“It was to avoid being extinguished even before the vote”, confides a parliamentary source to franceinfo

This is one of the reasons which prompted the government to trigger 49.3 for the pension reform: the risk of a motion of rejection. On Thursday March 16, the executive feared not even being able to vote on the text. “It would have been the supreme humiliation, 49.3, it was to avoid being extinguished even before the vote“, confides a parliamentary source to franceinfo.

>> EDITORIAL. The use of 49.3 for pension reform marks a turning point in the five-year term

As a reminder, there were two votes scheduled that day. A prior rejection motion and the PLFSS on pensions.

A motion to reject allows a text to be rejected, even before it is put to the vote. On the day of the retreats, the NUPES withdrew all its motions so that only the most consensual remained: that tabled by the Liot group (Freedoms, independents, overseas and territories). Only the votes of the deputies present in the hemicycle count.

However, the day before, the Conference of Presidents of the Assembly accepted that the vote on the text of the retreats be a “solemn vote” which requires a physical vote. Any absent deputy must then justify his absence (illness, trip abroad, etc.) and request a delegation so that another elected member can vote in his place.

“We had no chance”

On the morning of Thursday, a list of absentees circulated and franceinfo was able to consult it. It shows that the absentees of the majority were too numerous to thwart a motion to reject. According to information from franceinfo, all groups combined, 37 deputies requested a delegation because of a justified absence. 37 absentees and a deficit of 12 votes for the deputies of the majority.

Consequently, the motion to reject was potentially lost in advance: the pension reform could fall without even being put to the vote. A minister confirms to franceinfo: “The scale of the censure motion a few days later shows that we had no chance.”