In agreement on the new limits of the majority of Parliament The 297 MPs seem to end up with the parties, according to information provided by Parliamentary Authors. Nikitas Kaklamanis.
“I think there will be no issue for either scientific council or anything. We are waiting for the decision of the Court of Justice to be notified. We refer to Article 74 (2) as well as most of the constitutionalists, from the House. Chairman Claiming that he has also carried out a circle of contacts with all parties, where “it seems that the view of maintaining the majority at 151” is prevalent for the procedures that make the bar with the number of seats and not with the number of Members.
As has already written the protothema.gr The first paragraph of Article 74 of the CCB provides how:
“1. As for the Constitution or the Coinning of the Bodybuilders, either for the application or a proposal or to make a decision or for any other shame, this one is subjected to the coolest number of the bolts of the bolts of the work of the House and the fraction is omitted without prejudice to the opposing provision of the Constitution or the Constitution. “
This category includes among others:
– the proposal against the government where the threshold for its deposition falls to 49 MPs from 50 in force.
– the proposal to set up an Inquiry Committee where the limit of 1/5 in 297 MPs falls to 59 instead of 60 in force (for the submission of a Proposal Proposal the Constitution and the Regulation requests signing 30 Members)
The 2nd paragraph of Article 74 defines certain votes where the majority threshold is “inelastic” and is perfectly related to the number of plenary seats even if they have not been paid in their entirety.
Specifically states:
“2. As the Constitution or Communism requires the absolute majority of the entire number of the Bowers to make a decision, this majority is subjected to the co -operative number of the seats of the boil. “
In this case the limit e.g. for:
-approval Proposals for setting up a pre -trial committee, -p.puddles in the Judicial Council