Sustainability » Sustainable News » Environment » Climate » the majority crushes the debate | Climates Changes

the majority crushes the debate | Climates Changes

The fear of the opposition was well founded. The president of the commission Laurence Maillart-Méhaignerie warned this on February 18 if the amendments were to accept proposals from the Citizens’ Climate Convention without presenting any connection, even indirect, with the provisions of the articles of the bill […], would be considered inadmissible on the basis of Article 45 of the Constitution . This article 45 allows, in the opinion of the majority, to declare amendments inadmissible because it is considered unrelated to the bill.

A week after the Special Commission initiated the review of the Climate Law, the threat is being carried forward, on an unprecedented scale. On March 10, three days after the debates began, 32 % Of the 5,129 amendments had been dealt with by the committee and 44 % of them were declared inadmissible. An inadmissibility rate extraordinary , according to Paula Forteza, former parliamentarian LREM who joined the short-lived parliamentary group on Ecology, Democracy and Solidarity in early 2020, much superior to other important legal texts .

In 2019, for example, when the law was passed LOM (law on orientation to mobility), only 9.01 % Of 3,076 amendments were found inadmissible. Delphine Batho, parliamentary ecologist from Deux-Sèvres, deplores this unprecedented rate of inadmissibility. I’ve never seen it, we are clearly in violation of the right of amendment he said Reporter.

In addition, a scheduled legislative time of forty-five hours for the plenary debate that opens on March 29 was set by the Presidents of the Assembly on Tuesday. A new low maneuver of LREM and government , according to the deputy of Maine-et-Loire Matthieu Orphelin. In his opinion, this will allow them to gag environmentalists . Delphine Batho insists: Green non-attached MEPs will not even be able to defend their amendments in the hemicycle.

As soon as an amendment contains the word “plastic”, it is excluded.

On her Twitter account, MP Paula Forteza is trying to make public some decisions and data on the inadmissibility of the amendments. No justification is given, either by the chairman or by the rapporteurs of the committee, to justify the use of Article 45. This sometimes leads to misunderstandings among Members. To give you an example, as soon as an amendment contains the word “plastic”, is declared inadmissible on the basis of Article 45 , says Delphine Batho.

Another example is the advertising component. In the official texts, we can read [La loi] it therefore intends to reduce consumer incentives by regulating the advertising sector. In the special committee, however, the rapporteur Aurore Bergé said: We are not here to fight against consumption, it is not our philosophy in this text. Supported by Citizen’s Climate Convention, the amendment banning advertising video screens and illuminated advertising was, for example, found inadmissible, following the argument of Deputy Guillaume Kasbarian (LREM) : It is totally free-killing, my model is not theUSSR.

Same fate for digital, largely absent from the debate , She said Reporter Paula Forteza: It is incomprehensible, we have challenged the government several times on this and we continue to ignore the issues related to digital sobriety. The French deputy for Latin America and the Caribbean continues: We were promised an unfiltered debate but finally there are already three that emerge clearly. We omit some arguments such as digital technology, make massive use of Article 45 and prevent non-attached members from defending their amendments in session within the legislative timeframe.

On Friday, the generalization of the glass deposit was withdrawn from the text of the bill, under pressure from several deputies of the majority including Stéphane Travers, justifying that this measure could represent additional costs for the wine and spirits sector and penalize exports. .

The lack of clarity and transparency leads some Members to seriously doubt their weight in these debates. We hardly have the opportunity to exercise our role as legislator anymore , indignant Paula Forteza, Our right to amend is called into question and, with the legislative time allowed, we will not even be able to defend these amendments in session. We hardly have anything left as a member of parliament.


Source: Justin Carrette for Reporter

Photo: Screenshot of the Assembly’s special committee.

.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *