“I call on the majority parties, Renaissance, Horizon, MoDem, to unite to defend pension reform”insisted the Minister of the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, in the Sunday newspaper (JDD), a few days before the examination of the bill in public session at the National Assembly, Monday, February 6.
If the time has come for mobilization, it is because the government can only rely on 249 deputies in the National Assembly, ie forty votes less than the absolute majority. In the absence of these, the Macronist deputies are counting on the support of the Republicans (LR), for the adoption of the text in the Hemicycle and in the Senate, chambers mainly from the center and from the right. But nothing is certain for the time being for the majority, which could have to deal with the refusal of certain LR deputies, or even with defections in its ranks.
Several scenarios are possible:
A flawless vote of the entire majority and the right
This is the most favorable scenario for the government: 249 deputies from the majority (Renaissance, Horizon, MoDem) and 62 LR deputies allied to vote for the pension reform represent a comfortable majority: 311 votes out of 577.
Basically, it is not surprising that the two parties agree on this project. Since 2018, LR senators have wanted to reform the current pension system by, in particular, pushing back the legal retirement age currently set at 62 and accelerating the extension of the contribution period. Nevertheless, the right-wing party is more in favor of a postponement to 64 rather than 65 as envisaged by the government. To ensure its support, the executive finally conceded on this point.
To ensure the support of the right, the government has already made some concessions by setting the legal retirement age at 64 instead of 65 and by extending to current retirees the revaluation of the smallest pensions for full careers. This alliance of circumstance was formalized at the beginning of January. “The budgetary, demographic and economic situation imposes this reform”said Eric Ciotti, the president of the right-wing party, at the JDD.
Defections of Macronist or LR deputies
For the government, the room for maneuver is small. Twenty-three defections in the ranks of the majority and LR would suffice for the adoption of the measure at first reading in the National Assembly to be mathematically impossible. Between twenty and thirty elected representatives of this circumstantial majority say that they will not vote for the text, according to various counts carried out by the media (Release and Radio France). Counts to be considered, however, with all the necessary precautions, as the positions can vary.
The future of the reform at the Palais-Bourbon could therefore be decided by a few votes. Aware of their strategic role, some right-wing elected representatives have expressed clear demands, such as the vote on an amendment so that “all those who have at least one trimester before (…) 21 years old can leave before the legal age as long as they have all their trimesters, without a discount”explains the elected LR of Pas-de-Calais, Pierre-Henri Dumont, at the microphone of RMC.
The leader of the LR group in the Assembly, Olivier Marleix, insists: “I don’t give the government a blank check (…). We are counting on the fact that it will be amended as requested. » The bill is in the Social Affairs Committee until Wednesday February 2 and amendments will be examined and voted on in public session from February 6.
An eleventh appeal to 49.3
If it fails to convince the deputies, the government still has an option, now well known: the use of 49.3. This section of the Constitution allows the Prime Minister to“to engage the responsibility of the government before the National Assembly”.
The world
– 50% on all our offers
Unlimited access to all our content from 4.99 euros per month instead of 9.99 euros
Subscribe
If the head of government initiates this procedure, the deputies have the possibility of filing a motion of censure in stride. If it is supported by the majority of the deputies, the bill is rejected and the government is overthrown. Otherwise, the text is adopted and goes to the Senate for consideration.
Elisabeth Borne has already used this constitutional weapon ten times to have the various sections of the State budget and Social Security adopted in the fall, which had already been decried as a “forced passage” by the oppositions of the left and of the extreme right. The risk is to increase an already strong social mobilization – between 1.2 million and 2 million for the first event.
Section 47.1 to save time
Less known and less brutal in appearance than 49.3, another tool of the Constitution could be used by the government: article 47.1, reserved for budgetary texts. This is good because the pension reform is precisely presented in the form of a bill for the amending financing of Social Security (PLFSSR). This article limits the examination of the text by the Parliament to fifty days. If the discussions exceed this duration, “the provisions of the project can be implemented by ordinance”.
The deputies have twenty days to decide on the first reading before the text passes into the hands of the senators who themselves have fifteen days. In the absence of agreement, a joint joint committee, made up of seven deputies and seven senators, is formed for an additional fifteen days. Parliamentarians therefore have until March 26.
But several constitutionalists warn about the use of this article, and the risks that the law will be partially censored by the Constitutional Council.
The risk of censorship of the Constitutional Council
Section 47.1 is originally intended for initial funding bills that are considered in the fall. It is then urgent to vote a budget before the end of the year to ensure the payment of benefits. In the case of pension reform, the need to act quickly is not obvious: “No urgency”believes Benjamin Morel, lecturer in public law, in a forum at the Monde.
In addition, a PLFSS should only include financial provisions. According to The chained DuckLaurent Fabius, President of the Constitutional Council, warned that: « (…) anything outside the financial scope can be considered a “budget rider” [sans rapport avec le projet de loi], and, in this case, a second text would be needed. » He cites in particular the employment index for seniors or the modifications of the criteria of arduousness among the measures which could be censored.
The ultimate method for objections: the referendum motion
This is arguably the most unlikely scenario. The New People’s Ecological and Social Union (Nupes) and the National Rally (RN) each tabled a referendum motion, that is to say a request to organize a referendum on the bill . Tuesday January 31, the conference of presidents of the Assembly chose, by lot, that only that of the RN of Jordan Bardella will be debated in the Hemicycle on February 6.
However, its implementation is subject to such conditions that it is almost unthinkable that the motion will succeed. Concretely, in public session of the PLFSSR the deputies will have to vote on this motion. If there is a majority of the votes (which implies that the Nupes vote for the motion of the RN), the discussions in the Assembly are suspended and the motion is transmitted to the Senate (acquired to the Republicans, therefore a priori unfavorable to this idea) who has thirty days to adopt it. In the event of approval by the two chambers of Parliament, it is up to the President of the Republic to submit a referendum, by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution. But nothing forces it.