Matilde Asián, the still new secretary of state for tourism, has got off on the right foot: where the hoteliers are concerned, anyway, for whom she's proving to be as good as her word. Soon into her new position she let it be known that the national government was considering a U-turn on holiday rentals. Having left regulation up to the regions, the time had arrived for Madrid to get involved.
This followed a meeting with the president of the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation, Inma Benito, who had herself been mentioned as a possible secretary of state. What has become apparent since that meeting is that Benito is playing a role broader than just representing the island's considerable hotel interests. Mallorca's federation is the most powerful of the hotel lobby groups, and Mallorca is leading the charge in Madrid for action.
Asián was at a gathering before the Fitur fair got under way which demonstrated the power of the Mallorcan/Balearic lobby. Globalia, Iberostar, Palladium, Piñero, Riu were all represented. Such is the strength of the hotel industry in the Balearics that an entirely different five could line up without any loss of power. She assured them that she will be pushing for state legislation that will not just remove confusion created by regional rentals' regulations, it will also control rentals.
What sort of legislation might emerge? Given some of the talk in Madrid, not least by former foreign affairs minister Abel Matutes, the boss of Palladium, one target could be Airbnb and its ilk. For Spain to introduce legislation that controls the collaborative economy (if only for accommodation) would be a giant step. It would be a far from easy step as well. There would be Brussels and the National Competition Commission to answer to for starters.
There again, no one surely disputes the rights of websites to promote accommodation, so long as it's legal. Tough legislation targeting illegal offer is a different matter. The weight of a state behind it would go well beyond regional efforts to tackle the illegal supply.
It is curious that the right and the left are basically in agreement on all this. They come from different points of view - in simplistic terms, defending the hoteliers or defending residential communities - but the objective is the same. Airbnb can defend itself all it likes by applying definitions, e.g. it doesn't offer "tourist" accommodation because it is merely a form of go-between, but if this is the case, then why did it announce an intention for business development in tourist resorts and not just in cities? Fundamentally, if it (and others) permit the promotion of illegal properties, they deserve anything that might come their way.
Although Asián says she's keen to remove confusion, it's debatable how much she will do this, given that regions either have legislated or are in the process of doing so. The Balearic legislation, the draft for which has received a bombardment of objections from all sides, will not just establish a framework for the regions it will also devolve powers for implementation to the island councils.
So as and when Madrid introduces its legislation, how will it impact on what's already in place? Biel Barceló says that it will be important for Madrid to clarify what powers the regions have, which is a reasonable observation, as the result of Madrid becoming involved could have precisely the opposite effect to that which Asián intends.
Showing posts with label Spanish Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spanish Government. Show all posts
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Bringing Harmony To Holiday Rentals' Regulations
The new secretary-of-state for tourism, Matilde Asián, has hit the ground running. In so doing, she has left her predecessors, notably the immediate one, trailing well in her wake. Of course it may only be an impression - and one that will come to nothing, as these things have a habit of doing - but at least she appears to be proactive. Or proactive in a reactive sense, seeking to undo a mess of inactivity and governmental buck-passing and head-in-sand-burying that she has inherited.
As noted a few days ago, Asián wants to get together with the regional governments and try and find a way of harmonising holiday rental legislation. This would be, again as noted, a volte-face by Madrid. It had directed the regions to take responsibility for the matter, arguing - with some justification - that each region's needs are different.
The needs do differ, but the principles do not, and when Madrid abrogated its legislative responsibility, it hadn't considered the impact of the so-called collaborative economy. One might argue that it lacked foresight in not having taken Airbnb and others into account, but for the past four years it has shown no sign of adopting a proactive stance in reacting to changed - and greatly changed - market circumstances. Until now.
There is to be a tourism sector conference at which the regions will be represented. Asián is hoping that harmonised regulation can be arrived at and be based on "equity (i.e. fairness), taxation and security". In respect of the latter, she has referred to the security which Spain offers tourists (a key factor of course in having contributed to so-called saturation, a further product of which is the holiday let). There has been some alarm expressed about the lack of control and information when it comes to people renting accommodation; hotels, on the other hand, know who they have staying with them.
Asián announced her initiative during the tourism forum in Maspalomas (Gran Canaria). One of those attending, Antonio Mayor, the president of the hoteliers in Benidorm and the Costa Blanca, said that "all administrations" had until now demonstrated passivity and/or permissiveness. There has to be proactivity, he stressed, in combating the black economy and the momentum towards a style of accommodation which threatens to "blow apart" the tourism economic model.
He would of course say this, as have others from the hotelier sector (and also their political supporters, principally the Partido Popular). But while the hoteliers may be devils in the eyes of some on the left-wing, the attitudes of the left, such as with the Balearic government, are being shaped by their anxieties regarding excessive tourist numbers and tax evasion. The passivity in the Balearics, amply demonstrated by the PP government under José Ramón Bauzá, is being discarded, even if Biel Barceló is scrambling around trying to cobble together coherent legislation.
The greatest single barrier to this legislation, as I also mentioned previously, is the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos (LAU), national law that doubles - where some are concerned - as a fraudster's charter. Barceló has admitted that this is an obstacle, which is why he wants Madrid to change the law and to exclude short-term rentals under the LAU. He also said that the government intends treating such rentals as being touristic, even if they are not advertised as such. Quite how it will proceed with this is difficult to understand, unless Madrid amends the law. The government can always send in the inspectors, but there are only so few of these.
Barceló and also Asián face other obstacles. One is that the LAU is not a matter for Asián's energy, tourism and digital agenda ministry; housing matters come under the development ministry. The Spanish competition commission may well be another - its attitudes are generally permissive - while EU criteria would also need to be taken into account. Then there is the principle of "family and friends". While this is itself open to abuse, there are owners who genuinely do let family members use apartments without any payment. How might this square with Barceló's desire to eliminate LAU short-term rentals?
Having a national law on holiday rentals would make obvious sense, but although Barceló (and other regional tourism ministers) might welcome some intervention by Madrid, they would jealously guard their powers for tourism affairs, even if they don't really know what to do on the vexed issue of holiday rentals. With Barceló, he does seem to have some idea, but then what does one make of this business of him saying that holidaymakers would have to abide by communities' rules? Who would enforce such rules and how? Communities already tend to have such rules anyway. And fat lot of use it does them, if people choose not to observe them. Just like others choose to bend rules or abuse loopholes, such as with laws on rentals.
As noted a few days ago, Asián wants to get together with the regional governments and try and find a way of harmonising holiday rental legislation. This would be, again as noted, a volte-face by Madrid. It had directed the regions to take responsibility for the matter, arguing - with some justification - that each region's needs are different.
The needs do differ, but the principles do not, and when Madrid abrogated its legislative responsibility, it hadn't considered the impact of the so-called collaborative economy. One might argue that it lacked foresight in not having taken Airbnb and others into account, but for the past four years it has shown no sign of adopting a proactive stance in reacting to changed - and greatly changed - market circumstances. Until now.
There is to be a tourism sector conference at which the regions will be represented. Asián is hoping that harmonised regulation can be arrived at and be based on "equity (i.e. fairness), taxation and security". In respect of the latter, she has referred to the security which Spain offers tourists (a key factor of course in having contributed to so-called saturation, a further product of which is the holiday let). There has been some alarm expressed about the lack of control and information when it comes to people renting accommodation; hotels, on the other hand, know who they have staying with them.
Asián announced her initiative during the tourism forum in Maspalomas (Gran Canaria). One of those attending, Antonio Mayor, the president of the hoteliers in Benidorm and the Costa Blanca, said that "all administrations" had until now demonstrated passivity and/or permissiveness. There has to be proactivity, he stressed, in combating the black economy and the momentum towards a style of accommodation which threatens to "blow apart" the tourism economic model.
He would of course say this, as have others from the hotelier sector (and also their political supporters, principally the Partido Popular). But while the hoteliers may be devils in the eyes of some on the left-wing, the attitudes of the left, such as with the Balearic government, are being shaped by their anxieties regarding excessive tourist numbers and tax evasion. The passivity in the Balearics, amply demonstrated by the PP government under José Ramón Bauzá, is being discarded, even if Biel Barceló is scrambling around trying to cobble together coherent legislation.
The greatest single barrier to this legislation, as I also mentioned previously, is the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos (LAU), national law that doubles - where some are concerned - as a fraudster's charter. Barceló has admitted that this is an obstacle, which is why he wants Madrid to change the law and to exclude short-term rentals under the LAU. He also said that the government intends treating such rentals as being touristic, even if they are not advertised as such. Quite how it will proceed with this is difficult to understand, unless Madrid amends the law. The government can always send in the inspectors, but there are only so few of these.
Barceló and also Asián face other obstacles. One is that the LAU is not a matter for Asián's energy, tourism and digital agenda ministry; housing matters come under the development ministry. The Spanish competition commission may well be another - its attitudes are generally permissive - while EU criteria would also need to be taken into account. Then there is the principle of "family and friends". While this is itself open to abuse, there are owners who genuinely do let family members use apartments without any payment. How might this square with Barceló's desire to eliminate LAU short-term rentals?
Having a national law on holiday rentals would make obvious sense, but although Barceló (and other regional tourism ministers) might welcome some intervention by Madrid, they would jealously guard their powers for tourism affairs, even if they don't really know what to do on the vexed issue of holiday rentals. With Barceló, he does seem to have some idea, but then what does one make of this business of him saying that holidaymakers would have to abide by communities' rules? Who would enforce such rules and how? Communities already tend to have such rules anyway. And fat lot of use it does them, if people choose not to observe them. Just like others choose to bend rules or abuse loopholes, such as with laws on rentals.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Francina To The Spanish Governmental Rescue
"Five. Four. Three. Two. One ..." "Cut! Cut!"
Nothing's going. Shot in Supermarianoation, the latest in the fantasy franchise that is "The Government Which Forgot It Was A Government" is undergoing yet further re-scripting. On Tracy Island the lights were flashing on the portraits at Governmental Rescue in the presidential HQ at the Consolat de Mar. "Take Pod 4, Virgil, the Nationalists Mole." "Yes father, er I mean, F.A.B. mother." Francina Tracy, the matriarch founder of Governmental Rescue, had decided that the time had come for all good Pedros to come to the aid of the PSOE party by combining with nationalist parties and Podemos (just like on Tracy Island) in order to stop the evil Super Mariano.
He, Super that is, was oddly enough having similar thoughts. He was emitting evil ones from his bunker in Madrid. "Catalonia, Catalonia," he mysteriously intoned. Would the Catalan half-brothers of the Spanish nation succumb to his evil thoughts? Despite several years of plots and intrigues to deny independence, Super Mariano was now prepared to give houseroom to the CDC in Catalonia in a Congress carve-up designed to secure his investiture as president (prime minister).
Away from all of this, Dec (Albert Rivera of the C's) was revealing what many had suspected: that he is a vacillating and opportunistic little C. The double act with Ant (Pedro Sánchez of PSOE) seemed well and truly to have been annulled. Instead, Dec was being led by the hand of Super Mariano to face the tests of the political jungle. Together they would gain celebrity for governmental rescue. On Tracy Island Francina was having none of that, having trademarked the name.
But then Super Mariano began transmitting those evil nationalist thoughts. Albert, immune from birth to such brain interference and equally immune to any notion of Catalonian independence (or anyone else's for that matter), was scandalised. There will be no investiture, Super. Not if you get into bed with the nationalists. Mariano, meanwhile, merely cackled. Either it's me or no one. And if it's not me, there'll be another election.
In next week's episode of "The Government Which Forgot It Was A Government" the King will have to undergo another round of those excruciating photo opportunity moments, shaking hands with all and sundry Spanish politicians, none of whom will have the slightest possibility of being able to contribute to forming a government. The King will smile politely and benignly while thinking more about arrangements for the family hols on Tracy Island. At Governmental Rescue, meanwhile, Brains Jarabo of Podemos will be imploring Francina to blow all the tourist tax revenue on an eco-friendly agrarian heritage sun-and-beach tourism alternative spacecraft to orbit the Earth.
Fantasy franchise? Oh yes.
Nothing's going. Shot in Supermarianoation, the latest in the fantasy franchise that is "The Government Which Forgot It Was A Government" is undergoing yet further re-scripting. On Tracy Island the lights were flashing on the portraits at Governmental Rescue in the presidential HQ at the Consolat de Mar. "Take Pod 4, Virgil, the Nationalists Mole." "Yes father, er I mean, F.A.B. mother." Francina Tracy, the matriarch founder of Governmental Rescue, had decided that the time had come for all good Pedros to come to the aid of the PSOE party by combining with nationalist parties and Podemos (just like on Tracy Island) in order to stop the evil Super Mariano.
He, Super that is, was oddly enough having similar thoughts. He was emitting evil ones from his bunker in Madrid. "Catalonia, Catalonia," he mysteriously intoned. Would the Catalan half-brothers of the Spanish nation succumb to his evil thoughts? Despite several years of plots and intrigues to deny independence, Super Mariano was now prepared to give houseroom to the CDC in Catalonia in a Congress carve-up designed to secure his investiture as president (prime minister).
Away from all of this, Dec (Albert Rivera of the C's) was revealing what many had suspected: that he is a vacillating and opportunistic little C. The double act with Ant (Pedro Sánchez of PSOE) seemed well and truly to have been annulled. Instead, Dec was being led by the hand of Super Mariano to face the tests of the political jungle. Together they would gain celebrity for governmental rescue. On Tracy Island Francina was having none of that, having trademarked the name.
But then Super Mariano began transmitting those evil nationalist thoughts. Albert, immune from birth to such brain interference and equally immune to any notion of Catalonian independence (or anyone else's for that matter), was scandalised. There will be no investiture, Super. Not if you get into bed with the nationalists. Mariano, meanwhile, merely cackled. Either it's me or no one. And if it's not me, there'll be another election.
In next week's episode of "The Government Which Forgot It Was A Government" the King will have to undergo another round of those excruciating photo opportunity moments, shaking hands with all and sundry Spanish politicians, none of whom will have the slightest possibility of being able to contribute to forming a government. The King will smile politely and benignly while thinking more about arrangements for the family hols on Tracy Island. At Governmental Rescue, meanwhile, Brains Jarabo of Podemos will be imploring Francina to blow all the tourist tax revenue on an eco-friendly agrarian heritage sun-and-beach tourism alternative spacecraft to orbit the Earth.
Fantasy franchise? Oh yes.
Monday, June 06, 2016
The (Spanish) Governmental Ménage à Trois
So, as the big day looms ever closer and the fateful votes will be cast - and I'm talking not of 23-J but of 26-J - the bookies (were there such a thing) are reporting good money going on a threesome forming the next government. Yes, after one failed election and an even greater failure by Pedro Sánchez to oust Super Mariano, 26-J looks destined to unite Pedro and Mazza. Possibly.
