The long road to a vote on pension reform in France took a new twist on Monday, March 20th in the National Assembly. Unable to secure a majority vote on its bill through the usual channels, the government chose to use the constitutional provision of Article 49.3, which allowed the law to be forced through. As a result, the opposition proposed motions of censure to try to overturn the government and reject the law—they failed by a few votes.
The last few days have been defined by high tension and intense activity in the National Assembly. Following Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne’s announcement on Thursday, March 16th to use Article 49.3 to enforce the adoption of the bill without submitting it to a vote of the deputies, the parliamentary groups organised themselves to retaliate by tabling two motions of censure on Friday, March 17th. One of these motions, proposed by a small group of centrist MPs, the LIOT group (Libertés, Indépendants, Outre-mer et Territoires), was intended to bring together the opposition as widely as possible. The other was advanced by the Rassemblement National. Monday, March 20th was to be devoted to the examination of these motions. The adoption of one or the other would have had the effect of rejecting the law on pensions, and at the same time lead to the fall of Élisabeth Borne’s government.
The presidents and spokesmen of the different parliamentary groups, from the majority and the opposition, took to the podium to defend their positions. The centrist deputy Charles de Courson, who initiated the cross-party motion, made a remarkable speech at the assembly’s rostrum which aroused enthusiasm among the opponents of the reform, recalling both the failings of Emmanuel Macron and Élisabeth Borne on the substance—a reform deemed partial and unfair, not solving the fundamental problems—and on the form—a method characterised by contempt and despotism.
The spokesperson for the Rassemblement National, the conservative MP Laure Lavalette, defended her party’s motion of censure as well as the cross-party motion of censure, explaining that both texts had to be supported to bring down the government. In her speech, she invoked the name of Victor Hugo, recalling the injustice of the reform.
The France Insoumise MP Mathilde Panot took the floor to call for a vote of no confidence in Emmanuel Macron, vigorously attacking the person of the president, comparing him to the tyrant drunk with power, Caligula, depicted in the famous play of the same name by Albert Camus.
The vehement attacks of the opposition were met by speeches from Aurore Bergé, leader of the government’s Renaissance party, and Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne.
The tension was palpable in the corridors of the National Assembly when the time for the final vote approached. The motions of censure were finally put to the vote at the end of the day. The cross-party motion proposed by the LIOT group narrowly failed: only 9 votes were needed to overturn the government and reject the pension reform bill—278 out of the 287 required. The motion of the Rassemblement National received only 94 votes, as the left-wing MPs massively refused to support it.
The keys to the vote were in the hands of the divided governmental right-wing group Les Républicains (LR). The group’s leader, Olivier Marleix, delivered a speech full of ambiguities on Monday afternoon, March 20th, calling for both support for the government and the rejection of the motion of censure, while challenging a number of provisions of the bill, and strongly criticizing the person of Emmanuel Macron and the methods of government of the presidential camp. Despite his calls for group unity, his instructions were not followed, and only 19 LR deputies voted for the motion of censure. This was yet not enough for it to be adopted.
A few dozen LR MPs could have tipped the vote, but they preferred to support the government, despite exhortations calling for courage from all sides—in the demonstrations, on social networks, or from their fellow MPs. The Les Républicains, the party of the governmental right, is thus more than ever in an uncomfortable political situation, not really assuming its de facto support to Emmanuel Macron, or taking a real oppositional posture. As Jordan Bardella, president of the Rassemblement National, summed up in an interview given to Le Figaro in the hours following the vote, from now on “in LR, there are those who think like Macron and those who think like Le Pen.” On the morning of March 21st, Olivier Marleix (LR) announced that he would not exclude from his party the MPs who voted for the motion of censure—proof of the confusion and embarrassment that reigns in the Républicains, unable to choose a line, whatever it may be, and stick to it.
The motion of censure failed by very few votes. Many observers in the French press did not expect such a small gap. It was estimated to fail by 20 or 30 votes. As a result, and although the government can continue and the pension law is adopted, Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne now suffers from a severe lack of legitimacy.
Other means to obtain the withdrawal of the law will be explored in the coming days.
The left-wing coalition has announced that it wants to organise a Shared Initiative Referendum, which is relatively cumbersome to set up. This constitutional provision provides for the possibility of organising a popular consultation on a bill on the initiative of one-fifth of the members of parliament, i.e., at least 185 of the 925 parliamentarians, and supported by one-tenth of the electorate, i.e., 4.87 million people, whose signatures must be collected within a period of nine months. The Rassemblement National intends to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, which has the power to censure all or part of the text, insofar as the bill on pensions is what is known as a ‘budgetary rider,’ which means it is included in a law on the financing of social security, with which it has no connection. MP Charles de Courson is also arguing in favour of this.
Regardless of the outcome of these procedures, the failure of the motion of censure will inevitably lead to further street mobilisations and strikes with the aim of getting the government to withdraw the law, which is presently rejected by more than 9 out of 10 French workers.
French Pension Reform Law Definitively Adopted, Censure Motions Rejected
French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne.
