He stands among the signatories of the anti-amnesty manifesto, released the day before the appointment debates and signed by more than 150 former MPs and former senators from across the political spectrum. Why?
Because he agrees with what it says. In a moment like the current one, when his own party appears to do work that seems largely symbolic, he feels compelled to attach his name to show he is not part of the group.
So what are his arguments for rejecting the amnesty?
Legally, he does not view it as unconstitutional, though opinions vary. Politically, it feels like an insult. He argues that if everything is not punished as a crime, the separation of powers is weakened, even if the Supreme Court has said otherwise. The most troubling aspect, in his view, is that the move appears driven by a need to secure votes to lead the government. Not everything should orbit around attaining the top office. He notes that many PSOE members claim a PP government with Vox would be worse, yet he worries that while a right‑wing administration can be resisted within four years, deals with independents and the PNV may become irreversible. He also references an international validator as the ugliest development, likening it to an end-of-war scenario.
Could you describe Pedro Sánchez? Is it his excessive ambition, as critics say?
He cannot confirm whether Sánchez shows excessive ambition because he knows him only slightly, yet he sees similarities that raise questions about motive.
PSOE members who speak out against amnesty are accused of being right-wing. Did Luis Berenguer go right?
He dismisses such labels. If defending the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the view that wrongdoing occurred during the process is right, then he supports that stance, even if critics aim to discredit him. Those who attack him, he suggests, lack credibility.
Madrid President Isabel Díaz Ayuso claimed that “the dictatorship was sneaked in through the back door.” Do you agree?
He has grown accustomed to Ayuso’s exaggerations and believes they should be dismissed.
The PP turned to Europe to stop the amnesty. Do you think they have the means?
He has served as a European parliamentarian and has long believed it unwise to drag national debates into European forums.
With these starting points, what scenarios emerge now?
He points out that some elements in Junts’ agreement with PSOE are not included in the amnesty bill. Consequently, two possibilities exist: either they attempt to intervene later with changes, or Puigdemont feels deceived again, once more let down by Sánchez.
Protests and attacks on PSOE headquarters have increased in recent days. What may follow after investments?
He cites Laura Borràs, a controversial figure who has faced corruption convictions, saying that Catalan tensions have become a national issue. The current climate is highly strained. While the amnesty seemed necessary at the time, tensions have shifted, and Puigdemont has resurfaced with a crowd’s momentum.
But the norm states that the aim is to achieve institutional, political, and social normalization in Catalonia. Is this normalization possible given the polarization and the call for a referendum by independence supporters?
His view is pragmatic: either accept broad concessions or risk a stalemate. If an independence referendum is agreed, even as a consultative measure, tensions could spike. Whether the state would cover such a referendum remains uncertain.
So, is it plausible that the State will oversee this referendum?
The paper suggests Junts will propose it, with a follow‑up later. Article 92 of the Constitution may not support a vote on non-legislative budgets, but he concedes that certainty is hard to come by and that amnesty may not endure. The path remains unsettled.
What social measures will the new Government with Cortes push and announce?
He expects a difficult, short-term package. The trajectory will depend on how events unfold and where political appetite goes next.
Some former socialists have warned they might leave PSOE once the amnesty law is approved. Could this set a precedent?
He has not considered that scenario in depth for now.
Where does ideology stand in the current moment: is there too much or too little?
The right operates on self-interest, he notes. In his era or in that of Felipe González, committees met for days and careful debates prevailed. Today, the committee seems to exist mainly to placate the boss, and dissenters are sidelined. The dominant view within his party is that the right is a threat, and there is a strong determination to prevent it from gaining power, with little willingness to go beyond that outlook.
What consequences might recent events have for his party?
He remains a pessimist by default, yet hopes for a shift toward common sense, thoughtful analysis, and open debate. He wants PSOE to be a party defined by dialogue rather than fear.