Response from President of the Government to candidate from parliamentary group Unidos Podemos-En Comú Podem-En Marea in debate on motion of no confidence in government

Lower House of Parliament

Madam Speaker, Honourable Members of Parliament, Mr Candidate.

If you were so bent on criticising my government, what you should have done was present Ms Montero as the candidate and defend the motion yourself. You want to be everywhere all at once and yet you fall down everywhere: in the opposition and in a potential government. And although you may have many talents, you cannot be in two places at once, at least as far as I am aware. Furthermore, Ms Montero was sufficiently eloquent not to need you to come up here afterwards and ruin her speech. You shouldn't have done that.

Honourable Members,

We have heard a speech focused on the past; we have also heard a twisted version of the past; a Decalogue in the style of "Aló Presidente" [Venezuelan TV show moderated by President Chávez] plus a few other anecdotes. There was one that was truly noteworthy, when the Candidate wishes to explain to us here - this undoubtedly forms part of his government programme - the relationship between the People's Party and the [French] National Front. Just look, I haven't exactly received glowing praise from its leader - I am talking about the leader of the National Front. What I have heard is, "for me, in Spain, my model is that of Podemos, because it represents the anger of the people and the fight against the European Union". A quote from Marine Le Pen, Mr Iglesias.

Now, Honourable Members, let's get to the crux of the matter, because the person subject to the will and the decision of the Lower House is you, and hence, the issue is to decide on whether you are suitable or not, in the opinion of this House, to be the President of the Government and whether your programme receives the support of the majority of this House.

Mr Iglesias,

The people of Spain do not want you to govern; you, who are the candidate and who have come here today to ask for support. And they have said this clearly every time that they have had to take a decision in this regard. The results you have obtained in the two general elections held in Spain clearly show that you are far from the preferred candidate to manage the affairs that affect us all. And furthermore, you have less support as time goes by: you lost almost 1 million votes in just six months. The more people know you, the less they vote for you.

We should ask ourselves, in light of these objective facts, how it is possible that, since you are so brilliant, so sensitive and so close to the people, how these same people show disdain for your merits and have clearly shown their preference for other parties. Moreover, how is it possible that the Candidate, who has been waving this motion of no confidence around for almost two months throughout the national political panorama, has received such scant support for it?

Jonathan Swift summed it up perfectly when he said, "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces conspire against him". This must be what has happened with the Candidate: that he is a victim of a universal conspiracy against him and his political project.

There can be no other explanation, Mr Iglesias, except that the Spanish people and those who represent them in this House are fully aware that a government headed up by you or where you exercise some form of influence would be a lethal government for the general well-being and for the model of co-existence we have provided.

Mr Candidate,

You must not be the President of the Government of all the people of Spain. You must not hold that position because of the alternative programme to govern that you have presented this House with, but also because of what you have said and done in Spain to date. You must not be the President of the Government, Mr Candidate. Moreover, I am absolutely convinced that you agree with this statement and, should that not be the case, then I would be far more concerned that I am at this time.

You know, furthermore, that you are not going to be the President of the Government, and that isn't even your intention in coming here today. What you are doing here today is one more milestone in your original and innovative concept of political activity: speculative politics.

Don't get me wrong. For you, politics means gesturing, performing, slogans, photo shoots and all sorts of elements that are effective in show business. It is thus logical for you to try to be as creative as possible, including bringing up this motion of no confidence.

The thing about all of you is that you cannot get out of the camera shots, because for you image is everything but a sideshow. But, Honourable Member, Parliament is much more than just a chatroom, one of your group events or a faculty meeting. I know that you think differently and you have even put this down in writing, "specifically as regards political debates, tv studios has become the true Parliament". But that is not the case, Mr Iglesias. The main difference is that national sovereignty is represented in Parliament and that, Honourable Member, means that it should be taken very seriously.

Your publicity stunts may have helped you to hold your seat but that is as far as your journey will go. You cannot be the President of the Government, because your devotion to politics as a mere spectacle means you do are not qualified to govern in the eyes of the Spanish people, as you are also disqualified because of the deliberate insolence - I say "deliberate" - that you show to the "political caste" in all of its incarnations. Before it, anything goes, which allows you to employ freedom of speech to cast your sleaze with total impunity.