Photo by Emmanuel DUNAND / AFP
The long road to a vote on pension reform in France took a new twist on Monday, March 20th in the National Assembly. Unable to secure a majority vote on its bill through the usual channels, the government chose to use the constitutional provision of Article 49.3, which allowed the law to be forced through. As a result, the opposition proposed motions of censure to try to overturn the government and reject the law—they failed by a few votes.
The last few days have been defined by high tension and intense activity in the National Assembly. Following Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne’s announcement on Thursday, March 16th to use Article 49.3 to enforce the adoption of the bill without submitting it to a vote of the deputies, the parliamentary groups organised themselves to retaliate by tabling two motions of censure on Friday, March 17th. One of these motions, proposed by a small group of centrist MPs, the LIOT group (Libertés, Indépendants, Outre-mer et Territoires), was intended to bring together the opposition as widely as possible. The other was advanced by the Rassemblement National. Monday, March 20th was to be devoted to the examination of these motions. The adoption of one or the other would have had the effect of rejecting the law on pensions, and at the same time lead to the fall of Élisabeth Borne’s government.
The presidents and spokesmen of the different parliamentary groups, from the majority and the opposition, took to the podium to defend their positions. The centrist deputy Charles de Courson, who initiated the cross-party motion, made a remarkable speech at the assembly’s rostrum which aroused enthusiasm among the opponents of the reform, recalling both the failings of Emmanuel Macron and Élisabeth Borne on the substance—a reform deemed partial and unfair, not solving the fundamental problems—and on the form—a method characterised by contempt and despotism.
The spokesperson for the Rassemblement National, the conservative MP Laure Lavalette, defended her party’s motion of censure as well as the cross-party motion of censure, explaining that both texts had to be supported to bring down the government. In her speech, she invoked the name of Victor Hugo, recalling the injustice of the reform.
The France Insoumise MP Mathilde Panot took the floor to call for a vote of no confidence in Emmanuel Macron, vigorously attacking the person of the president, comparing him to the tyrant drunk with power, Caligula, depicted in the famous play of the same name by Albert Camus.
The vehement attacks of the opposition were met by speeches from Aurore Bergé, leader of the government’s Renaissance party, and Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne.
The tension was palpable in the corridors of the National Assembly when the time for the final vote approached. The motions of censure were finally put to the vote at the end of the day. The cross-party motion proposed by the LIOT group narrowly failed: only 9 votes were needed to overturn the government and reject the pension reform bill—278 out of the 287 required. The motion of the Rassemblement National received only 94 votes, as the left-wing MPs massively refused to support it.
The keys to the vote were in the hands of the divided governmental right-wing group Les Républicains (LR). The group’s leader, Olivier Marleix, delivered a speech full of ambiguities on Monday afternoon, March 20th, calling for both support for the government and the rejection of the motion of censure, while challenging a number of provisions of the bill, and strongly criticizing the person of Emmanuel Macron and the methods of government of the presidential camp. Despite his calls for group unity, his instructions were not followed, and only 19 LR deputies voted for the motion of censure. This was yet not enough for it to be adopted.
A few dozen LR MPs could have tipped the vote, but they preferred to support the government, despite exhortations calling for courage from all sides—in the demonstrations, on social networks, or from their fellow MPs. The Les Républicains, the party of the governmental right, is thus more than ever in an uncomfortable political situation, not really assuming its de facto support to Emmanuel Macron, or taking a real oppositional posture. As Jordan Bardella, president of the Rassemblement National, summed up in an interview given to Le Figaro in the hours following the vote, from now on “in LR, there are those who think like Macron and those who think like Le Pen.” On the morning of March 21st, Olivier Marleix (LR) announced that he would not exclude from his party the MPs who voted for the motion of censure—proof of the confusion and embarrassment that reigns in the Républicains, unable to choose a line, whatever it may be, and stick to it.
The motion of censure failed by very few votes. Many observers in the French press did not expect such a small gap. It was estimated to fail by 20 or 30 votes. As a result, and although the government can continue and the pension law is adopted, Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne now suffers from a severe lack of legitimacy.
Other means to obtain the withdrawal of the law will be explored in the coming days.
The left-wing coalition has announced that it wants to organise a Shared Initiative Referendum, which is relatively cumbersome to set up. This constitutional provision provides for the possibility of organising a popular consultation on a bill on the initiative of one-fifth of the members of parliament, i.e., at least 185 of the 925 parliamentarians, and supported by one-tenth of the electorate, i.e., 4.87 million people, whose signatures must be collected within a period of nine months. The Rassemblement National intends to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, which has the power to censure all or part of the text, insofar as the bill on pensions is what is known as a ‘budgetary rider,’ which means it is included in a law on the financing of social security, with which it has no connection. MP Charles de Courson is also arguing in favour of this.
Regardless of the outcome of these procedures, the failure of the motion of censure will inevitably lead to further street mobilisations and strikes with the aim of getting the government to withdraw the law, which is presently rejected by more than 9 out of 10 French workers.
READ NEXT
The Enterprise State
Play the Ball, not the Man: Cancel Culture’s Attempt To Capture Hungarian Academia
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics