The consultants of the CVC declare our point of view to the rest of the members of the CVC:

      1. We consider that the text presented by the Board to the CVC does not constitute a judgement but a political negotiation. It neither represents a consensus nor a linguistic pact, because the institutions implicitly representative of the two linguistic positions have neither arrived to a situation of an agreement nor to a minimal approximation of judgement.

      2. The request of the Valencian Parliament tried to find out a solution to the Valencian linguistic conflict, we supposed (and this point was widely assumed) that the CVC would do an effective analysis and diagnosis of this conflict. But, paradoxically, this analysis, completely necessary to the credibility of the report, has systematically been boycotted and it has not even been started yet. More over, arguing that the CVC members were not specialized in issues of History, Philology, Grammar, or Linguistic. These "scientific and historical" elements in which the request of the CVC specified the basis of the report have been excluded without any kind of debate, not even in one of the capital questions: the effective existence of a differential structure of our Valencian language that, supposedly, explains the conclusions of the final report.

       We want to clarify, however, that from the first moment of the process, we have been proposing elements of scientific reflection (linguistic or historical) and providing the necessary information without getting any acceptance on a debate over these terms.

      3. With these antecedents, the text presented does not response to the request of the Valencian Parliament of the 17th September 1997, but it is an agreement without content, and orientated to satisfy the political interest of the creation of a new normative institution. This decision already taken before the request was made.

      4. We think that the validity of an authentic report depends on the following conditions:

1. That, scientifically, the report should refer to the specific linguistic system known historically as Valencian language; the report should recognize to be based in the native linguistic code of the actual Valencian people; never in an odd code strange to the particular evolution of our Valencian language.
   
   
2. That, socially, the report should make a reference to the general linguistic awareness of Valencian language users, manifested through a reliable diagnostic mechanisms; no by external, partials, confusing, and manipulating pressures.
   
   
3. That, the report should deeply refer to debate over all the important questions (norm, language, idiomatic records, linguistic awareness, synchronic grammar, native code, substitutive code, etc) that, it is no possible to avoid their discussion if it really helps for a definitive clarification of the problem. But, we consider that on the basis of a confusing definition, the voiding reference to a differential system and the forced proposal of a regulatory organism without conceptual conditions, the Valencian people will loss all the future guarantees of respect and preservation of the authentic Valencian language, which the Valencian people are the only owner and heir.
   
   

      5. Finally, we consider that the creation of a new normative linguistic institution does not solve in any case the problem which the CVC was asked for to study, and we reject by these reasons:

1. For the illogical replacement of the unique institution legitimated to codify the Valencian language; the ¨Real Academia de Cultura Valenciana¨, a centenary institution with the same functions that other normative academies in their domain territories;
   
   
2. Because, proposing the creation of a new institution, the CVC limits itself to transfer all the debate and solution of a problem that it has not been studied neither resolved.
   
   
3. Because it is difficult to understand that these people and institutions, who explicitly deny the specific existence of the Valencian language, could compose a normative institution of a language in which they do not clearly believe.
   
   

       For these reasons, after putting all of our energies to drive this process in the unique way that we consider valid, and knowing the content of the proposal of the definitive judgement, we express our negative vote asking for this reasonable explanation to attach this vote to the judgement.