Why the Third Republic?
Twenty-one questions from the signature tables and from the end of Volume I — with the answer under each and links to the documents that support it.
1. Isn’t it simpler to change the people than the Constitution?
We have changed the people nine times. Each time, within six months, the new people used the same emergency ordinances, the same appointments, the same services as the old ones — because the rules reward precisely that behaviour. When you change the players nine times and the game stays the same, the problem is the rulebook. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Sovereignty Constitution
2. Who will write these laws? The same people?
The laws are already written — that is the difference from any political promise you have heard. The Sovereignty Constitution, the Sovereignty Act, Solidarity, the referendum, demilitarisation, the George Act, Green Romania, the criminal-electoral package: complete texts, with explanatory memoranda, published, some of them passed through the Legislative Council and the Official Gazette. You are not asked to believe; you are asked to read. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Sovereignty Constitution The refounding laws
3. If the threshold drops to 1%, won’t Parliament fill with splinter parties and chaos?
The Netherlands has worked without a threshold for a century; Denmark with 2%. Chaos does not come from small parties in parliament, but from millions of people left without representation, who end up voting out of despair for anything at all. Broad representation brings conflict into the institutions — where it belongs — instead of leaving it in the street. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Constitution — the 1% threshold The Electoral Act
4. Won’t recall be used by parties to hunt down their opponents?
Convening it requires thousands of signatures from the member’s own constituency, not a party decision; the final say belongs to his own voters, at the ballot box; and it cannot be done in the last six months of the mandate. An elected representative who does his job has nothing to fear from his own voters — and if he does, that is precisely the problem we are solving. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Constitution — recall of elected officials
5. 6% for education and 9% for health — where is the money to come from?
From exactly the sources the package opens simultaneously: taxation of large turnovers (upheld by the CJEU for our neighbours), the tax on large fortunes (as in Spain, Norway, Switzerland), royalties brought up to the European level, offshore recalibrated, collection improved through transparency. Romania today collects some 13 percentage points of GDP below the European average — the refounding collects the European way in order to fund the European way. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Solidarity Act the reasons
6. Won’t taxes on large fortunes drive capital away?
The states that levy such taxes — Spain, Norway, Switzerland — have not lost their investors. Capital leaves where the rules are unpredictable and justice is uncertain, not where the tax is known in advance and written into the law. And the thresholds proposed touch only fortunes above ten million euro: not the entrepreneur, but the oligarch. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Solidarity Act the reasons
7. Demilitarising the services in the middle of a war? Are you out of your minds?
Germany demilitarised its services precisely because of what militarised services had done to it; the BND and the BfV are civilian bodies, and the separation from criminal investigation (Trennungsgebot) is a lesson drawn from history. A country is not defended by services immune to control, but by an army — and by services that answer to the law. Nothing in the draft touches the army. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Demilitarisation Act the reasons
8. Won’t a presumption of malpractice make doctors flee Romania?
The reversal of the burden of proof in cases of grave error is German law, § 630h of the Civil Code, and no doctor has fled Germany because of it. What drives doctors away is a system that leaves them without equipment, without staff and without protection — not a rule that protects the injured patient. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The George Act the reasons
9. Doesn’t banning the export of timber breach EU law?
The ban concerns unprocessed timber and is founded on the protection of the environment and of a national resource — grounds recognised by the treaties themselves. Other member states protect their strategic resources by comparable means. What we are proposing is not to leave the market, but to stop leaving the forest. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Green Romania Act
10. A referendum for every treaty — won’t that block the country’s functioning in the EU?
Ireland holds a mandatory referendum on every EU treaty amendment affecting its Constitution; Denmark requires five sixths of the Folketing or a referendum for any delegation of sovereignty. Neither has been expelled from Europe. What is blocked is not the country’s functioning, but the transfer of powers without the people ever being asked. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Constitution — arts. 148–149 the reasons
