Reform for money

Most of us have learned these days from the European Commission that Spain will receive the first 10,000 million euros from the Next Generation Funds, for having already met 52 of the committed milestones. We know, also from Brussels, that the Minister of Finance has signed an Operational Agreement with the Commissioner for the Economy that contains the commitments made by the Government of Spain, the schedule to fulfill them, the general guidelines for the application of the Reform, Transformation and Resilience Plan. (PRTR), which channels part of the 70,000 million euros of donation that we will receive until 2023 from the European Union and the verification procedure foreseen for the mandatory monitoring before releasing the funds: a quarterly meeting, other sectorial meetings and an annual event of overall evaluation.

We are also learning, with the difficulty of those who do not have the official bulletins between their daily readings, that the ministries, as well as several Autonomous Communities, are selecting projects and even drawing calls already included within the PRTR, eligible for community funding. In short, we note that beyond the daily scuffle that Spanish politics has become, with the Congress turned into a television set where to give a weekly show, life goes on and what should constitute the backbone of the action of government and opposition control, runs below the radar of public attention.

And that gives me a bittersweet taste since, if it can be understood as proof of a healthy growing disengagement between the political class and real Spain, on the other hand, it generates doubts regarding the possibility that, in the end, whoever sends in Spain is the European Commission, before the abandonment of functions of our political class. And I am not saying this because of a misunderstood patriotism, but because of the deep defense of a democratic system that is obscured by fundamental decisions adopted and controlled from offices and not in public forums where national sovereignty is represented. If there are quarterly meetings with the Commission to assess the progress of the PRTR, its reforms, milestones and application of European funds, there should also be them in Parliament, which is where the government must be held accountable in a democracy.

On the contrary, the feeling that “the men in black” have returned from Brussels, as in the time of the rescue that was made of Spain during the Government of Mariano Rajoy, would be growing. Although parallels cannot be drawn between that forced financial rescue, aimed at avoiding the bankruptcy of Spain as a result of the euro crisis, and these voluntary investment funds, aimed at promoting green and digital reconversion, which is pointed out as new post covid european strategy. But, in both cases, we receive money in exchange for doing certain things that are imposed on us (or negotiated) from Brussels, who also grant themselves the status of arbitrators on compliance with the conditions, in due time and form.

The Government should be the most interested in taking this debate to Parliament. Now, I know that it is more uncomfortable to debate in public with a superficial, slogan and excited opposition, than to do it in private, with figures and data, with European technicians. But beyond the democratic sense, It should be preferable for the Government to redirect the political debate to issues such as promoting renewable hydrogen, sustainable mobility, labor market reform or the circular economy strategy, It is necessary to keep it on the issues that today fill the session diaries in the Congress of Deputies and the news and social gatherings of the media.

If we do so, we could reflect and discuss the many aspects that are still blurred with the application of Next Generation funds in Spain. For example, what will happen to the PERTES, one of the most innovative and interesting administrative figures, at risk of becoming blurred. Or, for example, the many criticisms regarding the slowness and complexity of the administrative procedures that have not been cleared, despite having approved a specific decree law for the proper management of these funds. Or, also, if we should have already requested, as other countries have done, the part of loans annexed to the Funds, to increase, with subsidies plus subsidized credits, their driving force in large and complex projects. Or the risks of losing the initial, exciting and transformative momentum with which the funds were received, in the midst of a bureaucratic routine of budget items, calls and awards, unable to do things other than the usual.

The Prime Minister defined the Reconstruction, Transformation and Resilience Plan as a true “Country Plan”. With its 348 pages, structured in four axes, ten levers and thirty components, it accumulates more than 400 commitments between investments and reforms. It is about the true socio-economic program of this Government, which is already guiding the action of the ministries and, also, of the autonomous communities, with their respective budgets. It is good that the Commission and the European Council have approved it, as well as that they have established specific mechanisms for monitoring and strict evaluation of their compliance to which they subject the semi-annual release of funds. But also, I would prefer that our representatives in Parliament had, at least, the same information as the Commission and that they could, like this one, criticize, evaluate and propose improvements to the project aimed at carrying out the necessary green and digital reconversion of our society.

Related news

For the moment, we are focusing public attention and media noise on those issues that, being important, have the greatest impact on citizen well-being: pension reform, the labor market reform and, in another order, the highway toll. But it would not be fair to despise the debate on key aspects for our future and that are also included in the Plan, such as digital training, sustainable mobility, housing renovation, cybersecurity, the imposition of 5G or the national science, technology system and innovation.

Many are likely to view these as minor issues. But they are wrong. They constitute the essence of the Political debate, with capital letters, that which revolves around our life and how to improve it, widening the possibilities and reinforcing well-being, instead of those other political debates, with small letters, capable of mobilizing passions and capturing the public’s attention. , but sterile, from which nothing positive comes out for anyone. Politics looks more and more like a rocking chair: you move, but without moving forward. Politicians should address us as citizens, rather than looking for us as spectators. That really is a policy for adults, in a complex society, full of risks and uncertainties. We will get it?