[ad_1]
Publicist Ion Cristoiu says that the CCR’s decision on Tuesday on the PSD’s no-confidence motion of August 31 is against the Social Democrats who should return it, the only hope of this party is that the motivation for the Court’s decision will come later of the parliamentary elections.
We reproduce in full the editorial published by cristoiublog.ro:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020, the Constitutional Court posted on the website a statement that was later reproduced by all the press according to the method of brilliant tradition of our press lately, copy-paste:
On September 14, 2020, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court discussed the request for resolution of the constitutional legal conflict between the Government and Parliament, a request made by the Prime Minister.
Following the deliberations, the Constitutional Court, by unanimous vote, rejected the request made by the Prime Minister and found that there is no legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the Government and Parliament, generated by the way in which Parliament registered and presented the Motion. of Censorship no. .2MC / August 17, 2020 – “NLP Government – From pandemic to generalized pandemic Abundance in the pockets of the NLP clientele, poverty in the pockets of Romanians.”
Two members of the Constitutional Court, agreeing that there was no legal conflict of a constitutional nature, considered that the claim should be rejected exclusively as inadmissible.
China’s vaccine against Covid-19 enters the final phase of testing: it will be sent to the WHO
The decision is final and generally binding and is communicated to the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the two Houses of Parliament.
The arguments retained in the motivation of the solution pronounced by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court will be presented in the content of the decision, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I. “
Our national habit, for which I compared Romanians to some carriers in the aquarium, is forgetfulness. It is not surprising that the text issued by CCR and disseminated, without comment, in all the online and offline press, did not arouse any interest. Many who read the press with the same lack of emotion with which they nail their nails will have wondered what it is. On Wednesday 16 September 2020, at the press conference already held on Wednesday, Klaus Iohannis was asked about this announcement. The following dialogue took place:
“Ramona Avramescu, Romanian Television: Mr. President, the Constitutional Court rejected the notification made by the government in relation to the motion of censure. The conclusion is that the motion presented by PSD, more precisely, the vote and debate on this motion to the one that did not have a quorum for the first time, could be rescheduled in this session What do you think of this decision and how much do you think is the scenario that the voting has been rescheduled and what is the risk that the Orban government will be removed from office?
AMPLE searches in Bucharest, Ilfov and Teleorman in a criminal case: which clan it is
Klaus Iohannis: Now, of course, such a decision is not likely to bring additional stability to the behavior of our national politicians, but on the other hand, a motion whether it comes from the previous special session or one is tabled now, is classic futility while so much and I’ve said it before. And that move was one of classic futility. The PSD was ridiculed, because it did not even manage to gather a quorum for a vote. It would seem totally absurd to me this time to discuss the same motion or with another motion again, but if you want, you certainly have the tools to promote such an approach. “
Assuming that addressing an issue at a press conference held by the head of state is intended to arouse some interest, it is worth remembering how and why the CCR met and decided on an alleged legal conflict between the Government and Parliament.
On August 17, 2020, PSD presents to Parliament, in extraordinary session, a Motion of Censorship still in the title marked by the ambitions of the pamphlet. On August 21, 2020, the Government notifies the ICR about the existence of a conflict between the Executive and Parliament. I quote from the document:
“The Government requests the judges of the CCR to establish the existence of a conflict of a constitutional nature between the Government and Parliament generated by the violation of the provisions of article 113 paragraph 4) corroborated with the provisions of article 66 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, the period between the end of the first ordinary session and the beginning of the second ordinary session of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate “.
The referral refers to two articles of the Constitution:
SURVEY reached the table of European leaders: Euroscepticism crashed in Italy
Art. 66 paragraph 1, which reads the following:
„(1) The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate meet in two ordinary sessions per year. The first session will begin in February and may not exceed the end of June. The second session will begin in September and may not exceed the end of December. “
And art. 113, paragraph 4, which reads as follows:
“4) If the motion of censure has been rejected, the deputies and senators who signed it may no longer initiate, in the same session, a new motion of censure, unless the Government assumes responsibility under article 114.”
Unlike many confreres, I saw in the notification more than a simple NLP maneuver to get out of the exam called Motion of Censorship. I have written and summarized here the main ideas that the filing of a Motion of Censorship in an extraordinary session is a post-December premiere. As I said, in spirit, the Constitution opposes a Motion in Extraordinary Session, because that means the precedent of a parliamentary majority to be able to present more Censorship Motions than the two allowed by the two ordinary sessions. Parliament can call an extraordinary session several times during the parliamentary holiday and, therefore, a government, regardless of its political color, could be subjected for a year not to two, but to several Motions of Censorship. Or, as we noted at one point, the spirit of the Constitution is to reduce the chances of a political crisis. However, a vote of no confidence is a time of political crisis.
The Constitutional Court ruled otherwise.
For the future, create the conditions for a Motion of Censorship game. Any majority, not only the current one, may present a Motion of Censorship in ordinary session, then call an extraordinary session and present one more. Theoretically, although PSD presented a Motion of Censorship in the ordinary session (February 2020), it also presented one in the extraordinary session (August 2020), which must be voted on in the ordinary session. If the August motion fails the September 2020 vote, it’s nothing, PSD still has the right to a motion. Also in this session.
For the moment, the Decision has the following political effects:
1. It exempts the PSD from the campaign that Klaus Iohannis and PNL would have carried out on the issue of the irresponsibility of this party. Can you imagine what Klaus Iohannis would have said on Wednesday, September 16, 2020? Irresponsibility, cynicism, cruelty. Too bad we are not in December 1989. The PSD would have been charged with genocide! Weren’t healthy people infected and whole people not dying due to the anti-pandemic maneuvers of the PSD in Parliament?
2. It obliges PSD to vote on the Motion of August 31, 2020. It should be remembered that the Motion did not fall. The motion was not put to a vote because a quorum was not reached. If the decision were to accept the conflict, the presentation of the Motion would have been unconstitutional. However, as the presentation is constitutional, from a constitutional point of view, the majority of the PSD forced it to put the August Motion to a vote. With all the risks inherent in PSD, which obviously includes glitches. After the failure of the quorum meeting, PSD pulled it out of the paint by invoking the postponement of the voting session until after the CCR’s decision. The CCR decision was made. When asked what the PSD will do, Marcel Ciolacu said:
“I read the CCR statement, we are waiting for the motivation so, together with my colleagues, we will make a political decision regarding the opportunity to continue the rapprochement (regarding the motion of censure presented – no)”.
After August 31, 2020, PSD announced that it will make a decision only after the CCR decision is received. PSD won two weeks this way. He bought time. Now he claims that he is waiting for motivation. I am very curious about what he will invent after the publication of the Motivation for not voting on the Motion of August 31, 2020. This is because the PSD does not want in any way the vote on the Motion of Censorship of August 31 2020. Neither solution suits you. Neither if the Motion is approved (it will be accused of unnecessary political crisis in the middle of the Pandemic), nor if it is not approved (it will be accused of failure, which will lead to the demobilization of PSD assets). In any case, for PSD, CCR’s decision is unfavorable. If he won the case for the government, he only mentioned an anti-campaign he went through. But since CCR gave PSD victory, here is PSD in great distress. The vote must decide, because the vote of no confidence can not remain in the air. The PSD’s only hope is that the Motivation will arrive after the parliamentary elections ”.
[ad_2]
