-What makes the two chair bill contrary to constitution?
Pursuant to commented version of the constitution, merging of mandates of Riigikogu and local councils contains conflict of interests and separation of personal power.
Supreme Court has explained that when the possibility to represent local community interests will be linked to pan-Estonian party decisions, representation of local interests may be endangered.
When state and local interests conflict, council member must retain ability to decide local issues independently of the state, in the interests of his community.
-The law is being justified by need to provide parliament members a better understanding of local life. Sounds grand, but is law amendment and friction with constitution really the only option?
People need to meet with voters after elections also.
-They are also justifying that after the law is passed, the decoy ducks will disappear and that in Finland it is allowed to sit on two chairs.
I do like the ease with which they use the Finnish examples regarding combining the council member and parliamentarian. At that, they forget that we are not living according to Finnish constitution, and secondly, when copying legal solutions we will have to adopt the values system too.
-You are linked to the topic since 2005 as Chancellor of Justice. What urges you to keep on fighting as private person, and stand against the law?