Newsfeeds and TV news stories have repeatedly covered information about how the world’s first economies (USA, UK, Germany, Spain, etc.) are facing the economic crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. However, when Ukrainians hear about 200 billion aid in Spain, half a trillion aid in Germany, or 3 trillion aid in the United States, these figures seem almost unrealistic. After all, the GDP of our country is about $130 billion. Spain alone has allocated funds to overcome the crisis in the amount of one and a half times the annual GDP of Ukraine. In fact, any amount allocated from developed economies to Ukraine will seem fantastic.

Therefore, we decided to take a look at how the economic consequences of the coronavirus crisis are confronted by our neighbors – those countries whose economic indicators and living conditions are more relevant for drawing analogies with Ukraine.

This review analyzes the direct economic measures Ukraine and its neighbors have conducted to confront the economic crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. These are direct payments, compensations, interest-free loans, or credit guarantees. They can be compared relatively easily.

In addition to these direct measures, all countries implemented tax, monetary and macro-financial measures. These can be exemptions from fines, postponement of certain taxes, cancellation of taxes or reduction of certain taxes, fees, contributions, a moratorium on inspections, postponement of loan payments, change of the discount rate, revision of criteria for granting loans, etc. Their comparison is not as obvious, and a detailed examination requires a significant immersion in the specifics of the tax and banking systems of each state, so these measures are out of the scope of this material.

The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic is associated with the introduction of quarantine, restrictions on the movement of citizens, as well as the work of companies and sometimes entire industries. As a result, the demand for certain goods and services is declining, and the companies that provide them are reducing the amount of money to pay wages. If a person does not get a salary, he will not have the funds to buy other goods and services. Therefore, the lack of funds will hit the demand even after the end of quarantine. It turns out a vicious circle that was triggered by the introduction of quarantine: reduced demand → lack of funds for the payment of wages → reduced demand.

Declining demand means that companies lack operating funds, so they cannot sustain themselves. Thus, the production and supply chains are interrupted.

Therefore, government measures to combat the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus include (or should include) ensuring the functionality of the economy, namely – guaranteeing the payment of wages and providing companies with funds to continue the operation of supply chains.

If we consider Ukraine and its neighbors, we can distinguish three types of measures to support the economy during the crisis.

Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and to some extent, Hungary are following this path. In these countries, the state compensates the employer 50-80% of the employee’s salary. Even if a person is temporarily out of work (for example, the company has suspended its activities due to quarantine and epidemic) or if one parent is forced to stay at home caring for a child (who does not go to school / kindergarten), he/she is still paid 50-80% of salary. Medium and small enterprises that continue to operate but have lost part of their income receive additional funds to pay salaries to employees. The amount of these funds depends on the percentage of lost income.

In addition, the European Commission has adopted a framework document to support the economies of EU member states. It is on this basis that Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary build their policies to help the economy. This document provides the following:

• Direct grants, capital investments, selective tax benefits of up to 800,000 euros per company to meet the urgent need for liquidity.
• State guarantees of loans for companies. They can cover up to 90% of credit risks, and loans up to 800,000 euros – 100% of credit risks.
• Subsidized loans for companies to cover immediate working capital. For loans up to 800,000 euros – loans at 0% interest rate.
• Support in the form of salary subsidies.
• Support in the form of deferred payment of taxes or social security contributions.

There are other measures, but these are the fundamental ones.

Ukraine, Russia, and, to some extent, Moldova belong to the second type of response. They have slightly increased unemployment benefits and can compensate for the minimum wage. In addition, one-time payments are made to certain categories of the population (pensioners and children). Business assistance programs in the form of interest-free loans for the payment of wages and working capital – either limited or absent.

Is about the lack of direct state support. There are no special unemployment benefits or special forms of lending. Belarus has introduced some tax and monetary measures, but there is no direct assistance to provide the population with money or business in working capital.

The review was written using IMF materials and separate sources (laws, analytical articles), links to which can be found at the end of a detailed description of each country’s activities.

• Small and medium-sized businesses can, in accordance with the Act. 471 of the Law “On Employment”, to receive funds to pay their employees, partial unemployment benefits. This assistance is provided in the amount of 2/3 of the tariff grid according to the number of hours for which the activity of the enterprise has decreased, but not more than the amount of the minimum wage (UAH 4,723).
• Pensioners with a pension of less than UAH 5,000 received a one-time benefit of UAH 1,000.
• Pensioners over the age of 80 and some other categories of the population received a pension increase of UAH 500.
• Unemployment benefits increased by UAH 170-350.
• Private individuals or groups 1 and 2 of single taxpayers receive UAH 1,779 per month per child under the age of 6 and UAH 2,218 per month per child aged 6-10.
• Doctors involved in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 receive a supplement of additional 300% of salary, and social workers involved in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 must receive a supplement of 100% of salary.
• For small and medium-sized businesses there is a program 3-5-7-9. The state subsidizes interest rates on loans up to the level of 3, 5, 7, or 9% for the fulfillment of certain conditions (such as the continuation of activities, preservation of jobs, etc.).
• Loans at 0% interest rate are provided to refinance existing debts in Ukrainian banks. This means that if the employer already has loans, he/she can take a new loan at 0% rate to repay the old loan. Therefore, the state seems to postpone the repayment of the old loan. To do this, the employer must maintain at least 60% of the wage level for at least 80% of workers.
• The total amount of state support should not exceed 200,000 euros per 1 company.
• Also, in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Final and Transitional Provisions “Fundamentals of Ukrainian Legislation on Health Care”, the Cabinet of Ministers together with the NBU should develop and approve a national program of targeted loans to provide a salary fund with a grace period by the end of April. This is the program that is being implemented in the EU and is in a limited form, even in Russia. But so far, such a program has not been approved.
• The total amount of funds allocated to support the economy during the coronavirus can be estimated at UAH 82.4 billion, or $ 3 billion, or 2.3% of GDP. The expenditure part of the budget was increased by this amount in accordance with the amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2020” of April 13, 2020. At the same time, part of the budget was redistributed. Key figures include the $65 billion for the Anti-Epidemic Fund, $15 billion for the Ministry of Health, and $ 10 billion for pension increases.
• Thus, in Ukraine there are unemployment benefits at the level of 2/3 of the tariff grid, but not more than the minimum wage, there are one-time benefits; there is a program 3,5,7,9 and refinancing at 0% interest rate, but currently there are no programs to reimburse wages provided its payment by the employer and there is no program to ensure the liquidity of companies at 0% rate and credit guarantees, as in the EU.
• In addition, other measures have been introduced, such as the abolition of certain fines for violating tax laws, the abolition of the single social contribution for certain categories, the ability to deduct funds spent on treatment from SARS-CoV-2, when paying PIT, the abolition of penalties for overdue loans for the time of quarantine, temporary abolition of taxes on land and real estate, other measures of indirect support of the economy.

•  
• The state compensates 50% employer minimum wage (1300 PLN $ 345) per 1 employee. This assistance is paid to companies that have been forced to suspend work for the duration of the quarantine. The employer in this case has to pay the salary of 50% of the base rate of the employee, but not less than the minimum wage.
• Employers who have reduced working hours by 20-50% receive subsidies from the state in the amount of 50% of the employee’s salary, but not more than 40% of the average salary in the country (PLN 2,200, $ 525).
• In addition, small and medium-sized enterprises whose income has fallen may receive subsidies in an amount that depends on the amount of lost income:
  • If sales have fallen by 30%, you can get 50% of the minimum wage per employee.
  • If sales fell by 50%, you can get 70% of the minimum wage per employee.
  • If sales fell by 80%, you can get 90% of the minimum wage per employee.
• Allocated additional funds for medical equipment.
• Childcare payments
• A program for loans at 0% and credit guarantees.
• Budgetary measures are estimated at 93 billion zlotys or 4.2% of GDP.
• The loans and loan guarantees program are estimated at PLN 75 billion, or 3.3% of GDP.
• The business liquidity program is estimated at PLN 100 billion, or 4.5% of GDP.
• Overall program to support the economy is estimated at nearly 300 billion zlotys, or $ 70 billion, or 12% of GDP.
• In addition to direct support, companies with 10-49 employees receive compensation of 50% of insurance payments, companies with up to 9 employees receive compensation of 100%. In this part of taxes and contributions canceled or postponed payment of their term, there are other taxes and monetary measures.

