“The King can do nothing.” God…

An increasing number of people are outraged that the Head of State—the guarantor of unity, Spain’s highest representative, the King—has failed to show up in Ceuta. He did not go there to support our compatriots—the people of Ceuta, who are not second-class citizens—or, above all, to put his foot down and make it clear that this is Spanish territory. He didn't have the guts to show his face in either Ceuta or Melilla. Yet, those who defend the monarchy—Felipe VI’s staunchest supporters—always trot out the same mantra: "The Constitution leaves the King hardly any room for maneuver." Those who say this are doing him a disservice. Lately, the monarch's defenders have been circulating theories as stupid as the idea that the far-left and far-right are forming a pincer movement to bring down the monarchy—ignoring the fact that there are simply people dissatisfied with his inaction—while the other common refrain is that critics are just ignorant people who haven't read the Constitution. Look, that arrogance is uncalled for; we all know how to read, and many of us have carefully studied the Constitution. While we love to harp on about the requirement for government countersignature, we perhaps overlook Article 56, which assigns the Head of State—the King—the role of guarantor who arbitrates and moderates State institutions and ensures territorial unity. People also forget that the Constitution is very clear regarding the monarch's role: he must maintain impeccable political neutrality—a neutrality he fails to uphold when leaning toward a certain side, as we shall see in this post. But let’s address the mantra that "he can't do anything" or "he needs the government's countersignature for everything." What does that actually mean? That he cannot visit Ceuta without Pedro Sánchez's permission? That he cannot address the nation during a grave crisis without Pedro Sánchez's permission? That he cannot deliver a Christmas speech without Pedro Sánchez having read it beforehand? So, who is the King of Spain? Pedro Sánchez? Felipe VI is merely his mailman, his bellboy, or a legal clerk who simply delivers a complaint to the courthouse—a complaint drafted by a lawyer in his own office. And if he cannot do anything—absolutely nothing—without Pedro Sánchez’s authorization, then what do we need a Head of State for? What for? We might as well do what many countries do, where the Head of State and the Head of Government are the same political figure; that way, we would save on the cost of the royal palace and the receptions at Marivent—featuring menus the soldiers stationed in Ceuta would envy, since they certainly don’t serve cheap luncheon meat at those Marivent receptions in Palma de Mallorca. We would save on the international schools for the Infantas and the Princess, and on the little burgundy-and-Moroccan-flag-colored outfits the "Red Queen" sports, as well as her cosmetic surgeries; we would save a lot of money and, above all, a great deal of embarrassment.

As for the claim that the King can do nothing—he *can* do things. He could, for instance, refrain from showing such complicity with a man who wants to steer Spain toward autarky. Can anyone tell me which article of the Constitution—or what form of countersignature—is required for the King to buddy up with this scoundrel so openly and publicly? Can anyone explain which article of the Constitution mandates a countersignature for the Royal Household’s choice of attire? After all, we are talking about the Queen Emeritus appearing at a reception—in plain view of everyone—wearing a *kaftan* (a traditional Moroccan garment) just days after Morocco had invaded Ceuta. And—to take it a step further—consider when the "Red Queen" appeared at a leftist gathering, looking very enthusiastic to greet a certain individual, while wearing a dress the exact color of the Moroccan flag. But let’s move past political neutrality and look at matters of greater substance. We have discussed Article 56, which mandates that the King act as arbiter and guarantor of the functioning of state institutions. Are these institutions functioning correctly when the Attorney General has a criminal conviction? When the top two officials of the Civil Guard are under formal investigation? When there are corruption scandals surrounding the Prime Minister and state institutions are in jeopardy? Where is the application of Article 56, which designates the King as the guarantor and arbiter of state institutions? The monarch's defenders—who constantly insist that "he can't do anything"—say nothing about Article 56, which tasks him with arbitrating and guaranteeing the proper functioning of those institutions.

And where is the political neutrality required by the Constitution? We have to ask Sánchez for permission, yet here is someone openly displaying the symbol of globalism—for the 2030 Agenda is a political stance championed by most left-wing parties; it is so distinctly political that, during the previous legislative term or prior to the cabinet reshuffle, there was even a Secretary of State for the 2030 Agenda. It is a globalist agenda. Many segments of the population and various political factions oppose the 2030 Agenda, yet this gentleman sports a political pin that endorses it—a stance that divides political sectors within our society.