A new parliamentary crisis is brewing under the still hot ashes of the pension battle. Two months after the promulgation of the law which pushes back the legal age of retirement from 62 to 64 years, the National Assembly is called upon to decide, on June 8, on the bill of the group Libertés, Indépendants, overseas and territories (LIOT) aimed at repealing the reform so decried by the unions and in public opinion.
But the prospect of a vote by deputies on the age measure has been the subject of an intense procedural battle, for several weeks, between the presidential camp and the opposition. The elected representatives of the three majority groups (Renaissance, MoDem and Horizons) have resolved to prevent any vote on this bill, relying in particular on article 40 of the Constitution. This provision of the fundamental law provides that any parliamentary initiative – bill or amendment – cannot burden the State budget by creating a financial burden not compensated by resources. Fearing above all to be outvoted during the examination of the text in public session, they present the proposal of the LIOT group as inadmissible, on the grounds that it would cost 15 to 20 billion euros for the coffers of the State, without financing alternatives. This would prevent its examination in session.
An “admissible” text for Coquerel
However, since the constitutional revision of 2008, it is up to the chairman of the finance committee, a position assigned to the opposition, to examine the financial admissibility of these measures. Seized on May 23 by the president of the social affairs commission, Fadila Khattabi, the “rebellious” president of the finance commission, Eric Coquerel, announced on Tuesday May 30, from the National Assembly, that he considered “admissible” the LIOT bill. In his argument, the Chairman of the Finance Committee pleaded in particular for a “flexible interpretation” of article 40 in order to preserve “the right of parliamentary initiative specific to opposition and minority groups”.
Without consequence for the power when it had an absolute majority, the accommodating application of Article 40 was transformed with the relative majority into a political and institutional debate on the room for maneuver of the oppositions, henceforth in the capacity to join forces to have texts adopted against the opinion of the executive. “Only the government can increase the charges. If he agrees with a bill, he lifts the pledge. Otherwise, Article 40 applies. argue the general budget rapporteur, Jean-René Cazeneuve (Renaissance, Gers).
You have 69.01% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
#repeal #text #LIOT #turns #institutional #game