The People’S Party’S Veto Of Progressive Judges — The Last Obstacle To Judicial Reform
2021-02-22 | by CusiGO
The long poker game between PSOE and PP has come to an end, the renewal of the judiciary has become a reality, and the latest movement may break everything. The people’s party said yesterday that the SPD had agreed to exclude the general judicial committee, but both the SPD and the Paul Iglesias group denied this. The people rejected the names that are close to us, Jos é Ricardo de Prada and Vicky Rosell, the former congressman, who was the decisive judge in the judgment that led to the downfall of Mariano Rajoy. Time is running out. On Thursday, part of the rtve committee voted, first seeking a package deal: television, the judiciary, the constitutional court and the Ombudsman.
At this point, an agreement seems imminent. But now the question is how to sell it. This time, the people’s party has a Damocles sword that it has not suffered before: if it is excluded from the rtve Council’s negotiations, the rtve Council held a partial vote in Congress on Thursday – six out of 12 members are elected from 87 institutions through open competition – it is possible to renew this key institution without competition.
In the first round of voting on Thursday, we need the support of two-thirds of Congress, which means that the people’s party is indispensable. But the next day, 15 days later, an absolute majority and the votes of five groups will be enough. Without the people’s party, the Social Democratic Party and the United Party, this can be achieved.
As a result, Thursday’s vote prompted the entire package – rtve, cgpj, the constitutional court and the Ombudsman – to announce a comprehensive agreement by then. But anything can be a mess at any time, because negotiators admit that the agreement is “nailed” and there are so many variables that negotiations can break down at any time.
There are already a lot of names on the table, despite the insistence of the negotiating sources that they have not closed. As the president of the judiciary, judge pilar Teso has become very powerful, but so has judge Anna Ferrer or judge nkanacion Rocca. For the Ombudsman, angel gabrondo, a socialist MP, is almost certain.
In the context of this very fragile negotiation, the people’s party yesterday chose a deep burden, which seems to temporarily undermine the efforts to reach an agreement, although several sources said that the negotiation is still continuing. Teodoro Garc í a EGEA, the general secretary of the people’s party, is the chief negotiator for the last round of negotiations with Felix bolanios, a person who has faith in Pedro s á nchez. He said yesterday that the PSOE has accepted Pablo Casado’s condition that it refuses to negotiate to restore judicial power.
Both the socialist party and the coalition government departments oppose the second version of the people’s party and point out that Bola NIOS, who is in dialogue with the people’s party, does so on behalf of the whole coalition government, which is also part of the coalition government. The sources added that it was not yet over, so it was too early to draw conclusions on the negotiations.
Garcia Aegean goes further. He not only said that we could “not attend the talks”, which is true, because he has never attended the meeting. In an interview with Kopp, Garcia Aegean touched on the most sensitive key: the church party “will not” and will not “have someone” as the governing body of judges. He added that the PSOE has accepted that.
It’s going to be a very different leap. The United Nations can accept not to participate in the talks. In fact, it does not seem to have much information about how the talks are going on, but it can not accept being excluded from the judiciary because historically, up to the IU, let alone the nationalists, the votes present at the meetings were much less than those of the United Nations and were not within the government. This will be a heavy blow and may undermine the stability of the executive. So we can work together like PSOE and Moncloa to informally ensure that church groups have very close vowels. In principle, it should be two out of 20.
This is the difficulty of the negotiation. In the past few months, we have been able to choose two names for these two positions. Judge Prada was the key to the G ü RTEL case, which triggered a no confidence motion, which led to the overthrow of Rajoy and the curse on the people’s party, as well as Russell, a judge who was a member of the United Nations and is now the government’s representative against gender based violence.
The appearance of either of these two judges will show that the people’s party is lying. We can unite. Yes, he is in the people’s party. But church groups have more choices, which are in line with their sensitivity, and guarantee that in any case, when 20 names are known, you will find that it does exist.
By contrast, the PP will try to convince its toughest sector, the one that violates the agreement, that it has ruled out the clearest joint profile we can offer. “Our members will not vote for anyone who is unfriendly to us,” a people’s party source said in a clear reference to de Prada. The agreement stipulates that all members of the two groups must support each other’s vowels.
It’s no longer about names. All the negotiations in the judiciary have been settled by one maxim: no one is against the name of the competitor. But the people’s party really wants to veto this time.
Jos é Luis Á balos, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party, flatly rejected the practice of the people’s party, saying that after the two-year term of the people’s party, the Catalan election has passed, and the people’s party “can no longer find an excuse.”. “That’s why I believe they will reconsider and reach an agreement without blackmail or veto,” he said. Give a clear warning to popular people.
Abalos also pointed out that, as agreed within the government, moncroya negotiated with the people’s party on behalf of the entire executive branch, which is what we can unite as one. Meanwhile, Pablo echenique, the group’s parliamentary spokesman, called the mass media version “false news.”. “I don’t know why he lied, but he did,” etchnik said on TV. “It’s either to disrupt the negotiations or because he’s afraid that the vote will call it the ‘cowardly right’,” he said