• Unlike other Ukrainian neighbors and Ukraine itself, Belarus has not implemented any direct economic support measures. President of Belarus does not consider the epidemic of SARS-CoV-2 significantly dangerous. Quarantine measures in Belarus are very limited (compared to other countries), moreover, on May 9 there was a parade.
• Tax benefits and deferred taxes were announced, but it is not clear how and when they will be implemented.
• Among the measures already taken are tax benefits and vacations. However, they were taken on April 24, after the deadline to pay taxes, so their influence is quite limited.
• Belarus has introduced some monetary measures (both fiscal and monetary measures are not the subject of this review, so details will not be discussed). Most of them are of a recommendatory nature. In general, even the monetary measures adopted in Belarus are significantly inferior to the monetary measures of other states.

• 2% of GDP (about $ 4.8 billion) is planned to be spent on:
  • Compensation of 75% of the salary of workers who are technically unemployed – that is, when the company cannot work due to quarantine and the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
  • 75% pay compensation to parents who care for children while the schools are closed.
  • Compensation cannot exceed the average salary – 5429 lei ($1200).
  • Increased health funds.
• 1.5% of GDP (about $ 3.6 billion) is planned to be spent on a business support program: interest-free loans, coverage of up to 90% of credit risk, credit guarantees, etc.
• An expenditure totaling 35 billion lei, or $ 8.4 billion, or 3.5% of GDP.
• In addition to direct support, there are tax rebates on income tax, deferral of payment for utilities for three months, deferral of payment of property tax for three months, other tax and monetary measures.

• With the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Moldova, a state of emergency was declared and a number of payments were made. However, the political opposition appealed the decision to allocate these funds to the Constitutional Court due to the fact that the law was not approved by parliament. Therefore, on April 9, the constitutional court declared the law invalid, and the approved payments also became invalid.
• Later, on April 23, the government was able to pass a law in parliament amending the state budget. The parliament approved loan agreements with the IMF and Russia. However, on May 7, the Constitutional Court declared the agreement with Russia unconstitutional. Measures taken under the “first anti-crisis package” were partially transferred to the second package, and new measures were added to them.
• The “first anti-crisis package” allocated 700 million lei, or $ 39 million. 2,775 lei ($ 150) was planned to be paid as unemployment benefits, including payments to citizens who returned from abroad. It was also planned to pay the difference in unemployment benefits if it did not reach 2775 lei. Minimum social benefits were increased by 200 lei ($ 11) and child benefits were increased by 400 lei ($ 22). Farmers were to receive 800 lei ($ 44) in subsidies.
• After the first anti-crisis package was declared invalid, it was planned to send 300 million lei to help entrepreneurs, 6 million lei to help health workers, 168 million lei to unemployment benefits, 200 million lei to social assistance and 10 million lei to create new jobs.
• On April 23, the second anti-crisis package was approved. Then the expenditure part of the budget increased by 2 billion lei ($ 112 million), or almost 1% of GDP. 1 billion lei was spent on VAT refunds in the form of the difference between the amount of VAT paid and the amount of taxes paid on wages. It was a business support move. Another 90 million lei was used to subsidize interest on loans and pay salaries. The rest went to health care and social benefits.
• Thus, given the weekly changes in the distribution of budget funds, it is difficult to determine any constant for comparison with other countries. Therefore, we can only conclude that anti-crisis measures in Moldova consist of subsidizing interest on loans, unemployment benefits, one-time social benefits, and VAT refunds.
• In addition, tax and monetary measures were introduced: postponement of tax payments, change in the discount rate, and other measures.

• Employers who were forced to reduce working hours by 15-75% receive state compensation. This compensation covers 70% of the cost for these hours, but not more than 315 euros per month for a period of three months. This measure is somewhat out of line with the pan-European trend, as benefits are actually tied to the minimum wage, while in Romania, Slovakia, and Poland, benefits are tied to the employee’s normal (rather than minimum) wage and are limited to the national average.
• Doctors receive a bonus of 1360 euros.
• 1.5 trillion forints ($ 4.6 billion) has been allocated for a package of financial instruments to help businesses. These are three types of loans, two financial guarantee instruments, and four capital programs. All this includes interest-free loans and coverage of up to 90% of credit risk.
• HUF 450 billion ($ 1.4 billion) is allocated for investment with job creation.
• HUF 245 billion ($ 750 million) has been reallocated to the medical field.
• In total, it is planned to spend 2.2 trillion forints, or $ 6.75 billion, or 4.2% of GDP.
• In addition to direct support, Hungary also has tax rebates, exemptions from certain taxes, and other tax and monetary measures.

• Workers, of those companies that were forced to close temporarily due to quarantine and the epidemic, are paid 80% of their salaries. They are compensated by the state. These payments may not exceed 880 euros per worker.
• Under certain conditions, parents can take childcare leave. Then they are paid 55% of the salary.
• Depending on the amount of lost income, companies receive financial assistance:
  • if the company has lost 20% of its income, the state pays 180 euros in benefits per employee;
  • if the company has lost 40% of its income, the state pays 300 euros in benefits per employee;
  • if the company has lost 60% of its income, the state pays 420 euros in benefits per employee;
  • if the company has lost 80% of its income, the state pays 540 euros in benefits per employee;
• Payments are limited to 200,000 euros per company.
• A total of € 1 billion a month is allocated to help companies.
• € 500 million per month is allocated to provide loan guarantees to companies.
• EUR 150 million is allocated for financial instruments to provide liquidity.
• The total amount of financial assistance is about 2 billion euros per month or 2% of GDP. These measures were introduced in late March-early April. That is, the total amount spent on supporting the Slovak economy will have to be calculated at the time of termination of quarantine, and it will be more than the funds spent in one month in April.
• In addition to direct support, employers have an option of deferring social benefits (if they have lost more than 40% of income). A moratorium on the payment of rent until June 30 has also been introduced, tax rebates are in effect, the deadline for payment of part of the taxes has been postponed, and other taxes and monetary measures are in force.

• Unemployment benefits rose by 4,000 rubles – to the minimum wage of 12,130 rubles (about $ 160).
• 5,000 rubles ($ 68) paid on childcare allowance for the children under 3 years old.
• Families whose average income per family member does not exceed the subsistence level can receive child support for children aged 3-7 in the amount of 50% of the subsistence level for the region in which the family lives. The average income in Russia is 5,500 rubles ($ 75).
• Physicians working with SARS-CoV-2 patients receive additional social benefits:
  • Doctors will receive 80,000 rubles ($ 1,088) a month;
  • Nurses will receive 50 thousand rubles ($ 680) per month;
  • Junior medical staff will receive 25,000 rubles ($ 340) per month.
• Companies in the areas most affected by quarantine and the epidemic can receive the following assistance:
  • Payroll loans provided that the company has reduced its staff by no more than 10%. The loan is issued for up to 12 months, of which the first 6 months – interest-free.
  • Assistance in the amount of 12,130 rubles (the minimum wage) per employee, provided that the company has reduced its staff by no more than 10%.
  • These measures apply only to companies in those industries that have suffered the most from quarantine and the epidemic. Namely – the field of transportation, tourism, physical culture and health activities, culture, and entertainment.
• Subsidizing interest rates on loans to developers and up to half the amount of the contract rate for loans to small and medium enterprises under certain conditions.
• In March, 300 billion rubles were allocated to support the economy, later another 200 billion rubles were added to help the regions. Experts estimate the total amount of allocated (reserved) aid at almost 1.5 trillion rubles, or $ 19 billion, or 1.25% of GDP. Expert assessment of the whole set of measures, including indirect measures, is estimated at 2-2.8% of GDP.
• In addition to direct support, insurance payments for small and medium-sized businesses have decreased from 30 to 15%, social contributions are reduced or transferred, part of taxes and contributions is deferred, and other taxes and monetary measures are in place.

