproduces. In this pending issue of lack of trust "we are only beginning, we are still in diapers", but "there is a common will to rebuild catwalks". According to the Waterloo manual, in order to rebuild bridges, the first thing is respect; then, the change of narrative on the Catalan question; and the third, loyalty, that commitments are fulfilled. There is still a long way to go: the initial misgivings are at their highest. "We have been spied on, we have been told that we would be taken to Spain as prisoners, even Pedro Sánchez said it, and that is difficult to forget, but at the same time we are politicians," he said. Although mistrust is a game of mirrors and the progressive coalition regrets the scant recognition of the bridges it has built.

Thus, when it is argued that the PSOE risks a lot in this challenge, Waterloo alleges that the socialists started from a very weak position after 28-M, without territorial power, hardly any autonomous communities or Provincial Councils, without a hanger for thousands of liberated people: "It was facing a moment of pasokization", assures the former president's entourage, although this emphasis ignores that the PSOE won a million votes on 23-J compared to the previous elections. Junts lost support: isn't it Junts that had that problem? "Also, and we have another risk, that our people don't understand what we're doing, they don't accompany us." A certain pragmatism is imposed with these wickers. The pact does not mean to "build a great building", but to "put one brick on top of another, and another after another". Sometimes they throw them out, with dialectical provocations that give ammunition to the extreme right, always in the most delicate moments: "Understand that the narrative is important, that a different project can only be built on the basis of a disruptive narrative, and that we start from very distant positions," they justify.

From left to right: Laura Borrás, Jordi Turull, Carles Puigdemont and Miriam Nogueras, in Brussels, on 8 November. Delmi Alvarez

Is the return to pragmatism that ERC adopted with the pardons the one that Junts now embraces with the amnesty? Waterloo denies that they are returning to the politics of concrete things as a place they would have "abandoned," adding that their leaders have been treated "like pests, like Trumpists, like supremacists, like anti-establishment." "We are not a religious sect." Maybe not, but they adore Puigdemont, who is not subject to the democratic control of a party to which he does not belong. The former president "has authority, although he exercises it very rarely, as has happened with the decision to make a pact with the PSOE: in this case, yes, he could not evade it". They recognize, however, that their organization "is, let's say, weird," with a leader lacking organic responsibility. "That is why it is understandable that it was difficult for the PSOE to negotiate like this, it was a certain recognition of the authority derived from exile."

One of the most special and controversial conditions of the agreement, which is not usually referred to, alluded to the fact that "the only limits" of the pact should be, according to Junts, international treaties. And therein lies the heart of the ambiguities, because many citizens consider that the pact signed with the PSOE lacks an explicit mention of the framework of the Constitution, and its present and future compliance: a "we will not do it again". Waterloo employs a play of tricks and tricks to address that issue. Article 96 of the Constitution establishes that the international treaties signed "shall form part of the domestic order": the constitutional framework must be interpreted in accordance with international treaties, as stated in Article 10.

And yes, that's literal in the Basic Law. But it is also true that the deputies of Junts are preparing to sign the amnesty law, and this clearly establishes in its preamble, so praised by the former president, that it hangs strictly on the Constitution. That excludes unilateralism, which they continue to defend. At least publicly.

The reply to this reasoning is classic: "We can never renounce a right that does not belong to us, but is a collective right of the people. All peoples have the right to self-determination, according to the international treaties assumed by Spain." By contrasting that this right operates exclusively in the form of self-government within the State to which a people is attached, and that it only translates into the right to secession if that cannot be fulfilled because it is a colony or a dictatorship, according to international law, Puigdemont's circle tries to clear up the enigma with a promise of voluntarism and another of safeguards: "We want to negotiate and exhaust the path we have begun. And in the end, it remains to avail oneself of that recourse [unilateralism, an expression that he avoids, at least in this newspaper] if everything then fails."