I am aware that this is a deliberate attitude; I know that. Your redemptive liturgy testifies to this; this spirit of marginality and the desire to break away that the Honourable Member displays; this affected manner of performing your public life as if you were on television or in the theatre. It is clear that the clothes fit the wearer much more than one would imagine.

A certain veneer of impertinence is essential for you, which gives a lively television portrayal of your hostility towards the powerful, the moral repugnance that the "political caste" provoke in you.

How can we ensure that the Honourable Member, although he has condescended to become an MP, is not confused with the others, with those he so detests? How can we put on record that this House is not his House, that his fellow members are not here, but outside, if possible, causing an uproar? Honourable Member, you so dearly need this unbuttoned dress code, this puffed up talk, this indignant way of overacting that you habitually display; you need this.

But, Honourable Member, this attitude which, as I say - and it is not necessary for me to do this because you already know it - you need, this conduct, also disqualifies you from becoming the President of the Government of Spain.

Honourable Members,

There is something even worse about his candidature: his sick obsession with painting a red line to divide our citizens into 'good' and 'bad'; us and them; those who are worthy of his support and those who deserve his condemnation; first-class Spaniards and the rest - those that don't bend to his strategies. In this classification, the People's Party is obviously the very pinnacle of evil. We are the epitome of all that is wrong.

Honourable Member,

What is the reason for this motion you are presenting if it is not for the Socialist Group to declare its hand and say on which side of the fence it wishes to sit? You divide the world into good and bad, but not in order to close differences and design a method for co-existence; not at all, your aim is to better recognise the enemy to vanquish him. You use morals as a scouring pad to employ your abrasive self perpetuating vocation.

There is nothing more to read out to you, Honourable Member, because you explain everything clearly in many of your lessons on political strategy. You presume to have overcome the habitual categories of left and right. You have gone that extra mile, which is certainly innovative: your world is divided into the dignified and the undignified, the decent and the indecent, the plunderers and the plundered. You don't want to debate arguments; you want to destroy your adversary. Do you remember your first appearance? I brought it here to slip it in to my opening speech "Victimisation", "stigmatisation" and "destruction".

Have you ever stopped to think about the Spanish reality in order for this speech on division and revenge to appear attractive? The evil that you need to denounce would have to be so unbearable in itself, and not just because you say so; but by itself. The only thing unbearable, Honourable Member, is what goes on too long and does not offer any form of solution, and that is not the case in Spain today.

Honourable Member,

In all honesty, have you ever stopped to think that this attitude disqualifies you from governing? Do you believe that someone who doesn't even propose to govern on behalf of everyone should be allowed to govern? That is why you cannot be the President of the Government

Honourable Members,

I am not only talking, Mr Iglesias, about theoretical construction; I am also talking about conduct inspired by this divisive concept of politics, conduct that you have depicted and that has depicted you as a party that should never govern Spain.

Those who have tried to harass their political adversaries, whether at university or in front of their own homes should not govern Spain. And that is what you have done, the members of Podemos.

Those who have apologised for "not smashing the face in of those ultra-right wing supporters with whom he argues on television" - those are your words, Mr Iglesias - should not govern Spain, or those who claim that "the enemy only has one language, the language of force".

Those who have been reported for carrying out a "systematic campaign of personal harassment and through networks against professionals from different media outlets, who you browbeat and threaten when you disagree with their information" should not govern Spain. Those are not my words, but the words of the Press Association. Honourable Members, this complaint constitutes, by itself, a democratic exception never before seen in Spain, and they then talk to me about television.

Honourable Members,

I am not talking about such remote events, or sins of youth that you show some kind of remorse for. I am not taking about an isolated case, but rather about a clear and defined strategy of harassment against those who dare to disagree. It is this type of conduct you display that disqualifies you from governing Spain.

Honourable Member,

Another of the elements that makes your candidature to the Presidency of the Government of Spain highly unadvisable is your penchant for creating political discourse based on alleged evidence that is always exaggerated and habitually false. As has been seen in the justification of this motion and the defence that your political group has made of this, this penchant for deforming reality at your convenience is fairly generalised among your fellow backbenchers. This barely serves you in those parliaments that are in favour of the Candidate, on TV chat-shows and, more specifically, in your debate programme; but here, in the true Parliament, your lies are exposed.

How can you say, Honourable Member, that "in Spain the rights of the people are under threat or have been taken captive due to the behaviour of the People's Party and its government"? Do you people think before speaking or speak after thinking?