In a film about the year of his presidency, Volodymyr Zelensky said: ministers will be changed until they find the perfect government. His words are confirmed by actions – in less than a year of new power, the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers has changed almost entirely (except “one of the most efficient officials”).

On the one hand, the president is right in saying, why should there bad ministers in government? Logically, such people need to be replaced. But to whom? And is there a vision of “ideal government”?

Alternation of power is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. But the fact is that frequent and unjustified rotation of officials can indicate a one-time policy and, as a result, instability in the country. It is important to understand that politics is a process. It is a “long game”. It requires a strategic vision of where to go, an understanding of how to get there, and action. Good government is not where good ministers work, but where good public policies are implemented.

When the members of the coalition of a European democratic country are negotiating the composition of the government, the subject of the negotiations is not the distribution of “flows”, not the invention of new posts, so that they will suffice for all the “right” persons. Government portfolios are divided by parties to implement the policies that voters voted for – health policy, education policy, agricultural policy, etc.

In a situation where the government is formed through the prism of state policy rather than the personalities of ministers, the issue of frequent change of ministers is not relevant. Ministers are people who have passed the party selection, there is a party consensus on them, and therefore there is no need to change them.

In Ukraine reigns a personal principle. Leadership-type parties, instead of programs, are built around a “wise” leader. Accordingly, the government is also formed not based on a particular set of State policies but based on personal considerations. It includes people who are personally loyal to the leader (or his surroundings). When personal loyalty decreases, a change of government occurs.

Stable government = predictable policies = prerequisites for economic growth. Of course, it is not a question of retaining ministers in their posts. But frequent government renewal is a bad sign, for example, for investors. This indirectly indicates that politics in Ukraine is unpredictable, and decisions are one-time. Such an approach is incompatible with long-term planning (and plans to build a new factory is a long-term plan).

Continuous and unclear changes – including personnel – are an indication that there is no strategy. Only “patching of holes” as a reaction to what is happening occurs. This means that development for the country under such an algorithm of actions will not take place. There will be temporary “patches”.

And it’s not just people in government. Strategy, vision is absent everywhere. So it’s too early to be proud. Roads, hospital buildings, and new kindergartens are victories not at the level of the president’s responsibility and authority.

The removal of parliamentary immunity is also a questionable success. In Ukraine, both the rule of law (72 place out of 128 countries) and the independence of the three branches of government are in question. There are, therefore, risks of using law enforcement and judicial systems to prosecute the opposition.

More than 16,000 amendments were submitted to the draft law 2571-d (the so-called “Anti-Kolomoisky bank law”). Anton Polyakov alone proposed 6,000 amendments, which is more than the number of amendments submitted by all MPs to the draft law on the land market. Given the need to obtain a loan from the IMF, the adoption of Bill 2571-d was extremely important, and consideration of all 16,000 amendments is incompatible with the fast-track legislative procedure.

Due to the problematic situation, the media began to report on possible ways to circumvent the amendment spam through Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Agency for Legislative Initiatives analyzed the possibilities for the rapid adoption of the bill, with a lot of amendments to Article 119.

Why do people believe in the effectiveness of Article 119? Actually, according to part 2 of Art. 119: “The Verkhovna Rada may pass a procedural decision concerning the debate of a draft law in parts (sections) by holding a separate debate and vote for such parts”. Indeed, if we consider Art. 119 in a vacuum, without considering other provisions of the Rules of Procedure, this may look as if amendments to the bill cannot be discussed or voted on. However, other Articles of the Rules of Procedure run counter to this logic.

It will be recalled that consideration of the issues on the agenda in the plenary hall of the Verkhovna Rada consists of discussion and voting. Here we can mention the decision of the CCU (The Constitutional Court of Ukraine) № 2-r/2018.

Article 120 does state that in the case of a procedural decision under Art. 119, the order of discussion may be changed. Article 119 can be interpreted in such a way that instead of “discussing each article in the order of its numbering”, the discussion may concern sections and parts. However, Part 4 of Art. 34 establishes the guaranteed right to speak: “the member of parliament, representatives of other subjects of the right of legislative initiative who have introduced a written motion or amendment shall be granted the floor to support the motion or amendment”. And Art. 34, in contrast to Art. 120 does not contain an exception for Article 119. That is, although the discussion will be conducted by sections and parts, and not by articles, MPs still have the right to justify every amendment. Accordingly, the discussion of the bill, which was subject to “amendment terrorism”, will not be significantly reduced.

What about voting? Part 1 of Art. 121 stipulates that “the Verkhovna Rada shall vote on each proposal, motion, amendment rejected by the main committee, if the author of the motion, a subject of the right of legislative initiative, insists on it”. Art. 121, in contrast to Art. 120 does not provide for another voting procedure for the case of Art. 119. That is, each of the 16,000 amendments may be voted on if the author of the amendment insists. One vote takes at least 15 seconds, which is more than 66 hours for 16,000 amendments (and this is another optimistic scenario if MPs simply press the buttons continuously).

That is, Art. 119 of the Rules of Procedure can be interpreted as:

• Whether as such that contradicts other articles of the Rules of Procedure and allows not to discuss and vote on amendments;
• Whether as such, which does not contradict other articles of the Rules of Procedure and provides for discussion and voting not article by article, but by sections and parts. In this case, the amendments are justified and voted on. Independent discussion and voting do not mean that it should replace other articles of the Rules of Procedure.

For a better understanding of what it means to discuss and vote separately, we will refer to Part 1 of Art. 119: “The articles of a draft law subject to a second reading shall be debated and voted on by the Verkhovna Rada individually and separately. If required, any paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, or sentences of an article may be debated and subject to a vote”. Part 2 of Art. 119 stipulates that “the Verkhovna Rada may pass a procedural decision concerning the debate of a draft law in parts (sections) by holding a separate debate and vote for such parts”. Comparing the first and second parts of Art. 119, we can conclude that part two of Art. 119 allows the allocation of discussion and voting of sections and parts in independent discussion and voting, which is to replace article-by-article consideration with consideration by sections. But not a word about the amendments in this article!

It seems the MPs themselves understand that Art. 119 will not significantly reduce the time of consideration of the draft-law 2571-d, so the media reported that the Verkhovna Rada plans to amend the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, the bill 3313 dated 08.04.2020, authored by V. Ariev, V. Syumar, and R. Pavlenko, has already been registered. In contrast, the author of 6,000 amendments – A. Polyakov registered an alternative bill – 3313-1 dated 14.04.2020, the text of which at the time of writing this material has not yet appeared.

The problem is that in its current form, the draft law 3313 is unlikely to solve the problem of amendment spam radically. It provides as follows: “If more than 2,000 proposals and amendments are submitted to the second reading of the bill, the Verkhovna Rada may adopt a procedural decision to consider the proposals and amendments rejected by the main committee without discussion. In the event of such a decision, each parliamentary faction, group receives the right to speak for up to 10 minutes, and non-party MPs who have registered amendments up to 3 minutes. However, this bill does not abolish more than 66 hours of continuous voting (since part 1 of Article 121 does not change this bill), and consideration of the bill, as we remember, consists of discussion and voting. Besides, the bill does not explicitly mention a change in Art. 34, which leaves room for debate on the topic – “Should we consider the statement with justification as a discussion?”.

Draft law 3313 thus becomes an (ineffective) tool for resolving the specific situation around the draft law on banks and banking. It is devoid of universality. Instead of comprehensively addressing the issue of amendment spam, the authors of the bill simply propose to create special regulations for bills that have more than 5,000 amendments.

