“National preference, applied systematically, is contrary to the Constitution” | EUROtoday

The Constitutional Council censored a part of the “immigration” regulation in January, revoking quite a few articles as a result of they had been thought of legislative cavaliers, that’s to say unrelated to the preliminary regulation, and others as a result of that they weren’t in conformity with the Constitution in substance. This was the case for the articles establishing a type of nationwide choice for sure social advantages. A choice which earned the establishment virulent criticism from the best and the far proper, the president of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes area, Laurent Wauquiez, going as far as to denounce a “coup d’état de jure”. In an interview with World, the president of the Constitutional Council, Laurent Fabius, former socialist prime minister, discusses these criticisms and the threats they pose to the rule of regulation.

In April, the Constitutional Council rejected a proposal for a shared initiative referendum (RIP) aimed toward reforming entry to social advantages for migrants. This resolution, you say, is prime. For what ?

The Constitution doesn’t stop the good thing about sure social advantages for foreigners in a authorized scenario from being topic to a situation of period of residence or exercise, however this period can not deprive deprived individuals of a coverage of nationwide solidarity (see the preamble to the 1946 Constitution). However, article 1 of the RIP proposal made the good thing about social advantages for non-European foreigners in a authorized scenario conditional on a residence of no less than 5 years, or on an affiliation of no less than thirty months for an exercise skilled: this lengthy period couldn’t be accepted. In doing so, the Council confirmed that social safety doesn’t apply solely to individuals of French nationality, however to all individuals legally residing in France, rejecting the so-called thesis of “national preference”.

This implies that nationwide choice, on the coronary heart of the National Rally program, is unconstitutional?

It shouldn’t be my function to touch upon this system of this or that political motion. I’ll restrict myself to saying, since it’s fixed, that nationwide choice – utilized systematically – is opposite to the Constitution.

A yr in the past, the Constitutional Council validated the pension reform, adopted with out a vote by Parliament, following the usage of numerous instruments of the Constitution. Any authorities will due to this fact be capable of constrain Parliament?

You have 76.33% of this text left to learn. The relaxation is reserved for subscribers.