49.3

[dxcxdzv]

The 49.3 is a kinda controversial part of the constitution of the French Vth Republic.
It gives to the government the power to pass a law without the agreement of the Congress.
Deputizes can vote a motion of censorship to the absolute majority, although this ability of "counter-power" is looked as artificial (partisan politics and shit, y'know).

The 49.3 has recently been used to make the El Khomri Law (or Labor law) pass.
This law has been controversial from the beginning, dividing both the Congress and the people, you go outside buy some candies and you heard for one hour high schoolers and socialists screaming death to the capitalists. x_x

Basically this law is about giving more liberties to enterprises, it's mainly about facilitating the flexibility of labor (simplified procedures for layoffs for example).

It also gives to enterprises the possibility to momentously increase the number of working hours without needing extra salaries (besides the actual legal ones).
The law gives also the liberty to enterprises to fire employees in case of bad financial conditions over several months.
Damages for abusively (without any valid reason) fired employees will reach a ceiling determined in function of the employee's ancientness in the company.
Reformed referendums within the companies technically reducing the powers of syndicates over the board.
"Guaranteed" employment for the 18-25 yo by the use of special local structures.


I was wondering if something like the 49.3 was existing in your countries buddies. I'd also appreciate your opinions about this law as well, this is a very succinct description but as it's trendy and revolting for some people you often see tons of bullshits about it so... kinda hard to find trustworthy and objective sources.

[Vlerchan]

The Prime Minister may, after deliberation by the Council of Ministers, make the
passing of a Finance Bill or Social Security Financing Bill an issue of a vote of
confidence before the National Assembly. In that event, the Bill shall be considered
passed unless a resolution of no-confidence, tabled within the subsequent twentyfour
hours, is carried as provided for in the foregoing paragraph. In addition, the
Prime Minister may use the said procedure for one other Government or Private
Members’ Bill per session

http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf

Is that a good translation?

It reads like it was set up to ensure that bills that are controversial within a ruling-party can get passed. In that sense it doesn't seem too different to the development and use of a partywhip system within the Irish and British party system, where those that vote against the government (party leadership) are expelled.

---

France also has a chronic issue of structural unemployment and the likelihood is that this stems in a large part from the considerable rigidities it's labour market poses.

I will need to read more into this - but to me this looks like a brave and necessary step the Socialists are taking.

[dxcxdzv]

Is that a good translation?
Pretty good and accurate vis-à-vis the original french statement.

It reads like it was set up to ensure that bills that are controversial within a ruling-party can get passed. In that sense it doesn't seem too different to the development and use of a partywhip system within the Irish and British party system, where those that vote against the government (party leadership) are expelled.
Of course, it's used when you know that the National Assembly is divided and that they will never vote at +50% against it within 24 hours.

From what I've read the Whip system only applies for deputizes of a certain party.
But this is not really the same context in France, the constitution gives more power to the executive (and especially the head of state) than elsewhere, it's called Gaullism. Charles de Gaulle wanted after WWII to establish a strong executive, I don't know exactly why or I simply don't remember, things is such measures like the 49.3 exist for this particular reason, at least I assume so.

France also has a chronic issue of structural unemployment and the likelihood is that this stems in a large part from the considerable rigidities it's labour market poses.
It is well known amongst Frenchies that our labor rigidity is not really a strength, more particularly with an unemployment rate that simply doesn't want to decrease.
This is also why some people are tired of demonstrations against this law because people ask for jobs but "when you make a law to make them have jobs they complain". Not that I support any specific side but, yeah that's one of the arguments used by the ones for the "Yes".

I will need to read more into this - but to me this looks like a brave and necessary step the Socialists are taking.
Socialists (they call themselves proletarians or some shit like that) express themselves 90% of the time through demonstrations for absolutely anything. You can go to a park and see people from the CGT (big French syndicate) bawling about such factory having implemented a new system of checking-in for employees. The most hilarious case I've been aware of took place in Ajaccio (Corsica) where bus drivers went on strike because of a new checking system for passengers tickets.
It's pretty hard for some of them to be credible nowadays.

EDIT: Just realized you were talking about the party, sorry, here we call it PS as nobody really believes they are truly socialists haha.

[sqishy]

I know little that is relevant to this topic, but would zero-hour contracts be included here?
We've got that in Ireland, I think.


