[ad_1]
If the audit of the Court of Accounts does not detect irregularities in Novo Banco, does BE admit to approving the last tranche of 476 million?
This will be evaluated with the knowledge of the audit and the interpretation that each political force will make of the audit. If the audit does not identify irregularities, it is obvious that it cannot be said that there is a default on the part of the fund [Lonestar] and in this case, the PSD has already clearly said that it will give the PS a majority in Parliament. At BE we will politically evaluate this transfer and how it will be done. BE, unlike PSD, opposed the sale, the business and has been very critical of this sale and business. Regardless of compliance or non-compliance, there is another fact: the contract is ruinous and you need to find ways to protect its status.
The TdC admits that you can do the audit in stages, first analyzing the operations until December 31, 2019 or 2020. What do you prefer?
Not being possible to do [toda a auditoria] Until the moment of injection, it is acceptable that it can be carried out in phases or in blocks of preliminary conclusions. The most important are those related to operations related to 2020 that will motivate a new injection in 2021. But I understand that many times it is not easy to separate them.
Why did BE only take this position of strength in this SO and not before?
Indeed, BE presented this position in the previous one: it made a proposal that the handover should not be done without going to parliament. It had a similar result to the one we present now but with a different strategy: it was done programmatically and this time in the form of alterations to the maps to ensure that there was no interpretive escape. It is obvious that the proposals we have made have hardened as there are more suspicions about the operations. This commitment that a transfer should not be made without knowing the audit is not just a BE commitment, but a majority in the RA. The idea that it is a BE and PSD proposal is false. It was approved by BE, PSD, PEV, PCP, Deputy Joacine KatarMoreira and abstentions from the CDS. Only the PS, IL and deputy Cristina Rodrigues voted.
Aren’t the consequences for customer confidence BE?
We are very, very concerned about the stability of the financial sector and this stability is not achieved without asking, without demanding or at the cost of protecting dark businesses. We demand transparency.
And where is the defense of the commitments assumed by the State?
You did not hear BE say that a commitment should not be kept or simply should be broken. It is necessary to understand whether or not Lonestar has abused in the performance of the contract and there has been.
LoneStar can sue the Portuguese State.
I reject scenarios of fear, horror and blackmail because these scenarios have always served to protect the darkest businesses. Calm! Whenever we want to touch an installed interest and challenge a contract, we are threatened with contractual stability. The central question is whether Lonestar breaches the contract, not whether the state violates the contract. This measure does not break any contract. There is a breach of contract only if, after placing the order, there is no payment.
