"I think this decision will not be implemented, because until the adoption of the decision in the final text, due to an unprincipled ad hoc coalition between the Movement for Podgorica and the DPS, who, in their desire to find each other, adopted mutually contradictory amendments. So, we had two adopted amendments to the same text, to the same article of the decision, which were mutually enforceable at the same time," said Šušić.
He explains that there are certain legal and technical rules for interpreting such situations, but he believes that normatively, but also in essence, such a decision will not take effect.
"This decision was compromised by those who, out of interests that I now find very suspicious, were the ones who advocated for it the most," Šušić pointed out.
He states that this decision, with the adopted amounts, is essentially becoming very problematic, because at the level of the Capital City there are one-time social benefits of 100 or 150 euros, as well as a subsidy for tenants of 100 euros, and now 190 euros are being given, which can only be used to pay for extended stays.
"Does that say anything more about how we actually plan to pump a large amount of money into one specific sector?" said Šušić.
He believes that the decision in the adopted text cannot be changed or even formulated.
"We will see how the Parliament's legal service will formulate this decision, because one amendment deletes certain articles, which the amendment later changes, and which have already been deleted. Because of all this, I think that it is impossible to apply this decision in practice and it would not be good to apply it, although we are aware of the importance of the decision and that it is a relief for a number of parents. Also, it would be very unfair to parents who do not use extended stay services and who receive benefits in the context of raising children in other ways," Šušić pointed out.
According to him, this decision requires too much funding, and at the same time, as he says, the decision does not strengthen the family, but encourages parents to separate from their children, and those who consciously choose to be with their children are punished in this way compared to parents who "choose to prioritize their work and career over the personal care and upbringing of their children."
"Our club was ready to support the decision and we partially supported it, because we are aware that the initially proposed amounts, which were more reasonable, would have been a relief for a number of parents. However, with this gymnastics and literal fraud, we have been put in a situation where such a text should not be maintained," said Šušić.
