Since Monday, the PP has described its support for the reform of commuting sentences abroad as a “general error”. Borja Sémper, the party’s spokesperson, accused the government of “deception”, arguing that the emergency procedure was being used to introduce changes without it realizing it. The PP has defended these days that it did not notice the amendment that repealed its own 2014 provision.
But there are flaws in his story. The same Monday, Ana Vázquez responded in an interview with Cuatro that she was aware of Sumar’s amendment, but that “community law prevails over national law” and that it was a “transposition of a directive”. “We have read the amendment,” he said literally in his speech.
“Community law prevails over national law (…) We voted in favor of a European provision. But I tell you one thing: even if there hasn’t been a vote, it is being carried out. The terrorists’ lawyers all appeal and win (…) The transposition had to be done, and the lawyers appealed (…) and it is mandated by the European system, we are not mandated by it. And they won every sentence.
The law was adopted by the government urgently, removing certain consultative reports but authorizing parliamentary amendments. During the process, Sumar introduced an amendment that repealed the additional provision from 2014. Neither the PP nor Vox presented an amendment and both parties voted in favor of the text both in the Commission of Interior than in plenary session, which unanimously approved the rule. As reported by El País this Friday, other deputies also said privately that they had read what was voted on and that it was decided to support the law as a whole because it applied community regulations, as Vázquez argued.
In the interview, the MP went so far as to assure that “the problem” is the Penal Code “which provides for a maximum sentence of 30 years in this country”, and added: “Imagine if I voted no to the total transposition ! in reference to the fact that they had acted against European law. Furthermore, he said that the PP voted against the amendment that repealed the additional provision, but then voted in favor of the entire ruling and the law because it did not There was no other choice than to do so since it involved the transposition of a directive. El País, for its part, points out that the register of Congress sessions does not record the vote on this amendment, but present sources explain that in reality it was not voted on but that consent was expressed orally. According to this newspaper, the PP then declared that it would support its own amendments. Later, when the rule reached the Justice Commission, that’s when the party voted in favor of the package.
