The Liot group’s bill aimed at repealing the pension reform seriously worries the majority, which is preparing the counter-attack in the National Assembly. Is the text likely to be voted on?

She seems to be the bane of the presidential majority. The Liot bill aimed at the repeal of the pension reform agitates and worries the deputies of the macronie. While the text will not be on the agenda of the National Assembly until June 8, the elected Renaissance, MoDem and Horizons met on May 16 to prepare the counter-attack capable of preventing the bill to succeed. Sign that the Liot law can pass? A positive vote of the text at the Assembly is possible even if the probability that this happens remains low. But other obstacles placed in the legislative path of the bill by the presidential camp and the Senate risk showering the hopes of the centrist group and opponents of the pension reform.

All laws can be repealed by other laws, so the proposal by the Liot group of deputies can, in theory, reverse pension reform and the postponement of the retirement age to 64.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.

The Liot bill will certainly not be able to be voted on if the majority decides to block the ballot in the hemicycle. Presented during the parliamentary niche of the Liot group, the proposal cannot be examined from 9 a.m. to midnight on June 8. The elected representatives of the presidential camp could postpone the vote beyond this deadline by filing hundreds of amendments whose time-consuming examination would prevent the vote. But this is not the strategy that the majority wished to adopt. Instead, the deputies Renaissance, MoDem and Horizons decided to oppose article 40 of the Constitution to the Liot bill and to bet on the financial inadmissibility of the text.

Article 40 of the Constitution provides that “proposals and amendments made by members of Parliament are not admissible when their adoption would result either in a diminution of public resources or in 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”. If the use of the article is confirmed, the opinion of Eric Coquerel (LFI) as chairman of the finance committee and that of Jean-René Cazeneuve (Renaissance) as general rapporteur for the budget will be requested. The first who defends the “most flexible possible” understanding of Article 40 and accuses the majority of looking for “a way to avoid the vote” should judge the text admissible, but the second should not follow this example. “If there is a conflict between them”, it is the Bureau of the Assembly which will have to decide, said Aurore Bergé. However, the latter, chaired by Yaël Braun-Pivet, has already deemed the proposal admissible under article 40.

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.