By his office Evangelos Venizelos The following comments were published – by point – in response to a note of government sources mentioned on the procedure in Parliament

1. One of the key incisions brought about by the current 1975 Constitution in Parliamentary Law is to abolish the quorum in the sense of a minimum number of Members to meet the House validly. Article 67 Const. It does not establish a minimum number of Members (75/300) to have a quorum, but a minimum number of positive votes to decide the House when the general rule applies that the House decides by the absolute majority of its members present.

2. A required minimum number of Members present in order to meet the House validly, there is no constitution. On the contrary, there is a minimum number of positive votes for a valid decision. This is 75 MPs (300/4) as a general rule. However, a number of constitutional provisions require an increased majority over the whole number of Members, elsewhere in absolute majority (151/300), another majority of three fifths (180/300), elsewhere two -thirds (200/300). In this case, Article 86 (3) requires an absolute majority of the entire number of Members, not as a quorum but as a minimum majority. But when there is a procedural issue of postponement of the vote due to the absence of MPs of the Coalition, the decision is taken by the absolute majority of those who may not be less than 75. This majority had been established yesterday by opposition MPs due to its organized absence. Unfortunately, this critical decision of the House was brutally ignored yesterday and was accepted three times in 2008-2009 on the same issues. The clear parliamentary and interpretive precedent was ignored with institutional prophecy.

3. The finding of the number of MPs in the Constitution and the Regulation of the House of Representatives to conduct a vote and thus the decision (in this case on the proposals for the establishment of a preliminary examination committee) shall be made in accordance with Article 69 (4) of the Regulation by the Speaker of the House. However, when there are doubts and objections, there is an incidental issue, Article 67 of the Rules is applied, the interrogation is being considered and ultimately the paragraph 7 provides that the President of the House decides but if the House of Representatives are raised, the House may not be objected to the House of Representatives. talk. This was not done yesterday and was three times in 2008-2009 under similar conditions.

4. It is another matter to facilitate Members of all parties through the letter of voting and another to remove from the House of Representatives of the MPs of the Coalition and the organized mass use of the letter voting for 68 of them so that together with the few MPs 75. It is a “staff” organized circumvention of Article 70a of the House Regulation and a direct infringement of the institutional role of the Member.

5. The crisis of internal confidence that becomes a crisis of legitimacy is not under the control of the person concerned but of all others and especially the events.