EDITORIAL | Debate or debacle?
Editorial Board
RTVA devoted public resources—specifically, an hour and a half of a special live programme—to the debate between Cerni Escalé and Jaume Bartumeu. It should have served to explain the content and impact of the Association Agreement.
In our view, this television spectacle included some truly absurd claims about the agreement: personal opinions incompatible with the documents. We address them below.
1. “The Association Agreement or no agreement at all”
Bartumeu’s repeated assertion—effectively a slogan—that Andorra must either accept the Association Agreement or remain without any agreement forever is untrue. Bartumeu even claimed that negotiations began because the EU told him, during his time as head of government, that it no longer wanted to maintain the Customs Agreement. Yet he neither produced nor cited any documentary evidence of this alleged EU ultimatum.
The actual framework governing relations between the EU and Andorra—which went unmentioned during the debate—is as follows.
EU institutions are bound by Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Article 8 is a binding constitutional provision establishing a general framework for good relations between the EU and neighbouring countries:
Article 8
The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.
The EU’s constitutional framework therefore provides for agreements subject to periodic consultation, contradicting Bartumeu’s fear-based slogan. It is constitutionally impossible for the EU to close the door permanently to agreements with Andorra simply because the Andorran people reject a particular text.
Article 8 is complemented by Declaration No 3 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Lisbon. This declaration makes clear that the EU must take Andorra’s particular circumstances into account, providing a tailored interpretative safeguard for Article 8. It opens the door to temporary or permanent exemptions for Andorra, such as specific customs arrangements or immigration quotas.
A “no” vote on the Association Agreement could neither amend Article 8 nor justify the EU disregarding that constitutional provision or the specific circumstances recognised in Declaration No 3, which states:
“The Union will take into account the particular situation of small-sized countries which maintain specific relations of proximity with it.”
Furthermore, several agreements with the EU will remain in force regardless of the Association Agreement’s future, including the Monetary Agreement, the agreement on the taxation of savings, the Customs Agreement and the entry-exit agreement.
2. “The referendum will be a yes-or-no vote on the Association Agreement”
Since the Association Agreement is a mixed agreement, it requires a ratification process in which any of the parliaments involved could vote against it. Even in the best-case scenario, ratification could take around ten years—if it is ratified at all.
The decision facing the Andorran people will therefore be considerably more complicated. In practice, it will be a yes-or-no vote on provisional application while awaiting ratification by all 27 member states. This multiplies the risks.
3. Conflicts between Andorra’s Constitution and the Association Agreement
During the debate, the suggestion that decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are made independently of Andorra’s Constitution prompted disagreement between Bartumeu and Escalé. Neither explained which article of the agreement supported his position.
More significantly, neither speaker, nor the moderator, highlighted Article 82 of the agreement, which establishes a far more serious conflict with our Constitution. It states:
Where a decision adopted by a Joint Committee can be applied in an associated state only after certain constitutional requirements have been fulfilled, that decision shall enter into force in that state’s legal order once those requirements have been met. The EU shall be notified of the date of entry into force.
If no such notification has been made within six months of the Joint Committee’s decision, that decision shall apply provisionally pending fulfilment of the constitutional requirements referred to in the preceding paragraph, unless the associated state notifies the EU that provisional application cannot take place and explains the reasons.
If the Joint Committee’s decision has not been applied in the associated state within twelve months, Article 90 of the Framework Agreement shall apply.
The problem with the agreement is therefore much more serious: Joint Committee decisions put pressure on Andorra’s constitutional framework. If the necessary steps are not taken within twelve months, Article 90 applies, bringing the CJEU into play.
This leaves our constitutional framework highly vulnerable, both to pressure from the EU and to manoeuvres by future Andorran governments.
Any future Andorran government could therefore use an arrangement reached through the Joint Committee, involving its own representatives, to put pressure on the constitutional framework—even with the backing of the CJEU.
4. Housing
Both participants acknowledged that the agreement contains no safeguard protecting Andorra against housing speculation arising from the single market’s 450 million consumers, who will enjoy freedom to invest in second homes in Andorra.
San Marino, by contrast, secured such protection in its agreement. The speakers focused on criticising the parliamentary majority for failing to pass domestic legislation restricting purchases of second homes in Andorra.
The real absurdity is that, in 2025, Andorra’s ambassador raised this issue with the European Commission. On 12 February, the Commission sent Andorra a letter confirming two points:
The agreement contained no protection against property speculation through restrictions on EU investment in second homes in Andorra.
The Commission was willing to add restrictions on second-home investment to the agreement, provided Andorra first adopted specific domestic legislation limiting foreign investment.
Yet the parliamentary majority has failed to adopt that legislation. It has allowed the agreement’s text to be finalised without the protection against housing speculation that San Marino obtained.
At the same time, that majority is demanding a resounding “yes” to the agreement—a vote that amounts to a “yes” to property speculation on a scale we can scarcely imagine.
5. Immigration
It became clear that neither Bartumeu nor the moderator had read Annex VIII or understood Section II on the minimum number of valid permits, Section III on family reunification, or Section IV on permanent residence.
These provisions do not, under any circumstances, produce an immigration quota of 380 people. Rather, their combined effect will be equivalent to free movement for EU nationals within Andorra.
We believe we can safely say that public resources should not be spent on a television spectacle of personal opinions and party slogans that does nothing to provide citizens with meaningful information.