Draft law 1043 of August 29, 2019, which was already adopted in the first reading, looks more interesting, and on April 15, 2020, it was finalized. According to it, the Verkhovna Rada may be able to apply a particular procedure to large bills (which received more than 500 amendments). This special procedure will provide that factions/groups may elect up to 5 amendments rejected by the main committee, and non-party MPs – 1 amendment rejected by the committee. And only these amendments will be discussed in the plenary hall (not all rejected amendments as before). This method can reduce the amount of time required to consider a huge number of amendments, including the bill – 2571-d. However, there are problems with this bill, as well. First, it does not in any way appeal to Article 34 (does not establish exceptions to this article), which provides a “word to justify a proposal or amendment” for the subjects of such amendments. And secondly, such a selective consideration of amendments can be interpreted as a restriction of the right of legislative initiative of members of parliament (through the right to justify their amendments as part of the rights of the subjects of legislative initiative). Thus, the restriction of the legislative initiative of MPs is possible under the current practice of abusing their rights; it is even necessary. However, such restrictions require transparent discussion, which will be based on an analysis of the work of the Verkhovna Rada and in which all internal parliamentary forces will be involved, as other ways to combat amendment spam need to be discussed.

In the ninth convocation, blocking the work of parliament by a large number of amendments becomes a big problem, in contrast to previous convocations. Naturally, the question arises – what is the reason? It can be assumed that there is no inter-factional dialogue in parliament. Although the majority can pass bills by one faction, this does not eliminate the need for dialogue with other factions as a necessary condition for the democratic legislative process. Opposition factions excluded from the dialogue cannot perform their control function in relation to the mono-majority, which is why they acquire a new feature – “sticks in the wheel”.

It is also necessary to consider the peculiarities of the composition of the new parliament. As most MPs do not have a political background, likely, knowledge of institutional work practices has not been transferred to the new parliament (which is generally noticeable in the style of work). Therefore, some MPs act within their idea of ​​”good” and “bad”, without considering the peculiarities of the institution. While the abuse of rights by opposition factions will eventually lead to significant restrictions on their rights. Restricting the rights of the opposition may be a good solution in a particular situation, but in the long run, it carries significant risks associated with a monopoly on power.

With the coronavirus pandemic, which has claimed nearly a hundred thousand lives worldwide and caused unprecedented quarantine measures with radical restrictions on citizens’ rights, the question inevitably arises in the mass consciousness: who is to blame for the coronavirus epidemic? Bats? Pangolins?

The real answer can be much more difficult, as it requires considerable scientific effort. In addition, scientists usually do not give a 100% unambiguous and concise answer, but offer multi-page reports with hypotheses and a bunch of data that confirm or deny these hypotheses. If you want to know “exactly” and “immediately” who is to blame for the pandemic, the so-called “conspiracy theories” can be an alternative to long and difficult searches and explanations. They will “open your eyes” and tell the “real truth” not only about the coronavirus but also about the perpetrators of other historical epidemics. We offer you to get acquainted with some of these theories.

The black death of the 14th century. Who is to blame? As it was then considered – the Jews. They poisoned wells, rivers, and other water sources. It was sometimes added that the Jews did so at the request and with the financial support of the “king of the Moors”, who was tired of the constant defeats of the Christians. Or the Jews agreed with the “king of the Saracens” that they would get Jerusalem if they gave Paris to the Saracens. To do this, the Jews bribed people already infected with the plague to spread the disease and poison the ponds.

There are several recipes for the poison allegedly used by the descendants of Judas. For example, a mixture of a lizard’s head, a frog’s paws, a woman’s hair, and a stinking black liquid. Another “recipe” is a powder made from Christian hearts, spiders, frogs, lizards, human flesh, and consecrated bread. At the same time, Jews are accused of bloody slander, in which Jews use the blood of Christian infants in their religious rites and perform human sacrifices.

In fact, the plague spread to settlements where there were no Jewish communities, and where there were such communities, Jews died just like Christians. However, such beliefs resulted in a wave of Jewish pogroms.

In the 21st century, accusations of poisoning wells with a mixture of frogs, lizards, and spiders and accusations of bloody bacchanalia look a bit wild. But conspiracy theories are alive and well today because they often give simple and clear answers that find echoes in the stereotypical mass consciousness. The difference is that conspiracy theories have now switched from ethnic-confessional groups to hostile governments or secret or not-so-secret organizations (some of which are still associated with the chosen people). The Pentagon, the CIA, NATO, the State Department, the Bilderberg Club, the Illuminati, Freemasons, Chinese or Soviet Communists, foreign agents, Rockefeller, Soros, aliens, reptiles from the planet Nibiru, and more. They all invent secret weapons or simply conspire to exterminate part of the population, gain global control, and so on. Such trends are typical for both the 20th and 21st centuries.

The Spanish flu epidemic claimed the lives of more than 20 million people, including Germans. However, some newspapers claimed that the Spanish flu was a German weapon: the Germans brought the Spanish flu to Boston to win the war in their submarines. According to another version, the German pharmaceutical company Bayer added Spanish flu bacilli to aspirin: a person became infected with the flu when he/she tried to relieve a headache. It is also interesting that in different countries the “Spanish flu” was called differently: in Madrid – “Neapolitan soldier”, in Italy – “German disease”, in Germany – “Russian plague”, in Russia – “Chinese disease” and “Spanish flu”, and in Japan – “American disease”. It is noteworthy that almost every mass disease during the war was called “in honor of adversary”, as, for example, has repeatedly happened with syphilis.

Socialist countries have often accused the United States of using biological weapons and spreading disease on its territory. During the Korean War, the United States allegedly targeted insects and spiders that spread plague, cholera, meningitis, and encephalitis throughout North Korea and northern China. Fidel Castro accused the United States of spreading tropical diseases (dengue fever and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis) in Cuba. Soviet newspapers reported in 1982 that the United States, under the guise of an anti-malarial program in Pakistan, was developing a particularly dangerous mosquito species that would be used as a biological weapon in Afghanistan. Following such allegations, Pakistan expelled the head of the American research center from the country.

HIV / AIDS has also often been portrayed as a virus invented in the United States to kill black people. Soviet propaganda claimed that AIDS was invented at Fort Detrick and used as a biological weapon. In particular, the American vaccination program in Zaire was allegedly designed to spread AIDS. Such theories are still alive. In 2005, about half of African Americans believed that AIDS was a human creation. Both the Minister of Health of South Africa in 2000 and the first African Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2004 put forward the idea of ​​the artificiality of AIDS.

And who invented the coronavirus? It would seem that in the age of nanotechnology and the unprecedented transparency of governments, conspiracy theories should have receded into the background and become a haven for the marginalized. However, as it turned out, neither mass education nor total coverage with information resources of almost every step of individuals and legal entities caused the extinction of the “Jews-Masonic archaism”. On the contrary, it seems that the number and variations of explanations in the spirit of “poisoned wells” in today’s globalized world are only increasing. We offer to get acquainted only with some such theories.

1. The coronavirus was invented by the Pentagon and the CIA or USAID as a biological weapon to counter US geopolitical rivals – the Chinese and the Russians. Moreover, it was brought to China by American soldiers who took part in the World War Games, which took place in Wuhan in October 2019. Sometimes, it is attributed personally to Donald Trump, who previously presented crowns at his beauty pageant and then switched to the coronavirus. Trump is not necessarily to blame, according to another version – it is American bankers who have funded biolabs to create the coronavirus and use it as a weapon to achieve world domination. Then there will be chipping of people and a decrease in birth rates. Sometimes, on the contrary, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are portrayed as allies fighting against the New World Order, and the coronavirus is the final battle of this confrontation.
2. On the other side of the ocean, the Chinese Communists are accused of inventing the coronavirus to weaken the world and become world masters. According to this version, the coronavirus was invented in a Level 4 research laboratory in Wuhan. Then it was whether used as a bioweapon, or it was released by accident due to a poor security system. Moreover, versions of the communist-Chinese origins of the virus are voiced by quite significant and close to Trump figures of American politics – Steve Benon and Rush Limbo. However, almost a quarter of Americans believe that the coronavirus was invented in the laboratory.
3. Coronavirus was invented by pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of face masks and antiseptics to make a profit.
4. The coronavirus was created by the world’s most powerful people, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and David Rockefeller, to solve the problem of overpopulation of the Earth. And sometimes the version of the conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies is combined with the version of the involvement of Bill Gates, who is funding a vaccination campaign in Africa.
5. The coronavirus was invented by the leaders of a deep dark state (something like a secret world government). The aim is to bring people to a state of critical panic with subsequent vaccination, chipping, the establishment of total control. Sometimes a lighter version of this theory is used – the coronavirus is a large social experiment to see how the population will accept repression (restrictions on rights) without revolt.
6. One of the means of spreading coronavirus is 5G communication. This was mentioned in one of the videos, which gained millions of views. The video was removed, and related gossips were blocked. And all in all, in early April alone, more than 20 communications towers were burned in the UK, some of which were equipped with only 3G and 4G.

