The peacock opposes Kurt severely: There's a big difference the word “can” from that “you need”

Pallaska has said that with a funny explanation for the principles of constitutional interpretation, the outgoing prime minister claims that the votes of 82 Parliament deputies, with which his self-responding was approved, are not enough for the creation of the new parliamentary majority.

He has also said Kurt has the constitutional hammer.

The “against the mobilization of all the rhetorical arsenals that he owns, which serve to cloud his political goals, is the essence of constitutional interpretation that betrays the outgoing prime minister, confirming his intention to keep the country in constitutional blockade until popular frustration enables him to reason on the turmoil that will pave the way for establishing dictatorship. All of this on the basis of the frenzied propaganda you're presenting him as a victim”, he wrote

Pallasca's full response:

The outgoing prime minister today has taken time to fight the pandemic to also reveal to us his constitutional “

Despite the mobilization of all the rhetorical arsenals that he owns, which serve to cloud his political goals, it is the essence of constitutional interpretation that betrays the outgoing prime minister, confirming his intention to keep the country on constitutional blockades until popular frustration enables him to reason on the turmoil that will pave the way for the establishment of the dictatorship. All of this on the basis of the rampant propaganda that you're presenting as a victim.

With a funny explanation for the principles of the constitutional performance, the outgoing prime minister claims that the votes of the 82 deputies of the Parliament, which he approved of his self-government, are not enough to create the new parliamentary majority.

The outgoing prime minister must understand that his surrender was approved by the vote of more than 2/3 of all MPs in the Parliament, including 2/3 of MPs from non-most communities, which is not only enough to create a new parliamentary majority but also to change the constitution.

Article 82, paragraph 2 of the Constitution that envisions the President It can be distributed after voting on the government's no-confidence motion. As it gives the president the right to disperse the Assembly if there is no possibility that a new parliamentary majority will be created, this constitutional provision does not force the president to disperse the Parliament immediately following the successful vote of no confidence motion. That's why this constitutional provision uses the legislative term “CAN connection to” instead of the term imperative character “DI HEA.”

Otherwise, it is important to note that our constitution does not expect disbelief of a government to take place simultaneously or through the subsequent government vote, such as Germany's case. Under our constitution, the vote of non-confidence with the government and the vote for the election of the next government are separate processes. This means that “structure” of the parliamentary majority, with which no confidence in the banned government has been voted, is tested only after the Assembly is submitted for voting the proposal to elect the new government.

In the end, but not in importance, it must be stressed that there is no difference, in the sense of democratic legitimacy or constitutional authorisations or considerations for the new government's election, between a retired Government and a dismissed Government. In both cases the resigned/designed Government remains the caretaker Government and does its daily affairs to ensure the continued functioning of institutions until the new government is elected.