{"id":176203,"date":"2025-11-25T05:57:49","date_gmt":"2025-11-25T05:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/raed.academy\/?p=176203"},"modified":"2025-11-25T05:57:49","modified_gmt":"2025-11-25T05:57:49","slug":"old-and-new-europe-and-the-ghosts-of-the-past","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/raed.academy\/en\/old-and-new-europe-and-the-ghosts-of-the-past\/","title":{"rendered":"Old and new Europe and the ghosts of the past"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Dra.

Dr. Teresa Freixes<\/p><\/div>\n

Teresa Freixes<\/strong><\/a>, Jean Monnet<\/strong> ad personam Chair, president of the international organisation Citizens pro Europe<\/strong>, vice-president of the civic platform Sociedad Civil Catalana<\/strong>, and Numerary Member and Vice-President of the Governing Board<\/strong> of the Royal European Academy of Doctors<\/strong> (READ), reflects on Spanish and international political developments in her articles \u00abLa Comisi\u00f3n de Venecia se posiciona claramente\u00bb<\/strong>, \u00abDel discurso del odio al delito del odio\u00bb<\/strong>, \u00abPuro relato, puro teatro\u00bb<\/strong>, \u00abBajo la bota\u00bb<\/strong>, \u00abMoci\u00f3n de censura instrumental: no es tan f\u00e1cil\u00bb<\/strong>, \u00abSe creen Mandela\u00bb<\/strong> y \u00ab9 de noviembre: aniversario de la ca\u00edda del muro de Berl\u00edn\u00ab<\/strong> published between October and November in the specialised platform Art\u00edculo 14<\/strong> and the digital newspapers The Objective<\/strong> and El Imparcial.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In \u201cThe Venice Commission Takes a Clear Stand,\u201d Freixes recalls that this consultative body of the Council of Europe recently issued two critical opinions regarding the Spanish Government<\/strong>\u2014one on the Amnesty Law and another on the model for appointing the members of the General Council of the Judiciary<\/strong>. Who would have thought it? That a State like Spain, once considered exemplary for its democratic transition and for its contribution to European integration, would need to turn repeatedly to a specialised European body due to the legal-constitutional problems arising from current political tensions was unthinkable just a few decades ago,\u201d she writes.<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/em>In \u201cFrom Hate Speech to Hate Crime,\u201d she warns about violent protest practices and the dehumanisation of opponents occurring in Spain with the tacit or explicit approval of institutional representatives: \u201cIt is lamentable that some of the environments in which hate speech\u2014both in its populist and nationalist forms\u2014is most widespread are precisely universities and the cultural sphere, which by their very nature should be far removed from such perversion. Although this is nothing new. Hannah Arendt<\/strong>, in The Origins of Totalitarianism<\/strong>, confronts us with harsh words about official chroniclers, academic colleagues and other accomplices.\u201d<\/p>\n

In \u201cPure Narrative, Pure Theatre,\u201d<\/strong> Freixes criticises what she interprets as political bartering between the Government and Junts in exchange for support in Parliament, including demands such as making Catalan an official language of the European Union: \u201cThey argue that almost nine million Catalans are discriminated against by the EU due to the \u2018anti-patriotic\u2019 Popular Party,<\/strong> when there are Member States with far smaller populations whose languages are already official. These are Member States which, logically, have their own official language\u2014whatever the size of their population\u2014and under EU law that language is official in EU institutions. If we were to base official status on the number of speakers, we would have to officialise Arabic, Turkish, or Russian, as millions of EU residents have one of these as their mother tongue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Her article \u201cUnder the Boot\u201d<\/strong> refutes claims that the Spanish Armed Forces<\/strong> imposed constitutional articles during the drafting of the 1978 Constitution.<\/strong> \u201cThe Constitution contains no clause alien to democratic constitutionalism. Territorial integrity is a principle present in virtually all States. Even the European Union regulates it\u2014even if it does not (yet) have its own armed forces to guarantee it\u2014insofar as it falls under the competences of Member States that the EU must respect.\u201d<\/p>\n

In \u201cInstrumental No-Confidence Motion: Not So Easy,\u201d she explains the challenges of using a no-confidence motion as a tactic to force early elections. \u201cThe Constitution adopted the German model of constructive no-confidence. This means that simply presenting and voting on the motion\u2014as in Italy or the UK\u2014is not enough; the written proposal must include the name of an alternative candidate for Prime Minister. If passed by absolute majority, that candidate is appointed directly by the King. Constructive motions are much harder to present. Hence, in France and Italy, where the mechanism is not constructive, no-confidence motions are frequent; in Germany, they are extremely rare. In Spain, of six motions submitted, only one has succeeded: the one against Mariano Rajoy<\/strong>, which led to the PSOE<\/strong>\u2013Unidas Podemos<\/strong> coalition government under Pedro S\u00e1nchez<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In \u201cThey Think They\u2019re Mandela,\u201d the Citizens pro Europe president points out how the Catalan independence movement has consistently lost all its legal battles in Europe. \u201cThe leaders of the 2017 coup against democracy repeatedly turn to the European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> claiming to be victims of a State that violates their rights. They return again and again, but they haven\u2019t won a single case. Most complaints have been dismissed outright. In the first case that reached judgment, they learned that their desire to cast themselves as \u2018Mandela\u2019 has led nowhere.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, in \u201c9 November: Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall,\u201d she recalls the end of Germany\u2019s division and warns of the danger of new ideological walls. \u201cAlthough it may seem that modernity prevents such things from repeating themselves, we are not immune. We cannot allow new dividing walls to be built, for catastrophe may already be creeping in. Invisible to the human eye, these mental walls are even more dangerous and unacceptable than physical ones. How do we confront them? How do we inoculate citizens so they do not succumb to moral erosion? Today it is far easier to go along with the confrontational mindset embodied in this mental wall than to denounce it, oppose it, and\u2014despite insults and attacks\u2014remain free and informed citizens, aware of what voting in a democracy means, socially engaged and ready to defend the values on which walls, fences and obsolete mental reservations have no place.\u201d<\/p>\n