2023-05-18 18:35:36
This is the weapon that the Macronist deputies intend to wield to defend the pension reform. The best angle of attack, they judge, to torpedo the bill repealing the increase in the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 and the increase in the contribution period, on the program of the parliamentary niche of the Freedoms, Independents, Overseas and Territories (LIOT) group, on June 8. I’article 40 of the Constitution has rarely caused so much debate in the corridors of the National Assembly.
Protection against the risk of financial slippage
To avoid any financial slippage, this stipulates that the proposals and amendments of parliamentarians are not admissible if they lead to a reduction in revenue or ” the creation or aggravation of a public office”. However, the Constitutional Council admits “a reduction in public resources” whether the amendment or bill provides for compensation “real” et “immediate” for the benefit of the injured organization or community.
The parliamentarians of the majority estimate that the initiative of the LIOT group would lead to a loss of 15 to 22 billion euros in the coffers of social security organizations. The same bill presents, in its article 3, a compensation for this decrease in public resources by increasing the tobacco tax. This is the consideration most commonly chosen by parliamentarians to guard against financial inadmissibility.
To bury a bill, the government can always file an amendment to remove compensation. If it is voted, the text is guaranteed to be deemed “inadmissible” under article 40, for lack of covering a reduction in public resources.
Control at any time of the legislative procedure
Article 89 of the regulations of the National Assembly specifies the procedures for controlling the financial admissibility of a bill (or a parliamentary amendment), and therefore compliance with Article 40 of the Constitution. An analysis of the proposed law is carried out as soon as it is submitted to the office of the Palais-Bourbon.
With regard to the LIOT text, a delegation from the bureau accepted its submission, therefore considering the bill to be financially admissible. Representatives of the majority tried, Tuesday, May 16, to bring back the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, on this first opinion, in vain. The elected representative of Yvelines (Renaissance) would have objected, according to participants in this meeting of the bosses of parliamentary groups, that never, since 1958, a bill had been declared inadmissible at this stage.
The Constitutional Council recalled that the control of compliance with Article 40 of the Constitution could take place “at any time”, including during the examination of the text in session. Paragraph 4 of Article 89 of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly provides more specifically for the case of admissibility of a bill challenged by the government or “all deputy”. Compliance with Article 40 of the Constitution is then assessed by “the president or [par] the general rapporteur of the Finance, General Economy and Budgetary Control Committee or [par] a member of its office designated for this purpose”.
Debate over competent political authority
A decisive choice, when the chairman of the finance committee (Eric Coquerel) is “rebellious” and the general rapporteur for the budget (Jean-René Cazeneuve), a macronist. “The letter of the regulations of the National Assembly does not allow deciding in favor of one or the other, but a certain tradition would give privilege to the chairman of the committee then, failing that, to the rapporteur of the budgetconfirms Denis Baranger, professor of public law at the University of Paris-II Panthéon-Assas. This admissibility is often assessed with flexibility for legislative proposals, but with rigidity for amendments. »
A “spirit of the law” claimed by the opposition, for whom Eric Coquerel, in favor of repeal, will alone have to assess whether or not article 40 of the Constitution is respected. A too “partisan” parliamentarian, according to the majority. This one had left the benches of the Hemicycle, on February 9, when the deputy La France insoumise judged in accordance with the supreme legal standard the bill aimed at the nationalization of EDF.
Two weeks before the LIOT parliamentary niche, the opposition accuses the majority of preventing the deputies from legislating under cover of applying article 40, symbol of the “rationalized parliamentarism” of the 1958 Constitution. “The Greatest Inequality” between government and parliamentarians in the right to amend, estimated in 2008 Didier Migaud and Jean Arthuis, then presidents of the finance committees of the National Assembly and the Senate, in a tribune at the Monde calling for its removal. “If we applied it very strictly, we would in fact no longer have any bills, [parce qu’elles] almost all involve expenses that are usually incurred”defended Eric Coquerel on Tuesday.
In the event of adoption of the LIOT bill, a highly unlikely outcome without the vote of the Senate, the majority already warns that it will seize the Constitutional Council. It would then be up to its members to decide definitively on the financial admissibility of the repeal of the pension reform.
#article #Constitution #weapon #majority #block #repeal #reform