Pension reform: the possible counter-offensive of opposition deputies

Wednesday, March 15 marked the eighth day of mobilization of the French against the pension reform. According to the Ministry of the Interior, 480,000 people were gathered in France. The CGT for its part notes the figure of 1.7 million demonstrators. At the same time, the joint joint commission was held behind closed doors at the Palais Bourbon. Following this commission, ten deputies out of the fourteen present reached an agreement and a common version of the text. Some opposition MPs, such as Mathilde Panot, leader of LFI, made the discussions public through her Twitter posts.

This commission was important for the government. It would possibly ensure the favorable vote of the National Assembly. Indeed, some Les Républicains deputies oppose this reform, causing the President to fear the reliability of their majority in the Assembly.

In this vein, rumors of the use of Article 49.3 of the Constitution arouse the anger of public sector unions, as well as left-wing deputies, firmly opposed to reform in the Senate and in the Assembly. Indeed, Emmanuel Macron had affirmed not to exclude the use of a 49.3 during the Franco-British summit on Friday March 10. During a working meeting at the Elysee Palace on Wednesday, the president “wishes to go to the vote”, as reported by our colleagues from FranceInfo.

This fear of the adoption of the pension reform by left-wing deputies led to a suggestion of the mobilization of another article of the Constitution to counter this adoption.

Indeed, then invited on the set of BFMTV on Tuesday, the communist deputy Stéphane Peu confirms that he wishes to resort to article 11 of the Constitution. This article makes it possible to submit a bill for a citizens’ initiative referendum. It specifies that “a referendum can be organized on the initiative of a fifth of the members of Parliament, supported by a tenth of the voters registered on the electoral lists”. He also affirms that they have the 185 parliamentarians necessary for the bill. The goal is to “propose[r] that retirement cannot exceed 62 years”.

It would therefore make it possible to “cancel” the reform of the government.