Editing Filibuster (section)

==France==
In France, since the duration of speeches themselves are limited,<ref>{{Cite web |last=magazine |first=Le Point |date=2019-05-29 |title=L'Assemblée adopte la limitation du temps de parole des députés |url=https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/l-assemblee-adopte-la-limitation-du-temps-de-parole-des-deputes-29-05-2019-2315680_20.php |access-date=2023-04-17 |website=Le Point |language=fr}}</ref> [[Point of order|points of order]] (''rappels au règlement'') and — especially — amendments are popular tools for parliamentary obstructionism.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Qu'est-ce que l'obstruction parlementaire ? |url=https://www.lejdd.fr/Politique/quest-ce-que-lobstruction-parlementaire-4151287 |access-date=2023-04-17 |website=lejdd.fr |date=December 2022 |language=fr}}</ref>

The record number of amendments occurred in August 2006; the left-wing opposition submitted 137,449 amendments<ref>{{Cite news |date=September 2, 2007 |title=TIMELINE: Key dates in Gaz de France-Suez merger |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0257250120070902 |url-status=live |access-date=2010-02-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204061203/https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL0257250120070902 |archive-date=2021-02-04}}</ref> to the proposed law bringing the share in [[Gaz de France]] owned by the French state from 80% to 34% in order to allow for the merger between Gaz de France and [[Suez (company, 1997–2008)|Suez]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kanter |first=James |date=September 19, 2006 |title=Plan for Gaz de France advances toward a vote |work=International Herald Tribune |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-gdf.2868154.html |url-status=live |access-date=2010-02-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130307211730/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-gdf.2868154.html |archive-date=2013-03-07}}</ref> Normal parliamentary procedure would have required 10 years to vote on all the amendments.

The French constitution gives the government two options to defeat such a filibuster. The first such option was originally the use of the [[Article 49 of the French Constitution#Commitment_of_responsibility_on_a_bill_(49.3)|article 49 paragraph 3]] procedure, according to which the law was adopted unless a majority is reached on a no-confidence motion (A reform of July 2008 resulted in this power being restricted to budgetary measures only, plus one time each ordinary session — i.e. from October to June — on any bill. Before this reform, article 49.3 was frequently used, especially when the government lacked a majority in the [[National Assembly (France)|National Assembly]] to support the text but still enough to avoid a no-confidence vote). The second option is article 44 paragraph 3, through which the government can force a global vote on all amendments it did not approve or submit itself.<ref>{{Cite web |title=France – Constitution |url=http://servat.unibe.ch/icl/fr00000_.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100324025003/http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/fr00000_.html |archive-date=2010-03-24 |access-date=2010-02-24 |publisher=International Constitutional Law}}</ref>

In the end, the government did not have to use either of those procedures. As the parliamentary debate started, the left-wing opposition chose to withdraw all the amendments to allow for the vote to proceed. The 'filibuster' was aborted because the opposition to the privatisation of Gaz de France appeared to lack support amongst the general population. It also appeared that this privatisation law could be used by the left-wing in the presidential election of 2007 as a political argument. Indeed, [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] — president of the [[Union for a Popular Movement|Union pour un Mouvement Populaire]] (UMP, the right-wing party), Interior Minister, former Finance Minister and future [[President of France|President]] — had previously promised that the share owned by the French government in Gaz de France would never go below 70%.