THE phrase in Spanis dar la vuelta la tortilla, which roughly translates as to turn the omelette, refers to causing a radical change in one’s fortune in a situation. Imagine a football match where a team is 2-0 down at half-time, and suddenly they turn the omelette, scoring three goals and winning the match.
In the last two weeks there have been some spectacular omelette-turning attempts by the Spanish judiciary, who ended up with egg on their faces after the failed extradition of exiled president Carles Puigdemont from Germany on a charge of rebellion.
The Schleswig-Holstein court rejected the European Arrest Warrant from the Supreme Court judge Llarena on the basis the alleged crimes did not fulfil the German definition rebellion. Not to be deterred by this setback, the prosecutor started preparing a new request on the charges of sedition and rebellion.
It seemed that someone was determined to use whatever accusation possible to get the president back to Spain, where nine Catalan politicians and activists are currently imprisoned.
The twin charges of sedition and misappropriation of funds are also falling to pieces after someone who would be expected to know about these things, ie the Spanish minister for the economy, rather surprisingly debunked the charge of misappropriation of funds and stated that not a cent of public money had been spent on the referendum. Then and only then did the civil guard come forward with a document that confirmed there had been no public money spent.
Of course this is only a continuation of a recent spate of charges for rebellion, sedition and terrorism against various critics and opponents of the government. As Spanish number two Soraya Saenz de Santamaria boasted in December, it was thanks to “Mariano Rajoy and the PP” that pro-independence forces had been “decapitated”. She did not, you will notice, attribute this victory to “the independent judiciary” of Spain.
Anyway, rather frustratingly for the PP and Mariano Rajoy, the dismembered body of Catalan independence keeps lurching on no matter how many times they lop its head off. The movement is showing no signs of surrendering to this “lawfare”, to use the term coined by Julian Assange.
Those of us who are critical of the government in this area were left delighted last week after the Supreme Court blew a hole the size of Catalonia in its own argument.
A Supreme Court tribunal concluded that: “if a significantly larger number of police had interfered on the October 1, it is highly likely that everything would have ended in a massacre and then it would be probable that the outcome of the European Arrest Warrant would have been different.”
Let’s leave aside the wholly inappropriate choice of words (some people seem to have decapitation and massacre on their minds) and focus on the two inherent admissions in this argument:
1. Since an increase in police numbers would have elevated the violence, it follows that the civil guard were responsible for the violence and not those currently imprisoned individuals.
2. If we accept that an elevated number of casualties and severity of injury would have resulted from more civil guard officers, it shows that there was intent to inflict injury and that the violence wasn’t a result of circumstances on the day.
All this aside, we can only guess why the Supreme Court thinks that inflicting mass murder on a civilian population would increase his chances of extraditing the exiled president. We are all poised for the next attempt to turn the omelette.
Bobby Irvine
Barcelona
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here