Pavel Vladimirovich, as we know, polling day, July 1, declared. But the vote will be on June 25. Many wrote us citizens are interested in, and not without reason: these days will also be declared?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: Such questions show that the interest of society, and I believe that it is very good. But the output is only one – 1 July. By the way, there have been proposals to take away the weekend of the Christmas holidays. The working group, such initiatives are not supported.

If the employer refuses to pay employees this day off, what to do?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: If he refuses to pay, you are breaking the law. It will definitely be made public. If such a thing occurs, it is necessary to sue to protect their rights.


Pavel Krasheninnikov: I’m just saying that it would be a gross violation of labour rights. Such actions can be challenged and recover not only what is necessary, but also moral damage. I don’t think there are employers who will begin to do so. If you start, we will help the citizens to recover the money. I am sure that will be connected to the protection of the rights of employees to paid holiday on the public Prosecutor’s office and the labour Inspectorate.

Question from the media partner of the “Russian newspaper”. The editor of the newspaper “Udmurdskoy true” Pozdeeva Angela asks: is there any danger to the health of citizens in the voting process due to the spread of the coronavirus?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: Initially, as we know, it was planned to hold a nationwide vote on April 22. But in a pandemic to ensure the safety of citizens and protection from disease was this date transferred.

When getting a new voting day came from many things, including the recommendations of the Ministry of health, Rospotrebnadzor.

the Situation is gradually improving. We have such optimism about the fact that the coronavirus is receding, given the security measures that were taken. We know that there is a method of voting, we know that they will be granted special protections, we know that will test everyone who is on the electoral Commission, so there is risks are minimal. The safety of human health will be provided at the appropriate level. The working group is in constant contact with CEC, the CPS. Everything is meticulously planned.

I hope it all goes the way we expect. The right of citizens to Express their opinions regarding the amendments to the Basic law will be implemented.

Another question from our partner. Chief editor of the newspaper “St. Petersburg Vedomosti” Dmitry Sherih: why the vote provides only a package for sune amendments and of each amendment?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: the Amendments are holistic in nature is a complex ponastroila state mechanism more than a quarter century. The result can be seen if the measures adopted will realizovyvat in the complex. So we will vote for the entire package of amendments as a whole.

here is an example: introduced targeted social support of citizens. The government is obliged to ensure the implementation of a unified and socially oriented policies: to develop plans, programs. The bodies of state power and local self-government bodies included in the unified system of public government and must act in order to make the most effective decision of tasks in the interests of the population, implementing and delivering social policies, ie, participating in the implementation of Federal programs and additionally developing their own. In turn, the Parliament exercises parliamentary control over activities of state authorities over the rights of citizens.

by the Way, when we in 1993 voted in the referendum for the Constitution, there also we did not vote clause-by-clause. We voted either for the Constitution or against the Constitution. This, in particular, and foreign experience. The constitutional experience provides us the answer. Therefore, we will vote for all the amendments together.

the call of the reader. Hello, my name is Vladimir Ivanovich. I’m 83 years old. I have a few questions. Why not made in the law to every officer and member of while working in the civil service and their families had no property abroad? Then why to spend money on defense? Whom to protect?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: We have long discussed the question of how to deal with property abroad. We have different situations, including those associated with the fact that the person left the roots in the former Soviet republics. Once we were citizens of the same country. But the Soviet Union collapsed, unfortunately, and collapsed for all. We had a lot of broken links. Many citizens – their number is large – have a property in the CIS, e.g. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Abkhazia. We believe that in this case, foreign ownership is possible. We can’t write in the Constitution address the prohibitions, for example, you can’t have property in the United States of America, UK, other countries on the list.

In my opinion, very important and the most important question is the question of legality of acquisition of such property. If you see that the property was acquired illegally, for illegal means, it is necessary to take measures, not only related with the occupation of the position.

Vladimir: I agree with you.

Pavel Krasheninnikov: You do know that the ms for the first time in the Constitution pointed to the fact that people who have dual citizenship – residence or other grounds for living abroad – may not be public servants. This is very serious. If a person has dual citizenship, let’s say he got in some country, it often brings the oath of citizenship that he will abide by its laws. Let him do it, but just don’t do this then in the public service.

Vladimir Ivanovich. Another question: when will be a decent Supplement to pensioners, children of war, born before 3 September 1945?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: my mother also belongs to the children of war, she since 1933, we periodically in the family discussing these things. I think every family has similar stories. About additional categories, of course, excuse me, this is often from lack of attention occurs. I believe that this issue must be addressed, including through social security, as proposed by the us President. And social safeguards, we need all these issues to consider in a special law, which will take in accordance with the Constitution.

call from the reader. Eugene, Kommunarka: how to increase the social role of the state? It will be a Declaration, or people will feel changes in the standard of living?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: There are a number of provisions that reinforce the social role of the state. When we multiple our amendments divide into blocks, then, of course, the first thing to talk about the social unit, about social security.

we Have many other modifications. There are amendments that need to be further developed in legislation. It’s true. But we have a huge number of amendments, which have direct effect. For example, about the indexation of pensions not less frequently than once a year. This provision has direct effect.

