First I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my article, a discussion with different opinions is always a healthy one. Now for my opinions on your comments.
In the first case, there is no need to change the words 'national ordinance' to 'Majority of the Council of Ministers'. Article 40 indicates 'National Ordinances and National Decrees shall be signed by the Governor and by one or more ministers'. Please note that the Article does not indicate 'Prime Minister' but 'one or more ministers'. So your conclusion is not correct.
Article 59 allows Council of Ministers to dissolve Parliament, even though you may not like it, that is part of the Constitution as well. We know that a vote in COM was taken to dissolve Parliament on the 7th of May. A vote that the Prime Minister is refusing to execute. She is refusing to do her job, which is also against the constitution.
A man is ultimately judged by his actions. My honor is very important to me. Since you are a Johnny Come Lately, you can ask around. I have publicly disagreed with positions of the National Alliance. The leadership of the party allows us to voice our opinion to full extent. I never quite understood why he was called a dictator as this label is truly underserved.
A few years ago, I had an exchange in the media with a good friend of mine when he had just returned from Holland. I used the term Johnny Come Lately with him as well, in the meantime he has been on the island for years now and has acclimatized to the island. You need some time to do the same. Now don't get me wrong, your heritage is not in question here.
As an experienced man in the area of Parliamentary procedures you should have been aware that the meeting held was not official and yet you let yourself be used as a pawn. Why would a man with your experience allow that. As I mentioned before, your actions seemed built on self-interest and not the needs of the people. Now I don't know you very well so I might be wrong.
The fact is, that the confusion caused right now is not William's fault, yet some people blaming him. He is called power hungry but has never offered money or blackmailed anyone to get in to Government, nor has he refused to do his job to stay as well. The real culprits are the 3 members of parliament and those in the background that for personal reasons broke the Government. Had there been a valid reason to show no confidence in the Ministers, I am sure it would be revealed by now. Not enough cohesion, and knocking on doors does not a valid reason make. De Weever even mentioned that he had no problem with the Government but yet he strangely supports sending them home.
In conclusion, if 3 members of parliament that represent less than 600 votes can throw down a government for absolutely no reason. I think it is good and valid for government to dissolve parliament. William on his own represents twice as much support than the 3. If you ask me, if the signature drive gets 1000 signatures, that's enough to call new elections since 600 can throw down government, 1000 can call early elections.
Kendall Dupersoy