In general, the coronavirus has not yet spawned a fundamentally new conspiracy theory. Conspiracies by laboratories, banks, pharmaceutical campaigns, secret governments, or the intrigues of a particular government of an unfriendly country are topics that existed during previous epidemics and did not require epidemics at all. These are more or less established objects of conspiracy theories, and the coronavirus epidemic simply adds coronavirus to other conspiracies.

But maybe really this virus is still a biological weapon? If the coronavirus was created artificially (and scientists have proven that this is not the case), then, as a biological weapon, the coronavirus is very ineffective. Mortality from it does not exceed 10%, according to the most pessimistic estimates. For comparison – anthrax (Anthrax) can lead to death in 50-90% of cases. The virus affects citizens of all countries, causing them huge losses (both human and economic), so the version that country A used the coronavirus against country B – also does not stand up to criticism, because both sides suffer. After all, both the United States and China are perhaps most interested in world trade, and the coronavirus is hitting trade.

The variety and depth of conspiracy theories are truly impressive. How do so many conspiracy theories arise, and why do they gain such influence in times of epidemics? There are many explanations, but in this article, it is worth mentioning two of them.

1. Social paranoia. In the condition of uncertainty, in the presence of a significant threat, people try to create for themselves a holistic, consistent picture of the world, in which everything is clear and understandable, thus providing imaginary control over the epidemic. Here, conspiracy theories come to the rescue, offering simple, reasonable explanations to citizens (non-biologists, non-chemists, non-physicians, and other “no”).
2. Political tool. Although the epidemic has quarantined part of normal life, politics does not know quarantine. Therefore, to increase their power, avoid responsibility or discredit political opponents, some politicians invent, launch, or simply support some conspiracy theories.

These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Social paranoia does grow during epidemics, and politicians use it as a tool in their relentless struggle.

For illustration, you can look in the direction of Ukraine’s northern neighbor. Do Russian officials believe that Navalny’s FBK is spreading the coronavirus or even handing out masks infected with the coronavirus to doctors? Government officials themselves may not believe this, but the conspiracy theory, which consists of portraying a public organization as a foreign agent and spy, has now been adapted to the epidemic. And now, this conspiracy theory used to maintain power in non-epidemic times is being applied during a pandemic.

Conspiracy theories may seem like innocent tales. But this is not the case. In medieval Europe, bloody Jewish pogroms followed the spread of such tales, and in modern Britain – the destruction of communications towers. The belief that coronavirus is only infected, for example, by the Chinese, can lead to the spread of the epidemic among non-Chinese, i.e., to real human casualties. We should not forget about other effects, such as the strengthening of authoritarianism (if the country’s citizens are successfully convinced that democracy is a Masonic conspiracy, and Democrats are spreading US biological weapons – the coronavirus). Therefore, conspiracy theories are not innocent tales.

Thus, the spread of epidemics has always coincided with the spread of conspiracy theories. Social paranoia during outbreaks is skillfully used as a political tool. The poisoning of wells by a mixture of frogs and spiders is separated from biological weapons and chipping by a distance of 650 years. However, the idea that a conspiracy caused the epidemic is still alive.

P.S. It doesn’t matter if the coronavirus is invented or not. The government, under the control of reptilians, will soon destroy it by spraying chemicals from helicopters, so close the windows at night.

Coronavirus is like a hurricane traveling the world. It takes lives, destroys economies, leads to the closure of State borders, the imposition of a state of emergency, and the imposition of severe quarantine. So how do those who are supposed to fight hurricanes work in these conditions? How does global turbulence affect individual governments?

It would seem that, in today’s situation, the institutions of each country must work as cohesively as ever: to unite for a common purpose, to develop a strategy of struggle quickly, and to carry out every step of it. But in some countries, instead of clarity and coherence, there is fear, confusion, and lack of communication, both within institutions of power and externally with society. 

For ordinary citizens, the coronavirus pandemic is a hurricane, but for politicians, it is yet another spiral of opportunity and threat. Some may take a more advantageous position, while others may stay out of politics. The ruling forces are struggling to stabilize the situation and maintain their position, and the opposition is secretly hoping for government failures that will lead to a change of power. 

In Ukraine, a coronavirus hurricane has already knocked down two ministers. And the vote to replace them for the first time did not find sufficient support. A fifth of the mono-majority splintered, jeopardizing the availability of financial assistance from the IMF. In the end, the right number of votes was found with the help of other factions, but a split majority in a crisis is a pretty dangerous signal. And Ukraine is not alone in the political vortex caused by the coronavirus. 

Spain and Italy are on the brink of a political crisis. In Spain, the government failed to respond in time to the pandemic that was coming and alert its citizens.  

Spain now has a weak minority government, so Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez did not want to risk his fragile hold on power by imposing harsh quarantine measures when the virus has not yet done much damage to the country. In early March, football matches were still taking place in Spain, attracting thousands of people. On 8 March, a rally for women’s rights, attended by 120,000 people, was not banned. 

Together with the authorities, the seriousness of the disease was not understood by the citizens, who continued to live a normal life when it was necessary to prevent COVID-19 from spreading. As a result, the virus invaded Spain very quickly. The health care system, long considered one of the most efficient and quality in the world, is now unable to cope with the influx of COVID-19 patients.

French President Emmanuel Macron declared a coronavirus pandemic a war and called on citizens to mobilize. Together with other European countries, France has declared a quarantine, and citizens were allowed to leave the house only to buy food, visit a doctor, or go to work. Also, during the acute phase of the pandemic, all ongoing reforms were suspended, and the second round of municipal elections was postponed.

Germany has also declared a quarantine. In her address, Chancellor Angela Merkel noted the danger of the virus, which required mobilization and would probably lead to a change in the German citizens’ way of life. What does that mean for Miss Merkel herself? Since 2018, she has stated that by 2021 she intends to return to academic activities, leaving the post of Chancellor. But the coronavirus pandemic may adjust these plans. There is a possible scenario of postponing the next election and preserving the current political configuration for a period of crisis and recovery.

Although France and Germany have been criticized for the slow response to the pandemic, these countries have relatively calmly «gone» to quarantine, imposing extraordinary but necessary restrictions to combat the spread of the infection.

In Hungary, the government led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban received carte blanche. Parliament granted him unlimited powers to manage the emergency, which were introduced through the coronavirus. Powers were granted indefinitely.

As a result, because of the pandemic, Parliament had been closed, future elections had been canceled, and, during the state of emergency, referendums could not be held. In fact, in Hungary, all power is now concentrated in the hands of only one State institution – the government. Therefore, Hungarian democracy found itself in a very precarious position. In particular, given that a state of emergency had been introduced, prison sentences were imposed for violations of epidemiological measures and the dissemination of false information. The latter, in turn, threatens the independent media against which the government, with unlimited power, can start a war.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have been able to use the coronavirus to his advantage. In less than a year, the Knesset has been re-elected three times in Israel, and Netanyahu has been charged with corruption. However, the pandemic allowed the country to declare a state of emergency on 19 March. Criminal proceedings and questions about changing the premier have now been postponed.