But in General, the constitutional rule-making is a unique story. The majority of constitutional norms – norms-goals, norms-principles.

Social block applies only to financial matters?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: No, the amendments create social development of the state in many areas.

for Example?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: we are Talking about amendments to rules related to the provision of medical services, health care, it is also about changing attitudes to education, to the educational function of education took up less space than the so-called educational service. We are talking about changing attitudes to culture. It is also largely a social thing. In the amendments a lot of rules that are associated with social guarantees, the protection of the rights of the family. I think that is such norms which full-timeü proper and necessary.

Reader Eugene, Kommunarka: Can more specific to call that a medical unit would include?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: Dr. Roshal proposed rule on ensuring access to health care. There are separate provisions related to the competence of the government in this matter. There is a separate rule that is associated with the competence of subjects of Federation, municipalities. These standards must be developed within the laws of health, laws related to sanitation. We usually are proud of the doctors, but I would like to be proud of all the same health system. In the health legislation have a major overhaul. Think we really need to restructure our health care. And not from the point of view of economy and from the point of view of it availability. The experience of dealing with the coronavirus proves this statement.

question from a partner “RG”. Chief editor of the newspaper “Vecherniy Magadan” Natalia Miftahutdinova: the amendment refers to new principles of not only the Federal structure of government, but regional and municipal. What will change here?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: According to the amendments to article 132 of the Constitution organs of state power and local self-government bodies included in the unified system of public authority and interact for the most effective solution of tasks in the public interest.

the System of public power – a single organism that needs to function smoothly at every level of government: Federation, region, municipality. For example, it is determined that the health issues are under joint jurisdiction of Russia and regions. And local governments within their powers ensure the availability of medical care.

We’ll be honest: you gave a very complicated answer, it is unclear what will change for citizens? Very similar to some thing interesting by the officials and does not affect the real lives of ordinary citizens.

Pavel Krasheninnikov: Understand that people often are not interested in the features of construction of state power, do not delve into such details than the municipal authority differs from regional, etc. the more important Citizens to solve their problems, protect their rights and interests. The proposed amendments are aimed at creating, first of all, convenient for the citizens of the state power system.

Often we see such a story: different levels of power say that it is not their competence. The municipality directs the citizen to the authorities of the subject.

That is the administration of his region…

Pavel Krasheninnikov: And the regional government says is a municipal competence. And the question of a citizen, received��is, solve none. Amendments to the Constitution proceed from the premise that there is a single public authority, which should work in the system, protecting the rights of citizens. We now have these rules about the unity of public power got a run-in during a pandemic, when it was established Commission under the state Council, where all municipal, regional and Federal agencies began to work together to implement appropriate measures of protection.

the System of public authority needs to gain a foothold not only in the constitutional norms, but also laws that will be accepted on local government, the authorities of subjects of the Federation. It is no secret that we have the majority of local authorities are subsidized. Accordingly, if some credential is transferred from the subject to the municipality, the subject should probably get him to provide money.

However, about the amendments on the political system, is much debated. Some say that we have created a super-presidential Republic. Others believe that, as Ministers will appoint the Parliament, the system becomes shaky: will not occur if we have a mess, as in some parliamentary republics, where the government appointed several months. So we will now: a super-presidential power or anarchy?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: there are no extremes in any one or in the other direction. We have Federal Ministers, with the exception of security forces, will be appointed in the state Duma. This was the norm in the Soviet Union, when it was the Supreme Council. Then all the Ministers were appointed namely at the plenary meeting of the relevant chamber. I worked briefly as an expert in the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, remember very well how the candidate Ministers was originally made at a meeting of the Committee, then in plenary. This function is now the President with the Prime Minister handed the state Duma and the Federation Council. In my opinion, this is a very important change. The future Minister will have to convince the deputies to vote for themselves, to defend their professional qualities, their program. All this will happen not only in the eyes of the deputies, but in the eyes of society. It will show, everyone will see who it is, he answered the question. If he is incompetent, then it would be rejected. If it is proficiency, so go on, will run the Federal Minister. Here, the competence is transferred to Parliament, and Parliament increases its role.

However, the Parliament will appoint all the Ministers. The security forces, the Minister of foreign Affairs and the Ministry of justice will continue to receive a mandate from the President.

