Will MEPs vote again on the pension reform? This is in any case not the wish of Franck Riester, who deemed it "logical" that the bill to repeal the postponement of the retirement age does not go to the vote on June 8. And for good reason, according to him: it is not funded.
The three groups constituting the majority in the National Assembly (Renaissance, MoDem, Horizons) were to meet Tuesday morning to consider using Article 40 of the Constitution against this text presented by the Liot group. The latter stipulates that proposals and amendments by parliamentarians are not admissible if they lead to a decrease in revenue or an increase in public charges.
" READ ALSO Bill to repeal the pension reform: the National Assembly "already feels the pressure"
"It is logical since they create 15 billion or 18 billion in additional spending without explaining how they finance," said Franck Riester on Radio J, judging the bill of the group Freedoms, Independents, Overseas and Territories (Liot) "irresponsible".
Last resource
The bill, supported by the opposition, is seen as the last opportunity to question the pension reform or at least to send a new political warning to the executive. If a vote is held, it would have a chance of winning a majority of MEPs.
The text provides for the organisation of a social conference to decide how to finance the future deficit of pension funds other than by raising the legal retirement age to 64.
'Not in accordance with the Constitution'
According to the minister, it is "not in conformity with the Constitution because of this article 40, clearly there is no debate". Already anticipating criticism from the opposition, he added: "It is still a funny idea to imagine that, in a democracy like ours, we should sit on the Constitution."
For him, Article 40 is an element "of organization of democratic life, so that we do not discuss subjects that are unfunded". Beyond that, he criticized a "lie" of the defenders of this text insofar as if it were adopted by the Assembly, it "would not be voted by the Senate".
For fear of not obtaining a majority on the initial text, the Prime Minister had used in mid-March Article 49.3 of the Constitution to have it adopted without a vote. She then escaped a motion of censure by nine votes.