Pedro and Albert, Ant and Dec of PSOE and the C's, are still determined to continue their unconvincing double act and make it even less convincing by inviting Mazza into the political celebrity jungle. Or maybe it's the other way round. Or maybe Super Mariano won't be there at all. That's something else the bookies are laying odds on. Which is hardly surprising. Through all the faffing around after last December's election, it was clear to everyone, except Mariano, that if only he had stepped aside, the grand coalition could have been formed.
As we know, however, Mariano doesn't believe that he has a natural successor. Super Mariano would rule forever if he had his way. But the time is now coming when he will have to give way to an unnatural successor. Who might it be? The bookies are reckoning on the Dancing Queen, María Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría Antón Etc.
None of this will of course go down well with the advocates of governments of change and progressive politics. How would either Ant or Dec be able to spin a cosying up to the PP as representing change or progression? Only if Mariano goes, but even then they would be barely credible. For Ant, meantime, the possibility exists that if PSOE gets a further stuffing, he might no longer be around in any event. I'm a failed politician, get me out of here.
The likelihood of this coalition ménage à trois stems not from any genuine belief among the three parties that it is what any of them wants but from Pedro's fear (or the fear of any successor to him) that he could well find himself forced into being a number two behind Pablo. Podemos have been talking up Iglesias as being the next president, and it most certainly would be president. None of this Anglicised prime minister lark. Pablo, a prime minister serving a Bourbon king? You have to be joking. President it would be.
There is a further reason to believe that there will be this three-in-a-bed liaison. The citizens. They won't accept any more arsing around. They won't want a December election to sort out the mess of 26-J. Something will have to give. And Super Mariano is what will have to give. He can't be like Arsène Wenger, arsing around forever and ever ... .
Pedro and Albert, Ant and Dec of PSOE and the C's, are still determined to continue their unconvincing double act and make it even less convincing by inviting Mazza into the political celebrity jungle. Or maybe it's the other way round. Or maybe Super Mariano won't be there at all. That's something else the bookies are laying odds on. Which is hardly surprising. Through all the faffing around after last December's election, it was clear to everyone, except Mariano, that if only he had stepped aside, the grand coalition could have been formed.
As we know, however, Mariano doesn't believe that he has a natural successor. Super Mariano would rule forever if he had his way. But the time is now coming when he will have to give way to an unnatural successor. Who might it be? The bookies are reckoning on the Dancing Queen, María Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría Antón Etc.
None of this will of course go down well with the advocates of governments of change and progressive politics. How would either Ant or Dec be able to spin a cosying up to the PP as representing change or progression? Only if Mariano goes, but even then they would be barely credible. For Ant, meantime, the possibility exists that if PSOE gets a further stuffing, he might no longer be around in any event. I'm a failed politician, get me out of here.
The likelihood of this coalition ménage à trois stems not from any genuine belief among the three parties that it is what any of them wants but from Pedro's fear (or the fear of any successor to him) that he could well find himself forced into being a number two behind Pablo. Podemos have been talking up Iglesias as being the next president, and it most certainly would be president. None of this Anglicised prime minister lark. Pablo, a prime minister serving a Bourbon king? You have to be joking. President it would be.
There is a further reason to believe that there will be this three-in-a-bed liaison. The citizens. They won't accept any more arsing around. They won't want a December election to sort out the mess of 26-J. Something will have to give. And Super Mariano is what will have to give. He can't be like Arsène Wenger, arsing around forever and ever ... .
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
The Neglected Ministry Of Tourism
One of the oldest national ministries of Spanish government has the title "fomento". The word means development or promotion. It was created in 1832, its principal functions being, as they still are, transport and communications. In 1905 the ministry acquired a further responsibility - tourism, on account of the fact that the national commission for tourism was attached to the ministry. This commission was to evolve into what became the tourism directorate-general, directly responsible to the interior ministry. In 1951 this directorate-general became a ministry in its own right, sharing this with information. The best-known minister for information and tourism was Manuel Fraga, who held the position from 1962 to 1969. Arguably, he is still the best known of all ministers who have ever had tourism responsibilities.
Fraga, though he oversaw propaganda and censorship because of the information part of his remit, was one of Franco's more enlightened ministers. He certainly helped in getting the dictator (and the church and the Guardia Civil) to lighten up or to take a less strict line. His role in Spain's tourism development should not be underestimated.
Post-Franco, the ministry was wound up. The information element was no longer necessary, once censorship was officially done away with. Though this had clearly been an important ingredient for a dictatorial regime, it is possible to argue that the ministry, certainly once Fraga came in, gave tourism the greatest governmental prominence it has ever had. Tourism, thereafter, found itself tied in with trade, then transport and communication (back to the old days, therefore), the economy and finance and finally, in the current government, with industry and energy.
This list doesn't tell the whole story, though. For the entire period of José María Aznar's time as prime minister there was no actual tourism minister: tourism was subordinate to the wider economy in ministerial terms. There have long been calls for there to be a minister at cabinet level with sole responsibility, but it has never happened. Fraga, I would maintain, was the closest Spain ever got in this respect.
As tourism hovers around the 11% GDP mark for the country as a whole, it is legitimate to ask whether the industry merits a dedicated minister and ministry. But as has been said consistently in recent years, tourism has been crucial in helping the Spanish economy to recover. How often have we heard it being described as the driving force behind recovery? So it is obviously an important industry, but its importance varies. There are parts of Spain where tourism is vastly more important than others, and there is no region of the country where it is more important than the Balearics.
For the year 2013, tourism contributed 45.5% of Balearic GDP. The region which came closest was the Canaries (31.2%). In another sun-and-beach region, Andalusia, the percentage - 12.5% - wasn't that much greater than the national figure. Such wide variance goes some way to explain why the resignation of the tourism minister has not been greeted with tears in the Balearics.
José Manuel Soria came into his post as industry, energy and tourism minister with a background of having been a vice-president of the Canaries. With a tourism secretary-of-state, Isabel Borrego, being Mallorcan, it might have appeared that the two archipelagos could be assured of a good hearing in Madrid. Such an expectation proved to be a largely false one. Borrego has been widely vilified by the industry. Soria had a better reception by some parts of the industry but not in the Balearics. Gabriel Barceló, co-founder of the Barceló hotel group, said of Soria: "We have a minister for everything except tourism."
His views were echoed by other big hitters in the Mallorcan tourism industry. When it wasn't the founders of Barceló, Riu, Meliá and Iberostar taking him to one side, it was the former president of the hoteliers' federation. Aurelio Vázquez. Why was the IVA (VAT) rate for the industry not being reduced, as had been promised? Why were Aena being allowed to raise airport charges? But it was the oil business that really caused the anger, and so much so that Soria fell out with a PP colleague, former president, José Ramón Bauzá.
The soundings for oil off the Balearics (and also the Canaries) were unacceptable to the tourism industry and to all political parties. But Soria was in an awkward position. He was energy minister as well. It was his other responsibilities which led Gabriel Barceló to say what he did, and the question had to be asked as to why such a combination of duties was ever considered to have been a good idea.
That, though, is the fate of tourism at national level. Never on its own, it never has a sole voice to defend it, while for the Balearics - with such a high GDP dependence - ministers rarely, if ever, offer satisfaction.
Fraga, though he oversaw propaganda and censorship because of the information part of his remit, was one of Franco's more enlightened ministers. He certainly helped in getting the dictator (and the church and the Guardia Civil) to lighten up or to take a less strict line. His role in Spain's tourism development should not be underestimated.
Post-Franco, the ministry was wound up. The information element was no longer necessary, once censorship was officially done away with. Though this had clearly been an important ingredient for a dictatorial regime, it is possible to argue that the ministry, certainly once Fraga came in, gave tourism the greatest governmental prominence it has ever had. Tourism, thereafter, found itself tied in with trade, then transport and communication (back to the old days, therefore), the economy and finance and finally, in the current government, with industry and energy.
This list doesn't tell the whole story, though. For the entire period of José María Aznar's time as prime minister there was no actual tourism minister: tourism was subordinate to the wider economy in ministerial terms. There have long been calls for there to be a minister at cabinet level with sole responsibility, but it has never happened. Fraga, I would maintain, was the closest Spain ever got in this respect.
As tourism hovers around the 11% GDP mark for the country as a whole, it is legitimate to ask whether the industry merits a dedicated minister and ministry. But as has been said consistently in recent years, tourism has been crucial in helping the Spanish economy to recover. How often have we heard it being described as the driving force behind recovery? So it is obviously an important industry, but its importance varies. There are parts of Spain where tourism is vastly more important than others, and there is no region of the country where it is more important than the Balearics.
For the year 2013, tourism contributed 45.5% of Balearic GDP. The region which came closest was the Canaries (31.2%). In another sun-and-beach region, Andalusia, the percentage - 12.5% - wasn't that much greater than the national figure. Such wide variance goes some way to explain why the resignation of the tourism minister has not been greeted with tears in the Balearics.
José Manuel Soria came into his post as industry, energy and tourism minister with a background of having been a vice-president of the Canaries. With a tourism secretary-of-state, Isabel Borrego, being Mallorcan, it might have appeared that the two archipelagos could be assured of a good hearing in Madrid. Such an expectation proved to be a largely false one. Borrego has been widely vilified by the industry. Soria had a better reception by some parts of the industry but not in the Balearics. Gabriel Barceló, co-founder of the Barceló hotel group, said of Soria: "We have a minister for everything except tourism."
His views were echoed by other big hitters in the Mallorcan tourism industry. When it wasn't the founders of Barceló, Riu, Meliá and Iberostar taking him to one side, it was the former president of the hoteliers' federation. Aurelio Vázquez. Why was the IVA (VAT) rate for the industry not being reduced, as had been promised? Why were Aena being allowed to raise airport charges? But it was the oil business that really caused the anger, and so much so that Soria fell out with a PP colleague, former president, José Ramón Bauzá.
The soundings for oil off the Balearics (and also the Canaries) were unacceptable to the tourism industry and to all political parties. But Soria was in an awkward position. He was energy minister as well. It was his other responsibilities which led Gabriel Barceló to say what he did, and the question had to be asked as to why such a combination of duties was ever considered to have been a good idea.
That, though, is the fate of tourism at national level. Never on its own, it never has a sole voice to defend it, while for the Balearics - with such a high GDP dependence - ministers rarely, if ever, offer satisfaction.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
PSOE And The Puppet Masters
"Podemos is not advocating a government of coalition but a coalition of government." These were the words of the PSOE president of Extremadura, Guillermo Fernández-Vara, speaking at the party's federal committee at the weekend. They might sound like gobbledegook but their meaning was clear. A government of coalition means a government in which individual parties' agendas are subordinate to the will of the government as a whole. A coalition of government refers to individual parties having their separate responsibilities and agendas. There is not the same collective will or anything approaching it.
Vara went onto to say that under a PSOE government arrangement with Podemos, the party (his party) would be judged by what it does and what it is responsible for, while Podemos would be judged on what it does and its responsibilities. The semantics of his message might seem confusing, but what he was driving at was the potential to create what would be parallel governments. There may, ostensibly, be a coalition, but its paths would diverge, with one signposted PSOE, the other Podemos (together with its associates and, in all likelihood, the IU - United Left).
The Extremadura president is far from being alone in opposing any governmental tie-up with Podemos. PSOE leaders might want a government of the left, but it depends on what style of left. Javier Fernández, the president of Asturias, has branded Podemos bullies. Miquel Iceta, the secretary-general of PSOE in Catalonia (known as PSC), has spoken of Pablo Iglesias wishing to humiliate him. The bullies and the humiliation are things that PSOE should already be aware of: its members need only take a look at the Balearics.
The Vara argument is of course disputed by the present voguishness for everything apparently being agreed through dialogue and consensus, with component parts of pacts walking hand-in-hand in harmonious accord. This is fictitious dissembling. Had Francina Armengol's PSOE in the Balearics been in a position to, it would have repelled any half-thought of a pact involving Podemos. Why? Because of its disruptive capacity as much as any policies. Biel Barceló's Més on its own would have received houseroom in just the same way as one of the Més elements, the PSM Mallorcan socialists, had been by Francesc Antich. Left to their twosome devices, the dialogue and consensus spin might have some credibility. The ménage à trois leaves it incredible.
Yet even with Més, Armengol has been forced into giving up areas of responsibility. Tourism is most certainly one. It is now hypothetical what might have happened had PSOE been in a stronger position, but it was well known that PSOE had not been wholehearted in wishing there to be a tourist tax. This is a Més measure (with Podemos's full backing). The words of Armengol, her government spokesperson, Marc Pons, and her finance minister, Catalina Cladera - each of them from PSOE - in now supporting it are shallow.
The Balearic model of government is precisely what Vara was alluding to. The notion of consensus has the feeling of a sham, one perpetrated by Armengol and others as a means of justification for a government which could unravel under the tensions it has brought upon itself. Podemos, not even actually in the government (though it may reconsider this, with all the complications this would cause for responsibilities), has made play of the fact that it is now - based on general election results - the second force in the Balearics (behind the most-voted-for party, the PP). Armengol and PSOE were forced into having to accept an arrangement with Podemos, which has subsequently drawn greater strength from the national election. And with this force and strength, there is humiliation. The PP's accusations of Armengol being a Podemos puppet cut to the bone, and it is this that certain PSOE leaders want to avoid at all costs for national government.
Moreover, they want to avoid acceding to Podemos demands for control of, for example, defence and the economy. They most certainly want to avoid any referendum on Catalonia. Armengol seeks to soothe their nerves by saying that all is working well in government with nationalists. But which nationalists? Més has a nationalist agenda (for both the Balearics and Catalonia), but Més is irrelevant in the national government context: Podemos isn't.
Podemos backs a referendum but not because it is nationalist. It promotes the will of the people in deciding, to an extent that it can be described as anti-nationalist, which might be said to include Spain. This is its own spin. Podemos may be able to keep it up. It may even be sincere. But even allowing for a veneer of the popular will, there are precedents for subordinating the state to party interests, those of Podemos. You don't need me to tell you which ones. There are plenty in PSOE who will never forgive Sánchez if he prostrates himself in front of Podemos.
Vara went onto to say that under a PSOE government arrangement with Podemos, the party (his party) would be judged by what it does and what it is responsible for, while Podemos would be judged on what it does and its responsibilities. The semantics of his message might seem confusing, but what he was driving at was the potential to create what would be parallel governments. There may, ostensibly, be a coalition, but its paths would diverge, with one signposted PSOE, the other Podemos (together with its associates and, in all likelihood, the IU - United Left).
The Extremadura president is far from being alone in opposing any governmental tie-up with Podemos. PSOE leaders might want a government of the left, but it depends on what style of left. Javier Fernández, the president of Asturias, has branded Podemos bullies. Miquel Iceta, the secretary-general of PSOE in Catalonia (known as PSC), has spoken of Pablo Iglesias wishing to humiliate him. The bullies and the humiliation are things that PSOE should already be aware of: its members need only take a look at the Balearics.
