The reactions of the parties to the sending of social support to the Constitutional

5

António Cotrim / Lusa

The parties reacted shortly after the prime minister announced, on Wednesday, that he will call for successive scrutiny of the constitutionality of Parliament’s laws on social support.

“Not being a problem of money, not being a problem of lack of need because there is money to pay for these social supports and they are necessary for 130 thousand people, the only thing that remains – and that is why we took this statement from you first- minister – is that there is a political quarrel with Parliament, a party game that does nothing to give people security and tranquility, at a time when insecurity and uneasiness reigns in the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people ”, criticized the parliamentary leader of BE, Pedro Filipe Soares, in a statement to journalists in the Assembly of the Republic.

“The law is to comply and the Government is not outside the law: you have to pay the social supports that were decided in the Assembly of the Republic and promulgated by the President of the Republic ”, warned the blocker.

The parliamentary leader of the PCP, João Oliveira, considered the Government’s decision “an error” and recalled that, if Minister João Leão “says that it is possible to accommodate these measures in the Budget, he only says that because they fit” and “fit” , the Government did not need to stir the arguments of unconstitutionalities to prevent the application ”.

“The best answer to the Government is given by the Minister of Finance”, insisted the communist, considering that the Executive has, in the State Budget of 2021, “the base of what it needs to respond to the needs of the country“, With the approval of decrees related to support that“ had to be created due to the new confinement ”.

“We are in agreement with the position of the President of the Republic. What the PSD claims from the Government is that the Prime Minister, instead of saying that the President has a creative interpretation of the Constitution, have creative solutions for the Portuguese“, In turn, the PSD’s parliamentary leader, Adão Silva, affirmed.

The Social-Democratic deputy stressed that the country is living “an extreme time, of great delicacy” and it is necessary “to find good and integrating solutions for families, entrepreneurs and workers”.

“In a situation of social drama, Parliament cannot stand idly by: Parliament legislated within its powers, the President of the Republic promulgated, the Prime Minister does not agree and appeals to the Constitutional Court, it is within its rights “, said.

However, he defended, “in the midst of this possible dispute between the President of the Republic and the Government are Portuguese that cannot be forgotten and they cannot be used as a kind of battlefield between two organs of the greatest relevance ”.

“Greater gesture of political bankruptcy”

“Referring the destination of solutions to the Constitutional Court instead of looking for dialogue and the commitment to find answers is the biggest gesture of political bankruptcy that the Government could have, ”said CDS spokeswoman Cecília Anacoreta Correia.

“This stance does not bode well for the very difficult future that we will all have to face together and this arm of iron between a government that is a minority and the parties that made it possible in parliament leaves all of us, Portuguese, the biggest doubts about the feasibility of these government solutions in such a difficult context that we live in ”, he highlighted.

In the view of the centrists, with this decision, “the Government refers to a legal dimension that which is essentially a political and social problem” and António Costa left “Bad news” to the Portuguese.

“The need to ensure conditions of dignity of life for those who suffer most from this pandemic is a priority that the Government shuns, leaving unresponsive independent workers, individual managers and entrepreneurs, parents in teleworking, health professionals who are asked to an extreme response now for non-covid patients ”, also criticized the spokeswoman.

“Rash” option that reveals “government stubbornness”

The parliamentary leader of the PAN, Inês Sousa Real, warned that “the Government will have to decide who it wants to lend a helping hand to” during the crisis caused by the pandemic. “Whether it is families and companies or if it is the interests hitherto established,” he challenged, saying that he referred, for example, to banks or polluting companies.

The deputy stated that the party had already warned the Government, when the diplomas were promulgated, not to send these diplomas to the TC, considering that its parliamentary approval was “of the most elementary justice”.

“We must not forget that, in the Supplementary Budget, it is possible that the Government and the Assembly of the Republic guarantee that there is money for the supply of this support”, he said.

On the other hand, he defended, it is not possible to demand so many sacrifices from the Portuguese, “confining, closing establishments, losing income”, and then “not having a more robust response in terms of social and economic support”.

“It seems to us perfectly unreasonable this stubbornness on the part of the Government (…). It is a hasty option and one that reveals some stubbornness on the part of the Government and that will have to, sooner or later, retreat to find solutions for the country ”, he criticized.

Government created “an artificial crisis”

“Instead of recognizing that the support that is due to those that the State forbids to work with is insufficient and has evident gaps, the Government chooses to create an artificial crisis that is expected not to be the harbinger of an institutional guerrilla with the President of the Republic ”, argues the Liberal Initiative.

According to the party, “contrary to what has happened so often in the recent past, the PS Government did not anticipate the parliamentary discussion by presenting legislative initiatives that would close the support gaps and using the flexibility of reallocating funds that it approved in the Budget. State for 2021 ”.

Instead, the Government preferred to “assume the confrontation with the Parliament and the President of the Republic”, considering the liberals that “it is one more manifestation of arrogance of the PS that behaves as if it were the ‘owner of all this’ ”, he concluded.

PS is getting more and more isolated

“It seems to us that the discomfort and the conflictual atmosphere that thickens between the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic. It is also evident that the PS is becoming increasingly isolated here in the Assembly of the Republic. If it were two years ago, no one doubts that the PS would be able, either with PCP or with BE, to reverse this situation ”, affirmed André Ventura, leader of Chega.

“The Government is now concerned with two and only two things: it was not this support that it wanted to give to self-employed workers, the PS never wanted to have this support line and it is forced to give fair support because I always wanted to reserve everything for the civil service and leave self-employed workers as far away as possible; and, secondly, because it has no money to pay, the PS Government, with the delay that occurred in European funds, derived from the German Constitutional Court, is out of money and hence wants to arrange constitutional expedients now ”, added the party’s only deputy .

Ferro says it is “very urgent” to clarify constitutionality of laws

“Bearing in mind the statement this Wednesday by the Prime Minister on three diplomas of the Assembly of the Republic, on social support for the pandemic situation experienced, promulgated by the President of the Republic on March 29, I consider it of the utmost importance that there are no doubts about its constitutionality, especially considering the relevance of the matter, so I appeal to the very urgent decision of the Constitutional Court ”, said Ferro Rodrigues.

According to paragraph 2 of article 167 of the Constitution, deputies and parliamentary groups “cannot present bills, bills or amendments that involve, in the current economic year, an increase in expenses or a decrease State revenue provided for in the Budget ”.