Eighteen days after being elected in the first round and replacing the center in charge of, (-al) made on February 19, 2021 an emblematic speech in the plenary.
That day the house would approve by order of (Supreme Federal Court). Lira preceded the vote with the clear message that that “extreme intervention on parliamentary prerogatives” should be a “out -of -curve point” except repeated.
Given this, it announced the creation of a multipartisan committee to elaborate an “even clearer and more specific regulation” of Article 53 of the Constitution, which deals with parliamentary immunities.
For those who were unaware of the style of the new president of the House, if there were, the following days would be didactic: Lira tried to approve in plenary the following week – and without a sign of life of such a multipartisan committee – one that expanded parliamentary immunity and reduced the chances of arrest of deputies and senators.
The leader of the centron only in the face of the resistance of the opposition parties and the negative repercussion of the measure.
The proposal at the time called “PEC (Proposed Amendment to the Constitution) of immunity” went to the drawer to sleep a sleep of more than four years and, in August, awakened again, this time under the name “PEC of prerogatives” in the baptism made by the deputies.
The voting commitment was signed at closed doors. He left Lira’s office-that occupies a large space very close to that of the current president, (-PB)-the agreement for Bolsonarists to end the occupation of the house’s plenary table.
The hit was the vote on two projects. The amnesty to condemned by scammer acts, flag of the former president’s allies, and the PEC of prerogatives “, text of the centrão hosted by the opposition on the grounds that it was necessary to give an abuse of the STF an abuse.
Although the base text of the proposal was the same as 2021-a presented by the today Minister of Tourism, Celso Sabino (União Brasil-PA)-this time the PEC of “immunity” or “prerogatives” was much more ambitious. No wonder it took the name of, or “impunity” and “banditry” on social networks.
The proposal aimed to resume a rule overthrown by Congress itself in 2001 so that deputies and senators could only be processed with their own endorsement, in secret vote. It also instituted a privileged forum to presidents of political parties.
In the speech, a defense of the right of parliamentarians issue opinion and vote without censorship or persecution of the Supreme Court. Behind the scenes, the desire to bar the advance of investigations into suspected corruption in the application of billionaires parliamentary amendments, among other irregularities.
The ambition of the project was based on the calculation of the center that the moment was appropriate, as the group would have by its side the wrath of Bolsonarism against the Supreme Court. That is, more than 400 of the 513 votes in the House, including part of the left left to the proposal.
At the end of August, the House rehearsed to vote the measure on one night/dawn, but the defense of members that the proposal included the clear determination of the suspension to the ongoing processes.
The vote was aborted and the present bad repercussion on social networks led to the PL to say that it was no longer in favor of the measure.
The apparent drawer, however, lasted a few days. The centron changed aside and sought support from the Lula government and the PT with the promise that, in return, would overthrow the broad amnesty project defended by pockets.
The sewing of the center between PL and PT took, on the 16th and 17th, when 353 deputies voted in favor of the measure (344 in the second round).
An old joke in the chamber says that the silly there was no less than a vote truck. The movement of the center and the approval of the measure only occurred due to two points.
First, the certainty of massive support in pockets and sympathy is also reasonable on the left. PT deputies, for example, to maintain a secret voting forecast for the authorization of the processes.
Second, the certainty of support also in the Senate. Measurements of this carat are not developed in this way without a very well sewn hit behind the scenes between leaders of the two houses.
The wide negative repercussion on social networks and the streets, creating the climate of a congress only concerned with expanding privileges and barking advances for the population, sacred the third failure.
MPs started to explain to explain and a.
The Senate, in turn, received a chance to be a chance to pose good-mlors with the game already played. He only spared deputies of burying the measure not only in the plenary for alleged lack of regimental protection.
Although there have been senators from always genuinely contrary to the measure, much of it just jumped from the tram and abandoned the centron of the House to their own luck.
What is certain is that if the camera put PEC again in vote, last week’s avalanche would probably be in the opposite direction.
“.” The few words on Wednesday (24) of the PEC rapporteur in the House, Claudio Cajado (PP-BA), summarize everything.
