[ad_1]
The Assembly adopted Tuesday, July 17, at first reading amendments allowing the Head of State to participate in the parliamentary debate following a meeting of the Congress. A decision that is far from unanimous.
What did the parliamentarians vote?
The National Assembly adopted Tuesday, July 17 to 40 votes against 13 the possibility for the President of the Republic to attend debate after his speech to the Congress and respond to parliamentarians. It is the UDI and non-attached Members of the Opposition who are at the origin of these amendments.
In the second sentence of Article 18 of the Constitution – "[La] declaration [du président de la République] may give rise, in his absence, to a debate which is not subject to any vote "- they deleted the words " outside his presence ". Jean-Christophe Lagarde, president of the group UDI at the Assembly and author of this amendment, says " satisfied with the end of a surreal situation where the president speaks without contradictor, like a monarch ". The latter will also be satisfied.
In Congress at Versailles, Emmanuel Macron responds to critics
In his speech before the two bademblies at Versailles last week, Emmanuel Macron had indeed " asked the government to deposit (…) an amendment to the constitutional bill that will allow, at the next Congress, [il] to remain able not only to listen, but to be able to answer ". Thus, Emmanuel Macron could answer the questions of parliamentarians as early as the 2019 Annual Congress.
Why is this decision being contested?
The decision sparked an outcry among some MPs. "A very serious mistake for the separation of powers" denounced Fabien Di Filippo (LR). A "authoritarian scenography", according to France Insoumise. "Since De Gaulle, the President of the Republic has a privileged link with the people, not with the Assembly, explains the political scientist Olivier Rouquan . This maintains the image of a Jupiterian president who wants to be everywhere at once.
The Minister of Justice Nicole Belloubet said that this measure would not redefine "the regime of responsibility of the Prime Minister, which depends only on the Assembly" . This is challenged Olivier Rouquan. "This makes the roles of institutions less readable. Moreover, these debates in Congress could be heated, and the head of state could come out weakened of this exercise.
Will Institutional Reform Increase the Function of Parliament?
The majority itself has not always been in step with this change. At the end of June, Richard Ferrand objected in committee to the President taking part in the Congress debates. " That would call into question the fact that he is not answerable to Parliament" had he argued before changing his mind.
What will happen now?
It is not certain that this measure will survive the parliamentary debate. The Senate, dominated by the right, should vote the whole law, which also contains controversial provisions such as the limitation of the right of amendment, and in the same terms as the National Assembly. After that, it would be necessary that senators and deputies adopt the law with a majority of 3/5 e of which for the moment, the Republic in march does not have. Except to negotiate with the Republicans who, for the moment, refuse " to vote the constitutional reform if it contains this provision ", hammered Bruno Retailleau, president of the LR group in the Senate, in L 'Express .
Thomas Porcheron
Source link
