No referral to the Constitutional Court. Marcelo still considering whether or not to veto.
6 Likes
He says he has made his decision, but adds that he has until the 20th to formally respond. Suggests that he is weighing the pros and cons of a veto.
The subject matter (housing) is important but difficult. Successive governments have tried. He will not want to delay a solution, if he believes the proposed law is a solution, or partial solution. As we know, he has criticized what was presented in February this year. At that time he said he had not seen the final proposal. Now he has.
He has also called a meeting of the Council of State to resume their interrupted earlier meeting, on 5th Sept.
3 Likes
I think veto is very difficult because parliament will easily override it. Sending to tribunal might have spread the responsibility, it is pity he did not use this option.
I think chances for veto are very slim((
I think the legal deadline is Aug 29th but because heās traveling out of country, he said heād decide by the 20th.
I suspect he needs time to write his thoughts on the bill (diploma) regardless of the decision which is why he hasnāt just said publicly his decision.
1 Like
Presumably he could veto and point out reasonable changes and get them implemented, like e.g. cleaning up wording on the GV changes if weāre lucky.
But weāll see what actually happens
2 Likes
That would be amazing. But unfortunately I think the GV stuff is a small part of his concern. But I will keep hoping with you!
1 Like
Yeah itās an outside chance. I think thatās more generally what he might try to do, and that was an example relevant to us 
1 Like
The president vetoed the law, with the following statement:
To His Excellency
The President of the Assembly of the Republic,I address you under the terms of Article 136(1) of the Constitution, transmitting this message to the Assembly of the Republic on Decree No. 81/XV, which approves measures in the field of housing, making various legislative changes, in the following terms:
- The emergence of the housing crisis, which especially affects young people and the most vulnerable families, but is beginning to affect the middle classes, as well as the need to increase the supply of housing, led the government, six months ago, to announce an ambitious Mais HabitaĆ§Ć£o (More Housing) Program, right after recreating a Ministry for Housing.
This program included significant administrative simplification measures, which were included in another Assembly of the Republic law that I have just promulgated.
But above all, in the eyes of the Portuguese, it was centered on five very strong ideas:
1st - The forced rental of vacant private homes, increasing the supply of housing;
2 - Limiting local accommodation, thereby also allowing an increase in the supply of affordable rentals;
3 - Strengthening the role of the state in offering more homes, by itself and in collaboration with cooperatives, extending the aforementioned affordable rent;
4 - The provision of public incentives to the private sector to increase this supply;
5 - Transitional measures, including limitations on rent rises during the start-up and consolidation period of the program.
All with the aim of introducing a rapid shock to the housing market, which would respond to the emergency, be visible until 2026 - the end of the legislature - and allow the vertiginous rise in the cost of housing to be halted, while it was hoped that the interest rates on mortgage loans, which burden one million two hundred thousand contracts, would stop their asphyxiating rise.
- The presentation of the Mais HabitaĆ§Ć£o Program ended up polarizing the debate around two central issues - forced renting and local accommodation. The effects were immediate:
1 - It erased other proposals and measures and made it very difficult to reach a desirable agreement on housing, both outside and inside Parliament.
2 - It gave a reason - fair or unfair - for perplexity and a waiting period for some private investment, without which any global solution is insufficient.
3 - It has radicalized positions in Parliament, leaving the absolute majority almost isolated, attacked on the one hand for its proclamatory, unrealistic and perhaps unconstitutional style, as it falls too heavily on private initiative, and on the other for the insufficiency and timidity of state intervention.
As early as March 9, I spoke out about the risks of an excessively optimistic discourse, of high expectations for the timeframe, the means and the administrative machine available and, therefore, of possible unrealism in the projected results.
- Six months later, this law unfortunately confirms these risks.
1 - Except to a limited extent, and with European funds, the state will not assume direct responsibility for housing construction.
2 - The support given to cooperatives or the use of vacant public buildings, or private buildings purchased or contracted for affordable rental, implies slow bureaucracy and the use of entities overwhelmed with other tasks, such as the Banco de Fomento, or without the means to meet the demands, such as the IHRU.
3 - Forced renting becomes so limited and time-consuming that it appears as a merely symbolic emblem, with a political cost greater than the tangible social benefit.
4 - The same complexity of the local housing regime makes it doubtful that it will be able to achieve the desired effects quickly.
