Confirmation by the Electoral Court what will there be plebiscite on social security reform triggers new strategies for the campaign leading up to October 27. Ambit consulted business leaders about their position on the matter and what they consider their role will be in the debate.
The president of the Confederation of Business Chambers Diego O’Neill said to Ambit who have “marked a contrary position”. “I think it is quite widespread, both at the level of economics professionals, of many of the political parties and all the candidates of the main parties. From the Confederation of Business Chambers we are going to maintain a clear position in that sense, we will participate when we are required, but with a very clear and firm position, in the sense of the inconvenience which has one Constitutional reform like the one that is proposed for the country,” he said.
Asked about what he believes are the main risks that the approval of the plebiscite could bring, the business representative pointed out the fiscal sustainability and the legal stability. “Go back to individual savings, confiscate them and transfer them to a trust fund BPS, eliminating the AFAP, “We think this is a very dangerous thing for the country in general,” O’Neill added.
For his part, the president of the Alejandro Ruibal Chamber of Construction He pointed out that the most important thing is the establishment of clear rules of the game“If there are enough signatures for a plebiscite to take place, the plebiscite must be held as it should be in this country,” he said.
On the underlying issue, he was emphatic: “It is shooting yourself in the foot, it is nonsense, it is a very serious mistake for the entire scheme and the framework of the “pension savings”. “It goes without saying that for the construction sector it is very serious, because construction has been financed for a long time with savings instruments“What the candidates have to do is speak clearly to the people and tell the truth, nothing more, which I think is what is going to happen,” the business spokesman reflected.
The president of the Union of Exporters (UEU) Facundo Márquez, Meanwhile, he reflected: “I trust that Uruguayans will know how to make the right choice. And although for some it may be tempting because of the retirement age, I am convinced that they will not vote for it thinking of the good of future generations and the resources that must be dedicated, for example, to child poverty, which will disappear with this reform.”
“In any case, it is a discussion that should take place at the level of the political parties “It is their responsibility to look after the interests of the Uruguayan people and the sustainability of the system,” he added.
The president of the Association also expressed himself along these lines. Chamber of Industries (CIU), Fernando Pache“I understand that it is very irresponsible to promote this type of action, when it is not stated how the deficit that this action will cause to the country will be financed. I am not in favor of this proposal,” he replied briefly.
“The future of Uruguay is at stake”
Finally, in an interview with Ambit, the director of the Center for Studies of Economic and Social Reality (Ceres), Ignacio Munyo, He said that after the confirmation of the Electoral Court that there will be a plebiscite “confirms what is a critical fact.”
“The public will be exposed on October 27 to a decision that affects the course of the Uruguay. This is the most dramatic thing on the table in the next election. It implies a change of direction that Uruguay has maintained with swings more to the left, more to the right in the last 40 years, but which is focused on the path of countries that have been successful in development. Well, this proposal goes in the other direction, it goes towards a path that is new, unknown.
Source: Ambito
