I tried to listen to the arguments of the government and the opposition parties. Before my arrest, I met opposition representatives to discuss the bill in the House of Representatives and the Senate. To get the benefit of the opposition parties, I heard their arguments once today.
I understand the first objections of the opposition, who firmly believe that the government is enforcing the law in an inconsistent manner for two reasons:
✳ Due to its potential regression,
✳ Due to legislative urgency, they were used questionably in this case.
I understand and believe the argument of the government and economists that, according to them, a slowdown in monetary growth is necessary.
Among these arguments, the most important to me are:
✳ The current formula increases income through unconventional assessment, especially for high-income seniors, while the poor receive a substantial amount. The proposed proper government can prepare such a pension reform that protects the income of the recipients in the future. The former are most affected by the dramatic increase in the cost of living.
✳ If the review of the original variant of high growth is to work today, the growth of income must be severely limited in at least the next two years so that it remains free of significant debt.
✳ It would be inappropriate for incomes to grow significantly faster, but the incomes of other groups in society today are increasing, such as the self-employed or the socially vulnerable, such as young families with children.
On the other hand, there are objections to how poorly the government communicated its reasons.
I also rejected the objection of opposition parties criticizing the government for not one day including resources for extraordinary assessment of pensions in the state budget for 2023, despite repeated warnings about it.
I decided on law six days ago, but I promise I’ll be serious about it in the next few weeks. I applied for the expert opinions of several leading economists and structural engineers. I consulted with these experts several times.
While economists basically agree that slow growth of income is necessary at this time, construction experts are not united in their view of the potential contradiction of this law.
I have only two options: I will sign the law or I will have to veto it, to have it debated again.
If I use the full period of 15 days, which we can decide, I can convert the conditional suspended sentence to an absolute one. I will abuse the situation. In the first case, I will use my powers strongly against what I am under the government. I don’t want to be a president who exploits every blunder to send his power beyond its constitutional limits.
If I introduce the legislation today, the House will have less than a week to vote on my decision. However, it will continue even under legislative emergency rule, which has been a source of criticism primarily because of possible opposition. But it will not disappear with a whimper in the House of Representatives, rather, the controversy over the opposition will deepen.
Similarly, repeated debates in the House of Representatives could not avoid the potential problem of retrogression.
I can imagine what my sentence would sound like in conversation. Over the next week, the House of Representatives will repeat hours of speeches on obstruction, unrelated topics and unfinished business. I do not think it is responsible or right that the fate of this law should be ultimately decided by one side or the other by physical assault, ferocity and lack of self-control, or by comparing rules of conduct.
So, I decided as follows:
I decided to sign into law the devaluation of money.
I still have doubts about whether it is inconsistent with status.
That is why I strongly believe that it is absolutely necessary that this law be examined by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court is the only body that has the power to decide whether the law is in compliance with the government or not. Even as President, I do not have this power.
Opposition parties have announced that they will file a case against this law in the Constitutional Court. If, for some reason, he does not eventually postpone it, I consider it my duty to complain to the Constitutional Court.
Allow me to make a couple of comments about the animal.
I am alarmed to learn that even a few Members of Parliament have rejected the opposition’s proposal for an extraordinary meeting to freeze construction workers’ salaries. At this time, income growth cannot be reduced to one side, while the growth in politicians’ salaries cannot be ignored. So I will appeal to the government to negotiate with the opposition parties to ensure the right
e se na sporch budume podlet vichni bez rozdlu.
The most important thing I would like to point out is that the painful debate on the draft law to reduce the obsolescence assessment is only a chapter compared to what is before us. What really matters is a proper standard assessment formula and, in turn, a comprehensive income reform, not just individual parameters. They are one of the keys to the stability of public finances and paying a decent return over the long term. This cannot be achieved without constructive and responsible action by the government and the opposition.
