In a highly attended plenary session, a vote was held on whether the Flower Offering should remain as is, divided into two sessions, or if the decision to extend it to a third session on March 16th should be passed to the assembly of presidents. Finally, 56 votes in favor and 14 against (81 percent) determined that the assembly, scheduled for July 21st, will have the final say. This vote does not guarantee a third session but prevents it from being ruled out beforehand.
The plenary's decision is to recuse itself and pass the decision to another forum, as the plenary itself could not approve it without assembly endorsement. During the debate, a division between sectors was evident, with those further from the center advocating for a third session and vice versa. Pablo Bonanad, delegate for the Maritime sector, complained of a "pressure campaign" to vote no, arguing that "three sessions would improve our conditions" and allow for "more reasonable hours".
For his part, Luis Coll, representative of Seu-Xerea-Mercat, defended that the study disseminated to argue against the third session involved "no coercion," but rather an "analysis of our reality." The opposing votes were concentrated in sectors that view a third session as a further restriction of their living space.
Councilman Santiago Ballester also intervened, recalling that he had read the study and expressing his displeasure at the criticism directed at the JCF's work. He appealed to the "Fallas parliament" and considered that "there is no better place than the assembly" to make such an important decision, calling the presidents the "best referendum".
The show of hands vote, after a request for a ballot box was discarded, confirmed the decision: on September 21st, it will be determined whether there will be a substantial change in the Offering, an event that continues to grow in scale.
