Public discourse surrounding the Valencian language policy has been marked by cautious wording and stance-taking that stops short of direct endorsements. In the Cortes, figures from the PP expressed reluctance to commit in advance, often citing a need to read and discuss the proposals before forming a firm position. This cautious approach mirrored a broader pattern where party lines appear blurred on whether to support Vox’s bid to recognize Lo Rat Penat titles as official Valencian credentials. The Valencian Language Academy’s criteria are central to the debate, and the academy’s stance is frequently cited as a benchmark for official recognition. A spokesman from the party suggested that any government action should first be assessed, while not dismissing the idea outright [Citable record: Cortes proceedings].
In early discussions, the far-right motion known as the PNL was filed in the Cortes with requests to grant official status swiftly to Lo Rat Penat titles and to appoint those who hold such titles to Valencian teaching roles conferred by the Crown. The RACV, aligned with El Puig standards, anchors a segment of this debate by invoking historical norms that predate current regulatory frameworks. A co-author of the motion, José María Llanos, argued that the formal recognition of the El Puig Rules was a matter of revisiting normative foundations, and he stated that the proposal had been coordinated with Consell and allied parties, including PP and Vox, though Barrachina later dissented [Parliamentary notes, Llanos statement].
Barrachina contested the existence of any agreement, saying he had neither signed nor read the proposal. The PNL, as registered in the Cortes, bears the Vox seal and signatures from Llanos and deputy ombudsman Joaquín Alés. Subsequently, Llanos claimed that a government commitment existed to advance the homologation and that the motion was contributing to that objective [Cortes registry].
The practical question of how to implement such changes looms large. A week earlier, regional government spokespeople indicated that the Consell would explore the issue. Llanos argued that changes could be made without altering the Charter, referencing the Valencia Academy of Languages as the body that determines official language regulations for public administrations. He suggested that nothing in the statute prohibits the proposed changes, while critics pointed out that the AVL’s authority could be reassigned to non-compliant organizations, raising legal and procedural concerns about authority and compliance [Valencia legal framework brief, official remarks].
Legal alignment without Charter reform is highlighted by PP sources as a precondition for support, emphasizing the need to ensure language policy remains aligned with current governance structures and practical governance realities. The overarching concern is whether education policy, traditionally managed by parties with strong linguistic views, would be able to implement any changes without unintended consequences. Observers note that the political arithmetic of education control could influence the trajectory of this proposal, especially if broader party lines converge on the issue [Policy analysis report].
The next plenary session is not expected to address the matter, despite Vox’s push for an emergency process. The opposition, however, intensified criticism of PPCV, with PSPV’s deputy ombudsman Arcadi España arguing that distinguishing between PP and Vox is increasingly difficult and warning that radicalism can spread. He commented that the Valencia scene is particularly active this week and that the dynamics around language policy could spill over into broader political debates [Parliamentary press briefing].
From the socialist side, the proposal was viewed as minimizing the significance of Valencian language authority by implying that any entity could set its own rules. Compromís’s ombudsman, Joan Baldoví, urged Vox to work within the statute, underscoring that official language authority rests with the Valencian Language Academy and warning that attempts to introduce fresh rules risk creating confusion rather than clarity [Official statements and responses].