The National Assembly debate on Thursday without suspense, a motion of censure against the government the right, result of action Tuesday at 49-3 for to pass again without a vote the draft law Macron.
Motion of censure in Parliament program Thursday. The National Assembly debate without suspense, a motion of censure against the government the right, consequence of recourse tumultuous Tuesday by Manuel Valls in Article 49-3 of the Constitution to pass again without a vote the draft Macron law. The debate began at 16 am and the vote will be known to 18 h 30.
Parliament has “been heard,” according Valls
The use of 49-3 is “not an insignificant choice, a surprise to anyone,” replies Manuel Valls, arguing that “the Constitution was respected” and that “Parliament was of course, with over 400 hours of debate and more than 2,000 amendments adopted. “
” The debate that neither the wait nor the postures. Some cry on the use of Article 49-3 as they simply wanted to object because they can do it, “he added. Addressing the Left Front has decided to vote the motion of censure tabled by the right, the Prime Minister denounced the “old tricks”, saying that members of the group, chaired by André Chassaigne is “wrong camp” and placed “in the side of conservative.” “What is your consistency in this unlikely alliance? »Launched their Prime Minister in the National Assembly,
The Macron law is” a law of left, progress, practical and effective “, which included” definitely “the France “in the reform” said the Prime Minister. “By rejecting this motion of censure, we will demonstrate that it has a majority on this reform,” he says.
Bruno Le Roux, president of the PS group, advocates a “progress of law”
“It is not a prescribed text, but co-produced and co-wrote” justified Bruno Le Roux, leader of Socialist MEPs. “Why cry wolf? the truth is that we must collectively be more effective, “he said, defending a” progress of law “. Then he launched for the right, “we’re not in a theater where the show is taking over the parliamentary debate.”
Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg, president of the radical left group emits “reserves” but reiterated his “confidence” in the government
The president of the Radical Left group believes it was “not necessary” to use Article 49-3. If it emits “reserves”, including “the terms of Sunday work,” and the “composite” nature and “patchwork” of the text, however, he announced that his group would “not vote the motion of censure because it would disown your umbrella policy while we are in solidarity. “
Barbara Pompili, co-president of the environmental group, pin” a legislative device “
The use of the first reading on 49-3 Macron law was the recognition of the absence of majority throughout the text, judge Barbara Pompili, but “at least the discussion on each articles had done respectfully “to Parliament. By “cutting short the debate on second reading”, the 49-3 this time is “the recognition of a doubt, the failure to adopt the text without a fight.”
and pinning a” legislative artifice “, the co-president of the environmental group also denounced a bill that” binds together the measures that have nothing to do with each other, “a method” aggravated ” according to it “by added contents, sometimes cavalier, between the first and second reading” of the text. “You have on record the failure of a debate within the majority”, she has added to the intention of Manuel Valls.
If a vote on the law Macro had taken place, the environmentalists would therefore not vote, do not hide Barbara Pompili. But she does not want, however, to join the “About outrageous” by Christian Jacob and the motion of censure of the “self-proclaimed group Republicans,” said she stressed booed group Republicans. Only the Green MP Isabelle Attard (party member New Deal) should vote the motion tabled by Republicans (former UMP) and IDUs.
Christian Jacob , president of the group Republicans, Valls accused of “violating the Constitution”
Presenting the motion of censure tabled by the group Republicans he chairs, has denounced a Christian Jacob “Abuse of the 49-3″ and “contempt of Parliament unprecedented,” Manuel Valls accused of “violating the Constitution”. “You no longer have the means to govern,” said he launched for the Prime Minister. And recall the vote on the responsibility pact that had performed with a “weak and narrow majority” of 265 members and the refusal of 81 MPs left to bring their confidence Valls government last fall.
As for Macron law, Christian Jacob tip “total mystification,” emphasizing the absence of measures on working time, the reform of the labor code or the relief taxation. France is, he says, “on the way to relegation, in an economic stall in Europe, we have to be degraded to 6th in the world.”
Philippe Vigier, President of IDU group, co-signatory of the motion of censure, denounced, meanwhile, an “illusion”. “How can you still exercising power? “He has launched for Manuel Valls. “Exercise power not to hide behind the institutions (…) if it can not collect his majority.” Pinning a “con game”, Philippe Vigier Manuel Valls said that “needed slingers” to “get its reform ambitions” for real change. As for the Macron law, it constitutes a “draft law sprawling, unreadable and inconsistent”.
The Left Front will vote the motion of censure right
Members of the Left Front, which as in February failed to gather the 58 signatures needed to file their own motion of censure “left”, announced Thursday morning that they will vote the motion of censure tabled by the government the right and the center. “It’s the only way we have to oppose the text” , justified the leader of the Left Front, André Chassaigne.
In other leftist groups, only Green MP Isabelle Attard (party member New Deal) will also vote the motion tabled by Republicans (former UMP) and IDUs.
In February at the first use of Article 49-3 of the Constitution on the bill Macron, six of the ten Left Front MPs voted the motion UMP-IDU, others not wanting to add their voices ” to those of the right and the extreme right. “
Chassaigne André said Thursday in the Chamber that he voted for the motion of censure” reject it Bill “in appearance” catch-all “that” attacks our social model. “
With agencies
No comments:
Post a Comment