Joana Ortega: “The Government of Rajoy stood in profile and looked askance at 9-N”

Seven years have passed since the 2014 independence consultation. The person in charge of piloting it, Joana Ortega, then vice president of the Government, reveals the conversations with the central government and how the Executive of Mariano Rajoy put himself in profile until he verified the high participation. Ortega compares this process, done with the intention of not breaking the law, with the current division and lack of illusion of sovereignty.

What legal validity did 9-N have?

It was a turning point: as a people, we have incredible capabilities. When the participation of the people makes such an act possible, the result is the least of it. It was a brutal act. And sometimes I wonder: where are we now? We are further behind than in 2014, because then there was unity of the majority political forces and today there is a very great division.

And the legal validity?

That of being able to count, in a process done by volunteers, 2,344,828 people …

The figure is known by heart.

It’s my favorite number. Legally, the validity is given by the participation. We relied on the law of popular consultations. We were looking for the framework that would allow us to carry it out.

Tell me about your previous conversations with then-Vice President Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría.

The Parliament had gone to Congress to request the transfer of jurisdiction over consultations. The answer was always the closed door. We never stop talking. I went to see the vice president, explained to her that we would do the process and that we would do it well. We were there for four hours. I told him: ‘you cannot put the Constitution as the only argument’. I came out with the awareness that we had done everything possible.

Was there an unwritten agreement that the government tolerated consultation as long as there was no fuss?

We did not reach any agreement. What came out is that we would do it according to the possibilities of the law. “Can you explain more to me?”, He said. “Of course, I won’t explain anything else to you,” I replied.

Did you have the feeling that Moncloa was sending the message of ‘make the consultation and we will not take the police as long as the thing stays here’?

There were other conversations … I knew that progress had been made in making the consultation possible. The important fact that set the alarm in the State was the degree of participation. If 200,000 people had voted, nothing would have happened. The participation figures later marked the judicial repression. The Government underestimated the ability of the Generalitat to organize consultation and the response capacity of Catalan society.

Did you get the message of ‘don’t make too much noise and don’t hold press conferences and we will let you do it’?

Not to me directly, but I know it was in the environment. I think that the press conference at two in the afternoon to inform about the participation at one was necessary. It was an obligation to give figures.

Perhaps the massive press conference of ‘president’ Artur Mas and you at night bothered more.

It bothered more because the figure was very important and with a very high difference between ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

But, unlike on 1-O, the police did not come.

The police did not arrive.

What does it mean?

That did not come. We had some calls …

From the Ministry of the Interior?

Notifying us that it had to stop. It was around four in the afternoon on Sunday. I said: ‘I’m here’. I was at the CTTI [Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació].

So you are telling me that there was a threat from the Ministry of the Interior.

Someone from the ministry asked to know who were responsible. And I said: ‘if you want something, let them come and ask me here.’ We were never afraid that they would come to arrest us.

Nor that they sealed ballot boxes?

We were agile and people anticipated going to vote earlier, in case the voting stopped.

Would you have been in charge of 1-O?

They ran into many problems. Managing a referendum with the State against … We had it semi against. But then he was against it and on the warpath.

You had the State as letting you do …

In profile, looking sideways but with his hand raised for the slap. But in 1-O they had everything ready to go against it.

Were they convinced that they were acting within the law?

Totally. In 9-N there was at no time the will to violate the law. In any moment.

Maybe that’s why Oriol Junqueras, leader of ERC, got so angry at the Pedralbes meeting …

In that meeting the fact of making the consultation was put into crisis. The ‘president’ said: ‘we will do it’. And I said: ‘we will do it well’. He put all the positions of the Government on the table in case others wanted to move forward. I keep that in the end everyone participated.

Related news

Is it possible to recover that spirit of participation for an agreed and binding referendum?

The main problem is that, as a result of the illusions of 9-N, of the pain of 1-O, of the disunity that now exists in the independence movement, the worst that has remained of all is a great disappointment on the part of the people and a great disappointment. Many people are disappointed that politics have not been up to the task. This country does not need more martyrs. We have to know, just as Quebec knew when to hold a referendum and when not to, when things can be done. And the first thing missing is unity and a sufficient majority. First I want Catalonia to be financially independent. And that it be a cohesive, strong and united society. Now it is not.