PS and PSD refused this Friday to change the law on incompatibilities “in a hurry” or thinking “in specific cases” in a discussion that was also marked by some criticism of the President of the Republic, including from the Social Democrats.
In the interpellation to the government requested by Chega in parliament on “the successive cases of alleged incompatibilities and conflicts of interest involving various ministers of the executive branch”, the PSD repeatedly defended that the law in question is “very clear” that ” must only be applied and complied with”, and “it is up to the judiciary to judge the conformity or non-conformity of everyone’s conduct”.
“One thing we all understand, at the limit, the PS will even change the law and adapt it to the laws that the government facilitates to remedy any incompatibilities”regretted the deputy Sara Madruga da Costa.
The Social Democrat also addressed “the alleged legislative tangle” argument that the President of the Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, used in his message to parliament about this legislation last week.
Later in the debate, PSD deputy Cristiana Ferreira emphasized that the party is refusing to change the law “to walk through and think about specific cases, without prejudice to these, like any other law, they are always open to consideration or amendment”.
For the PS, Pedro Delgado Alves refused legislative changes “hurriedly and badly” as this would be “a terrible service” to democracy.
The socialists were available for possible improvements to the legislation and said they were analyzing the message from the president of the republic to parliament but found it “particularly confusing” and that Marcelo “will not be quite correct” in some statements. .
The deputy said that the president of the republic cites “already withdrawn norms” and “stuffs into the muddle that was no longer confused precisely in 2019 and even matters that have nothing to do with incompatibilities”.
Regarding the Transparency Entity, which many parties are pushing to “get off the ground”, the PS stressed that “the responsibilities for funding, identification of headquarters and legal regime are resolved by the executive and legislative bodies” and “it is important that the Constitutional Court increasingly moves to designate the entity,” notes, however, that there is “no legal vacuum” as it is up to the prosecution with the TC to monitor compliance with the law .
For BE, Parliament Speaker Pedro Filipe Soares began his speech regretting the choice of subject at a time when several news reports report that there are tuna cans with alarms in supermarkets to prevent theft.
The blocker also criticized the President of the Republic, arguing that: “The law is clear and those who are campaigning for populism on these matters have been criticized, as well as those who believe that the law is not clear and that it is a legal tangle.”
“It’s not serious to point out a series of laws that have already been repealed that are not only in effect and just to legitimize the argument that there is a legal jumble, but that’s what the president did,” he stressed. .
Similarly, he went on to say that the government and the PS “cannot criticize a law that they voted for, of which they were the main representatives for its enactment and which in the past have never questioned its constitutionality.” “.
Parliamentary leader of the Liberal Initiative, Rodrigo Saraiva, agreed that the debate on this issue should be “calm” before a possible “new legislation”, stressing that “laws should be enforced and enforced”.
Rodrigo Saraiva also said that “if the Transparency Entity were active today, this debate would not take place”.
For the PAN, the lone deputy Inês Sousa Real disagreed with most of the interventions and, like Chega, defended amendments to the law already tabled by the party.
Source: DN
