|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 31 2017 06:57 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 08:00 Big J wrote:On January 30 2017 05:33 TheDwf wrote:
Hamon said in his victory speech that he wants to build a majority with Mélenchon and Jadot (the ecologist candidate).
What does this mean? It's a presidential election, only one can win, right? So is this like a deal that only Hamon runs, but the others get to be his prime minister or something? It means Hamon expects Mélenchon and Jadot to willingly drop out of the race, in order to prevent voter dispersion within the "left of the left" and hopefully make it to the second round of the election. In return, Hamon and his party will likely offer safe seats in the upcoming legislative election, plus ministerial seats in the event that Hamon win the election. Jadot might accept such a deal, the French Greens are used to these kind of backroom arrangements with the Socialist Party. But they weigh next to nothing, electorally speaking. Mélenchon on the other hand will never desist his candidacy, and he is the one that Hamon badly needs to take out of the race. Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 03:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Problem with a Fillon vs Le Pen scenario is that it sucks either way.. Nationalism is arguably the political ideology I am most at odds with (principally) but thatcherism is far up there as well. Hamon would be my choice by far, but I guess realistically go Macron? It will be thatcherism or nationalism in any case. Macron is a thatcherite light, with a whiff of Tony Blair when it comes to "rubbing their nose in diversity". ------------------ I guess that that the most memorable outcome of this election will be the end of the Socialist Party as the dominant left wing force in French politics. Hamon is expected to struggle for the fourth place in the first round, the party irremediably torn in two, some of its members of parliament are already defecting to Macron...
French parties have an ability to get torn apart, divided, renamed and yet stay remarkably stable that is a bit of a mystery.
If Macron wins he probably gets the PS behind him. They'll need him, and he has no MPs at all so he absolutely needs them. And if he loses, the PS gets a "fresh start" next time.
The main thing is that the PS has an overwhelming majority of left wing MPs, and that's not gonna change any time soon and it's much more important in the long term than having good odds at the presidential elections. Remember that the RPR became the UMP and then LR in a decade. Still the same people, still the same party.
TL;DR: what matters are the MPs. Macron afaik, is basically an alternative PS candidate.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
Was Fillon not widely slammed for having too chummy relations with Putin as well? This is the part that is covered in this part of the world anyway.
|
On January 31 2017 07:03 mustaju wrote:
Was Fillon not widely slammed for having too chummy relations with Putin as well? This is the part that is covered in this part of the world anyway.
He did.
But then again, Le Pen is directly financed by the Kremlin..
|
Which of the running candidates have a staunch stance on Russian FP? Hamon and Macron? And what is the general opinion in France on the topic?
|
France266 Posts
On January 31 2017 07:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 06:57 Koorb wrote:On January 30 2017 08:00 Big J wrote:On January 30 2017 05:33 TheDwf wrote:
Hamon said in his victory speech that he wants to build a majority with Mélenchon and Jadot (the ecologist candidate).
What does this mean? It's a presidential election, only one can win, right? So is this like a deal that only Hamon runs, but the others get to be his prime minister or something? It means Hamon expects Mélenchon and Jadot to willingly drop out of the race, in order to prevent voter dispersion within the "left of the left" and hopefully make it to the second round of the election. In return, Hamon and his party will likely offer safe seats in the upcoming legislative election, plus ministerial seats in the event that Hamon win the election. Jadot might accept such a deal, the French Greens are used to these kind of backroom arrangements with the Socialist Party. But they weigh next to nothing, electorally speaking. Mélenchon on the other hand will never desist his candidacy, and he is the one that Hamon badly needs to take out of the race. On January 31 2017 03:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Problem with a Fillon vs Le Pen scenario is that it sucks either way.. Nationalism is arguably the political ideology I am most at odds with (principally) but thatcherism is far up there as well. Hamon would be my choice by far, but I guess realistically go Macron? It will be thatcherism or nationalism in any case. Macron is a thatcherite light, with a whiff of Tony Blair when it comes to "rubbing their nose in diversity". ------------------ I guess that that the most memorable outcome of this election will be the end of the Socialist Party as the dominant left wing force in French politics. Hamon is expected to struggle for the fourth place in the first round, the party irremediably torn in two, some of its members of parliament are already defecting to Macron... French parties have an ability to get torn apart, divided, renamed and yet stay remarkably stable that is a bit of a mystery. If Macron wins he probably gets the PS behind him. They'll need him, and he has no MPs at all so he absolutely needs them. And if he loses, the PS gets a "fresh start" next time. The main thing is that the PS has an overwhelming majority of left wing MPs, and that's not gonna change any time soon and it's much more important in the long term than having good odds at the presidential elections. Remember that the RPR became the UMP and then LR in a decade. Still the same people, still the same party. TL;DR: what matters are the MPs. Macron afaik, is basically an alternative PS candidate.
