Arthur Delaborde with AFP // Xose Bouzas / Hans Lucas / Hans Lucas via AFP
A new sequence under high tension opens this week in the National Assembly around a text of cancellation of the retirement at 64 years supported by the oppositions. It will be Wednesday in committee then June 8 in the hemicycle: here are the issues.
Who is at the front?
The independent group Liot (Freedoms, Independents, Overseas Territories and Territories) and its 21 deputies tabled this repeal bill, which is on the Assembly’s agenda for June 8, a day dedicated to texts of the group (“niche”). His boss Bertrand Pancher intends to offer a “top exit” to the “very serious social and political crisis” generated by the pension reform. The Liot proposal has the support of the left, the RN and some LRs. On June 8, it has a chance of being adopted at first reading, given the simple relative majority available to the presidential camp. Hence the commotion in macronie, against a text accused of “irresponsible”, “unconstitutional” and without future.
“It’s not serious to want to have a catch-up session by pretending that we could make a pension reform in a few hours,” Elisabeth Borne repeated on Sunday.
What does the repeal text contain?
Its article 1 provides for returning to retirement at 62, erasing the planned schedule for raising the legal retirement age from September 1 (by three months per year until 2030). The calendar for extending the contribution period would also be revised. Article 2 proposes a “pension system financing conference” before December 31, involving the State, social partners, citizens and qualified personalities. It would be a question of finding other solutions in order to guarantee the balance of the regimes.
Finally, usual trick of parliamentarians to ensure the admissibility of their proposals: a last article programs as necessary an increase in tobacco tax to compensate for the loss of revenue for social security, because of this text of law . But “this pledge on the packet of cigarettes does not hold”, sweeps a government source.
What is financial inadmissibility?
The presidential camp has been brandishing article 40 of the Constitution for several weeks, which provides that the initiatives of parliamentarians are not admissible if they aggravate public charges. However, the Liot text has already passed a first filter, being deemed admissible at the time of its filing by a delegation from the office of the Assembly, traditionally quite flexible.
In view of the debates on Wednesday in the Social Affairs Committee, its president Fadila Khattabi (Renaissance) posed the question of admissibility to her counterpart in Finance, the LFI Eric Coquerel. The latter will give his answer by Tuesday evening, which will be a confirmation: he refuses to undermine the “right of the opposition”, also at the constitutional level. But article 40 can be mobilized at any time, and the macronists have not said their last word.
What can happen on Wednesday in committee and beyond?
More than 80 amendments have been tabled by MPs from all sides for the meeting at 9:30 a.m. Including amendments from the presidential majority to delete Article 1, which are likely to be approved thanks to a balance of power favorable to it in committee. The bill thus emptied of its substance would be validated.
In view of the session of June 8, the oppositions should naturally try to restore this key article repealing the 64 years, via new amendments. The macronists have their plan all tied up: these amendments would be declared inadmissible by the President of the Assembly Yaël Braun-Pivet who will then have the hand. Thus on June 8, there would be no possibility of voting for repeal.
What other scenarios?
“It’s going to be hot,” we predict in all ranks. The presidential majority does not have the guarantee that everything will go as it wishes, and a day of mobilization of the inter-union on June 6 will put the pressure. Among the other tricks up its sleeve, the executive will be able to play the card of another article of the Constitution during the session, 44.3 allowing the “blocked vote”: it would consist in putting the Liot text to the vote without its article 1 – text so take it or leave it. Moreover, government as majority will be able to use the obstruction to prevent the debates from going to their end. With the aim of holding out until midnight, ax time in the hemicycle … but at the risk of again pointing at the 64-year-old protesters.
Even in the event of final adoption at the end of a parliamentary course with pitfalls, the Liot text “would ultimately be canceled by the Constitutional Council”, does not budge Elisabeth Borne. Bertrand Pancher would not fail to him also, with other oppositions, to seize the Sages.