I would like to make the following addition to my previous statement on the likely illegality of the PM:s action to dissolve the Government and call new elections:
While it is so that an action that is contrary to the Constitution which is committed by the Government shall, according to Ch11 A15, lead to its immediate dissolution and new elections, the fact of the matter remains that this must be ruled upon by the Supreme Court (Ch11 A11). The Prime Minister can not—under existing law—on his own accord decide that he has violated the Constitution and enforce the sanctions in Ch11 A15. That said, such an action is—in my opinion—without a doubt a violation of the Constitution in itself. However, such a procedure becoming standard would diminish the gravity of Constitutional Violations, and it has not been definitely ruled upon by the only institution with the authority to interpret the Constitution as well as apply the sanctions in the latter half of Ch11. The Supreme Court is the organ which decides to apply the sanctions. This might seem more like a trivial question of procedure, but in a modern country such as ours, proper procedure is important.
The resignation of Acting President van de Werve is irrelevant to this predicament, see Ch3 A11 (as interpreted in BSC 1926:1 (an account of the case "[1148 BEL 651 (1926)]")).
—Deputy Juriste Aléatoire
((The Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter. The opinion that followed the resignation of the PM addressed the question of whether the Prime Minister could call new elections - he can. I left ambiguity as to whether or not this requires a vote, but I think we shall assume that if the Prime Minister wants to call new elections, he gets new elections - particularly since I told Jako to call new elections so it was already my opinion that he could...))