But the RPR/UMP/LR was never quite as ideologically divided as the Socialist Party is right now. How is the Hamon block who wants universal basic income and repeal of the loi travail supposed to live with the thatcherite who inspired the loi travail ? How is the Valls block who wants a strict laïcité supposed to live with a supporter of "reasonable accommodations" ? The electoral base of the party is shattered, with groups of people who hold diametrically opposed, irreconcilable viewpoints. It is no surprise that the number of paying subscribers of the party has decreased in the build-up of the election.
Not to mention the leadership crisis. It's going to be really gut wrenching for a lot of higher-up socialists to rally behind Hamon or Macron.
- The former is seen as a frondeur (i.e : a rogue), who undermined the Hollande administration at every turn along with his political allies, only to call today for the party to show him the loyalty that he himself never showed to his predecessor.
- And the latter is seen as a jumped-up opportunist, who betrayed Hollande's trust and used the party as a springboard for his personal ambitions, refusing to participate in the primary thus preventing a united center-left candidacy (with the risks it implies for the second round of the election).
In this context, hard to see a way toward a united left-wing, unless Macron wins the election.
On January 31 2017 08:58 Nyxisto wrote:
Which of the running candidates have a staunch stance on Russian FP? Hamon and Macron? And what is the general opinion in France on the topic?
Hamon (and most of the socialists regardless of their affiliation) stand with the "Russians are evil, Aleppo free army is good" crowd. He's probably the most hostile candidate to Russia along with the green candidate, Jadot. That doesn't make him pro-American though, especially with Trump in power.
Macron says he wants to de-escalate the tensions and normalize the relationship with Russia, both on the Ukrainian and Syrian matters. He calls for an "independant and European dialogue" with Putin.
General opinion is hard to tell, because this topic is really minor in the race so far (and it is expected to remain minor). My feeling is that the opinion is slightly becoming favorable to a de-escalation with Russia, because a lot of people are angry about the politicians and mainstream medias who fed them non-stop stories about the Syrian rebels being some sort of secular, pro-democracy freedom fighters, only to find out their true nature later.
|
On January 31 2017 10:19 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 07:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 31 2017 06:57 Koorb wrote:On January 30 2017 08:00 Big J wrote:On January 30 2017 05:33 TheDwf wrote:
Hamon said in his victory speech that he wants to build a majority with Mélenchon and Jadot (the ecologist candidate).
What does this mean? It's a presidential election, only one can win, right? So is this like a deal that only Hamon runs, but the others get to be his prime minister or something? It means Hamon expects Mélenchon and Jadot to willingly drop out of the race, in order to prevent voter dispersion within the "left of the left" and hopefully make it to the second round of the election. In return, Hamon and his party will likely offer safe seats in the upcoming legislative election, plus ministerial seats in the event that Hamon win the election. Jadot might accept such a deal, the French Greens are used to these kind of backroom arrangements with the Socialist Party. But they weigh next to nothing, electorally speaking. Mélenchon on the other hand will never desist his candidacy, and he is the one that Hamon badly needs to take out of the race. On January 31 2017 03:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Problem with a Fillon vs Le Pen scenario is that it sucks either way.. Nationalism is arguably the political ideology I am most at odds with (principally) but thatcherism is far up there as well. Hamon would be my choice by far, but I guess realistically go Macron? It will be thatcherism or nationalism in any case. Macron is a thatcherite light, with a whiff of Tony Blair when it comes to "rubbing their nose in diversity". ------------------ I guess that that the most memorable outcome of this election will be the end of the Socialist Party as the dominant left wing force in French politics. Hamon is expected to struggle for the fourth place in the first round, the party irremediably torn in two, some of its members of parliament are already defecting to Macron... French parties have an ability to get torn apart, divided, renamed and yet stay remarkably stable that is a bit of a mystery. If Macron wins he probably gets the PS behind him. They'll need him, and he has no MPs at all so he absolutely needs them. And if he loses, the PS gets a "fresh start" next time. The main thing is that the PS has an overwhelming majority of left wing MPs, and that's not gonna change any time soon and it's much more important in the long term than having good odds at the presidential elections. Remember that the RPR became the UMP and then LR in a decade. Still the same people, still the same party. TL;DR: what matters are the