Restriction and consensus, hardly!

What were we looking for? It shows the title of this scripture! Restriction and consensus, hardly! Dialogue under the control and responsibility of the Parliament!

First, with the necessary majority, we proposed that the Assembly be appointed final responsibility for the management of the dialogue process as the highest legislative and decision-making body. It wasn't happening before, it was happening with the PSD!

Second, a well-equipped process, clear definition of roles and institutional responsibility, co-ordination of actions and decisions through which sovereignty, territorial and institutional integrity of the Republic of Kosovo, state interests, constitutional order and unitary character could not be served without a whole party consensus. That's what we asked for. Qualified voting! Two-thirds!

Thirdly, we proposed that the State Platform be adopted by two-thirds of the total number of MPs. Establishive principles and consensus state positions! With reconciliation of all political parties! By 80 votes for!

The fourth, the host and host of the dialogue would be approved by qualified votes, with two-thirds of the total number of MPs, and the Parliament preserved the right to sack carriers and carriers whenever it estimates the basic principles of the platform were violated and when the process risks coming out of its framework.

And the fifth and last would create a special parliamentary commission for monitoring this process. Total transparency with the participation of the Civil Society.

It was not done with the opposition, it was done with political parties in power, another resolution, with the necessary majority! That was the opportunity!

When the resolution was adopted in December last year, among the main principles was the preservation of territorial integrity and the unitary character of the state of Kosovo, defending the strategic interests of our Republic. This resolution also clearly stressed that its derivatives would be the subsequent adoption of a law that would have the power of consensus decision-making and clear limits in the process.

Now, I return, very briefly, the Law declared incompatible with the Constitution.

First, there would be no initiative for this bill if it were not for this current report of political forces in the Assembly. The power of the ruling coalition has enabled this report! If it were another report, we wouldn't have asked! We used it, didn't use LDK or LV!

Second, when the bill was written, the Social Democrat Party was clear that it would not enter a process without competence. If these are not, what need do we have to become part of the gym of other institutions?

Third, the law was a whole special procedure - special. It regulated the functioning of the State Delegation by defining its organisational structure, activity, competencies and responsibilities. In this direction the law clearly defined the link that the delegation would maintain with other constitutional institutions. The delegation would be the only entity authorised for negotiating and reaching agreements during the dialogue process.

Fourth, most important part, restriction and consensus! The role of the prime minister and president in the process of dialogue was strictly and procedurally limited. Consensual decision, if not, qualified majority decision-making! Two-thirds! Co-ordination, co-directes, co-represents, co-members and reports in the Parliament. That was the delegation. While, the Constitutional Court, nothing has said more than what is based on the constitution. We knew that! What is known, constitutionality has never been the process that has remained static forever. What is known, the process of dialogue has become zero!

Naim Jakaj

Deputy Speaker of the Parliament