Spain's hypothetical leaders: From nuclear arms to state bankruptcy

From state bankruptcy to annual lottery for leadership: what would the average Spaniard do at La Moncloa?

The question is old, and the answer is almost always the same: very few would reach the presidency through elections, and even fewer would bother pretending to respect the system that put them there. In a work of political fiction accumulating 177 responses over nearly two years, the first measure proposed isn't an economic plan or an inaugural speech: it's a list of grievances. And a recurring warning: anyone who truly touches established interests will end up hanged from a lamppost.

The starting diagnosis shared by almost all currents is that the problem isn't management, but sovereignty. Spain, it is argued, decides nothing relevant because decisions are made in Brussels, Washington, or offices no one voted for. Hence, the most repeated exit isn't a new ministry, but a way out: leaving the EU and NATO, regaining control of borders and defense, and accepting that the cost will be high.

What would a Spanish president do with debt and money?

The current with the most technical development attacks money. The thesis, inherited from the tradition of state credit, holds that the main enemy isn't a party but the financial system: if the State declares state bankruptcy, they argue, the chain of interests mortgaging the country breaks. It's an old idea, rooted in interwar Germany, and in the material it appears formulated with almost liturgical language: the Jew as owner of the world, black magic, the serpent. This framework, it should be noted, is not backed by any data and forms part of the classic repertoire of antisemitism; here it is recorded as what it is, a minority opinion without evidence.

More grounded are the fiscal proposals. There is broad consensus on setting the VAT on basic and health products to 0%, eliminating property tax (IBI), reducing income tax (IRPF) to a flat rate of 10%, and copying Luxembourg or Ireland's tax conditions to retain companies. A calculation circulating among the most voted messages suggests self-employed workers shouldn't pay social security contributions until exceeding 20,000 euros in profit after expenses. The fine print on how this hole is financed doesn't appear anywhere.

Institutional purge: civil servants, judges, and media

The second thematic block is institutional, and here the tone becomes less economic and more surgical. Repeated measures: audits of ministers and former ministers, review of high-profile corruption cases, repeal of the amnesty law, banning of pro-independence parties, and a deep cleaning of senior officials. Some messages go further, proposing to control the Banco de España, the CNMV, the CIS, and the Supreme Court by placing loyalists, besides buying media outlets or closing those that don't comply. It is the explicit recipe for an institutional assault via legal means.

Another current, more bureaucratic than revolutionary, proposes marking public employees: tattooing the word "FUNCIONARIE" on their forehead in red as proof of adherence, under penalty of losing their position. The same idea extends to an annual lottery for the head of state among those without the tattoo. It is a mix of satire and administrative revenge that says quite a bit about the level of wear between taxpayer and administration.

Immigration, Gibraltar, and the nuclear arsenal

The third focus is external. Here, classical geopolitics proposals coexist with others bordering on absurdity. The most repeated: acquiring a nuclear arsenal, own or imported, as a prerequisite for any other policy; recovering Gibraltar, with the notion of trading it for England as a generous offer; and strengthening ties with Latin America while closing those with Brussels. On immigration, some messages demand mass expulsions and stricter requirements, with nuances about who has worked here for twenty years; the article does not evaluate these proposals, only notes they are on the table.

The arc closes with the most cited proposal of all: holding a referendum between monarchy and republic. Those defending it assume the personal cost would be enormous and that the chances of ending up hanged from a lamppost are, textually, extremely high. It is not an isolated hyperbole: it is the logical conclusion of a country where touching the system has a price.

---

What if the problem wasn't the system, but who reaches it? The question remains open. Because most plans appearing in this discussion share an uncomfortable assumption: that power is taken, not asked for. And that whoever asks for it, deep down, has already accepted the rules they claim to want to break.