Pensions, live: the Social Affairs Committee of the Assembly adopts a text emptied of its substance, without the repeal of the reform

The deputies of the social affairs committee examine, Wednesday, May 31, the bill repealing the pension reform tabled by the independent group LIOT (Freedoms, independents, overseas and territories).

The presidential majority will “block” she announced, in an attempt to prevent the vote, in particular of article 1 which intends to restore the retirement age to 62, in the face of strong opposition against an attempt to “muzzle”.

The examination by some seventy deputies of the commission from 9:30 a.m. is a first round, before its arrival on June 8 in the hemicycle. But each side is already hoping to score decisive points.

Because despite the low chances that this initiative has of succeeding on the legislative level, it maintains the flame of the opponents of the reform, before a new day of mobilization on June 6th. And it embarrasses the executive, worried about the political impact of a possible repeal of the text by the National Assembly, just a few weeks after the promulgation, in mid-April, of this highly contested law.

Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne once again attacked the opposition on Tuesday, accusing them of lying to the French “by carrying, with the greatest demagogy, a text which everyone knows here, for good, that it would be censored by the Constitutional Council”.

“We will unite” to counter this bill, promised the leader of the Macronist deputies of the Renaissance group, Aurore Bergé. Along with her allies, MPs Horizons and Modem, she described as“serious harm” to the institutions the decision of the chairman of the finance committee, Eric Coquerel (La France insoumise), to declare LIOT’s bill “admissible”.

According to the executive, repealing the pension reform would cost more than 15 billion euros. However, article 40 of the Constitution provides that a bill must not create an additional public charge. But Mr. Coquerel invoked “opposing rights” and an “commonly accepted practice” not to obstruct parliamentary texts in this respect.

For further