Paris to review Sunday Rest Laws over fears it is losing out to London
France is to review laws allowing Paris to relax Sunday opening rules - laws that critics say are losing the capital thousands of jobs and tourist shoppers to London.
Shuttered shops on the Rue Saint Martre, Paris, on a Sunday afternoon Photo: ALAMY
The Socialist government launched the review of the current regulations a day
after 14 DIY stores opened in defiance of a ban issued by a French
court last week – despite the threat of a 120,000-euro (£100,000) fine per
day and per store.
Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, Right-wing candidate for mayor of Paris and a minister in the previous conservative government, said the Socialists' "dogmatism" over the issue was sending tourists across the Channel in droves.
"We have a huge problem of tourists who leave for London to buy (goods)," she told RTL radio.
"They leave on Saturday to do their shopping on Sunday in London. More and more are doing so. It's the tour operators who organise it.
The restrictive interpretation of current laws was costing the French capital 10,000 jobs, she claimed.
"All it would take would be a simple signature from the mayor (to allow stores to remain open on Sunday)."
Since 2009, there are some exemptions in major cities for outlets located in "exceptional consumer usage zones", as well as in tourist areas in cities with a population of over one million. There are seven such zones in Paris, including the Champs Elysées, parts of the rue de Rivoli and Montmartre.
But this still leaves many shops shut – including major department stores like Galeries Lafayette and BHV – for all but a handful of Sundays per year, and those that do open can only do so on the strict condition that they do not to force any of their employees to work on the "day of rest".
Jean-Marc Ayrault, the prime minister, has now responded to the growing row by announcing a review of the current laws.
He tasked Jean-Paul Bailly, former head of the French mail service, to look at the "weaknesses of the current system, clarify the issues around the opening of some shops on Sundays and make a list of proposals to the government."
Mr Bailly will hand in his conclusions by the end of November.
Michel Sapin, the labour minister, insisted that there would be no major relaxing of rules.
"We have a rule – the principle of Sunday rest, and it is out of the question that this rule should be touched," he said.
Marisol Touraine, the health minister, however conceded: "There are workers who want to work on Sundays, and people who want to do their shopping on Sundays."
Hit by a sluggish economy and record unemployment rates, critics are calling for more relaxed rules and general labour flexibility to create jobs and compete on a global level.
France has seen a spate of recent court orders – often following union complaints – of multinational retailers, such as Apple, to limit their opening hours, despite the desire of many employees to work more for extra pay.
Last week, a court ordered Sephora, the cosmetics giant, to close its flagship Paris store on the Champs Elysées, at 9pm. Until then, it had remained open until midnight on weekdays and up to 1am on Fridays and Saturdays to cater for late-night weekend shoppers, many of them foreign tourists.
There have been a string of other court orders against Apple, Galeries Lafayette, Japanese casual wear designer Uniqlo and supermarket chain Monoprix.
Some were sceptical about the government's latest move.
Gérald Fillon, spokesman of the workers' group "Bricoleurs du dimanche" (Sunday handymen) said: "We were expecting a bit more than yet another review. We must absolutely find a (way of) opening."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10344868/Paris-to-review-Sunday-opening-rules-over-fears-it-is-losing-out-to-London.html
Obama redefines the US as a Constitutional Democracy
Mr. Obama does not see us as a Republic which could be why he ignores Congress and much of the Constitution.
A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy
By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | November 7th, 2012 at 01:58 AM
In case anyone needed a lesson in understanding the difference between democracy and a Constitutional Republic a.k.a. Europe and America, tonight’s results should serve as a clear message.
This is democracy in full force.
Why did we need a constitution?
Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?
A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections.
In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition.
They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.
Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):
An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
Thus, a constitution that limited and divided the power of government was necessary to preclude elected officials from imposing tyranny on the people.
This is why they adopted a constitution with limited enumerated power, divided and checked across several branches and levels.
In other words, tonight’s narrow majority victory for Obama and the Democrats should not be so consequential.
Pursuant to the society we are supposed to be, elections are not the end all; the Constitution is the end all. Elections should not be so consequential.
Forty-eight percent of us should not be forced into the tyranny of a government-takeover of much of our lives just because 50% vote for insidious characters who want to grow government for their own sake.
Yet, we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic.
We live in a pure democracy – one that is similar to Europe, in which the majority can pretty much vote for people who will vitiate the Constitution and implement any form of tyranny it pleases.
Screw the minority.
Yes, so much for minority rights, progressives.
As founder John Witherspoon noted, “pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
Yet, there is still one element of our Constitutional Republic that has been preserved; the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the separation of the individual states from the federal government.
We have held onto the House with roughly the same strong majority, plus we have added a number of new conservatives.
Additionally, we have picked up some state legislative chambers, increasing our majority control over a record number of state governments.
It is in the House and in the states that we must make our stand for God, Country, and Constitution; for liberty, freedom, and the American way of live.
If you’ve noticed over the past two elections, it is in the lower offices – the House and state legislatures – that we have made the biggest gains.
On a personal level, I am committed to growing a conservative majority in the House and the states, while holding the existing members accountable on all policy issues.
Through the Madison Project, Red State, and other venues, I and my colleagues will not rest until we grow a strong bench of viable conservative leaders who will, someday, run for higher office.
Onward, soldiers!
Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Source
A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy
By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | November 7th, 2012 at 01:58 AM
In case anyone needed a lesson in understanding the difference between democracy and a Constitutional Republic a.k.a. Europe and America, tonight’s results should serve as a clear message.
This is democracy in full force.
Why did we need a constitution?
Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?
A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections.
In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition.
They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.
Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):
An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
Thus, a constitution that limited and divided the power of government was necessary to preclude elected officials from imposing tyranny on the people.
This is why they adopted a constitution with limited enumerated power, divided and checked across several branches and levels.
In other words, tonight’s narrow majority victory for Obama and the Democrats should not be so consequential.
Pursuant to the society we are supposed to be, elections are not the end all; the Constitution is the end all. Elections should not be so consequential.
Forty-eight percent of us should not be forced into the tyranny of a government-takeover of much of our lives just because 50% vote for insidious characters who want to grow government for their own sake.
Yet, we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic.
We live in a pure democracy – one that is similar to Europe, in which the majority can pretty much vote for people who will vitiate the Constitution and implement any form of tyranny it pleases.
Screw the minority.
Yes, so much for minority rights, progressives.
As founder John Witherspoon noted, “pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
Yet, there is still one element of our Constitutional Republic that has been preserved; the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the separation of the individual states from the federal government.
We have held onto the House with roughly the same strong majority, plus we have added a number of new conservatives.
Additionally, we have picked up some state legislative chambers, increasing our majority control over a record number of state governments.
It is in the House and in the states that we must make our stand for God, Country, and Constitution; for liberty, freedom, and the American way of live.
If you’ve noticed over the past two elections, it is in the lower offices – the House and state legislatures – that we have made the biggest gains.
On a personal level, I am committed to growing a conservative majority in the House and the states, while holding the existing members accountable on all policy issues.
Through the Madison Project, Red State, and other venues, I and my colleagues will not rest until we grow a strong bench of viable conservative leaders who will, someday, run for higher office.
Onward, soldiers!
Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Source
Apostolic Letter of Pope Francis! Strips Away High Official Immunity Se...
APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
FRANCIS
ON THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATE
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.
It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.
In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.
With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:
1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:
a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;
b) crimes referred to:
- in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;
- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;
2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.
3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”:
a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.
b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.
c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;
d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority.4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.
5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.
6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.
This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.
Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.
FRANCISCUS
© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio_20130711_organi-giudiziari_en.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)