PSOE and Puigdemont discuss Catalan referendum in Switzerland

PSOE and Puigdemont negotiate Catalan referendum and funding in Switzerland

A meeting in Switzerland between the PSOE’s number two and former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont to negotiate a referendum and special financing. This is the scenario that has taken hold of public debate trinc information published by El Español, triggering a storm of reactions where territorial analysis, suspicion over fiscal costs, and distrust toward the fine print of any agreement coexist. The photo comes with an unhelpful detail: the meeting takes place outside Spain, a context many read as a sign that what is being negotiated is not meant to be seen by all.

What is being negotiated and why it happens outside Spain

The starting point is twofold: a referendum on independence and special financing for Catalonia. On paper, both fit into any political agenda. In practice, the combination is explosive because it touches both the constitutional framework and the distribution of resources among regions. The fact that the meeting is held in Switzerland adds a layer of opacity that does not go unnoticed: some argue that negotiating outside Spain is a way to evade parliamentary and media scrutiny, while others see it simply as discretion during an initial phase.

Special financing is likely the point with the most economic reach. If Catalonia begins managing its own taxes under a model similar to the Basque *concierto económico* or the Navarre *convenio*, other regions lose critical mass in the common fund. A complete calculation, broken down item by item, reveals differences that surprise first-time observers. It is not an abstract debate about identity: it is a debate about who pays for healthcare, education, and infrastructure in other regions when one of the wealthiest stops contributing to the common pot.

The argument for coexistence versus rupture

On the side favoring the agreement, the idea of coexistence is repeated. It is the argument used to justify any concession, any meeting, and any timeline. The problem is that coexistence, as a concept, cannot be quantified. There is no figure that says how much coexistence can be bought with a referendum or a fiscal quota. This leaves the debate in a territory where politics replaces data.

On the opposing side, the dominant argument is the rupture of equality among Spaniards. It is claimed that a special financing system breaks the principle of interregional solidarity and turns Catalonia into a sort of privileged partner deciding how much it contributes and receives. Comparisons with the Basque Country and Navarre appear again and again: if those two territories already operate under a *foral* regime, extending it to Catalonia would leave other regions in a clearly worse fiscal position.

The referendum: why hold it if the result is known?

One of the most repeated questions in the conversation is why a referendum is needed if, according to the process promoters themselves, the outcome would be clear. Critics argue that the referendum seeks not to decide, but to blackmail: it serves as bargaining chip to extract powers, financing, and institutional presence. Supporters respond that democratic legitimacy requires citizens to make the decision, not courts or Congress.

The history of pro-independence proclamations does not help take deadlines seriously. Some recall that the first lasted three days, the second eleven hours, and the third barely seconds before being suspended by those who proclaimed it. The recurring joke is that the next time will be the lucky one. Behind the joke lies an uncomfortable fact: none of those declarations held up over time, nor did they resolve the problems they claimed to solve.

The economic cost of the photo

Beyond the political noise, the agreement has a concrete economic translation. Catalonia is one of Spain’s wealthiest regions and one of the largest contributors to the solidarity fund. If its tax regime changes, other regions will have to cover the difference or cut services. There is no third way: either raise taxes in other regions, reduce spending, or increase state debt. Any of these three options has electoral consequences.

The debate on special financing also affects investment. Companies operating across multiple regions need a stable fiscal framework. If each territory negotiates its own regime, compliance costs skyrocket and long-term planning becomes more difficult. This is not an emotional argument: it is accounting.

What remains to be seen

The meeting in Switzerland is a fact. What was agreed there is not. The parties have not published the negotiation content, and leaks are, by definition, partial. The only verifiable points are that the PSOE needs votes to govern and that those votes have a price. That price is being negotiated outside Spain, with an international mediator and without public minutes.

How much of what is discussed in Switzerland will end up in the BOE (Official State Gazette) and how much will remain in a drawer? That is the question nobody has answered yet, and the one worth continuing to ask.