What attitude to adopt before the pension reform? Among the oppositions, the strategies differ. Before the start of the debates in the chamber on Monday, everyone plays their own music.
The extreme right seeks to take the lead in the parliamentary battle, the left wants to have one foot on the street, the other in the National Assembly, while the right tries to influence, once again, the positions of the executive to find a common position inside of her. BFMTV.com reviews these different strategies.
For the RN, “the way to fight against the government is for the institutions to show them that they are wrong”
The National Association (RN) has a clear objective: “to lead the opposition to the pension reform.” To do this, the extreme right wants to show its cards at the Palais Bourbon. “Our role is to lead the opposition in the National Assembly”, Marine Le Pen repeated this week from the Salle des Quatre Colonnes.
Elected officials from the party to the flame really have no other alternatives: the unions have strongly opposed their presence at the demonstrations. However, this is not a problem, according to the deputy Jean-Philippe Tanguy. Although the inter-union mobilization “shows a feeling, an opinion, which is welcome, not everything is played in the street,” estimates this heavyweight of the RN. And to affirm:
“Since 1995 (the year of the demonstrations against the Juppé Plan, editor’s note), it has never been for nothing.”
According to this former supporter of Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, “the way to fight the government is for the institutions to prove it wrong.” To do this, Marine Le Pen’s troops are betting in particular on his referendum motion. This provision, circumvented to the detriment of that of Nupes – not without creating a controversy – will be examined on Monday during the opening of the debates in the chamber.
Its approval would make it possible to organize a referendum on pension reform. A big obstacle, however: convincing both chambers of Parliament to vote for him by majority, but also the President of the Republic, who has the last word in this type of situation.
To oppose the text of the executive, the far-right group has chosen to present more than 200 amendments among the more than 20,000 that the different political formations want to defend. The idea is to go to the essential”, justifies Jean-Philippe Tanguy.
“The opposition does not play with the number of amendments, especially when time is short,” he insists, referring to the 50 days of debates – including 20 in the National Assembly – provided for in the Social Security Corrective Financing Bill ( PLFRSS), the government’s chosen legislative vehicle.
To defeat the government, the RN also has the right. “LR voters must explain to their deputy that it is not possible to support [cette] reform”, declared Marine Le Pen recently. While disagreements persist within this parliamentary group – several elected officials are ready to vote against the reform – the extreme right is watching the situation with enthusiasm.
“Some LR MPs have constituencies that are, sociologically, very close to ours,” RN MP Philippe Ballard tells BFMTV.com. “They listen very well to what their constituents say.”
A way of affirming that “nothing is at stake in the National Assembly”. And to twist the blow to the history of the presidential field that continues to show its determination to go to the end at all costs, despite the very important opposition of public opinion.
La Nupes: one foot in the street, the other in the Assembly
The New Ecological and Social Popular Union (Nupes) disputes the title of first opponent of the reform with the RN. Everyone has their own angles of attack. The leftist alliance describes the Lepenistas as “frontal opposition”, insisting on the low number of amendments they have presented as well as their absence from the demonstrations. In return, the extreme right accuses him of hindering and slowing down the debates.
In committee, the examination of the text has progressed very slowly. During the three days of debate, only two articles could be discussed. The Nupes, which had close to 6,000 amendments among the 7,000 presented by the different political groups, has a lot to do with it. Like the RN, it will keep its strategy in public session with close to 18,000 amendments.
However, we are far from the figures for the year 2020, where only La France Insoumise (LFI) had presented around 23,000 amendments among the almost 40,000 presented by the left.
“Last time, we made the decision to want to slow down the debates to give people time to mobilize. This time, we want to force the government to explain each article of its bill,” rebel deputy Hadrien Clouet explained a few days ago. back.
These reforms “will give the necessary time to demonstrate the immense social setback that this reform imposes,” LFI said in a statement.
With a bill that includes 20 articlesThe group has also chosen to focus on 3 key issues: dating at 64the question of the arduous and theincrease in listing period faster than expected during the Touraine reform in 2013.
“The parliamentary fight is necessary, and it will be fought, but that is not where we will make the government bend,” however, qualifies the communist deputy Sébastien Jumel, whose party presented 1,160 amendments before the bill was considered in the chamber. .
For this elected official from Seine-Maritime, the solution will come “from the streets with a massive mobilization”.
From then on, the elected representatives of the left prepared to fight the government on all fronts. This Tuesday, some passed a head in the Parisian processions of the inter-union mobilization, before returning to the National Assembly. This is the case of Sandrine Rousseau.
After going to the demonstration, the green deputy raised the questions of the people gathered in the place during the question-and-answer session with the government. “Pierre asks: why would few people have to pay so that the pensions are balanced”, questioned, for example, the elected representative of Paris from the chamber.
Le lendemain, la finaliste de la demière primaire d’Europe Écologie – Les Verts (EE-LV) a résumé l’objectif de la gauche au micro d’Europe 1: “que la parole qui s’est exprimée massivement dans tous les villes from France […] can have a resonance in the hemicycle”.
In LR, a message blurred by internal divisions
Republicans (LR) are looking for the right balance. For now, they are stumbling. His position seemed clear: to vote for the reform for the sake of “coherence” and “responsibility”, as Éric Ciotti recently said on BFMTV. “What sense would I have to oppose a reform that I defended yesterday,” said the new head of rue Vaugirard.
In question: a right whose last two presidential candidates, François Fillon and Valérie Pécresse, have defended the postponement of the legal retirement age to 65 years.
Support for the presidential field seemed even more evident once Elisabeth Borne revealed the executive’s plan on January 10. The version presented contained several demands from the Republicans, including revaluation of small pensions, extension of the legal age to 64 instead of 65, and taking maternity leave into account.
“The foundations for an agreement have been laid”, even said the trio formed by Éric Ciotti, Bruno Retailleau and Olivier Marleix, respectively head of senators and deputies of LR, after being received by the Prime Minister in Matignon.
It was without counting a whole part of the group opposed to the reform in the state. According to a provisional count by BFMTV, there are fifteen, or even a little more. A sufficient number to make the relative majority sweat. And determined to be as firm as the executive. “If Emmanuel Macron wants to participate in wrestling, he will lose it,” growled Aurélien Pradié on Europe 1 this week.
He and the elected officials who support this line of “popular law” point out “injustices” and in particular demand a scoop in the contribution period above the legal age.
Objective: that people who started contributing between the ages of 16 and 20 can retire after 43 annuities even if they have not reached 64 years of age. The group tabled an amendment to this effect. A way to satisfy the followers of this line within the group and achieve unity. But also to influence, a little more, the position of the executive.
Because, beyond the ideological debate, there is “a political question,” Pierre-Henri Dumont stressed with BFMTV.com at the beginning of the month.
“Can we vote for what was presented as the mother of reforms by Emmanuel Macron?” he asked, stressing that “voting for a PLFRSS still means we are in the majority.”
Hence the interest of pondering this text as much as possible. And then to be able to boast of having allowed the adoption of a “fair” reform and in “consistency” with the historical commitments of LR.
Source: BFM TV
