en 
“The state of emergency will cease to be in force after this second renewal on 2 May at midnight. It is hoped that it will not be necessary in the future to resort to the state of emergency again. If necessary, this will be considered,” said Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa.
According to the head of state, who was speaking to journalists at Infarmed in Lisbon, Portugal will now enter a “third phase” of combating the spread of Covid-19, which “remains in control of the situation”, but with “a recovery or an opening - any of the terms may apply - by small steps “.
“And the two things are inseparable: the resumption by small steps and, on the other hand, the concern of permanent control of the situation. Here the idea is no longer that of closing, it is no longer the use of a drastic and radical instrument, it is to use other instruments “, he added.
The President of the Republic warned, however, that “the third phase cannot be seen as normal” and that “the Portuguese must have the notion that containment remains important, the control of the situation remains important “.
Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa considered that the key in this “new phase” is to achieve “this combination, this balance” between “resuming in small steps” and “the permanent control of the situation”.
“That is why small steps are required and that is why the situation will be constantly evaluated. That is the key to the success of this third phase, after which there will be a fourth phase and in that fourth phase it can be said that the end of the outbreak is truly expected”, he concluded.
The state of emergency, which is incumbent on the President of the Republic to decree, after hearing the Government and with the authorisation of the parliament, has been in force in Portugal since 19 March.
About two weeks ago, when it was renewed for the second time for a new period of 15 days, both Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa and the Prime Minister, António Costa, said they hoped it would be the last.
After yet another technical meeting on the “Epidemiological situation of Covid-19 in Portugal”, with the participation of the President of the Assembly of the Republic, the Prime Minister, party, employers and union leaders, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa defended that the state of emergency had “a legal, but also symbolic political and psychological role”.
“It corresponded to the concern to close. In an extreme situation, it was an extreme weapon to close down the country. The Portuguese understood this and adhered to this. This was followed by the people and this can be verified by the data that we have collected to have had a positive effect”, he said to journalists.
The President of the Republic referred that there was afterwards “a second phase, still in force of the state of emergency, which was a phase of reinforcing the containment and control of the situation, lowering numbers that needed to be lowered:, the number of inpatients in intensive care, and the number of deaths “.
According to Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, this “second phase” that “corresponded and corresponds to the month of April” can be described, in general terms, as “a plateau with a downward evolution”, and ends now, with the end of the term state of emergency.
President announces end of the state of emergency
The President of the Republic has announced that the state of emergency will end at midnight on 2 May and that Portugal will begin to open up with small steps.
in News · 30 Apr 2020, 00:00 · 1 Comments
Share this article: Share
English
Nederlands
Deutsch
Français
Español
Italiano
Svenska
Pусский
Română
中文
Türkçe
हिन्दी
Português
Українська
اردو
Polski
عربي
Suomi
עִברִית
Afrikaans
Português (Brasil)
EDP still using the Salazar hand book and totally ignoring Civil Rights, Health and Safety Regulations. When are they, and others, going to respect E.U. Regulations
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Racial Harassment under the Instruction of EDP Group.
30th April 2020 an EDP contractor arrived at my premises with the TLB (Excavator), 12 metres Contrite cable pole (Weight 3 to 5 ton) and other equipment on the instruction to replace the main electric feed wire, which is firmly attached from the feed pole to my property (Distance16.5 metres). The instruction was to excavate a hole (Approx. 2 Metres deep by 60 to 70 cm in diameter) alongside the very old drywall that is retaining the garden. The wall is showing saviour signs of instability due to water ingress from the garden and the 4.5 cm deep storm drain running along the outer side of the wall. An excavation of the depth required would be well below the ancient walls foundations putting it at easterly high risk of collapse. The position would be 21 metres from the feed pole for the village. This would involve 21 metres of cable from existing connection to the new pole. A further 30 metres cross my land to the corner of the house, holes would be drilled into the wall for some type of connection bracket, a further 6 metres along the face of the house to before for conation to the main switchgear.
My only means of preventing the work was to park my car at the side of the road close to the wall and refuse to move it.
The situation is so ridiculous that a most junior engineer and or any person with modicum of common sense would just replace the cable (If it truly is in need of replacement, I doubt it) from the main feed pole using the existing house fitting. A job that would probably take an experienced lines man 1 hour.
Noted Infringements of those in attendance.
1. This is not essential and or emergency work as the supply is running perfectly. Therefore, why was the work scheduled during the countries “Lockdown”?
2. Not one of the 8 persons, police included, were wearing any form of viral protection. With the exemption of the senior police officer, who was called in some two hours later.
3. None of the 8 persons showed any consideration to “Social Distancing” more especially the shorter of the 2 GNR officers who was within less that a metre of me much of the time and speaking directly at me.
4. The shorter officer, who appeared to take charge of the situation, showed very little impartiality rather more his general action and attitude were agitating the whole scenario with various threat of arrest, my car to be towed away.
5. At one point the senior office informed me that I had no rights outside of my property, to which my reply was “So you are saying this is a POLICE State” “NO” was his response “Then I have Rights” was my reply. It was quite obvious there an extreme lack of knowledge and training of the E.U civil rights, impartiality and objective of “Keeping the Peace” Relying more on subversive unfounded threats of arrest, confiscation of vehicle and or possessions.
6. There has been no communication from EDP as to what they wish to do and why and or request for permission to enter my property and or the need to affixing a bracket to my property.
7. The single track road is in excess of 1 metre above the natural supportive ground level and as such would be class in civil engineering terms as “Unstable” and suitable only for very light traffic. If a pole were erected in such unstable ground, it would be at risk of toppling over onto my property due to unknown water ingress.
8. It is blatantly clear a qualified civil engineer has not inspected the site. Therefore, EDP are guilty of issuing intrusions for the erecting of a pole, in a public place, that could have fatal conciseness to the general-public.
Conclusion.
Since September 2018, there has been a dispute over my questioning and non-payment of € 25.00 against a €100.86 invoice. This has involved numerous registered letter to Mr Antonio Maxis, Mr Adriano Prates and Ms Halia Oliveira in attempts to get the matter resolved. During this time, there has not been any conclusive response, what e-mail replies there have been are blocked from responding too. I have telephonically been threatened with disconnection if I did not pay with 24 hours. Mid March 2020, a letter from the debt collection agency was received. With legal assistance a reply was sent explain the debt was now null and void whilst at the same time send registered mail to Antonio Maxis and Mr Adriano Prates that consideration was being considered in legal action for Deformation of Character, Dereliction of Duties, Negation of E.U Civil, Consumer and Health and Safety Regulation.
Therefore, in consideration of the above and the totally outrageous, costly and futile attempt to reroute 16 meters of supply cable is no more than an engineered act of RACIAL INTIMIDATION and ABUSE in retaliation for daring to challenge the officers of the company (EDP).
Please note: As a mechanical engineer with various qualifications and 34 years’ experience as senior management with three of the intentional renowned forklift, manufactures compelled me to have knowledge of Civil Health and Safety, OS&H Act, Civil and Consumer Rights and Regulations. Numinous documentation and photographic evidence are held in support of my claims and statements.
By Ian Mackie from Other on 03 May 2020, 06:33