The PP accuses Armengol of annulling the Junts vote so as not to anger them in the middle of the negotiation
Together at the core of Spanish politics, with all the focus of attention, even if it concerns the error of one of its deputies, Eduard Pujol, in the second vote of the investiture plenary session of Alberto Núñez Feijóo. A ruling that is absolutely inconsequential, because it did not change the result at all, but that has caused a tremendous fight between the PSOE and the PP.
The popular ones believe that the decision of the president of Congress, Francina Armengol, to declare null the vote of Junts, which first said yes, and then tried to rectify the no, creates a “very dangerous precedent”, especially in a legislature in which the blocks are very tight. “This has never been seen in life,” they say.. The PP is not closed to debating a procedure that unifies the criteria in case of doubts in voice votes, but they consider that if Armengol has acted this way this Friday it is because it was a deputy from Carles Puigdemont's party, on whom he depends Sánchez's investiture.
“They do not want to bother Junts”, and that is why, they defend, “they have forced so much”. The popular ones point to the members of the PSOE in the Table, they have called them from the socialist bench and the Junts spokesperson, Míriam Nogueras, has also intervened by phone from her seat. The vote has been annulled, by Armengol's decision, they emphasize, despite the fact that the fourth secretary, Carmen Navarro, of the PP, has attested that Pujol had said yes. “It cannot be changed later,” they point out..
A possible resource
The popular party is contemplating an appeal against Francina Armengol's decision to annul Pujol's vote, which could even lead to “judicialization”. The first step is the request to the Board to reconsider the decision at the meeting scheduled for next Tuesday, October 3. “There is an absolute lack of judgment,” point out PP sources in the Table who accuse the majority of PSOE and Sumar of acting in favor of one party.. And they give the example of what happened last Wednesday in the first vote, when a socialist deputy was able to correct his vote after making a mistake in the first instance..
The main difference between what happened 48 hours apart is that the secretary of the Board who read the names of the deputies on Wednesday was Isaura Leal, from the PSOE.. It is true that he was wrong when citing the surname of Herminio Rufino Sancho and that is the argument that the Teruel politician himself offered to explain why he was able to correct his position.. Carmen Navarro, of the PP, has chosen to stay with Eduard Pujol's first statement, in favor of Alberto Núñez Feijóo. “There cannot be two different measuring sticks; on Tuesday a no was given, it cannot be that it is null now,” popular sources in the Roundtable complain..
In the background is what happened with the popular Alberto Casero, who made a mistake when voting to approve the labor reform and allowed it to go ahead.. The Extremaduran deputy made a mistake in the telematic vote, which requires him to speak twice to avoid errors, but it was not possible. Sick, he went to Congress to try to solve it, but it was not possible. “The vote is irrevocable,” they now defend in the PP, while denouncing “very serious precedents” for this decision by Francina Armengol.
From the Presidency of Congress they argue that the problem and the annulment of the vote are a response to the disparity between the vote expressed by Pujol when corrected and what was collected by the fourth secretary of the Table. The regulations do not contemplate this situation, so it is the head of the Chamber who must decide how to resolve the conflict.. And his position has angered the PP, who have relieved the lawyers who advise the governing body of Congress of responsibility and assure that the decision was Armengol's alone.. They even claim that the former Balearic president initially opted to count Pujol's vote in favor of Feijóo, since it was irrelevant to the final result..
However, sources from the Congress Board explain that all votes, in plenary or remotely, have a correction mechanism.. In the chamber the system gives you a few seconds to rectify and when you are outside Congress a later confirmation is allowed. But that does not happen when it comes to an oral vote.. The possibility of changing the direction of the vote in the other two formulas is based on admitting that Pujol's vote has been annulled, who first said yes and then it seemed, while the vote was still in progress, that he said no..