On the eve of an announced vote on the pension reform in the National Assembly, the hypothesis of an adoption of the text is the most likely. By law, or by force.
The hour of the verdict is approaching for the pension reform. If, this Wednesday, March 15, 2023, an agreement is reached during the Joint Joint Commission (CMP) for a common text between the deputies and senators present at this meeting (they are 14), the National Assembly, then the Senate , will have to decide, one last time, and vote in favor of the bill or oppose it. If the discussions on this reform have been the subject of particularly heated debates between elected officials, its adoption seems inevitable. Given the legislative framework in force to establish the law, it would take a real reversal of the political situation for the outcome not to be favorable to the text. Even if scenarios could not be without consequences, political or social.
First, when the text that will give birth to the CMP will be presented to parliamentarians, there is little doubt that the Senate will vote for its adoption. Predominantly on the right, the upper house of Parliament has never shown itself to be truly hostile to pension reform, despite debates for technical adjustments. Moreover, a first vote on the entire text had resulted in its adoption (195 for, 112 against, 37 abstentions). The situation should not be reversed.
In the National Assembly, on the other hand, it is not the same music. The constant heckling that punctuated the sessions made it impossible to organize a vote on the entire text. Some articles were adopted but the government saw that on the senior index being rejected by the lower house. At the Palais Bourbon, the government does not have a hand, having to deal with the absence of an absolute majority within the hemicycle. It is therefore impossible to ensure passage of the text, despite the alliance with the MoDem and Horizons. 250 votes guaranteed in the best case where all elected officials vote for, it is too little in the event of an alliance of oppositions which represent 318 votes (not counting the 5 non-registered deputies).
But the calculation is not so quick to do. In opposition, some have allied themselves with the government majority: Les Républicains. On the eve of the vote, 20 say they are ready to support the government, according to BFM TV. How close to an absolute majority? No. Because in the ranks of the coalition supporting the action of Emmanuel Macron, defections could be recorded: 33 deputies stamped Renaissance (ex-LREM), 1 MoDem and 10 Horizons are not certain to vote for the text. At this stage, only 202 votes for would be assured out of the maximum total of 573 votes. Impossible, in this situation and following this simple calculation, to have the text adopted.
However, it is not necessary to obtain an absolute majority to pass a law. A relative majority is sufficient, that is to say more than half of the votes of the participants. A major factor must therefore be taken into account: the abstention or absence of elected officials to vote on the text. Thus, if a deputy is present in the Assembly but abstains at the time of the vote, his position is not counted and thus reduces the number of votes cast. What, again, to reduce the threshold of the majority necessary for the adoption of the text.
Rather than voting against, members of the government majority could thus simply choose to abstain so as not to (too) penalize their camp. With a smaller majority to be reached, this could allow Macronie to beg for fewer votes than initially expected. Some hesitants could still be convinced and tip the balance in favor of the government, according to the text adopted in the CMP. This is why the government is cajoling LR.
Before the debates in the National Assembly, the motion for the preliminary rejection of the bill, tabled by the Nupes, had been rejected by 292 votes, i.e. all of the deputies of the majority present that day as well as 48 LR. A score beyond the absolute majority.
If the executive does not succeed in its political maneuver to put behind it a majority of deputies, it is left with the inflammable weapon of 49.3. A section of the Constitution that engages the responsibility of the government. Concretely, in this context, the law will not be voted but established de facto, unless a majority of deputies oppose this initiative via a motion of censure. If it passes, then the government must resign. For this, it is necessary to collect the absolute majority, that is to say 287 votes. However, this would mean an alliance of oppositions. Are the Nupes, the RN, LR and LIOT ready to vote for the same text? Hard to imagine. If the motion of censure is tabled by the RN, the Nupes should not vote for it. The case already arose last fall during the finance bill for 2023. The text of the RN had only received the support of elected frontists, even though the left had tabled a similar text. Motion that had, on the other hand, voted the RN.
If 49.3 were to be initiated in the National Assembly for pensions, the motion of censure would have little chance of passing. The RN and the Nupes cumulate 237 votes out of the 287 necessary. At LR (and LIOT to a lesser extent), on whom the adoption or not of the motion would be based, it seems unlikely that around fifty elected officials will join the other oppositions. Firstly because the overthrow of the government would lead to political instability which they do not necessarily advocate. Moreover, in the event of the adoption of the motion of censure, Emmanuel Macron could decide to dissolve the National Assembly and call new legislative elections. For some deputies, whose obtaining the seat in the hemicycle was a hair’s breadth, returning to the campaign could prove complex, with the risk of losing their armchair. The political calculation must therefore be taken into account. In history, only one of the 60 no-confidence motions tabled has passed.
Through the traditional legislative process or by force, the pension reform seems to be on the way to being adopted by Parliament, given the tools available to the government. But if it were to be established by 49.3, the social risk of a conflagration cannot be ruled out in view of the dispute over the text.
Among the 577 elected to the National Assembly, who is for, who is against? Thanks to our search engine, here is a first overview (read the methodology below), allowing you to find whether your local representative has positioned himself in favor of the text or opposed it. Without this in any way predicting the outcome of the vote.
In order to make the best use of our search engine, you should either enter the exact surname of your Member of Parliament (with the first letter in capitals, any accents and/or dashes), write all or part of the name of your department (with the first letter in capitals) or select the parliamentary group you want, then press “Search”.
The vote on the whole pension reform bill has not yet taken place. Thus, to determine which deputy is for or against this text, Linternaute relied on the first important vote of the deputies: that concerning the introductory article of the amending social security financing bill for 2023. Why this vote? This is the first article of the bill and it presents the general spirit of the text with its main budgetary orientations (details here). The parliamentarians who voted in favor therefore show their support for the reform.
486 deputies took part (details of the votes here). The deputies who were not present for this election are therefore not included in our table. More generally, the deputies of the government majority (Renaissance, MoDem, Horizons) defend the reform, when the opposition groups (RN, LFI, PS, EELV, PCF, LIOT) are against. Only LR is divided on the issue between defenders, opponents and abstainers.
