A forceful passage and a fault. The Republicans immediately condemned the government's choice to use 49-3 in the debate over pension reform. They decided to table a censure motion to counter the use of this article of the Constitution.
Read also: Édouard Philippe announces the use of article 49-3 on the pension reform project
“ We have decided to table a censure motion. We are facing a denial of democracy. This is unacceptable, "announced Damien Abad, president of the LR group, at Le Figaro on Saturday evening February 29. His group is the only opposition group in the Assembly able to table such a motion of censure in its own name, given its importance (10 deputies).
Read also: Article 49-3, executive coup
The Republicans were the first to question Edouard Philippe directly on the question of 49-3. The Prime Minister had kicked in.
" They are using the coronavirus to force their pension project into force when we had proposed the alternative of scheduled legislative time which allowed for a substantive debate ", laments a deputy LR, stressing the fact that " never " the right had used 49-3 for pensions and that this government used it for " the first time " under the Fifth Republic. “ The special committee was unable to vote on the text and today we are preventing deputies from voting. This leads to a reform without any vote in the Assembly, ”one criticizes on the LR benches.
Upcoming failures
Eric Woerth confessed his sadness by denouncing " a coup de force against the opposition ". " In general the 49-3 are used to re-seal a vacillating majority, says the president of the finance committee , there was a failure of the special committee, of debate before, a failure in the Assembly today and there will be a predictable failure of the funding conference. That is a lot for a reform which concerns all French people ”.
The right believes that the parliamentary debate " confused and chaotic " will have been only the reflection of a " text also confused and chaotic ". It considers that it has privileged the defense of substantive amendments rather than obstruction. " We could have been let go to the end, " laments an elected official who regrets that several major subjects of this reform will ultimately escape parliament, such as the question of funding deemed " fundamental ".