Ymer: And so does the State.

Ymer has said the government's decision on limiting citizens' movement is unthinking.

The government's decision appears inconsiderate. The procedure, since its compliance with the Constitution is extremely unclear. Laws in which the government decision is called (according to apologists) give the right to <x1-second circulation prevention in infected or directly endangered areas” (as it was previously restricted by the Year movement, Malisheva, some villages in Podujevo, etc). Not in the entire territory of Kosovo. Unless the government is considering that the whole Kosovo is infected region”, he wrote.

He says the prime minister and the president are seriously endangering public health.

His full reaction:

Well, yeah, that's how the state collapses.

On one hand, the government's decision seems inconsiderate.

The procedure, since its compliance with the Constitution is extremely unclear. Laws in which the government decision is called (according to apologists) give the right to <x0 ... the ban on circulation in infected or directly endangered areas” (as it was previously restricted by the Year movement, Malisheva, some villages in Podujevo, etc). Not in the entire territory of Kosovo. Unless the government is considering that all of Kosovo is infected region. But in this case, what is the meaning of partial restrictions on time? How did it become that the Kosovo region is infected to catch between 10 and 16, but not infected from 16 to 20? However, this is the issue that experts must assess. Those healths. But also by constitutional experts on constitutionality of the decision. From the Constitutional Court.

Officially, since such a decision focuses on circulation in a few hours of the day, which conditions massive exits at certain hours, increasing the risk of infection. Like. Today, there were expectations of a large group of people to receive social assistance. There was no social awareness at all since everyone was out at the same time. Before 10:00!

But what does the call mean for noncompliance? Is it called for us to go on the streets massively against the government's decision? So when someone says that this decision should be disputed because it has no legal effect (as the president did) does what he is saying, do not stay home? And, at the same time, confront the police? Really? This call is absurd and dangerous. As much as the government's decision. Because it's arbitrary, like the government's decision to reconcile the verdict with the Constitution.

And to say that this is the beginning of the installation of the dictatorship for a measure that is being practiced in different parts of the world, is beyond absurdity. If the work of the Assembly (his assembly) is unable to be observed and the Constitution's eventual decision on the unconstitutional of the government's decision is not respected, then yes, we have dictatorship installations. But if the government gives up the decision when the Constitution proclaims it unconstitutional, and does not prevent the Parliament's work in voting the no-confidence motion, last night's ruling remains a procedural violation of the Constitution.

This is not little, since violating procedures, regulations, norms, is a direct attack on democratic institutions, even if it comes from unintentional error. But we cannot call it dictatorship. He's an arbitrator. Even the call for non-compliance. And dangerous. Like the call for noncompliance. So these two, and their profile in institutions (Prime Minister or President), those who come up with each other are seriously endangering public health.

And we have to save him. Then ♪belt.