Wotum nieufności/en: Różnice pomiędzy wersjami
Z Encyklopedia Administracji Publicznej
(Utworzono nową stronę "Vote of no-confidence") |
(Utworzono nową stronę "'''Literature''': S. Patyra, ''Konstruktywne wotum nieufności jako formuła tworzenia i dymisji Rady Ministrów'', „Przegląd Sejmowy” 2001, nr 1 ■ T. Wieciech, '...") |
||
| (Nie pokazano 1 pośredniej wersji utworzonej przez tego samego użytkownika) | |||
| Linia 1: | Linia 1: | ||
<languages/> | <languages/> | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE''' (Latin ''votum'' – wish, gift, expression of opinion) – a resolution, a decision expressed in a vote of the parliament stating a lack of trust and a negative assessment of someone’s activity, e.g., politics and activities of the → [http://encyklopediaap.uw.edu.pl/index.php/Rada_Ministrów Council of Ministers] or its member(s), causing his/her/their immediate resignation. A contradiction to vote of no-confidence is a vote of confidence – a vote on the resolution of the parliament (or any other body) that is an expression of support, trust for the policy or activities. There are two types of the vote of no-confidence: the so-called regular and the so-called constructive vote of no-confidence. To pass a regular vote of no-confidence a majority of votes is required (usually absolute majority), the vote is usually only on the motion to remove the current head of government, minister or the entire cabinet. When it comes to the constructive vote of no-confidence, a necessary agreement is required (by the majority of the members of the parliament, usually absolute) for the removal of the current prime minister while at the same time appointing a new one in his/her place. Thus, in one vote the parliament expresses its support – or refuses it – to dismiss the current head of government and appoint a new one. This means that in the situation of obtaining the required majority (passing the vote), the position of the head of government is changed – a new prime minister is appointed [ [http://encyklopediaap.uw.edu.pl/index.php/Ma%C5%82gorzata_Kaczorowska/en M. Kaczorowska] ]. |
| − | ''' | + | '''Literature''': S. Patyra, ''Konstruktywne wotum nieufności jako formuła tworzenia i dymisji Rady Ministrów'', „Przegląd Sejmowy” 2001, nr 1 ■ T. Wieciech, ''Wotum nieufności w parlamentaryzmie westminsterskim'', „Przegląd Sejmowy” 2010, nr 6. |
Aktualna wersja na dzień 09:36, 27 maj 2018
VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE (Latin votum – wish, gift, expression of opinion) – a resolution, a decision expressed in a vote of the parliament stating a lack of trust and a negative assessment of someone’s activity, e.g., politics and activities of the → Council of Ministers or its member(s), causing his/her/their immediate resignation. A contradiction to vote of no-confidence is a vote of confidence – a vote on the resolution of the parliament (or any other body) that is an expression of support, trust for the policy or activities. There are two types of the vote of no-confidence: the so-called regular and the so-called constructive vote of no-confidence. To pass a regular vote of no-confidence a majority of votes is required (usually absolute majority), the vote is usually only on the motion to remove the current head of government, minister or the entire cabinet. When it comes to the constructive vote of no-confidence, a necessary agreement is required (by the majority of the members of the parliament, usually absolute) for the removal of the current prime minister while at the same time appointing a new one in his/her place. Thus, in one vote the parliament expresses its support – or refuses it – to dismiss the current head of government and appoint a new one. This means that in the situation of obtaining the required majority (passing the vote), the position of the head of government is changed – a new prime minister is appointed [ M. Kaczorowska ].
Literature: S. Patyra, Konstruktywne wotum nieufności jako formuła tworzenia i dymisji Rady Ministrów, „Przegląd Sejmowy” 2001, nr 1 ■ T. Wieciech, Wotum nieufności w parlamentaryzmie westminsterskim, „Przegląd Sejmowy” 2010, nr 6.