Talk:President of the Government of Catalonia

Good afternoon, @Impru20:. The two statements I added to the article (and you have removed) are duly sourced. Therefore, I would like to ask the two following questions:

• do you have any reliable sources that clearly and unambiguously support your claim that "vice president discharging the duties of the president is, under Spanish/Catalan law, an acting president"?
• is it acceptable to handwave away a duly sourced statement by second-guessing the intent of the person who uttered the quote in question?

Thank you.--Leptictidium (mt) 15:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @Leptictidium: There seems to be an ongoing attempt to avoid labeling Pere Aragonès as acting president even though that's exactly what he is. Our Wikipedia article on acting (law) literally says:

In law, a person is acting in a position if they are not serving in the position on a permanent basis. This may be the case if the position has not yet been formally created, the person is only occupying the position on an interim basis, the person does not have a mandate, or if the person meant to execute the role is incompetent or incapacitated.

Our article on acting presidents establishes that An acting president is a person who temporarily fills the role of a country's president when the incumbent president is unavailable (such as by illness or a vacation) or when the post is vacant (such as for death, injury, resignation, dismissal).

Wiktionary defines "acting" as Temporarily assuming the duties or authority of another person when they are unable to do their job.

Add another, official example: Merriam Webster defines it as holding a temporary rank or position : performing services temporarily // acting president

In the case of the Catalan president, this is explictly regulated under Article 6.2 of the Law 13/2008, of 5 November, of the Presidency and the Government: (Spanish: Si concurre uno de los supuestos de cese del presidente o presidenta de la Generalidad que determina el artículo 7.3, le sustituye el consejero primero o consejera primera o el vicepresidente o vicepresidenta, si han sido nombrados). The decree where such law is enforced establishes that (Spanish: El vicepresidente del Gobierno y consejero de Economía y Hacienda sustituye al presidente de la Generalidad. El vicepresidente del Gobierno ejerce las atribuciones de la presidencia de la Generalidad de acuerdo con los límites propios de una sustitución y de un Gobierno en funciones).

So, "sustituir" means "replace", and "en funciones" means "acting". It has been mentioned as an argument for the change that Aragonès is not "acting president" but, instead, "vice president fulfilling duties of the president", and that this is a "substantial distinction legally". So, which one is this, Leptictidium? Can you please elaborate? As has been explained and sourced, an acting president is, by definition, a person who assumes the duties of the role in a non-permanent basis and/or without having been appointed to the post. An acting president is not an appointed president, and that's why the person in question is in acting capacity. It's the essence of the definition. So there is, indeed, nothing more than a semantical difference there (though "acting president" will always be more comfortable to work with in a sentence and in an infobox than "vice president discharging the duties of the president").

View this the other way around: your own edits to this article leave the office as vacant. Which is simply not true (and you have acknowledged it), because there is this guy legally exercising its roles and duties. Impru20^talk 15:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with your interpretation. First, because the Decree says: "The vice president of the Government and Minister for the Economy and the Treasury replaces the President of the Government". Okay, but in what capacity does he replace him? Does it necessarily and unambiguously mean that he replaces him as [acting] President? Well, let's look at a source like El Comercio, which states: "[…] le sustituyó Pere Aragonés, como vicepresidente con funciones de presidente". The interpretation of El Comercio (and many other sources) is backed by the text of the Decree, which says "El vicepresidente del Gobierno ejerce las atribuciones de la presidencia de la Generalidad" when it could have easily said something along the lines of "El vicepresidente del Gobierno asume la presidencia en funciones de la Generalidad". If I were the only one disagreeing with your interpretation, then it could be easily dismissed, but as I pointed out, there are dozens if not hundreds of sources that specifically describe Aragonés as "vice president discharging the duties of the president", not as "acting president".
• I also disagree with your conclusion that an office cannot be vacant as long as someone is legally exercising a limited number of its roles and duties. For example, in between the death of an old pope and the election of a new one, there is someone legally exercising some of the secular powers invested in the Papacy, yet it would be very disingenuous to claim that there is such a thing as an "acting Pope" and that the Holy See is not vacant during such periods.
• That being said, I welcome the addition of this footnote as a step towards building a consensus. Still, I would reword it for absolute clarity. I hereby suggest: "As part of an agreement between the two parties in government in Catalonia, Aragonès refrains from using the title Acting President, instead opting for Vice President discharging the duties of the President". It has the advantages that 1) every single part of the footnote can be duly sourced; 2) it informs the reader that Aragonès has explicitly rejected the title of "Acting President", which is noteworthy in itself; and 3) it does not require us to second-guess what his intentions were when he uttered that quote.--Leptictidium (mt) 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with your whole reasoning is that you automatically seem to assume that "acting president" is some sort of appointed office. It's not. You don't get appointed as "acting president", you exercise the functions of the president and that's why it's an acting president. Thus, a "vice president discharging the duties of president" is an acting president by definition, because it means the actual office is vacant and that someone else (in this case, the vice president) is taking over the functions of it in the interim. The law clearly states this fact: that the vice president replaces the president in the exercise of its functions and duties. None of the hundreds of sources you may provide will contradict this.

Does it necessarily and unambiguously mean that he replaces him as [acting] President? Yes, when it says that he assumes the functions of the presidency. Re-read the definition of "acting" that I explained above and referenced through multiple sources. Again, it's not an appointed position. Just as "Vice President with the powers of the President" is not an actual appointed position, either.

In your final statement, you yourself acknowledge what is the problem at hand: You say that you would re-word it like this: "As part of an agreement between the two parties in government in Catalonia, Aragonès refrains from using the title Acting President, instead opting for Vice President discharging the duties of the President" Thing is, a statutory law is not disposable through an informal agreement between two parties. Further, by proposing this as a solution, you yourself acknowledge that Aragonès is the de facto acting president but that you don't consider him as such because he has voluntarily refrained from using the title. That's perfectly ok, but is a way different thing than what was brought forward initially in support of the change: it's indeed all about semantics and styling, not the legality of it.

Nonetheless, I have no issue in the addition of your proposal in the footnote that, as part of the agreement between ERC and Junts, Aragonès has chosen not to self-style himself as president. But it must be clear as well that this has no ultimate consequence legally, since the powers that Aragonès can take care of are the exact same than those Torra or any other one would have in his same situation (that is, that of an acting government), meaning that he is ultimately not legally bound to respect an inter-party agreement that seeks to limit those out of reasons in the parties' interests. Impru20^talk 20:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree with almost every aspect of your interpretation of the decree and the legal situation it has led to (particularly now that you seem to agree that "the actual office is vacant" and that Aragonès is "de facto acting president", which does not necessarily mean he is so de jure —the whole point of contention of this discussion), but since despite our different viewpoints we seem to have found a mutually acceptable solution in the shape of the footnote, let's implement that instead of debating this ad aeternum. Have a nice day.--Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the discussion is whether Aragonès is acting president of Catalonia or not, which he is. The issue of contention revolves in that you seem to make the implication that acting president equals to de jure President, when it's the opposite: there is an acting president when the de jure officeholder is absent, incapacitated, dead or in any other way unable to exercise their functions. I've never defended any other thing. Impru20^talk 15:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]