Díaz assures that there will be no UP amendments to reform embezzlement and Podemos insists that it is "very delicate"

The purple formation stresses that they will only study if there is a concrete proposal from other formations

MADRID, 7 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The second vice president, Yolanda Díaz, and Podemos have indicated that the confederal parliamentary group will present amendments to the reform of the crime of sedition to guarantee that the new type of aggravated public disorder does not affect social protest, but they do not propose changes regarding embezzlement . A "delicate" matter for the purple training and that will only study if there is a specific proposal from other formations.

After meeting with home help service organizations, Díaz explained that Unidas Podemos is working on its proposals for changes to this bill, which must be presented on Friday, and that they do not contain anything related to reviewing the crime of embezzlement.

On the other hand, and in an interview with Europa Press, the state co-spokesperson for the purple formation, Isa Serra, explained that the review of embezzlement is "something very delicate" due to the possible "perverse" effects that it can generate, and only they will study when they receive a formal proposal for change, which has not been raised up to now.

Of course, he has highlighted that the repeal of the crime of sedition is a proposal raised for a long time by Unidas Podemos, since its existence was an "anomaly" and suppressing it will help community justice give "less setbacks" to Spain than that it has been deploying up to now.

However, it has stressed that this reform of the Criminal Code cannot become a "worsening" of the right to demonstrate and to the detriment of civil organizations, therefore they will present amendments to guarantee social protest.

The president of the parliamentary group and leader of the Catalan confluence of United Pdoemos, Jaume Asens, was in favor of reforming the crime of embezzlement because with its current wording it allows cases of "lawfare" (judicial war in English), but they will not take the initiative to open this debate and they will only address it if formations, such as ERC, raise it.

Meanwhile, the deputy spokesman and leader of the IU, Enrique Santiago, was in a similar line, arguing that it was convenient for a matter of "legal security" to differentiate between embezzlement what is an inefficient management of public resources and personal enrichment , that is, "steal".