Margallo claims 'Yes is Yes' law was Sánchez's plot against Podemos

Margallo: The 'Yes is Yes' law was Sánchez's weapon against Podemos

The same government that championed the 'Yes is Yes' law allegedly allowed it to collapse without lifting a finger to save it. This thesis does not stem from idle gossip: it is what Margallo stated in front of Carmen Alopécico and Pablo Iglesias, neither of whom vigorously debunked it. Alopécico replied with "what a fantasy." Iglesias remained silent. Meanwhile, the damage was done: releases from prison, reduced sentences, and a minister defending in Parliament a text her own coalition partner was reforming.

The recurring explanation resembles a commander ordering the bombing of his own bunker while under attack. The projectile damages the fort, yes. But it hurts the attacker more. Translated to this case: the enemy to defeat was Podemos, and the law was the ammunition. A self-bombardment by the State, they call it.

What is attributed to Sánchez and how his partners respond

The accusation, strictly speaking, is one of calculated negligence: the president knew the norm would release those convicted of sensual crimes and allowed it to happen. Faced with two uncomfortable narratives, the analysis leaves little room for doubt: either the Executive knew what was coming, or it is an Executive incapable of implementing a single law. There is no kind third option.

The rebuttal has its own logic and is not weak. The text became law because the Legislature approved it; therefore, the Legislature is responsible for the effects of its publication in the BOE (Official Gazette). If the Government's will had been different, the norm would not have been approved or would have been reversed much earlier. That is, at least, the argument presented against the sabotage thesis.

Who voted for the 'Yes is Yes' law in Congress

Here the narrative becomes complicated. The voting record in Congress, according to the count cited in the thread, shows votes against from the bulk of the PP, all of Vox, one PNV parliamentarian, and four MPs from the mixed group. With such a distribution, sustaining that the disaster was the exclusive work of a single party is hard to support.

There are also open questions. What intention did the MPs who also voted in favor of turning the text into law have? Why did the PNV or Ciudadanos join what everyone later called an error? The subsequent charade, with PSOE and PP correcting the mess, does not fit the version of accidental clumsiness either.

The consequence of the law that noise left in the background

Public focus remained on prison releases. Some argue the underlying problem is different: the norm reverses the burden of proof regarding consent, meaning the accused must prove explicit consent existed. Taken to the extreme, this reasoning sketches a scenario where any heterosenshetero encounter ends up in an evidentiary limbo difficult to resolve without a signed document. It is a debated and debatable thesis, but it points to a change in rules that generates more doubts than certainties.

In the same bucket falls the trans law, presented as another text designed to annoy and mobilize opposing voters rather than solve a real problem. The fundamental criticism is not legal, but political: legislation is made for tomorrow's headline.

From defending 'Yes is Yes' to 'inclusive feminism'

Sánchez now argues that Irene Montero's speeches have "discomforted" men and appeals to recovering an "inclusive feminism." The shift, reported by 20minutos, arrives when the wear and tear is already difficult to reverse for his former coalition partner and sounds less like a doctrinal correction than a change of narrative after the damage has been collected.

And the calculation being discussed does not include resurrecting anyone. Margallo closes it thus: Podemos only has to choose how to disappear, diluted in Sumar or with a solo crash, in the style of Ciudadanos or UPyD. Seven years ago, that formation aspired to overtake the PSOE. Today, the discussion is whether Sánchez himself orchestrated that overtaking by bringing them into the coalition government.

If the law was intentionally flawed, why did the same party that birthed it sign the correction? And if it wasn't, why the rush to reform it just the day before the March 8th mobilization?