French parliament adopts bill to bring back village bars
France had some 200,000 cafes in 1960, often serving as the social centre of gravity for communities around the country.
By 2015, that number had fallen to just 36,000, with most closures in rural areas, according to a 2017 report from the France Boissons industry body and the CREDOC consumer studies agency.
The new legislation, which would loosen strict restrictions on new bar permits to sell hard liquor, does away with "an old and obsolete legal framework," said the centrist lawmaker behind the bill, Guillaume Kasbarian.
He and other lawmakers argued the change was needed to bring back cafes and bars to remote countryside areas, thus cementing social ties, boosting local economies and creating jobs.
The drinking spots in question "are, above all, places for people to come together in very rural areas and in a society where people have a tendency to close in on themselves," one parliamentarian, Fabien Di Filippo, said.
Under French law, a type-4 alcohol licence in a bar or bistro allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages, including those containing more than 18 percent alcohol, such as spirits.
But no new such permit can be created, and aspiring bar managers must often wait until another type-4 bar closes permanently to acquire their licence from them.
The new legislation would allow cafe owners in rural municipalities with less than 3,500 inhabitants that do not already have a type-4 bar to request a brand-new permit instead of waiting for an old one to become free. The local mayor would have the right to approve -- or deny -- the request.
The measure was adopted nearly unanimously by the French parliament, with 156 lawmakers backing it and just two voting against. It now has to be approved by the Senate.
- Additional bar -
While the original idea of the bill was to allow just one type-4 bar to open in a village lacking one, an amendment added by the centre-right MoDem party gave municipal authorities the power to approve one additional bar.
It is difficult to estimate how many villages could benefit from the law, but 31,000 out of 35,000 rural municipalities have fewer than 3,500 inhabitants, according to the association of French mayors.
Detractors of the bill fear a rise in alcohol consumption in areas where social services to help people fight addiction are not readily available.
They have questioned why the law needs to allow the consumption of spirits in villages, and why a type-3 licence that allows the selling of beer and wine is not sufficient.
Some lawmakers also expressed concern the new legislation might be broadened in the future to allow bigger villages or towns to authorise more bars selling spirits.
Supporters have said the measure is important to draw residents out of isolation, and that hard liquor is available for sale at nearby supermarkets anyway.
Alcohol causes 49,000 deaths each year, according to the French health ministry's website.
sac-ah/sjw-rmb/gv
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump has said abortion is a state issue. His judicial picks could shape it nationally for decades
CHICAGO — One called abortion a 'barbaric practice.' Another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. Several have played prominent roles in defending their state's abortion restrictions in court and in cases that have had national impact, including on access to medication abortion . As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions.
Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump has said abortion is a state issue. His judicial picks could shape it nationally for decades
CHICAGO (AP) — One called abortion a 'barbaric practice.' Another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. Several have played prominent roles in defending their state's abortion restrictions in court and in cases that have had national impact, including on access to medication abortion. As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions. Trump has offered shifting positions on the issue while indicating he wants to leave questions of abortion access to the states. But his court nominees will have lifetime appointments and be in position to roll back abortion access long after the Republican president leaves the White House. Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial nominations 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.' 'It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she said. Trump is having an enduring impact on the federal courts Of the 17 judicial nominees so far in Trump's second term, at least eight have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanded abortion access. No such records could be found for the other nine, nor did the AP review find evidence that any of Trump's judicial nominees support increased access to abortion. 'Every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling,' a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement that referenced the 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. 'The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion.' Trump's first term also had an enduring impact on the courts, appointing 234 judges. By the end of that term, more than one-quarter of active federal judges were nominated by Trump, including three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. Challenging abortion care, medication, Planned Parenthood In his second term, all but five of his 17 nominees are from states that went for Trump in 2024 and where Republicans have pushed severe abortion restrictions. Among them, four nominees are from Missouri and five are from Florida. Here is a look at the nominees who have tried to reduce abortion access or have advocated for restrictions. They did not respond to requests for comment: — Whitney Hermandorfer, who has been confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has built much of her relatively short career as a lawyer around challenging former President Joe Biden's policies related to abortion and transgender rights. She challenged a federal law requiring employers to provide workers with reasonable accommodations to get abortion care, as well as Title X regulations that required providers who receive funding through the program to give information about abortions to patients if asked. Hermandorfer defended Tennessee's abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, in court and tried to dismiss a lawsuit from doctors seeking clarification on exemptions to the ban. She said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.' — Maria Lanahan, a district court nominee in Missouri, helped write the state's complaint in a lawsuit that had sweeping national implications for access to medication abortion. The case challenged the FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone despite decades of evidence showing the drug is safe and effective. The lawyer supported Missouri's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funding and defended the state's abortion ban after a group of clergy sued, arguing it violated the state constitution's protections for religious freedom. — Jordan Pratt, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, called abortion a 'barbaric practice' and 'one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable' in an amicus brief supporting Florida's 15-week abortion ban. The state now bans the procedure at six weeks. In 2025, Pratt struck down a Florida law that created a judicial waiver program for minors seeking to have abortions without parental consent. The lawyer also worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that opposes abortion and has sued to reverse the FDA approval of mifepristone. — John Guard, also nominated to fill for the same district, defended Florida's then-15-week abortion ban in court as the state's chief deputy attorney general. — Joshua Divine, a deputy solicitor general of Missouri who is nominated to be a district judge in the state, is currently representing Missouri in a case challenging the FDA approval of mifepristone. Divine co-authored the lawsuit, which includes misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb.' In his college newspaper, Divine described himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement, referred to abortion as 'the killing of an innocent, genetically unique human being' and argued that life begins at fertilization. He also stepped into a prominent role in the fight over abortion rights in the state after Missouri voters approved an abortion rights amendment in 2024. That amendment did not immediately override state laws. It left it up to abortion rights groups to ask courts to knock down abortion restrictions they believed were now unconstitutional. During the ensuing legal battles, Divine represented the state in defending a host of abortion restrictions. — Chad Meredith, Trump's nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, defended the state's abortion ban and other restrictions while he was the state's chief deputy general counsel. That included a law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and describe images to abortion patients. — Bill Mercer, a Republican state lawmaker in Montana who is nominated for a U.S. District Court judgeship in the state, has repeatedly supported anti-abortion bills. Those include ones that sought to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; require a 24-hour waiting period and mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients; require parental notification for minors to get an abortion; prohibit the use of state funding for abortions; prohibit certain insurance policies from covering abortions; and restrict what types of medical professionals can dispense medication abortion. — Jennifer Mascott, a lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office and a Trump nominee to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has spoken repeatedly about abortion law in panels and interviews. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Mascott in an interview on 'Fox News Live' disagreed with the argument that the decision undermined the court's legitimacy. She said abortion issues are 'more appropriately decided' by the states, elected officials in Congress and people in their local communities. Anti-abortion groups are optimistic based on Trump's early nominees Anti-abortion groups said it is premature to make broad conclusions about whether the nominees would help carry out their policy goals but that they were optimistic based on the names they have seen so far. 'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America. Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for Students for Life, said she was hopeful the administration will continue nominating those 'who will respect the rule of law.' Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time. Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, said the courts, until now, have largely been an effective option for advocates to challenge state abortion bans and restrictions. 'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion — saying he's going to leave it to the states while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,' she said. ___ Associated Press writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board is hypocritical in criticizing US Rep. Delia Ramirez
The Tribune Editorial Board sees no contradiction or hypocrisy, apparently, in its statement about words that matter. Its members decided to criticize U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez, who represents Illinois' 3rd District, for her comment that she felt a strong affiliation with her family's native Guatemala by commenting, 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American' ('Words matter when you're elected to represent America, congresswoman Ramirez,' Aug. 6). The editorial board writes: 'But Americans expect their leaders to confirm their belief in and allegiance to this country.' In these challenging and frustratingly difficult times, I often have to search to find pride in my own American birthright. Our authoritarian president continues his daily attacks on our democracy and has made astounding progress in deconstructing our government with the active assistance of Congress and the Supreme Court. Are there Tribune editorials about Donald Trump's authoritarianism that decry his words? Should I find myself in a discussion with any French, Canadian, British or other person born outside the U.S. about America's values, I would struggle to find the words to support our domestic agenda and the government's poor treatment of other nations with the administration's threats and bullying. What is the importance of words if editorial board members make their living through the use of words but don't see the overriding importance to speak out about the downfall of our democratic institutions? Does the Tribune Editorial Board honestly