11. Why should I believe the referendum will still count, after 2009 and 2018?
Because the draft makes the referendum binding and gives failure to enforce it a name and a penalty. Today, a referendum can be ignored at no cost; that is exactly what the text removes. A right without a sanction is a wish; with a sanction, it becomes a rule. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Referendum Act the reasons
12. And if it fails? If we gather the signatures and they bury us again?
Then it will have been documented, with the papers on the table, who buried it and how — and that, too, is a gain. But the signature campaign of the Sovereignty Act taught us the arithmetic: the energy exists at the scale of hundreds of thousands; it has merely been steered towards spectacle instead of procedure. (Volume I)
The answer, in the documents: The Referendum Act
Nine questions from the end of Volume I
13. Is this project not a disguised exit from the European Union and from NATO?
No. Not a single article proposes leaving any alliance — on the contrary, the new article 149 requires a referendum for any withdrawal, which makes leaving harder than it is today. What changes is something else: the reservation of constitutional identity, already practised by Germany, France, Italy and Denmark. Read the text and you will see for yourself.
The answer, in the documents: The Constitution — arts. 148–149 Memorandum, section 1
14. Where is the money for 6% education and 9% health?
From precisely the sources set out by the Solidarity Act: the tax on the turnover of large contributors, the tax on large fortunes, offshore taxation recalibrated. Not borrowing, not deficit — money that today leaves the country before it is taxed.
The answer, in the documents: The Solidarity Act Memorandum, section 3
15. Won’t these taxes drive investors away?
The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that differentiation by turnover is a neutral criterion, and that fiscal progressivity falls within the fiscal sovereignty of the member state. Investors leave unpredictability, not taxation written in the law.
The answer, in the documents: The Solidarity Act Memorandum, section 3
16. How can a state function without emergency ordinances?
As every other European state functions. The draft does not abolish the emergency ordinance; it disciplines it: entry into force only after being laid before Parliament, a certain time limit, and the lapse of effects if the time limit is missed. Spain validates its decree-law within thirty days and forbids whole fields to it. Government by ordinance is not a necessity — it is a habit.
The answer, in the documents: The Constitution — art. 115 Memorandum, section 1
17. Doesn’t demilitarising the services weaken us against real dangers?
The danger is not diminished by the uniform, but by competence and by control. Services that answer to no one are not stronger — they are merely unaccountable; and an unaccountable service ends up serving itself. Civilian status, parliamentary control and separation from criminal investigation are the European rule, not an exception.
The answer, in the documents: The Demilitarisation Act Memorandum, section 2
18. Why a presumption of malpractice? Won’t we end up with no doctors at all?
Because today the injured patient must prove, at his own expense and over years, what only the hospital knows. The reversal applies in cases of grave error and is the German solution; the aim is not to punish the doctor, but to end the labyrinth built to discourage the victim.
The answer, in the documents: The George Act Memorandum, section 5
19. Doesn’t the ban on timber exports put us in conflict with European law?
Protecting a natural resource and the environment is a ground recognised by the treaties, and the measure applies to unprocessed timber. The conflict is not with European law, but with the interest of those who have been buying our forest by the lorry-load.
The answer, in the documents: The Green Romania Act Memorandum, section 2
20. Who guarantees that the new Constitution will not be broken like the present one?
Nobody guarantees it — but the draft does what the present one omitted: it attaches a penalty to breach. Failure to enforce the decisions of the Constitutional Court, application of provisions declared unconstitutional, and the restriction of rights by administrative act all become offences. A constitution is not defended by good intentions, but by consequences.
The answer, in the documents: The Constitution — the penalties The Criminal Code Memorandum, section 1
21. Very well, but how do I know that all this is not just words?
Because it is on this site, in full: the texts, the memoranda, the official gazettes in which they were published, and the chronology of the notes from which the idea was born, with archive addresses for every step. You are not asked to trust — you are asked to check.
The answer, in the documents: The Sovereignty Act The Sovereignty Constitution The explanatory memoranda
Comments on this text
Comments here go into the document’s section of the Sovereigntist forum. One argues on the text, with reasons.
See the whole discussion in the forum →