Zaragoza, 26 de mayo de 2009.
Esta Asociación, en fechas recientes, se dirigió tanto al Congreso de los Diputados como al Senado para hacerles saber su preocupación por el proceder de la Institución del Defensor del Pueblo, al no ver amparado por la actuación de esta Institución el ejercicio del derecho fundamental de petición llevado a cabo ante los Alcaldes de las ciudades de Huesca, Teruel y Zaragoza y los presidentes de las tres Diputaciones Provinciales aragonesas, quienes ni acusaron recibo ni respondieron a la petición de establecer un Código de Buen Gobierno para los responsables políticos de tales entidades locales.
En el día de hoy, se ha recibido acuse de recibo de los servicios del Congreso de los Diputados, en el que se comunica la fecha de entrada de nuestro escrito en dicha Institución y el trámite dado al mismo. Debemos celebrar dicho elemento de transparencia del Congreso de los Diputados, pues destaca en relación con el proceder de las Cortes de Aragón, toda vez que éstas jamás han efectuado acuse de recibo –en el sentido propio que debe atribuirse a tal comunicación- de las peticiones formuladas por esta Asociación.
Entendemos además que el escrito remitido al Congreso de los Diputados no es un escrito menor o rutinario, sino una queja altamente sensible, al dirigirse frente al proceder de la institución del Defensor del Pueblo, por desatender, a nuestro juicio, la labor de protección del derecho fundamental de petición ejercido por esta Asociación. De la decisión que, sobre tal cuestión, pueda adoptarse por parte de los órganos correspondientes del Congreso de los Diputados se dará cuenta en este blog.
Se reproduce, a continuación, el acuse de recibo remitido:
“Don Julio Guiral Pelegrín
Le comunico que, con fecha de hoy, ha tenido entrada en el Registro del Congreso de los Diputados su escrito de petición, con el número 075571, habiendo sido trasladado a la Comisión de Peticiones de la Cámara para su oportuno estudio y tramitación.
Palacio del Congreso de los Diputados, a 22 de mayo de 2009.
LA JEFA DEL DEPARTAMENTO DE REGISTRO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE DOCUMENTOS, Marina Ferreira Gonzále
Like the battle of Waterloo, the battle for Scotland was a damn close-run thing. The effects of Thursday’s no vote are enormous – though not as massive as the consequences of a yes would have been.
The vote against independence means, above all, that the 307-year Union survives. It therefore means that the UK remains a G7 economic power and a member of the UN security council. It means Scotland will get more devolution. It means David Cameron will not be forced out. It means any Ed Miliband-led government elected next May has the chance to serve a full term, not find itself without a majority in 2016, when the Scots would have left. It means the pollsters got it right, Madrid will sleep a little more easily, and it means the banks will open on Friday morning as usual.
But the battlefield is still full of resonant lessons. The win, though close, was decisive. It looks like a 54%-46% or thereabouts. That’s not as good as it looked like being a couple of months ago. But it’s a lot more decisive than the recent polls had hinted. Second, it was women who saved the union. In the polls, men were decisively in favour of yes. The yes campaign was in some sense a guy thing. Men wanted to make a break with the Scotland they inhabit. Women didn’t. Third, this was to a significant degree a class vote too. Richer Scotland stuck with the union — so no did very well in a lot of traditonal SNP areas. Poorer Scotland, Labour Scotland, slipped towards yes, handing Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire to the independence camp. Gordon Brown stopped the slippage from becoming a rout, perhaps, but the questions for Labour — and for left politics more broadly — are profound.
For Scots, the no vote means relief for some, despair for others, both on the grand scale. For those who dreamed that a yes vote would take Scots on a journey to a land of milk, oil and honey, the mood this morning will be grim. Something that thousands of Scots wanted to be wonderful or merely just to witness has disappeared. The anticlimax will be cruel and crushing. For others, the majority, there will be thankfulness above all but uneasiness too. Thursday’s vote exposed a Scotland divided down the middle and against itself. Healing that hurt will not be easy or quick. It’s time to put away all flags.
The immediate political question now suddenly moves to London. Gordon Brown promised last week that work will start on Friday on drawing up the terms of a new devolution settlement. That may be a promise too far after the red-eyed adrenalin-pumping exhaustion of the past few days. But the deal needs to be on the table by the end of next month. It will not be easy to reconcile all the interests – Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and local. But it is an epochal opportunity. The plan, like the banks, is too big to fail.
Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going anywhere. They will still govern Scotland until 2016. There will be speculation about Salmond’s position, and the SNP will need to decide whether to run in 2016 on a second referendum pledge. More immediately, the SNP will have to decide whether to go all-out win to more Westminster seats in the 2015 general election, in order to hold the next government’s feet to the fire over the promised devo-max settlement. Independence campaigners will feel gutted this morning. But they came within a whisker of ending the United Kingdom on Thursday. One day, perhaps soon, they will surely be back.
(Artículo de Martin Kettle, publicado en "The Guardian" el 19 de septiembre de 2014)
2 comentarios:
¿Qué dirá la Comisión de Peticiones? Menuda papeleta.
Igualito que las Cortes de Aragón.
Publicar un comentario