The majority is doing everything to avoid being confronted with the bill from the Liot group, which wants to repeal the pension reform, on June 8.
Must Macronie be so feverish for it to try, by all means, to prevent a simple debate in the Assembly! The text of the Liot group aims to repeal the pension reform. A reform already adopted, either… But this text has been validated by the office of the Assembly. On June 8, the debates will end at midnight. It is a text that looks like a last stand for the opposition and yet makes the majority tremble.
A legal battle on a file that is above all political
For several days, Macronie has taken refuge behind parliamentary technique in an attempt not to discuss this text. She makes it a legal battle. Last example Wednesday evening, May 17, when Elisabeth Borne at Matignon declared that this bill is “unconstitutional.”
For the majority, this Liot text falls under the scope of article 40 of the Constitution: an article which makes it possible to torpedo any amendment or bill which would degrade the public accounts, that is to say basically everything is not balanced from a budgetary point of view. And this is the case: the repeal of the pension reform would cost between 15 and 20 billion euros per year.
Except that this legal, budgetary and regulatory standoff is totally irrelevant. This debate is political. And since the reform was adopted without a vote but the challenge to the pension reform remains strong, would it not be healthy for this debate to take place? By refusing to talk about pensions one last time, the majority are placing themselves in a corner. It gives food for thought to those who accuse it of being undemocratic, brutal and technocratic.
The democratic cost is much higher than the political cost
Debating has more panache than blocking a text with constitutional subterfuge. Emmanuel Macron in the newspaper Opinion earlier this week said himself: “For the majority, this (Liot text) will be an opportunity to continue to explain our project.” And finally, his camp refuses to debate? Why not explain, even if it means tabling amendments, even if it means taking the risk of losing a vote? Everyone knows that the Senate will never let this bill pass.
The political cost of losing face on a Liot niche is not that high. The democratic cost of preventing debate is much greater.