The king was asked to weigh in on Feijóo’s appointment, not to advance a grand strategic aim so much as to turn a political move into a preemptive censure of Pedro Sánchez, who had real opportunities but whose path may have appeared more vulnerable. The aim, from the outset, was to reassert the presidency after the PP leader’s bid seemed to falter. Feijóo clung to a claim that seemed convenient but ultimately fragile: he claimed he had backing to secure the investment yet would not pay an unacceptable price. In reality, the PNV and Junts are conservative factions, and in a traditional auction one might expect them to lean toward the right rather than the left. Yet the PNV publicly told Feijóo that the notion of rejecting this Presidency was unfounded: to gain their votes, Feijóo would have to subtract thirty-three. Put plainly, an alliance between the PP and the nationalists appears impossible as long as the party-state maintains its ties to VOX, the extreme-right faction. And it is hard to imagine VOX, which questions the notion of an Autonomy State, agreeing to join a coalition with independents.
Following this provocative hypothesis, which collapsed under its own weight, Feijóo proceeded to build a narrative in parliament that exposed weaknesses in the pillars of fact and data. The candidate presented inaccurate figures on employment and unemployment, wages, pensions, GDP, and poverty, painting a picture of growing inequality that sounded ominous. Anyone who checked the record would find that, in recent years, inequality in Spain has trended downward. Even the claim about a rise in inequality failed to align with widely cited metrics. Opposition voices also criticized the push to penalize what was labeled as “democratic disloyalty.” Oscar Puente, the outspoken former mayor of Valladolid who greeted Feijóo with a boastful “a winner, a winner,” offered a pointed retort: perhaps this was a political maneuver aimed at the leader of a party that refused to renew a contract. Puente’s remarks reflected a broader debate over the party’s five-year governance period and the way it was perceived within Galicia and beyond. Feijóo’s leadership appeared to falter during the critique, while Galicia’s interest in strengthening his position remained evident.
The anticipated dismissal of Feijóo, if no unexpected developments arise in the second vote, would pave the way for Sánchez to push forward and overcome the remaining hurdles. That would enable him to pursue a more intensive cycle of European leadership in the coming terms. Still, there are lessons to be drawn from this episode, even if one views it as an unusual political exercise that may not have achieved its immediate goals.
The first lesson centers on the notion that the most acute political debate at present is not strictly social or ideological but regional in character. In 1975, amid the Article VIII framework of the Constitution, a stubborn problem emerged that we hoped to address with legislative provisions. This indicated a drift toward an opaque form of federalism that now faces serious challenges in terms of authority and funding. The real challenge may be chronic fiscal inefficiency rather than pure sovereignty. The unresolved crisis will not fix itself; it demands deep reforms, potentially federal or confederal, to cement a stable model of shared governance and financing. Reform of the Senate is part of that equation, and it cannot be achieved by a small cadre of actors. A broad minimum consensus remains elusive.
The second lesson concerns the state of Spanish politics, which feels painfully harsh and, at times, brutal. Democratic dialogue can be dry, cold, and hostile, yet the current climate seems to have crossed lines that should not be crossed. Insults like the mention of a bloodless dagger, once a striking image, now stand as reminders of a harmful habit in parliament. Such rhetoric does not advance civic education, nor does it contribute to a political culture that the public deserves. The goal is not to emulate distant ideals or a historic ferocity; it is to maintain a basic level of courtesy in public debate, allowing agreement on issues that serve the broader public interest. A more constructive approach would enable lawmakers to disagree vigorously on policies while still pursuing common ground where it exists, and to cultivate a climate where citizens can trust their representatives to engage with seriousness and restraint.