Hear
The national senator of the Radical Civic Union (UCR) Martin Lousteau highlighted some virtues of the president of the Senate, Victoria Villarrueland compared her to the former president Christina Kirchner. The legislator assured that there is a “very different” dynamic compared to the previous administration and that the vice president usually remains firm in her institutional convictions.
Interviewed on the portal Zenithal Regarding coexistence in the Senate during the treatment and voting of the Base Law, Lousteau explained that conversations about the changes that are intended to be made in the official bills are common. He maintained that during Alberto Fernández’s government he had to talk with the ruling party in the same way he does now, but he remarked: “The president was Cristina. I never got to talk to her; she had to talk to the rest of the people around her to try to sort out”.
“I did not know the office of the president of the Senate”, revealed Lousteau, implying that it was never received. He clarified that today “there is a very different dynamic.” “If I write to Victoria today about a topic to discuss, she tells me ‘come today or tomorrow’ and that’s how I found out about the office,” said the head of the UCR and considered that “it is an important change.”
In that sense, the former Minister of Economy of the Nation highlighted the virtues that he finds in Villarruel, but that he did not see in the former vice president. “Inclusive, In the face of pressure from her own Government, she sticks to things that are institutional and that seem important to her.. It seems to me that she has a different vision than the libertarian one. She is a nationalist, industrialist…she I disagree with many of those ideas. But ideas are not like a virus; If you don’t like it, it won’t rub off on you. She is open and has good relationships with all blocks”.
As reported THE NATIONlast Tuesday, one day before the start of the marathon session of the Bases Law, Lousteau met with Villarruel in the office of the president of the Senate. There, he outlined the final changes he was going to incorporate into his own ruling. For those hours, It was suspected that the radical leader was not going to provide a quorum in the recent meeting.. “That’s a novel,” he said about it. Finally she did appear, and during the session there were some back and forth with the head of the Upper House, although always in a respectful tone.
On the other hand, in the same interview, Lousteau spoke about those senators who did not want to provide a quorum and who in the particular vote got up from their seats. Without naming names, he took aim at the only two legislators who were not present at the time: Natalia Gadano and Jose Carambia of Santa Cruz.
“What happens if there is no quorum? I don’t want to give names, but if you don’t give a quorum, those who negotiated to get up, leave later, allow the delegated powers to pass, for the RIGI to pass, those who did not vote, who proposed not giving a quorum, They negotiate for another week and take things“, critical. “Then in the next week, we are all sitting down, only the Government handed out more things.”
The economist assured that there was no way the law could have been dropped, but that it could have been postponed if the senators who did not have a quorum were in the majority. For its part, He noted that he was always willing to reach the majority to meet and that at the same time he did a “great job” with his team to formulate an alternative opinion.
“I was going to debate, I’m going to debate things, and say ‘this is wrong, this is right.’. Not giving a quorum was playing into the hands of that caste that goes and negotiates three more things. I’m not here for that, much less playing into their game,” he argued.
Finally he referred to his work in the Senate. He postulated that when the law seems acceptable to him, he votes for it, if it has modifications granted, he can vote for it, but he stressed that if he is not convinced, he definitely votes against it. “The person I would be most embarrassed to look in the eyes if she voted for something I don’t believe in is my wife, Carla. [Peterson]”, he stated.
THE NATION
