A meeting of the bloc Deputies of the Radical Civic Union (UCR) determined guidelines for parliamentary action for its 33 members, but the sector furthest from Casa Rosada expressed their disagreement with his absence and lack of adherence to the internal consensus. However, The rupture was contained and there will be a new call for dialogue: Nobody wants to leave and nobody will sign any expulsion of another co-religionist.
The genesis of the conflict of the bench refers to its constitution, in December 2023 when the distancing from the radicalism of the Together for Change coalition. The fight for the bloc presidency almost caused a rupture, but the interference of the governors ended up neutralizing those impulses and defined the Córdoban Rodrigo de Loredo as owner of the space, a leadership that contained tensions until the most decisive votes of the Bases law.
From there, the differences became express until the meeting of five deputies of the bloc with Javier Milei -before ratifying your veto an increase in pensions (which radicalism itself had promoted) – caused the conflict to become uncontainable. The reiteration of this behavior in the face of the university financing debate led to tension in the instance of redress on social networks: “Let’s go and discuss parliamentary strategy with the libertarian group ‘La Lilian Lemoine’. Are they or are they made? They have already warned that they are official troops,” published the man from Formosa. Fernando Carbajal.
What triggered the current conflict
To the pre-existing discord, a proposal from the last week of the Mendoza was added Julio Cobosin a short text that he sent via WhatsApp to all the members of the block: that each project is voted on internally and that the opinion of the majority is respected at the time of meeting. If someone has an irreconcilable disagreement, they should choose to abstain. This proposal was criticized by those closest to the ruling party (which the opposing internal sector calls “the libertarians”) for restricting the independence of position, while those most opposed to Casa Rosada reject it, arguing the need to expel the five deputies. who met with Javier Milei and ask to occupy the parliamentary secretariat and rediscuss the places on the commissions. “Julio had good will, but he ended up making it more muddy”defined from this last sector to Scope.
“Manes and Lousteau are pushing the breakup”analyzed for this medium from a bench aligned with a radical governor, where they understand that there is a double standard in the positions: the five who ratified Milei’s veto are judged but not Martin Lousteau when he alone opposed articles of the Bases law. The most official ones recognize the discomfort due to gestures such as those of Mariano Campero (who shouted “Viva la Patria, Carajo!”, at the infamous barbecue in Olivos), but they respect the provincial interests of each member.
In that sense, they discuss the legitimacy of Martín Lousteau and Facundo Manesto whom they blame having lost the internal Buenos Aires, and even that of Fernando Carabajalalso defeated in the Formosa party election. Furthermore, they already point out a tension within the sector most opposed to Casa Rosada between Carabajal himself and Carla Carrizowho would be the main candidates to preside over an eventual radical bloc whose number would not be determined (at least 8, at most 14) but would be lower than the one most aligned with the ruling party.
However, this break (“Karina Banfi’s dream, let Manes leave”, according to what they said from the neuroscientist’s environment) it would not happen. The most opposed will not participate in the meeting or sign Cobos’ line of action for parliamentary consensus, but they will not slam the door either. In the face of public opinion, they recognize that a more widely accepted alternative would be to be expelled by those who hold weekly meetings with the Government; There is even one scheduled tomorrow with Guillermo Francos. This would not happen either and the bench of 33 deputies would stand firm.
Rodrigo de Loredo Julio Cobos UCR
Mariano Fuchila
The five legislators who met with Javier Milei not only avoided expulsion (at least from the bench, because the party Ethics Committee can disaffiliate them), but they would also have intervened in the text of the bloc’s agreement: they asked that the care of the institutionality (“an anti-coup pattern,” they described), the protection of fiscal balance and the provincial autonomyobserving the negotiations of the governorates for the Budget project. His actions put the entire block in an uncomfortable situation: polarization of the electorate does not see the nuances or the internal discussion that causes dissimilar votes, but rather aligns one sector with La Libertad Avanza and the other with Kirchnerism.
The idea of the monoblock passed through several benches. One deputy noted: “My internal balls are very swollen. “Milei is happy with this.”. All definitions take into account the benefits of a new reconfiguration. In that sense, from the sector most opposed to Casa Rosada they interpret that the continuous public complaints of the ruling party against Martin Lousteau They raise your profile but also undermine your support. As in the internal ones that are reproduced in all matches, 2025 appears on the horizon.
Source: Ambito