The Vara argument is of course disputed by the present voguishness for everything apparently being agreed through dialogue and consensus, with component parts of pacts walking hand-in-hand in harmonious accord. This is fictitious dissembling. Had Francina Armengol's PSOE in the Balearics been in a position to, it would have repelled any half-thought of a pact involving Podemos. Why? Because of its disruptive capacity as much as any policies. Biel Barceló's Més on its own would have received houseroom in just the same way as one of the Més elements, the PSM Mallorcan socialists, had been by Francesc Antich. Left to their twosome devices, the dialogue and consensus spin might have some credibility. The ménage à trois leaves it incredible.
Yet even with Més, Armengol has been forced into giving up areas of responsibility. Tourism is most certainly one. It is now hypothetical what might have happened had PSOE been in a stronger position, but it was well known that PSOE had not been wholehearted in wishing there to be a tourist tax. This is a Més measure (with Podemos's full backing). The words of Armengol, her government spokesperson, Marc Pons, and her finance minister, Catalina Cladera - each of them from PSOE - in now supporting it are shallow.
The Balearic model of government is precisely what Vara was alluding to. The notion of consensus has the feeling of a sham, one perpetrated by Armengol and others as a means of justification for a government which could unravel under the tensions it has brought upon itself. Podemos, not even actually in the government (though it may reconsider this, with all the complications this would cause for responsibilities), has made play of the fact that it is now - based on general election results - the second force in the Balearics (behind the most-voted-for party, the PP). Armengol and PSOE were forced into having to accept an arrangement with Podemos, which has subsequently drawn greater strength from the national election. And with this force and strength, there is humiliation. The PP's accusations of Armengol being a Podemos puppet cut to the bone, and it is this that certain PSOE leaders want to avoid at all costs for national government.
Moreover, they want to avoid acceding to Podemos demands for control of, for example, defence and the economy. They most certainly want to avoid any referendum on Catalonia. Armengol seeks to soothe their nerves by saying that all is working well in government with nationalists. But which nationalists? Més has a nationalist agenda (for both the Balearics and Catalonia), but Més is irrelevant in the national government context: Podemos isn't.
Podemos backs a referendum but not because it is nationalist. It promotes the will of the people in deciding, to an extent that it can be described as anti-nationalist, which might be said to include Spain. This is its own spin. Podemos may be able to keep it up. It may even be sincere. But even allowing for a veneer of the popular will, there are precedents for subordinating the state to party interests, those of Podemos. You don't need me to tell you which ones. There are plenty in PSOE who will never forgive Sánchez if he prostrates himself in front of Podemos.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Out Of Sight ... The Balearics
Luis de Guindos, Spain's minister for the economy and competitiveness, was in Palma on Monday. The five-star Hotel Valparaiso was the setting for a conference to which he had been invited as a speaker. Its theme was "the keys to economic recovery in Spain". Perhaps Sr. de Guindos would have marvelled at one key to this recovery. He was standing inside it. The Valparaiso has been bought by Chinese investors.
The minister was able to explain how Spain was now on the cusp of economic recovery, the keys having already been partially turned, and the attendees were able to hang on his every word. And my, what attendees they were. Abel Matutes, one-time minister for foreign affairs and owner of the Ibiza-based Palladium Hotel Group; two from the family Fluxá - Lorenzo of Camper and Juan Antonio from Lottusse; the director-general for Santander Bank in Spain; members of the regional government; the director-general of Endesa in the Balearics; bosses of Alcampo and El Corte Inglés; representatives of business associations, such as the Chamber of Commerce. The great and good came to hear what Sr. de Guindos had to say and, for the most part, they were happy with his words.
But they weren't totally happy. Abel Matutes noted that de Guindos could have offered greater recognition of the Balearics. The president of the Balearics Business Confederation said much the same, as did the vice-president of Harinas de Mallorca, the flour makers. In a way, their remarks reflected the tensions which are apparent at governmental level. The regional government has its issues with Madrid over financing, as it does over oil prospecting. These are issues which further reflect a longstanding grievance in Mallorca and the Balearics; that the islands contribute much to the overall Spanish economy but are too easily disregarded or ignored. And such ignorance can lead to the occasional gaffe. Let us not forget Mariano Rajoy having referred to the "island of Palma".
This grievance may be purely one of perception, but might there be more to it? The Balearics have deputies in the national parliament. The islands have the odd representative within the upper echelons of governmental administration, such as the tourism secretary-of-state Isabel Borrego, but she isn't a cabinet minister, and when one looks at the background of the current cabinet, one begins to understand why there might indeed be more to the grievance than simply a perception of neglect.
Including prime minister Mariano Rajoy, the cabinet comprises fourteen ministers. Of this fourteen, four of the current incumbents are from Madrid: José Manuel García-Margallo, foreign affairs: Rafael Catalá, justice; José Ignacio Wert, education; and de Guindos. Three more - the vice-president Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, the interior minister Jorge Fernández and the minister for agriculture and the environment Isabel García - are all originally from the historic city of Valladolid in Castile and Leon, some 180 kilometres to the north-west of Madrid. Ana Pastor, the minister for development, is from Zamora, west of Valladolid.
But not hailing from Madrid itself has not stopped Sáenz de Santamaría having been a deputy for Madrid or Cristobal Montoro, the finance minister (from Jaén in Andalusia), having represented Madrid in Congress. Then there are the three ministers who have left the cabinet over the course of this administration: all from Madrid.
To these one has to take into account Rajoy from Galicia, where Ana Pastor was once the regional minister of health and José Wert was a deputy for La Coruña, and the two Basques - the ministers for defence and health, Pedro de Morenes and Alfonso Alonso Aranegui.
There are, therefore, only two ministers who are not part of a Madrid, Castile, Galicia and Basque elite of interconnection that resonates with the history of power in Spain. Madrid itself; the region of Castile which in essence was to create Spain and where, in the city of Valladolid, Isabel of Castile married Ferdinand of Aragon; Galicia, the region of Franco's birth and of Santiago de Compostela, the Saint James centre of Spain's religiosity; the Basque Country, historically one of the principal regions for banking and industry.
One of the two "outsiders" is José Manuel Soria, the minister for tourism, industry and energy, and thus Isabel Borrego's boss. He is from Las Palmas in Gran Canaria, as far from Madrid as it is possible to get. He is from the "other" islands, but he is not welcome in the Balearic Islands because of the oil issue. It might be said that he has gone Madrid native in disregarding Balearic sensitivities over oil.
When one considers the cabinet make-up, one can see why there might be more than just perception at work. This might equally apply to other regions of Spain, but those regions are closer to home; home being Madrid. Too little recognition of the Balearics? It might not be all that surprising.
The minister was able to explain how Spain was now on the cusp of economic recovery, the keys having already been partially turned, and the attendees were able to hang on his every word. And my, what attendees they were. Abel Matutes, one-time minister for foreign affairs and owner of the Ibiza-based Palladium Hotel Group; two from the family Fluxá - Lorenzo of Camper and Juan Antonio from Lottusse; the director-general for Santander Bank in Spain; members of the regional government; the director-general of Endesa in the Balearics; bosses of Alcampo and El Corte Inglés; representatives of business associations, such as the Chamber of Commerce. The great and good came to hear what Sr. de Guindos had to say and, for the most part, they were happy with his words.
But they weren't totally happy. Abel Matutes noted that de Guindos could have offered greater recognition of the Balearics. The president of the Balearics Business Confederation said much the same, as did the vice-president of Harinas de Mallorca, the flour makers. In a way, their remarks reflected the tensions which are apparent at governmental level. The regional government has its issues with Madrid over financing, as it does over oil prospecting. These are issues which further reflect a longstanding grievance in Mallorca and the Balearics; that the islands contribute much to the overall Spanish economy but are too easily disregarded or ignored. And such ignorance can lead to the occasional gaffe. Let us not forget Mariano Rajoy having referred to the "island of Palma".
This grievance may be purely one of perception, but might there be more to it? The Balearics have deputies in the national parliament. The islands have the odd representative within the upper echelons of governmental administration, such as the tourism secretary-of-state Isabel Borrego, but she isn't a cabinet minister, and when one looks at the background of the current cabinet, one begins to understand why there might indeed be more to the grievance than simply a perception of neglect.
Including prime minister Mariano Rajoy, the cabinet comprises fourteen ministers. Of this fourteen, four of the current incumbents are from Madrid: José Manuel García-Margallo, foreign affairs: Rafael Catalá, justice; José Ignacio Wert, education; and de Guindos. Three more - the vice-president Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, the interior minister Jorge Fernández and the minister for agriculture and the environment Isabel García - are all originally from the historic city of Valladolid in Castile and Leon, some 180 kilometres to the north-west of Madrid. Ana Pastor, the minister for development, is from Zamora, west of Valladolid.
But not hailing from Madrid itself has not stopped Sáenz de Santamaría having been a deputy for Madrid or Cristobal Montoro, the finance minister (from Jaén in Andalusia), having represented Madrid in Congress. Then there are the three ministers who have left the cabinet over the course of this administration: all from Madrid.
To these one has to take into account Rajoy from Galicia, where Ana Pastor was once the regional minister of health and José Wert was a deputy for La Coruña, and the two Basques - the ministers for defence and health, Pedro de Morenes and Alfonso Alonso Aranegui.
There are, therefore, only two ministers who are not part of a Madrid, Castile, Galicia and Basque elite of interconnection that resonates with the history of power in Spain. Madrid itself; the region of Castile which in essence was to create Spain and where, in the city of Valladolid, Isabel of Castile married Ferdinand of Aragon; Galicia, the region of Franco's birth and of Santiago de Compostela, the Saint James centre of Spain's religiosity; the Basque Country, historically one of the principal regions for banking and industry.
One of the two "outsiders" is José Manuel Soria, the minister for tourism, industry and energy, and thus Isabel Borrego's boss. He is from Las Palmas in Gran Canaria, as far from Madrid as it is possible to get. He is from the "other" islands, but he is not welcome in the Balearic Islands because of the oil issue. It might be said that he has gone Madrid native in disregarding Balearic sensitivities over oil.
When one considers the cabinet make-up, one can see why there might be more than just perception at work. This might equally apply to other regions of Spain, but those regions are closer to home; home being Madrid. Too little recognition of the Balearics? It might not be all that surprising.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Power Games In The Air
A couple of weeks ago, President Bauzá let it be known that he was unhappy with the national Ministry of Development because it had not responded to repeated requests from the Balearic Government for information from the ministry's "price observatory" regarding air fares for flights between the islands and the mainland. That the ministry and regional government are ruled by the same political party makes this reluctance seems particularly strange, not that party politics should play a part in information provision, but then maybe internal politics within the Partido Popular do explain why the ministry appears disinclined to part with the information. Bauzá, for all that he once appeared destined for greater things in Madrid, has fallen out with central office over specific policies - oil prospecting (three Balearic senators face party sanctions having again voted against prospecting) and financing of the Balearics via the system of tax redistribution - while he has long ceased to be on friendly terms with tourism, industry and energy minister, José Manuel Soria, and has also made himself unpopular with some powerful people in Madrid because of the treatment of Palma's mayor Mateo Isern, who is well regarded by these same powerful people.
When Balearic PP senators previously voted against a national government motion on oil prospecting, the secretary of state for industry, Enrique Hernández, accused Bauzá of "total disloyalty and irresponsibility" (Bauzá had instructed the senators to vote the way they did). The latest act of disobedience has induced Soria to wonder if it is "normal for a PP senator to vote for a proposal by PSOE". The public war of words over oil prospecting has been further ratcheted up by the regional government's spokesperson, Núria Riera, who has said that central government "doesn't understand anything" about the prospecting.
Lack of understanding has become a common theme of complaints by the regional government. Madrid doesn't understand Balearic opposition to oil prospecting, it doesn't understand the need for re-negotiating an improved financing settlement, and it doesn't understand specific requirements to do with transport connections. Bauzá's requests for air fare price information - he has dubbed the non-response from the Ministry of Development "informational opacity" - have been made because of what has been an increase in fares since the collapse of Spanair in January 2012. These fares are also subject to seasonal increases, such as over the festive period, and by as much as three times the regular fare. Moreover, the system of resident discounts creates an excuse to artificially inflate prices; the higher the actual fare, the more the airlines stand to receive from national government (the Ministry of Development) that funds the discounts.
This concern over fares and the ministry's apparent reticence in making information available can be placed in the context of the situation that has arisen regarding slots for inter-island flights. If one goes back to January this year and to the Fitur tourism trade fair in Madrid, there was a "pleasant surprise" for Balearics' representatives when Air Europa announced that it was opening immediate negotiations with the Civil Aviation Directorate-General (DGAC, which is within the ministry) to operate inter-island routes. It was to become a competitor to Air Nostrum but would have to abide by conditions of "public service obligation", meaning that it would have to agree to the number of flights and to ceilings placed on fares. In January, it was said that all that was needed for Air Europa to commence these flights was a nod of approval from the DGAC, though it wasn't until last month that the airline actually set out its proposal.
Since then, and as we now understand, Air Europa has run up against an obstacle, namely the rejection of 60% of the proposed slots by the combined forces of the ministry, the DGAC and the airports authority, AENA. Of the remainder, Air Europa claim, many do not fit in with how the airline had envisaged their scheduling. The president of Globalia, Juan José Hidalgo, of which Air Europa is a part, has added his voice to regional government ones in being unable to understand the attitude of the ministry. The airline may well, as a consequence, walk away from the project to increase inter-island flights, though it is also looking at a solution from a distribution of slots agreed by an association for slot co-ordination (made up of airlines and airports), which can, under European rules, determine slots independently of the government.
Is the situation with Air Europa, which is headquartered in Mallorca after all, an indication of more than just a lack of understanding by national government, caught in the crossfire of the tensions between Bauzá and Madrid and some sort of power game between the two? It would be perverse were this to be the case, especially as Air Europa is now, by some distance, Spain's leading airline under Spanish ownership.
When Balearic PP senators previously voted against a national government motion on oil prospecting, the secretary of state for industry, Enrique Hernández, accused Bauzá of "total disloyalty and irresponsibility" (Bauzá had instructed the senators to vote the way they did). The latest act of disobedience has induced Soria to wonder if it is "normal for a PP senator to vote for a proposal by PSOE". The public war of words over oil prospecting has been further ratcheted up by the regional government's spokesperson, Núria Riera, who has said that central government "doesn't understand anything" about the prospecting.
Lack of understanding has become a common theme of complaints by the regional government. Madrid doesn't understand Balearic opposition to oil prospecting, it doesn't understand the need for re-negotiating an improved financing settlement, and it doesn't understand specific requirements to do with transport connections. Bauzá's requests for air fare price information - he has dubbed the non-response from the Ministry of Development "informational opacity" - have been made because of what has been an increase in fares since the collapse of Spanair in January 2012. These fares are also subject to seasonal increases, such as over the festive period, and by as much as three times the regular fare. Moreover, the system of resident discounts creates an excuse to artificially inflate prices; the higher the actual fare, the more the airlines stand to receive from national government (the Ministry of Development) that funds the discounts.