MPs. Macron afaik, is basically an alternative PS candidate. But the RPR/UMP/LR was never quite as ideologically divided as the Socialist Party is right now. How is the Hamon block who wants universal basic income and repeal of the loi travail supposed to live with the thatcherite who inspired the loi travail ? How is the Valls block who wants a strict laïcité supposed to live with a supporter of "reasonable accommodations" ? The electoral base of the party is shattered, with groups of people who hold diametrically opposed, irreconcilable viewpoints. It is no surprise that the number of paying subscribers of the party has decreased in the build-up of the election. Not to mention the leadership crisis. It's going to be really gut wrenching for a lot of higher-up socialists to rally behind Hamon or Macron. - The former is seen as a frondeur (i.e : a rogue), who undermined the Hollande administration at every turn along with his political allies, only to call today for the party to show him the loyalty that he himself never showed to his predecessor. - And the latter is seen as a jumped-up opportunist, who betrayed Hollande's trust and used the party as a springboard for his personal ambitions, refusing to participate in the primary thus preventing a united center-left candidacy (with the risks it implies for the second round of the election). In this context, hard to see a way toward a united left-wing, unless Macron wins the election. Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 08:58 Nyxisto wrote:
Which of the running candidates have a staunch stance on Russian FP? Hamon and Macron? And what is the general opinion in France on the topic? Hamon (and most of the socialists regardless of their affiliation) stand with the "Russians are evil, Aleppo free army is good" crowd. He's probably the most hostile candidate to Russia along with the green candidate, Jadot. That doesn't make him pro-American though, especially with Trump in power. Macron says he wants to de-escalate the tensions and normalize the relationship with Russia, both on the Ukrainian and Syrian matters. He calls for an "independant and European dialogue" with Putin. General opinion is hard to tell, because this topic is really minor in the race so far (and it is expected to remain minor). My feeling is that the opinion is slightly becoming favorable to a de-escalation with Russia, because a lot of people are angry about the politicians and mainstream medias who fed them non-stop stories about the Syrian rebels being some sort of secular, pro-democracy freedom fighters, only to find out their true nature later.
How is that? The RPR/UMP/LR has had people like Madelin, a business oriented thatcherite, Juppé, a somewhat social democrat right wing gaullist, Sarkozy, a nationalist flirting with the FN, Boutin, a catholic extremist, etc etc etc.
The left is divided into several party, with the PS the greens, the communists, the LO/NPA etc. The right has had for a long time only one umbrella party where orleanistes and bonapartistes, two wildly differenr branches of the right, are supposed to coexist.and they do quite well.
The SFIO / PS has beennthere for ever, it's not going anywhere any time soon.
|
Thanks for responding, would you say you're a supporter of Mélenchon? I think Noam Chomsky calls himself a 'libertarian socialist', would you say your views are similar to his?
|
On January 31 2017 22:13 LightSpectra wrote:Thanks for responding, would you say you're a supporter of Mélenchon?
I'm not thedwf but I think one important point is that beyond the ideas presented by Mélenchon, his character is rather despicable, he's very egocentric. I know we should vote for ideas but we can't totally ignore the character of our potential representative. He's not wrong on some subjects about how the medias treat him, as some are not really kind to far leftists, but he blows some things out of proportion. For exemple the state radio interviewed him and he puts the interview on his website and youtube channel. The radio asks him to rather put a link to their website or an embedded version of the video as it's their property, he ignores them, they repeat this process again, eventually the radio asks youtube to do something about it. At this point Mélenchon makes an outburst how the radio is attempting to close his youtube account, that medias are attempting to shut him down etc
|
Some people are are forgetting that parties being really divided is pretty common place in France. Hell, in 2012, the UMP was in an all-out internal warfare between the very opposite views of Copé, who wanted the party to overtake the FN on its right side, and Fillon, who wanted it to go find votes in the center, kinda like what Juppé tried to do (and will no doubt do if Fillon is forced to step down). Yet after some drama and 5 years of Hollande presidency, they managed to get in line and still have roughly 1/3 to 1/2 odds to win the presidency. I doubt they'll resist another loss, though. But just like them, the PS won't die tomorrow, they'll most likely die in 2023/4, with the party becoming a fringe left party like the British Labour.
|
Austria is the latest European country to move to ban the full-face veil in public spaces.
