The timing seemed perfect. Facing nuclear disaster in Japan, Merkel had to escape political risk of contamination due to its policy pronuclear, and this just in time before crucial regional elections, including March 27 in Baden-Wuerttemberg. Choosing to take the bull by the horns, it was placed at the head of the anti-nuclear movement, with the prime ministers of the Länder which still host plants.
But his volte-face is extremely risky, and his black-yellow coalition [of the Christian Democrats (CDU / CSU) and liberal (FDP)] is in a zone of severe turbulence constitutional. He will not be possible for the Chancellor to implement the moratorium on power as easily as it wished. And the fact that heads of state governments the CDU and CSU have applauded like good little students, during their joint press conference March 15, makes no difference.
The legal justification advanced by way of explanation to an audience stunned by the German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, which depends on reactor safety, is so farfetched that we can hardly believe that this gentleman is a doctor of right. Invoke Section 19, paragraph 13 of the Act to stop the nuclear reactors old would only be possible if the operators had been negligent dirt, or if the facilities were in a state so miserable that the emission of radioactive substances represent a danger to local residents.
This is not the case. Certainly, the reactors are old, but their condition is not threatening. Were it otherwise is not only the environment minister, but also the leaders of the Länder who are guilty for some time to have betrayed their oath. Because they would have allowed plants to continue to rotate.
In addition, the government simply can not oppose a decision of the Bundestag. That is totally unconstitutional. A law, even questionable, can not be corrected by another law. The opposition disputes the validity of the law extending the life of plants - that's why she filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court.
However, pending the trial, a law, even challenged, remains in force and can not be removed by simple executive decision. Naturally, the opposition is now seeking to exploit the dilemma the government for election purposes. You can not blame him. Whatever one may think, elections remain the decisive moment when the company determines itself and its future policy.
The opposition, however, should not act as if the constitutionality of certain decisions was his only concern. It also acts on behalf of specific interests and legitimate. 
But his volte-face is extremely risky, and his black-yellow coalition [of the Christian Democrats (CDU / CSU) and liberal (FDP)] is in a zone of severe turbulence constitutional. He will not be possible for the Chancellor to implement the moratorium on power as easily as it wished. And the fact that heads of state governments the CDU and CSU have applauded like good little students, during their joint press conference March 15, makes no difference.
The legal justification advanced by way of explanation to an audience stunned by the German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, which depends on reactor safety, is so farfetched that we can hardly believe that this gentleman is a doctor of right. Invoke Section 19, paragraph 13 of the Act to stop the nuclear reactors old would only be possible if the operators had been negligent dirt, or if the facilities were in a state so miserable that the emission of radioactive substances represent a danger to local residents.
This is not the case. Certainly, the reactors are old, but their condition is not threatening. Were it otherwise is not only the environment minister, but also the leaders of the Länder who are guilty for some time to have betrayed their oath. Because they would have allowed plants to continue to rotate.
In addition, the government simply can not oppose a decision of the Bundestag. That is totally unconstitutional. A law, even questionable, can not be corrected by another law. The opposition disputes the validity of the law extending the life of plants - that's why she filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court.
However, pending the trial, a law, even challenged, remains in force and can not be removed by simple executive decision. Naturally, the opposition is now seeking to exploit the dilemma the government for election purposes. You can not blame him. Whatever one may think, elections remain the decisive moment when the company determines itself and its future policy.
The opposition, however, should not act as if the constitutionality of certain decisions was his only concern. It also acts on behalf of specific interests and legitimate.
- Sarkozy confuses Allemagne, Alsace (20/01/2011)
- How to Dress Well playing a Brooklyn church w/ Autre Ne Veut & other dates (12/01/2011)
- How to Dress Well played Church of the Messiah w/ Autre Ne Veut, covered Ariel Pink (just like PS22) -- review & videos (31/01/2011)
- Lilly Marthe EBENER - PARIS, France - Stylist, Fashion Designer. (07/03/2011)
- Pensé pour ce matin : (19/03/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment