Possession for personal use started to be distinguished from drug trafficking based on the definition of a maximum amount for possession. Users started to be referred to the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência - CDT) to evaluate the consumption and level of dependence on the drugs. Addicts can be referred for treatment and all others are subject to administrative sanctions. This gave rise to a new paradigm in the policy for drugs in which the criminalisation of drug addicts was replaced by an approach guided by a public health rationale. The subject was discussed in parliamentary committees and there was an effort at concertation that allowed the opposition to be involved in the process of drawing up the final draft, harmonising the initial draft laws and reducing the chances of conflict. The measure was approved with only two votes against from PSD (the party was divided) and CDS-PP. The subject has also involved scientists and the associative movement, as well as Jorge Sampaio, at that time President of the Republic, and well positioned political figures of the right wing, namely António Pires de Lima, at that time President of the Bar Association.

The measure established that if parents opted to share parental leave, they would benefit from a bonus of 30 days paid leave. For the approval of this measure contributed the fact that there was a consensus both from the parties and from stakeholders. In fact, the parties were already in consensus on the need to reconcile work and family life (PS, PSD, BE, PCP); and the fact that the Government ensured that the measure did not imply a direct cost for either the employers or the workers, being fully guaranteed by Social Security, made the measure consensual with the social partners.

This tax was aimed at intensive users of water resources, such as agricultural and industrial producers that have a major environmental impact. The TRH paid by the user depends on the purpose of the water usage, and the revenue gathered goes to the Environmental Fund and the Portuguese Environment Association (Associação Portuguesa do Ambiente). The Government negotiated the conditions of the measure with the agricultural sector – the largest user of water in Portugal – so as to control the opposition and to create a consensus so the measure could be approved.

From 1976, whenever a company had to resort to this solution, seniority (first in, last out) was the criteria guiding the decision of which person would be dismissed in situations where there were various work posts with the same job description. This wording determined that a set of hierarchically organised criteria would be used as the basis for dismissal, with performance being the most important. The initial consensus between PSD, CDS-PP, PS and the social partners was important, but was lost when the PSD/ CDS-PP Government had to make alterations to the law after it was blocked by the Constitutional Court. The reformulation did not have the support of the other parties and the Government advanced unilaterally with its implementation. In this respect, the Government’s persistence and leadership were vital to the approval of the longterm measure.

This measure was proposed by PSD in 2011 in its electoral and government programme. However, the single contract was not implemented during the PSD Government. In 2015, PS even included the measure in preliminary drafts of its electoral programme but omitted it from the final version.

The Water Framework Directive (that made the reform of the water legislative framework mandatory) was used by the PS Government as an argument to enable the creation of the TRH in Portugal and to reduce opposition from sectors such as agriculture, helping justify the implementation of the tax in a general context of a “new policy” for water management.

The resurgence of “Keynesian” policies in the European Union whereby Member States were encouraged to spend on social policies allowed the Government to propose a policy it wanted but which, in other political and economic circumstances, would have been difficult to adopt.

The high unemployment triggered by the crisis enabled the Government to frame the measures as solutions to stimulate job creation, especially amongst young people for whom the unemployment rate was particularly high at the time. In addition, Portugal was under external intervention and this was one of the measures contained in the MoU signed with the Troika.