believe that words matter or is the editorial on Ramirez just clickbait?I am profoundly disappointed with the editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez's speech to the Panamerican Congress. A responsible editorial staff would have published the original Spanish transcript as well as her English remarks and given its audience a fuller context. Instead, the editorial board jumped on the right-wing narrative clearly designed to outrage people. There are competing translations that support the interpretation that she meant to say she identified as American first. Has the editorial board even bothered to consult with Spanish speakers? With so many Spanish speakers in Chicagoland, it is incredible that the editorial board could botch a simple assignment. How is this contributing to the civil discourse that is severely stressed under this current regime?The editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez takes out of context a statement in which Ramirez declares her pride in her ethnicity, twisting it to sound like she is unpatriotic. Does this editorial writer know of anyone of Irish or Mexican or Indian descent who is proud of their ethnic origin? I wonder if the Tribune writer spoke to Ramirez to ascertain what she said or look at her record as a U.S. representative. Her record is as patriotic as any and more courageous than most. She speaks truth to power, risking her political career.I can say that I'm a proud Italian before I'm an American since my father emigrated from Italy and I was born in America, but I would blemish the pride he exhibited as a U.S. citizen who assimilated in his adopted country. He had no formal education and always followed the direction offered by the local Democratic precinct captain who visited our home with instructions on pulling the lever at the polling machine to vote straight Democrat. Recently, Democratic U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois made a controversial comment in saying 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American.' She was born in Chicago to immigrant parents and became a birthright citizen. I'm not attacking Ramirez, but her choice of words in the public domain casts doubt on her loyalty as a federal official taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Will she represent all Illinoisans?For the millionth time, the issue is not immigrants. The issue is unbridled immigration in which we don't know who is coming in. And then on top of that, our government now feels responsible to take care of these migrants when our federal, state and local governments are deeply in debt. , 'out of many, one,' is one our nation's mottos. Immigrants of the past assimilated to our American culture to become full Americans. Now we are ashamed of America and its culture, and we encourage our immigrants to be diverse. Not all assimilate. And that is a weakness. Our country is no longer united. There are very few things that we are united on. Congress is split down the middle. Our country is split down the middle. Our modern immigration policies encourage only more division, not on The Associated Press article 'Many Dems not happy with party' (in print Aug. 4), the Democratic Party is perceived as 'weak' and 'ineffective' at thwarting the growing power and influence of the current White House administration. Conversely, I would like to offer a different perspective and a blueprint for the Democratic Party. Protesting, holding rallies, conducting filibusters in the Senate or expressing unrelenting criticism of the current president is not a formula for sustained, future success. It further divides disillusioned Democratic voters while alienating moderates, independents and Republicans not enamored with the current administration. Instead, the Democratic Party needs to promote a political, economic and social platform that appeals to both its loyal core and disillusioned voters. The Democratic Party needs to focus on issues that unequivocally resonate with its base, such as a robust economy that prioritizes the middle class while providing aid and economic opportunities for the poor. Democrats need to reprioritize clean energy (solar and wind) while providing job training for coal miners and other workers whose jobs will eventually become obsolete. They need to focus on rebuilding and modernizing our nation's infrastructure and aggressively promote mass transportation to curtail traffic gridlock. They need to promote an objective and fair immigration policy that encourages immigrants to immigrate to America legally while humanely addressing immigrants in the country illegally. They need to promote a foreign policy that proactively reaches out to and works collaboratively with our allies in addressing unprovoked aggression. They need to embrace a trade policy based on laissez faire principles and eradicate punitive and erratically enacted tariffs. Most importantly, the Democratic Party needs to actively reach out to and listen to its constituents and disillusioned former supporters. The upcoming 2026 congressional elections are a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party to sway the current political climate toward an empathetic, kinder atmosphere. The American people are seeking solace and inspiration from its leaders, not pettiness and skullduggery. The time to act is now. The world is was with great interest and gratitude that I read Heidi Stevens' column 'President not owed quiet subservience' (Aug. 3). At a time when too many universities, law firms and politicians are rolling over and capitulating to this president's threats, it is a relief to see articles, such as Stevens', appearing in our local newspaper. But perhaps we are already witnessing a shift in attitude as President Donald Trump's actions become more and more dictatorial and erratic. Economists and others are voicing concerns over his blustering, threatening use of tariffs as a weapon in international affairs. A few Republican members of Congress have spoken out about his threats and denials regarding the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report. Some law firms and universities are standing firm against intimidation. And, of course, there are the rallies and demonstrations where thousands of ordinary citizens are coming out in defense of democracy. I hope the 'quiet subservience' is actually coming to an end, because a Hungarian-style of government will not appeal to many Americans if it should come to pass.
