The front page of shame

In 2023, I viewed the association agreement with the European Union favourably. I say this so that no one can accuse me of opposing closer ties with Europe from the outset. The prospect of Andorrans enjoying more rights in neighbouring countries seemed positive to me. We have family, professional and personal ties with EU member states. Wanting to make those relationships easier was reasonable.

But a favourable expectation is not a blank cheque. As the agreement’s contents have become available and I have listened to its supporters’ explanations, that confidence has turned into concern. We have the right to change our minds when the explanations we hear no longer convince us. And we have the right to demand answers without being treated as ignorant, irresponsible or enemies of progress.

It is from this position that I question the role of Diari d’Andorra. In my view, its approach to this debate conveys an excessive closeness to the government’s narrative. In a small country, with a political, economic and media environment that I consider too insular, that closeness is particularly worrying. An influential newspaper has a corresponding responsibility: to help readers understand what is being decided.

My criticism is that its commitment to a yes vote appears to have taken precedence over critical distance. When that happens, a front page can end up functioning as campaign material.

The debate between Jaume Bartumeu and Cerni Escalé left me with precisely that impression: too many warnings about what might happen if we reject the agreement, and too little substantive discussion of the obligations we will assume if we accept it. I found Bartumeu’s contribution lacking in what I consider essential in a matter of this magnitude: identifiable articles, provisions and legal arguments supporting the scenarios he presents.

Escalé could have been more forceful. But forceful delivery does not replace a sound argument. Nor does political experience turn a prediction into a certainty.

If we want to discuss the text, let us do so. Directive 2004/38/EC appears in Annex VIII of the agreement, with the specified adaptations. The discussion about residence and free movement rights therefore has a concrete legal basis that citizens must be able to understand.

The government’s own information portal acknowledges that, under the agreement, family reunification will be possible even after the quota has been exhausted. That does not allow us to predict how many people will arrive without a rigorous estimate. But it does require an explanation of what this means for a country with limited territory and clear concerns about housing and services. Maintaining a quota system and allowing family reunification once those quotas have been exhausted are two realities that must be explained together.

Precision is also needed when discussing jobseekers. Article 14(4)(b) of the directive protects against certain expulsions those who can demonstrate that they are continuing to seek employment and have a genuine chance of being hired.

A similar issue arises with criminal records. According to official information, the proposed system involves a declaration from everyone, systematic checks for sensitive professions and random checks for the rest. This is a change from the current system of systematic checks. We can debate whether the new system will be sufficient, but we must first acknowledge that it is changing.

This is the discussion some people want to read in their newspapers: what we retain, what we change, what safeguards we have and how much room we retain to make our own decisions.

For some, sovereignty seems to have practical value this year. It is expressed through our ability to decide the rules by which we organise our country. That is why I am concerned by the casual way in which surrendering it is sometimes discussed. Demanding explanations about the role of European case law is a basic democratic requirement.

The same standard must apply to the economy. Andorran businesses deserve to know the costs of adaptation, the timelines and the conditions under which they will compete. Opening up the economy may offer opportunities, but the benefits will not necessarily be distributed evenly. A small local business does not have the same resources as a large international operator.

And Andorra Telecom deserves a debate of its own: what impact will the changes have on its business, on the revenue it contributes to the country and on the service citizens receive? These questions require figures and scenarios that can be scrutinised. The word “opportunity” is not a sufficient answer.

Nor am I reassured by the fact that taxation falls outside the agreement’s scope, as the government points out. Acknowledging that fact is necessary. However, my political concern goes further: how effectively will Andorra be able to defend its model against future pressure from its counterparts? Possible future pressure is not a tax obligation already written into the agreement, but it is legitimate to ask how we might respond to it.

My disagreement also concerns Europe’s political direction. I am worried about migration priorities, the costs of certain environmental policies and Europe’s response to military escalation. I do not consider every decision taken in Brussels to be good simply because it is European. Citizens’ interests deserve consideration in every decision.

But the central question remains an Andorran one: what kind of country do we want to build?

I worry about a future in which a very wealthy minority can live comfortably, a foreign working class sustains much of the economy in precarious conditions, and families wanting to put down roots find increasingly little room to do so. This risk deserves serious discussion, whether we support the agreement or oppose it.

Workers who come here deserve decent wages and housing. Their vulnerability should prompt employers and institutions to take responsibility. A model that needs workers but does not allow them to live with dignity has a problem that no advertising campaign can solve.

And we must be able to offer Andorrans more than easier ways to leave. Being able to study, work or live abroad is positive. Being able to stay in Andorra, raise a family and build a life here should also be a priority.

That is why I consider it so serious when media debate becomes a competition to declare winners and losers. A front page does not answer questions about immigration, housing, competition or sovereignty. Journalism’s job is to put those questions on the table and persist until answers are provided.

Diari d’Andorra has every right to support a yes vote. I have every right to question its editorial judgement and to consider its coverage a contribution to reinforcing the narrative of those in power. Readers, in turn, have the right to distinguish clearly between reporting, interpretation and editorial positions.

They also have the right to disagree. Someone critical of the agreement should not have to constantly justify their intelligence, good faith or commitment to the country. Supporters of a yes vote must persuade them with arguments. And those of us who support a no vote must accept the same standard.

No front page can replace those answers. The shame begins when a newspaper stops demanding them because it has already decided what the conclusion must be.