Vox in Extremadura: Equality laws remain intact

Vox signs deal in Extremadura without repealing equality laws

Can a regional government be formed while leaving untouched the legal framework that mobilizes your core electorate? This is exactly what peine with the agreement between the PP and Vox in Extremadura, according to prevailing analyses. Starting from an ABC report confirming the pact and the continuity of gender policies in the region, the dominant reaction has been one of betrayal rather than relief. Vox voters expected the repeal of norms they view as discriminatory based on sens. That did not happen.

The central criticism is that Vox did not include equality issues in its initial proposal, which the PP rejected. Thus, the concession preceded negotiations rather than resulting from them. Supporters of this view cite the precedent of Ciudadanos: first opposing the gender violence law, then reaching power after having already abandoned the stance. The predicted outcome is identical: collapse and replacement by a new party.

What can and cannot be done at the regional level

Here the debate becomes technical, offering significant insight. The national gender violence law cannot be altered by a regional parliament. Most acknowledge this, even critics. What lies within regional competence are specific points, local quotas, or subsidies for certain organizations. Opinions differ here: some see the agreement as cutting funding to unions, employers' associations, and various entities; others note no mention of feminist associations and argue that if distribution criteria apply equally, these entities might still qualify.

The most common argument justifying the pact is parliamentary arithmetic. With twenty seats, one cannot change thirty-five years of legislation supported by parties holding eighty percent of the vote. The counterargument is stark: five seats were enough to pass the trans law and limits on male representation in high offices. If five sufficed for one thing, the excuse of twenty does not hold.

Immigration pact convinces no one

The immigration section receives similar scrutiny. Autonomous communities have almost no competence in this area, so the commitment to reject unaccompanied minors remains symbolic: if the central government decides to transfer them, they will be placed wherever desired. The promise not to subsidize organizations supporting illegal immigration faces definitional issues: no entity admits supporting illegal immigration. According to this reading, the term "illegal" serves as a loophole to continue funding existing activities.

Defenders point to concrete actions: initial measures have started in Extremadura, arguing the vote was not wasted. This is the half-full glass perspective. Critics respond that there have been five steps back and none forward, expressing fatigue with complex political maneuvering.

Punishment voting and its destinations

The practical consequence is voter migration. Some announce they will vote for PSOE out of pure calculation: if gender laws allow escaping discrimination by changing gender, better the original than the copy. This is bitter irony, not conversion. Others look to Alvise or Gallardo as recipients of disillusionment. A significant portion warns that while abandoning abstention to vote, they will not support the left.

The underlying diagnosis is that Vox has ceased to be a right-wing party, becoming solely anti-immigration, often irrationally. If Ciudadanos died from this, calculations suggest Vox has an expiration date. Comparisons with Germany, where equivalent parties remained firm, serve as proof of poor choices here.

---

Ultimately, the question is not whether Vox betrays, but how many times it can do so before voters learn the lesson. Apparently, there are still lessons to come.