The country’s ruling coalition this week agreed to prohibit full-face veils such as the burqa and the niqab in courts and schools, while further investigating the possibility of banning headscarves for women employed in public services.
The ban is part of a package of changes hammered out by the ruling Social Democratic party (SPÖ) and the centre-right Austrian People’s party (ÖVP) to avert the collapse of their coalition government, which would have triggered snap elections.
Other new policy goals they have agreed include expanding Austria’s CCTV network and a compulsory “integration year” for asylum seekers, during which they would have to commit themselves to learning German and working for a charitable organisation.
The ban on the full-face veil is seen above all as a symbolic measure designed to avert pressure from the anti-immigration Freedom party (FPÖ), which is currently leading in the polls. Only between 100 and 150 women are estimated to wear the full-face veil in Austria. A spokesperson emphasised the ban would apply for tourist destinations such as the Zell am See ski resort as well as the urban centre of Vienna.
A similar ban has been place in France and Belgium since 2011, the Netherlands introduced a partial ban in 2015, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, endorsed her party’s call to ban the full-face veil “wherever it is legally possible” last year.
While the government’s working paper also said civil servants in executive positions, such as judges and state prosecutors, should be forced to wear “religiously neutral” clothing, the Austrian justice ministry has distanced itself from the proposals, stating that guidelines already prescribe specific clothing in court.
According to Der Standard newspaper, there are no women with headscarves working for Austria’s police force or the country’s courts.
The president of Austria’s Islamic Faith Community, Ibrahim Olgun, criticised the proposed ban, saying that it would “pull the rug” from under efforts to create a good working relationship between the government and the Muslim community.
Source
|
Banning burqa is acceptable.
Banning headscarves in public services isn't secular.
|
Romania's new leftist government late on Tuesday decriminalized a number of graft offences including some abuse-of-power cases in the ex-communist state's biggest retreat on anti-corruption reforms since it joined the European Union a decade ago.
More than 10,000 people gathered outside government headquarters in the capital, Bucharest, in freezing temperatures and thousands more in cities across Romania shortly after the emergency decree was announced.
Protesters in Bucharest shouted: "Thieves!" and "Traitors!" and called for the government to resign.
Romania's leftists swept into power in December, promising higher wages and pensions in a parliamentary election that underscored a deepening divide between older rural voters, tired of austerity, and younger city-dwellers.
Their plans to ease anti-corruption rules were unveiled earlier this month, triggering the largest street protests since the 1989 fall of communism.
The leftists said the changes were needed to get the criminal code in line with recent constitutional court rulings.
The Cabinet of Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu has drawn criticism from President Klaus Iohannis, chief judges and prosecutors, civil rights groups, diplomats and the European Commission, which has Romania's justice system under special monitoring.
"Today is a day of mourning for the rule of law," Iohannis said in a statement. "The government has ignored the dreams of millions of Romanians who want to live in a country free of corruption."
Romania is one of Europe's most corrupt states, with graft rife in state administration and many areas of public life. Efforts to stamp out abuse have accelerated over the past four years.
Prosecutors have indicted nearly 2,000 people in cases involving abuse of power that have caused damages totaling up to 1 billion euros in the past three years.
Several leading politicians are under investigation or on trial in abuse-of-power cases, including the leader of the ruling Social Democrats and lower house Speaker Liviu Dragnea.
The emergency decree - which takes effect immediately - would decriminalize some offences, including abuse of power causing financial damage of less than 200,000 lei ($48,000).
It also approved a draft bill granting prison pardons for several offences that now needs parliament's approval.
"This is a strong hit against criminal justice in Romania, and the impact will be major ... on all citizens," anti-corruption legal expert Laura Stefan said about Tuesday's announcement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-romania-government-corruption-idUSKBN15F29F
The consequence of our latest elections. We had done so much progress in the fight against corruption in the past 4-5 years and then we went ahead and voted for the party that was openly against all that work. It's difficult to maintain any droplet of optimism in this country.
|
Why do people vote for a party like that? Is it really for higher wages/pensions like the article says?
|
On February 01 2017 17:02 RvB wrote:
Why do people vote for a party like that? Is it really for higher wages/pensions like the article says?
Pretty much. Plus the most watched news channel here is owned by a politician that was imprisoned for corruption, and they've managed to frame justice as political persecution.
|
On February 01 2017 17:02 RvB wrote:
Why do people vote for a party like that? Is it really for higher wages/pensions like the article says?
I suggest watching tropa de elite 2 (watch tropa de elite 1 too, btw). It's about Brazil, but it sounds applicable to this case too.
