Pension reform: the three scenarios of the Constitutional Council

It is a decisive new week which is currently being held on the pension reform with the important date of April 14, the day when the Elders will have to give their verdict on this controversial text. While a new day of demonstrations is scheduled for Thursday, expectations are high around a Constitutional Council, which could purely and simply decide to censor the text of the law. If the mobilization remains strong in the streets and the opposition great in the face of a reform passed in force, what are the three possible scenarios for Friday’s deadline?

Today, all French people and the executive are suspended from the decision of the Constitutional Council, which must deliver its verdict on April 14. While waiting to see if the mobilization will remain stable during the new day of demonstrations this Thursday, several scenarios are envisaged by the Constitutional Council. Among the most probable is the partial censorship of the text. Indeed, some of the bill’s proposals have still vague contours, which could force the Constitutional Council to revoke the senior index. However, it would have the possibility of reappearing in a new bill.

The creation of a new CDI is also questioned by the Constitutional Council and could also bear the brunt of censorship. If partial censorship remains an important choice, the executive would nevertheless come out of it narrowly by seeing the postponement of the legal age to 64 years old be retained and validated. As Lauréline Fontaine, professor of constitutional law, explains at Le Point, the Constitutional Council would not deviate from its line of conduct by deciding “not to counter major social or societal reforms”.

More utopian, the possibility of total censorship arouses all desires and remains wildly hoped for by the French. The opposition evokes, for its part, a diversion of the spirit carried by the Constitution and highlights the choice made by the executive to pass this text in the amending budget of Social Security. Again and again, the issue of parliamentary debate time and its reduction are a major reason for protest.

Still with Le Point, the constitutionalist Didier Maus recalls that “it is not because the procedure is unusual that it [needs] to be censored”. Nevertheless, “constitutional pitfalls” exist and it remains possible that the Elders consider a deterioration of the situation of women, but also long careers through this reform. In any case, total censorship would represent a landmark act for the Sages.

While the elected representatives of the left have affirmed that they will continue to demonstrate for the total withdrawal of the reform, the Constitutional Council could, in the end, not censor the pension reform. In this context, the Elders would also have the possibility of validating the Left’s Shared Initiative Referendum (RIP). For the time being, all the conditions seem to be met to support this procedure, whether it is the signature of parliamentarians or the development of the proposal.

If such a decision were to be taken, there are still months of debate that could take place with the quest for the 4.8 million citizen signatures needed in nine months. It remains to be seen what Emmanuel Macron’s reaction would be to such a scenario. Reply on April 14.