The Senate is not a theater of fire similar to the National Assembly. In addition, his elected officials did not fail to point it out before the review of the pension reform.
The fact is that since the beginning of the debates, the members of the Luxembourg Palace have surrendered blow for blow. On the one hand, the right-wing senatorial majority does not hesitate to use all the means at its disposal –including in particular article 38 of the Senate regulations– to expedite the debates.
“We eat the rules”
On the other hand, the left multiplies the motions of order and subamendments to be heard, to the point that Bruno Retailleau, leader of the senators Les Républicains (LR), accuses them of “melancholy.”
Tonight the parliamentary battle was disputed again. At the origin of disagreements: Catherine Deroche. The LR chair of the Social Affairs Committee has asked for priority for one of her amendments. Consequence: the removal of about sixty subamendments from the left.
Furious, the latter has multiplied the reminders of the rules. With a symbol: a photo of the head of the socialist senators, Patrick Kanner, with a book on the rules of the Senate in his mouth. The photo, posted by PS Senator Marie-Pierre de La Gontrie, was later deleted, but reposted by a Renaissance Senator, Xavier Iacovelli.
“It’s a sign of deep annoyance,” says Matthieu Croissandeau, a political columnist for BFMTV. “
“But it’s a sign that we’re also playing by the rules in this pension debate, which has allowed many people to discover or rediscover the subtleties of our political system.”
47.1, article 38 of the Senate, 44-2…
First example: the legislative vehicle used by the government to pass its text, a Social Security Funding Amendment Bill (PLFRSS). This procedure allows you, in particular, to activate article 47.1 of the Constitution and thus limit debates in Parliament to 50 days. If the reform is not approved within this period, the government can proceed with its implementation by ordinance.
In the Senate, the right-wing majority, in favor of the government’s bill, also resorts to various provisions, limiting the duration of the debates. First, article 38.
It establishes that “when at least two speakers of contrary opinion” have intervened in the general discussion of a text, a reform, an article or even the entire bill, the president of the Senate, a group president or even the president of the commission interested in the text, can propose the closure, thus giving rise to a vote by show of hands of the senators.
This article was notably implemented during the vote on article 7 which fixes the gradual postponement of the legal retirement age to 64 years. “You want to gag the opposition,” denounced Patrick Kanner.
It doesn’t stop there in the Senate. The government was invited to the official ball at the Luxembourg Palace on Thursday. As? By drawing of article 44-2. A way for Olivier Dussopt, Minister of Labour, to fight against the “will to obstruct” of the left and its multiple subamendments mentioned above.
“Exceptional” Debate Conditions
This specifies that “after the opening of the debate, the Government may oppose the examination of any amendment that has not been previously submitted to the commission.”
And since the regulatory battle is decidedly very dense, Article 44-3 could also fall out of its box. It allows “if the Government requests it”, to “the seized Assembly” “to pronounce[r] by single vote on all or part of the text under discussion, keeping only the amendments proposed or accepted by the Government”. In other words, the senators could no longer speak article by article but rather on the entire text.
For Matthieu Croissandeau, this normative avalanche shows that “the conditions of this debate are out of the ordinary”. “There have always been procedures in Parliament, but the choice of a procedure that has so far been little used by the government (47.1, editor’s note) to bring the discussion to a fast pace means that the conditions for a debate are not in place. don’t worry. “.
And soon 49.3?
Senators have until midnight Sunday to review the entire pension reform. If they do not succeed, it is very likely that we are talking about another article: the LO111-of Social Security. Which establishes that the text returns to the National Assembly if the Senate “has not issued a first reading vote on the entire bill within the deadline.”
And it’s not all over. The icing on the cake: another, better-known article could be taken: 49.3, which allows the executive to approve a bill without the vote of the deputies. Its use is increasingly likely, while divisions exist within the presidential camp, as well as among Les Républicains. This puts the macronie in difficulty, already weakened by its majority position relative to the National Assembly.
Source: BFM TV
