The parliamentary battle over pensions will be shorter than expected. The government’s reform project arrives Monday in the National Assembly’s Social Affairs Committee, then on February 6 in the Chamber. You don’t need a crystal ball to predict heated debates as another day of mobilization at the call of the unions. Around 7,000 amendments were tabled by the opposition and the majority. But will parliamentarians be able to debate it to the end? By opting for an amending budget for Social Security (PLFSSR), the government has launched a stopwatch: Parliament has only 50 days to decide. Otherwise, the executive could regain control.
Why this procedure?
On January 10, during the presentation of the text, Elisabeth Borne revealed an open secret: the pension reform will go through an amending budget for the Secu. This solution allows the executive to trigger Article 49.3 of the Constitution at any time. This controversial tool is limited to one use per parliamentary session (from October to June), but it can be used at will on budgetary texts. A useful parachute in the event of an unfavorable vote on opposition amendments or if there is no absolute majority to vote for the entire reform. Because despite intense discussions with the right, the fear of the executive to be released at the last moment has taken shape in recent days due to the reluctance of several elected LRs and hesitations within the presidential camp itself.
Why should the debate not last more than 50 days?
In reality, the government may not need yet another 49.3. The last days, article 47-1 of the Constitution stole the show. The use of an amending Social Security budget automatically leads to this less well-known provision, which limits the debates in time. “If the National Assembly has not pronounced on first reading within twenty days after the filing of a bill, the government seizes the Senate which must rule within fifteen days”, says the law.
After the parliamentary recess from February 20 to 26, the right-wing upper house will therefore consider the text for two weeks. Then, deputies and senators will try to agree in a joint committee. But beware: in total, the debates cannot last more than 50 days. If nothing is acted by the deadline, March 26, “the provisions of the project can be implemented by ordinance”. The 47-1 thus allows the government to thwart “parliamentary obstruction” promised by the deputies of La France insoumise by tabling tens of thousands of amendments, a strategy already used during the previous pension reform in 2020. And this, without using the 49.3, very unpopular in the opinion.
Censorship by the Constitutional Council?
The boss of the PCF deputies, André Chassaigne, judged the “rough maneuver, worthy of enemies of democracy”. The LFI deputies, for their part, denounced to the Council of State “attacks on the rights of Parliament”. But the opposition keeps an eye on the side of the Constitutional Council: certain elements of the text could, in fact, be censored by the Elders.
“Anything that is outside the financial field can be considered a budgetary rider” – and therefore irrelevant – would have estimated Laurent Fabius during a meeting with journalists, according to the chained duck from January 18. The President of the Constitutional Council would have cited in particular the index of seniors or the criteria of arduousness as being able to be challenged. A leader of the majority assures us, however, that the executive is considering another text “in the coming months” to pass the elements possibly challenged by the Constitutional Council.
But could all these constitutional finds play tricks on the government? Ugo Bernalicis, LFI deputy from the North, believes that this whole procedure will only offer weapons to the opposition. “The 47-1 is not a genius government find. Because if in the end, the text is not voted, and they use an order, it will be an argument for us. This law will not have had the legitimacy of a vote by the National Assembly”. And it is perhaps in the street that the showdown could then continue.