Patricia Sanchez: Guadalupe Laurie’s situation is insurmountable | approach | News
National Assembly member Patricia Sanchez, part of the group of lawmakers calling themselves rebels from the Pachacotic caucus, considers the status of the assembly’s president, Guadalupe Laurie, to be insurmountable, and her actions ensure that votes in plenary are favorable to government policy.
The legislator assures that this group of Council members sets the new line on important issues and that the Union for Hope (UNES) rally coincides in the voting.
What happened to Pachakotik, why was the seat broken or split?
I would say that this is not quite a break, because the twenty-five assembly members who make up the party bloc continue to recognize ourselves as Pachakoteks, and some invoke the issue of diversity more and allow for difference that does not align with the ideological line of the movement. And those who call ourselves the rebels have ideological and political consistency.
But what happened, deputy?
As of October 2021, we started to have very critical issues within the association, since we passed the ICSID and Convemar version and then rolled out the Pandora papers version, but that was blocked.
Who prevented him?
This was blocked by the president herself, Guadalupe Laurie. Then Bandura came to the Safeguards Committee where, in just one month, we had a report allowing citizens to be held accountable for what was happening on this issue that directly concerned the President of the Republic.
What led to the exacerbation of the Pachakotik crisis?
The culmination of the crisis was reflected in the urgent economic law, that is, tax reform, in which Pachakotik proposed not to strike the popular classes, but the voting was uneven. There is a government plan which is supported, by the National Assembly, by an unconditional wing of the proposals.
Who leads this wing?
Specifically, in these last votes, it was the President of the Assembly who had a direct relationship with the President of the Republic; After that, he ensures that these votes are in favor of government policy.
Since December, have you been unaware of the bench coordination and have you walked away from Guadalupe Lowry?
We are aware of the leadership of Rafael Lucero, and Ms. Guadalupe Laurie within the partisan group is another of the 25 members.
If you recognize Rafael Lucero as captain on the bench, the problem is Guadalupe Llori?
Guadalupe Lurie does not respond to the movement’s ideological and political line.
But she is the head of a full function of the state and not the head of the Pashakotik.
Exactly, but if the vote is directed by the presidency, it is no longer the natural expression of political forces, but rather a specific direction towards where you want to lead.
Do you want to lead the Council’s decisions in favor of the government?
This is the problem and this is what we do not accept.
How many of you are called rebels?
For now, we are eight Pachakotik comrades who will not follow Lowry’s political line. Without our votes, there is no such majority.
Why don’t they attend the calls of Marlon Santi’s movement leader?
We don’t attend the caucus because in those meetings they only direct how to vote. There’s a call for Marlon Santi for March 7th and we’re going.
Are you closer to Correismo than to Pachakutik himself?
I would say that the UNES coincides with the voting of the eight Pashakotik rebels, because we are putting the new streak on issues like Pandora and tax reform.
Are they accusing you of playing Correismo?
Not at all, Correismo feels recognized, which is why it votes that way.
So, did you draw the line to suggest an appraisal of Guadalupe Lowry?
That’s right, we proposed after the tax reform was carried out through the Ministry of Law, because Mrs. Guadalupe Laurie quickly did all the paperwork to send the law to the official registry. The next day, we submitted the cancellation and shared the CAL when he had to qualify the project.
In this case, has Guadalupe Lowry responded to government pressure?
Yes, because canceled projects kept them saved and we asked for changes to be made in the order of the day. We understand that the CAL should be investigated, at least, which is why we want to form a committee.
In this intention there is no turning back?
That’s right, no turning back, the President of the National Assembly created those conditions to demand an assessment of CAL conduct review. The problem is that the president has confused the role of the council, which is the counterforce to the executive and not the neighboring department that has to liquidate all the laws.
What can save Guadalupe Lori from class?
Frankly, I do not think that Mrs. Guadalupe Laurie can be saved, because faults have been committed and there is evidence. This cannot be beat. (me)