This concern over fares and the ministry's apparent reticence in making information available can be placed in the context of the situation that has arisen regarding slots for inter-island flights. If one goes back to January this year and to the Fitur tourism trade fair in Madrid, there was a "pleasant surprise" for Balearics' representatives when Air Europa announced that it was opening immediate negotiations with the Civil Aviation Directorate-General (DGAC, which is within the ministry) to operate inter-island routes. It was to become a competitor to Air Nostrum but would have to abide by conditions of "public service obligation", meaning that it would have to agree to the number of flights and to ceilings placed on fares. In January, it was said that all that was needed for Air Europa to commence these flights was a nod of approval from the DGAC, though it wasn't until last month that the airline actually set out its proposal.
Since then, and as we now understand, Air Europa has run up against an obstacle, namely the rejection of 60% of the proposed slots by the combined forces of the ministry, the DGAC and the airports authority, AENA. Of the remainder, Air Europa claim, many do not fit in with how the airline had envisaged their scheduling. The president of Globalia, Juan José Hidalgo, of which Air Europa is a part, has added his voice to regional government ones in being unable to understand the attitude of the ministry. The airline may well, as a consequence, walk away from the project to increase inter-island flights, though it is also looking at a solution from a distribution of slots agreed by an association for slot co-ordination (made up of airlines and airports), which can, under European rules, determine slots independently of the government.
Is the situation with Air Europa, which is headquartered in Mallorca after all, an indication of more than just a lack of understanding by national government, caught in the crossfire of the tensions between Bauzá and Madrid and some sort of power game between the two? It would be perverse were this to be the case, especially as Air Europa is now, by some distance, Spain's leading airline under Spanish ownership.
Sunday, October 05, 2014
Mallorca And The Mountain Of Gold
A mountain of gold. From a distant land known as Madrid, Cristobel the Fairy Godfather waved his magic wand and a spell was cast that flew over the sea as though it were a burnishing trail left by a mythical airplane borne by the wings of angels. The spell touched the highest peaks of the blessed islands of the Balearics and burst like the most benign and glorious fireworks, gold cascading down the valleys, across the plains and to the waters of sapphires. Mont Oro, for it was he, Cristobel the Gold Mountain of All The Treasures of Hispania, spake unto the entranced peoples of the blessed isles. "You shall all go to the Ball (de Bot). You shall all forever more wear glass slippers rather than flip-flops." And the peoples were most grateful.
Well, in a parallel universe the people and politicians of the Balearics might indeed be grateful, but last week there were hordes of ingrates stomping their feet and demanding more. Cristóbal Montoro, Spain's finance minister, had been doing his annual sums. Some for them, some more for them, a bit less for them, and he plucked numbers out of the air and called them the allocations by regions of the state budget. Overlooking the small matter of an 87% increase in the allocation for the Balearics, far from everyone was happy, the discontent coming about because, regardless of this act of central government generosity, the Balearics will still get less per head of population from the national pot than mostly every other region of Spain.
Cheesed off various politicos and businesspeople might be by the miserly sum of 138.4 million euros, but they might remember that there was a time, not so long ago, when the Balearics did much more nicely thank you from the budget. in 2007, as an example, the allocation was 218 million euros, and if one goes back over the years, it will be discovered that, though the amount fluctuated, the Balearics usually did reasonably well. These budget allocations are for what are essentially strategic investments. The lion's share of the Balearics budget is for airports and ports with agriculture and the environment taking up most of the rest.
More investment could doubtless come in handy, but it has to be taken into account that there are eighteen other regions or communities holding out the begging bowl. One of them, Andalusia, despite it being a hotbed of socialism, regularly benefits from Madrid's largesse. It is a comparatively poor region. It is also big. Another, Catalonia (you might have heard of this region, it has been agitating for more for centuries), is also big. It isn't poor but last year it got clobbered by the Rajoy government. 25% down, something else which added to the Mas attack on the Constitution. In 2015, the budget will be up again, as indeed it will be in Galicia (the home region of Rajoy, oh and of Franco as well).
Politics probably do play a part in the budgets, but in truth these allocations are very small beer when compared with what the regions get through the redistribution of tax revenues. This is the principal source of the regions' finances, and it is something for which the Balearics have a very legitimate gripe. The people of the Balearics get back from Madrid around 300 million euros less than they put in.
Well, in a parallel universe the people and politicians of the Balearics might indeed be grateful, but last week there were hordes of ingrates stomping their feet and demanding more. Cristóbal Montoro, Spain's finance minister, had been doing his annual sums. Some for them, some more for them, a bit less for them, and he plucked numbers out of the air and called them the allocations by regions of the state budget. Overlooking the small matter of an 87% increase in the allocation for the Balearics, far from everyone was happy, the discontent coming about because, regardless of this act of central government generosity, the Balearics will still get less per head of population from the national pot than mostly every other region of Spain.
Cheesed off various politicos and businesspeople might be by the miserly sum of 138.4 million euros, but they might remember that there was a time, not so long ago, when the Balearics did much more nicely thank you from the budget. in 2007, as an example, the allocation was 218 million euros, and if one goes back over the years, it will be discovered that, though the amount fluctuated, the Balearics usually did reasonably well. These budget allocations are for what are essentially strategic investments. The lion's share of the Balearics budget is for airports and ports with agriculture and the environment taking up most of the rest.
More investment could doubtless come in handy, but it has to be taken into account that there are eighteen other regions or communities holding out the begging bowl. One of them, Andalusia, despite it being a hotbed of socialism, regularly benefits from Madrid's largesse. It is a comparatively poor region. It is also big. Another, Catalonia (you might have heard of this region, it has been agitating for more for centuries), is also big. It isn't poor but last year it got clobbered by the Rajoy government. 25% down, something else which added to the Mas attack on the Constitution. In 2015, the budget will be up again, as indeed it will be in Galicia (the home region of Rajoy, oh and of Franco as well).
Politics probably do play a part in the budgets, but in truth these allocations are very small beer when compared with what the regions get through the redistribution of tax revenues. This is the principal source of the regions' finances, and it is something for which the Balearics have a very legitimate gripe. The people of the Balearics get back from Madrid around 300 million euros less than they put in.
Friday, July 11, 2014
A Week Of Living Scandalously
There can never have been a week like the one we have lived through; and if you thought it was all over, it most certainly isn't. Forget transport strikes and holidaymakers trapped at the airport, forget the eco-tax, forget the Icelandic ash cloud, forget the Palmanova bombing. In public relations terms, Mallorca has been brought to its knees, gagging on a short video that has become the butt of jokes and manna from heaven for the media. It has been a week of accusation and incomprehension. The "Majorca Daily Bulletin", as an example, has been accused of keeping alive a story that some consider no longer newsworthy. How can it possibly be no longer newsworthy when the British red tops and even broadsheets are all over the story like an unpleasant rash brought on by a sexually transmitted disease? Those who might prefer there to be no more news are as culpable as the island's institutions have been historically in willing bad news away and in hiding their heads in velvety white sands replete with images of happy families with buckets and spades. This time, it won't go away; there are those who would happily use those spades to bury Magalluf, if not the whole of Mallorca. It has become a story that has spun out of control, certainly out of control of the island's tourism chiefs and Calvia town hall. One that is so out of control that there is now the absurd notion that there could be legal proceedings - not in Mallorca, note - on the grounds of a sexual assault.
The incomprehension has been staggering. The moral outrage does not comprehend a web-based, smartphoned society that thinks nothing of sexting, the suck-and-blow selfie and the exhibitionist home porn movie. The "star" of the Magalluf video may be being cast as a victim, but she found herself on a cast list as infinitely wide as the internet. The response by government has likewise been uncomprehending. The national secretary of state for tourism, Isabel Borrego (and a Mallorcan, to boot), spoke of the need for "awareness". Awareness of what exactly? And how is this awareness to be raised? By a campaign that will cost the equivalent of one-fifth of the total annual tourism promotion budget for the Balearics. It will be waged by means of newspaper announcements and will so be ignored or, if it is seen, will be treated with laughing disdain by its intended audience. The incomprehension is such that the very technology which permitted the video's dissemination is being ignored. And why is it? Because of the inertia of a regional government tourism ministry that does not have this technology at its disposal. It does not cost half a million euros to plaster messages across social media and thus engage more readily and more credibly with that intended audience.
The incomprehension has even come from a body as sensible as Médicos del Mundo. While it rightly observed that the video was not evidence of an "isolated incident" (which regional tourism minister Martínez reckoned), it then went on to attack political double standards, those which, on the one hand, allow Magalluf to be promoted for drunkenness and promiscuity but which, on the other, see prostitutes "harassed and detained with a rigour that the authorities do not apply to the promoters of the degradation in parts of Magalluf". The doctors are, to be blunt, wrong. But at least they have served to remind us all and hopefully Calvia and the regional government that it is the mugger-prostitutes who form the real scandal of Magalluf and not a stupid little video which diverts attention and worryingly gives an excuse for it to not be tackled in any meaningful way.
The incomprehension has been staggering. The moral outrage does not comprehend a web-based, smartphoned society that thinks nothing of sexting, the suck-and-blow selfie and the exhibitionist home porn movie. The "star" of the Magalluf video may be being cast as a victim, but she found herself on a cast list as infinitely wide as the internet. The response by government has likewise been uncomprehending. The national secretary of state for tourism, Isabel Borrego (and a Mallorcan, to boot), spoke of the need for "awareness". Awareness of what exactly? And how is this awareness to be raised? By a campaign that will cost the equivalent of one-fifth of the total annual tourism promotion budget for the Balearics. It will be waged by means of newspaper announcements and will so be ignored or, if it is seen, will be treated with laughing disdain by its intended audience. The incomprehension is such that the very technology which permitted the video's dissemination is being ignored. And why is it? Because of the inertia of a regional government tourism ministry that does not have this technology at its disposal. It does not cost half a million euros to plaster messages across social media and thus engage more readily and more credibly with that intended audience.
The incomprehension has even come from a body as sensible as Médicos del Mundo. While it rightly observed that the video was not evidence of an "isolated incident" (which regional tourism minister Martínez reckoned), it then went on to attack political double standards, those which, on the one hand, allow Magalluf to be promoted for drunkenness and promiscuity but which, on the other, see prostitutes "harassed and detained with a rigour that the authorities do not apply to the promoters of the degradation in parts of Magalluf". The doctors are, to be blunt, wrong. But at least they have served to remind us all and hopefully Calvia and the regional government that it is the mugger-prostitutes who form the real scandal of Magalluf and not a stupid little video which diverts attention and worryingly gives an excuse for it to not be tackled in any meaningful way.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Defenders Of Culture
It went very much under the radar, but last week the Spanish Government managed to slip in a small adjustment to the application of IVA. Having previously decided to reduce the maximum 21% rate for the sale of works of art to the 10% rate, commonly known as the tourist rate because it is the one which applies to certain tourist-related businesses, it said that it would be looking to possibly also reduce the 21% rate for other "cultural" activities. And last week it did just that. Final approval for these adjustments will wait until March, but there seems little doubt that the two activities so far identified as warranting the reduction will indeed benefit from it. And what is the second activity, the one that was quietly introduced last week? It is bullfighting.
When IVA was increased in September 2012, a number of activities which had until then enjoyed the reduced rate (8% before the increase to 10%) suddenly found themselves bracketed at the maximum rate. These included attractions, clubs, golf courses and many other activities which would probably not be defined as "cultural". The government, in reducing the rate for works of art, appeared to want to portray itself as defenders of culture, conveniently ignoring the fact that it, together with the banks, is the main collector of works of art in Spain. Nevertheless, and any possible vested interests aside, giving the art world some encouragement was not unwelcome. The same, however, cannot be said for the encouragement of the bullfighting industry.
Apart from its history, bullfighting qualifies as being of cultural importance (where the government is concerned) because last October Congress approved an initiative to have the bullfight declared as an example of "intangible cultural heritage of humanity" by UNESCO (this is the same award that was made to the Mallorcan Sibil·la chant). This initiative had been placed before Congress through a piece of "popular" legislation, which is the process whereby, if a required number of signatures are gathered for a petition, governments are obliged to consider legislative change or introduction. It is a process which can only be used for certain things, such as cultural activities, and the presentation of this petition to the national parliament (which required 600,000 signatures) was the same as the process in Catalonia which resulted in bullfighting being banned there (the required number of signatures was lower). Among those whose signatures appeared on the petition was Mariano Rajoy.
It shouldn't really need explaining that there was a huge chunk of politics behind the petition presented to parliament, just as it shouldn't really need explaining that the Spanish Government, i.e. the Partido Popular, has portrayed itself as the defender of the bullfight. As with art, so with the bullfight. Defenders of culture.
The announcement about the IVA reduction was overlooked because there was far more important parliamentary work last week. PSOE had attempted to overturn the introduction of the reformed abortion law. In a secret ballot in Congress, PSOE failed to do so. The new law will stand.
Reaction to confirmation of the reformed law in the Balearics led to some 80 gynecologists signing a letter calling for the law to be withdrawn; the 80 represent a majority of approximately 70%. Opposition to the reformed law has been widespread; even the Balearics health minister (Partido Popular) isn't fully in favour of it. And this opposition has centred on the lack of medical sense contained in the law. It has been condemned for having been politically motivated and politically motivated alone; a means of the Partido Popular nationally aligning itself with conservatives in the Catholic Church. It has also been condemned for being out of step with public opinion, and a Gadeso survey in the Balearics last week revealed that 71% of people were in favour of what had been a more permissive law before the government went ahead and made it that much more restrictive.
There is something rather perverse about a government which seems determined to return to the past and to ignore general public sentiment. Both bullfighting and abortion are symptomatic of that past. Franco liked nothing more than watching a bull get its ears cut off. He was of course also dead against abortion.
When IVA was increased in September 2012, a number of activities which had until then enjoyed the reduced rate (8% before the increase to 10%) suddenly found themselves bracketed at the maximum rate. These included attractions, clubs, golf courses and many other activities which would probably not be defined as "cultural". The government, in reducing the rate for works of art, appeared to want to portray itself as defenders of culture, conveniently ignoring the fact that it, together with the banks, is the main collector of works of art in Spain. Nevertheless, and any possible vested interests aside, giving the art world some encouragement was not unwelcome. The same, however, cannot be said for the encouragement of the bullfighting industry.
