Our View: Failed refugee status law was pure populism

NOBODY could have been surprised with the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of the law that would give refugee status to the offspring of refugee mothers. As was expected the Court decided that legislators did not have the authority to enact legislation “that would result in an increase of the budget’s forecasted expenditure.” This would violate the principle of the separation of power.

It is quite astonishing that the legislature, half of which’s members are lawyers, could have passed a law that was so blatantly unconstitutional. In their defence, several deputies yesterday argued that the law did not have to be enforced this year. It included a provision which left the decision for its implementation to the government, deputies disingenuously claiming that this made the law constitutional. But it was still a violation of the separation of powers as the legislative authority was imposing expenditure on the executive in the future.

Surely the lawyers in the House should have known this, which raises the question: Was this just a gimmick to appease the association of refugee mothers which is a formidable pressure group representing a significant number of votes? It would seem so. The deputies of the majority of parties calculatingly advertised their support for the refugee mothers, while knowing that the law that would cost the state tens of millions of euro would never be implemented. It was cynical, irresponsible populism that we have come to expect from our deputies.