European Tribune

Display:
what are these leftist politicians complaining about, specifically?

The reform gives parliament greater power but also adds a new privileges to France's already strong presidency, notably allowing the chief of state to address together the two houses of congress

Is that what has got them all bothered about this reform?  That the president will be able to address both houses?  That seems more symbolic than anything.

On the other hand, from this article, the reform does seem to constrain the president in some substantial ways:

However, it limits the president to two five-year terms.

Parliament is now able to veto major presidential appointments and can reduce the government's ability to push through legislation without a vote.

The presidency will also be required to inform parliament of any troop deployment overseas, and must win parliamentary authorization for any such deployment lasting more than four months.

What the "monocracy" are they talking about?

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Mon Jul 21st, 2008 at 09:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BBC NEWS | Europe | France backs constitution reform
The bill sets a two-term limit for presidents, gives parliament a veto over some presidential appointments, ends government control over parliament's committee system, allows parliament to set its own agenda, and ends the president's right of collective pardon.


... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)
by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Mon Jul 21st, 2008 at 09:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, so according to Libération, the problem is that they left out some key reform measures:

Constitution réformée, mode d'emploi reformed Constitution, mode d'emploi
Mais, de fait, l'essentiel des mesures indispensables qui prétendaient «rééquilibrer les pouvoirs» ont disparu : l'interdiction du cumul des mandats, le contrôle effectif du Parlement des nominations décidées par le chef de l'Etat, la création d'un statut de l'opposition parlementaire... Et surtout la réforme du Sénat, la plus archaïque des deux assemblées, dont le mode de scrutin fait un domaine réservé de la droite. Au final, en fait de modernisation, ne reste qu'un toilettage.But, in fact, most of the measures needed who claimed to "rebalance the powers" have disappeared: the prohibition of overlapping mandates, the effective control of Parliament appointments decided by the Head of State, the creation of 'status of the parliamentary opposition% u2026 And especially the reform of the Senate, the most archaic of the two assemblies, whose voting system is a reserved area on the right. In the end, in fact modernization remains a grooming.

But wasn't it better that some of these "sweeping" reforms -- many of which the left has been advocating for a long time, according to this Liberation article -- were passed rather than none at all?

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Mon Jul 21st, 2008 at 09:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The thing is, two months from now, there are elections for the senate, in which the left wing would have progressed - thus Sarkozy would have had to actually negotiate the constitutional changes with the PS rather than just ram it through with pork to the centre left. Better the complete reform rather than a bad one that freezes the constitutional reforms for some time (as Sarkozy now has no reasons to keep negotiating with the left wing on the subject).

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 at 04:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you tell us why the excluded measures were removed? Was it a political decision to give the right more power?

I told Bush; don't play chess with the freakin' Russians.
by LEP (rafifoon@yahoo.com) on Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 at 06:09:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
yes.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 at 06:13:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was truly appalled that this passed. Any modification without including some proportional mode of election to the parliement was simply a strengthening of the royal presidency.

Lang should be ashamed of himself.

"The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the powers allocated to parliament are going to be controlled by the ruling party, and given that the majority holds most of its legitimacy from the president (given that the election takes place just right after the election of the president), and, under the 5th Republic, has been extremely subversient to the president.

So it increases power for the president's henchmen, not realyl to an independent institution.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 at 06:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For example, Sarkozy made much noise about presidential nominations needing parliamentary approval, but for his nominations to be prevented needs opposition from three fifths of both parliament and senate : not gonna happen...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 at 06:19:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series