French Parliamentary Style

2027 Words9 Pages

An opposite view insists on a radical difference between the Westminster and the French style of parliamentary procedure. The locus classicus of thematising the differences between the French and British rules is Jeremy Bentham’s Essay on Political Tactics. Bentham’s aim was to create a general guide for all legislative and deliberative assemblies. He compared the Westminster procedure with that of some French provincial assemblies that were still active in the second half of the eighteenth century. He found the French practices confusing, for example, as they did not strictly distinguish between debate and vote: opinion and avis have something of both qualities (Bentham 1843, VI.5.). Bentham realised that his ideal-type of legislative procedure …show more content…

As a large and multilingual parliament it has had its difficulties with plenary debates. Clinchamps remarks on the committees’ decisive role: “c’est en commission ques’effectuel’essentiel du travail parlementaire” (Clinchamps2006, 2012 ****). This remark emphasises the political weight of the committees as well as their place in parliamentary agenda-setting and the organisation of debates. The EP’s permanent committees are ‘en principespecialisées’ (Clinchamps2006, 215). Clinchamps divides them into the few ‘ideological’ and the many ‘technical’ committees (ibid., 217). The Rules of Procedure stress the importance of the role of party groups in the committees: Members of committees and committees of inquiry shall be elected after nominations have been submitted by the political groups and the non-attached Members. The Conference of Presidents shall submit proposals to Parliament. The composition of the committees shall, as far as possible, reflect the composition of Parliament. (Rule 199, 1) In Britain the committee procedure is characterised by their intensive debate of the details. In these the exchange of replies between members is the main aim, as opposed to the plenum with its rule that members are allowed to speak only once. In the EP no such restrictions on plenary speeches exist; The Committee of the whole House is unknown to it, though it is practised in the US

Open Document