2024-08-02 08:30:07
TRIBUNE – The institutions of 1958 were designed so that economic, social and economic policy could not be done “in the dirt” (ie step by step in Davos and elsewhere), and France would not be under American supervision ( ie not as you have for a long time). With General de Gaulle as conductor. With regulations that aim to prevent decisions affecting the future of France and their country from being based on the profits of parties and politicians. Which, in a way, always subordinated the interests of the French to those of their professions.
Among the regulations introduced in the 1958 text, ministers cannot be members of parliament at the same time, with many consequences that this meant at the time (3). Of course they can stand for election, but they have to choose between two jobs within a month. Unless the resignation of the government removes them from the election and ipso facto puts them outside the government…
If the law has been written to prevent the leaders of the Republic (thinking this time, no longer de Gaulle, but mainly of Mitterrand, Sarkozy or Macron) to put France under the direction of the financial markets ( Maastricht, Lisbon and others). ) and under American supervision (NATO in particular), with the agreement of the political party as a whole, would have written it differently.
The legal principles that were considered in 1958 could be used technically and have been used politically to do the opposite of what de Gaulle wanted to do. Just by twisting it a little, if not the word, at least the spirit of the word.
With the “partner” political party found with the Head of State – who has gradually become a kind of ballet master of the party government (Macron’s example) – new ways of working…
This is what happened today with the ministers who chose the deputies and became ministers while they were waiting for the desire of the President of the Republic to appoint a new government to replace the one he left. And make them money like parliament.
That the President of the Republic would pull things out in this way at the time was not considered by the authors of the law. Call organic law (**) implementing article 23 if the law is used against the spirit of article 23… maybe (1).
TELL…???
In 2008, the legislature repealed the law that a person does not automatically take the position of parliament when he leaves the government, the deputy must agree to resign to accept the by-election (2).
It is for the political party in the place to do (3) according to the law, after it has been done in fact as we are currently observing, “the exercise of the duties of a member of the government with the use of any parliamentary committee”.
And also, we do not see why the members of the government will not keep the professional activity. Or even, why they can’t find a job outside of the cabinet and while they are there, although government jobs help, as the CVs of many testify, to get rid of. This will save time mixing types.
Marcel-M. MONIN
Honorary university professor
article 23 of the constitution “The duties of a member of the Government are does not comply with the exercise of any legislative power of any workprofessional representative of a national nature and any public employment or any professional activity
.
The Organic Law establishes the conditions under which the holders of such orders, duties or functions are replaced.
The replacement of members of parliament shall take place in accordance with the provisions of Article 25.
(**) Organic Law of November 17, 1958 “For each member of the Government, the violations established in article 23 of the constitution begin at the end of a period of one month from their appointment. During this period, a member of parliament who is a member of the government cannot participate in any vote. and cannot receive any compensation as a member of parliament (added in 2013)
. The defaults are not effective if the Government resigns before the expiry of the said period. …/… 1) LO leaves the deputy minister a month (from the event of collection) to choose between the two jobs. In the event of the resignation of the government before the end of this month, there is no need to wait for the end of the reflection period offered to the individual. This is what Figure 1 provides in
of the organic law which specifies the modalities of implementation of article 23 of the Constitution. Holding that in the event of the resignation of the government, the deputy ministers can use both functions, contrary to the prohibition of article 23 of the constitution, it is clear that he is confident. The drafters of the 1958 articles were probably not stupid or insane who would have contradicted in the organic law what was provided for by the law. Some would like the Constitutional Council to declare a provision of the law inconsistent with the law: “Absences do not take effect if the Government resigns before the end of the said period”
Which is tactically perhaps not very “smart”. The State Council will probably not refer the QPC to the Constitutional Council. His rejection will clearly provide an argument for the administration to support and repeat through their friendly media that the ministers did not violate anything and that the President of the Republic has an irreproachable character as a guarantor of the good performance of companies. (2) In the original 1958 system, when he became a minister he lost his parliamentary mandate which passed to the deputy at the end of a one-month reflection period (provided for in Fig. in
of order 58-1099 of November 19, 1958).
When we left the government, we had nothing left. The only way to find a parliamentary seat is through the resignation of an alternate. But then we organized a by-election, which carried all the big risks as the opinion of the voters was able to develop. In addition, the election is prohibited by the organic laws, which govern the replacement of representatives and councils, in the year preceding the legislative elections (art. 6 of Law No. 58-1065 of November 7 1958 ), or which follows the partial renewal of the Senate (art. 7 of Law No. 58-1097 of November 15, 1958). The minister’s allowance continues to be paid until the person concerned receives the payment back, for a maximum period of six months.
(3) In the ideal parliamentary system, ministers are elected from among the representatives or members of the parliament and retain their parliamentary authority while they are in the ministerial position. Which traditionally provides electoral benefits: – the Ministry of Agriculture makes it possible to monitor peasant voters, – the interior gives access to the authorities, to General Information and makes it possible to prepare the electoral division, – health in the past makes it possible to build hospitals…
The Act of 1791 prohibited the king from appointing ministers from among the representatives. At that time, it was for fear that they would allow themselves to be corrupted by the attraction of ministerial portfolios.
After all, there is no provision that prohibits politicians from suspending their parliamentary mandate when they become ministers. In the middle of their meeting, they took a place on the “ministers’ seat” which was at the bottom of the donkey cart. If they leave the position of minister, they leave the ministerial seats, they climb some stairs, and they go to sit in the place that was chosen for them as parliamentarians. When, following the negotiations between the workers, they became servants again, they went in the opposite direction: they went back. During the elections, the minister-parliament is elected.
This situation is comforting for those involved: ministerial conflicts do not chase them away from the limits of power. But these claims of professional integrity have the wrong effects. It has happened that the ministers of the same government voted in a scattered manner In 1936, Tardieu wrote : “Ministerial duty was created, not to reach the ministers who are ruling improperly, but not to find space often for the legislators who want to become ministers without ruling properly . The work admits that we are not like that. Once we stop eating, we have, whatever we do in the time we are, pay for everything we eat. “
Tardieu, Revolution to reform, volume 2, 1936.
To avoid these actions with illegal effects, the authors of the 1958 Law established two rules: anyone who becomes a minister renounces his parliamentary authority (Image. 23) A law that is currently being abused, to say that the smallest, and even the most chaotic. And if you leave the government, the minister has nothing left (organic law). The process has been cancelled. “Powers must be separated by their composition. If the members of the government are also members of parliament in a country like France where such political life leads to many parties, the government will be divided into… members of the government must not be parliamentarians. . ministers) remove themselves from their party affiliations… The government is separated from Parliament, ministerial responsibility will not lead to government instability… (which, for its part) does not affect all subjects, but only some between them, he does not intervene all the time, but only at certain intervals. »
- (Communications by General de Gaulle during the meeting of Friday June 13, 1958 at the Matignon hotel). J.-L. Debré, The Constitutional Opinions of General de Gaulle, Paris, LGDJ
on these questions, see our “Texts of law and documents since 1958. Analyzes and comments”. Dalloz – Armand Colin
#Ministers #representatives #time..