A bit simplistic, but the core is about right: government promises poor people social programs, so poor people vote them into power. These people know the government are a bunch of corrupt dicks, but they promised to make life easier for the (working) poor, so win the election. They instate those social programs with money the government doesn't have, and royally fleece their pockets. They then get out before their scheme comes crashing down.
|
Iohannis was outplayed.
once the intent of modifying the penal code and offense decriminalization appeared in the press, the president tried to intervene. he dropped in parliament/gov. sessions making speeches, giving warnings and initially managed to postpone it; he even claimed he made a deal with the PM in that he would have a parliamentary debate on those issues before any final decisions would be made. when that also didn't work, he threatened with and even started the process of a national referendum on those issues.
http://www.nineoclock.ro/president-klaus-iohannis-triggers-referendum-on-the-granting-of-pardons-decision-stirs-reactions/ On Tuesday, President Klaus Iohannis sent to the Speakers of the two Chambers of Parliament a letter in which he asks for Parliament’s consultation on the holding of a referendum on the granting of pardons. Consulting Parliament is mandatory for the President; however, the legislative’s approval is not.
The issue “of national interest” on which the President wants to consult the population is “The continuation of the fight against corruption and ensuring the integrity of the public office,” per the letter.
“On Tuesday, January 24, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis has started, in line with the provisions of Article 90 of the Romanian Constitution, the procedure concerning the holding of a national referendum through which the people can express their will on the following issue of national interest: The continuation of the fight against corruption and ensuring the integrity of the public office.
In this sense, the Romanian President has sent a letter to the Speakers of the two Chambers, asking for the consultation of Parliament on the aforementioned issue.
Romanian Prime Minister Sorin Mihai Grindeanu was also informed about the triggering of a national referendum. he was ninjaed later in the same day with gov. approving those bills/proposals/amendments.
the gov. side on things looks like: http://www.nineoclock.ro/geo-on-criminal-code-and-criminal-procedure-code-amendment-adopted-by-government-decision-creates-a-wave-of-discontent-and-indignation/ “The third normative act we adopted today is the GEO for the modification and addition of the Law 296 Criminal Code and Law 135 Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, under this GEO, (…) we put in agreement the Constitutional Court rulings which (…) should have been implemented by the Government or by Parliament,” Iordache said.
Asked how this ordinance modifies the abuse of office offense, Iordache replied: “That prerequisite complaint which the civil society or the mere citizens invoked was eliminated and abuse of offices was placed in agreement with the Court ruling.”
The Justice Minister also said that, according to the normative act, abuse of office with an under 200,000 lei damage will no longer be criminally sanctioned.
“It isn’t criminally sanctioned. Therefore what is under 200,000, the damage is recouped and the offender is no longer criminally sanctioned. This was also what the Court recommended, to establish a quantum. Taking into account the aggravating circumstances, it is a reasonable limit, because the court could have had in view 400,000, or 1,000,000. If you take a look at the Criminal Code, it could have had in view 2,000,000 euro, and then, under these circumstances, we established this amount at 200,000 lei. This is very important, because in the public communication it appeared that we decriminalize the abuse of office… No, we regulated it better and in agreement with the Court decision,” Iordache said. it is to note that the leader of the governing party had a dossier on corruption charges amounting to ~40.000 lei if i remember right and the ceiling being raised to 200.000lei gets him off clean.
unlike western states, in which a left-right shuffling doesn't mean much(unless one goes far right/left), the left and the right here have significant differences including in their international backers(US, Europe vs China, Russia as an example).
historically PSD(center left, social dem, won latest parliamentary elections) was linked to the russians; they never took a pro-russian stance on things but they've had corruption charges/dossiers linked with american companies(having worked with american companies in lobbying, political campaigns and so on).
the PSD gov before the current one had a chinese bent so it's not clear whom they serve now. they are assholes though.
i am and always will be(or until the corruption subsides to some "normal" levels) for a simultaneous left - right governing in order to get a power struggle because our right(dem libs) is no saint either(the wishful logic here being: where two are fighting, the third wins and i'm thinking the third would be the rumanian people); they'll fight each other, indict each other, imprison each other and so on until there will be no corruption left.
(note: currently, ALDE(governing partner to PSD) is trying to push for a tax auditing into Klaus Iohannis’s wealth (implying)accusing him of tax evasion.)
