Reflection on institutions circles multiply. Would our Constitution be inappropriate at the time
The Constitution of the Fifth Republic has developed lasting an end to the Government and political instability that had prevailed under the Fourth Republic and weakened the France to a point which we must remember. These institutions have shown their strength and flexibility in times of crisis and as cohabitation. We can modernize, without touching on two fundamental principles: the ability of the Executive to govern and the separation of the Executive and legislative powers.
Nicolas Sarkozy would like to speak in Parliament. Is this not contrary to the separation of powers
In many democracies, especially in the United States, the head of State can go directly to the parliamentarians. It seems normal that the President of the Republic can do the same, as well as General de Gaulle had wished it. This would strengthen the role of Parliament in our institutions. However, this practice should be framed. Elected by the people, the President is responsible only before the people and not before the Parliament. This, in my view, prevents any vote in the Chamber after the presidential speech.
You seem to want to contain the parliamentarians while you are running a working group to give a "greater role in the Assembly..."
I would like concrete and pragmatic reforms to strengthen the powers of the Parliament without weakening the Executive. I hired a dialogue involving all the political groups. I wish to strongly contribute to the modernization of political life with a triple objective: more democracy, more efficiency and more closeness to the expectations of the French. Our thinking continues, but a broad convergence between the majority and opposition emerges so that the Bill in the Chamber examined the text of the work done upstream, in the parliamentary committees. This is not the case today since it is the original text of the Government before the members at the meeting. This would be a significant increase in the powers of MPs.
Of course, but where is the "break"
This reform better leverage the work of the members. Their amendments, the result of their trade with the French, would be further taken into account, for better readability of the Act and a better application in the field. The task of the Government would certainly complicated. It should work more upstream with the Parliament. Ministers should defend their text in the Committee and not simply to present. And if the Commissioners adopt an amendment that is not appropriate for the Government, the Minister would have to convince the Assembly of the relevance of its proposals. It would be a true reversal of rule: interventions in the Chamber would deal with the work of the commissions and therefore members of Parliament. This rule should apply to all draft laws, apart from the budget, which determines the means necessary for the conduct of a policy, returning it to the Government.
If most of the work is done in Committee, is making these debates
In principle, I believe that democracy requires transparency. However, the advertising promotes the theatricality, the effects of sleeves and the political controversies that adversely affect the substantive work. We could find a balanced solution. Personally, I think that the hearings of Ministers should be public and debates remain behind closed doors.
The Constitution gives the Government control of the agenda of the Parliament. Should it not a little share this power with the Assembly and the Senate
To govern effectively, the Executive must be able to submit projects to the national representation to its priorities. Some want to increase the number of "niches" parliamentary, these sessions where the initiative belongs to the deputies. Their record is mixed, because we parliamentarians, do not have the technical capacity to prepare sufficiently developed legislation proposals. In legislative matters, the initiative must be to the Executive. It is the power of parliamentary control, which must be strengthened. Our cabinets are filled with reports on the application more or less good of laws on the ground... which it is not always taken into account. If members of Parliament had the right to include in the agenda of the day more than control sessions, with the opportunity to question ministers on the follow-up to these reports, their control would be more effective.
Parliamentarians do have the necessary means for a real control of the Government action
There is much progress to make. The commissions should have additional means human, technical and investigation to assess the application of the laws. Moreover, before any vote, legislation should have been transmitted to Parliament serious impact studies.
There is talk of a readjustment of the commissions...
Some, such the cultural, family and social affairs commission, have very wide skills and could be split in two, especially to strengthen the monitoring ofissues of education by the Parliament. We must also take into account new expectations of the French and the will of the head of State to make the environment a priority, by creating a commission in charge of sustainable development. It could be seized for the Bills with environmental consequences.
When Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to entrust the Presidency of the Board of finance to the opposition, members of the majority wanted to create a parallel structure. Is it to news
The Finance Board is the only one to date, to be truly has power of control. Do not start to the dismember! In addition, it works well with Didier Migaud at its head. Have entrusted to a member of the opposition control over budget documents is a good initiative. For the future, is it always this commission which the Presidency will be attributed to the opposition or another Do we send not in written rules too strict. The political circumstances can change: in the medium term, cannot exclude a new cohabitation or a fragmented or uncertain majority... Then keep a bit of flexibility.
When the consultants, necessarily not elected, the President expressed publicly and correct a Minister, this is it a problem of democratic legitimacy
The advisers of the President of the Republic expressed to relay and clarify his remarks. It is their role and that sounds normal, as these advisors are not improper or irresponsible, since they are appointed by the head of State reporting to him. In any event the decision-making power belongs to the head of State, Government and Parliament.
The impression which dominates is that everything is decided in the Elysee Palace. Should take note of this change, and delete the post of Prime Minister
It would be contrary to the spirit of our institutions. It is legitimate that the President of the Republic, elected by the French, sets the directions and the policy to be implemented by the Prime Minister and the Government. The role of the Prime Minister, responsible to the National Assembly, remains essential. The functioning of the tandem President-Prime Minister vary times and figures while the constitutional revision scheduled for early 2008 will be for decades to come.
You have never hidden your reluctance to the introduction of a dose of proportional to the legislative elections. Have you changed
No, I did not changed... However, I am aware of the need to ensure the representation of the mainstream of political life in the Parliament. I will be very attentive to the conclusions of the Balladur Committee on this topic.
The budget was designed before the decline in growth. Should enrich it of additional measures to stimulate activity and improve the competitiveness of businesses
Forecasting institutes often argue us cataclysmic figures which do not check. I trust the Government. It is not the Coué method, it is voluntarism.
What is the best method and the appropriate timetable for reform special pension plans
By electing Nicolas Sarkozy, the French voted for the reform of the special schemes. They were designed to blend in the term, in the general scheme. Should open a dialogue with the social partners and the country very quickly, because the future of pensions with all citizens: the general interest is that everyone can express themselves and not simply some socio-professional categories. For the adoption of the reform, I have a clear preference for the act as President of the Assembly.
To fill the social deficits, must establish a "social VAT"
It is not possible that the financing of social protection weighs almost exclusively on the work and production. Personally, I am in favour of other sources of funding. This is unavoidable. It is the sense of the debate on 'Social VAT' even if the name is inappropriate and we must continue to reflect on the terms and conditions. We speak of social contribution on the distribution.
Would this not a new puncture on the purchasing power
Global supply of large distribution signs, which provide inter alia in Bangladesh or China, gives them sufficient margins to absorb this contribution without increasing their prices. All countries which have introduced this type of contribution fired benefit in terms of employment and balance of their public finances. I think that we reach sooner or later.
Are you in favour of the use of DNA testing for family reunification procedures, proposed by the draft law on immigration
I am surprised that this question raises a such controversy in France while many of our European partners use this practice for several years. In any case, it is for the national representation to debate and decide.