The return of the retirement age to 62 was deemed inadmissible under the Constitution. From there to say that the project is definitively buried?
Hard blow for the National Rally. This Thursday, October 31, the far-right party aimed to submit the return of retirement to 62 to a vote by deputies. A fight led by Marine Le Pen and her allies, as well as the left-wing elected officials constituting the New Popular Front, this bill had raised hopes among the population, still hostile to the reform adopted in force by Elisabeth Borne in 2023. two groups being in agreement on the subject and representing more than the majority of the hemicycle, the adoption seemed all planned out. Except that ultimately nothing will happen.
Two main reasons for this turnaround. First of all, the political and ideological war between the RN and the NFP. For the left-wing deputies, it was unthinkable to ally with the Lepenist party and to vote together for an idea that emerged from their ranks, even if it also corresponded to their ambitions. The text was thus rejected in the Finance Committee, forcing the National Rally to take a new legislative path: amendments to its own proposal.
However – and this is the second reason for this setback – the admissibility of the amendments is judged by the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, faithful to the Macronist-Republican “common base”, who relied on the Constitution and its article 40: “Amendments are not admissible when their adoption would result in either a reduction in public resources, or the creation or aggravation of a public charge.” MPs will therefore not be able to comment on the return to 62 years.
However, the project is not definitively buried. At the end of November, it will be the left which will try, in turn, to have a similar bill voted on at the Bourbon Palace. It remains to be seen what fate will be reserved, in advance, for this text.
17:51 – How did the RN want to finance retirement at 62?
While pension reform was deemed necessary by Emmanuel Macron to ensure the financial sustainability of the system, the return to 62 requires finding new funds to ensure the payment of pensions. To do this, the RN wanted to create a new tax on the purchase of company shares (capital securities) and increase the excise on tobacco. However, in its explanatory statement for the proposed law, the RN did not quantify the revenue that would have been collected by these levers.
17:38 – What did the National Rally propose?
The RN’s proposal aimed to restore a fairer retirement system by canceling the latest reforms relating to the retirement age and the number of years of service. This text aimed to return to the old retirement rules. Marine Le Pen and his colleagues in the Chamber wanted to restore the age of eligibility to 62 years from the 1955 generation (instead of 64 years from the 1968 generation) and return to 42 annuities of contribution from the 1961 generation.
17:31 – A technical and political rejection
Thinking of trapping the left, the RN was trapped. Initially, the text is presented to the Social Affairs Committee. There, the deputies adopt or not the different articles of the bill. The main one, that of returning the starting age to 62, was rejected: the Macronists and LR voted against, as did three left-wing deputies, while 19 NFP deputies abstained. The RN being in the minority in this commission, the article was not adopted.
Thus, it was without its flagship measure that the bill would be submitted to a vote by all the deputies of the National Assembly. However, there remained a lever for the RN to reintegrate the departure at 62: table an amendment… on its own bill, which could have been voted on by all the deputies.
However, for an amendment to be put to a vote, it must be consistent with the Constitution. The return to retirement at 62 years of age entailing heavy additional expenses for the state coffers, it was therefore judged unconstitutional and will therefore not be presented to parliamentarians tomorrow.
It is therefore technical and political reasons which led to the failure of this attempt to repeal the pension reform.
17:23 – Why didn’t the left support the RN text?
In the Assembly, the RN encountered political wars. If an absolute majority of deputies defends the return of retirement at 62, it is unimaginable for the left to vote for a text defended by the far right. The NFP criticizes, in particular, the RN for not having been present during the demonstrations against the reform. However, the left always says it places itself in the general interest… But not to the point of voting with Marine Le Pen and others. Even if it means alienating voters. LFI, the PS, the ecologists and even the communists did not want to form a united front with the RN and give it more weight.
17:15 – What does article 40 of the Constitution say?
Cited previously, article 40 of the Constitution provides that “proposals and amendments formulated by members of Parliament are not admissible when their adoption would result in either a reduction in public resources, or the creation or aggravation of a public office.”
17:11 – Return to 62 deemed unconstitutional
This has not been good for some time, it is now official: this Thursday, October 31, deputies will not vote to repeal the pension reform. The National Rally project was deemed financially inadmissible under the Constitution (article 40). The return to the starting age of 62 will therefore not be on the agenda for tomorrow’s vote in the hemicycle. It remains to be seen whether the left will be able, for its part, to defend the same project next month.
10/29/24 – 4:51 p.m. – The RN will vote on the repeal proposed by LFI
While the left refuses to vote for the RN text through ideological war, the far-right party, for its part, announced that it would support the rebellious initiative at the end of November. On LCPRN deputy Laure Lavalette announced that “if it is the repeal of Elisabeth Borne’s bill [qui est soumise au vote, ndlr]yes we will vote for it.” “We have always voted in the interest of the French,” she declared on The Parliamentary Channel on October 25.
10/29/24 – 12:03 – How does LFI want to finance retirement at age 62?
In its proposed law, La France insoumise proposes to finance the return to retirement at 62 by an increase in the tobacco tax as well as by creating a new tax on oil and gas companies. When they have a turnover greater than 750 million euros and the net result is, at least, 1.25 times higher than the average results of the three previous years, then a tax of 20 to 33% would be applied. . For LFI, this would generate sufficient revenue so that the French do not have to work two more years.
29/10/24 – 08:33 – What does LFI propose for pension reform?
According to the bill published by LFI, the deputies of the rebellious group want nothing more and nothing less than a return of the starting age to 62 for anyone born from January 1, 1955, if all the annuities (42) are validated, as defended by the RN.
29/10/24 – 06:32 – Another bill to repeal the pension reform
It is not only the RN bill that could repeal the pension reform. Insoumise France has also joined the dance. Like the far-right party, the group will also have a parliamentary niche on Thursday, November 28, 2025. That day, Mathilde Panot, Eric Coquerel, Manuel Bompard and others will in turn defend the repeal of the reform.
28/10/24 – 17:02 – No absolute majority for the repeal of the reform
In the Assembly, the RN risks coming up against political wars. If the absolute majority of deputies defends the return to 62 years, those of the Socialist Party will not vote for the repeal of the pension reform brought by the RN to the Assembly on October 31. “We do not vote or associate ourselves with any initiative of the National Rally” indicated the elected representatives of the rose party. Environmentalists, communists and LFI are also not inclined to vote for a proposal from the far-right. With this choice, the RN could, at most, only collect 164 votes (cumulative votes from the RN, Ciotti’s group, and possibly LIOT). Not enough to achieve an absolute majority. If the latter is not necessary to convey a text, it is still preferable to ensure success.
28/10/24 – 12:04 – The vote on the RN bill prevented?
Beyond the consensus that must be found within the National Assembly, the RN’s bill risks running into a major problem: time. Indeed, as it will be discussed within the framework of the party’s parliamentary niche, it must be voted on during the day, no later than midnight. Political cunning could then come into play to thwart Marine Le Pen’s plans. “We can imagine that deputies hostile to the repeal of the 64-year-old rule would obstruct so as not to meet the deadline. This has already happened, for example in November 2022, with a text aimed at banning bullfighting , which had been blocked under an avalanche of amendments”, anticipates Benjamin Morel, lecturer in public law, at the World.