ALL NOT!

ALONE IU VOTED AGAINST THE NUCLEAR CEMETERY, IN 2006.
Last week, a new debate pitfall – the ATC - has slipped in us in the gatherings and informative, as in the previous one it expert was the registration of / immigrants (polemic invented with electoral ends since the law is clear and it is enough to apply it, that already of for himself it is quite restrictive for with these persons). Clear it is that this way one does not speak about the crisis, not of the unemployment, which yes there are the real problems of this country.
But let's go to the topic that occupies this week to us. We have read in several informations that how much cynicism is in all the parties, since in due time “they all“ approved that thing about the ATC and now “none“ wants it. All?. ATC?, let's go on parts:
1. First of all the siglita. Opposite to the bad habit of masking with euphemisms the things about which we do not want to speak to the egg whites, I to this “nuclear cemetery” to which these initials put him not to call it like that, because it seems that the nuclear thing sounds badly, it would name him a Poisonous Store of the (nuclear) Head offices. If, already I know that his initials are translated otherwise, but the official name – and I complete - that one that supposedly they approved: all? in April, 2006 it is a Temporary Store Centralized for worn-out nuclear fuel and residue of high activity. Temporary that thing about is not true so although it puts itself either that for 60 years, we all know that the radioactive wastes (unsolvable problem to be born in mind before choosing this one not so good – in addition to face - energy option), they have a radioactive life of tens thousands of years. And yes, today these cemeteries are sure, but only until they it stop being (a partner remembered us as about the Titanic or about the twin Towers the same was said until they it stopped being). Also: Why does nobody want them in his province, not in his region?
2. “We all“ go now to in favor. When on April 27, 2006, the commission of industry of the congress of the deputies approved the Proposition not of Law on the ATC, at the proposal of the Spanish socialist party, CiU and the PNV, it is true that they voted for it in favor PP, Spanish socialist party, CiU or PNV, but they were not “all“ like today it is said, because there was a party that did not do it. Constrasten and they will see that only Izquierda Unida (IU-ICV) voted in against.
The Spanish socialist party, which in due time proposed it and affirmative vote, now it has hindrances more environmental than anybody with the figure of Bond and Barreda in CLM or of the same Montilla in Catalonia, his real precursor and promoter being the minister of the branch.
The PP, also in favor, but his case is even more esperpéntico. They were always pro nuclear and like that they ratified it in 2006. Then they removed it of the electoral program of 2007 and said that there were supported the head offices that exist. And now, what is more schizophrenic, Mrs. Cospedal says nuclear yes, but his poisonous residues that he them should remain the neighbor. In addition every day there go out for him more uncontrollable mayors who want his minute of glory and the possibility for his poor peoples of the “bread for today and famine (death) for tomorrow”. Even Mr. Rajoy at the beginning of the debate and when in his party Sand and Cospedal they were contradicted, he declares not to have an opinion founded about the matter.
PP and Spanish socialist party mint finally a new euphemism, that of the “regional solidarity”, since both in Catalonia and in CLM, in Spanish socialist party or in PP, use the same escusa (we have already contributed with so many head offices here), I insist a coarse euphemism with which to cover the consequences of his elections pro nuclear. As almost always, the bipartisanship is approximately the same. In IU, on the contrary, one was always against of the nuclear ones and in favor of the energies límpias. That's why in due time it remained alone voting and being discredited like extremist and out of the world. Now, it continues it being, skylight. But, agree with the one who is trying to reconstruct the left of this country: does anybody remember it?: does it go out in any place?: Does it matter for anybody? And what in the end it counts: will he remember the citizenship after the next elections come?
3. Finally “the energy model”. And with this we come to what should be “the core of the question”. Because to this warm potato it is necessary to give an answer. And one is sure that, although we are anti nuclear, now it will be necessary to push with the consequences of what some and others sold to us like the energy of the future against which objection was not fitting. The madmen we it did not have to be so much because although it was good, that it is not, and sale, which neither: as what does it serve to us if now we do not know that to do with the radioactive garbage?. We continue pay to France a daily fortune?.

4. Mr. Shoemaker: consensus?, yes (if it achieves it); ATC?, there is no any more remedy for what we have and reject. But the commitment that he should acquire, agree and sign is for the new Spanish energy model. And I aim at two conditions if he wants the necessary consensus: One, let's sign simultaneously a Plan for the progressive dismantling of the nuclear ones (included the closing Garoña, that that one if that is already a nuclear cemetery); and two, let's bet without ambajes for the clean and renewable energies. If it had invested, subsidized and investigated in them as it has been done by the nuclear ones, now we would not be in this debate.