[ad_1]
"We will vote against." That's the determination that opposition MPs pbaded Monday on the no-confidence motion that Chilean caucus leaders will ask for Tuesday. This, following the letter sent by the company last week to President Sebastián Piñera, criticizing the president's call for parliamentarians to "get down to business".
At a press conference, lawmakers from DC, PS, PPD, PR, PC, PRO and Frente Amplio ensured that they would reject the official offensive.
"We will reject this request if it is voted on Wednesday," said DC caucus leader Matías Walker. . This Monday, in this party rejected that some of its deputies will vote in favor of censorship, although from Chile Vamos commented that they were making efforts to obtain the support of this community.
In the middle of this scenario, in addition, several members of Frente Amplio, the PS and the PPD also came to support the President of the House, Maya Fernández (PS), who was one of the main promoters of the letter against the president
. The member herself has addressed the issue by defending the letter and saying that "it was a decision we made at the table". In Radio Universo, the legislator commented that "we have looked at the articles of the regulation, and we could send a letter."
For its part, Chile We addressed the issue in the expanded political committee of La Moneda, nomination in which they ratified to the ministers who will promote the motion of censure during this day in the House.
The arguments are based on the fact that the Speaker of the House has not complied with the regulations, because, according to the ruling party, he has taken on behalf of the society, which affects "l & # 39; 39, democratic institutionalism "with which the council should act.
"There is no problem in the fact that Maya Fernández, in her role of opposition, criticizes, but she can not do so in her capacity as president of the company," insisted UDI block leader Javier Macaya
Chilean Vamos parliamentarians are waiting for censorship to be voted on Wednesday, with 20 minutes to present the arguments for and against. in power will divide the corresponding ten minutes between the three.
[ad_2]
Source link
