Black background, reinforced numbers and graphics. This Thursday, February 2, Elisabeth Borne defends on France 2 her pension reform in an arid setting. The Prime Minister, your austere, is not here to joke. The head of government defends the imperative need for her text, expected this Monday at the National Assembly. “If we don’t carry out this reform, our pay-as-you-go system will not hold. […] The deficits will widen”, she warns. The remarks are rational, the polytechnic raises the specter of a cumulative deficit of 150 billion euros in the next ten years. In the absence of reform, the threat of a higher taxes or lower flat pensions.
The Prime Minister speaks. But who is listening? His arguments come up against a general habituation to public spending. The support for the economy during Covid and the measures taken to combat the effects of inflation have swallowed up crazy sums. The energy shield alone is expected to cost 45 billion euros in 2023.
“The government cannot distort its text”
These cyclical aids have infused public opinion and questioned the dogma of budgetary rigor. Including among deputies. A Renaissance leader observed the evolution of his colleagues during the examination of the various finance laws. “At the first PLF of 2017, they had the modesty of a gazelle to make spending amendments of 100,000 euros. Now it’s several million. We have changed scale, we no longer realize the figures we are handling. “
Concerned about the balance of the accounts, the executive boasts of a reform bringing in more than 17 billion euros in 2030 to the pension funds. But this figure has lost its value, in the era of “whatever it takes”. The communication battle seems doomed to failure. “The discourse of budgetary responsibility has come off the radar. We must get used to the reality of public spending again”, analyzes the president of the Renaissance group in the Assembly Aurore Bergé.
The executive is its worst enemy here. Its reform was initially presented under the triptych “Justice, balance, progress”. The consolidation of public accounts, already barely audible, was drowned in this communication. The side effects of the reform, on women or long careers, were then dissected. The debate focused on typical cases, at the risk of affecting the balance of the text.
Multiple concessions
Such is the paradox: the pension reform is a collective measure, but with intimate effects. “The law cannot settle all individual cases, judges a majority executive. The government cannot distort its text and give gifts to everyone. It is a parametric reform, it was necessary to hammer from the start that ‘it was essential rather than talking about justice reform.” The executive has thus changed gears and refocused its message on the “effort” required of the French. Asked to say if she would repeat today that this reform is “fair”, Elisabeth Borne did not reuse this word on Thursday.
The government calls for effort, because it has already multiplied the concessions. Anxious to obtain the support of the Republicans (LR), he has given up on postponing the legal retirement age to 65 and promises to guarantee all retirees a minimum pension of 1,200 euros. Not enough. Pushed by the deputy for Lot Aurélien Pradié, LR wants workers who started working before the age of 21 to be able to retire after 43 annual contributions, before the retirement age of 64. Message received by Elisabeth Borne. The Prime Minister proposes in the JDD to extend the long career system to those who started between the ages of 20 and 21, so that they leave at 63. Cost of the operation: between 600 million and 1 billion per year. “A great step forward”, greets the LR deputy for Orne Véronique Louwagie.
This “advance” is insufficient for Aurélien Pradié. The deputy LR evokes a “deception”. He would like any worker who has validated a quarter before the age of 21 to be able to leave after 43 years of contribution, while the “long career” system sets stricter conditions. Elisabeth Borne, who estimates such a measure at 10 billion euros, does not want to hear about it.
LR, costly ally
The presidential camp fumes against LR, a partner deemed unreliable and expensive. We depict a schizophrenic right, apostle of a rigor of facade to costly grievances. “In the LR group, some want to address an electorate without thinking about the budgetary consequences, mocks a minister at the forefront of the subject. This is my only concern: how far will the right go in its expensive amendments?”
This budgetary question agitates LR. The senatorial right is not very greedy. Eric Ciotti is in favor of the reform. During a group meeting, the boss of LR called on his peers not to overbid. His request on long careers, which he never describes as a red line, is enough. “At some point, you can’t put a ball back in the jukebox,” he said. This request aims to preserve its credibility in the negotiations with Elisabeth Borne as well as the balance of the reform.
The executive heats the calculator at the dawn of the parliamentary battle. With the fear of being outvoted during votes, to the detriment of the general economy of the text. “The risk of heterogeneous majorities on certain costly amendments exists”, confided to a relative the Minister of Labor Olivier Dussopt. It has happened before. A Nupes amendment was adopted on February 1 to remove an increase in CSG on all pensions. This risk is all the stronger since the LR deputies have taken to drying up the sessions in the hemicycle. The members of the majority are warned: all have been invited to sit with the greatest assiduity.
The 49.3 to avoid skidding
However, the government has weapons to protect the balance of its reform. Section 40 of the Constitution prohibits any amendment that would aggravate the public charge, but some may slip through the cracks. The text will be examined under article 47.1 of the fundamental law, which limits the debates to fifty days. At the Assembly, the deadline is twenty days. The text is then transmitted to the Senate, even in the absence of a vote by the deputies. In this case, only the amendments voted on after a favorable opinion from the government are included in the text submitted to the upper chamber. “Everyone is rereading the rules of the Assembly, the case law to find out what can or cannot be done,” smiles a Horizons MP.
There remains 49.3, which allows a text to be adopted without a vote. The copy would then be in the exclusive hands of the government. On the right, we are already considering the hypothesis. “If it goes into a spin and they feel that the smallest detail escapes them, they will put the 49.3, confides an LR executive. They will not take any risks.” Hoping that the final text will be a source of savings. A pillar of the majority confides: “If we move back from the starting age of 62 to 64 with little savings, I will ask myself questions.”