A fundamental decision awaits the President, and the experts are clear: Why should he (not) sign Matovic’s package! – New time

Will or will he not sign Matovic’s package? Today, President Zuzana Čaputová (48) is to decide whether to confirm the package from the workshop of Igor Matovič (49) with her signature. At the same time, it caused a complete storm on the political scene and was criticized by politicians and experts from the right and from the left, although many immediately add that support for socially disadvantaged groups is a necessity. New Time asked experts whether the president should return the package to parliament or knock it out. On Monday, Čaputová received representatives of trade unions, employers, local governments and pro-family organizations in connection with the package. The theme of Matovic’s notation for families also united traditional juices, ie employers and trade unions, who rejected him in unison. “If the legislative process and social dialogue had not been circumvented, we could have discussed all the issues and the aid would have been better,” said Monika Uhlerová of the Confederation of Trade Unions. The package is also criticized by local governments, which would significantly cut it from the budget. The law passed the parliament last week with the support of the fascists, moreover in a shortened legislative procedure, which the Minister of Justice Mária Kolíková called “a gross rape of the legislative process”. Even if the president decides not to sign the package, deputies can subsequently break her veto by re-approving it. However, the President could also have the law assessed by the Constitutional Court, as called for by several experts. Eduard Burda, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Charles University, is abused in abbreviated legislative proceedings The abbreviated legislative proceedings should deal with as few matters as possible. It should only be used if it is otherwise unreasonably complicated or time-consuming. I do not give an opinion as to whether the president should sign it or not. But I think that the overuse of the abbreviated legislative procedure is generally a negative phenomenon, and this is also the case here.