Sanchez with reservations receives the support of the majority for the plan against the war and receives unanimous criticism of the Sahara.

History is full of great speeches for war. Epics. Solemn. Definitive. Motivators. The fortune teller. There is Frederick the Great before joining the battle with the Prussian troops. Is the one that Isabel I appealed to the soldiers she kept in Tilbury to repel the invincible armada sent by Philip II to overthrow her from the throne. There are those who sewed Eisenhower and JF Kennedy in the middle of the Cold War, just three days apart. And here is Churchill’s quintessential Haranga after the fall of Chamberlain, during World War II, and with the Netherlands, which fell under the Nazi yoke.

Pedro Sanchez is not a man of excellent speeches, and those he presented to Parliament this Wednesday to explain a plan for a national response to the war in Ukraine may not be said to have been imposed, but it is right, institutional, solemn, serious and full of realism. . “Our lives and our economy will feel the effects of the war” and “The security and well-being of our country are in danger if we do not act firmly” were the phrases in the chamber in which, at least this time, there was no order, no wandering, no delay. Something that is appreciated from the current situation and comes from the noise and expediency policies that we have come from since the day the legislature was established.

The Prime Minister ascended the podium at the same time as the INE data corresponding to the March CPI preliminary figure were released. Again a historic figure and a 9.8% rise in prices, the highest since 1985. The poor rate, which he blamed largely on energy and raw food prices, are two elements directly linked to the war from Russia.

Sanchez did not seek to defuse the situation, but repeatedly called for “political unity” and “sectarianism” to be postponed in support of government measures to alleviate the effects of the war. “For the good of Spain and Europe. It does not seem to me that the demand for support and unity in the midst of a pandemic and war in Europe is superfluous. “Let us do it this time,” he insisted, reiterating that the new political order posed a threat of global destabilization, which could lead to a “worst-case scenario” in Europe that could be a “long post-war period.”

“What else needs to happen for us to respond together?” Once again, the call of all political forces to “wisdom, ability and common sense”, “to properly understand the moment in which we live.” The claim he combined with the strengthening of “European patriotism” in the face of “such colossal” challenges as the Russian invasion.

Not for them. He preached in the wilderness with PP and Vox. This government has not had a moment of calm nor the best scenario since arriving in La Monclo. Because of the spread of the pandemic, because of the volcanic eruption, because of the unstable majority, because of the fierce opposition, because of the difficult cohabitation between the partners, because of the price of electricity, because of the inflation spiral, because of the war in the heart of Europe.

With Cassado or Feio, it seems the right-wingers are not going to make a truce with him, according to an intervention that not only called Sanchez’s plan’s “insufficient” but also reduced its urgency. The so-called “Iberian exception” reached by the President in the Council of Europe to exempt gas prices from electricity bills. “The only exception in Spain is his government,” he confirmed, stressing that his “disintegration as ruler is the fall of the country and the collapse of the Spaniards.” For PP the only problem for Spain and the Spaniards is called Sanchez.

PP, which wears off after Abaskal

I should add a little more about the inflammatory, disorderly intervention, without a single contribution, which was in the same terms as Santiago Abascal later sang. The government’s dissatisfaction with the popularity goes beyond its harmony with the far right, because for those who took part in the round of consultations with parliamentary groups before drafting a resolution on anti-crisis measures, the noise is that PP. Despite his outraged speech and the demand for a general tax cut, La Moncloa did not send any proposals. And this despite the fact that Gamara proudly complained during the debate that the anti-crisis decree was not negotiated, but imposed a kind of “this is lentils, if you want, take it and if you do not go. Them. ”

In addition to the village, Vox’s shadow continues the long-running PP that is dragging its feet, as well as the opposition strategy with its main bloc rival, whose leader was lost in the rostrum with grandiose phrases about Spanish patience, “traps” and “traps”. “Ideological fanaticism” of the executive branch and “ideological obsessions” of the Prime Minister.

Overall, this time it does not seem that when the vote in 30 days to pass a resolution on anti-inflationary measures will come as a shock, as in the case of labor reform. Sanchez left Parliament with a large guaranteed majority, which will be, first and foremost, one of the groups that made his investment possible. None of them specified the meaning of their vote, but they said that it would be “difficult” for them to vote against the decree. With these words, Aitor Esteban (PNV) and similar terms Gabriel Rufian (ERC) affirmed these measures beyond the conjunctural and unstructured nature of the measures and beyond the possibility of elaborating the text as a bill. Improvements. A scenario they rule out in La Moncloa with the following arguments: “Neither this is a competition of ideas, nor does it make sense to postpone the debate given the time horizon of measures.”

A much worse situation followed the chief executive’s unanimous response to the change in the historic position on the Sahara. There he found neither support nor understanding from the right, nor from investment and government partners. To the right and left, the criticism was unanimous about the decision, which Sanchez, in his first speech, first attributed to the “state issue”, which corresponds to the issue of “our European partners”, and a few minutes later attributed to my decision that “I expressed my full desire to take a step Forward. ”

He later stressed his support for Morocco’s path to autonomy in the latest UN resolutions seeking decisions to be taken by all parties involved and, above all, in letters and public statements by the governments of France, Germany and the EU. However, he avoided mentioning that Donald Trump defended the same line and also kept Joe Biden. For Sanchez, ending Spain’s historic position of 47 years is a ‘window of opportunity’ to become an ‘active rather than a passive actor’ and begin to lead the conflict in a different way.

The popular Kuka Gamara, in fact, devoted much more time to talking about the “one-sided turnaround” he attributed to Sanchez than to the consequences of “severe inflation” by companies and individuals. According to him, the “consensus” on the Sahara was broken, which until now, according to his criteria, the previous six former presidents, who preceded Sanchez. And this time the PP remained not only because of the ERC, PNV, EH Bildu or BNG, but also because of United We Can’s presidency with this breach of ugly historical neutrality. Republican Rufian understood that “there are reasons that cannot be explained,” but he prayed that at least “we would not be taken as idiots.” Everyone agreed in one way or another on the “lack of respect” for the House, the “betrayal” of the Sahara people or the “humiliation” of Morocco leaked in a letter sent by the president to Mohammed VI.

“Friends of Drugs” by Echenik and Feijo

Pablo Echenik, who a few minutes ago provoked a popular group by saying that Fayo “has drug-trafficking friends”, also did not accept Sanchez’s explanations about the Sahara, which he believes are being followed by former US President Donald Trump and their position. They also “share little and understand Spanish society”, which is more in favor of self-determination. Of course, he explained that his refusal was a loyal critique as a coalition partner, and while several members of his group were demonstrating in front of Congress in support of the Saharan people before the president addressed the plenary session.

In La Moncloa, they argue that a change of position responds to the state’s causes – which have not yet happened – and that political and social unrest is being addressed over time. “I do not underestimate the importance of the decision, but it is worth noting that when the presidents of the government met on this issue, they understood its enormous difficulty and I ask them to appreciate this difficulty as well,” Sanchez asked the others. In vain of the group.Parliamentarians. Some because it’s a human rights issue and moral debt, and others because any question is good for stirring up Sanchez.