Apart from its history, bullfighting qualifies as being of cultural importance (where the government is concerned) because last October Congress approved an initiative to have the bullfight declared as an example of "intangible cultural heritage of humanity" by UNESCO (this is the same award that was made to the Mallorcan Sibil·la chant). This initiative had been placed before Congress through a piece of "popular" legislation, which is the process whereby, if a required number of signatures are gathered for a petition, governments are obliged to consider legislative change or introduction. It is a process which can only be used for certain things, such as cultural activities, and the presentation of this petition to the national parliament (which required 600,000 signatures) was the same as the process in Catalonia which resulted in bullfighting being banned there (the required number of signatures was lower). Among those whose signatures appeared on the petition was Mariano Rajoy.
It shouldn't really need explaining that there was a huge chunk of politics behind the petition presented to parliament, just as it shouldn't really need explaining that the Spanish Government, i.e. the Partido Popular, has portrayed itself as the defender of the bullfight. As with art, so with the bullfight. Defenders of culture.
The announcement about the IVA reduction was overlooked because there was far more important parliamentary work last week. PSOE had attempted to overturn the introduction of the reformed abortion law. In a secret ballot in Congress, PSOE failed to do so. The new law will stand.
Reaction to confirmation of the reformed law in the Balearics led to some 80 gynecologists signing a letter calling for the law to be withdrawn; the 80 represent a majority of approximately 70%. Opposition to the reformed law has been widespread; even the Balearics health minister (Partido Popular) isn't fully in favour of it. And this opposition has centred on the lack of medical sense contained in the law. It has been condemned for having been politically motivated and politically motivated alone; a means of the Partido Popular nationally aligning itself with conservatives in the Catholic Church. It has also been condemned for being out of step with public opinion, and a Gadeso survey in the Balearics last week revealed that 71% of people were in favour of what had been a more permissive law before the government went ahead and made it that much more restrictive.
There is something rather perverse about a government which seems determined to return to the past and to ignore general public sentiment. Both bullfighting and abortion are symptomatic of that past. Franco liked nothing more than watching a bull get its ears cut off. He was of course also dead against abortion.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Art For Banks' Sake: IVA and works of art
The Spanish Government is to reduce the rate of IVA (VAT) on transactions involving works of art from 21% to the 10% rate which commonly applies to certain tourism businesses. It is doing so, according to deputy prime minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, in order to promote Spanish culture. She has said that a similar reduction is being considered for other cultural and artistic endeavour, such as for the film industry.
The government has been put under pressure to cut the tax rate and to bring it in line with rates of value add tax that are applied to works of art in other European countries. In December last year the Spanish Consortium of Art Galleries wrote to the finance minister Cristóbal Montoro and let him know what they thought of the government's attitude towards art; a lack of empathy and sensitivity, said the galleries' people.
The Spanish art world is in crisis - though there again, what area of activity isn't - and the market for Spanish art has contracted by a third in the past five years. This is one statistic that highlights problems in the art world, though it isn't as catastrophic as another one, revealed by the magazine "Artprice", which suggests that sales of works of art in Spain plummeted by almost two-thirds in 2013 alone.
This depression in the art market clearly has a negative impact on artists as well as on galleries, and where the former are concerned, young artists are being affected the most. The consequence of this is that, as with younger people in all manner of sectors, they may look and are looking to work in other countries, thus fuelling a cultural drain from Spain as much as a brain or brawn drain.
But behind the gloomy situation depicted by the galleries there lies much which, regardless of increases in prices because of tax, is stacked against a thriving art market in Spain. Some galleries may be collectors in their own right, but who actually stands to benefit most from a measure designed to breathe life into sales of works of art?
Spain has few serious private collectors of art and the number has been dwindling, the reason being that they are broke. This was an observation made almost three years ago, and the situation will not have altered since then. Indeed, it will have got worse. With the art world already well mired in crisis in 2011, the government, helpfully, went and upped the IVA rate, thus making the situation that much worse. But Spain does have some serious collectors. It's who they are which can be seen as part of the problem affecting the art world. They are banks and the State. It is they who would, because they are the most important collectors, stand to benefit the most from a cut in IVA.
If the government doesn't now extend the tax reduction to other areas of the arts and culture, ones with which it and its friends in the banking sector are not so intimately engaged, then it runs the risk of exposing itself to a charge of self-interest. As it is, selecting works of art as the first (and possibly only) beneficiary of a tax cut has to be looked upon with some cynicism. But more than a potential accusation of looking after their own, the dominance of the banks and the State in art collection has been singled out as a reason why Spanish art has been in the doldrums in any event. Artists are dissuaded from displaying originality and critical thinking, meaning that more innovative artists have indeed opted to work abroad where they might find more receptive and open-minded audiences.
The governmental-banking nexus, the one that did so much to bring about general economic crisis, did at least attempt to boost the art world through developing new infrastructure in the form of arts centres. But as with other projects that involved regional administrations and banks in cahoots, some of these have floundered while others, not untypically, were too grand for their boots. Everyone seemed to want another Guggenheim but ended up with a gooey mess that couldn't be afforded. They were projects undertaken with little planning either for what they would be or why they were even being created.
Yet, governments and banks can't really be held responsible for what Adrian Searle, the art critic of "The Guardian", said about Spanish art three years. "Why is painting so lousy here?" It was a staggering comment that reflected awfully on the nation that produced Miró, Dali and Picasso and many others going further back in time, such as the greatest of them all, Francisco de Goya. Searle attributed this to inadequate art schools, the absence of an arts "movement" and to artist emigration.
The cut in IVA, while welcome, doesn't address a more deep-rooted problem for Spanish art, one that merely adjusting tax will not solve.
The government has been put under pressure to cut the tax rate and to bring it in line with rates of value add tax that are applied to works of art in other European countries. In December last year the Spanish Consortium of Art Galleries wrote to the finance minister Cristóbal Montoro and let him know what they thought of the government's attitude towards art; a lack of empathy and sensitivity, said the galleries' people.
The Spanish art world is in crisis - though there again, what area of activity isn't - and the market for Spanish art has contracted by a third in the past five years. This is one statistic that highlights problems in the art world, though it isn't as catastrophic as another one, revealed by the magazine "Artprice", which suggests that sales of works of art in Spain plummeted by almost two-thirds in 2013 alone.
This depression in the art market clearly has a negative impact on artists as well as on galleries, and where the former are concerned, young artists are being affected the most. The consequence of this is that, as with younger people in all manner of sectors, they may look and are looking to work in other countries, thus fuelling a cultural drain from Spain as much as a brain or brawn drain.
But behind the gloomy situation depicted by the galleries there lies much which, regardless of increases in prices because of tax, is stacked against a thriving art market in Spain. Some galleries may be collectors in their own right, but who actually stands to benefit most from a measure designed to breathe life into sales of works of art?
Spain has few serious private collectors of art and the number has been dwindling, the reason being that they are broke. This was an observation made almost three years ago, and the situation will not have altered since then. Indeed, it will have got worse. With the art world already well mired in crisis in 2011, the government, helpfully, went and upped the IVA rate, thus making the situation that much worse. But Spain does have some serious collectors. It's who they are which can be seen as part of the problem affecting the art world. They are banks and the State. It is they who would, because they are the most important collectors, stand to benefit the most from a cut in IVA.
If the government doesn't now extend the tax reduction to other areas of the arts and culture, ones with which it and its friends in the banking sector are not so intimately engaged, then it runs the risk of exposing itself to a charge of self-interest. As it is, selecting works of art as the first (and possibly only) beneficiary of a tax cut has to be looked upon with some cynicism. But more than a potential accusation of looking after their own, the dominance of the banks and the State in art collection has been singled out as a reason why Spanish art has been in the doldrums in any event. Artists are dissuaded from displaying originality and critical thinking, meaning that more innovative artists have indeed opted to work abroad where they might find more receptive and open-minded audiences.
The governmental-banking nexus, the one that did so much to bring about general economic crisis, did at least attempt to boost the art world through developing new infrastructure in the form of arts centres. But as with other projects that involved regional administrations and banks in cahoots, some of these have floundered while others, not untypically, were too grand for their boots. Everyone seemed to want another Guggenheim but ended up with a gooey mess that couldn't be afforded. They were projects undertaken with little planning either for what they would be or why they were even being created.
Yet, governments and banks can't really be held responsible for what Adrian Searle, the art critic of "The Guardian", said about Spanish art three years. "Why is painting so lousy here?" It was a staggering comment that reflected awfully on the nation that produced Miró, Dali and Picasso and many others going further back in time, such as the greatest of them all, Francisco de Goya. Searle attributed this to inadequate art schools, the absence of an arts "movement" and to artist emigration.
The cut in IVA, while welcome, doesn't address a more deep-rooted problem for Spanish art, one that merely adjusting tax will not solve.
Monday, December 16, 2013
The Pardon Game
At the end of September, the journalist Antonio Alemany presented a plea for a pardon to be considered. He was seeking this pardon as a way of avoiding serving a prison sentence of two years and three months that was handed down at the end of a trial which also involved former president of the Balearics, Jaume Matas, and which resulted in Alemany having been found guilty of having received irregular payments, made from public funds, for speeches and articles he had written for and about Matas. The pardon plea was presented to the "Audiencia" in Palma, the court which had heard the case. As his sentence was for less than three years, the court had to accept that Alemany's entrance into prison would be suspended, pending the processing of the pardon plea.
Three weeks later, the court had to agree to his not entering prison because there was a possibility that he could serve his sentence but then receive the pardon. The fact that this was a possibility serves to highlight quite how slowly the judicial process can move. The court, in acceding to the plea, laid down certain conditions. One was that Alemany would have to report to police once a month, another was that, if the pardon process had not been resolved by May 2018, the case would go back to court in order to establish whether or not Alemany should indeed enter prison. By May 2018. Over four and a half years later.
It is not for the court to decide on the pardon plea. Its processing is undertaken by the national Ministry of Justice. It gathers all the information relevant to the case and this is then given to the Cabinet (of Mariano Rajoy) to make a decision. There is a minimum period that this processing requires. Approximately one year. As far as there being a maximum period, perhaps May 2018 gives an indication as to how long this might be.
Alemany is not the only defendant to have been found guilty to seek a pardon from the Prime Minister. A former colleague of Mariano Rajoy's in national government is also seeking one. Jaume Matas. He had initially been sentenced to six years for the same case as that involving Alemany. The sentence was reduced to nine months.
There is something of a convention that sentences for first offences of under two years mean that a spell in prison is avoided. Where Matas was concerned, it had looked as though this would be the case, but the court has insisted otherwise. Once it seemed as if he would have to enter prison, the pardon was sought.
In July, the former president of the Council of Mallorca, Maria Antònia Munar, went to prison to serve a sentence of five and a half years. In October, her lawyer, responding to confirmation of the sentence by the Balearics High Court, indicated that he might seek either a "recurso de amparo" or a partial pardon for his client. The "amparo", which would, in this instance, be granted by the Constitutional Court, is a legal remedy akin to habeas corpus. The word means protection, and its purpose is to protect citizens and to guarantee that basic rights are not being violated.
It would be unlikely that the Constitutional Court would uphold the amparo plea, as to do so it would need to establish that a fundamental right had been breached. Munar continues to argue her innocence, but her sentence has been upheld and she indeed faces, like Matas, other possible sentencing. Were a pardon to be considered, this wouldn't mean that she could leave prison. Once there, she stays there until or if it is decided she has been there long enough (less than the five and a half years in all likelihood).
It has emerged that, prior to going into prison, Munar sought the help of three leading politicians with the PSOE party. They were the leader of PSOE and former national Interior Minister, Alfredo Rubalcaba, the former president of the Balearics, Francesc Antich, and the one-time director-general of the National Police and Guardia Civil, Joan Mesquida. Help was also sought from a fourth person, the Balearics chief prosecutor. In a letter to Rubalcaba, she pleads with him to intercede on her behalf.
These requests for help amount to requests for influence to be used. As such, they go to the heart of what lies behind corruption - the wielding of influence and the use or abuse of position and power. Are requests for pardons, directed in Matas's case at a former government colleague, not in a sense similar? To be met, they require those in power to not just wield influence but to make the decision.
What justifications are there for pardons? If convictions are wrong, then there are plenty. Have these convictions been, as Munar alludes to in her letters, the result of political persecution? If the convictions are right, then there are surely no justifications.
Three weeks later, the court had to agree to his not entering prison because there was a possibility that he could serve his sentence but then receive the pardon. The fact that this was a possibility serves to highlight quite how slowly the judicial process can move. The court, in acceding to the plea, laid down certain conditions. One was that Alemany would have to report to police once a month, another was that, if the pardon process had not been resolved by May 2018, the case would go back to court in order to establish whether or not Alemany should indeed enter prison. By May 2018. Over four and a half years later.
It is not for the court to decide on the pardon plea. Its processing is undertaken by the national Ministry of Justice. It gathers all the information relevant to the case and this is then given to the Cabinet (of Mariano Rajoy) to make a decision. There is a minimum period that this processing requires. Approximately one year. As far as there being a maximum period, perhaps May 2018 gives an indication as to how long this might be.
Alemany is not the only defendant to have been found guilty to seek a pardon from the Prime Minister. A former colleague of Mariano Rajoy's in national government is also seeking one. Jaume Matas. He had initially been sentenced to six years for the same case as that involving Alemany. The sentence was reduced to nine months.
There is something of a convention that sentences for first offences of under two years mean that a spell in prison is avoided. Where Matas was concerned, it had looked as though this would be the case, but the court has insisted otherwise. Once it seemed as if he would have to enter prison, the pardon was sought.
In July, the former president of the Council of Mallorca, Maria Antònia Munar, went to prison to serve a sentence of five and a half years. In October, her lawyer, responding to confirmation of the sentence by the Balearics High Court, indicated that he might seek either a "recurso de amparo" or a partial pardon for his client. The "amparo", which would, in this instance, be granted by the Constitutional Court, is a legal remedy akin to habeas corpus. The word means protection, and its purpose is to protect citizens and to guarantee that basic rights are not being violated.
It would be unlikely that the Constitutional Court would uphold the amparo plea, as to do so it would need to establish that a fundamental right had been breached. Munar continues to argue her innocence, but her sentence has been upheld and she indeed faces, like Matas, other possible sentencing. Were a pardon to be considered, this wouldn't mean that she could leave prison. Once there, she stays there until or if it is decided she has been there long enough (less than the five and a half years in all likelihood).
It has emerged that, prior to going into prison, Munar sought the help of three leading politicians with the PSOE party. They were the leader of PSOE and former national Interior Minister, Alfredo Rubalcaba, the former president of the Balearics, Francesc Antich, and the one-time director-general of the National Police and Guardia Civil, Joan Mesquida. Help was also sought from a fourth person, the Balearics chief prosecutor. In a letter to Rubalcaba, she pleads with him to intercede on her behalf.
These requests for help amount to requests for influence to be used. As such, they go to the heart of what lies behind corruption - the wielding of influence and the use or abuse of position and power. Are requests for pardons, directed in Matas's case at a former government colleague, not in a sense similar? To be met, they require those in power to not just wield influence but to make the decision.
