CARLOS GUIMARÃES PINTO

 .

(ALIMENTE-SE  A  POLÉMICA)

A TAP não foi “comprada

   com o seu próprio dinheiro”

Os 217 milhões de euros que dizem ser “dinheiro da própria TAP” era dinheiro que a TAP não tinha, que não foi usado para comprar as ações da TAP e que entrou na TAP apenas porque Neeleman negociou com a Airbus a sua entrada. A única ponta de verdade nesta história é que a Airbus só aceitou ceder os 217 milhões de euros porque acreditava que, com Neeleman, a TAP iria ser capaz de pagar as encomendas no futuro, algo que estava em risco em 2015.

𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝖼̧𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝗋𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖨𝖦𝖥, 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗀𝗂𝗎 𝗈 𝗍𝗂́𝗍𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖻𝗈𝗆𝖻𝖺́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗏𝖾𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺: 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈. 𝖨𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌.

𝖤́ 𝖿𝖺́𝖼𝗂𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺. 𝖯𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝗋𝖾̂𝗌 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝖺̃𝗈:

𝖠 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺; 𝖮 𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗓 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺; 𝖾 𝖤𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼̧𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗎𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌.

𝖣𝖾 𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗀𝗂𝗎 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈? 𝖣𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺:

𝖤𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟧, 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗌. 𝖮 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗑𝗂𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗓𝖾𝗋𝗈 (𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈) 𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌; 𝖮 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝗅 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌, 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗏𝗂𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗓 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌; 𝖤𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟧, 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟨𝟣% 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖺 𝖣𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖽 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝟣𝟢 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖺, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌. 𝖮𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺, 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗏𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝟣𝟢 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 (𝗈 𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺) 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗅𝖺́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́, 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈; 𝖮𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖣𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖽 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖻𝗎𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯? 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝗅𝖾𝗏𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖺̀ 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺, 𝗈𝖻𝗏𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗅𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗋. 𝖠 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗏𝗂𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗏𝗂𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 (𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇) 𝖾 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝗂𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 (𝗈𝗌 “𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌”) 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯; 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 “𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌” 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝖣𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖽 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺̀ 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾. 𝖮𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺, 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺; 𝖮 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌 𝖾𝗋𝖺, 𝗈𝖻𝗏𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗌. 𝖠 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗎-𝗌𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗈, 𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 (𝗈𝗌 “𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌”). 𝖣𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖽 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝟣𝟢 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗎 𝗈𝗌 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 “𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌” 𝗇𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌.

𝖮𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺, 𝗈𝗌 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗋 “𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯” 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝗈𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺.

𝖠 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌 𝗌𝗈́ 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝗌 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇, 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗂𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝗓 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗈, 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟧. 𝖮𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺, 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗂𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝖾𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟣𝟩 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌.

𝖮 𝗆𝖺́𝗑𝗂𝗆𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖽𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝗏𝗂𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝖽𝖾 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗈 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌. 𝖭𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖾́ 𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌: 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗌, 𝖽𝖾 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝗈𝗎, 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌. 𝖰𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺, 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺-𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺, 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾, 𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺.

𝖥𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅. 𝖮 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝟥𝟥𝟤.º 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖲𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖨𝖦𝖥, 𝖽𝗂𝗓 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾:

𝟣. 𝖴𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅.

𝖲𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝖼𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖼𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌. 𝖮 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖨𝖦𝖥 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺, 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖣𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗀𝗈, 𝖾́ 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂́𝖼𝗂𝗅 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖽𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖼𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗎 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖾𝗓 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖻𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝗂𝗋𝖻𝗎𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗃𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾́𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖺.

𝖤́ 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗋, 𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝗈́𝖼𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗃𝖺́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝗈 (𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖨𝖦𝖥 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗓 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗏𝗈𝗌) 𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋, 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖬𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖯𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗏𝗈𝗅𝗏𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾. 𝖲𝖾 𝗈 𝖿𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺𝗀𝗈𝗋𝖺, 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋𝖺́ 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗋.

𝖮 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝗏𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝖻𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗇𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅 (𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈, 𝖺 𝖳𝖠𝖯 𝗃𝖺́ 𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖻𝗎𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌). 𝖠𝗌 𝖽𝗎́𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗆 𝖿𝗋𝖺́𝗀𝖾𝗂𝗌, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋, 𝗌𝖾 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗋.

* Deputado à AR. Economista, professor universitário, autor

IN "NOVO" - 04/09/24 .