UDMR President Kelemen Hunor continues to explain why he did not sign the protest initiated by USR. The leader of the UDMR specified that this approach had no chance of overthrowing the Cholak government, given that “the entire opposition together has 40%.”

Kelemen Hunor and Marcel CholakuPhoto: Inquam Photos / Octav Ganea

Kelemen Gunor notes that he preferred to solve the problem of cultural institutions through negotiations with the government, rather than an image game.

“The entire opposition together has 40%, it would not have a chance to change the government. For someone, it would be an image game and, of course, without any result. I said that I have to solve the problem of cultural institutions and the problem of local authorities. And if I manage to solve something, which, from my point of view, is much more important than the image game for one or the other, in any case not for UDMR, then I solve the problem and do not sign the protest. If we did not reach an agreement, if the second pillar appeared in the text of the law, then, yes, we would impose a vote of no confidence with all the risks, in the sense that it was only a parliamentary debate and without a concrete result. , because the PNL would not have signed the protest,” explained Kelemen Hunor on Prima TV.

The UDMR leader claims that it was the NLP parliamentarians who asked him to sign this appeal.

“We also had new signals, as did Cătălin Drula. Some liberals told me: “Come on, sign it, it’s good that there is a vote of no confidence!”. But to the question: “Will you vote for no confidence?” – they answered: “No, because they don’t give.” I can’t lend courage to anyone. There are dissatisfied people in PNL, there were such subtle messages,” the UDMR leader concluded.

It will be recalled that the UDMR introduced a number of amendments to the package of fiscal measures adopted by Prime Minister Marcel Çolaku, and most of them were adopted. Among the adopted amendments is the rejection of the unification of cultural institutions and the rejection of the threshold of 2.5% of the budget that can be spent by city mayors.