As the sessions go by, his physical health declines, inexorably. Since February 6, the date of the start of the examination in the hemicycle of the pension reform, the deputies of all stripes have read it carefully, annotated it, dented it. And, above all, they do not hesitate to invoke it to speak. In short, despite its unattractive red and blue cover and its content quite far from a holiday novel, it must be recognized that it has a certain sense of spectacle.
He is the rules of the Assembly, a little over 160 articles compiled in a book that has become the bedside book of elected officials. During the debate on the pension reform, points of order punctuate the sessions, like this Friday morning of the speeches of Daniele Obono (LFI) and Sandrine Rousseau (EELV). Last October, Le Figaro had counted 220, against 77 in the same period during the previous legislature. In the midst of invectives, questions, amendments, responses from the government, the rules of the Assembly imposed themselves as a tool of this political sequence.
“We have a regulation designed for an Assembly with a majority and a minority. Except that, since the last legislative elections, there is a minority [une majorité relative] and oppositions, recalls the deputy Bastien Lachaud (LFI). This regulation allows a minority to be the majority, to direct everything and to punish its opponents. »
Obstruction against sanction
Distribution of places within the office, distribution of commission presidents… For the elected representative of Seine-Saint-Denis, “we would have to start from scratch” and amend a regulation which presented limits, like the “pataquès of referendum motions, on the first day of examination of the text.
An analysis far from being shared by Mathieu Lefevre, Renaissance MP for Val-de-Marne. “The rules are what should allow us to have peaceful debates, it is quite legitimate to refer to them when we have to. The fact, for the opposition, and in particular the Nupes, to permanently take refuge behind the regulations, it reveals a desire not to talk about the substance. »
The majority believes that the opposition has used the rules to obstruct parliamentary work, while the latter blames the presidential party for repressing it. “Whenever there has been a period of obstruction, for all subjects since Parliament has existed, the point of order and therefore the rules have been a means of slowing down the debates. It is not more spectacular on the pension reform than on texts like abortion or marriage for all, tempers Michel Lascombe, associate professor in public law and specialist in constitutional law. When you have a more divided assembly, the opposition makes more use of the few means at its disposal. If you go back to Michel Rocard’s time, when there was also an absence of an absolute majority, there was also use of the rules in a whole series of situations. »
No originality to play with the rules therefore, but the subtlety lies perhaps in the intensity of the use of the latter. Since the introduction of rationalized parliamentarism in 1958, the arsenal available to opposition parliamentarians has been reduced. “Unlike the German or British system, in France, the opposition has almost no means of preventing a text from being voted on if the executive so wishes; continues the constitutionalist. One of the only techniques will be to slow down the debates. »
The rules, a tool to “put the debate back on track”
Quit getting slapped on the knuckles. As pointed out the LCP chain, three of the ten sanctions imposed since the start of the 16th legislature were during the debate on pension reform. In comparison, only 15 sanctions had been pronounced during the previous legislature. “Yaël Braun-Pivet is the president who has sanctioned the most. For what ? Because the regulations allow him to do so. This is not a good sign for our democracy, “says Bastien Lachaud.
The regulations and their disciplinary sanctions, “we do not use them to advance the reform but to put the debate back on the right track when necessary”, judge Mathieu Lefèvre.
Before heading to the Senate, the text on pension reform is discussed one last (long) day in the Assembly. There is no doubt that the regulations of the Palais-Bourbon will be invoked, scrutinized and recalled. And, for dissatisfied parliamentarians, it is possible to modify it. “We have to propose a resolution of modification and that it is adopted. But beware, warns Michel Lascombe, all amendments to the regulations of the Assemblies (Assembly, Senate, Congress) are subject to rigorous control by the Constitutional Council. »