In the National Assembly,
With a great “gurgle”, Eric Coquerel hastily swallows his bottle of water. Seized as chairman of the Finance Committee by the majority, the rebellious deputy has a dry mouth when announcing his decision on the bill of the centrist group Liot (Freedoms, Independents, Overseas, Territories). The text, which aims to repeal part of the government’s pension reform, must be examined this Wednesday in the Social Affairs Committee. But is it consistent with the Constitution?
For several days, the majority has been brandishing article 40 and financial admissibility to torpedo the text before its arrival in the Hemicycle on June 8… And to avoid a dangerous vote on a reform still as decried across the country.
“It gives the impression of a desperate majority”
“I have decided to make the bill admissible”, sweeps, not without surprise, Eric Coquerel during his press conference, giving the green light to the examination of the text. In a long argument based on “jurisprudence”, the rebellious deputy defends “a flexible application” of the Constitution and denounces the pressures coming from the executive in recent days. “I saw the Prime Minister turn into a constitutionalist […] This is true on the part of the government, but also of the majority, and not always in a very courteous way”, squeaks the elected LFI of Seine-Saint-Denis, while Elisabeth Borne ruled “unconstitutional”, on May 17, the Liot bill. This Tuesday morning again, the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, scolded her political opponent on France 2, reminding him of his “institutional mission”.
“This gives the impression of a desperate majority,” replies at midday Christine Pires Beaune, PS deputy member of the Finance Committee. “I want to say to them solemnly ‘let us do our job as legislators!’ Eric Coquerel’s decision is not political, not partisan. If we were to apply article 40 in a stupid and mean way, 90% of the bills and amendments would not come up for discussion, ”adds the elected socialist from Puy-de-Dôme.
The majority still have a gun in their hands
The macronists, who hoped to have gotten rid of this explosive subject, therefore see the specter of a vote returning next week. Aurore Bergé, the president of the Renaissance group, then evokes, in a press conference, the “indignation” of the majority in relation to Eric Coquerel’s decision. “It is a diversion of the procedure [et] a partisan, political use of his own responsibility”. The presidential camp remains faithful to its line: the Liot law is “inadmissible” because it increases public spending by “more than 20 billion”, a financial initiative which is not the responsibility of parliamentarians.
“We do not lie to the French by carrying, with the greatest demagogy, a text which everyone knows here, for good, that it would be censored by the Constitutional Council”, sinks in the afternoon Elisabeth Borne during the questions of government news. The macronists have not said their last word, however, and could vote in committee to delete article 1 of the Liot text (which cancels the postponement of the legal age to 64).
If this were the case, the centrist group should reintroduce its repeal measure by amendment before June 8… leaving the possibility to the President of the National Assembly to dismiss it herself in the name of article 40. “You have to respect the rules of the game! Even if it gives a little the impression that we are doing maneuvers, ”recognizes a Renaissance deputy in private. Charles de Courson, Liot deputy, sighs. “We hear rumors of maneuvers to prevent the vote, it would be an extremely serious precedent,” he said, referring journalists “to the next episode”. Despite its promulgation on April 15, the pension reform has not finished agitating the political class.