Member of the special committee that analyzes the issue, federal deputy of the PSD assesses which proposal will be rejected by 24 votes to 10
Member of the special committee that analyzes the Proposal for Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) of the printed vote, the federal deputy Fabio Trad (PSD-MS) estimates that the proposal, authored by the federal deputy Kicis Beer (PSL-DF) will be rejected by a “safe margin” in the return of the parliamentary recess – the collegiate meets to vote on the federal deputy’s report Filipe Barros (PSL-PR) on August 5th. In Trad’s assessment, rejection of the matter, which was already high, grew even more after the defense minister’s latest statements, Walter Braga Netto, who came out in defense of changing the country’s voting system. “Everything indicates that the printed vote will be rejected. Before the defense minister’s statement, the PEC already had a good chance of being rejected. After that, the odds increased. Today, I see a safe margin for the proposal to be rejected,” he said in an interview with Young pan. According to the congressman’s estimate, the text should be rejected by 24 votes to 10. In the last session before the recess, a request to withdraw from the agenda, which had the support of the government, had already been rejected by 22 votes to 12.
Exactly a month ago, presidents of 11 parties met virtually and settled the issue against the printed vote, one of President Jair Bolsonaro’s main banners. Among those present were leaders of acronyms that integrate the federal government base, among them, Ciro Nogueira, from Progressistas, Valdemar Costa Neto, from PL, and Marcos Pereira, from Republicanos. For Congressman Fábio Trad, this decision is a “demonstration of lucidity”. “It was a demonstration of the lucidity of the presidents of parties. They acknowledged yet another bravado by the President of the Republic, who until now was limited to speculation about the vulnerability of the ballot boxes. There was no proof that ballot boxes are subject to fraud, no proven occurrence of fraud, so that virtual meeting was a demonstration of lucidity, of recognition that there is no reason to change this achievement of Brazilian citizenship”, he said. This Monday, in conversation with supporters, Bolsonaro said that he will make a live, on the night of Thursday, 29, at the headquarters of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, to present evidence that there was fraud in the 2014 elections – in the last few days, the head of the federal Executive has been saying that the toucan Aécio Neves defeated Dilma Rousseff in the election.
Trad admits that he will follow the live “out of curiosity”, but condemns what he calls “diversionism” on the part of the President of the Republic. “While he distracts us with this theme, the numbers of unemployed, people in a situation of food insecurity, the indices of violence, increase the social disparity between rich and poor. It’s pure diversionism. He insists on attributing an aspect of vulnerability to electronic voting machines, but forgets that, if they were obedient to the will of the dominant system, Lula would not beat Serra in 2022, because the entire system of the powerful was with Serra and, even so, the sovereign will of the population prevailed. Of two, one: either the president is desperately forging a pretext to find a reason for an eventual defeat or it’s all a fabrication”.
The PSD deputy also presented a request to summon Defense Minister Walter Braga Netto to the Chamber’s Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ). The invitation was motivated by an article in the newspaper The State of São Paulo, according to which the Army General would have conditioned the holding of elections next year to the approval of the PEC of the printed vote. The threat, according to the periodical, would have been sent to the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), through an interlocutor. In a note, Braga Netto stated that the publication generated “disinformation” and stated that he does not communicate with the president of another branch through interlocutors. Trad does not see the risk of institutional rupture, but he ponders: “I hope the minister will appear before Parliament to do what the note does not: deny that he made the threat. And, furthermore, that it manifests itself on the following question: will the Defense, the Armed Forces, intervene if the PEC of the printed vote is rejected? He needs to be explicit about it.”