Honourable Member,

How can you say that "the only political project of the government is to normalise corruption and to plunder an aged State model"? Or that "Spain is living in times of democratic exception and emergency"? Or that "the government of Mariano Rajoy is taking us away from Europe and placing our country at the tail end of the continent".

What has happened here is clear and all those of us present here are aware of this. What has happened is that you have seen, firstly, in the economic crisis, and now in the cases of corruption, an opportunity to consolidate a "left-wing populism" in Spain, and the definition is not mine, Mr Iglesias, but yours. But, unfortunately for your theoretical conceptions and fortunately for the people of Spain, our country has nothing to do with the picture you are painting.

The more progress we make on economic recovery, the more jobs we create, the more crooks brought to justice and the better things go for Spain in general, the more distance that opens up between your discourse and the true reality, and the more you thus need to exaggerate your tone, your smears and your deceit. You need to disregard the truth more, you imperatively need this because, if not, your house of cards will fall down, because your whole strategy and your whole political project can be summarised in one maxim: the worst things are for everyone else, the better for my - your - political gain.

Honourable Member,

Your experiment in the Spanish version of "left-wing populism" is dissolving rapidly, like ice in the sun in this month of June in Madrid. You are only underpinning your policies with fictions of misery such as those you brought up in your speech.

For this reason as well, for manipulating the reality to your sole benefit, you are not worthy to be the President of the Government.

Furthermore, Honourable Member, you are untrustworthy for most of the Spanish people, because you are also immersed in an ongoing exercise in impersonation which, at the end of the day, will only cause widespread mistrust. You are capable to taking on all the political positions, even if they are conflicting, if you consider that this is suitable for your immediate interests. You live in a permanent mutation according to the demands of the political market: you declare that you are a social democrat at the same time as deciding to merge with the traditional communists without the slightest hesitation; you talk about the "smile of a country" but your political discourse revolves around division and the victimisation of your adversary; one day you say that "the heavens can be taken by storm" while another of your pronouncements states that "attacks are made in a democracy by knocking at the door"; one day you announce that the regime of 1978 is collapsing and the next you are celebrating the Transition as a political success story. And I could go on in this vein ad infinitum.

In short, Honourable Members, the Candidate has given ample proof of his agility in short-term manoeuvrings and has managed, on more than one occasion, to bewilder those with whom he is fighting for the same political space. But that does not mean that these abilities are what are required to head up the Government of Spain. Bewilderment is not what is expected of a governor, nor a plethora of ideas, nor a wildly tacking strategy. That is the total opposite of the stability that a country like ours needs.

What all of this goes to show is that the Candidate considers it reckless to reveal his hand, and that the time hasn't yet come to bring it out into the open. In short, you are hiding your intentions, you are untrustworthy and, for that reason, it is natural that you do not inspire confidence and that, Honourable Members, is even more remarkable when we hear you talk about this thing that you call "your political programme".

Honourable Member,

Quite frankly, I cannot share your understanding of Spain and of the future of the Spanish people. I do not share your vision of our country, your economic and social project, and your peculiar manner of understanding democracy.

You do not like the democratic system we have in Spain, nor do you share what was done in our Transition, nor do you like the Spanish Constitution, what you call "the regime". You have written this; just look at what you wrote, "The regime of 1978, with its King, its Moncloa Pacts, its two-party system, its NATO bases, its Constitution and its undeniable consensus between a good part of the population is in crisis". That is why you justify your motion with such impartial statements as "Spain is undergoing a democratic emergency", "the rights of citizens are under threat and have been taken captive" and "the government breaks the basic rules of the democratic game".

Although it is true, I must acknowledge this, that to combat this model you have proposed an alternative to us: your democratic model, which is a country that is not going through a democratic emergency, a country where the rights of citizens are respected and a country with a government whose decisions are those of the democratic model as you appreciate them.

That is your alternative and those are your words, and here are some more of your words, Mr Iglesias, "It is very interesting to live in a country like Venezuela where so many changes and transformations are taking place that may become a benchmark in democracy for the citizens of southern Europe". That is your model, certainly not mine.

Mr Iglesias, the problem is that, when you and I speak about democracy, we are talking about two different things. I don't have the same vision as you of what is a democratic system. I have a very different concept of the separation of powers to you. For me, Parliament, this House, is something very serious and that is why I am here, taking part on various occasions, as you said in your first speech, because for me Parliament is a basic pillar of the democratic system, it is the representation of national sovereignty - something in which I believe - of the political will of the nation and of all the people of Spain.