Belgium provided an example of cohesion during the crisis. Since May 2019, this country wasn’t able to form a new Government. But the outbreak of coronavirus infection has spurred political forces to unite – in a short time, an interim government has been established that will act with the sole purpose of overcoming the coronavirus.

The provisional government in Belgium gained extraordinary power. It will be able to pass the necessary laws to counter the pandemic without the need for a full legislative process and parliamentary approval. Such laws shall be declared by royal decree and shall take effect immediately. Some Belgian parliamentarians have expressed fear that the new government will abuse its power on issues unrelated to the fight against the virus. But whether this will harm democracy will be seen later. So far, the good news is that there are officials in Belgium who have taken responsibility for controlling the disease.

At the height of the European pandemic, the Parliament, unrecognized by Ukraine, of the «Republic of Kosovo» dismissed the government there, which had managed to work for less than two months. This occurred after the coalition was unable to agree on a state of emergency. The day before, the Head of the Government of the «Republic of Kosovo» dismissed the Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who called for a state of emergency. In the opinion of the Prime Minister, such a drastic step is not justified, and the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs «spread panic, stating that the number of people infected by coronavirus increases with each hour».

As a result, the party, of which the «Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs» was a member, initiated the resignation of the entire local «government». The political crisis began in the country. How the «state apparatus» will function now is unknown. It is impossible to hold «early elections» due to the spread of the disease.

But the coronavirus pandemic is not just affecting domestic politics. Some countries try to exploit the vulnerability of other States to their advantage.

Russia sent to Italy, the epicenter of coronavirus in Europe, disinfectants and military generals – the trademark of Russian «humanitarian aid». In this way, perhaps, Russia is trying to solidify itself on the political stage in Italy, one of its largest supporters in the European Union Russia wants to strengthen its arguments in favor of lifting or at least easing the sanctions because of coronavirus – a global threat that overshadows all existing conflicts.

The influence of Russia can also be seen in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. The leaders of the French and German Foreign Ministries reported the previous day that the ORDLO occupiers were using the coronavirus as a cover to obstruct the work of the OSCE monitors. In particular, the militants restricted the access of the Special Monitoring Mission in the occupied territory of the Donetsk region due to the «quarantine». Therefore, the actual status of morbidity in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine is hidden from international observers.

The coronavirus hurricane is not over yet, but it has helped some countries to form a new government and consolidate themselves, another to consolidate the old power, and yet others to reverse the destruction of the old political landscape. Its winds have already brought new practices of telecommuting to government, electoral and other innovations into the political life of the world. The political plane «after the quarantined world» can suffer no less substantial, irreversible, and unpredictable changes than the daily life of people.

Ukraine is preparing bills on the introduction of remote voting. Currently, there is also a lot of news that MPs, factions, parliaments are moving to telecommute. If remote work is a discussion of certain issues or even legislative initiatives, which in its legal consequences does not differ from participation in video interviews and TV shows, then indeed many individual parties, factions, groups, or simply members of parliament work remotely. If we talk about the consideration and voting on issues on the agenda, the consequence of which is the adoption of legislation, there will be much fewer such examples.

Due to the coronavirus epidemic, many parliaments around the world have been forced to change their regimes, all because politicians have a greater chance of contracting the coronavirus because of their publicity. But it is the parliament that is the key institution in democratic governance. Therefore, in order not to block the work of the legislature, many MPs around the world began to talk about the introduction of remote voting in their parliaments. In particular, the speaker of the Georgian parliament instructed to develop an initiative that will allow for electronic discussion and voting on bills. In the UK, the debate on remote voting is quite old. Initially, it concerned women MPs who had recently given birth, but the coronavirus has returned to the issue. In the United States, both congressional and state parliaments have also proposed remote voting.

And the President of Latvia has decided to follow a very original path. After consulting with lawyers, he stated that according to the Constitution, in case of emergency, “the parliament may convene elsewhere”. Another place, according to the President of Latvia, is the electronic space, i.e., the parliament can hold its meetings online. Although currently there are no precedents for remote voting in Latvia.

The vast majority of the world’s parliaments are in no hurry to implement legislative initiatives on remote voting. Leaders of both Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress opposed such initiatives. Other parliaments also favor measures to combat the coronavirus, such as:

• correction of the time of plenary sessions (their cancellation or postponement);
• disinfection of parliament buildings;
• transfer of all non-plenary activities of the parliament to remote mode (offices of MPs, staff members work remotely);
• permission for remote participation of individual MPs in plenary sessions: speeches, observation of the meeting, participation in the discussion (but not voting);
• maximum reduction of time for discussion of issues in the plenary hall and transfer of such preliminary discussion to remote mode;
• Transfer of rules of conduct in public places to the plenary hall (distance between people, wearing masks, etc.).

In Italy, where the coronavirus epidemic has become particularly widespread, lawmakers have limited the number of plenary sessions to just one day a week (on Wednesdays). Also, in the Italian parliament was ensured a distance between MPs of at least 1 meter.

If we talk about the possibility of remote voting, we managed to find only two parliaments, where it is possible, and both parliaments are not parliaments of sovereign states.

In previous statements, the head of the European Parliament stated that only remote participation of MPs in plenary sessions would be possible, but not voting. However, with the rapid spread of the coronavirus, he changed his mind and, according to media reports, on March 26 will be the first session of the European Parliament with the possibility of remote voting. Voting will take place via email.

The second parliament is the Legislative Assembly of the Perm region. On March 19, 2020, MPs supported the amendments that allowed the Legislative Assembly, committees, and commissions to operate remotely for the introduction of high alerts or emergencies. The issues on the agenda will be considered via video link, and absentee voting will be carried out with the help of the “Single Virtual Cabinet of MPs”. Moreover, members of parliament already have experience in using absentee voting.

It is not known whether MPs of Ukraine were inspired by one of the above examples, but bills on remote plenary work were developed in the Verkhovna Rada as well. To achieve this goal, the Verkhovna Rada plans to adopt Bill №3250 “On the grounds and procedure for holding plenary sittings of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and sittings of Verkhovna Rada committees by videoconference for the period of measures aimed at preventing the emergence and spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)” (hereinafter – the bill 3250).

The motivation for the adoption of this bill is clear and understandable. But we would like to discuss a few points. The actions of the Verkhovna Rada (especially in emergencies!) must be legal and following the Constitution. And critical and urgent legislative initiatives must be adopted lawfully, as a result of which it is impossible to question the legitimacy of the decisions made or the intentions of MPs (or the pro-presidential majority).

We are also deeply convinced that the legislative process should be open, even in the most challenging situations, and society should be fully informed about legislative initiatives, their purpose, and possible consequences, and if necessary, could respond at least online.

Bill №3250 establishes the possibility of holding plenary sessions in the format of a videoconference.

The Constitution does not contain provisions that would limit the possibility of holding plenary sessions in the format of videoconferences, but such a form should provide for personal voting. The decision of the CCU of July 7, 1998, states that the individual vote of the member of parliament of Ukraine at the sittings of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine means his direct expression of will, regardless of the method of voting.

The legislative method of consolidating the procedure for holding such plenary sessions is questionable. The bill itself is new, i.e. it will exist in the form of a separate legislative act, rather than amending other laws. This is important because part 5 of Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that “the procedure of work of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is established by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”, and part three of Article 88 states: Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. It naturally follows that changes in the procedure of the Verkhovna Rada (for example, the possibility of holding a video conference) must be contained in the Rules of Procedure.

The subjects of the legislative initiative have proposed an option according to which the procedure of the Verkhovna Rada will be determined by a separate legislative act, and not by the Rules of Procedure. The draft law in the final provisions also provides for amendments to Article 1 of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that the procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (…) is established by the Constitution of Ukraine, the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and several other laws. It is proposed to add to the list of laws a new law on holding plenary sessions by videoconference. However, such a reference is not sufficient to ensure legality. The Rules of Procedure (approved by the law) are the main act that regulates MPs’ work. The other laws to which Article 1 of the Rules of Procedure refers are complementary to the provisions of the Rules, but cannot contradict it because the Rules have higher legal force, as the provisions of the Constitution refer directly to it. That is, in a situation when the Rules of Procedure and, for example, the Law “On Committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” contradict each other, the provisions of the Rules of Procedure shall prevail.

