Total scandal in the Senate, during the vote on the “Dragomir Law”: “I've never seen anything like this before!” » The UDMR stake: they boycotted the meeting!
Article by Daniel Grigore – Published Wednesday, 01 April 2026, 17:11 / Updated Wednesday, 01 April 2026 17:11
Confusion and scandal in today's Senate meeting, as a result of the vote for Law 89/2026, intended to complement Law 4/2008, which regulates the behavior of spectators at sporting events. Those who voted against the new amendments, the UDMR and the opposition senators, accuse a maneuver intended for the proposal to pass the vote!
Among other things, the amendments to the “Mythical Dragomir Law” provide for the possibility, under certain conditions, of the consumption of alcoholic beverages in sports arenas, measures aimed at preventing incidents and some specific prohibitions for spectators. For example, the initiators proposed that a letter of the regulation be amended as follows:
“To prohibit the display in the sports arena of symbols, texts, alphanumeric signs and any visual elements, with obscene, political content or content that incites the denigration of the country, territorial unity and integrity, xenophobia, national, racial, class or religious hatred, discrimination of any kind and violence, regardless of the medium on which they are written“.
Today, the law was put to a vote in the Senate plenary.
The Vice-President of the Senate, Mihai Coteț (PNL), requested the colleagues present in the room to first vote on the amendments that the specialized commissions came up with, and then to vote on the legislative proposal.
Scandal in the Senate, after the vote for amendments to Law 4/2008
After the 10 seconds in which the senators could vote, the leader of the session presented the result: 64 votes for, 34 against, one abstention.
“The legislative proposal was adopted,” concluded the leader of the meeting. He sought to proceed immediately to the next item on the agenda, but was alerted that a senator wished to address him.
“According to the procedure, the proposal obtained 64 votes. Being organic, it was rejected”, said one of the senators from the UDMRLorand Turos, to the applause of those who voted the same way.
He was answered from the desk: “Thank you, Senator. In my binder, it says that the bill is an ordinary law. L89 is an ordinary law. Please pay attention. Staff confirms that L89 is an ordinary law. Your record is wrong. I suggest we re-vote, if you agree.”
-
The difference between an organic law and an ordinary law is that organic laws need a majority vote for adoption (50%+1 of the total number of senators), and ordinary laws require a majority vote of senators PRESENT at the meeting.
As 64 of the 99 senators (64%) voted in favor, as an ordinary law it would have passed, but not as an organic law, with 67 votes being needed in this regard.
Total confusion in the Senate » The law, finally adopted, then the session boycotted by those who had voted against it!
After consultations with the microphone cut off, the meeting chair added something that added to the confusion: “Staff confirms that [natura] the law was changed by an amendment. The proposal was rejected, correctly”.
“Bravo, bravo”, reacted those who had voted against. The chairman of the meeting was approached again. “A little patience please, we have a technical issue,” he pleaded.
About 30 seconds apart, came the conclusion that irritated the law's opponents to the core: “Dear colleagues, following consultation with the staff, [vedem că] the part of the law making it an organic law was removed by amendment and became ordinary law. According to the approved amendment, the law was admitted. Thank you for your attention.”
The UDMR senator took the floor again: “The Permanent Bureau decided, distributed to the commissions, we discussed in a way. The fact that yesterday it was organic and today it is ordinary contradicts all the regulations. There is no such thing! It entered the plenary session of the Senate as an organic law and remained an organic law until it leaves the plenary session of the Senate”.
The chairman of the meeting sought to move on to the next item on the agenda, but the UDMR senator intervened again and announced to leave the meeting!
“I have been a member of the Senate for 10 years. For 10 years I've seen a lot, but I've never seen anything like this. I have not seen such a gross violation of the regulation. We are withdrawing, goodbye!”.
After several minutes of “deliberations”, the vice-president of the Senate announced the suspension of the meeting!
How the political parties voted
All PSD (27), USR (17) and PNL (12) senators present at the meeting voted for, along with 7 senators from the opposition group PACE and one unaffiliated.
Against the adoption of the law were all AUR senators (22), those from UDMR (7), 3 PACE senators and two unaffiliated. The abstention also came from an unaffiliated senator.
The UDMR stake: what the ethnic Hungarians display in the stadiums
Why did the UDMR oppose the law so fiercely?
Golazo.ro, which cites political sources, reveals the UDMR's fear that the adoption of the law will endanger ethnic Hungarians, who they could be fined for displaying the flag of the Szeklerland.
