It is useful to get laws passed when you only have a relative majority, because instead of needing an absolute majority to get the law voted in, you need only to be able to deny that absolute majority to the opposition.
Of course, it can be abused as it was this time, to short circuit debate, but it is explicitly seen as an abuse, so, in essence, it works as an "exceptional" procedure. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
All part of the anti-Parliament, anti-parties line on which the constitution was written.
But, broadly, Parliament's powers need increasing relative to the presidency. The PM and major ministers should be deputies, not just presidential appointees.
I think really major changes would require a referendum.
See Wikipédia (French).
(Not a query concerning girth).
Particularly when it is "convention, custom and peer pressure" that is the main defense against abuse. As we've seen in the US and the UK a determined, media savvy government can run roughshod over such implicit restraints.
I don't even know if it would work legally, but it might in practise
Yeah, they said so, but it's pure bullshit: you don't need a form to sign a contract. Any employer can write one on plain paper, as usual. If it has the basic information on salary, working time... and if it's signed by the employee, it's legal.
"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