Those close to the leader of Junts do not see "any incompatibility between the amnesty law and the constitutional framework". Of course, they recover the old pujolist discourse, according to which the Constitutional Court and successive governments have made "restrictive interpretations" of that framework to the point of making it "exclusive". "If someone has the will to go back to the basics, the dynamic can change; For example, a consultative referendum is perfectly possible, and moreover, recommended," they add. The argument evokes the liberal phrase according to which "when the right to secession is recognized, there is less risk of division of the State, as in the case of Switzerland; and the more it is constricted, the greater the risk to the continuity of the state."

However, this reasoning forgets that Puigdemont and his ilk governed exclusively – and according to guidelines declared illegal and unconstitutional – for only half of Catalans in 2017. On this point there are appeals to the generic: democracy implies political dispute. "The UK has not been broken by Brexit"; "Let's not be afraid of debates"; "Let us not confuse the rights of citizens, which is for everyone, and national identity, which belongs to everyone."

The last of the enigmas explored in these conversations is lawfare. When it is reproached in Waterloo that this issue aims to erode the independence of judges and therefore the foundations of the rule of law, the dialectic rises in tone. The interlocutor assures that "what has been agreed does not consist of the political power reviewing the jurisprudence of the courts." That it is only "a question of finding out what happened outside the courts, if there were improper meetings of judges with political leaders, if there was a submission or coordination." And that "of course it is the higher judicial levels that will have to decide on the lower levels", "but they will need information, and that is what the parliamentary committees will provide".

Trying to turn the sock over, the Puigdemontian circle combines this soft version with the indignant one, arguing that yes, "the rule of law must be restored", "because all the indications point to it having been subjected to a coup". "It is very likely that there have been judges who have violated the basic rules; Even if a majority is correct, the Judiciary and very specifically its General Council maintain intolerable connivance and complicity," criticizes the closest entourage of the current MEP.

Even if that were true, Congress is not competent to appoint or remove judges. "Granted, the Chambers cannot dismiss judges, but they must be able to shine a light on irregularities, to know the breakdowns in their functioning. And they must generate the regulations according to which the judiciary operates," the same sources point out. The task of the commissions of inquiry "cannot consist of taking concrete measures against individuals, but of undertaking the corresponding legal reforms: the ultimate objective is very simple, that Spanish judges are as independent as German judges". The thinness of the wires, this give and take, this yes but no but perhaps, is the mark of the Puigdemont enigma.

"I won't make a Tarradellas"

No, categorically "I will not make a Tarradellas", Carles Puigdemont assured a visitor, in a sentence that those close to him consider unfinished. Their rejection of a return with massive and spectacular reception may be due to the difficulty of achieving it. But he argues that the first to take advantage of the amnesty law should be the demonstrators, those who were at the organization of the polling stations, the grassroots people still today subject to uncertainty about their future.

And his obsession is not to provide any support for the criticism that he has sought above all personal gain. However, his legal advisers believe that from the moment the law is passed, and even if it is appealed to the courts, he will be free to return immediately without charge, because arrest warrants and other precautionary measures will automatically lapse, in their interpretation of the preamble and article 4.

He has not yet thought through the format of the return, but it will be developed on the dual aspiration of dignity and institutional meaning. "In no way as a candidate of a party", but in a way that "serves to strengthen the unity of independence", explain very close sources.

If things happen more or less like this, six years in Waterloo will have been behind them. Outwardly, its main protagonist rejects victimhood, telling his daughters that they are much better off than many people, that they are lucky to see each other every 15 days, although his intimates have seen him excited by a bottle of Viladrau water brought by a countryman.

And sometimes he confesses to family and friends, perhaps so as not to offer weak flanks, that he could spend "his whole life" there, that he has already completed a long political career. For, even if he forgets that he has sometimes viciously reviled it, Europe is his home. "I am European," he proclaims to his followers, "I feel at home and I am moved by the image of Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand shaking hands," referring to the photo of the two in the cemetery of Verdun, in 1984, 70 years after the start of the first great war. "I feel like a child of that European adventure."

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Read more

I'm already a subscriber

_