You are currently viewing A competition to define who is more far-right

The sectors of the extreme right continue to play the game of Seven Differences with Together for Change, this time with the vote on the IMF agreement. Deputy Jose Luis Wait –-who voted against– He wanted to take advantage of the result, and crossed it to María Eugenia Vidal for her positive vote. Between her and Martín Tetaz they reminded her that “there is nothing less liberal than the default.” It was another crossing trying to dispute a very anti-Peronist electoral segment. Interestingly, the leader who joined Together for Change to fight Espert at the polls, Ricardo López Murphy, was found voting against despite all the PRO’s attempts to convince him that he should be organic to the interblock.

It is not the first time that Espert has sought to profit from a crossover with figures from Together for Change to point out that their space is the “true” opposition. Not so long ago, he had another fight on Twitter with Miguel Angel Pichetto. In that case –as in this one– the underlying objective is a dispute for the same electorate between Together for Change and Avanza Libertad, where the latter seek to show themselves as anti-system and anti-Peronists at all costs, as opposed to Together for Change.

On that occasion, Espert had hung on a statement from Pichetto about Joseph Stiglitz to start a fight. In this case, he used the same resource, but with Vidal. He jumped on a statement by the former governor of Buenos Aires in which she repeated that the agreement with the IMF was “a time bomb” and asked her: “What did they vote for then?”

Vidal wasted no time in replying: “We did not vote on the agreement nor would we vote for it under current conditions. We vote for the credit that avoids default, because we already know its even more catastrophic effects. There is nothing less liberal than voting in favor of taking the country to default and not honoring the debts”.

Espert did not stop there and returned to the fray: “There is no IMF loan WITHOUT a program with the IMF. They are two sides of the same coin. Voting for the loan was voting for the program that was already official and public from 3-3. They knew him.” Curiously, in this he coincided with what Economy Minister Martín Guzmán had argued last week. Then Espert continued to attack Vidal: “Be ashamed and stand up for him. Do not deny that you voted for that program (against the people) with the IMF”.

Vidal continued on the counterattack: “As you well know, tax increases have to go through Congress. When they come, our block is not going to vote for them and it is going to put a brake on the government. But I insist: We are not going to be accomplices as La Cámpora and the Left want to lead the country to default.

Espert maintained that Together for Change has already endorsed, in truth, the tax increases: “The program signed with the IMF says that they are going to adjust fiscal valuations and enables bills to raise taxes because in the program the 0 deficit is only with a rise from income. It is false that if it was not the approved program we would default. You paid with reservations and continued negotiating”. “The net reserves are not enough to pay, Do you propose that it be paid with the dollars of the savers who are embedded in the BCRA? Great Liberal Proposallike going into default ”, Vidal retorted.

At that point, another of the economists that Together for Change added to fight for the votes of Javier Milei and Espert intervened: Martin Tetaz. “They have 2,300 million reserves left and if we lowered the public credit operation, it could not be dealt with again in the year (art 81 CN). The best vote was against the default. Can we now better deal with Kirchnerism instead of fighting between opponents? It’s an idea”he told her, ironically. But Espert was not daunted and got rid of accounts about the amount of reserves, to later warn: “You paid, you rejected the agreement and you signed another. As it was a different bill, you could deal with it in 2022. Are you opponents?” and he crowned the message with an emoji of laughter to tears.

“This is wrong. If you lower the public credit operation, which is the only thing that asks you to approve Law 27612, you cannot present the public credit operation + a program in the same year. Article 81 of the Constitution prevents you from doing so Until here I came. Hug “, Tetaz closed the discussion. But Espert continued to answer him: “I’ll get to this point.” In other words, you’re still wrong legally and in the most important thing: once again Cambiemos shows that it is much more similar to Kirchnerism than what they cackle“. It was the message that he wanted to install and for what he started, once again a discussion on Twitter. As in the case of Pichetto, both leaders of the PRO entered his game.

Source

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more

Then24

The News 24 is the place where you get news about the World. we cover almost every topic so that you don’t need to find other sites.

Leave a Reply