“If we wait, we won’t do it more next term.” Emmanuel Macron clearly showed his desire to speed up the pension reform during a meeting on Thursday, September 15, with the group presidents of the parliamentary majority and the deputies of the finance committee. With the energy crisis and galloping inflation, this oh so explosive subject seemed to no longer be on the pile of priority files for the start of the school year. But, for a few days, the reform has returned to the forefront of the media scene, on the initiative of the president himself. “What’s the best time?”wondered the head of state in front of his supporters. “Will the French be more ready in four or five months?”
For one of the participants in this meeting, Emmanuel Macron’s position is clear: “He thinks waiting is not a good option.” The president was nevertheless careful, during this meeting of more than two hours, to detail the modalities and the timetable for such a reform.
During the previous five-year term, the latter had provoked a social and political revolt, which had forced Edouard Philippe to draw 49.3. The reform had finally been abandoned on the altar of the Covid-19 epidemic. This time, she might not go through a specific bill. During a meeting with the press Monday evening, Emmanuel Macron did not rule out that the subject be included in the social security finance bill (PLFSS), which will be presented on September 26 in the Council of Ministers.
This decision “will belong” to the government, nevertheless specified the Head of State, because, with regard to the method, “things don’t matter”. But, behind the scenes, some believe they detect a preference in the president’s words. “His argumentative construction leads me to think that he is leaning towards integrating the reform into the next PLFSS”, reports a parliamentarian of the majority. This idea is far from new.
However, nothing is officially decided at this stage. Both in form and in substance. Should I use the “vehicle” of the PLFSS rather than a specific text? By amendment or in the bill? To shift the starting age? Extend the contribution period? If Emmanuel Macron had promised, during the presidential campaign, to push back the legal retirement age to 65, accompanied by an increase in the minimum pension to 1,100 euros for a full career, the president then said ready to “to move” on the modalities during the interval between rounds.
The vagueness of the presidential intentions is enough to cause a stir in Macronie. Tuesday, during the traditional majority breakfast at Matignon, Elisabeth Borne was able to see that the troops were not leaving united for battle. “We discussed the method, the fact of passing the reform in the PLFSS”, tells franceinfo a participant. On the LREM side, the leader of the deputies, Aurore Bergé, and the boss of the senators, François Patriat, are favorable to this option. They are joined by the MoDem Jean-Paul Mattéi. But around the table, the first discordant voices are heard. Laurent Marcangeli, president of the Horizons group, is calling for “Dialogue with the French”. The President of the Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, asks for caution and is worried to see the new National Council for Refoundation (CNR) torpedoed by such an initiative. “She was not very warm to this idea”summarizes a participant.
The head of government measures a little more the difficulty of finding a consensus by receiving the party presidents on Wednesday. The former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, at the head of Horizons, shows restraint and the “walker” Stanislas Guérini also expresses reservations. But it is above all the centrist François Bayrou who is stepping up to the plate. “The president’s commitment when he was elected was that there would be no more forced passage and that we were going to build a method that would allow all the living forces of the country to think together before to decideexplains the secretary general of the CNR to franceinfo. We created the CNR eight days ago and announce that we are going to do the opposite of what we said that day. For me, it’s not fun.” The president of the MoDem wishes to give the possibility to the CNR to “to find a path” for the pension reform.
“I don’t think we can govern a country with 49.3 without using the new consultation method announced by the President of the Republic.”
Francois Bayrouat franceinfo
The division of the staffs touches the whole of the majority. “Personally, I think that the pension reform must wait and that it will take a dialogue upstream”, confides an LREM deputy to franceinfo. Frédéric Valletoux, spokesperson for the Horizons movement, does not want reform “in catimini” and claim on franceinfo to “explanation, pedagogy”because “accelerate without explaining, it can’t work”.
The caution of part of the majority has the gift of annoying supporters of taking action. “Our electorate asks us to act. If we are afraid of the street and of extremes, we ‘hollandise’ ourselves. And the president has learned the lessons of the five-year Hollande period”says a young LREM deputy. “Consultation is useless, everything is on the table… Either we move forward and carry out the reforms, or we wait and it’s never the right time, judge a heavyweight of the majority. There are people whose reluctance leads to impotence.” For the intrepid reformers of the majority, it is essential to launch the reforms from the beginning of the mandate to avoid deadlock. “We saw during the first five-year term that after the first year, it became complicated with the ‘yellow vests'”warns a deputy.
The nervousness in the ranks of macronie testifies in any case to the crest line facing Emmanuel Macron to push through his reform. “The situation is as complex as the current pension system, worries a ministerial adviser. We’ll have to find a way to pass this thing, because it’s starting to become a chestnut tree. But I am divided, because an acceleration, it will steer the unions and it is the opposite of the president’s strategy, which is to discuss everything with everyone via the CNR. Here is the Head of State confronted with the first great dilemma of his second five-year term.