What has the operation of the king’s change in Spain made clear? Some issues, but mainly the fear of the change that Spanish political power has and the need to leave the Spanish institutional situation tied and well tied in the short term. The Corona Juan Carlos I.etik Felipe VI.era has gone through this peculiar institutional magic and, once again, with a significant democratic deficit. The referendum has been urged by a very visible group of citizens from all over the Spanish State. How many? We do not know, but from the current strength of stability the usual spent argument has been repeated: it was the current citizen’s representation that decided. The phrase totem serves both for the election of the Spanish State and for the strictest cuts, to adapt the Constitution to the financial leaders or to end the system of the Spanish savings banks. But the argument has very sharp edges, both for those in the tower of the system and for those who want to receive it.

The former cannot hide the weakness of the argument, because in his name there should not be a profound political crisis in Spanish society, because in theory the governance of the representatives is based on the legitimacy of the citizenship; that is, in this scheme “the situation is harsh, but as we have chosen, it must be maintained” would be the collective thinking of the majority of the citizenship. It is not the case, however, that the citizens do not believe that the measures that have brought the current crisis have come through the decisions they have chosen, but quite the opposite, and that is why they are experiencing the profound political-institutional crisis, as acknowledged by all sides. The inability of proponents of the alternative lies in the contradiction that citizens repeatedly choose aspects that increase instability and crisis.

Repeated times? No, the loss of votes from the PSOE and pp, which are the pillars of the Spanish system, has begun and have been frightened. And is it going to follow? It cannot be said, but there are many indicators that say that one season has been closed and another season is coming. And for the time being the situation is linked, but not well tied, especially for a very powerful reason: with everything that has happened with the crisis, the citizen no longer believes in this system of representation of current democracy. From there to the alternative there is a big leap, but there is no goal without beginning. The PP and the PSOE have once again called the citizen a fool: bad and bad, but they have diverted the core of the debate, placing the force on the type of monarchy or republic, when the essence of the debate is in the democratic exercise of being able to choose between the two.

The political and media operation has served them to carry out the change of king, but not to attract a centimeter to that large group of citizens who want to decide their sovereign state. On the contrary, the articulation of the Republican spirit and the monarchic brain no longer deceives anyone. As expected, Philip VI.ak and the system have tenderly won the first round, but the struggle continues and there are many indicators that point to the fact that time and everyday life will put this venal pink world of princes in jeopardy. Eating for society and for the person is fundamental to live, but the important thing is to decide what to eat to live in libertad.El

debate of the pribarization of KUTXABANK is red live and the arrows go ahead in search of meat. Without going into the substance, there are two issues that should be stressed. One has to do with the law and the other with the main subjects of the controversy.

Regarding the law, Xabier Sagredo and Xabier Iturbe, president of BBK and Kutxa, respectively, have published two articles in which it is stated that conversion to foundation is an operation obligated by law, there is nothing to do against it. OK, it's legitimate, it's a position and it's already there. But there is something very surprising: the spirit of the articles indicates that it is something forced from Spain, that if they could not do so, and the public discourse of the PNV – that of the PP and the PSOE is different – coincides with that position. However, neither the two articles nor the arguments of the PNV show a ferocious criticism of this law, that is, to say clearly “we do not agree but obligate us”, and if this is not done, it can be thought that they also agree basically with what the law says.

As for the main subjects of the debate, it cannot be said, as the PNV, that it is the Abertzale left that is altering society. This is a rejection of broad sectors that go beyond the Abertzale left, because in this debate are ELA, Ezker Anitza-IU, Cauca-Ahal Dugu and many other agents, and perhaps before and with greater coherence than EH Bildu.