This Monday, March 7, a new debate was held on the March 27 referendum against 135 articles of the Urgent Consideration Law (LUC).
The debate between senators Mario Bergara (Broad Front) in favor of “Yes” and Gustavo Penadés (National Party) in favor of “No”, was held at the Politeama Theater in Canelones and was organized by the Uruguayan TV Chamber for Lawyers and was aired on Cardinal TV.
The topics raised were “Education”, “Housing”, “Security” and “Financial Freedom”.
Penadés opened the debate and commented that people knew the text of the Law of Urgent Consideration before Luis Lacalle Pou was elected President of the Republic. He then began to go through the “strict commitment of the government program”.
He assured that the Executive aims to “comply with the deepest concept of freedom and it cannot be promoted without a safe, educated and free society.” He noted that more than half of the 476 LUC articles were approved unanimously. He said that the 135 articles questioned are the backbone of the Law.
Bergara stated that the 135 contested articles do not solve urgent problems of the people, harm the majority of the population and are a step backwards, “a return to the past, to recipes that failed decades ago.”
“We do not see innovative ideas that aim to solve problems of education, housing, employment and less when wages and pensions fall, rates, taxes and prices of the family basket increase,” he remarked.
“It is not what was promised to the people, because it was promised to lower fuel prices, but in 2020 when the price of oil fell, fuel did not drop a single peso. It seems that the best way to defend the LUC is to hide it”, he sentenced.
Education
Regarding the articles referring to education, Penadés recognized that in the 15 years of Broad Front governments there have been “improvements in budgetary resources for education, but the worst results have been obtained in terms of education, training, desertion and the future that awaits him for the young people”.
He said that Uruguay is in the three worst places in Latin America in terms of graduation. “The central axis is attention to young people and that is why we want to have the support of teachers. The LUC seeks changes in governance, greater autonomy of the centers to end bureaucratization, and improve teacher training so that it ends in a tertiary career.
The white legislator warned that annulling the articles on education “would be a great setback in the training of young people.” He assured that the LUC “is not designed against teachers, and that the unions have the role of fulfilling that it is the representation of the workers. He stressed that teachers are present in two of the five Councils, and spoke of “educational emergency.”
In his turn, Bergara pointed out that the articles on education “do not solve the problems of education, because the population is harmed and they return to failed recipes.”
“The historic Primary Councils, with more than one hundred years of existence, and Secondary Councils with more than 80 years, are eliminated. But, in addition, the obligation for fathers and mothers to enroll boys and girls in an educational center is eliminated, ”questioned the Frente Amplio legislator.
Bergara stated that “there is no progress in discrediting public education”, and recalled that during the Broad Front governments, in budget matters, it went from 3.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for education to 5.1 %, but there were also positive results, although insufficient”.
“The participation of unions is conceived as a problem. To improve education, we must rely on teachers, have long-term policies and not the myopia of cutting resources for all levels of education,” said Bergara.
living place
On the other hand, Bergara said that the government promised to solve the housing issue and end the settlements, but none of the LUC articles refer to the issue of settlements.
“Problems are not solved for tenants or owners. It was already possible to rent without guarantee, but, in addition, the LUC generates cruel and ruthless express eviction. If someone is three days late in paying the rent, they can be classified as delinquent and a 60% fine will be applied and a process begins that can leave the family, in a month, without a home and if it takes a day to leave the home add months of arrears”, he sentenced.
He believed that the owners do not want an express eviction, but a tenant with guarantees, that is why the alternative was to “strengthen the rental guarantee systems, but the government reduced the resources for the Guarantee Fund. The housing budget was reduced by 1,450 million pesos. The Ministry of Housing promised 50,000 homes in the campaign and then said that it was an example. But on the other hand, the cooperatives are not supported, nor are the agreements with the municipalities”.
Penadés responded that “if the Broad Front had done something during the 15 years of government, Uruguay would be better off than it is now.”
He proposed “to distance verbal terrorism from generating fear in the population, because express eviction is handled as common currency, and today the Rental Law is in force, which has not been modified, and the government, to attend to a different reality created in the LUC the rental mechanism without guarantee. There is no express eviction for the good payer or for the bad payer without guarantees”.