What justifications are there for pardons? If convictions are wrong, then there are plenty. Have these convictions been, as Munar alludes to in her letters, the result of political persecution? If the convictions are right, then there are surely no justifications.
Friday, December 13, 2013
9/11 In A Catalonian Style
9/11 is about to take on a new relevance. The Spanish love of reducing dates to numbers and/or letters will mean that 9 November is suitably abbreviated. It may be 9-N but 9/11 might, for its potentially seismic consequences, be more appropriate. The president of Catalonia, Artur Mas, has announced that on 9 November next year, there will be a referendum on independence. There will be two questions posed. Do you want Catalonia to become a state? Do you want this state to be independent? Yes or no?
Mas, whose party is the CiU, has been supported in the referendum call by a rag-bag of other parties which represent varying shades of the left and Catalonian nationalism. One of these, the ERC (Republican Left of Catalonia), became a significant force in Catalonia following elections last year. Mas, who thought he was going to enjoy an increased majority for the CiU, misinterpreted a massive demonstration in Barcelona in favour of independence. This wasn't, as things turned out at the polls, necessarily an expression in favour of the CiU leading the march to independence. The CiU lost twelve seats and had to cast around for a partner. It found one in the ERC. In so doing, any possibility that there might have been of Mas, whose party isn't radical, adopting a more softly-softly approach on independence was blown out of the water. The ERC is a fervently pro-independence party. Mas was left with little option but to go full steam ahead on independence, even if there are plenty of commentators who would argue that he has never really been in favour of it and still isn't.
There is by no means total political support for the referendum among Catalonia's numerous political parties. The third strongest party, PSC, the Catalonian branch of the PSOE socialists, is against it. As are the fourth strongest PPC and the sixth strongest C's. Yes, there really are a lot of political parties in Catalonia. Pere Navarro, who is the leader of the PSC, has urged that there be dialogue and negotiations with Madrid and that there is also a dispensing with constantly looking to the past.
But it is this past which forever catches up with politics of a Catalan nature, be the location Mallorca or Catalonia. Navarro has avoided attending a symposium called "Spain against Catalonia: an historical look (1714-2014)". The implication of the symposium's purpose is clear. 1714 marked the start of Catalan repression under King Philip V after the fall of Barcelona in that year which brought to a close the War of the Spanish Succession. Catalonia was never the same again.
Navarro has made a plea for history to be something for historians, but it is a forlorn hope to believe that the past will be consigned to history. 1714 and subsequent repressions make this impossible and so colour the present day and present-day politics.
It has to be remembered, though, how the latest move towards independence came about. It was because Mas failed to secure any change to Catalonia's financing, a change which would have meant it keeping more of the revenues it raised which are then handed over to Madrid. As Mariano Rajoy was not interested in perhaps granting Catalonia a similar status to that of the Basque Country and Navarre (the regions which keep tax revenues but hand over instead what is almost like a management fee to national government), Mas opted to play the independence card. And this has brought us therefore to the 9/11 announcement.
There is of course one major problem with the referendum. It wouldn't be legal, and Spain's Justice Minister has said that it will not be held. But what if it were to be or were to be going to be? What would happen? Rajoy has made some dark mutterings about doing anything to prevent the referendum occurring. Anything?
If Mas had hoped that pressing for independence would extract some changes from Madrid, he has thus far been disappointed. And now that the date has been set, even were Madrid to offer discussions on financing (with a genuine aim to changing it), it is hard to see how the date could be un-set. Mas is in too deep.
The timing of the referendum may well have in mind the independence referendum in Scotland shortly before. If there were a rejection of independence by the Scots, this might influence how the Catalonia referendum would go (polls tend to suggest there is a pretty even split between those for or against independence). Inevitably, there will be, as there already have been, comparisons between the Catalonian and Scottish votes, but there is one very big difference. One is sanctioned, the other isn't. If Catalonia were to vote in favour of independence, assuming it is able to, then things could get rather difficult.
Mas, whose party is the CiU, has been supported in the referendum call by a rag-bag of other parties which represent varying shades of the left and Catalonian nationalism. One of these, the ERC (Republican Left of Catalonia), became a significant force in Catalonia following elections last year. Mas, who thought he was going to enjoy an increased majority for the CiU, misinterpreted a massive demonstration in Barcelona in favour of independence. This wasn't, as things turned out at the polls, necessarily an expression in favour of the CiU leading the march to independence. The CiU lost twelve seats and had to cast around for a partner. It found one in the ERC. In so doing, any possibility that there might have been of Mas, whose party isn't radical, adopting a more softly-softly approach on independence was blown out of the water. The ERC is a fervently pro-independence party. Mas was left with little option but to go full steam ahead on independence, even if there are plenty of commentators who would argue that he has never really been in favour of it and still isn't.
There is by no means total political support for the referendum among Catalonia's numerous political parties. The third strongest party, PSC, the Catalonian branch of the PSOE socialists, is against it. As are the fourth strongest PPC and the sixth strongest C's. Yes, there really are a lot of political parties in Catalonia. Pere Navarro, who is the leader of the PSC, has urged that there be dialogue and negotiations with Madrid and that there is also a dispensing with constantly looking to the past.
But it is this past which forever catches up with politics of a Catalan nature, be the location Mallorca or Catalonia. Navarro has avoided attending a symposium called "Spain against Catalonia: an historical look (1714-2014)". The implication of the symposium's purpose is clear. 1714 marked the start of Catalan repression under King Philip V after the fall of Barcelona in that year which brought to a close the War of the Spanish Succession. Catalonia was never the same again.
Navarro has made a plea for history to be something for historians, but it is a forlorn hope to believe that the past will be consigned to history. 1714 and subsequent repressions make this impossible and so colour the present day and present-day politics.
It has to be remembered, though, how the latest move towards independence came about. It was because Mas failed to secure any change to Catalonia's financing, a change which would have meant it keeping more of the revenues it raised which are then handed over to Madrid. As Mariano Rajoy was not interested in perhaps granting Catalonia a similar status to that of the Basque Country and Navarre (the regions which keep tax revenues but hand over instead what is almost like a management fee to national government), Mas opted to play the independence card. And this has brought us therefore to the 9/11 announcement.
There is of course one major problem with the referendum. It wouldn't be legal, and Spain's Justice Minister has said that it will not be held. But what if it were to be or were to be going to be? What would happen? Rajoy has made some dark mutterings about doing anything to prevent the referendum occurring. Anything?
If Mas had hoped that pressing for independence would extract some changes from Madrid, he has thus far been disappointed. And now that the date has been set, even were Madrid to offer discussions on financing (with a genuine aim to changing it), it is hard to see how the date could be un-set. Mas is in too deep.
The timing of the referendum may well have in mind the independence referendum in Scotland shortly before. If there were a rejection of independence by the Scots, this might influence how the Catalonia referendum would go (polls tend to suggest there is a pretty even split between those for or against independence). Inevitably, there will be, as there already have been, comparisons between the Catalonian and Scottish votes, but there is one very big difference. One is sanctioned, the other isn't. If Catalonia were to vote in favour of independence, assuming it is able to, then things could get rather difficult.
Sunday, December 01, 2013
The Carnival Of Protest: Spain's Citizen Safety Law
General Franco had an inconsistent policy towards traditions. Advocate as he was of strict Catholicism, he didn't much care for some of the traditions of religious fiestas. One which he was particularly unkeen on was the tradition of Carnival. Celebrated just prior to Lent, Carnival was not originally a Spanish tradition but it was one that came to Spain from Venice. This said, the celebration of Carnival has very much older origins than that of the mediaeval masquerade of Italy.
For Franco, Carnival was all a bit too decadent and a bit too much like good fun. He banned it in 1937, taking aim in particular at the Cadiz Carnival, the most decadent of all the Carnivals. Though the ban was primarily imposed in order to deal with Cadiz, it was applied universally. Towns across Spain had, therefore, to pull the plug on the Carnival, even if some managed to keep the tradition going in a somewhat different form.
But Franco wasn't only concerned with decadence. He also didn't like the fact that people wore masks at Carnival time. This disguise, so his regime believed, would allow all manner of miscreants to go without being apprehended, and included among these miscreants might be opponents of his regime with one eye on causing bother and protest while all the time being in disguise.
The traditionally satirical nature of Carnival meant that it was not fully restored until censorship in Spain was lifted after Franco died. When the newly democratic Spain finally abandoned censorship, Carnival became a huge demonstration of liberated expression, and in its satirical guise, it remains such a demonstration.
In September 2011, Sa Pobla became the first town in Mallorca to ban the wearing of the burka. It is still the only town to have introduced such a ban. While it was the burka that caught the headlines, the ban was rather more wide-ranging. Probably in an attempt to not make the burka ban appear to be discriminatory or anti-Muslim, Sa Pobla town hall also banned the wearing of anything which obscured the face. In theory, therefore, a balaclava became illegal. The local by-law made it clear that this banning was on the grounds of public safety.
The Spanish Government is now in the process of passing a law which imposes stricter controls on protest and other forms of street behaviour. Included among the prohibitions under this law will be the wearing of anything which covers the face when a protest is being staged. Fines for doing so could be as high as 30,000 euros. The bill, known as the Citizens Safety Law, is expected to be approved by Congress in the new year.
There is a world of difference between a by-law in a small Mallorcan town and a national law, but there is a strong similarity, and it lies in the justification for the legislation. Public safety has been invoked in both instances but this is not the main reason for the legislation. Where the national law is concerned, the main reason is an attempt to limit protest and to exert governmental control and power. Safety is a convenient argument, because the general public might be willing to swallow something couched in safety terms. If the bill were to have been called Anti-Protest Measures Law, then the public reaction would be different.
As it is, anti-protest measures is just how the law is being described. And the criticism goes further. It is undemocratic. It also seems like an over-reaction. Protests there have been in Spain, but generally speaking, austerity and other aspects of government policy have not provoked extreme protests. So, the question is why does the government feel it necessary to introduce stricter controls? Does it fear that it is in fact losing the battle where austerity is concerned? Does it fear that something will provoke more extreme protests than have thus been witnessed?
Or is the law just the case of another government flexing its muscles and exerting ever more control over the people? It has been a disturbing trend over the past few years for governments which ostensibly operate under a democratic system to do so. Citing safety makes the law appear "democratic" in upholding order for the majority but can all too easily be seen as "undemocratic" as it imposes greater restrictions on the right to protest, and in Spain, the right to protest since Franco's day has been a fundamental means of liberated expression, just as the restoration of the Carnival tradition was.
And indeed, where does this law leave something like Carnival? What happens if there are protests at Carnival time with people wearing masks?
The law could in fact create all sorts of problems that might not be envisaged. One of its provisions is the banning of outdoor drinking parties, i.e. the botellón street parties. Fair enough perhaps, but so widespread are these parties and so inadequately controlled are they, that it is impossible to see how local police forces can really prevent them. They can't at present, even with local by-laws in place. So, one ends up with a national law which, in certain instances, will be ineffective and which, in others, will be used to limit protest against a government which even one conservative commentators has condemned for the "stigma of authoritarianism", an observation which carries a reminder of the days when Carnival was banned.
For Franco, Carnival was all a bit too decadent and a bit too much like good fun. He banned it in 1937, taking aim in particular at the Cadiz Carnival, the most decadent of all the Carnivals. Though the ban was primarily imposed in order to deal with Cadiz, it was applied universally. Towns across Spain had, therefore, to pull the plug on the Carnival, even if some managed to keep the tradition going in a somewhat different form.
But Franco wasn't only concerned with decadence. He also didn't like the fact that people wore masks at Carnival time. This disguise, so his regime believed, would allow all manner of miscreants to go without being apprehended, and included among these miscreants might be opponents of his regime with one eye on causing bother and protest while all the time being in disguise.
The traditionally satirical nature of Carnival meant that it was not fully restored until censorship in Spain was lifted after Franco died. When the newly democratic Spain finally abandoned censorship, Carnival became a huge demonstration of liberated expression, and in its satirical guise, it remains such a demonstration.
In September 2011, Sa Pobla became the first town in Mallorca to ban the wearing of the burka. It is still the only town to have introduced such a ban. While it was the burka that caught the headlines, the ban was rather more wide-ranging. Probably in an attempt to not make the burka ban appear to be discriminatory or anti-Muslim, Sa Pobla town hall also banned the wearing of anything which obscured the face. In theory, therefore, a balaclava became illegal. The local by-law made it clear that this banning was on the grounds of public safety.
The Spanish Government is now in the process of passing a law which imposes stricter controls on protest and other forms of street behaviour. Included among the prohibitions under this law will be the wearing of anything which covers the face when a protest is being staged. Fines for doing so could be as high as 30,000 euros. The bill, known as the Citizens Safety Law, is expected to be approved by Congress in the new year.
There is a world of difference between a by-law in a small Mallorcan town and a national law, but there is a strong similarity, and it lies in the justification for the legislation. Public safety has been invoked in both instances but this is not the main reason for the legislation. Where the national law is concerned, the main reason is an attempt to limit protest and to exert governmental control and power. Safety is a convenient argument, because the general public might be willing to swallow something couched in safety terms. If the bill were to have been called Anti-Protest Measures Law, then the public reaction would be different.
As it is, anti-protest measures is just how the law is being described. And the criticism goes further. It is undemocratic. It also seems like an over-reaction. Protests there have been in Spain, but generally speaking, austerity and other aspects of government policy have not provoked extreme protests. So, the question is why does the government feel it necessary to introduce stricter controls? Does it fear that it is in fact losing the battle where austerity is concerned? Does it fear that something will provoke more extreme protests than have thus been witnessed?
Or is the law just the case of another government flexing its muscles and exerting ever more control over the people? It has been a disturbing trend over the past few years for governments which ostensibly operate under a democratic system to do so. Citing safety makes the law appear "democratic" in upholding order for the majority but can all too easily be seen as "undemocratic" as it imposes greater restrictions on the right to protest, and in Spain, the right to protest since Franco's day has been a fundamental means of liberated expression, just as the restoration of the Carnival tradition was.
And indeed, where does this law leave something like Carnival? What happens if there are protests at Carnival time with people wearing masks?
The law could in fact create all sorts of problems that might not be envisaged. One of its provisions is the banning of outdoor drinking parties, i.e. the botellón street parties. Fair enough perhaps, but so widespread are these parties and so inadequately controlled are they, that it is impossible to see how local police forces can really prevent them. They can't at present, even with local by-laws in place. So, one ends up with a national law which, in certain instances, will be ineffective and which, in others, will be used to limit protest against a government which even one conservative commentators has condemned for the "stigma of authoritarianism", an observation which carries a reminder of the days when Carnival was banned.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The New Model Regional Financing System
Instead, the focus has been on how to make the regions more financially efficient, and efficient financing is very much on the agenda at present, while the debate surrounding it may prompt a reconsideration of the nature rather than structure of regional government, making the regions more not less responsible for finance and creating what would be more a genuine financial and fiscal federal arrangement than the one which currently exists.
