[ad_1]
“Attacks” between the PC and the DC, division in the parties and the withdrawal of the only socialist firm from the initiative. These were some of the effects that the constitutional reform presented by the deputy had within the opposition Camila Vallejo (PC), so that the members of the constitutional convention are the ones who define the quorum for approval of the matters that are reflected in the new Constitution.
In the center-left they did not miss the fact that this initiative -which also had the signatures of parliamentarians from the Broad Front, the PS, the PPD, the Social Green Regionalist Federation and independents- proposed to modify one of the essential points of the agreement of 15 of November: that the norms reviewed by the constituent body had to be approved by 2/3 of its members.
In that sense, one day after the “first rounds” that were generated between the parliamentarians and leaders of the DC and the PC – which included accusations of “chavistas” by Fuad Chahin or of “authoritarians” by deputy Carmen Hertz (PC) – this morning the conflicts continued and spread to the rest of the center-left, even among the signatories of the initiative.
In fact, in the midst of the questions, the socialist deputy, Maya fernandez, withdrew his signature of the reform. “We deeply regret it, but she will have her own reasons and we understand perhaps the internal pressures she may have had,” Vallejo said in this regard.
Those who knew the reasons of the PS parliamentarian assure that, given the reaction that the entry of the text provoked in the rest of the center-left, the deputy would have transmitted that the initiative would be “counterproductive” to the efforts for unity that she herself has promoted.
However, from the PS they affirmed that they had not “pressured” Fernández, despite the criticism that the reform provoked within that community. “They did not sign the agreement of November 15, therefore, the PC has the right to present whatever it wants, what I believe is that those of us who signed the agreement have to abide by it and the heart of the project is the a blank sheet and 2/3 and that cannot be set aside, ”said the senator José Miguel Insulza.
In the PPD, meanwhile, although the deputy Cristina Girardi He reiterated his support for Vallejo’s project, from that community they also closed the door to the initiative. In fact, the head of the deputies, Raul Soto, assured that it would be “risky to change the rules of the game”, while the former president of the Senate, Jaime QuintanaHe maintained that “the PC is flatly mistaken if it believes that Chile needs a constitution of revenge, that would be 40 more years of divisions. The constitutional convention is the least suitable place to pass the backhoe and the 2/3 are the guarantee of a convening text “.
However, in that community, the president of the Senate affirmed that the initiative was “legitimate.” “If the issue is controversial, we will see it in the debate that we will have in Parliament.”
At the same time, Deputy Vallejo repeatedly came out to defend herself in Congress and on social media. “It is relevant that those who do not like this project can give their arguments in the legislative democratic debate, but not a priori generate ghosts or unfounded criticism of what should be debated,” he said.
For its part, the initiative also caused division within the Frente Amplio. From that conglomerate, only the deputy Camila Rojas (Common) He backed the project with his signature, but in the rest of the communities, such as the RD and the Liberal Party, they harshly criticized the idea. “I do not agree with the initiative, I believe that two thirds are good for the convention (…) I defend them, it was not only the result of a negotiation, the agreements must be respected and I will honor my word,” he said today Pablo Vidal (RD).
From that party, however, they assured that the project “would not have a floor” and that it would be “difficult” to support it. Despite this, in other sectors of the conglomerate, such as Social Convergence – a community that did not institutionally support the agreement on November 15 – a debate was opened about it.
From the party founded by the only signer in a personal capacity of the historic pact, Gabriel Boric, they maintained that they saw “with good eyes democratizing” the convention, but that they would have doubts about whether it would be up to Congress or the same body to set its regulations.
