Nicolas Sarkozy went on holiday, with his home owners mortgage relief package in place and ready to sign "when he returns to the Elysée next week."“This tax break, I have promised it . . . and it will apply to all loans,” he had said.
But the French Constitutional Council, which rules on the validity of laws passed by parliament, said existing homeowners should not benefit from the measure, arguing that the tax break was meant to target people who have yet to get on the property ladder.
Firstly, a non-elected body decides that the bulk of the French populace will not get some relief, just when the world economy is twitchy and it would have been of most benefit in riding through the rough patch and when the elected President with a clear mandate promised it.
Secondly, how is this law invalid? In which way is mortgage relief unconstitutional?
Thirdly, short-termism like this, which points to 0.3 per cent GDP growth in the second quarter and employment figures showing virtual zero growth, ignores the principle of trading your way out of trouble.
Sarkozy was elected on a clear platform as stated above. Either he is the ultimate cynic, knowing full well the Council would strike this down and transferring the onus to them, hoping for an outcry and the consequent restriction of the Council's further powers, leading to more autocratic rule or else it is a genuine slap in the face for the French people.
Which brings us back to first principles again. The French people want something - a strong economy and a high standard of living, along with the other major economies. They don't have it. They elected Sarkozy to get it but an unelected body stuck its oar in and stopped it.
The dead hand of either Statism, Socialism or whatever your political proclivities name it.
Dear Sir James
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that anything mandated to a government in an election is automatically constitutionally acceptable? Is a properly formed constitutional court disqualified to rule on any law which can be identified with an item in an incoming government's manifesto? If so, then the citizens of France and, analogously the US, are stuffed since any short-term hysterical proposal inserted thoughtlessly in a manifesto is thereby rendered unchallengeable. We in the UK have been stuffed for years but that's another matter.
The Constitutional Council of France does not have the distinguished history of the US Supreme Court but under the present Constitution of France it is still entitled - indeed mandated - to rule on the constitutionality of French laws. You believe - and you may be correct - that the tax break concerned is both necessary and effective in accomplishing what Sarkozy has promised the French electorate. You may also be correct that Sarkozy knew this law would be struck down. So what? The question for the Constitutional Council is "is it constitutional?" not "is it popular?" or even "is it necessary?" If Sarkozy had been elected on a platform of wholesale deportation without trial of all immigrants to France since 1970 (he would possibly have won on that one as well) which is most probably against the French Constitution, are you saying that this would be OK as well?
The point of a constitution and a body set up (almost invariably appointed rather than elected) to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature is that at some time or over time rules were adopted and approved (by election or long practice) to determine if laws passed by the legislature are "legal". The weakness of our constitution is that it depends too much on conventions to this effect which can be overridden with impunity when scum achieve power: the strength used to be that those conventions were rarely overridden but could be easily changed when their practice became manifestly otiose. The French Constitution has, I assume, similar rules which can only be overthrown by a (deliberately laborious) change in the Constitution. One effect of the present constitutional rules is to strike down this new law. Tough! The solution is to change the constitution, not undermine it.
I take your point that by their system the CC has a right to review but they surely also ahve a responsibility.
ReplyDeleteYou say:
"any short-term hysterical proposal"
but I hardly see how a mandated promise to relief mortgages falls into this category. There is a word which hasn't come into this yet - common sense.
I rather think Sarko is the ultimate cynic.
ReplyDelete