For you, Parliament is something else, again quoting you, Parliament is somewhere "to cause a fuss" - well - somewhere where "potential delinquents" can feel at home. The Candidate explained to us some time back that for him, "representation does not involve any commitment" because ours is "a bourgeois Parliament - I am not going into any further detail - that represents the interests of the upper classes". And he reaffirmed this by stating that "parliamentary work can be wonderful or the path towards political idiocy". We understand that the wonderful part corresponds to you and the rest to us. Well there you go!

In the same way, Honourable Member, as we have a very different vision of what a parliament is in a democratic system, nor do we think alike about what another of the great State powers should be - the judiciary. For me, the judges are independent and are subject to the rule of law, as established in our Constitution. That is what I have always believed in from a very young age. However, Honourable Member, for you the separation of powers is something very different. One only has to read the concept paper published by Podemos in February 2016, which stated that the election of the upper echelons of the judiciary should be achieved by consensus "under the logic that the government teams will necessarily be comprised of able people, with different political leanings, but committed to the programme of a government of change", which was what you offered back then to Mr Sánchez.

You will appreciate that my enthusiasm when faced with this type of statement wanes because my question, Honourable Member, is how do you appreciate that this commitment to change can be exercised by the judiciary? If your primary commitment is to the idea of change, in other words, the ideas of Podemos, in what place, Honourable Member - answer this for me - does the law hold, or the truth and the rights of citizens? What is their place?

Honourable Member,

You give the impression, in light of such statements, that what you intend is not only to be the President of the Government, but you also aspire to combine this with the Presidency of the Supreme Court, since this is your way of understanding the democratic principle of the separation of powers.

And just think about the following, because it is no less curious and no less concerning: your concept of individual's rights as contained in our Constitution and that of the majority of our peer countries. Honourable Member, the right to the freedom of expression is a basic principle of the democratic tradition of the whole Western world. Hence, I cannot share some of your statements such as the one whereby you state, "the fact the majority of the media is in private hands is an attack on the freedom of expression - I wholeheartedly disagree with this - and even, "the existence of private media companies is an attack on the freedom of expression".

The worst part of this vision you have of the rights of individuals, and which is substantiated in newspaper archives which, believe me, are infinite, is that you do not limit yourself to your habitual provocative stance, which is mere posturing, but this manifests itself in such conducts as those denounced by the Press Association in the resounding press release I mentioned earlier.

Honourable Member,

We have different ways of understanding what a democratic system is. For me, the rights of individuals - I believe in this, the same as in the separation of powers - are the most sacred rights we have as human beings. That applies to the right to the freedom of expression, and also to the other rights contained in our Constitution.

That is why, Honourable Member, I would like to clearly state that public complaints are not, as you also state, "a democratic sweetener from the underclasses", but rather, are an attack on the rights of people, their liberty, their privacy and their ability to state their opinions without being coerced. That is what public complaints are. Honourable Members, I would never make a public complaint against any of you; just listen to me well, never. And few people will find you further away from your own political position than me; but rest assured that I will never try to prevent you from exercising your fundamental rights as an individual. You can rest assured in that, although I don't know if I could say the same.

In short, the Candidate only likes true democracy with reservations, with a great many reservations. I am not referring to what you crave, but to what real democracy is, what is our bread and butter every day in the Western world. I fear that this is too imperfect for your taste but you are not the first person in history to think this way, there have been others, as you undoubtedly know much better than me; others who also defended democracy, but it was their own democracy, in their own style, not the decadent democracy that characterizes Western civilization; which according to you needs civilising.

Our version seems too elitist to you, not based on assemblies, Mr Iglesias and, worse still, held captive by a "plot" which, according to you, forgets that the institutions are not personal but belong to the people. You would need to ask this House then, who has put us here? You are here because of the people, and everyone else, can you then explain this to us later, if you will, who has put us here?

Honourable Member.

I am a convinced democrat and I accept that others might be waiting to be, but I don't want them to govern. This would not be good for the democratic health of our country, or for the welfare of the Spanish people as a whole.

I will move on now to outline to the Honourable Members the dangers which, in my opinion, we would be exposed to for the social and economic welfare of the people of Spain if we invested the candidate, as well as to the recovery that we are now bedding down thanks to the efforts from all concerned.

