Get out of the trap, avoid the wall that is approaching. The majority are tearing their hair out at the dawn of the fateful date of June 8. The Liot parliamentary group will submit to the vote of the National Assembly its bill aimed at repealing the pension reform, within the framework of its parliamentary niche. If passed, the text has no chance of being approved by the right-wing senatorial majority. But its adoption by the Assembly would inflict a symbolic defeat on the executive: the postponement of the legal retirement age to 64 has in fact not been the subject of any vote at the Palais Bourbon. The deputies had not gone to the end of the first reading of the reform in February, before the executive resorted to 49.3 to have its text adopted.
The Liot group intends to further weaken the democratic legitimacy of the reform. The text has every chance of passing. The vote is organized by simple majority, an under-mobilization of the supporters of the postponement of the legal age would be enough for the happiness of the opponents. “With or without us, it will pass,” LR boss Éric Ciotti told a parliamentarian.
An inadmissible bill?
When you are sure to lose a vote, you might as well avoid it! The executive is looking for the ideal way to prevent this announced defeat. During a joint meeting, the three groups of the majority raised on Tuesday May 16 the financial inadmissibility of the PPL Liot. Article 40 of the Constitution prohibits any bill which would result in “a reduction in public resources” or “the aggravation of a public charge”. The government estimates at 15 billion euros the shortfall in the event of a return to 62 years, which would make the PPL out of the nails. “We are on the side of respect for the Constitution and our institutions”, defends the president of the Renaissance group Aurore Bergé.
The legal demonstration is implacable. Its implementation comes up against major obstacles. On April 26, a delegation from the office of the Assembly deemed the bill admissible. Nothing abnormal. PPL enjoys a leniency in this scrutiny, in order to protect private members’ business. This use is all the more consensual as these costly PPLs of the opposition are intended to be rejected under an absolute majority.
The situation of relative majority reshuffles the cards, the hypothesis of a doctrinal evolution gains the minds. In the conference of presidents, deputies suggested a new meeting of the Bureau on Tuesday. The presidency of the Assembly Yaël Braun-Pivet did not follow up. “It’s not easy for her, admits a Renaissance executive. Tradition dictates that PPLs are admissible, regardless of their cost. But the relative majority makes the enactment of new case law legitimate.” Several elected representatives of the majority see in this temperance a desire of the president to spare her political future. The image of vote breaker would not suit Yaël Braun-Pivet, self-proclaimed defender of the rights of Parliament. “The president’s feverishness is based only on her personal destiny”, mocks a macronist elected re-elected in 2022. “She is building an image for herself for the future and does not wish to pass for a gun carrier”, smiles a Renaissance deputy.
Coquerel in the viewfinder of the majority
In the absence of a meeting of the bureau, the majority takes refuge behind article 89 of the regulations of the National Assembly. It allows any deputy to raise the financial inadmissibility of a PPL, assessed “by the president or the general rapporteur of the Finance Committee”. Again, it gets complicated. This provision feeds a political conflict between the majority and the opposition. The rebellious Éric Coquerel, chairman of the Finance Committee, believes that he has exclusive jurisdiction to examine admissibility. Unsurprisingly, he does not hide his desire to see the text studied in session.
The general rapporteur, the Renaissance Jean-René Cazeneuve, has an equally subjective reading of the regulations. “There is no exclusive competence, he confides. The text places us at the same level. Admittedly, the custom since 2009 has been that the President of the Finance Committee decides. But this is the first time that the holder of this function favors a partisan role to the detriment of a role of president.” Political analyzes and political interests are one here. At the Hôtel de Lassay, however, we lean towards Éric Coquerel’s competence under the principle of subsidiarity. It is only in the event of impediment of the rebellious that his Renaissance colleague could exercise this role of filter.
No obstruction, but…
The text now has a solid chance of being examined on June 8. MPs will only have one day to get through the PPL, which has only three articles. To avoid defeat, should we resort to obstruction? Officially, the majority refuses. She has not forgotten the criticisms that accompanied her maneuvers to defeat LFI’s parliamentary niche in November. Many, however, will have their eyes glued to the clock. “I think it has no chance of being completely adopted, notes a pillar of the majority. The deputies, without obstruction, will table a significant number of amendments on the subject, all groups combined.” “Obstruction is thousands of amendments to change commas, confirms Horizons MP Frédéric Valletoux. But tabling hundreds of amendments to debate such an important subject is the very essence of the role of the Parliament.”
In the shadows, a parliamentary group burns candles for such obstruction. The Republicans (LR) were torn this winter during the examination of the pension reform. Éric Ciotti and Olivier Marleix, subjected to an internal slingshot, have lost feathers. The two men have little desire to suffer an aftershock of the crisis. “We have no interest in voting,” assumes a pro-reform LR deputy. In a group meeting, the boss of the LR deputies warned his people on Tuesday against any “masochism”. “My deep conviction is that the majority will obstruct and that there will be no vote. It is moreover their interest”, he confided in substance to his troops. Protected by the procrastination of the majority, the right tastes this return to anonymity. It could be temporary.