Many French people will have their eyes glued to 2, rue de Montpensier this Friday. This is where the Elders of the Constitutional Council will rule on the conformity of the amending Social Security financing bill (PLFSS) – which contains the pension reform – as well as on the validity of the popular initiative referendum ( RIP). Four scenarios are possible with different consequences for each. The Parisian takes stock.
Total validation
In this case, “it is the president who takes control”, specifies the professor of public law at Sciences-po, Guillaume Tusseau. Emmanuel Macron will have until April 20 at the latest to promulgate the law (which can only come into force from September 1, as the text provides).
Opponents of pension reform, however, point out that “a law, even passed, is not necessarily applied”. And cite the “precedent” of the first employment contract (CPE): in 2006, Jacques Chirac had promulgated this law while suspending its application. It was finally repealed a few days later, in the face of massive opposition from the youth in the streets.
Partial censorship
This is the scenario presented as the most probable. The Elders, who must consider appeals filed by the opposition and the government itself, can partially challenge the text. The consequences vary, depending on the nature of the rejection. The Constitutional Council may consider that certain measures – the “social riders”, which have no connection with the financial situation – have nothing to do with a corrective PLFSS, which would exclude them from the text.
Similarly, if certain provisions are censored on the merits, they can simply be taken out of the project “insofar as they do not interfere with the application of the rest” of the reform, specifies Guillaume Tusseau. This is for example the case of the senior index. “His rejection does not prevent the implementation of the reform”, continues the specialist. The government is then free to decide to integrate it into another law. Or simply forget about it.
Another possibility exists, but it is “rarely used”: Emmanuel Macron could decide to request a new deliberation in Parliament, calling on it to modify the censored provisions.
Total censorship
This is the scenario hoped for by opponents of the text. And it would be a first: under the Fifth Republic, the Elders never completely censored a pension reform. This possibility is however “not to be excluded”, judge Guillaume Tusseau, because of the “legislative vehicle” retained by the government – the amending PLFSS. “A diversion of procedure”, had estimated the professor emeritus of public law at Paris-I Panthéon Sorbonne, Dominique Rousseau, in our columns.
If the Constitutional Council decides to challenge the law for this reason, the government will always have the possibility of “taking up the same text and trying to have it adopted by the traditional way”, indicates Guillaume Tusseau. If, on the other hand, it is the substance of the text which is censored in its entirety – which has “little chance” of happening -, “it will be necessary to rewrite the law”.
The question of the RIP
In parallel with the appeals on the bill, the Elders must decide on the organization of a referendum of shared initiative. In case of refusal, no impact on the reform. If validated, 4.8 million signatures must be collected over the next nine months. Then, the Parliament has 6 months to examine the text – failing that, it is submitted to a referendum. This therefore implies long months of uncertainty.
However, this does not prevent the enactment of the pension reform. But, from a logistical point of view, the acceptance of the RIP “risks paralyzing the implementation” of the law. Because the text, tabled by more than 250 parliamentarians, provides that the retirement age does not exceed 62 years.
“It’s complicated to put the age back for a few months and then go back,” comments Guillaume Tusseau. For convenience, the implementation of the reform could therefore be delayed even if, in the event of non-application of a law (if it is validated by the Elders), the Council of State could “be seized and compel the government to take the necessary measures,” concludes the specialist.