The Spanish Government has said that it will look at a reform of the present system of regional financing next summer. Certain regions, especially Madrid, want this brought forward; regional financing needs to be examined with greater urgency.
The financing of the regions is hardly a straightforward matter. The Aznar government tried to make it more straightforward in 2001 by introducing a reform which would have, it had hoped, stood for all time and taken away the regular, five-yearly rounds of negotiations which had only succeeded in generating political tensions. Almost from the moment the 2001 reform was introduced, it was apparent that it was unworkable. A weakness was to have assumed that one key factor in allocating national revenues to the regions - that of population increase - would be essentially evenly distributed. It was not, and the Balearics, by going through a boom in population, was a region which demonstrated just how uneven it could be.
The most recent reform was in 2009 by the Zapatero government. Under this reform the regions got more from the national tax revenue pot - 50% of income tax and IVA (VAT) for example. There were various funds set up, one of them called the Competitiveness Fund from which the Balearics has done quite well, and the system of equalisation between the regions was made more flexible and adjusted annually.
Though in theory all regions benefited to some extent from the 2009 reform, it was not without its critics. They focused on the political as much as the financial aspects of the reform, and politics have always played a part in how the regions' finances have been worked out. In 2009, the political criticism fell squarely on Catalonia. It had been pressing for a different financing arrangement and it got much of what it wanted, prompting attacks on the Zapatero administration for having in effect bought Catalonia's support.
The Catalonian dimension sours current opinion in several regions, especially those led by the Partido Popular and which make greater contributions to the overall revenue pot from which their finances are then redistributed. Madrid is one such region. The Balearics is another.
The starting-point for evaluating these finances is what the individual regions bring in from the tax-gathering function they perform for national government. In terms of tax capacity per head of population, Madrid stands in first position. Second is the Balearics; its tax raising per capita is three times greater than the region with the lowest capacity, the Canary Islands.
Based on 2010 figures, the Balearics had a tax capacity of 2,692 million euros. The final totting-up, which took into account different funds in addition to redistribution of income tax and IVA revenues, left the Balearics short by 300 million. Madrid was short by around 2,800 million. The issue of efficient financing centres, therefore, on what some regions believe to be unfair. They, in effect, subsidise other regions of Spain, and this has been an argument that Catalonia has long made as part of its claims for greater autonomy or even independence.
Regions like Madrid and the Balearics are politically very different to Catalonia and though they believed that they lost out to Catalonia under the 2009 reform (and still the system in operation), they have a similar gripe. It is because of this that the reform to be undertaken by the Spanish Government is seen as being potentially highly significant. Not only will it be political in addressing the vital issue of Catalonia's finances and so therefore the drive towards independence or not, it might just herald a move towards more of a fiscal federalist state, one in which, because it shouldn't be forgotten, there are two regions which operate in a totally different way to all the rest - Navarre and the Basque Country. They keep their tax revenues and hand over a percentage to national government. As such, they are not a part of the system of redistribution. Might they be the model for a new regional financing system?
Friday, September 13, 2013
Weakening The Links In The Chain: Catalonia
José Manuel García Margallo is not Britain's favourite Spanish politician. He is not the favourite Spanish politician of the people of Gibraltar. He is, you may know, the Spanish minister for foreign affairs. It was he, among the Spanish Government, who really kicked things off in Gibraltar.
Margallo, so suggests the newspaper "El País", is the least diplomatic of all the ministers in the Spanish Government. Diplomacy, you might have thought, would be useful for a foreign minister, but Margallo, where Gibraltar was concerned, went tramping in with heavy and distinctly undiplomatic boots. The government's boot boy, putting an end to the party on the Peñón.
A line of argument that has been used against Margallo is that Spain has its own territorial issues, not simply those in Africa but also in Spain itself. One of them is Catalonia, and there have been many Catalan voices raised in support of Gibraltar's rejection of Spanish claims to the rock.
On Wednesday, Catalonia celebrated its national day. Describing this as "national" is somewhat misleading. There is no Catalonian nation, only that which exists as an abstract concept and an ideal for many a Catalonian who has learned from history that there once used to be something approximating a Catalonian nation. Many Catalonians, at least 400,000, joined a human chain that stretched some 400 kilometres from the French border to Tarragona. This was the highlight of the day's celebration. Its purpose? To demonstrate solidarity with the call for Catalonian independence.
It was a hugely impressive display, reminiscent of the chain formed by people in the Baltic states who demanded independence from the Soviet Union in 1989. You cannot simply ignore 400,000 people. Margallo, to his credit, hasn't ignored them. Indeed, Margallo, perhaps because he is undiplomatic, has been honest about the demonstration. He was worried and saddened by it, but he has admitted that it was a success in terms of its organisation, logistics and communication. In other words, he has appreciated that the people of Catalonia can be mobilised to show their support for independence.
The figure of 400,000 may well have been considerably higher, but then these figures are always open to question, but if one accepts the 400,000, it was actually lower than the lowest figure given for the national day demonstration in Barcelona last year. That was 600,000, though it was probably (and reasonably accurately) around one million.
So in fact, one could argue that there has been a fall in support for independence. Measured in terms of actual bodies, maybe, but the figures may not reflect sentiment as a whole. Which is something to which government vice-president Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría has alluded. The government will listen to everyone, including the silent majority. She has implied, therefore, that the weight of support for independence as shown on the streets is not matched off of the streets.
After last year's demonstration Mariano Rajoy's reaction was to blather on about the constitution and to seemingly pay no attention to the masses protesting. Santamaría has at least acknowledged their presence on the streets this year, but Margallo, undiplomatic Margallo, has gone very much further. The people on the streets have to be listened to, and he has proposed that there be a reflection not just about the situation in Catalonia but about territorial organisation in Spain as a whole. It is an extraordinary suggestion for a Partido Popular politician to make, as it implies a diminution of nationalism, and the PP has always been wedded to the notion of the Spanish nation without exception.
In addition to recognising Catalonia's language and culture, Margallo has indicated he would be in favour of changes to Catalonia's financing, which was really the cause of the recent clamour for a referendum on independence. He has also suggested that there be fewer limits on responsibilities of regional administrations, so not just Catalonia's. He has, in one intervention, turned PP attitudes towards the regions on their head.
The question is does he speak for the government or is he just wildly off-message? If it's the former, then something truly remarkable is going on, and it may be that something is going on. Artur Mas, the president of Catalonia, wants to put back any referendum to 2016. It had been promised for next year. It is still, strictly speaking, illegal to hold a referendum, but Mas has been talking with Rajoy. His delay of the referendum has been greeted with disgust by the left who keep him in power, but it could just be that a major reform of the state's relationship with Catalonia and the other regions is on the cards; a reform that would, it might be hoped, kill off calls for independence.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Margallo, so suggests the newspaper "El País", is the least diplomatic of all the ministers in the Spanish Government. Diplomacy, you might have thought, would be useful for a foreign minister, but Margallo, where Gibraltar was concerned, went tramping in with heavy and distinctly undiplomatic boots. The government's boot boy, putting an end to the party on the Peñón.
A line of argument that has been used against Margallo is that Spain has its own territorial issues, not simply those in Africa but also in Spain itself. One of them is Catalonia, and there have been many Catalan voices raised in support of Gibraltar's rejection of Spanish claims to the rock.
On Wednesday, Catalonia celebrated its national day. Describing this as "national" is somewhat misleading. There is no Catalonian nation, only that which exists as an abstract concept and an ideal for many a Catalonian who has learned from history that there once used to be something approximating a Catalonian nation. Many Catalonians, at least 400,000, joined a human chain that stretched some 400 kilometres from the French border to Tarragona. This was the highlight of the day's celebration. Its purpose? To demonstrate solidarity with the call for Catalonian independence.
It was a hugely impressive display, reminiscent of the chain formed by people in the Baltic states who demanded independence from the Soviet Union in 1989. You cannot simply ignore 400,000 people. Margallo, to his credit, hasn't ignored them. Indeed, Margallo, perhaps because he is undiplomatic, has been honest about the demonstration. He was worried and saddened by it, but he has admitted that it was a success in terms of its organisation, logistics and communication. In other words, he has appreciated that the people of Catalonia can be mobilised to show their support for independence.
The figure of 400,000 may well have been considerably higher, but then these figures are always open to question, but if one accepts the 400,000, it was actually lower than the lowest figure given for the national day demonstration in Barcelona last year. That was 600,000, though it was probably (and reasonably accurately) around one million.
So in fact, one could argue that there has been a fall in support for independence. Measured in terms of actual bodies, maybe, but the figures may not reflect sentiment as a whole. Which is something to which government vice-president Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría has alluded. The government will listen to everyone, including the silent majority. She has implied, therefore, that the weight of support for independence as shown on the streets is not matched off of the streets.
After last year's demonstration Mariano Rajoy's reaction was to blather on about the constitution and to seemingly pay no attention to the masses protesting. Santamaría has at least acknowledged their presence on the streets this year, but Margallo, undiplomatic Margallo, has gone very much further. The people on the streets have to be listened to, and he has proposed that there be a reflection not just about the situation in Catalonia but about territorial organisation in Spain as a whole. It is an extraordinary suggestion for a Partido Popular politician to make, as it implies a diminution of nationalism, and the PP has always been wedded to the notion of the Spanish nation without exception.
In addition to recognising Catalonia's language and culture, Margallo has indicated he would be in favour of changes to Catalonia's financing, which was really the cause of the recent clamour for a referendum on independence. He has also suggested that there be fewer limits on responsibilities of regional administrations, so not just Catalonia's. He has, in one intervention, turned PP attitudes towards the regions on their head.
The question is does he speak for the government or is he just wildly off-message? If it's the former, then something truly remarkable is going on, and it may be that something is going on. Artur Mas, the president of Catalonia, wants to put back any referendum to 2016. It had been promised for next year. It is still, strictly speaking, illegal to hold a referendum, but Mas has been talking with Rajoy. His delay of the referendum has been greeted with disgust by the left who keep him in power, but it could just be that a major reform of the state's relationship with Catalonia and the other regions is on the cards; a reform that would, it might be hoped, kill off calls for independence.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
The Sun Never Shines On Solar Energy
Between 2006 and 2008, almost 30,000 solar farms were built across Spain. They were the eco-friendly symbols of a renewable-energy policy that made Spain the second largest producer of solar power in the world and they were facilitated by subsidies and the anticipation of spectacular returns on investment. By 2009, police authorities, public prosecutors and investigating judges were reaping their own rewards from Spain's solar boom; they were gainfully employed in pursuing cases of "eco-corruption".
The boom was also fuelled by the issuing of licences to both build the farms and to connect to the grid system. Land where connection points were to be created to dump solar energy into the grid became highly sought after, as was the information as to where these connection points would be. Trafficking in licences resulted as did the trafficking of money; a bent construction industry was able to launder illegal earnings into this new boom market and to look forward to even greater earnings in the process.
At the end of 2010, the Spanish Government stated its intention to attack the so-called "tariff deficit", which is the debt incurred from the cost of running the nation's electricity system relative to revenues from the sale of energy. The government wished to do so in order to be able to cut consumers' energy bills by 2013. In May this year, the tariff deficit stood at 26 billion euros. At the end of 2010, the deficit was said to have been 14.6 billion euros.
An economic fiasco brought about by the apparently benign intention to develop clean, green energy was being forecast even before prosecutors started to dig into corrupt practices by public officials and construction companies eyeing up more than just nice little earners from solar. The Zapatero administration was being fingered for its economically unsustainable but ecologically idealistic policies. Subsidies in the form of the premiums paid for solar-generated electricity outstripped by ten times the payments for conventionally supplied energy. Though the Zapatero government decided to cut revenues earned by photovoltaic plants by 30% at the back end of 2010 (thus delivering a blow to the renewables industry and its own green policy), subsidies did not end. They have continued under the current government.
If government policy was already well under scrutiny before "eco-corruption" reared its ugly head, less attention was paid to the private sector and in particular to the role of the banks. As with other construction projects, the banks started to chuck money around to speculators. Spanish financial institutions are said to be in for some 20 billion euros worth of loans to renewables projects.
The banking system, still attempting to right itself from the fallout of debt toxicity brought about by its zealous funding of the construction boom and by cheap and unsupportable loans, now faces a further potential crisis - that of default by solar companies which will have subsidies slashed. Tackling the tariff deficit is one aim, another is to cut the amount of solar power that is generated - its capacity exceeds demand by 60%.
In the Balearics, there was a scheme by which the regional government was issuing grants of up to 30% of the cost of renewable-energy installations by householders. The period for applications for these grants ended in January last year. By this time, national government was already putting in place plans to tackle the deficit and excess solar capacity, part of which came from householders' own excess energy being sold to producers.
Such sales will now stop. But more than just stop paying householders to help supply the electricity system, these same householders will, under new laws, be obliged to connect solar panels to the grid. Why? In order to tax the use of solar panels. The result will be that it will become more expensive for households to use solar than to take from conventional energy supplies. And if consumers don't hook their panels up, they will be liable to fines running into the millions.
The absurdity of the situation beggars belief. Legal challenges are bound to result and they may include those in the Balearics, where there was the recent incentive scheme which now turns out to be all but worthless. It is a situation that has come about because of the government's desperate need to cut the tariff deficit, one that it, and not consumers, caused and because of governmental idealism that wished to use an energy supply that is available in such abundance. The sun always shines except when the government decrees that it shouldn't. Utter madness.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The boom was also fuelled by the issuing of licences to both build the farms and to connect to the grid system. Land where connection points were to be created to dump solar energy into the grid became highly sought after, as was the information as to where these connection points would be. Trafficking in licences resulted as did the trafficking of money; a bent construction industry was able to launder illegal earnings into this new boom market and to look forward to even greater earnings in the process.
At the end of 2010, the Spanish Government stated its intention to attack the so-called "tariff deficit", which is the debt incurred from the cost of running the nation's electricity system relative to revenues from the sale of energy. The government wished to do so in order to be able to cut consumers' energy bills by 2013. In May this year, the tariff deficit stood at 26 billion euros. At the end of 2010, the deficit was said to have been 14.6 billion euros.
An economic fiasco brought about by the apparently benign intention to develop clean, green energy was being forecast even before prosecutors started to dig into corrupt practices by public officials and construction companies eyeing up more than just nice little earners from solar. The Zapatero administration was being fingered for its economically unsustainable but ecologically idealistic policies. Subsidies in the form of the premiums paid for solar-generated electricity outstripped by ten times the payments for conventionally supplied energy. Though the Zapatero government decided to cut revenues earned by photovoltaic plants by 30% at the back end of 2010 (thus delivering a blow to the renewables industry and its own green policy), subsidies did not end. They have continued under the current government.