5 - Despite the corrections made to forced renting and local accommodation, this law is unlikely to restore any lost confidence on the part of private investment, and the public and social investment it provides for is contained and slow.
6 - There are no new measures in sight, with immediate effect, to respond to the suffocation of many families in the face of the weight of the increases in interest and, in many situations, in rents.
7 - There is no regime agreement and, without a change of course, there probably wonāt be one until 2026.
- In simple terms, itās not easy to see where the promised supply of housing will come from effectively and quickly.
Itās an example of how a poor start in responding to a need that time has made dramatic, crucial and very urgent can mark it negatively.
There is no obvious political recovery in the short term, despite the work put into bringing several laws together into one and certain positive ideas, diluted by the bulk of the solutions found.
In other words, all in all, neither forced renting nor local accommodation, nor the involvement of the state, nor its support for cooperatives, nor the concrete means and deadlines for action, nor the total absence of a regime agreement or minimal party consensus, this law is sufficiently credible in terms of its implementation in the short term, and therefore mobilizing for the challenge to be faced by all its essential protagonists - public, private, social and, above all, the Portuguese in general.
I know, and we all know, that the absolute parliamentary majority can repeat the approval just voted in a few weeksā time.
But, as you will understand, this is not what can or should prevent me from expressing a deep conviction and a serene negative analytical judgment.
In these terms, I am returning Decree 81/XV, which approves measures in the field of housing and makes various legislative changes, without promulgation.
The President of the Republic
Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa
The law is now passed back to parliament, where PS has an absolute majority and could immediately pass the law again once parliament starts up again in early September. However, it could very well be that they decide to make changes before passing the law a second time.
Also, I guess most of us were wrong in our predictionā¦ 
12 Likes
1 Like
Nice letter explaining his thinking.
3 Likes
I wrote a short update about the veto here:
But yeah, itās quite likely that PS will do their best to pass the law again without significant changes as soon as possibleā¦ In the end itās nothing more than a political statement that will delay the date the law takes effect with maybe a month or so.
4 Likes
I would suggest we take this opportunity and remind the Assembly of the inconsistencies in the infamous Articles 44/45.
If we all gang up on emailing the Deputados, there is a slight chance they might fix the wording after all, between now and the next promulgation attempt.
5 Likes
PS will send the bill straight back to the President:
1 Like
Just hope that other parties would not be so sympathetic to change fast their agenda and the Parliament starts to work only on September 6, as I understand
But yes, it would be good to try to change this paragraph if we could. Poor SEF will not survive additional analysis for conversion to D2. All those automatic renewals help them so much! And also normal practice for such changes in the world is to keep people who are already in the program under the same conditions.
Do you think guys we may try work through our lawyers? However, mine seems to be tired and desperate about SEF (( Not sure she has energy to fight with SEF more than she is already doing. Also I am afraid, automatic renewals do not bring lawyers much money, and they are occupied with all those new applications and not care to much about us, I guess
This translation is way better than the translation from Google Translate. Thanks.
1 Like
Not a single mention of the ARI changes. I wonder if the president had any issues there and felt it wasnt politically worth mentioning, or if he just doesnt care, or doesnt see any problemsā¦
I think his veiled criticism is in the broad phrase related to investment āthis law is unlikely to restore any lost confidence on the part of private investmentā.
I took this as referring to the fact that (i) the proposed law in its initial version changed conditions for investments already made (constititutional issues- on which they backtracked), but damage had/has occurred - this sharply reduced private investment in consequence - major commercial entities (Mercan/Lince/Stag) etc & individual (ARI). Implications long & short-term; (ii) PS did not appear to take on board the offers from other parties or major investors that construction should involve the private sector (faster & more efficient), nor accept offers (eg from Mercan) that would enable re-allocation of part of existing commercial investments towards social purposes so that earlier housing could be available socially.
3 Likes
Mercan offered that and they refused? Wow, theyāre nuts. We knew this was driven by populism, but youād think theyād also want to actually try to fix the issues if possibleā¦
The missed opportunity is crazy. Imagine if theyād said they were getting rid of all real estate investment options for the GV, unless it involved the development and rental of affordable housing that would only be available to Portuguese residents with income below a certain level. I think that would have immediately become one of the most popular categories of investmentā¦
3 Likes