It’s not as if we haven’t gotten used to it: a new 49.3 was triggered this Wednesday evening on the first part of the Social Security finance bill for 2024 (PLFSS). And this is only the third since the start of the school year, out of the 17 that Élisabeth Borne will probably use before Christmas. To say that this mechanism, which allows the adoption of a text without a vote, as long as the Assembly does not vote for a motion of censure against the government at the same time, does not put France in the leading group of parliamentary democracies the most successful, it’s no longer really news. But there is something new this year: the 49.3s are arriving early. Very, very early.
In 2022, for the 2023 budget, the government left a week of debate in the Hemicycle during the first reading of the first part of the PLF. This year, 49.3 did not wait for the end of the general discussion. That is to say that the deputies were not able to examine the PLF in session on the merits, even partially. The national representation did not even vote to authorize the government to raise the tax. This is very symbolic, because of course it will have no practical consequences, with 49.3 crushing everything. But it is also very symbolic because over the course of history, it took two or three revolutions for the representatives of the people to have the right to vote on taxes.
“An absolute democratic scandal”
In this context, as we suspect, the oppositions are in full swing. Particularly on the left: “It’s an absolute democratic scandal!” “, thunders the socialist deputy from Calvados Arthur Delaporte. “We already didn’t have the right to vote. Now we don’t even have the right to debate! », remarks for his part Benjamin Lucas, environmentalist deputy. “We deny the role of the National Assembly before public opinion,” finally deplores the rebellious Éric Coquerel, president of the finance committee. To go around the imposed figures, in the majority, we put things into perspective. “49.3 is a technical, constitutional tool…,” recalls Paul Christophe, Horizon MP. We have no reason not to draw it early since, in any case, everyone is against it. It would be useless to leave even a few days of debate…”
Even if this Wednesday, the government seemed to leave a little more room for discussions, the majority argues that these rapid 49.3 are made obligatory by the “postures” of the oppositions. The argument annoys Éric Coquerel, who recalls that at the start of the “Bercy dialogues” – the discussions ahead of the budget between the deputies of the finance committee, all groups combined, and the government – “we were told that this argument would not be used. Finally, they do it (…) There is still a difference between stating that the oppositions will vote against the budget and giving us a chance to modify the text. »
A text still debated and modified… but not in the Hemicycle
In the office of the Minister Delegate in charge of Public Accounts, Thomas Cazenave, it is disputed that such a promise was made. Then we specify that “the aim of the Bercy dialogues is precisely to be in a process of co-construction of the text and to see what the amendments could be retained in the text which emerges from 49.3”. The minister’s office also emphasizes that 300 amendments were integrated into the budget – “three times more than last year” – and that all the “republican oppositions” were served (that is to say neither the RN , nor LFI). Understand: the text has still been modified. And in the minister’s office, we see no democratic problem at all in the Bercy dialogues replacing a proper parliamentary discussion.
Another argument from the majority: the discussion also took place… in committee. In the Finance Committee for the PLF, and in the Social Affairs Committee for the PLFSS. The debates actually took place. They took place so much that many opposition amendments were adopted. Worse, this is the first time that a State budget and a Social Security budget have been rejected in committee. “Last year, in the same political system, the budgets were adopted. This means that even the majority can no longer mobilize! », remarked the socialist Valérie Rabault this Wednesday to the parliamentary press. Microphones cut, some in the majority complain about the government’s attitude. “We are told that even the majority’s amendments annoy them…”, an executive gets angry. In short, if it doesn’t fundamentally change the situation compared to last year, there is definitely a problem.