If government policy was already well under scrutiny before "eco-corruption" reared its ugly head, less attention was paid to the private sector and in particular to the role of the banks. As with other construction projects, the banks started to chuck money around to speculators. Spanish financial institutions are said to be in for some 20 billion euros worth of loans to renewables projects.
The banking system, still attempting to right itself from the fallout of debt toxicity brought about by its zealous funding of the construction boom and by cheap and unsupportable loans, now faces a further potential crisis - that of default by solar companies which will have subsidies slashed. Tackling the tariff deficit is one aim, another is to cut the amount of solar power that is generated - its capacity exceeds demand by 60%.
In the Balearics, there was a scheme by which the regional government was issuing grants of up to 30% of the cost of renewable-energy installations by householders. The period for applications for these grants ended in January last year. By this time, national government was already putting in place plans to tackle the deficit and excess solar capacity, part of which came from householders' own excess energy being sold to producers.
Such sales will now stop. But more than just stop paying householders to help supply the electricity system, these same householders will, under new laws, be obliged to connect solar panels to the grid. Why? In order to tax the use of solar panels. The result will be that it will become more expensive for households to use solar than to take from conventional energy supplies. And if consumers don't hook their panels up, they will be liable to fines running into the millions.
The absurdity of the situation beggars belief. Legal challenges are bound to result and they may include those in the Balearics, where there was the recent incentive scheme which now turns out to be all but worthless. It is a situation that has come about because of the government's desperate need to cut the tariff deficit, one that it, and not consumers, caused and because of governmental idealism that wished to use an energy supply that is available in such abundance. The sun always shines except when the government decrees that it shouldn't. Utter madness.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Balls Of Confusion: Tenancy Act
I am indebted to m'learned and good friend Will Besga for having explained in "The Bulletin" on Sunday the all but inexplicable, namely the consequences of reform of the Spanish Tenancy Act for short-term rentals. Will drew a distinction between properties which are or need to be licensed as "tourist" rentals, these being those for which owners offer services and which can be commercialised through open promotion, and properties which are not claimed to be "tourist" rentals, i.e. those for which owners do not offer services and which cannot be commercialised (or shouldn't be) through open promotion, e.g. via the internet, but which are permissible under the terms of the Tenancy Act.
Where I run up against a difficulty with this distinction is in understanding for what purpose, other than tourist, a property would be rented out on a short-term basis. But let's put this almost semantic issue to one side and get to the balls of the matter - its utter confusion.
There is a commonly held view that law in Spain is sometimes drawn up with the aim of creating confusion. Whether this is deliberate or not, if there is confusion, then it is the result of badly drafted law. And if confusion is indeed deliberately sought, then it is probably because laws are designed to so boggle people's minds that they end up doing nothing as they haven't a clue what to think, which is a peculiar philosophy for enacting legislation, to say the least. Alternatively, people do do something, and this turns out be wrong, not because people deliberately flout the law but because they don't know any better and because there is that much confusion that laws are subject to any number of interpretations or misinterpretations placed on them by all manner of agents - the forces of law, governments, the legal profession, other advisers, the bloke in the bar who reckons he knows everything.
The reform of the Tenancy Act should have been, or at least I had thought it was going to be, relatively straightforward, but because, or so it would appear, Madrid has seen fit to specifically only remove regulated tourist rentals from provisions of the act and hand responsibilities for them over to the regional government and so leave be a classification of property that is deemed not to be "tourist", the national government has merely managed to create ever more confusion.
However, some town halls in Mallorca appear not to see any distinction in these short-term rental properties. If they do, then why are they reacting as they are? Take Pollensa's mayor, Tomeu Cifre, as an example. Cifre it was who tried his level best to get Bauzá, Delgado and tourism-law-drafter-in-chief in the Balearics, Jaime Martinez, to think again on the issue of holiday lets. He had sought an exemption for Pollensa because of the town's very high level of private holiday accommodation. He tried but he failed. And now, he is expressing his disappointment at the change to the Tenancy Act.
This is not disappointment at private accommodation that is registered and regulated (because there already is a goodly amount of this) but at that accommodation which isn't, namely the so-called illegal offer, usually apartments. The fact is that, in order to maximise return on a rental property, an owner needs the ability to be able to advertise it. In Mallorca, where apartments are concerned, this has been impossible and remains impossible, except where it is done in contravention of Balearics law.
Cifre is supported in his disappointment by Antoni Pastor, the mayor of Manacor, Antoni Reus, the mayor of Santa Margalida, and Llorenç Suau in Andratx. Pastor and Reus are both members of the awkward squad, Cifre and Suau aren't; their opposition is not based on any anti-Partido Popular sentiment but on the basis of practicality and of threats to local tourism industries.
Apart from certain town halls, there are those business sectors which are fretting over the effects of the act's reform, such as supermarkets and car hire. But there is a far wider fretting going on. In Mallorca, it concerns the sheer volume of rented accommodation (an estimate puts the number of properties at 70,000), of which fewer than 10% are actually properly registered. And in Spain as a whole, there is a fret as to the government, just like the regional government in the Balearics, acting as the puppets of the hoteliers. It, or rather they (national and regional governments) are making an enormous mistake. To the tune of roughly 2,000 million euros of mistake, the overall value of the holiday-rental market.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Where I run up against a difficulty with this distinction is in understanding for what purpose, other than tourist, a property would be rented out on a short-term basis. But let's put this almost semantic issue to one side and get to the balls of the matter - its utter confusion.
There is a commonly held view that law in Spain is sometimes drawn up with the aim of creating confusion. Whether this is deliberate or not, if there is confusion, then it is the result of badly drafted law. And if confusion is indeed deliberately sought, then it is probably because laws are designed to so boggle people's minds that they end up doing nothing as they haven't a clue what to think, which is a peculiar philosophy for enacting legislation, to say the least. Alternatively, people do do something, and this turns out be wrong, not because people deliberately flout the law but because they don't know any better and because there is that much confusion that laws are subject to any number of interpretations or misinterpretations placed on them by all manner of agents - the forces of law, governments, the legal profession, other advisers, the bloke in the bar who reckons he knows everything.
The reform of the Tenancy Act should have been, or at least I had thought it was going to be, relatively straightforward, but because, or so it would appear, Madrid has seen fit to specifically only remove regulated tourist rentals from provisions of the act and hand responsibilities for them over to the regional government and so leave be a classification of property that is deemed not to be "tourist", the national government has merely managed to create ever more confusion.
However, some town halls in Mallorca appear not to see any distinction in these short-term rental properties. If they do, then why are they reacting as they are? Take Pollensa's mayor, Tomeu Cifre, as an example. Cifre it was who tried his level best to get Bauzá, Delgado and tourism-law-drafter-in-chief in the Balearics, Jaime Martinez, to think again on the issue of holiday lets. He had sought an exemption for Pollensa because of the town's very high level of private holiday accommodation. He tried but he failed. And now, he is expressing his disappointment at the change to the Tenancy Act.
This is not disappointment at private accommodation that is registered and regulated (because there already is a goodly amount of this) but at that accommodation which isn't, namely the so-called illegal offer, usually apartments. The fact is that, in order to maximise return on a rental property, an owner needs the ability to be able to advertise it. In Mallorca, where apartments are concerned, this has been impossible and remains impossible, except where it is done in contravention of Balearics law.
Cifre is supported in his disappointment by Antoni Pastor, the mayor of Manacor, Antoni Reus, the mayor of Santa Margalida, and Llorenç Suau in Andratx. Pastor and Reus are both members of the awkward squad, Cifre and Suau aren't; their opposition is not based on any anti-Partido Popular sentiment but on the basis of practicality and of threats to local tourism industries.
Apart from certain town halls, there are those business sectors which are fretting over the effects of the act's reform, such as supermarkets and car hire. But there is a far wider fretting going on. In Mallorca, it concerns the sheer volume of rented accommodation (an estimate puts the number of properties at 70,000), of which fewer than 10% are actually properly registered. And in Spain as a whole, there is a fret as to the government, just like the regional government in the Balearics, acting as the puppets of the hoteliers. It, or rather they (national and regional governments) are making an enormous mistake. To the tune of roughly 2,000 million euros of mistake, the overall value of the holiday-rental market.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Small Town Mayor
Has the Spanish Government missed a trick? Economic crisis, we thought, was going to provide the impetus for reforming the bloated state of public administration and local government. Madrid had suggested that it would but it has now performed a volte-face in respect of certain aspects of local government reform.
It is unfair to expect someone to take on the onerous task of being a town's mayor without him or her receiving some remuneration. Even in very small towns, those with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, there is administration to oversee and there are decisions to be made and meetings to be attended. Madrid had been proposing that mayors of such small towns would no longer be paid. It has backtracked, and so towns like Deià and Fornalutx will still compensate the lucky future winners of the mayoral selection process.
It would have been unfair for mayors to have to do their jobs for nothing and it would also have been a risk, if only a potential risk of harmful perception. Mayors, even paid mayors, have been known to take the shilling that they shouldn't. If a mayor is not paid, fertile would be the terrain of dark rumours regarding permissions for this or that. Mayors must be getting something for their trouble would be the perception and the potential accusation, even when there is not the slightest shred of evidence.
It was a bad move on behalf of the government to have even proposed not paying some mayors. But it was a bad move that missed the point and so therefore missed the trick, and this is emphasised by a further U-turn by the government. For towns with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants - and towns of this size almost form a majority in Mallorca - the government was planning on intervening where municipalities were not functioning in a financially efficient manner. By intervention, it meant that it would have scrapped the offending town halls. Now, all it is saying is that town halls can merge their operations if they wish to, which probably means that none will; a mayor of an underperforming town will not come over all turkey-like and vote for his or her job to be done away with and handed to the mayor in the neighbouring village.
I have no desire to see small towns lose their ability to govern themselves, and this is because I favour localism, regardless of the population size of a particular municipality. But this, and I'll admit it, is an idealistic preference. There is a world of difference between local democracy idealism and local democracy pragmatism, and it is primarily one to do with cost; localism reduced to the very local is that much more expensive to operate.
The government doesn't appear to be backtracking over other elements of its reform, namely the reduction in the number of paid councillors and limits placed on councillor/mayoral remuneration as well as the shifting of responsibilities from towns with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants to provincial authorities (which, in the case of the Balearics, mean the islands' councils). Significant savings will be derived from these measures.
However, vastly more significant savings would be made were the government to be truly bold and undertake a drastic reform of local government. The UPyD party placed an enormous figure on what would be saved were towns in Mallorca with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants to be merged. 18,000 million euros. I have no idea how the party arrives at such a sum, but if it is to believed, it is a figure which, at a stroke, would resolve problems with Mallorcan public finances.
And if it is to believed, then why doesn't the government do it? Perhaps it is more idealistic than it is normally given credit for; it isn't the centralising monster that it has been made out to be. Or perhaps there are other reasons, and the UPyD might well be one of them.
The Partido Popular (and PSOE) both face an enormous crisis of public confidence. While I have doubted the ability of the UPyD and other smaller parties to genuinely challenge Spain's two-party system, there are commentators who now believe that it could happen and that the challenges would come from the centrist UPyD and the leftist IU. The UPyD is populated by an eminently sensible bunch of people, driven by practicalities rather than dogma. It might not do itself many favours by going around suggesting that it would merge most town halls in Mallorca, but it, unlike the PP, wouldn't have a lot to lose by doing so. The PP, on the other hand, would, and especially because it would face mutiny from all those towns that it runs.
All talk of truly drastic local government reform is foundering on the rocks of the "realpolitik" of local government, namely the PP's strength at town hall level. This strength, though, is its weakness. Local government reform requires boldness. And bold is something that the government isn't.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
It is unfair to expect someone to take on the onerous task of being a town's mayor without him or her receiving some remuneration. Even in very small towns, those with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, there is administration to oversee and there are decisions to be made and meetings to be attended. Madrid had been proposing that mayors of such small towns would no longer be paid. It has backtracked, and so towns like Deià and Fornalutx will still compensate the lucky future winners of the mayoral selection process.
It would have been unfair for mayors to have to do their jobs for nothing and it would also have been a risk, if only a potential risk of harmful perception. Mayors, even paid mayors, have been known to take the shilling that they shouldn't. If a mayor is not paid, fertile would be the terrain of dark rumours regarding permissions for this or that. Mayors must be getting something for their trouble would be the perception and the potential accusation, even when there is not the slightest shred of evidence.
It was a bad move on behalf of the government to have even proposed not paying some mayors. But it was a bad move that missed the point and so therefore missed the trick, and this is emphasised by a further U-turn by the government. For towns with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants - and towns of this size almost form a majority in Mallorca - the government was planning on intervening where municipalities were not functioning in a financially efficient manner. By intervention, it meant that it would have scrapped the offending town halls. Now, all it is saying is that town halls can merge their operations if they wish to, which probably means that none will; a mayor of an underperforming town will not come over all turkey-like and vote for his or her job to be done away with and handed to the mayor in the neighbouring village.
I have no desire to see small towns lose their ability to govern themselves, and this is because I favour localism, regardless of the population size of a particular municipality. But this, and I'll admit it, is an idealistic preference. There is a world of difference between local democracy idealism and local democracy pragmatism, and it is primarily one to do with cost; localism reduced to the very local is that much more expensive to operate.
The government doesn't appear to be backtracking over other elements of its reform, namely the reduction in the number of paid councillors and limits placed on councillor/mayoral remuneration as well as the shifting of responsibilities from towns with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants to provincial authorities (which, in the case of the Balearics, mean the islands' councils). Significant savings will be derived from these measures.
However, vastly more significant savings would be made were the government to be truly bold and undertake a drastic reform of local government. The UPyD party placed an enormous figure on what would be saved were towns in Mallorca with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants to be merged. 18,000 million euros. I have no idea how the party arrives at such a sum, but if it is to believed, it is a figure which, at a stroke, would resolve problems with Mallorcan public finances.
And if it is to believed, then why doesn't the government do it? Perhaps it is more idealistic than it is normally given credit for; it isn't the centralising monster that it has been made out to be. Or perhaps there are other reasons, and the UPyD might well be one of them.
The Partido Popular (and PSOE) both face an enormous crisis of public confidence. While I have doubted the ability of the UPyD and other smaller parties to genuinely challenge Spain's two-party system, there are commentators who now believe that it could happen and that the challenges would come from the centrist UPyD and the leftist IU. The UPyD is populated by an eminently sensible bunch of people, driven by practicalities rather than dogma. It might not do itself many favours by going around suggesting that it would merge most town halls in Mallorca, but it, unlike the PP, wouldn't have a lot to lose by doing so. The PP, on the other hand, would, and especially because it would face mutiny from all those towns that it runs.
All talk of truly drastic local government reform is foundering on the rocks of the "realpolitik" of local government, namely the PP's strength at town hall level. This strength, though, is its weakness. Local government reform requires boldness. And bold is something that the government isn't.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
