Clarifications on what the Constitution provides after the opposition’s “blame”
Government sources For yesterday’s vote in the House clarify that:
“1. According to Article 67 of the Constitution, the House may not decide without the absolute majority of the members present, but it can never be less than a quarter of the entire number of Members, so today a decision is required by the House of Representatives. Since there is no other constitutional provision for quorum, the quorum required for the decision of the House requires the presence of 75 Members, without any relevant exception to the Constitution.
2. As for the necessary majority for the decision of the House, the Constitution provides the rule of Article 67 of the Constitution (absolute majority of the present members who may never be less than a quarter of the entire number of Members), as to which the rule of the article 86 A majority of the entire number of Members for the establishment of the Special Parliamentary Committee to conduct a preliminary examination (hence 151 positive votes). It is a special majority that establishes a divergence from the rule of Article 67 of the Constitution, not in terms of the number of Members present to make a decision, but for the majority required to vote in favor of the proposal. Any opposite interpretation ends up confusing, and even interpretively, without a relative basis in the Constitution, the required number of Members present with the majority required to make a decision, ending up requiring up to 200 Members present to decide (in the case of a decision of the two, in the case of a decision of the two).
3. In terms of finding the number of Members of Parliament in the Constitution and Regulation of the House of Representatives for a vote and the decision, the Rules of Procedure of the House provides for the relevant competence of the President (Article 69 (4)). Once this issue has been judged, there is no issue of proposals pending to be put into a vote. “
It is also clarified that in recent years, parliamentary practice in the application of Article 70A of the House Regulation It recognizes increased possibilities for participating in the vote voting, which the New Democracy has made to a lesser extent.. In 57 cases of nominal votes during the first two sessions of the current parliamentary period, the percentage of New Democracy MPs who voted with a letter stood at 22%, compared to 42% of PASOK, 47% of SYRIZA, 34% of the Greek solution, Freedom sailing at 13%). Criticism must, however, take into account these real data. “
In addition, government sources, and in response to the conclusion in a posting on social media by Evangelos Venizelos, emphasize that “in any case, and regardless of any arguments about the necessary quorum and majority, it is clear that the end of the posting. In a supposed crisis of internal confidence that becomes a crisis of legitimacy it has nothing to do with the reality of modern Hellenic Republic. “