Talk:National Assembly (France)

France Top‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Congrès

Could we perhaps mention, and explain, the congrès, which Wikipedia's Congress article says: "is a formal and exceptional joint meeting of both houses of Parliament in order to ratify an amendment to the Constitution", but when you follow the link that page provides you arrive here, and there is no mention whatsoever of the aforementioned congrès, which does seem a bit odd.

(I suppose that I could just translate the fr:Congrès du Parlement français article myself, but I assume that there must be some experts on French politics who "watch" this page and will know all about it, and... not least... my French is rubbish!) --Mais oui! 08:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

députés

I don't believe that députés can be translated as deputies. The words may be related etymologically but not semantically. This is like the false translation of sostituto as substitute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.187.63 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You would be mistaken, in that case. Instead of just considering the UK usage, perhaps have a look at the titles used for parliamentarians in those English-speaking countries with a republican tradition. You might just find that 'deputy' is the standard term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.137.22 (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinebot is correct: Deputy - both as a language-specific cognate, and in the English version - is the standard term for legislators of the lower house (or single house) in a great many (and perhaps a majority) of states of the world, particularly those of French, Spanish or Portuguese language or political influence. Countries where the cognate is used in the local language, and 'deputy' when referring to their lower-house legislators in English include: most European states, such as Spain, Italy, Czechia, Hungary or Russia; many Asian states (deputies in the National Assembly of Pakistan and in China's National People's Congress, khalifas/deputies in Iran's Islamic Consultative Assembly); most Latin American states (Cuba, Brazil, Panama); many African states (Assembly of the Representatives of the People, Niger, Senegal). Indeed, the easiest confirmation of all that 'member' is inappropriate and 'deputy' an appropriate translation is the fact that even several English-speaking states use the term 'deputy' for lower house legislators: Ireland, the States of Guernsey and Jersey, and Canada/Quebec. As can be seen, those writing articles on each of these national political contexts use 'deputy' as the standard; for some reason it is only English-speakers writing on France who seem to hesitate to use the term. To refer to French lower-house legislators as députés risks being simply pretentious, when a valid English cognate exists - we don't leave 'Assemblée Nationale' in the original French, as there is an obvious English cognate. Worse would be to refer to them as 'members' - highly Anglocentric, when the cognate 'deputy' is the standard form across many (and quite possibly most) of the world's legislatures. Please consult the Wikipedia entry on Deputy (Legislator) to see an incomplete but nonetheless extensive list, and please in future consider using 'deputy' rather than Anglocentric terms as the standard form for the article. Moranete (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Censure

I believe that the statement that there has never been a censure of the Government is untrue. In 1962, the National Assembly voted censure against the government headed by Prime Minister Georges Pompidou, in order to express its displeasure with various actions of President Charles deGaulle. President deGaulle responded by dissolving the National Assembly. The ensuing elections returned an Assembly with a stronger Gaullist majority, and Pompidou continued in office. GrouchoRoss 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1789

So, when this first started, why is there nothing about how they tried to solve France's money problems?--§ Eloc § 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History error in article

This: "Following a tradition started by the first National Assembly during the French Revolution, the “left-wing” parties sit to the left as seen from the president’s seat, and the “right-wing” parties sit to the right, and the seating arrangement thus directly indicates the political spectrum as represented in the Assembly." is not correct. The tradition started with the "in-power" party sitting to the right and the "out-of-power" party sitting to the left. These were relative terms and were associated with a party's status in the current power-control of the assembly. It was many years before these terms "left" and "right" became associated with the politics per se of the parties, rather than the control the exercised in the Assembly. Some clarity is needed on this point. 7390r0g (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is probable that the National Assembly was following the English tradition where the government party sat to the right of the speaker, this cannot be proved. Subsequent assemblies actually tried to change the seating arrangement, but it became permanent following the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy (1815). Use of the terms "left" and "right" did not come to be associated with political parties or ideologies until late in the 19th century. See "Right and Left" by Marcel Gauchet.[1] Also, note that the terms left, center and right entered the English language at different times. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say sounds about right. And if you are right, this sentence from the article "Following a tradition started by the first National Assembly during the French Revolution, the “left-wing” parties sit to the left as seen from the president’s seat, and the “right-wing” parties sit to the right, and the seating arrangement thus directly indicates the political spectrum as represented in the Assembly" needs to be corrected as it is factually wrong. 7390r0g (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update necessary

The article - especially in the graphic showing seat distribution - is out of date. the graphic showing seat distribution still shows teh UMP with a majority. I don't know the full election results, but that's certainly out of date. Further, there is no article about the current membership (i.e. the post-2012 election membership of the 14th Session).

Thehistorian10 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for improvements

I. I would add a part on the process of laws proposal and adoption, with listing the essential steps that a proposition fo law needs to go through in order to be discussed at the National Assembly, and then accepted or rejected.

