The Liot bill aimed at repealing the pension reform was deemed admissible by the chairman of the finance committee, against the opinion of the majority. The presidential camp has other means to try to prevent the text from being voted on.
“I have decided to make [the Liot bill] admissible”. The chairman of the finance committee and deputy LFI Eric Coquerel made his decision this Tuesday, May 30 and, unsurprisingly, it goes in the direction of the text which aims to repeal the pension reform. It is a first failure of the strategy of the majority which opposed article 40 of the Constitution to the text, betting on the financial inadmissibility of the bill. But the legislative path of the Liot proposal does not stop there, before it can be examined in Parliament, it must be studied by the Social Affairs Committee chaired by Fadila Khattabi (Renaissance). Which risks modifying the bill by deleting article 1, the one that contains the very essence of the text.
Eric Coquerel’s position was already known, but it does not suit the presidential majority, which deems the bill inadmissible and even “clearly unconstitutional” in the words of the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, on France 2, Tuesday, May 30. Adopting this text would amount to creating “an expenditure of 18 billion” which is prohibited by article 40, declared the one who occupies the perch of the hemicycle. The majority still holds certain cards in hand which could prevent the examination of the proposal in Parliament, therefore its vote and the repeal of the pension reform.
Determined to implement the pension reform, the presidential majority organized the counter-attack against the Liot bill. After having envisaged the paralysis of the debates in the National Assembly with the tabling of hundreds or even thousands of amendments, the deputies of the majority finally relied on article 40 of the Constitution likely to set aside the examination of text. The latter provides that “proposals and amendments made by members of Parliament are not admissible when their adoption would result in either a reduction in public resources or the creation or aggravation of a public charge”. And, according to Aurore Bergé, the president of the Renaissance group in the Assembly, “the Liot bill is unconstitutional since it creates a charge for public finances of 15 billion euros”.
In the event of recourse to article 40, the opinion of Eric Coquerel (LFI) as chairman of the finance committee is required. The deputy who defends the “most flexible possible” understanding of article 40 and accuses the majority of looking for “a way to avoid the vote” judged the text admissible. But Eric Coquerel is not the only one to have his say on the bill: the text must pass through the hands of the Social Affairs Committee, which is rather opposed to the Liot group’s proposal. And according to the modifications made to the text, the presidential majority by the voice of the president of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet could win the case.
The majority wants to be ready for all eventualities and imagines another solution that would allow it to thwart the Liot bill and the attempt to repeal the pension reform. If the text reaches the hemicycle, the majority plans to table and vote on an amendment that would delete article 1 of the bill. A case of majority vote, the Liot group should reintroduce its article via an amendment, but the latter could be deemed inadmissible by the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet. If the member does not seem comfortable with the scenario, she assured “to take [her] responsibilities”.
All laws can be repealed by other laws, so the proposal by the Liot group of deputies can, in theory, reverse pension reform and the postponement of the retirement age to 64. In practice, too, the text can succeed, but this success is much less obvious. To be adopted by the National Assembly, the bill must receive a relative majority within the hemicycle. An ambitious goal, but achievable since during the vote on the motion of censure against the pension reform – also tabled by the Liot group – only nine votes were missing to obtain an absolute majority.
The Liot bill is already assured of the vote of the 21 deputies of the centrist group and the support of the elected representatives of Nupes in addition to those of the National Rally, i.e. 261 votes. She should also be able to count on the votes of 19 deputies from the Republicans who had supported the motion of censure. But it would be necessary to convince more elected LRs to vote for the text to obtain the majority of the votes, because if the 43 other right-wing deputies line up behind the majority, the latter would be strong with 294 votes.
If, despite the opposition of the majority, the Liot bill seeking to repeal the pension reform is adopted by the National Assembly, another step will still have to be taken: the adoption of the text by the Senate. With a majority right in the upper house, the repeal of the pension reform has very little chance of succeeding. Republican senators had applauded the decision to raise the retirement age to 64 after years of pushing for such a measure. However, in the event of a disagreement between the two chambers, the Assembly has the last word.
The Liot group has never hidden its intentions: it wishes to repeal the pension reform and this is the goal pursued by the bill which will be examined in the Assembly on June 8, during the parliamentary niche of the centrist group. Article 1 of the text has this sole objective, but it is accompanied by an article 2 which provides for financial measures to compensate for the cost entailed by the repeal of the reform. It is in particular the “increased excise duty on tobacco” which would make it possible to cushion the burden for social security bodies. Eric Coquerel, as a supporter of the bill and as chairman of the finance committee, also insists on the “pension system financing conference” which is provided for by the text by December 31 with the social partners.
