Duplomb Law: The Green group in the Assembly announces its intention to submit a bill for its total repeal

Supporters and opponents of the Duplomb law had their eyes fixed on Rue de Montpensier late Thursday, August 7. It was there, in its Parisian premises, that the Constitutional Council delivered a highly anticipated decision on the Duplomb law , adopted in early July by Parliament. The Sages notably censored the highly controversial Article 2, which provided for the conditional reintroduction of acetamiprid , a pesticide from the neonicotinoid family, in the name of the Environmental Charter. As soon as the decision was known, the Elysée Palace announced that Emmanuel Macron "has taken good note of the Constitutional Council's decision" and "will promulgate the law (...) as soon as possible." Without delay, the group An ecologist in the National Assembly has announced his intention to submit a proposal of repeal law total of there law Duplomb.

>> This live broadcast is over.

Several provisions validated. The Constitutional Council, on the other hand, validated the administrative simplifications granted to larger livestock farms, as well as to the construction of water storage facilities for agricultural purposes, although with some reservations regarding this second measure.

Determined opposition. In Parliament, the left and environmentalists directly opposed the text, which was passed by a majority of deputies and senators . They then referred the matter to the Constitutional Council in mid-July, because they believed the law was incompatible with environmental protection and the precautionary principle in health matters. The debates also enlivened civil society, with a petition from opponents that has gathered, to date, more than 2.1 million signatures . A rally took place in the afternoon in front of the Constitutional Council, at the initiative of the group opposed to this law.

The left contested the method used to adopt the text. Beyond the substance, elected representatives from the Socialist, Insoumis, Ecologist, and Communist parties denounced the way in which the law was adopted. At the end of May, a preliminary motion of rejection was adopted in the National Assembly, before the examination of the text, which had the consequence of preventing any debate and submission of amendments by the deputies. With this decision, the Constitutional Council considers that "the procedure for adopting the law did not disregard the Constitution."