A year and a half after its promulgation, the pension reform will once again be contested by parliamentarians. Barring any drama, two legislative proposals should be submitted to the national representation this autumn, with the aim of eliminating the postponement to 64 of the legal retirement age and increasing the contribution period necessary for a fixed-rate pension, with security for generations. One, led by the National Rally (RN), is scheduled for 31 October; the other, by La France insoumise (LFI), is expected to be debated, in principle, on 28 November. The progress of these texts is very likely to resemble an exhausting obstacle course, with very fragile prospects of success, even if a majority of deputies is in favour.
There are currently at least two political forces in the National Assembly that want to torpedo the articles of the law of April 14, 2023 that tighten the rules for obtaining a pension: the RN and all the components of the New Popular Front (NFP). Added to this are, without a doubt, several members of the Liberties, Independents, Overseas and Territories (LIOT) group in the Bourbon Palace, who had tried, without success, to twist the neck of the reform, in June 2023. In total, more than three hundred elected officials, with a clear numerical superiority over those who are in favor of maintaining the age measures.
It might therefore seem logical to consider the abolition of retirement at 64 as just a formality. However, the reality is full of traps, mainly for political reasons. Nothing says, in fact, that the left will give its approval to the RN text, since the Socialist Party even announced, on Tuesday 24 September, that it would not vote in favour. On the other hand, several far-right MPs have assured that they would support the LFI approach.
Financial inadmissibility
But even if at least one of the two bills is approved by a majority of deputies, legal difficulties remain. “Article 40 of the Constitution represents the biggest obstacle to the texts of the RN and the LFIexplains Emilien Quinart, professor of public law at the University of Paris-I Panthéon-Sorbonne. According to this provision, proposals and amendments made by parliamentarians are not admissible, especially if they have the effect of creating or aggravating a public burden, as is the case in this case, since the abolition and postponement of the legal leaving age would generate additional costs.
You have 60.8% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
