There's no point in commenting that if Spanish minister José Luis Ábalos were part of a government in one of those countries in the European Union whose model we should aspire to, he would by now have presented his resignation. Either it would have been demanded by the prime minister of the day or insisted on by public opinion across the board, left and right, pro-independence and anti-independence. The question is simple: Spain's minister of transport, mobility and urban agenda met secretly at Madrid-Barajas airport last Sunday with Venezuela's vice president Delcy Rodríguez, and when the news began to get out he claimed it was a lie. He kept up that attitude for 48 hours, until the truth became so obvious that he had to acknowledge that they had "greeted each other."
In addition to this internal problem, no minor matter and an issue we will return to later, there is another international question, since the Venezuelan vice president is banned from entering the Schengen Area under the sanctions that the European Union has imposed on the Maduro regime. That is, the Spanish government violated the EU-imposed cordon and Delcy Rodríguez was in Spain for fourteen hours, met with the cabinet minister and that is all that is known about what she did and where she went. It is not a very suitable attitude for a loyal European Union member and it is understandable that in Brussels they are not at all happy - and that, on the other hand, is not a new thing either.
But back to this style of politics and the creation of a narrative based on lies. We saw this in the recent election campaign in which Pedro Sánchez presented one policy programme and now he's saying just the opposite. Which of the two is the truth? Ábalos has followed in the footsteps of his boss and, like a compulsive liar, has gone from black to white and, furthermore, even gets angry when journalists ask about his meeting with the Venezuelan vice president. Situations like these are not only a problem for the political class, which has clearly ceased to be held in high esteem by public opinion, but above all, they set an example that is transmitted to ordinary people, where the fact that someone as important as a cabinet minister told a lie ends up being internalized as a normal thing. As something that goes unpunished. And so, what example does this set for society? On the basis of what authority do you expect to build a society which has truth as one of its values and as a central requisite for those who work in public service? It would be worth pondering.