Mr Iglesias,

In my previous speech, I stated that in 2017 Spain is a country that is growing at around 3%, way above the European average and also of another country that has been quoted as a model today. We are growing at twice the rate of that country, of our neighbour. Ours is a country that is creating more than half a million jobs a year while reducing its public deficit and lowering taxes; our exports are constantly on the rise and we are receiving more tourists; we are receiving higher levels of foreign investment in all sectors and, thanks to that, improving the financing of our basic public services, particularly social services.

I can say to you that this panorama was very different… Speaking as someone well-informed, the situation was exactly the opposite just six years ago; a whopping deficit, a lack of confidence, tax hikes, high financial costs, a lack of competitiveness, falling salaries, a loss of resources for public services and, worst of all, mass job losses. That is what I appreciate we went through as a genuine national emergency or an "exceptional" situation, in order to use the right scale of concept that the Honourable Member is so keen on. That is where you and others come from.

In 2011, I came to this House to ask for your trust, I couldn't offer anything else. Six months ago, in my investiture debate, I was able to offer results. Today, I can say that things are even going a little better and that the people of Spain have an ever more optimistic horizon.

Honourable Member,

That is my balance of the situation and my guarantee, and what I can offer now is to maintain the policies that helped bring about the recovery, economic growth, job creation and the well-being of the Spanish people. And what you are proposing is quite the opposite: you propose to rectify, one by one, the policies that have brought us out of the crisis and have returned the confidence to Spanish society, thus unleashing instability and uncertainty.

You want to undo all the reforms, all those things that have improved the competitiveness of the economy; those reforms that have led us to enjoy more robust growth and a faster rate of job creation than the other main economies in the Eurozone. What argument justifies such a complete overhaul? None. You simply don't like them.

Honourable Member,

In all the countries of the European Union, in all of them, the format that works is balancing the public accounts and undertaking structural reforms. That is the only way to correct the imbalances, improve competitiveness, and consequently, generate economic growth and job creation. And that is what is allowing us to increase revenue and thus devote more resources to attending to people's needs, and what makes us more effective in the fight against inequality and poverty.

Honourable Member,

This policy is exactly the opposite of what you intend to do. I can assure you that any unrestrained increase in public spending, as you have proposed in the recent debate on the Budget, the tax hike you advocate and undoing the reforms will only serve for us to suffer a relapse: a return to the public deficit, to economic imbalances, to ruining our economy, affecting growth and job creation and endangering our Welfare State.

And, Mr Iglesias, there have been practical examples of this in Europe, and it beggars belief that you don't realise or aren't aware of this. Examples of what happens when you create mistrust and examples of how people end up paying for this by losing their jobs, work and pensions; there is one country where 30% of their pension has been cut. You talk a lot in behalf of citizens but seem to think little about their well-being.

Honourable Members,

I invite you to contemplate this political hypothesis. Let's imagine that the Honourable Member wins the investiture vote. Quite simply, either you will not do what you have promised and proposed, as has happened to some of your European colleagues, or your radical position will lead us back into a crisis that has taken so much hard work to get out of.

Honourable Members,

At this time, Spain is coming back from the severe crisis we have been immersed in since 2007. We are bedding down the recovery and laying the foundations for a future with jobs and growth. I believe that through hard work, dialogue and renouncing some ideas, we have forged understandings and agreements in this House. We have offered certainty and tranquillity to the Spanish people who clamoured for this during the long months with a caretaker government. Let's not play with fire.

Not long ago, Spain suffered a five-year period of negative economic growth and what Spain does not need now is an outlook of instability such as your party fosters with speeches such as those we have heard in this House today.

In short, Honourable Member, in the same way as we don't share your vision of what a democratic system should be, neither do we share your economic policy, because it would be very harmful to the well-being of the Spanish people as a whole.

These, by themselves - just these; this argument and the previous one - are sufficient reasons for us not to support your candidature under any circumstance; but there is another reason that is even more worrying, if that is possible, and you have mentioned this a great deal.

I am concerned by your vision of Spain, Honourable Member. For me, Spain is a shared life project. The Spanish people are united by our history, our culture, our experiences and our personal relations, which greatly unite us; but, above all, our democratic desire to live together unites us. It was us, the people of Spain, who decided in our Constitution what we wanted to be and how we wanted to live together; those of us who asserted the unity of the nation, national sovereignty, the equality of all Spaniards and our fundamental rights as people and as citizens.