II. I would complete the part on condition and eligibility. Indeed, several information could be added such as the conditions for being elected and what can prevent you from running as a candidate (previous electoral rules fraud, guardianship, other powerful positions...).

III. I would add a part on the people and the position available for working at the National Assembly, outside from député. Indeed, many administrateurs work for the well functioning of this institution and should be mentionned here.

IV. IN the "relationship with the executive" part, I would mention the role of the 49.3, which can be used by the executive to enforce a law without discussion (with some exception that will be detailed).

V. In the "relationship with the executive" part, I would add additional information on the motion of censor (how many deputies need to sign it, how many motion succeeded overtime) PROFIL-CINQ (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth parliamentary group formed

Called "Ecology, Democracy, Solidarity", it is a grouping of 17 deputies, and deprives La République En Marche of its parliamentary majority, as the governing party is reduced to 288 seats. ^[1] Culloty82 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to the infobox, and changed the composition of the chamber graphic to the one on fr:Assemblée nationale (France). The graphic has a date of January in its title, but looks right. Newystats (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2020/05/19/la-republique-en-marche-perd-la-majorite-absolue-a-l-assemblee_6040091_823448.html

About the independent workers party

I feel it would be appropriate too add them onto subsection of la France insoumise seeing as they are a separate party and have one elected representative. 2.100.193.150 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Farrafiq (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox chart not matching infobox data

Can we change the infobox seating chart to one that actually matches the colouring & seat counts displayed in the infobox? I'd be happy to make it just seeking mutuals consent to do so. JaacTreee (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Seats

I found a couple leftist parties which were in LFI Parliamentary Group, which were not represented some 30 MPs were missing. Farrafiq (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constution

What is constution 27.63.28.213 (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple errors and approximations in the infobox

Hello, the infobox has multiple issues concerning the political groups and their affiliations to opposition or government support. There are no LR and LIOT deputies in support of the government, both groups are clearly identifying as opposing the government and are considered as such by institutions and media. Just because some deputies from the groups have not voted the motion of defiance doesn't mean they support the government. It might be a good idea to rewrite this section to have a more accurate and factual reflect of the groups. Mariodab (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes explain it: most of LR has voted against every censorship motion including the one on the budget, resulting in a de-facto confidence & supply. Several newspaper articles have even mentioned the potential of a closer collaboration (requested by several LR deputies), such as with the appointment of an LR prime minister. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 08:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De-facto confidence doesn't mean official support, this is a purely subjective take by the author of the edit that is not supported by any factual source, and besides not voting on motions of defiance, both LR and LIOT groups are regularly voting against the government on multiple issues. Mariodab (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical composition

The years in the French Revolution sub-head of the Historical composition section are 1789-1799 but the first line is 1791. Can anyone add the figures for 1789-90? Mcljlm (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you Leo0502?

WP:LEADSENTENCE / WP:SCOPE

If this is only the lower house of the 5th Republic, the rest of the article needs a drastic culling.

If this is a legislative body that has been carried over across numerous French governments, all dealt with here, the lead sentence should say so clearly. — LlywelynII 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Legislative Election

The page for the 2024 Legislative Election seems to be complete, and all the results have been announced. Someone must add all of the new seats, ASAP. Ayslays (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the National Assembly website[2], we should expect to get the official list of groupings by Friday 19 July. If you are interested, this is a seat chart based of off electoral party, which is different than parliamentary groups.

Jokojis (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They added the stats now but the individual party numbers are completely off Rh0809 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the National Assemby's website's colours for Each Group

@Number 57, Impru20, Vacant0, Siglæ, Rowei99, Μαρκος Δ, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, Erinthecute, HapHaxion, Helper201, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Morgan695, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: It has come to my attention that the National Assembly's website uses different colours for the parliamentary groups. May I ask, what would user opinion be of changing them to match the ones on the NA website? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put together a table of the colours we're using vs what they're using:

Party	Wiki	AN
Rassemblement National
Ensemble pour la République
La France insoumise
Socialistes et apparentés
Droite Républicaine
Écologiste et Social
Les Démocrates
Horizons & Indépendants
Libertés, Indépendants, Outre-mer et Territoires
Gauche Démocrate et Républicaine
À Droite
Députés non inscrits

We're already pretty close; the only places we differ are Ensemble, LFI and LIOT, and I think our choices are, if not better, then at least justifiable (for Ensemble, we use the old LaRem yellow; for LFI and LIOT, we take from their logos). I do like the more muted palette on the AN site, but IMO the main shortcoming of our scheme is that we don't do a good job at keeping all the blue parties distinct, and I don't think they're really any better on that. So while I wouldn't mind some tweaks to our palette, I don't see a reason to simply adopt theirs. — Kawnhr (talk)

[1] ttps://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2020/05/19/la-republique-en-marche-perd-la-majorite-absolue-a-l-assemblee_6040091_823448.html

[1]