Pavel Krasheninnikov: with regard to the security forces, their candidature will be discussing the Federation Council. The purpose, of course, will ��and the President. But negotiation will go public. Similarly, people will speak, to prove their competence.

a Large block of questions that came by e-mail, connections with government officials and citizenship. How many officials will lose their posts after the adoption of the amendment?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: Great question. These norms were already in the anti-corruption legislation. And already during the formation of the authorities, this issue was taken into account. Of course, when it is in the Constitution when it will be tough, I think that some number of people will still be out of work. But we have no problem to arrange some cleaning. Often, someone wants blood. No need to build a system. First, that people with dual citizenship was not in the public service. Secondly, they did not claim on her. To avoid such high-profile processes to identify officials of foreign nationality or accounts abroad. If someone has a second citizenship, for God’s sake, he is the same person, let are engaged in business, let’s a journalist, he a Professor, it’s all he can do. But public service still with dual citizenship could not go. To serve in this case to a single state.

call from the reader. Svetlana from Moscow, student of the faculty of journalism. Does the mention of God in the Constitution, the introduction of mandatory religious belief?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: No. The mention of God in Constitution in a historical context. This whole article 67.1 is a new article, it did not exist in the Constitution. The second part of the article reads: “the Russian Federation, United by a thousand-year history, preserving the memory of ancestors who have conveyed to us the ideals and faith in God, and also the continuity in the development of the Russian state recognizes the historically established state unity”. This is very important – we are not only talking about that recognize that it was in the Soviet Union, but also recognize what was in the Russian Empire, that was before the Russian Empire. It’s our thousand-year history. It does not say that we are obliged to believe or not to believe, to profess a particular religion.

on the other hand, we have a rule in Chapter II of the Constitution that talks about freedom of conscience, the right of man and citizen in the Russian Federation to choose any confession or not to believe at all, that is to be an atheist. This rule we have saved. We have a secular state. It seems to me that in this case, in this historical context the proposed amendment is served quite correctly. Nobody’s rights and nobody’s interests we are here not affected. We have multi-confessional state, and it will remain so.

call from reader. Lyudmila Shavrina, Moscow. The Communist party protested against the amendments to the Constitution. One charge I was confused: it lies in the fact that the amendments to the Constitution will give more power to our oligarchs. Is it really so? Or not?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: From the Communist party we have in the working group was colleagues. They are with us worked on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution. For example, have to expand the rules on parliamentary control. This is important not only for Parliament.

as for the oligarchs, big business, about which amendments there is no word. We here focus on the family, motherhood, childhood, sotsgaranty, there were even workers ‘ rights. From this point of view, I very much surprised when told that protected the interests of the oligarchs.

Now appear in the Constitution many of the rules. The welfare state gets in the basic Law, the legal content, and in this sense, the social guarantees of citizens will be better protected than in the Constitution that are in force today.

there is considerable debate on the rules on traditional, cultural and family values. What is included in traditional family values? Some citizens fear that this implies a kind of Patriarchal, allowing the husband to raise his hand to his wife. Tell me honestly: does this mean that amendments to the Basic Law implicitly encouraged domestic violence?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: of course Not. By the way, we don’t have family in law there is the concept of marriage. Under the marriage means the Union of man and woman. And the concept of family is much broader. We had the attempts of some colleagues to define what a family is. But if we called seven Union men and women, it turns out, if a woman or a man lives with a child not a family? The mother and son, grandmother and granddaughter – not family? Of course: family.

You gently leave the question about family violence…

Pavel Krasheninnikov: Any violence, of course, it’s not traditional values. And in General it has no value, and the violation of the law. I repeat: beating someone from the family is not a traditional value.

Another criticism, saying that the state assumes parental responsibilities. Does this mean that now the children are kept in orphanages, not to give to foster families?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: This question arose during the discussion, one of the amendments. Now it sounds not like the original version, and the reason for such a doubt does not.

how it sounds?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: Sounds like: children are the most important priority of Russian state policy. The state creates conditions conducive to the comprehensive spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical development of children, breedingI in them patriotism, citizenship, respect for elders. The state, ensuring the priority of family upbringing, takes on parental responsibilities towards children without parental care. We are currently working on the list of acts to be taken pursuant to the Constitution. We will have amendments to the Family code, the law on guardianship and custody. These norms, of course, we have to do exactly to have the minimum the state was engaged in education in orphanages. So that family priority was not only on paper but also in fact.

And then immediately there is another fear: will the state intervene in the Affairs of the family personally, under the pretext of defending traditional values?

Pavel Krasheninnikov: If the government intervenes in the Affairs of the family, it’s just the lack of traditional family values. The state may intervene only when there is a violation of the law, violence, or violated the rights of the child. In principle, we do object to the guardianship and custody is mandated to take the children. If such situations arise, it should be settled exclusively by the court with the assistance of public organizations, representatives of civil society. This should be exceptional cases and, accordingly, the decision of a court. We need to minimize the interference of the state or municipality in the family sphere. And if they intervened and did something wrong, they must answer for it. Including reimbursing the damage, including moral.

In the bodies of guardianship and guardianship of the people, in principle, all good. They usually love children. But, as a rule, these commissions are the people at the office. Here he leads some institution, he was attracted to this Commission. It’s not his main job. So we have a little bias going on. But we are in favour of the juvenile justice system. However, if there are any crimes, of course, need to intervene. With the help of the law enforcement system and the court.