We also decided, among us all, Honourable Members, to create our State of Autonomy, which has given the greatest degree of self-governance in the history of Spain to the different nationalities and regions that make up our country. I repeat, the greatest degree of self-governance in the history of Spain. When this agreement was reached, there were people who wanted a centralised State, without autonomous regions, while there were others who wanted to see this latter option. The main success of that operation was reaching an agreement.

Well, all of that is what we, the Spanish people, wanted, and things will remain that way for as long as the Spanish people want. That is, at least, my position.

Honourable Member,

I want to know exactly what you think of this. We have heard you say - once again this morning - I paid close attention to the following statement: regarding "the reformulation of the regional model so that all the nations, political communities and territories can find their place within Spain, should they so decide". We have heard you say this. Also, "from the acceptance of the right to decide of those nations that have strongly proposed this"; you have also spoken about this to us. And "to develop a plurinational State without dictates" is another of your phrases, as is "to create a Ministry of Plurinationality", which was what corresponded to Mr Domenech.

Honourable Member,

I don't know whether all this falls in line with the fact that you are organised as an amalgam of seas, confluences, current and counter-currents; I simply don't know. What I do know is that Spain does not work like your party, which is Pablo Iglesias and his confluences.

The thing is that you have here today, in Parliament, a wonderful opportunity to clarify yourself and to clarify to all the rest of us what you really think about our country. I was going to add something, but I won't say it now. If you convinced me about this issue I would almost be tempted to vote for you myself.

Honourable Member,

National sovereignty. Do you believe in national sovereignty or do you think we should get rid of it? This is a very straight-forward question. Do all the people of Spain have a right to decide on what they want the country to be or, on the contrary, should only some decide and the others just accept this? That is what we want to know from you and, if you want us to take you seriously, which I am not sure of, you should answer us. There is no room for ambiguities here, or half measures, or political gambits, and you have made many of them, Mr Iglesias.

The first obligation of all those who appear before the representatives of national sovereignty with the aim of electing the President of the Government - the first; then there are others, but this is the first - is to explain whether they believe in the unity of their country and are prepared to defend the sovereignty of the nation as a whole. Everything else is just words, Mr Iglesias.

Then, if you wish, you can also explain the plurinational reality to us that you proclaim and tell us what it consists of; what effects this has, because it must have some effect; what changes this will lead to in our system; and how many nations can form a part of this reality, if they are nations with a State, without a State or nations on the way to becoming a State.

In short, Honourable Member, and being totally frank, so far the only thing we know about your position on this issue, and this is very important to me, let's hope it is not a trivial position; apart from your calculated ambiguity, which we are aware of, is the doctrine… Your motherland is not what was read to us today; your motherland, you have said, is democracy, except that you have definitions that are adapted to the position you are in at any given time. Your motherland is democracy and, since your motherland is democracy, you have said that you are in favour of the right to decide, even though this needs to be agreed in a pact. You will have to explain that to me: how it is that you are in favour of the right to decide, even though this needs to be agreed in a pact.

Just look, the phrase sounds nice, it sounds very nice, which is why you use it, so that, by expressing such a conflictive idea in such a positive manner, it is well received by those citizens it is addressed to. But in politics, Honourable Member, some of us have learned that the simple formulation of very complex concepts never lacks intention but makes too many errors and pitfalls. There are issues out of which you can make a headline, sweeping titles, those things that one says and that everyone agrees on that I have done so badly, but this is not an issue of headlines or sweeping titles, this is a deep-rooted issue.

Some people present the right to decide as an inherent and indisputable right in any democracy, in all democracies; but I have not seen this included as such in any democratic system in the world, in any at all, or contained in international law. Allow me to say to you that those who defend this, and moreover who practice this, defend a non-existent right as inalienable.

That is why I want to take the opportunity of this speech in this forum to demonstrate, once and for all, this charming fallacy of the right to decide and call a spade a spade: a referendum on self-determination, that is what we are talking about, or, in other words, a referendum for a part of Spain to break away from the whole. That is what we are talking about. Can you see how the gentleman from Esquerra Republicana has perfectly understood me?

