That a court that calls itself a "Human Rights" court should establish that it is proportionate to veto a debate and a vote in parliament on the right to self-determination and the monarchy is the closest thing to a contradiction. Surely, to support their ruling, the European judges have found more solid legal grounds in the Constitution of a pre-existing state and in the jurisprudence of its highest interpreting body than in the attempts to disconnect from a regional Parliament with concealed constituent intentions. But the paradox remains: there is a right for self-determination or the monarchy to be voted on by citizens in an electoral programme but not for them to be voted on by their representatives, even if a parliamentary majority is in favour of it at the polls.
Perhaps most remarkable is that the European Court of Human Rights admits that the Constitutional Court limited the right to freedom of expression of deputies, but justifies it as a proportionate measure and necessary to "protect the Constitution as a guarantor of the territorial integrity of the State." Which brings us to the root of the matter: when a parliamentary vote leaves a Constitution unprotected and threatens the territorial integrity of a State, it means that the Constitution and territorial integrity have a problem of social legitimation. It is a political problem that in Spain they continue to want to resolve by giving it a legal response. And although those flowers are now withered and who knows if they will ever return, the problem remains unresolved.