Edit: there is also a fight for control of our intelligence service SRI by both the left and the right. currently its skittishly controlled by the right but the left is coming strong from behind. http://www.nineoclock.ro/five-ngos-denounce-sri-and-ciolos-govt-at-european-anti-fraud-office/ + Show Spoiler +On Tuesday, January 31, five non-governmental organisations – the Academic Society in Romania (SAR), Active Watch, the Spiritual Militia Association, the Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – Helsinki Committee (APADOR-CH) and the Association for Technology and Internet (ApTi) – filed with the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) a complaint concerning the way in which the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) received European grants for the SII Analytics project that has mass population surveillance potential, stiripesurse.ro informs.
The complaint was simultaneously filed with the Romanian Parliament’s SRI Oversight Committee, with the mention that “there is the suspicion that the SRI interceded with high-level officials of the Ciolos Government for them to approve this project, even with the Prime Minister, and that the last tranche of this project comes against the backdrop of older constitutional infringements covered up by CSAT [Supreme National Defence Council] decisions whose constitutionality was not checked.”
|
The leftists said the changes were needed to get the criminal code in line with recent constitutional court rulings.
Any more info about those rulings? What was wrong with your anti-corruption laws?
|
On February 01 2017 20:35 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +The leftists said the changes were needed to get the criminal code in line with recent constitutional court rulings. Any more info about those rulings? What was wrong with your anti-corruption laws?
From what I have read, main focus is the ban on convicted people holding a ministry. Corruption cases have lead to the conviction of more than a few political figures, not least Dragnea (head of PSD which won the last elections).
For example, Dragnea had a 2 years suspended sentence for a vote-rigging case in 2012. He cannot rule (officially ?) even though his party won the election.
Government made recently 3 moves against this law:
- a petition to the constitutional court stating the ban of ex convicts from office is unconstitutional
- an executive order to pardon light offenses, which would pardon most politicians convicted in corruption cases and allow them to get back in office.
- a second executive order to decriminalize abuse of power in some cases (which would cover about 1/3 of the corruption investigations)
|
pretty much; the law in question is Legea nr. 90 din 2001 regarding the organization and function of the government and ministries. since 2014 we have a new penal code which somewhat contradicts that law.
in a nutshell:
the 2001 law states that (regarding ones ability to be a member of the government, the part related to Liviu Dragnea):
- it's forbidden to those with penal convictions(misdemeanor/felony i think)
the 2014 penal code states:
- the forbidding of "rights"(i don't know the legal terms here) of <this kind/nature> should occur only over a period of time and it lists the time as being 1 to 5 years. after 5yrs one is free to occupy a function of civil servant/functionary/state official.
Edit: the executive order can be challenged at our Constitutional Court(CCR) by the Ombudsman(public advocate) based on some precedents, but seems like a long shot.
|
Here's what I found.
Justice Minister Florin Iordache said the bill on commuting sentences of under five years for non-violent crimes was designed to avoid a ruling against Romania at the European Court of Human Rights regarding prison conditions. The government presented the legislative package in mid-January as a way to solve overcrowding in jails.
But those opposed to the measures argue that they are likely to bail out allies of the Social Democrat (PSD) government led by Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu — including party leader Liviu Dragnea, who received a suspended jail sentence for an attempt to rig a referendum in 2012.
source
BUCHAREST, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Romania's ombudsman asked the Constitutional Court on Thursday to strike down a law that bars people convicted of a criminal offence from joining the government, a move that could help the leader of the ruling party to become prime minister.
The 2001 law prevented Liviu Dragnea, leader of the leftist Social Democrats (PSD), from becoming premier after his party won a Dec. 11 parliamentary election as he is serving a two-year suspended jail sentence over a 2012 vote-rigging case.
President Klaus Iohannis, a former centre-right leader and opponent of the PSD, has made clear he would refuse to appoint as prime minister any candidate with a criminal record.
In his appeal to the Constitutional Court, ombudsman Victor Ciorbea said the 2001 law was unconstitutional, lacked coherence and failed to respect the separation of powers in Romania.
"It is indisputable that a person about to occupy a position of state authority must meet certain criteria on integrity, legality and fairness aimed at cementing citizens' trust in authorities," Ciorbea said in a statement.
"But the legal framework ... must be coherent, predictable and uniform, applicable to the representatives of all three powers," he said, referring to the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
source
I guess they can pretend they have good reasons but their excuses aren't very convincing.
I understand why some think there is nothing wrong with voting for politicians convicted of corruption but supporting people convicted of electoral fraud like that Dragnea guy just boggles my mind. It's like asking to get fucked over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
