Front battle between Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo and the PP. The deputy by Barcelona has turned the file opened by the Popular Group in Congress against it to sanction it with a fine of between 700 and 500 euros for voting blank in the election of the members of the Constitutional Court. And she does it with a writing, who has had access to the world, loaded with strong criticism against the popular direction and in which he concludes that to punish her "would be as much as sanctioning the defense of the principles and the ideological coherence of the Popular Party."
"I will give your kind letter for not received," he says about the remitted letter 10 days ago in which he was informed of the opening of the file and after considering in his writing that he does not apply "no performance" against her.
Álvarez de Toledo has submitted his allegations in a letter sent to the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Group of the PP, Guillermo Mariscal, who was in charge of opening the sanctioning procedure after she confessed in an interview in the world that had skipped the discipline of Group and had voted on white in the secret vote of the congress that approved the appointments agreed by PP, PSOE and united.
The popular deputy states that this file "violates legal procedures, fails to comply with the group's statutes, undermines the autonomy of the deputy, frustrates democratic regeneration and challenges the ideal of the Popular Party." From there, she develops four central arguments to challenge any kind of sanction.
In which it extends is in which it defends that it acted respecting the ideological coherence of the PP. For what they take hand from the Electoral Program of the Party and Declarations of Pablo Married or Teodoro García Aegea in which both underlined the need to provide independence and impartiality to this organ.
"From this accurate reasoning," he says about declarations of García Aegea against the politicization of justice, "comes off, exactly, the meaning of my vote".
"It was not, therefore, my vote on white that contradicted the political line of the party. Which contradicted the political line of the party was the vote in favor", emphasizes Álvarez de Toledo. For her to support this renewal was to "collaborate in the discretestigence of the Constitutional Court" and contribute to the "Institutional Weakening" of Spain and the PP, as well as an "debilitating incongruity".
Another of the arguments that Esgrime is the "dignity" of the deputies and their ability to make decisions. Álvarez de Toledo defends the autonomy of the parliamentarian "consecrated in the Constitution" against the "GrupoCraccia" that only benefit the "domes of the parties".
"When the discipline remains, the deliberation is evaporated. When the autonomy, initiative and personality of the parliamentarian are punished, the dependence, submission and mediocrity proliferate. With an aggravating: if the dome decides everything and dictates everything, if The positions of the direction are the only ones not relevant but known, the deputy stops having any responsibility. It becomes, in the eyes of many citizens, in perfectly dispensable: involuntary protagonist of a sad variant of collectivism, "he says. "To sanction I would be as much as much as eviling the hope of democratic regeneration and a quality parliament," he says.
The other two arguments of Álvarez de Toledo have to do with the transparency of the internal rules of operation of the Parliamentary Group of the PP in Congress and with the fulfillment of the National Statutes of the Party.
As for the first, he attacks the PP for ensuring the rules under the "secrecy", even for the deputies, which in his opinion violates the "legal and constitutional principle of the advertising of the rules".
Regarding the Statutes, it denounces that if the PP alleges the severity of the Álvarez behavior of Toledo in which it was an "important" vote, the Congress Group must have fulfilled its rules and have summoned all Members to "fix the position "In the vote.
As it was not done, it accuses the PP to have a "certainly capricious" interpretation of the Statutes. Thus, he points out that sanctioning her "would be as much as assuming that our statutes are arbitrary application."
For all these reasons, Álvarez de Toledo asks that "it does not apply" by the parliamentary group "no action" against it.Date Of Update: 10 December 2021, 08:21