Thus, the proposed changes should be contained in the Rules of Procedure, for example, as an additional Chapter, which will have a temporary effect. Of course, the creation of comprehensive changes to the conduct of plenary sessions by videoconference and the modernization of the Rules of Procedure following them in terms of legal technique is a more prudent and correct option. However, the short deadlines for drafting the bill make such an approach dangerous, as the development of comprehensive changes takes time. At the same time, the Verkhovna Rada’s experience in videoconferencing will make it possible to develop such changes after the expiration of the adopted temporary provisions.

Why is it so important that the provisions on videoconferencing are contained in the Rules of Procedure? Because this is a way to ensure the legitimacy of the decisions of the Verkhovna Rada. Theoretically, the Verkhovna Rada decisions adopted by video conferencing, if such a possibility is not provided by the Rules of Procedure, may be declared unconstitutional. This can lead to many unpleasant legal consequences – such as lawsuits against the European Court of Human Rights, lawsuits against international arbitration, and so on. After all, in such conditions – during a video conference – there may be a vote for the introduction of a state of emergency, which will restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and several international legal acts.

The voting process is fixed in Article 10 of the draft law.

After the appearance of his image on the information board, the member of parliament of Ukraine names his last name, first name, patronymic, the ID number of the MP of Ukraine, registration number of the bill, draft other act under consideration, then personally votes by raising his hand indicating the position “yes”, “no” or “abstained “. The duration of the voting time of each of Ukraine’s MPs is not more than 15 seconds. If necessary, the duration of voting time may be increased by the chairman. This process can be considered sufficient to ensure the will of MPs and prevent abuse. In the absence of appropriate software and previous experience of its use, the proposed option can be considered optimal.

On the other hand, the short deadlines for acquainting MPs with draft law (Article 4 of the draft law) are confusing – at least 24 hours. It is hoped that the Verkhovna Rada will plan its work so that this period is longer.

In a pandemic, there is a need for quick decisions. However, MPs must not forget the need to justify their decisions to society. In such emergencies, this is important for the effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement in practice. Under normal circumstances, new rules of law tend to evolve in practice to meet social realities. There is no such time now, so MPs need to be able to justify the need for measures to be taken, as well as to predict in as much detail as possible how these norms will work. That is why it is necessary to increase the information and analytical capacity of the Verkhovna Rada, in particular, by involving external think tanks and NGOs. At present, every step of the Verkhovna Rada significantly affects the level of trust in the government. Even if the action is correct, but not refined – it can cause anger and despair.

This should be kept in mind, especially when considering initiatives to strengthen law enforcement to ensure the implementation of rules that restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens during the coronavirus pandemic. If the decisions are as well-founded as possible, and the citizens are informed, then, obviously, the loyalty to such decisions will be much more significant, and, accordingly, there is no need for enhanced control by law enforcement agencies.

The number of patients with coronavirus in Ukraine, as well as around the world, is growing. To combat the disease, many states are imposing a state of emergency. Among those who have already declared a state of emergency: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Bulgaria, Portugal, Italy, Serbia, Lebanon, and most US states, this list can go on. As of the evening of March 19, 26 cases of coronavirus have been registered in Ukraine, and if the situation worsens, a state of emergency is likely to be imposed in Ukraine as well.

Moreover, some media outlets already say that a state of emergency has been declared in three regions of Ukraine. However, this is not the case. An emergency situation was imposed in Chernivtsi, Zhytomyr, and Kyiv regions, not a state of emergency. They have different methods of introduction and different legal consequences.

The Agency for Legislative Initiatives recalls the legal features of the mechanism of imposing a state of emergency.

The Constitution regulates the procedure for imposing a state of emergency, the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada, and the Law “On the Legal Regime of the State of Emergency”.

The WHO has declared a coronavirus pandemic. A pandemic that threatens the lives and health of large sections of the population is, following paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Art. 4 of the Law “On the legal regime of the state of emergency”, one of the conditions for the introduction of the state of emergency. If this threat to the security of the citizens of Ukraine cannot be eliminated in other ways, then a state of emergency must be imposed.

If there are conditions (pandemic) in Ukraine for the imposition of a state of emergency, the National Security and Defense Council or the Cabinet of Ministers shall submit proposals to the President on the imposition of a state of emergency in Ukraine or in certain regions.

The President issues a decree on the imposition of a state of emergency. This decree should contain information on:

1) justification of the need to impose a state of emergency, following Art. 4 of the Law “On the legal regime of the state of emergency.”

2) the boundaries of the territory where the state of emergency is imposed: it can be separate territories or the whole territory of Ukraine.

3) the time from which the state of emergency is imposed and the period for which it is imposed: no more than 30 days for the territory of the whole of Ukraine and no more than 60 days for certain regions of Ukraine.

4) list and limits of emergency measures, an exhaustive list of constitutional rights and freedoms that are temporarily restricted: mainly this applies to restrictions on freedom of movement, movement of vehicles, restrictions on mass meetings, establishing a particular order of enterprises and introducing a special order of distribution of food and necessities. The rights defined in part two of Art. 64 of the Constitution cannot be restricted.

5) state authorities, military command bodies and local self-government bodies entrusted with the implementation of emergency measures, and the limits of their additional powers;

After signing the decree, the President immediately addresses the Verkhovna Rada.

Politicians have a high chance of getting the coronavirus, so maybe it’s worth banning their mass gatherings – parliamentary sessions?

We can talk about at least two forms of protection of MPs from the spread of infections.

Those are restrictions on access to the parliament building for non-MPs and postponements of the sittings.

Restricting access to the parliament building of non-deputies is quite common in the current situation. Many European parliaments have already introduced such measures. They consist of the prohibition of excursions, parliamentary hearings, meetings, seminars, cultural events held in parliament. At the same time, the parliament continues to work as a legislative body – plenary sessions are held there, and legislative acts are adopted. For example, in early March, the European Parliament canceled more than 100 events, postponed committee hearings, and election observation delegations. The only undisclosed event was a speech by Greta Thunberg. At this time, the President of the European Parliament – David Sassoli went on a two-week self-isolation due to a visit to Italy.

The second way is to postpone sittings. At present, sessions of national parliaments in the three countries have been delayed due to the coronavirus.

In Iran, the sittings of the Islamic Advisory Council have been postponed indefinitely, “until further notice.” This happened on February 28 and not without reason, as as of March, about 10% of Iranian MPs were infected with the coronavirus, and several of them died.

The Canadian parliament postponed its sittings for a month, until April 20. Ahead of the decision to delay the meeting, it became known that the wife of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Sophie, had contracted the coronavirus.

In Spain, the prime minister’s wife also has coronavirus. And there, too, parliamentary sessions have been postponed. However, unlike in Canada, Spanish history is more interesting. On March 9, Javier Ortega Smith, leader of Spain’s right-wing Radical party, was hospitalized with a fever. Before that, he took part in a rally of 9,000 people on March 8. There he hugged and kissed dozens of his fans. As a result, all 52 MPs from the Spanish Voice isolated themselves, and Javier Ortega criticized the government for failing to impose restrictions on mass events in time. Finally, on March 12, the Spanish Parliament postponed its sittings from the regular schedule for two weeks. This means that, if necessary, the parliament will convene and make the essential decisions, only the planned agenda is postponed. A meeting is scheduled for March 24 to consider the approval of some regulations. Regional registries also postpone their meetings, as did the regional Parliament of Andalusia, which adjourned the meeting for a week.

