After the decision of the Constitutional Council, France is faced with a major democratic challenge: the common will of the Parliament, the Government and the President of the Republic, that is to say of all the representatives of the Nation expressing the will of the Will the French people, for whom all polls attest to the massive nature of their support, be respected or not? The Constitution gives us the possibility of this and the Constitutional Council has not closed the way. Will the President of the Republic take the initiative? And we, the opposition of the Republican right and the center, will we be able to lead him there? Will we be able to focus on the real democratic fight, that of uniting the French to control migratory flows, while remaining faithful to the values of the Republic?
Does the hasty promulgation of a truncated and unbalanced law mark a refusal to maintain this course taken a month ago by the vote of the law thanks to the unprecedented agreement of the majority forces in the National Assembly and the Senate, with 65% of the votes in each of the assemblies, without even having to resort to article 49-3? Does this promulgation reflect the decision to turn the page as quickly as possible? Does it reveal the duplicity of a power which would refuse to apply in good faith the political agreement concluded on immigration and would in reality be relieved by the decision of the wise men? We don’t dare believe it. But we are surprised that the Head of State, always on the lookout for political initiatives with no future such as the great debate, the national council for refoundation or the Saint-Denis meetings, has not yet taken action. initiative to invite, usefully this time, all political forces to consider with them the follow-up to be given to the decision of the Constitutional Council. What flouts parliamentary democracy is now the inertia of an amorphous executive power which seems to have already forgotten the presidential objurgations calling for action and results.
Breaking a pact of trust
“Do you know that we only have twenty-four hours at the Palace to curse its judges,” Beaumarchais asks Figaro in the Barber of Seville. This deadline having now expired, let us draw the consequences of the political situation created by the decision of the Constitutional Council. Whatever one thinks of this decision, it is in fact “not subject to any appeal” and “is binding on public authorities and all administrative and jurisdictional authorities”, as required by article 62 of the Constitution. No doubt the wise people could have defended the rights of Parliament by considering that access to nationality and solidarity benefits such as family reunification or the rules applicable to foreign students had a sufficient link with the control of flows migration, the subject of the bill. They preferred to defend a restrictive approach which combats legislative proliferation at the cost of confining Parliament. Even if this is not new case law, the political earthquake created by the decision of the high court nonetheless calls for reflection on the evolution of the right of amendment to balance the balance of power between Government and Parliament.
But let’s focus on the essential question: how can we establish rules that break with the past to allow France to control migratory pressure? The governing forces of our country have always been keen to respect and ensure respect for the Constitution. We are free to propose adapting it to the demands of our time, but let’s start by defending it! And today, let us not miss the target: in the reform of immigration policy, it is the actions of the President of the Republic and not the decision of the Constitutional Council which most strongly question the functioning of our democracy.
By promulgating a reduced law for all ceased matters, the President of the Republic appears to want to bury the commitments made by the Borne Government. He broke the pact of confidence sealed with the National Assembly, which had expressly rejected a text close to the text finally promulgated, and the Senate which did not want it at any price. However, the decision of the Constitutional Council in no way prevented compliance with this pact since most of the censored measures were not judged to be contrary to our constitutional principles.
Promulgation on the run
Things cannot remain as they are. A fundamental political agreement for national cohesion had been concluded between the Government, the National Assembly and the Senate. The first and only one of this five-year term. The head of state is the guarantor. It is up to him to enforce it using the powers that the Constitution gives him. The Head of State, who is responsible for “ensuring respect for the Constitution”, could have suspended the promulgation of a truncated law and requested a second deliberation in accordance with article 10 of the Constitution. It would have been to show his determination to enforce the political agreement that he himself had desired by giving himself the means to complete the censored law according to a procedure which this time would be judged to be in conformity with the Constitution: by presenting to Parliament the text resulting from the decision of the Constitutional Council increased by all the articles invalidated for procedural reasons. To do this, it was enough to use the technique of the amending letter after consultation with the Council of State and deliberation by the Council of Ministers. It would have made it possible not to promulgate a half-reform on the sly.
Failing to have adopted the political solution which was clearly the most relevant, the Head of State can still initiate the necessary consultations with a view to submitting two bills to Parliament, one revising the Constitution to adapt it to the demands of our time by strengthening the rights of Parliament, the other in order to take the necessary legislative measures to re-establish control of migratory flows and implement an ambitious integration policy giving everyone their place . The country is waiting for it. We are ready for it. We must act quickly ! National reconciliation is at this price. The confidence of the French in political speech depends on it.