Vox and the clash between its repeal pledges and EU law
Several promised repeals collide with European directives that Spain cannot overturn on its own. The real room for manoeuvre is minimal.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Vox promises to repeal laws, but the EU has already locked them in
What is the point of promising to repeal a law if Brussels has already locked it in? That is the question hanging over the package of proposals the Spanish right has put on the table, one that has been making the rounds on social media in recent days. The short answer: not much, if you look at the fine print of national competences. Several of the laws pledged for repeal are transpositions of European directives, and no Spanish government can switch them off without taking the country out of the EU club. The headline plays well at a rally. In Brussels, they laugh.
What can be repealed and what cannot
The core of the matter is a list of repeals that mixes matters of national sovereignty with others that stem directly from EU law. The first group covers domestic issues, where the room for manoeuvre is wide. The second is where things get complicated: we are talking about rules Spain incorporated out of obligation, not by choice, and which can only be changed if the underlying directive is first amended in the European Parliament.
Some argue that, apart from a couple of proposals, the rest have no real prospects even with an absolute majority in the Congress of Deputies. The argument is simple: a European rule is not overturned with a royal decree, it is overturned by negotiating in Brussels or by triggering Article 50. And that, today, is on nobody's agenda. Smoke and mirrors, is the message.
Rollback as a campaign frame
More interesting than the catalogue of repeals is the mental frame in which it is presented. The pogre/rollback dichotomy works as a slogan, but it does not stand up to analysis. Calling everything of one's own "pogre" and everything of the other side "rollback" is a rhetorical trap that avoids discussing the substance. Is this law reasonable? It does not matter: it is ours, so it is pogre.
At the other extreme, there are those who embrace rollback without embarrassment. If rolling back means returning to a time of affordable rents, stable jobs and paid holidays, bring it on. The problem with that argument is that it idealises a past that was not so idyllic for everyone, but it taps into a real malaise: the feeling that material pogre has left people behind.
The maths that does not add up
The juiciest part of the issue is economic. The argument goes that decades ago, on a single salary, a family could cover the mortgage, meat, fish and holidays. Today, with two salaries, many cannot make ends meet. The gap between that model and the current one is not an opinion: it is a measurable gap, item by item, and it explains why the rollback narrative finds an audience.
The full breakdown of that comparison —housing, food, energy, leisure— reveals a difference that surprises even those who do the maths. It is not just nostalgia: it is arithmetic. And as long as the arithmetic does not add up, the pogre/rollback frame will keep working at the ballot box, even if Brussels laughs.
In the end, the question is not whether Vox can repeal this or that. The question is how many votes are worth promising what cannot be delivered. Quite a few, it seems.
What is the point of promising to repeal a law if Brussels has already locked it in? That is the question hanging over the package of proposals the Spanish right has put on the table, one that has been making the rounds on social media in recent days. The short answer: not much, if you look at the fine print of national competences. Several of the laws pledged for repeal are transpositions of European directives, and no Spanish government can switch them off without taking the country out of the EU club. The headline plays well at a rally. In Brussels, they laugh.
What can be repealed and what cannot
The core of the matter is a list of repeals that mixes matters of national sovereignty with others that stem directly from EU law. The first group covers domestic issues, where the room for manoeuvre is wide. The second is where things get complicated: we are talking about rules Spain incorporated out of obligation, not by choice, and which can only be changed if the underlying directive is first amended in the European Parliament.
Some argue that, apart from a couple of proposals, the rest have no real prospects even with an absolute majority in the Congress of Deputies. The argument is simple: a European rule is not overturned with a royal decree, it is overturned by negotiating in Brussels or by triggering Article 50. And that, today, is on nobody's agenda. Smoke and mirrors, is the message.
Rollback as a campaign frame
More interesting than the catalogue of repeals is the mental frame in which it is presented. The pogre/rollback dichotomy works as a slogan, but it does not stand up to analysis. Calling everything of one's own "pogre" and everything of the other side "rollback" is a rhetorical trap that avoids discussing the substance. Is this law reasonable? It does not matter: it is ours, so it is pogre.
At the other extreme, there are those who embrace rollback without embarrassment. If rolling back means returning to a time of affordable rents, stable jobs and paid holidays, bring it on. The problem with that argument is that it idealises a past that was not so idyllic for everyone, but it taps into a real malaise: the feeling that material pogre has left people behind.
The maths that does not add up
The juiciest part of the issue is economic. The argument goes that decades ago, on a single salary, a family could cover the mortgage, meat, fish and holidays. Today, with two salaries, many cannot make ends meet. The gap between that model and the current one is not an opinion: it is a measurable gap, item by item, and it explains why the rollback narrative finds an audience.
The full breakdown of that comparison —housing, food, energy, leisure— reveals a difference that surprises even those who do the maths. It is not just nostalgia: it is arithmetic. And as long as the arithmetic does not add up, the pogre/rollback frame will keep working at the ballot box, even if Brussels laughs.
In the end, the question is not whether Vox can repeal this or that. The question is how many votes are worth promising what cannot be delivered. Quite a few, it seems.
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 (22 replies).
More summaries
-
European Parliament Approves Resolution in Support of Ceuta
The European Parliament adopts a resolution condemning the mass migration influx into Ceuta from Morocco and calling for border reinforcement.
-
Spain tops EU unemployment for 33 straight months
Spain leads EU unemployment at 11.3%: 33 consecutive months without losing first place. The official figure clashes with the debate over real unemployment.
-
Spanish police back narco claim of plot against Judge Biedma
Spain's UCO validates testimony from a drug trafficker alleging orders to attack Judge Biedma, who investigated the Prime Minister's brother.
-
Prosecutors seek €800,000 fine and 2.5 years in prison for uploading 'lost media'
Spain's prosecutors are seeking €800,000 and 2.5 years in prison for uploading 'lost media' films no longer sold anywhere. Cultural preservation or crime? The debate over copyright laws.
-
Spain's CGPJ unanimous: Sánchez weakens democracy with attacks on judges
Spain's CGPJ warns unanimously that the Government's attacks on judges "weaken the foundations of democracy", responding to criticism from Sánchez and Puente.
-
Complaint against Vito Quiles over Sarah Santaolalla assault allegation dismissed
Spanish courts conclude Vito Quiles did not assault Sarah Santaolalla and dismiss the complaint. The case reopens the debate over false accusations in politics.