Congressmen Carlos Anderson and Victor Kutipa do not agree with the invitation of Jose Williams to Pedro Castillo.

Congressmen Carlos Anderson (not grouped) and Victor Kutipa (Bicentennial of Peru) voiced their opinion today on the recent meeting between Parliament Speaker José Williams Zapata and President Pedro Castillo, who presented the document “Consensus for Peru” mitigate the political crisis that the country is going through.

In an interview with RPP Newsboth parliamentarians had different attitudes towards the position Williams Zapata make a counter invitation to the head of state.

Kutipa (former Free Peru) welcomed the meeting of representatives of the two branches of government, but considered that head of congress He had to go to the Government Palace to meet with Castillo Terrones because the president was the first to invite him.

“The invitation extended by the executive branch to the president of Congress is the first step towards a way out of this conflict that has arisen […] which It doesn’t feel right the fact is that the invitation to visit the Government Palace received a counter invitation, which said: “We are meeting, but in my house,” he criticized.

In this sense, the legislator Bicentennial of Peru insisted that it was necessary Williams D Lock meet every two weeks or at least once a month. “No meeting is required,” he said.

In turn, Anderson (former Podemos) confirmed that Joseph Williams You are great for making a counter invitation to the president Peter’s castle. He noted that the head of the Congress only strengthened the parliamentary jurisdiction.

“The President of the Congress was to retain parliamentary privileges. This invitation did not come about because the president said, “Let’s have some green soup,” he said.

“The president was supposed to pay a visit to the new president of Congress,” he added.

‘Consensus for Peru’: Anderson claims the executive wants to impose its proposals

Elsewhere in the interview Congressman Anderson accused Executive desire to impose their proposals on the Legislative Assembly through a document called “Consensus for Peru”.

He criticized that some of the clauses of the document, aimed at ending political instability, violate “many fundamental aspects of the social market economy.”

As an example, the economist also pointed out that: “The executive branch tells us the end of the subsidiarity of the state, which means that National Bank can go out and compete openly, whether it uses backward technology or puts the country’s resources at risk.”

“When you go point by point, it implies the destruction of many fundamental aspects of the social market economy, but they say so.: “If you love Peru and want to help, approve all this for me.” But this is not a consensus,” he added.

In its turn, Viktor Kutipa believed that the administration Castle of lumps presented the aforementioned document not as an imposition, but as a proposal for reaching a consensus between the two authorities of the state.

“I don’t think that what the President proposed was an imposition, the proposal was presented for discussion,” he said.

Kutipa argues that the sentence “we’re all leaving” should also apply to the press.

On the other hand, Legislator Kutipa was against the proposal “We’re all going” which establishes that the promotion of general elections is due to the constant confrontation between the executive and the legislature.

However, he believed that the noise of a part of the population should cover not only the government and Congress, but also the judiciary (JV) and the media.

“I do not share this position, because when we say that we are all leaving, this implies four powers: three constitutional powers (executive, legislative and judicial) and the actual power that is the media,” he clarified.

“In any case, let’s not say “we are all leaving,” but let only the executive and legislative branches leave,” he added.

In this sense, Kutipa reaffirmed that the possible advancement of elections is no guarantee of change Political Landscape country, so he stressed the need to “correct yourself and go in the same direction.”

At that time, Anderson He emphasized that the proposal under consideration arises from the fatigue of the sector of the country from the “inactive executive branch” and the Congress, which carries out its oversight work only through interpellations and censorship.

“The question is being trivialized, because we all leave for a reason. The main focus of political tension is the president himself, his decisions, his family, his friends, his ministers and business; That’s the point,” he said.

“People’s requests are fed up with the dormant executive and possibly corrupt and responsible legislature,” he added.

A) Yes, Charles Anderson believed that a viable and constitutional solution was the vacancy of the president against Peter’s castlewhich has six open investigations at the Public Ministry (MP).

“I think the way is to fill the vacancy, because there is enough evidence that [Pedro Castillo] he has no moral incompetence,” he concluded.