The white legislator assured that “the mechanism is guaranteed by the written contract and the participation of the Justice at the time of the eviction.” He stated that “there will be no violation of anyone’s rights and it is intended to benefit the most vulnerable and youngest.”
Public security
Penadés began with the thematic axis and affirmed that the government has decided to reduce the wave of crimes and the figures that have shaken the country due to the increase in homicides and drug trafficking. “Protect citizens, fight crime and support the police”, are the three central axes, for which the repeal would undermine the work of the police, because it seeks to protect action against crime. Not everything is fine, but it is better, because crimes have been reduced”.
He defended the increase in penalties for very serious crimes and also the increase in internship time for minor offenders who commit very serious crimes.
“Whoever commits very serious crimes must be punished and imprisoned. We do not think that because there is prison overcrowding, more criminals should not be put in jail, respecting the Law, Justice and the Police. In almost two years of applying the LUC, none of the forecasts of the FA have occurred”, he assured.
While Bergara stated that the articles on security do not solve the problem, they harm many sectors of the population, and unsuccessful recipes are used. “The drop in crime was not due to the LUC, but due to the pandemic and the drop in mobility.”
“It does not seem to us that the triumphalist vision is a good adviser. We do not live in a safer and less violent country. Legitimate defense adds that it is applied, in relation to material goods, which is nonsense: that the response to theft is murder. The inconsistent increase in penalties seems excessive to us, such as for drug dealers for handling 50 grams of marijuana and thus the prison situation is aggravated by this type of crime. The Frente Amplio legislator stated that there are situations of legitimate defense to be regretted, because they have been due to erroneous cases, and described the initiative as a “legal mess.”
Financial Freedom
Bergara said that financial freedom benefits a few, because inclusion allowed expanding the use of electronic means for workers to access free services, such as: the need to collect salaries and that gives more security, efficiency, transparency and less costs.
Now, the LUC allows wages to be paid in cash again. “Can anyone think that at the time of getting a job, the employee can have room to negotiate how to get paid?” Asked the parliamentarian. He added that “financial freedom is for the bad employer, because paying in cash facilitates evasion of social security contributions, which is informal, and takes away workers’ retirement, unemployment or health insurance rights.”
On the other hand, he said that “before cash payments were limited to 6,000 dollars, now 120,000 dollars can be paid in bills. For whom is this? What Uruguayan has 100,000 dollars to buy a high-end car with 20-dollar bills? Bergara asked.
Penadés said that the worker is given freedom to charge with money or card. He denied being associated with evasion. “At least it offends. Informality is falling and the goal is to help people”.
“Those who look at us from the interior, where there is no ATM, will understand what the objective of ending the obligation is. It is intended to give the citizen more freedom and this cannot be associated with evasion and illegality when the FA left 400 thousand people in the informal sector”, he questioned. He added that banks have increased accounts for salaries. People continue to decide to collect through the banking system, but whoever wants to collect it at the window can do so.
He also assured that controls are carried out from the State and the worker can make the relevant complaints, due to non-compliance, between the BPS and the Ministry of Labor. “Let’s not generate public alarm on issues that the current Law has not generated. Uruguay is not involved in any gray list, we have control mechanisms. During the FA government, an Argentine came, bought a hill in Maldonado and brought high-end cars and nobody knew about it.
final messages
At the time of the final messages, Bergara expressed that the LUC “was not the result of dialogue or deep real agreements.” He assured that the questioned articles do not solve the problems of the people and harm the majority, because they appeal to failed recipes. “We are not predictors of disaster, but many things are happening and people know it.”
“We have a context of falling wages and pensions, of rising taxes, fees, prices of the family basket, of cutbacks in rights and a decline in equity,” lamented Bergara.
While Penadés said that the LUC defends itself with the positive results of a government that went through the worst crisis, which was the pandemic. “No self-prophecy promoted by the FA has been fulfilled. The president is in charge of a government that is beginning to generate hopeful results despite the crisis, improvements in the economy, in investments, confidence, a drop in crime. He asked to give the government time to be able to build the transformation that Uruguay needs.
“We want to convey peace of mind, there is a government in charge and economic and social development and the fight against crime are beginning to be seen. For us the word is worth”, she pointed out.
