In August, the Spanish State received the first 9 billion European Recovery Funds. It has thus acquired the first part of the EUR 69.500 million required by the State as a transfer. In order to receive these first funds, the State has had to meet 25 criteria that will be reflected in the budgets. Vocational training, the rate of financial exchanges and the digital rate are some of the criteria envisaged. Next year, Madrid will have to go through a more rigorous study to receive the 12 billion funds available in the form of transfers. In fact, the acquisition of these funds will require stringent reforms by the State, including the labour market.

The benefits of the transfer chapter are obvious when compared to those of the lending area, unlike the latter, which in principle do not generate financial costs, without the need for repayment. However, from a broader perspective, transfers of the European Resilience and Recovery Plan should be cancelled, not just a gift.

First of all, the money raised is conditional, states have stringent requirements for access to it. But these requirements have nothing to do with the proper use of public money that is always appropriate, but with strong economic measures. In the framework of the European Semester, the Spanish Government undertakes to carry out structural reforms in payment of monetary transfers. For the European Union (EU) institutions, these reforms should not aim to improve the progressivity of the tax system, prohibit revolving doors or eliminate tax havens, for example. The structural changes mentioned are not on the agenda of the European Commission or the European Central Bank.

Structural policies marked by the EU are heading in a different direction. Among them is the orthodox conception of the labour market. The main European institutions are committed to further tightening up already deteriorated labour relations in order to increase overall flexibility. Labour flexibility is, of course, officially understood as a set of practices that meet the profitability needs of companies. Another of the structural reforms favoured by the institutions of the Union is that of the public pension system, always on the pretext of ensuring its sustainability. It should be noted that in this area there is a huge institutional lobby in line with the huge business capacity that exists around demographic aging. And to complete this business, the outsourcing of public administration and activity is essential, leaving its activities and practices in the hands of the markets and privatizing them to the fullest.

Finally, as regards the costs of transfers, they are not a gift, but they accumulate debt. This time it is not governments that are indebted, but the EU itself. It is the EU that makes common use of capital markets to finance the European Recovery Funds. However, this money borrowed by large banks and financial institutions on favourable terms must be returned as the deadlines are met, paying interest and depreciating capital. As the loan is subject to the EU budget, payments and withdrawals of money must necessarily be realised in the future through contributions from governments to the EU budget.