No doubt the French government COULD pass a law doing what the City of Westminster has done.

But it hasn’t, and surely wouldn’t if the Olympics had been awarded to Paris.

First have a good laws (laws that establish the principle of justice – i.e. to each their own) and ENFORCE them.

But also prevent these laws be changed on whims – either by “interpreting” judges, or by governments simply passing statutes or regulations that undermine the basic limits on government power (the protections of civil society).

Changing the fundemental laws should be a profound process – difficult and lengthy.

Otherwise freedom will just be a passing phase – to be swept away by changing fashions.

For example, the “Code du Travail” adopted in France in 1912, the first major step away from the free labour market of the old code.

So a better description would be…..

English Common Law – zero.

French Code Law – also zero.

Neither prevents the government creating new laws – even once that blatently contradict the old laws.

Where government can rip up the, basic, laws – then freedom is (at best) provisional.

It exists till anti freedom whims come to influence government policy.

“But where can government not do this?”

Now?

No where.

That is the problem.

Just curious..

In fact, for seasonal lettings, such as for the Olympics or university students during term time, the only regulations are from article 1713 of the Civil Code (not very good translation here http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/codes_traduits/code_civil_textA.htm):

“One may rent all kinds of property, movables and immovables.”

The following articles state how courts must act if there is a dispute over an unwritten agreement, and specify that sub-letting is always allowed, unless specifically prohibited in the original contract.

French codified law 1, English Common law 0.

Just when I think things can not possibly get any more demented – they do.

As for targets….

Yes there are “targets” and “plans” concerning everything.

This is BRITAIN.

They use “Conservation Area” in the same way. I attempted to lease a shop many years ago and found that a perfectly ordinary run of about half a dozen buildings, no different from those either side or opposite, had been designated such simply so the council could exert greater authority over what businesses were allowed to trade there.

The central problem seems to be that councils can decide for themselves what activities or actions require planning permission. No doubt there is some catch-all provision in the law, which allows them to do this.

They use it all the time to extend the tentacles of their control to all sorts of things that “planning” was never intended to cover.

It’s time they were stopped, but of course we have a local administration which is determined to extend and enforce central control of everything, so they won’t be stopped.

Authoritarianism rules OK!