The Bill to the Assembly apparently it misrepresented to the spirit of the constitutional revision of July
Yes, but I want to believe it's more of a mistake of the Government to a malignant intent. Some blunders have already been corrected by the Commission. But the Government there is no objection. Global time fixing the duration of the debates, it is curious to see this issue dealt with in the organic law while it is within the rules of procedure assemblies. Could have the economy of an unnecessary controversy.
Is this an infringement of the rights of the opposition
The arguments of the PS are not very convincing and the opposition reacted excessively. The overall time is a necessity. This was also part of the recommendations of the Committee on Balladur, who was himself an idea put forward by the right as on the left long enough. The fight against the obstruction is a necessary and sufficient reason to justify the limitation of time to debate. The obstruction is a pathology of the parliamentary debate, a distressing technique, it comes from right or left. And she did that increase with the years. But I have too much respect for the assemblies to imagine that they could not have better to do than that. This is the time that could have been otherwise use. On the other hand, would have had to talk more and now new rights for minority groups and the opposition. It is a mistake of the Government of having initiated the discussion on the stick, not to mention the carrot.
What are the counterparties that could be granted to the opposition
In all compartments of parliamentary activity, it is conceivable rights for the opposition. The Chair of the Finance Committee is already attributed to the opposition. Why be confined to this single commission In the field of legislation, it could also ensure a minimum of time organized discussions. Finally, consider increasing the number and variety of the powers of control of the opposition. However, for the moment, there is no visibility on the subject.
The limitation of the powers of the Executive, remained insufficient. The limitation of the use of 49-3 is anecdotal, and the Government continues to have disproportionate powers. For example, parliamentarians can no longer, because of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council, submit additional articles after the first reading. Why this rule does not apply also to the Government It would be healthier, but it is not question today. I imagine there will however be amendments to this effect to the Assembly.
The fact that Sunday Labour Act have finally not been discussed is a sign of the strengthening of the powers of the Parliament, as wished by the constitutional revision
It is rather new in effect, and rather satisfactory. It is a proof that attitudes are changing. And without the constitutional revision, it is not sure that things would be passed itself as well. The Government had intelligence does not make use of 49-3, while the President of the Republic was personally involved on the subject. The parliamentary dispute has prevailed. In principle, be welcome.