Transparent amendment [PR of March 24th, 2023]
Yesterday, during the hemicycle examination of the bill on the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the study group Digital Economy, Security and Sovereignty of the National Assembly defended and voted on a cross-party amendment, co-signed by several of its vice-chairs.
However, this episode, usually harmless in such a context, was the occasion of a collective hysteria of some opposition parties, on the grounds that the amendment in question was co-signed by members of the majority and by RN members, all from the study group, including the RN president, Aurélien Lopez-Liguori.
These outbursts seem to me to be indicative of a current drift that consists in forgetting the substance, the purpose of our work and the coherence that we must show in the face of the issues at stake.
What exactly was this amendment of discord? Since it is the substance of the subject that should interest you, Ladies and Gentlemen Censors, who seem to forget this principle, both elementary and essential, which is called “general interest”. The co-signature of a cross-party amendment is in no way comparable to an adhesion to the ideas or positions of the other co-signatories, whoever they are. This is the very principle of consensus.
The purpose of this technical amendment is to ensure that the companies of third parties who will develop or who develop the artificial intelligence solutions used during the Olympic Games are established in the European Union. The RGPD thus protects the data of our compatriots and those of all those who, on our territory, athletes and foreign visitors, will participate in the Olympic and Paralympic Games, making them escape, as far as possible, from Chinese or American laws of extraterritoriality, as well as from the possibilities of capture, whether they are American, Russian or Chinese. The International Olympic Committee, which has not hesitated to choose Ali Baba, certainly does not have these qualms. Give us credit for our vigilance.
This amendment, which I proposed to my colleagues in the study group, was then discussed, improved and tabled, during intelligent and constructive exchanges. It is therefore the fruit of real parliamentary work and the search for a democratic consensus. Yes! A simple amendment can do all that.
So, why not do it? Should I remind my LFI colleagues, who are so quick to get carried away, that one of their colleagues has proposed an amendment, different in its wording, but comparable in its purpose? We must therefore be reasonable.
Our colleagues from the RN did not arrive in the Assembly by breaking and entering, but as a result of a popular vote. They therefore sit with us in various study groups and sometimes even chair them, despite the chagrin of those who are not happy, according to an allocation decided in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Assembly and their representativeness within it.
These study groups are places for reflection and in-depth work, and have no reason to exist unless they are intended to enrich our parliamentary work and legislative texts. To renounce this principle would mean that they would become inoperative, empty committees, even though they have been set up to deal with important issues.
Instead of crying foul, I invite those who give lessons to think a little further and to take hold of the major contemporary issues. The cross-party amendment voted yesterday is not only intended to protect our personal data and our freedoms, it is also intended to protect our ecosystem, our technology companies and our jobs. It was expected by a whole profession. It symbolizes the vigilance that we must have in the face of the burning economic and civilizational stakes of the revolution caused by the use of artificial intelligence.
Instead of noise and fury, and systematic obstruction, which are sometimes the trappings of ease and lack of work, I prefer to cultivate democratic debate and the search for consensus, whenever possible. I believe that this is what we were elected to do and what our fellow citizens expect of us.