why the text could be toughened by the joint committee

One room, fourteen parliamentarians and tough negotiations: this is what now determines the fate of the immigration bill, after the adoption in the National Assembly, Monday, December 11, ofa motion for prior rejection by oppositions united against the government. The next day, the government spokesperson formalized the choice of Emmanuel Macron to opt for the convening of a joint joint committee (CMP) to the detriment of a new reading of the text by the Senate. According to Olivier Véran, the bill will be submitted “as quickly as possible” to this commission.

For several days, the seven deputies and seven senators making up this CMP will meet to try to arrive at a common version of the text, to be presented again to Parliament for a vote. The composition of this body, a reflection of the political balance of each chamber, suggests that the bill could be toughened. On the Senate side, the CMP is in fact made up of three elected representatives from the Republicans, two others from the centrist Union and RDPI groups (the Macronist group) and two socialists. On the National Assembly side, four deputies come from the presidential camp, one from the Republicans, one from the National Rally and one from La France insoumise.

The Senate version as a working basis

To work, parliamentarians will have two copies in front of them: the bill passed by the Senate in mid-November, as well as a blank sheet from the National Assembly. This is explained by the fact that the deputies voted for the amended bill in the law committee, but not in session, since the motion to reject the text was swept aside before the opening of the debates in the Hemicycle.

With a right-wing majority, the Senate is moving forward with confidence, after having voted on a considerably muscular text. Their version of the bill includes an abolition of state medical aid (AME), the setting of migratory quotas reviewed each year or even the drastic tightening of the regularization planned for workers in professions in tension. “We will work on the basis of the work done by the Senate, which had set red lines and a global strategy to which we are very attached. (…) I am optimistic about the Senate text”explains François-Noël Buffet, LR senator from Rhône, at Public Senate. For the constitutionalist Thibaud Mulier, there is a “paradox”.

“LR parliamentarians are in a position of strength, even though they are not in the majority.”

Thibaud Mulier, constitutionalist

at franceinfo

Within the CMP, the presidential majority has five parliamentarians out of fourteen, which is not enough to reach a majority. Two attitudes are then available to them. Macronist elected officials can first try to find a compromise with their Republican colleagues by validating measures toughened by the Senate. There CMP would then be considered “conclusive”. The two chambers must then validate, by vote, the final text. Would the government then find a majority on this text? The concern for him would lie in the left wing of the majority, who could find the text too unbalanced and refuse to vote for it.

Towards a new 49.3 in the event of an impasse?

The majority deputies can also refuse to give in on essential elements in their eyes, such as the regularization of workers in professions in shortage or the maintenance of the AME. Thus, unless there is a coalition with the rest of the opposition, parliamentarians would note their numerous differences and the text would return to its legislative path, with a new reading in each chamber.

In the National Assembly, the government can theoretically use article 49.3 of the Constitution, which allows a text to be adopted without a vote, as for pension reform. Here too, this would have serious political consequences. “The majority would come out burned alive”warns MP Sacha Houlié, president of the law committee, in The New Republic. During a dinner with representatives of the majority on Tuesday evening, Emmanuel Macron ruled out recourse to 49.3 in the event of an agreement in the CMP, according to several participants.

But would a 49.3 be possible in the event of an impasse in the joint committee? The question remains. Requested by the National Rally, the Constitutional Council must decide before Friday on the use of this provision, which is only authorized once per ordinary session of Parliament, from October to June, excluding budgetary texts. However, this was the case for a non-budgetary text, on November 13, but the majority assures that the text was deliberated in advance and that this 49.3 therefore does not count. “It’s playfulbelieves Thibaud Mulier. The doctrine says rather that it is not certain.” If the Constitutional Council decided that the “cartridge” was grilled during the ordinary session, this would theoretically prevent the government from using it on the immigration bill before the end of the ordinary session. And would further restrict its options for emerging from the political crisis.