[ad_1]
At the climax Decide the fate of the vote on the draft amendments to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (No.….)
The situation is still in the “dust” phase, although the Constitutional Court has an urgent discussion. Up to 11 pages of the central ruling of March 15, before the time of the appointment of the votes 3 to 2 days despite the central ruling It is no different from the express ruling that was issued on March 11.
In the central ruling on pages 10 and 11, the Constitutional Court insisted twice.
Page 10 states that “If Parliament wishes to make a new constitution, the people who have the power to establish the constitution must first hold a referendum on whether there should be a new constitution or not. If the results of the referendum are in agreement Therefore, proceed to the elaboration of a new constitutional project When it is finished You must hold a referendum on whether or not to approve the new constitution project. “
And he reiterated on page 11 that “Parliament has the duty and the power to prepare a new constitution. By requiring people with the power to establish the constitution to hold a referendum first, whether the people want to have a new constitution or not. And when the draft new constitution is finished, should the public vote in favor of a referendum or not on the new draft constitution once again?
That is, if a new constitution is to be established. A referendum should be held to first ask the public if the “referendum is approved” to “proceed with the draft constitution.”
But both political parties in government The opposition political parties and the three senators who will vote on Agenda 3 still express their opinions in different directions.
The debate was intense. Draft Amendment to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (No.….) BE… Can you vote on agenda item 3 or not?
Because the court rulings indicated a part “The preparation of a new constitution by drafting a constitution amending section 15/1 (of said draft constitutional amendment) would result in the abolition of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand BE 2560 as an amendment to the important principles that the competent authority Establishing the original constitution, wanting to protect and protect “
4 attitudes before reaching D-Day
Therefore, when the Draft Amendment to the Constitution, Chapter 15/1 stipulates that it would have the effect of abolishing the Constitution in 2017, resulting in an interpretation of the impact if the 3rd Agenda were voted by the Government Senate, Deputies of the Opposition and Senators. . Go in different directions as follows
1. Hit, fall: withdraw the motion, including the senator.
Senate Whip-Senate Secretary Somchai Sawangkarn said the draft amendment to the constitution that will vote on Agenda 3 on March 17 is already considered null and void. Because if you look at the central ruling of the Constitutional Court, you can see that the court made a clear decision that it was a new constitution that could not be made.
The way out for the body to fall beyond the decision of the court. Or the president of the National Assembly to use discretion to decide the draft that is said to fall It depends on the parliamentary meeting to discuss. But unable to freeze the figure and fix it to hold the agenda And wait for a referendum Because the figure was already null and void However, it must have fallen.
General Sing Sueksingprai, first vice president of the Senate, affirmed that from the central ruling of the Constitutional Court It is clear that if the new constitution is to be made, the whole issue must be asked of the public through a resolution. But at this time, the public has not been questioned. Because it was a motion of the parliamentarians AND it has important content Specified in the draft of Chapter 15/1 on the process of preparing a new constitution, which it considered inaccurate
“As for that approach, there is a possibility that He will propose to the person who is proposing to withdraw the matter. Or let the meeting consider that it falls. As for the resolution of the third term, it was impossible. vote That person must be responsible “
2. Refrain: Palang Pracharat Party
Ms. Patcharin Samiripong, BMA, as spokesperson for the Palang Pracharath Party, said the party meeting discussed the possibility in case of a vote. To respect the judgments of the court and act accordingly. In order not to conflict with the law, the NCCC can vote
3. Vote on agenda 3: the opposition party
Pheu Thai, the main opposition party, passed a resolution at the party meeting. To advance to the vote on Agenda 3, “Chusak Sirinil”, Deputy Leader of the Pheu Thai Party Commented that Pending Amendment Bill is not a new constitution in itself.
Therefore, it is not necessary to reverse all the processes that have been undertaken to start asking for the public referendum. But a new constitution will be drafted only after the constitution amendment is approved by the National Assembly. Through public vote and adopted It is only the amended constitution.
Six opposition leaders argued in the morning before going to the meeting room to vote again.
4. I still have doubts about the wind direction, including the coalition government Democratic Party – Proud Thai
“Ong-klaampaiboon”, list of names of parliamentarians As deputy party leader Announcing the results of the party meeting that The party has not yet reached a resolution, with the deputies divided into two camps. On the one hand, he agreed to wait for the first parliamentary discussion. At the same time, the other party agreed to take the party’s position. Supporting the constitutional amendment If the council gave a vote to the 3 deputies, the party should vote in favor.
The elders of the party, such as the normative head, the deputy of the list and the adviser president of the party. He commented that Agree that the legal department of the council should be waiting first. But personal opinion thinks that the party should take its position. You are moving forward and voting for Agenda 3
Angthong MP Paradorn Prisnantakul, as spokesman for the Bhumjaithai Party, said the party will be discussed on March 17, with some guidelines initially set, that they had to wait and see the resolution of the meeting again. Regarding the tendency to vote, the original intention of the party was to have The deputies raised the constitution.
Therefore, the party’s voting approach would not be used, so the draft had to be discarded. Although it is an abstention that some parties have recognized that if the parliament finally insists on a tripartite vote, it can vote to approve the draft amendment.
Siege Voting Agenda 3
Finally, on the night of March 16, “Chuan Leekpai”, the Speaker of Parliament revealed the ruling of the parliamentary law division that He believed that the constitutional amendment should not be voted on Agenda 3 according to the decision of the Constitutional Court. That should have a referendum first. Regarding the referendum at any stage It should be discussed at tomorrow’s meeting. Providing full opportunities for members to express their opinions. Before deciding how to move on
Confirm that the filling of the agenda of the Parliament meeting because it is a function of the law. That when it was considered in Agenda 2, it would be necessary to wait 15 days and proceed to the consideration in Agenda 3 and of the aforementioned problems, each party had different opinions. Both academics, lawyers, but the legal department of that council It is not useful to involve any of the parties Therefore, the weight of the Legal Department of the City Council means a lot.
Interpret that when voting on Agenda 3, the opportunity is full of blinks. The tendency to be hit – withdrawn by the Senator is more likely to be.
In accordance with article 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Session, the modification or withdrawal of the motion that the President of the National Assembly has included on the Parliament’s agenda This can only be done with the consent of the National Assembly.
Currently, there are 737 voices in Parliament, divided into 487 senators and 250 senators. If the motion is withdrawn, a majority of 369 or more will be required.
[ad_2]
