A cynical claim to the Constitution

For the second year in a row,

.

Just as the pandemic has served so many times for

and the president of Congress,

, to perpetrate authentic anti-democratic chieftains - remember that

-, it seems that it continues to be the alibi to hide the acts with a minimal greatness of the State who knows if because of how much they

they irritate the government's anti-establishment partners.

And it is not only that the Magna Carta was celebrated almost reluctantly.

Sánchez reconfirmed his little fondness for accountability, hiding behind the coronavirus to prevent questions.

Actually, the 6-D's low profile is no accident.

And it has a lot to do with it being

.

It is not possible to qualify otherwise that Sánchez asked without disheveled

while its own partners in the Executive -We can- and the entire string of nationalist and independentist formations that support it challenge it.

Nor the fact that this 6-D has come after two devastating sentences of the Constitutional Court declaring illegal the states of alarm of the sanchismo without this having had any consequence.

The president, demonstrating as much inconsistency of principle as the famous

, suddenly distanced himself from those who call for a profound reform of the Constitution because

.

And this when in the recent federal congress of the PSOE he raised nothing less than his lieutenant

to a new Secretariat for Constitutional Reform, an undisguised objective of the party.

Also a deaf monologue was Batet's appeal to the

.

Because moments before from Podemos they had already been in charge of bursting the institutional act qualifying the Fundamental Law of

, demanding a new "federal" Magna Carta and that it be possible to decide between living "in a corrupt and obsolete monarchy or in a Republic", urging street mobilizations to pressure socialism and try to

and that, in its essential foundations, remains fully in force and is the great guarantee of national unity and the safeguarding of our fundamental rights and basic freedoms.

For their part, the nationalists, who as always boycotted the act, did not move either from their attack against the "obsolete" Constitution or from their disruptive demands.

And yet Batet's veiled criticism was against the constitutionalist parties, whom he accused of

for ensuring scrupulous compliance with the rule of law.

Yesterday, today and every day, our Fundamental Norm is vindicated and defended with facts, not with words without credibility or empty of meaning.

To continue reading for free

Sign inSign up

Or

and you will have access to all the web content of El Mundo