Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 4:18:51 GMT -5
Llamazares The barrage of disqualifications from media editorials, opinion leaders and experts against the parliamentary parties that signed the agreement, first accusing them of exchanging favors or more colloquially of exchanging stickers and the next day, once the agreement and its candidates, describing the groups and deputies who finally voted for it as authors of a scandal, a mockery, infamy and of taking a stab at the Constitutional Court, questioning by extension the proposals for renewal of the rest of the bodies constitutional issues, all of this due to the more than debatable profile of one of the PP candidates to the Constitutional Court, is not only absolutely disproportionate and unfair, but also shows that the ill-fated populism today far transcends the new parties and the social networks of its beginnings, also affecting the media. Disproportionate, because before the components of the constitutional bodies were not as excellent nor are they now as catastrophic as is said, and unfair, because the issue discussed especially affects the PP as one of the proposing parties and one of the four members elected to form part of the Constitutional Court, also at the proposal of the PP.
A political agreement for the renewal of constitutional bodies, which like all pacts is unsatisfactory for the signatories and which logically can be critically evaluated, both for the way it was negotiated and for the agreed substance, in terms of the proposed candidates, but which It doesn't seem like enough material for a scandal of the magnitude we are experiencing. Above all, when it is a partial renovation that aims to address a situation of a years-long blockade, which we all agree has caused profound deterioration and an institutional crisis, and which, among others, has been repeatedly denounced by the media. communication and by the affected Australia Phone Number institutions themselves. All of this has meant an enormous deterioration in the prestige of the institutions among citizens as well as of Spanish democracy in Europe, as a consequence of the transfer of political confrontation, and which has also polarized its traditional dynamics of internal functioning, to the point of ending in practice with the culture of transaction and consensus in its opinions and sentences, adopted with changes of speakers and presentations and resolved by pyrrhic majorities, of which the latest rulings of unconstitutionality on the pandemic are a more than significant example. It is the PP that must explain why it kept Enrique Arnaldo when the irregularities, not.
Crimes, were so evident In this sense, both of us have been aware that lifting the veto was a democratic imperative, since the regular functioning of the institutions was the basis of any regeneration program. Something that could not have been achieved by replacing the blockade carried out by the PP with the crossed vetoes of its candidates, for many reasons that today exist to question a specific candidate like Mr. Arnaldo, proposed by the PP. In short, the shortcomings of a proposal lie above all in the stubbornness of the proposing party to maintain the proposal. It is the PP that must explain why it maintained it when the irregularities, not crimes, were so evident. Above all because cases of manifest public-private and ethical incompatibilities of all kinds are not something unprecedented in the PP's institutional proposals. What is striking is that they are now a source of scandal for some and for others an opportunity for an exercise in hypocrisy. Criticisms of the form, regarding the so-called exchange of stickers of like-minded candidates between political forces, do not make much sense either, especially with regard to the agreed partial renewal and in particular with respect to a body with a negative legislator character. such as the Constitutional Court, in which its members, in addition to their necessary technical qualifications, must be consistent with the political pluralism of Spanish society expressed at the polls.
A political agreement for the renewal of constitutional bodies, which like all pacts is unsatisfactory for the signatories and which logically can be critically evaluated, both for the way it was negotiated and for the agreed substance, in terms of the proposed candidates, but which It doesn't seem like enough material for a scandal of the magnitude we are experiencing. Above all, when it is a partial renovation that aims to address a situation of a years-long blockade, which we all agree has caused profound deterioration and an institutional crisis, and which, among others, has been repeatedly denounced by the media. communication and by the affected Australia Phone Number institutions themselves. All of this has meant an enormous deterioration in the prestige of the institutions among citizens as well as of Spanish democracy in Europe, as a consequence of the transfer of political confrontation, and which has also polarized its traditional dynamics of internal functioning, to the point of ending in practice with the culture of transaction and consensus in its opinions and sentences, adopted with changes of speakers and presentations and resolved by pyrrhic majorities, of which the latest rulings of unconstitutionality on the pandemic are a more than significant example. It is the PP that must explain why it kept Enrique Arnaldo when the irregularities, not.
Crimes, were so evident In this sense, both of us have been aware that lifting the veto was a democratic imperative, since the regular functioning of the institutions was the basis of any regeneration program. Something that could not have been achieved by replacing the blockade carried out by the PP with the crossed vetoes of its candidates, for many reasons that today exist to question a specific candidate like Mr. Arnaldo, proposed by the PP. In short, the shortcomings of a proposal lie above all in the stubbornness of the proposing party to maintain the proposal. It is the PP that must explain why it maintained it when the irregularities, not crimes, were so evident. Above all because cases of manifest public-private and ethical incompatibilities of all kinds are not something unprecedented in the PP's institutional proposals. What is striking is that they are now a source of scandal for some and for others an opportunity for an exercise in hypocrisy. Criticisms of the form, regarding the so-called exchange of stickers of like-minded candidates between political forces, do not make much sense either, especially with regard to the agreed partial renewal and in particular with respect to a body with a negative legislator character. such as the Constitutional Court, in which its members, in addition to their necessary technical qualifications, must be consistent with the political pluralism of Spanish society expressed at the polls.