What is the difference between the Iranian Majlis and the parliaments of Spain and Canada? In authoritarian Iran, sittings have been postponed indefinitely, where parliament is not the center of decision-making, so it does not matter when the Majlis convenes again. Instead, Spain and Canada are democracies. In democracies, parliament plays an important role – it performs the legislative function and controls the executive branch. Democratic parliaments approve emergency government measures, such as restrictions on fundamental human rights and freedoms or additional budget expenditures. This is necessary to prevent the usurpation of power by the government.

The Canadian parliament postponed its sittings only after giving the government extraordinary budget management powers. The Canadian government can now incur additional costs to fight the epidemic without the consent of parliament. The Spanish Parliament postponed its meetings with the opportunity to convene quickly and adopt the necessary emergency measures or expenditures. The European Parliament did not postpone its sittings because “No virus can block democracy,” according to David Sassoli.

We can also mention the resolution 3218, which was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on March 17. The Verkhovna Rada postponed parliamentary hearings and plenary sittings, devoting time to April 3 to work in committees. And this is the right decision, because the next day, March 18, one of the Ukrainian MPs was diagnosed with a coronavirus. At the same time, the MP contacted his colleagues when he could have been infected.

If necessary, the Verkhovna Rada may meet promptly by the decision of the Conciliation Council. That is, the adoption of Resolution 3218 can be considered positive.

Thus, the postponement of parliamentary sessions in a democracy is carried out responsibly and carefully, for a clearly defined time. Parliament, which is the center of decision-making, can convene urgently in the event of a crisis, to approve government emergency measures or additional costs.

The Romanian prime minister isolated himself through contacts with a senator with coronavirus.

Eighteen members of the French National Assembly have the coronavirus. The French Minister of Culture also contracted the virus.

Five members of parliament from the Republican Party of the United States isolated themselves through contact with the sick.

The President of Mongolia, along with other members of the government who have returned from China, is in self-isolation.

The leader of the Democratic Party of Italy has a coronavirus.

Two members of the British Labor Party picked up the coronavirus. Even the UK Health Minister has coronavirus.

This list goes on.

Why do we see such a large amount of politicians suffering from coronavirus?

This situation can be explained by certain features of the work of politicians:

1. Politicians are much more likely to meet other people, and to build trust, they try to hug and shake hands with as many people as possible.
2. Well-known politicians reported in the media are, on average, older than other citizens, and older people are more vulnerable to the virus.
3. Politicians are much more likely to be tested for the coronavirus: they are tested immediately, while ordinary citizens have to call hotlines and travel to hospitals.

The case of Spain is demonstrative, both in terms of political irresponsibility and in terms of the vulnerability of politicians. 37 days after the first diagnosis of the disease, when more than 600 people were infected, and 17 died, as of March 8, mass events were not banned. The left-wing Spanish government has supported equality marches. 120,000 people took part in the Madrid Equality March. Among them were members of the government. As a result, a few days later, Spanish equality ministers were diagnosed with coronavirus.

Therefore, if they follow the usual rhythm of work, politicians have a high chance of getting coronavirus. We all need to be careful – politicians too.

First of all, it is necessary to note the positive component of the bill: the introduction of a simplified system (without tenders). At the same time, there are some nuances in the text of the draft law.

The bill introduces administrative liability for violating “human quarantine, sanitary and hygienic and sanitary and anti-epidemic rules and regulations”. In the explanatory note, the authors noted that this rule is aimed at the possibility of prosecution for leaving the place of observation (quarantine) by a person who may be infected with coronavirus COVID-19. However, the norm itself is formulated much more broadly in content, as it covers all sanitary and hygienic and sanitary and anti-epidemic rules and regulations, as well as refers to an infinite list of legislative regulations. This wording violates the principle of certainty, as it remains unclear what actions will be considered an administrative offense.

Moreover, the wording “quarantine of people” is incorrect because any legal action does not operate such a concept. The Law “On Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases” distinguishes between the concepts of “observation” and “quarantine area”. Thus, “persons who have expressed a desire to leave the quarantine area before its abolition must be in the observatory under medical supervision during the incubation period of the disease and undergo the necessary examinations. After the expiration of the period of stay in the observatory, considering the results of medical supervision and tests, they are issued a certificate entitling them to leave the quarantined territory”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear what the responsibility is for leaving the observation or quarantine territory without permission.

The issue of determining the quarantined territory also remains open. According to the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, quarantine is introduced throughout Ukraine. But in the conditions of virus spread, it is logical to divide the quarantined territory into a city, village, district, etc. The possibility of “closing” cities for entry and exit is being discussed by mayors, and this needs further clarification by the Ministry of Health. After all, under the conditions of restriction of movement on the territory of Ukraine, we can talk about the limitation of constitutional rights, which in turn requires other legal regulations, namely – the introduction of a state of emergency.

Undoubtedly, the introduction of responsibility is necessary. However, there is a question of the responsibility of persons diagnosed with COVID-19 and, due to the mild course of the disease, medical instruction was given to isolating themselves. If such persons violate the conditions of self-isolation and endangerment of other people, it is necessary to develop a mechanism of responsibility (such a situation was, for example, in Japan). Besides, it is appropriate to provide tools for responding to a person’s refusal to take the test (occasionally, we can mention the case in South Korea).

The bill also proposes to significantly increase the responsibility for violating the rules and regulations established to prevent epidemics and other infectious diseases. And although only government officials and business officials can be prosecuted, the real deadline for violating rules and regulations is worrying about the increase in liability. In a pandemic, it seems that such an increase in responsibility is appropriate, but we must not forget that sooner or later, we will return to normal, and this rule will remain the same. Under normal circumstances, this will mean pressure on businesses due to inspections and a corresponding increase in corruption risks.

The following norms proposed by the Project also cause a lot of concerns:

• Addition of Article 84 of the Labor Code of Ukraine and Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine “On Holidays” with a new part: In case the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine establishes quarantine, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Infectious Diseases”, the period of unpaid leave is not is included in the general term established by the current parts of the same articles – 15 days.
• Establishment in the final provisions of the Project that for the period of quarantine or restrictive measures the employer may instruct the employee, including a civil servant, a local government employee, to perform work specified in the employment contract at home for a certain period, as well as provide the employee, including the state employee, employee of the local government, with his/her consent leave.

Taken together, these two rules (without detailing the type of leave in the final provisions) can lead to a situation of mass sending of employees (including civil servants and local government employees) “with consent” to unpaid leave for a sufficiently long time. First, such leave will not be limited to 15 days and will not be taken into account at all when calculating the days of unpaid leave currently provided by law. And, secondly, according to Article 29 of the Law “On Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases, “a quarantine is established for the period necessary to eliminate an epidemic or outbreak of a particularly dangerous infectious disease“. Currently, the Cabinet of Ministers has established quarantine throughout Ukraine until April 3, 2020. However, given global trends, this period may be extended. In the event of a prolonged pandemic and the need to continue quarantine for a long time, the above rules can lead to a socio-economic crisis, and in the case of mass unpaid leave of government and local government employees – to the collapse of state institutions.

To minimize the socio-economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic recession, it is necessary to consider additional or alternative options to stimulate social exclusion of workers while ensuring the constitutionally guaranteed right “to a sufficient standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing, and housing“.

Also, Project №3219 in the final provisions proposes to suspend the application for administrative and other services and the deadlines for the provision of these services, as defined by law, from the date of quarantine announcement. “From the date of termination of quarantine, the duration of these terms shall continue, taking into account the time that has elapsed before its suspension”. Such a decision seems quite logical given the need to limit the contacts of citizens in places of administrative services, as well as the possibility of mass “leave” of employees of public authorities and local governments. However, the question remains whether, by the same logic, the deadlines for preparing responses to a request for public information during the quarantine period should be suspended. After all, this is not an administrative service. For non-provision and untimely provision of information, public information managers are responsible in accordance with the Law “On Access to Public Information”. Combined with previous innovations of the Project (regarding unpaid leave), this situation further threatens the stable operation of state institutions.