The decision of the Sejm Marshal, Elżbieta Witek, on the reassumption of the vote was commented on by the MEP and former Prime Minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz in “Fakty po Faktach”. – The marshal got acquainted with the opinion of one lawyer. I mean, of course, Kaczyński. And she followed this opinion – he assessed.
Marshal of the Sejm Elżbieta Witek argued that on August 11, she “consulted five lawyers” on the reassumption of the vote. On Monday, the Sejm Information Center provided a list of five legal expert opinions which it was to follow. As it turned out, they concerned the events from three years ago. On Wednesday’s “Fakty po Faktach”, former prime minister, lawyer and MEP Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz was asked about the controversial decision on TVN24.
– I would like to say something that no one has said so far. I would like to point out that the Sejm makes decisions by voting. This means that as soon as MEPs have pressed the buttons, the decision is made. It may be a positive or negative decision, but then it is made – he pointed out.
– We find out what the decision is when the numbers are displayed on the appropriate board and the role of the marshal is limited. Whoever runs the meeting reads out these results, the decision has already been made. At the moment when the motion to adjourn the meeting to September 2, submitted by (the head of the People’s Party, Władysław) Kosiniak-Kamysz, the decision was made. The Marshal has no legal possibility to reject the decision which already exists – he explained.
What if MEPs request a reassumption of such a vote? – The regulations provide, quite exceptionally, the possibility of a second vote, but only when there are justified doubts as to the results of the vote – replied Cimoszewicz.
– These reasonable doubts may either be about the technique, whether the devices are working properly, or they may also be about whether the conclusion was clearly worded. In this case, of course, it was clearly worded. It was a postponement to a specific date, until September 2, he reminded.
Cimoszewicz, when asked about his doubts as to whether Witek actually “consulted” his lawyers and believed that it was her exclusive prerogative to decide about the reassumption of the vote, replied that “it is not that it can be done in a completely arbitrary manner”. – Otherwise, it is a mockery of the formulated regulations – he commented.
– The parliamentary practice of this democratic parliament is several dozen years old and the understanding of this formulation of the regulations is quite clear. In my opinion, of course, Mrs. Witek was lying when she spoke about these opinions, although it can be said that, somewhat ironically, she had read the opinion of one lawyer. I mean, of course, (PiS chairman Jarosław) Kaczyński – he assessed. “And she followed that opinion,” he said.
Read more on Konkret24: Constitutionalists on the opinions of 2018 presented by Elżbieta Witek
Main photo source: TVN24