The statements of the mayor of the Mossos, Josep Lluis Trapero, and of the commissioner, Ferràn López, have been needed to confirm the plan of Puigdemont and Junqueras: To offer the world an appearance of democracy, to seek a violent confrontation between apparently peaceful people and the forces of order, and in case of obtaining sufficient violence, to declare independence.
The line that joins the dots has been closed this Wednesday with the testimony of the commissioner Ferràn López, who comes to corroborate the previous testimonies of the main Mossos d'Esquadra interrogated in the trial of the "procés". Although few explanations are as clear as those of the economic vice president, Oriol Junqueras, who in this video
confessed to his followers that the referendum was illegal, but that if they disobeyed the prohibition, they could show the world an image of people who vote and the Spanish government preventing them from "voting", and in that way, they would win. The Commissioner Lopez also agrees with the major Trapero in the subject of that Puigdemont was informed of the high probability of violent confrontations and in which the former president decided to continue with the confrontation, but it has also qualified that Puigdemont had the intention of declaring independence if a sufficient level of violence was reached
, which reminds us of that well-known saying of the Catalan independence movement "a dead man would give us independence".
Fortunately, despite the undoubted images of confrontation (inflated by the fake news and photos contributed by nationalist politicians such as Ramón Tremosa) the independence movement failed to present to the world the much needed deaths that would had helped to show the unfortunate reaction of the Spanish government as an authentic massacre of peaceful voters, so Puigdemont decided to wait a few days. In any case, an attempt was made to find the desired victimizing effect by manipulating the figures (more than 1000 wounded people were announced and then reduced to 900), which soon contrasted with the reality that only two "peaceful voters" were admitted into a hospital (one was an aggressor who hurled metal fences at the policemen and who was injured by a rubber ball, and the other one an elderly gentleman who suffered a heart attack while witnessing the confrontation, although he recovered) in front of the dozens of law enforcement officers who were reportly injured, but that the Spanish government, with its aforementioned clumsiness, did not disclose, which helped reinforce the nationalist story.
In short, all you have to do is unite the points to understand a simple but twisted plan: To display a false image of peaceful democracy against armed repression ("Democracy" was the label on the posters that prepared the alibi for the coup d'état). It didn't matter that there was no legal framework nor international support, that the Venice commission did not recognize the necessary democratic conditions, that there was no opposition campaign, that the parties representing 53% of the Catalans did not validate that referendum, that the ballot boxes (opaque and made of plastic) arrived full of ballots, that a conversation was disclosed before the illegal referendum between nationalist politicians advancing the results that finally occurred, that old people and young children were used to prevent the police from closing the "voting" centers.. Nothing mattered, as long as the world could see people with ballots in their hands receiving blows from the police. It was a powerful image, and that's why it was sought, to provoke a visceral reaction from European citizens.
But now the plan, apparently, is exposed. And the reaction of European citizens to being deceived can be very different.