Two irreconcilable camps. The examination of the Liot group’s bill aimed at repealing the pension reform turned this Thursday, June 8 to trench warfare between the majority and its opposition. The President of the National Assembly Yaël Braun-Pivet declared Wednesday inadmissible the amendments restoring the return of the legal age to 62, a provision deleted during the examination of the text in the Social Affairs Committee. All under article 40 of the Constitution, which prohibits parliamentarians from filing a bill (PPL) or an amendment that increases the public accounts.
At 9 am, the deputy of Yvelines opens debates without legislative stake. Liot’s text is emptied of its substance, the repeal of 64 years is nipped in the bud. The discussion is no less virulent. The majority undergoes a trial in authoritarianism, when the oppositions are accused of mistreating the Constitution. At the podium, the deputy Charles de Courson attacks Yaël Braun-Pivet directly. “It is a serious political fault, of which the President of the National Assembly does not yet measure the full extent of the political and institutional damage”, he says, castigating a “lowering” of Parliament. “You don’t want us to vote, you know you don’t have a majority on this text,” engages Marine Le Pen.
“Arguties” against respect for the rules
The debate crystallizes around the declaration of inadmissibility of the text. The rebellious Éric Coquerel denounces a “literal reading” of the regulations, which would never have been “applied in this way”. By virtue of a custom, the control of the admissibility of PPL is operated with great flexibility. Marine Le Pen castigates “quibbles”, when Charles de Courson mocks the deployment of a whole “constitutional arsenal” to thwart Liot’s initiative. “You have made the garbage cans of the Fifth Republic to crush the choice of the people and their representatives”, launches Clémentine Autain in the direction of the government. The interventions follow the same thread: the power would hide behind a rigorous application of the law for fear of a vote on pensions.
In the majority, we reject any political ulterior motive. “The rules, nothing but the rules. The Constitution, nothing but the Constitution, launches Yaël Braun-Pivet from the perch. This is my role, I would like everyone in this hemicycle to do the same.” Éric Woerth gives a legal presentation to justify the inadmissibility of the amendments. “We cannot let the Assembly flout the Constitution. The heckling wanted by Liot and LFI is an attack on democracy.” The session turned into a dialogue of the deaf, until the Liot group withdrew its text at midday.
Distinct legitimacies
Each camp drapes itself in distinct legitimacies, in accordance with its interests. The majority, which has the law on its side, poses as the guardian of the fundamental law. The Nupes sees in the maximalist use of the rules an attack on democracy. The confrontation is all the more violent as each argument is deployed with the force of evidence. “You prevented us from voting. You dared to do it, you went completely crazy”, launches the boss of the group Liot Bertrand Pancher from the podium. A Renaissance executive conversely confides his bewilderment: “Article 40 is a safeguard that we put on ourselves. It is lunar to come to wonder about respect for the Constitution. “
This politico-legal guerrilla warfare is the immediate consequence of the relative majority. In the absence of a coalition, the power deploys treasures of legal engineering to ensure its pre-eminence. The Constitution and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly are as much a normative reference as a political resource. During the examination of the pension reform, did the combined use of articles 49.3 and 47.1 of the Constitution not make it possible to force the text through? “Under a relative majority, everything is more fragile and rough, assumes the Renaissance deputy Guillaume Kasbarian. When there are disagreements on the procedure, the justices of the peace are the regulations and the Constitution. Thanks to their finesse and their modernity, our institutions are not blocked.”
The machine is running, but at what cost? The majority wonders. “This use of the instruments of the Constitution makes us pass for laborers”, worries a Renaissance deputy. President of the European Affairs Committee, Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade summarizes the equation: “The political balance of the Assembly means that the battle is also fought with regulatory tools. The image is not good, but what is the alternative? We do not have an absolute majority and a frontal opposition facing us.” “We take the same weapons as our adversaries,” adds a deputy.
Trench warfare
Because the opposition is not left out. The Nupes engaged in parliamentary obstruction during the first reading of the pension reform, so that the deputies do not vote for article 7 on the transition to 64 years. She repeated the exercise during the passage of the PPL Liot before the Social Affairs Commission, where she was in the minority. The filing of this PPL during a parliamentary niche, less than two months after the promulgation of the reform, also creates a precedent. Each camp plays with the instruments it has, even if the majority-executive couple is better equipped.
This conflict is not about to end. Time is not the ally of appeasement. Positions could harden as the presidential election draws closer. In the majority, some are wondering about the advisability of blocking the renewal of the rebellious Eric Coquerel at the head of the Finance Committee this fall. These renewals are in theory automatic, unless a vote is requested. The law offers a treasure trove of possibilities.