Funding: the game continues

We recently learned of the agreement reached between ERC and the Spanish government on the ever-controversial issue of financing. It is crucial to note from the outset that this is a pact between a single party and Pedro Sánchez's government. Given that this party, ERC, only holds seven seats in Madrid, the first conclusion seems quite obvious: if other parties do not join, the agreement will be worthless. Assuming that neither the PP nor Vox will participate, the door is open to other political formations, primarily those that made President Sánchez's government possible.

An agreement can be evaluated from two different perspectives: the first is whether it improves the current situation, whether it represents progress. The second is whether the agreement meets the established expectations or the commitments made.

If we focus on the first perspective, the agreement we know represents a step forward compared to the current situation, which, let's remember, stems from a pact made by the second tripartite government of Catalonia in 2009 with the government of Rodríguez Zapatero. That was seventeen years ago. That pact was presented as highly beneficial for Catalonia: a flood of millions and an evolution of the model. Today, there are only criticisms and complaints regarding what seemed so positive. Therefore, when we analyze the foundations of an agreement, we must abstract ourselves from self-serving propaganda and focus on the verifiable reality.

If we do it this way, my analysis could be summarized as follows: on the positive side, there is more money for Catalonia, less inequality in per capita funding between autonomous communities, greater fiscal co-responsibility because the autonomous communities increase their share of taxes such as personal income tax (IRPF) and VAT, and improved treasury management because the revenue generated allows regional governments to finance their specific responsibilities with VAT from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). On the negative side, some shortcomings are very evident and glaring: the principle of ordinality, which should guarantee that a territory does not lose ground after making solidarity contributions to other territories, is neither clear nor legally protected, leading to fears of the worst. The cost of living, which varies significantly between autonomous communities, is not taken into account. Living in Catalonia is much more expensive than living in Extremadura or Castilla-La Mancha. If this aspect is ignored, the comparison of per capita funding between territories loses much of its validity. And regarding the increase in resources that may reach Catalonia, a hidden reality should be explained to the public in the interest of transparency: more than half of the additional money is already spent; it's the money our healthcare system spends in excess of its allocated budget. In other words, a substantial part of what we will gain as a country will serve to continue doing what we are already doing, but without generating more deficit.

If we approach the issue from the second perspective, that of expectations, the assessment here is that we fall far short of what was expected. We were told: there will be a change of model; Catalonia will leave the common financing system, that is, the Coffee for everyoneWe were promised a unique funding arrangement; the Generalitat (Catalan government) would manage taxes and control the treasury; and the fiscal deficit—the difference between what Catalonia contributes and what it receives, across the board—would be significantly reduced. Well, we are light years away from these expectations or promises. The model is the same; we remain within the common system; we will have no control whatsoever, and the fiscal deficit will remain very high. It can be dressed up in many ways, there can be many rhetorical flourishes and affected gestures, but that doesn't change reality.

The issue of funding is of paramount importance, directly impacting citizens' living conditions. These past few days we have seen, once again, how a lack of investment and maintenance can bring a country to its knees and severely harm its people. What applies to mobility applies to everything: health, education, social services, security, the economy, and culture. Catalonia generates enough activity and resources for our situation to be far better than what we currently see and experience.

So what should be done? For me, there are three key points around which a national strategy can pivot: first, recognizing that the current agreement between ERC and the central government should in no way signify the end of the line. The game is just beginning; it doesn't end here. In fact, if the negotiators want the agreement to succeed, they must be the first to be interested in opening the process to other parties, which are essential to achieving a majority. And opening the process doesn't mean demanding uncritical support. The second point is that Catalan society, including those organized through associations, must mobilize to demand an ambitious vision for the country, a long-term perspective that allows us to aspire to a change in the funding model. The parliamentary arithmetic in Madrid invites, almost compels, us to raise our sights and broaden our horizons. If we don't do it now, will we do it in the face of a possible PP-Vox majority? And the third point involves defining a Catalan negotiation strategy. Whoever governs, we need greater fiscal sovereignty. Whoever governs, we need a smaller fiscal deficit. Whoever governs, we need more money, better tools, and less dependency. A Catalan negotiation strategy, one that includes both public and private stakeholders, improves our leverage and better defines the country we want and can have.