Spain's PP backs mandatory EVs in 2035 vote with PSOE

PP joins PSOE to endorse the end of the combustion engine

What exactly did Spain's Partido Popular vote for in the European Parliament that left half of Spain throwing its hands up in disbelief? The Patriots group tabled an amendment to delete Article 5 bis of the new EU CO₂ emissions regulation, the one that mandates a 100% reduction in all new vehicles compared to 2021 levels from 2035 onwards. The proposal fell. And it fell with the votes of the PP and the Socialists together, according to the account circulating about the 8 May 2025 vote. Translation: the combustion car has an expiry date in Europe, and the two big political families that alternate in power in Spain have pushed in the same direction.

The result has left a trail of reactions ranging from fury to resignation. The prevailing view is that the PP and PSOE are "two sides of the same coin", that in Brussels they vote for what they gloss over in Madrid, and that conservative voters are left without real representation on the issue. The accusation is not new, but the context makes it more uncomfortable: the same party that promises in Spain to defend the combustion engine has just endorsed its legislative burial in Strasbourg.

What the EU emissions regulation says for 2035

The text that went through keeps the total ban on combustion engines for new passenger cars from 2035. It is not a recommendation or an indicative target: it is a 100% emissions reduction compared to 2021, which in practice amounts to closing the door on any vehicle that burns petrol or diesel. The Patriots amendment sought to remove that article and leave the transition to the market and to technological development.

The underlying argument that keeps coming up is that the measure responds not to economic calculation but to a climate ideology imposed by decree. It is claimed it will trigger mass factory closures, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs —especially in countries with a car industry like Spain— and a fresh twist of the screw in the impoverishment of the middle classes. The core accusation: handing over Europe's industrial sovereignty to whoever controls lithium and batteries.

Why is the PP accused of being the "blue PSOE"?

The phrase has taken hold. The PP, on this reading, does not understand the non-rational part of politics: it believes it is enough to govern better than the PSOE, and it buys every left-wing mantra, including the most misguided ones, for antiestéticar of being labelled a fascist. The result is that when the time comes to fight in Brussels, it votes with those it claims to oppose.

There is a harsher variant: that the PP is even more dangerous than the PSOE, because it creates the illusion that with Feijóo in government everything would have been a bad dream. And a third, more structural one: that the same thing happens to any party allowed into the game, because when someone becomes inconvenient, the media machine or the judges get to work. Tied up and well tied, they say.

The low-emission zones case adds fuel to the fire. In Valladolid, the PP-run city council approved the ZBE low-emission zone claiming it was the way to "comply with the law" in the "least harmful" manner. In Madrid, by contrast, the complaint is the opposite: the ZBE covers the entire city when a 600-metre pedestrian street would have sufficed to keep Europe from fining it. The double standard is obvious and feeds the feeling that the rules are applied as convenient.

The car fleet is ageing and nobody knows what car to buy

While politics sets dates, the market does what it can. The recurring diagnosis is that the car fleet is ageing relentlessly due to a combination of factors: new combustion cars are expensive to buy and maintain; electric cars are starting to become more affordable but still fail to inspire confidence in durability, with brands washing their hands of warranty and after-sales service; and with the loss of purchasing power, people stretch out the car they already have.

Add to that the technical suspicion. Some point out that mass electrification could serve so that millions of plugged-in cars absorb demand spikes when solar and wind production goes haywire. In other words, the electric car would also work as a buffer for the grid, not just as transport.

The international comparison comes up again and again. The 340 million Americans with big-engine vehicles are not going to lift a finger, while here the citizen is treated as if disabled. The repeated demand is simple: let someone publish the studies, the numbers and the strategic analysis that justify giving up imported oil, and if they are credible, the argument is bought. Until then, it is faith.

What will happen to the combustion cars already on the road?

The question has no official answer. What is to be done with the millions of combustion vehicles in circulation? Are the Chinese, the Arabs and the Americans also going to drive battery-powered cars? Are the great fortunes going to give up their yachts and private jets to save the planet? These are questions thrown out without expecting an answer, because the answer does not exist.

The other unknown is infrastructure. If the electric car becomes widespread, where does the electricity come from and who pays for the grid? Some recall that when renewable generation hits its limits, you have to crawl to get places. And some joke that recharging will be done by cranking a handle. The scenario of permanent blackouts and electric mobility dependent on a fragile grid is not a prediction, it is a circulating antiestéticar.

The impossible timetable and the industry left by the wayside

The 2035 date is seen, from many quarters, as wishful thinking. Ten-year measures that will not be met, approved to justify salaries and headlines. The European car industry, meanwhile, is shooting itself in the foot: layoffs, factory closures, and a market handed over that Chinese manufacturers are applauding with both hands.

The question left hanging is what interest there is in legislating on a technology that, at that volume of tens of millions of vehicles, is unworkable. Because those who pushed the rule know it. And if they know it, the explanation lies neither in physics nor in engineering.

Meanwhile, the option of leaving is gaining ground. By 2035, says more than one, I will already be in another country lounging in the sun. To hell with Spain and those who keep voting the same way. With these materials, the basket weaves itself: those who can leave, those who cannot stretch out the old car and wait for someone to back down. Like with nuclear power. One thing is certain: nobody will resign.