So, Honourable Member, when one talks about sovereignty, and hence, about one of the basic rights of the Spanish people, one shouldn't hide, like you do, behind euphemisms. Do, if you wish - please don't do it! - the same as your colleague from Esquerra Republicana.

Honourable Member,

We all take democratic decisions every day. It seems that you, no more and no less, have found it difficult to take the decision to be the candidate for this motion of no confidence; you could take this or another decision, that is your democratic choice. My decisions, as the governor that I am and as a representative, like you, of the Spanish people, are taken with respect for the law, for the rights of the Spanish people and with respect for the pluralism required by my position.

But what is important, Honourable Member, is what is decided and who decides it. That is important, believe me. And what you want to say, Honourable Member, is that a part of Spain should break away from the rest, and moreover, that this decision should only be adopted by part of the Spanish people. In other words, you should be watching this and not be entitled to vote in this case.

So, this decision, in my opinion, cannot be taken by this part to the detriment of the will of all the rest because what would the democracy you invoke be when the people of Spain as a whole, that you are always appealing to, are invited to assist as a mere spectator in a decision that affects them at the very heart of their status as citizens and unconditionally accept the result of what others decide?

Honourable Member,

The Spanish people in 1978 - in just a few days we will celebrate 40 years since the first elections; on 15 June, to be precise - decided to govern ourselves democratically and establish a democratic rulebook. That is what I like, a rulebook. But, at any event, this was resolutely decided on by all the people of Spain and we established a Constitution, and we decided that this Constitution was not untouchable.

Everything, right from the preamble through to the last provision can be amended. Anyone, in the exercise of their liberties, can propose and advocate any position but, when this affects all of the people of Spain, the democratic rulebook must be respected that all of them, and no-one else, established in the first place.

Anyone who wants to propose an amendment to our system can do so, even through a constituent process, such as the one your Catalan confluence sustains. They can come to this House and defend it. That is what I offered the President of the Regional Government of Catalonia when he demanded I authorise a referendum under the threat of a unilateral declaration of independence, regarding which I believe that the Honourable Member shares my vision.

But, if the Constitution precisely set out that democratic channels of reform exist to protect the rights of minorities against the majority, what no-one can try and do is insist that I agree to skip these channels because those who are seeking this have not managed to convince the majority of the benefits of opening up the process that they are proposing.

Honourable Member,

This project is not going to unite people but rather separate them. It is not a question of fitting things together but rather of breaking down a project of co-existence that has generated the longest period of harmony and prosperity for the people of Spain, and that has converted us into one of the most decentralised States in the world and into one of the most consolidated models of well-being.

That is what I maintain as the representative of the Spanish people and in the exercise of my freedom of opinion as a citizen as well; and, furthermore, as the President of the Government I can state that I am not going to authorise anything that means violating our democracy or its laws that express - I would remind you - the will of the Spanish people. That is what you can expect from any candidate that comes up onto this platform with the intention of being invested as the President of the Government. I expect from you to speak clearly, just the way I do. It is not so difficult, Mr Iglesias; it really isn't.

I will draw to a close now. Honourable Member, with all my respect, you are a strategic fiction at the service of an ideology that hides its intentions. All of your political discourse is based on weaving together alleged evidence that is always exaggerated and typically false, as I said earlier. You seek to divide the people of Spain and employ some concerning ideas on democracy, national sovereignty and liberty. You promise well-being for everyone with policies that would set us back into the very worst of the crisis. And you have converted politics into a competition of gestures.

Some people thought that this motion of no confidence was premature. I know that you don't believe this because, as a good disciple of Rosa Luxemburgo, you think that the path is made as you go and that premature attempts are the only possible way to go, to teach your disciples and to design what you call a "civic response".

Honourable Member, you cannot have a revolution without a revolution. It is not better to wait for the right conditions to prevail, it is better to create them, don't you think? That is what you are asking for in this motion of no confidence. You are in a hurry for your assault plan because you feel that the opportunity is slipping away from you and because there are some people here that are now recovering. As Galileo said, movement always speeds up when you are going to stop.

It is not a good idea for you to govern, Mr Iglesias; I can say that in all honesty. The people of Spain do not want that, which is why they didn't vote for you. In all honesty, I neither consider you to be worthy of that honour, nor does Spain deserve to be unfairly punished. You are perfectly placed where you are now, you have a great past ahead of you and you will never lack the applause of your followers.

Thank you very much.