Vlerchan can always correct me if I am mistaken (the mention function is glitching out for me atm).

[Vlerchan]

From what I've read the Whip system only applies for deputizes of a certain party.
Yes. But I still see it as operating in an analogous fashion to that of 49.3. What needs to be understood here is the manner in which the executive and legislature, and the legislature and the majority-party-system, are inseparable in Irish and British parliamentary-democracy. The whip is used to ensure obedience to the desires of the executive, the party-leadership, in cases where internal party-conflict has it seem as if the will of the executive and the will of the legislature might become detached.

In effect it's used to ensure that the executive can dominate the legislature.

But this is not really the same context in France, the constitution gives more power to the executive (and especially the head of state) than elsewhere, it's called Gaullism.
Oh, it definitely not the same, though parliamentary-dominance is quite close if both are considered along the lines of executive dominance.

EDIT: Just realized you were talking about the party, sorry, here we call it PS as nobody really believes they are truly socialists haha.
PS - Socialists is what the anglomedia call them - might just be the largest set of ideological frauds in Europe, I agree. They sill sing The Internationale and refer to each other as comrade at conventions.

Sad, really.

---
Paraxiom: Ireland has zero-hour contracts, though there's some degree of restriction.

[Porpoise101]

I am supportive of a strong, but not omnipotent, executive. It ensures that the government does not get into too many petty and divisive squabbles and allows the nation to debate meaningful issues quicker.

As for the El Khomri Law, I am also supportive. I think that it will be beneficial because it will make labor easier to be managed and shuffled naturally by the economy. If it is ineffective, you can always repeal it too, so that's also good.

As for the Socialists, its kind of sad. The Socialist movement in France used to be something honorable. From the Paris Commune to the Popular Front, the Socialists always at least tried to make France better off. I'd guess that at least some of the reason for having a strong executive would be to suppress radicals like Socialists though.

[Vlerchan]

It ensures that the government does not get into too many petty and divisive squabbles and allows the nation to debate meaningful issues quicker.
The bolded seems counter-intuitive. If a goal of governance is meaningful, then one would expect discussion to be prolonged and more intensive.

I'm also more into legislatures that tend towards producing stable governments.

[Porpoise101]

The bolded seems counter-intuitive. If a goal of governance is meaningful, then one would expect discussion to be prolonged and more intensive.
The way I see it is that certain issues get hung up over tiny and insignificant details. And sometimes the legislature sneaks in extra, irrelevant provisions. If we can reduce that, then I think that it can be good. I think a better word would be 'efficient' rather than 'quicker'. I do agree with your assessment that more intense government is better, but slower government is not. The government should be able to quickly adapt to the will of its voters.

[sqishy]

Ireland has zero-hour contracts, though there's some degree of restriction.

What are these restrictions?

[dxcxdzv]

Yes. But I still see it as operating in an analogous fashion to that of 49.3. What needs to be understood here is the manner in which the executive and legislature, and the legislature and the majority-party-system, are inseparable in Irish and British parliamentary-democracy. The whip is used to ensure obedience to the desires of the executive, the party-leadership, in cases where internal party-conflict has it seem as if the will of the executive and the will of the legislature might become detached.

In effect it's used to ensure that the executive can dominate the legislature.

S'ka. When some sort of issues occur between the legislature and the executive the president can dissolve the lower-house, it's radical.

PS - Socialists is what the anglomedia call them - might just be the largest set of ideological frauds in Europe, I agree. They sill sing The Internationale and refer to each other as comrade at conventions.

Sad, really.

Parties in France are a bit fucked up, besides the PS we've got the former-UMP (right, liberal) that call themselves "The Republicans" now (*facepalm*) that has been multiple times to edge of collapse and on the other hand the FN (far-right, ultra-nationalists), well, you get the point.

[Stronk Serb]

Something like this existed in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, article 116. It stated that in case of an emergency, the King had the power to suspend the constitution and become the chief of both executive and legislative branches. King Aleksandar I actually did it after a shooting in the Parliament, the period after that is called the Sixth of January Dictatorship, starting on the sixth of January in 1929. It lasted officially until '31, but after that the only party in the Parliament was the ruling party which was under direct control of the king. The dictatorship truly ended after the first elections following the king's assassination in '35.