Podemos wants higher pay and shorter hours, as Spain's Supreme Court curbs voting rights

Podemos proposes raising Spain's minimum wage from €1,221 to €1,800 and cutting the working week to 30 hours, while the Supreme Court questions voting rights for naturalised citizens.

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

Podemos has presented five policy pillars that include raising the minimum wage from €1,221 to €1,800 and cutting the working week to 30 hours. In parallel, Spain's Supreme Court has questioned whether citizenship granted under the Democratic Memory Law carries the right to vote.

Podemos's economic proposal for the upcoming election boils down to one slogan: earn more, work less. The party presented the five pillars of its programme on Monday 19 October 2026 under the banner of "back to basics". Unveiling them was its Organisation Secretary and co-spokesperson, **Pablo Fernández**. The flagship measure is a rise in the minimum wage from the current **€1,221** to **€1,800** a month. The second plank is a reduction of the working week to **30 hours**.

The formula has electoral appeal. Raising the wage floor and cutting working time are two demands that have antiestéticatured in Spanish public debate for years. The minimum wage has risen sharply in the last term, though employers' associations have warned of its impact on labour-intensive sectors. The 30-hour week, for its part, has been trialled in countries such as Iceland in pilot schemes and at some private companies, with no clear consensus on its net effect on productivity.

## When citizenship and voting rights collide

While Podemos warms up its economic message, another legal controversy is dominating political debate. Spain's Supreme Court has questioned whether Spanish citizenship granted through the Democratic Memory Law automatically carries the right to vote. The Democratic Memory Law, passed in 2022, expanded the routes by which descendants of exiles could obtain citizenship. The Supreme Court argues that this grant does not amount to full electoral rights, and that the law confused exile with emigration for economic reasons.

Former European Parliament President **José Borrell** had already flagged the contradiction: "Why should someone who has never set foot in Spain have the right to vote?" Borrell cited the cases of **Ireland**, **Denmark**, **Germany** and **Malta**, countries where non-residents do not vote in national elections. Article 17.1.a of the Civil Code establishes that those born to a Spanish father or mother are Spanish by origin, with no additional conditions, but it makes no mention of grandparents or great-grandparents. The dispute is no small matter: it affects thousands of people who obtained citizenship through the democratic memory route and now see their voting rights in doubt.

## The Supreme Court versus the Constitutional Court

The Supreme Court's ruling does not merely defer to the Constitutional Court's judgment. The rapporteur was judge **Marchena**, who took the opportunity to deliver a scathing critique of the court presided over by **Cándido Conde-Pumpido**. The Supreme Court reproaches the Constitutional Court for overstepping its functions by interpreting the law governing its own operation. Law 2/1979 of 3 October on the Constitutional Court states in its Article 54 that the chamber, when hearing an amparo appeal (a fundamental rights protection appeal) against judicial decisions, must confine itself to verifying whether fundamental rights have been abusa and refrain from any other consideration of the actions of the judicial bodies.

The Supreme Court considers that the Constitutional Court included "manifestly dispensable considerations" and objects to attributing to the chamber's interpretation a "drastic contradiction", a "teleological reduction", an "extensive interpretation" and a departure from "common sense". The ruling describes those assessments as "absolutely unnecessary to support what was decided". Tension between the two courts is nothing new, but the tone of the ruling raises the institutional stakes.

## The dinner bill and Redondo's flat

In the chapter on public officials' personal spending, **Pablo Haro Urquízar** published the bill for a dinner by **Ada Colau** at the Bistro de Mar, the restaurant of the Hostal Empúries. The total: **€144.50**, with red prawns at **€25** and wild sea bass at **€56**. The detail contrasts with the former Barcelona mayor's earlier statements about struggling to pay rent. Meanwhile, former government communications director **Iván Redondo** bought a flat in central Madrid half a million euros below its market price. Redondo defended the deal: "For me it is not a market asset, it is a home."

The string of revelations about the spending and assets of public figures fuels public distrust. It is not a phenomenon exclusive to one party. Transparency in public management and in the finances of representatives remains an unfinished task in Spain, where asset and activity registers are not always updated rigorously.

## Key points

- Podemos proposes raising the minimum wage from **€1,221** to **€1,800** a month, as announced on 19 October 2026.
- The working week would fall to **30 hours** if Podemos implements its programme.
- Spain's Supreme Court questions whether citizenship under the Democratic Memory Law grants voting rights.
- Judge **Marchena** reproaches the Constitutional Court under **Conde-Pumpido** for including "manifestly dispensable considerations".
- **Ada Colau** had a **€144.50** dinner at the Bistro de Mar, according to the published bill.

Also available in: Deutsch

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (0 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

-
Back