The separate opinions issued Friday by four of the nine members of the Consell de Garanties Estatutàries (CGE) on the constitutionality of the new law of queries that the Parliament expects to approve in September agree on the ambiguity created between the term ‘ query ‘ and ‘ referendum ‘ in this text.
Although the opinion of the CGE believes the Constitution or the statute does not violate the law and has endorsed the individual votes of Pere Jover and Eliseo Aja , appointed at the proposal of the PSC, Marc Carrillo -ICV- and Carles Fernández Jaume -PP- agree that no difference was seen between the two terms .
Features referendum
Pere Jover has disagreed with the majority opinion in concluding that the term ‘popular consultations refrendarias no’ text presents substantial characteristics of referendum “as derived from Constitution and case constitutional. “
While recognizing that the Government is competent to convene consultations with the via referendum, pointed out the need to do so in compliance with the framework established by the Constitution and the statute, concluding that the consultation bill “does not respect these constitutional limits.”
Query law does not respect constitutional limits About the persons entitled to vote in the Catalan query like over 16 years – says that what characterizes a referendum is the electorate as a whole, and the fact of expanding this to other groups subject minor “does not introduce substantial changes in this regard and transforms the real nature of the institution” and has predicted little effect of these additions on the dimension quantitative electoral body.
About the pronouncement by the double question of 9-N -from the CGE has not opinado-, Jover shares the majority position of the advisory body to consider that it is not a matter to be discussed at this time.
Referendum simulated
Eliseo Aja abounds that this bill is “a type of mock referendum, which lacks Enable and the guarantees required by the Constitution and statute. ” “You can be considered a simple no referendary consultation,” he says, and insists that, when an referendary popular consultation is addressed to all citizens of Catalonia, is materially a referendum, so that requires democratic safeguards provided for in the Constitution and the statute, not on the bill underscores
.
Another dissenting opinion, made by Marc Carrillo, emphasizes that the bill contains a partial violation of the Constitution and the statute on three precepts “derived from the application of legal categories that are specific to the referendum to a form of citizen participation that the bill provides that it is not.”
Illegal if no permission
according to which ‘the Constitution certainly prevents referendary not provided for in the bill inquiry, indiscriminately and without distinction as to the object of competition affecting powers of the State or decisions of the constituency. ” While pointing to the Constitution admit, for example, a referendary referendum to gauge support for the people of Catalonia to a future reform of the Constitution, ditch: “In this case it is clear that this referendum always sue state authorization “.
not fit
The other of the separate opinions formulated by Jaume Carles Fernández says that this proposition” has no place in the constitutional framework force is formulated as the current text. ” “The bill regulates a mock referendum, or, if preferred, a referendum hidden under a formula called ‘no referendary referendum”, since the text incorporates the elements of the referendum, which invalidates the bill in their adjustment to the Constitution and the statute.
As for the request to rule on the double question, Fernández has taken issue with the council majority considering that there is a causal relationship between the bill and the question of the existence of 9-N: “This, we can not escape, greatly influences the regulation of the object and the material scope of the inquiry referendary not regulated by the proposition”
.
No comments:
Post a Comment