Even if they do not use the same means to achieve their ends, the RN and the Nupes put pressure on the executive to push him to abandon his text. On the LR side, the deputies wish to weigh as much as possible on the final version of the bill.
What attitude to adopt towards the pension reform? Among the oppositions, the strategies differ. Before the start of the debates in the hemicycle on Monday, each plays its own music.
The far right seeks to take the lead in the parliamentary battle, the left wants to have one foot in 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 within it. BFMTV.com reviews these different strategies.
For the RN, “the way to fight the government is for the institutions to prove it wrong”
The National Rally (RN) has a clear objective: “to lead the opposition to pension reform”. For this, the far right wants to show its cards at the Palais Bourbon. “Our role is to lead the opposition in the National Assembly,” repeated Marine Le Pen again this week from the Salle des Quatre Colonnes.
The elected officials of the party to the flame do not really have any other alternatives: the unions have firmly opposed their presence in the demonstrations. However, this is not a problem, according to MP Jean-Philippe Tanguy. Even if the inter-union mobilization “shows a feeling, an opinion, which is welcome, not everything is played out in the street”, estimates this heavyweight of the RN. And to assert:
“Since 1995 (year of the demonstrations against the Juppé Plan, editor’s note), it has never been for anything”.
According to this former supporter of Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, “the way to fight the government is for the institutions to prove it wrong”. For this, the troops of Marine Le Pen are betting in particular on their referendum motion. This provision, drawn by lot to the detriment of that of Nupes – not without creating a controversy in passing – will be examined Monday during the opening of the debates in the hemicycle.
Its adoption would make it possible to organize a referendum on the pension reform. A major obstacle nevertheless: convincing the two chambers of Parliament to vote for it by a majority, but also the President of the Republic, who has the last word in this type of situation.
To oppose the executive’s text, the far-right group has chosen to table just over 200 amendments among the more than 20,000 that the various political groups wish 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 Bill corrective funding for Social Security (PLFRSS), the legislative vehicle chosen by the government.
To defeat the government, the RN is also counting on the right. “LR voters must explain to their MP that it is not possible to support [cette] reform” declared Marine Le Pen recently. While disagreements persist within this parliamentary group – several elected officials being ready to vote against the reform – the far right is watching the situation with relish.
“Some LR deputies have constituencies that are, sociologically, very close to ours”, notes RN MP Philippe Ballard to BFMTV.com. “They hear very well what their constituents are saying.”
Way for him to affirm that “nothing is played in the National Assembly”. And to twist the blow to the story of the presidential camp which continues to show its determination to go to the end at all costs, despite the very significant opposition of public opinion.
La Nupes: one foot in the street, the other in the Assembly
The New Popular Ecological and Social Union (Nupes) disputes the title of the first opponent of the reform with the RN. Everyone has their own angles of attack. The left alliance describes the lepenists as “frontal opposition”, insisting on the low number of amendments they have tabled as well as their absence from the demonstrations. In return, the far right accuses him of obstructing and slowing down the debates.
In committee, examination of the text has in fact progressed very slowly. During the three days of debate, only two articles could be discussed. The Nupes, which had nearly 6,000 amendments among the 7,000 or so tabled by the various political groups, has a lot to do with it. Like the RN, it will maintain its strategy in public session with nearly 18,000 amendments.
However, we remain far from the figures for the year 2020, where alone, La France insoumise (LFI) had tabled around 23,000 amendments among the nearly 40,000 presented by the left.
“Last time, we made the choice 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”, we explained the rebellious deputy Hadrien Clouet a few days ago.
These amendments “will provide the time necessary to highlight the immense social regression imposed by this reform”, advanced LFI in a press release.
With a bill which includes 20 articlesthe group has also chosen to put the spotlight on 3 key topics: leaving at age 64the question of the arduousness and theincrease in the contribution period faster than expected during the Touraine reform in 2013.
“The parliamentary fight is necessary, and it will be fought, but this is not where we will make the government bend”, nevertheless nuances the Communist deputy Sébastien Jumel, whose party tabled 1,160 amendments before the examination of the project of law in the hemicycle.
For this elected official from Seine-Maritime, the solution will come “from the street with a massive mobilization”.
From then on, the elected representatives of the left set out 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 MP brought up the questions of the people met on the spot during the session of questions to the government. “Pierre asks: why would it be the little people to pay so that the pensions are in balance”, for example questioned the elected representative of Paris from the hemicycle.
The next day, the finalist of the last primary of Europe Ecology – The Greens (EE-LV) summarized the objective of the left at the microphone of Europe 1: “that the word which was expressed massively in all the cities of France […] can have a resonance in the hemicycle.”
At LR, a message blurred by internal divisions
The Republicans (LR) are looking for the right balance. For now, they are stumbling. Their position seemed clear: to vote for the reform for the sake of “coherence” and “responsibility”, as Éric Ciotti said on BFMTV recently. “What sense would I have to oppose a reform that I defended yesterday”, supported the new boss of rue Vaugirard.
At issue: a right whose last two presidential candidates, François Fillon and Valérie Pécresse, have defended the postponement of the legal retirement age to 65.
Support for the presidential camp seemed even more evident once Elisabeth Borne unveiled the executive’s plan on January 10. The version presented contained several demands from the Republicans, between revaluation of small pensions, extension of the legal age to 64 rather than 65 and taking into account maternity leave.
“The foundations for an agreement have been laid”, even said the trio made up of Éric Ciotti, Bruno Retailleau and Olivier Marleix, respectively boss of senators and LR deputies, after being received by the Prime Minister at Matignon.
It was without counting a whole part of the group opposed to the reform in the state. According to a provisional count of BFMTV, they are fifteen, or even a little more. A sufficient number to make the relative majority sweat. And determined to be just as firm as the executive. “If Emmanuel Macron wants to engage in arm wrestling, he will lose it”, snarled Aurélien Pradié on Europe 1 this week.
He and the elected officials holding this line of “popular right” point to “injustices” and in particular demand a first in the contribution period over 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 the age of 64. The group presents an amendment to this effect. A way to satisfy the supporters of this line within the group and to achieve unity. But also to influence, a little more, the position of the executive.
Because, beyond the ideological debate, there is “a political question”, underlined Pierre-Henri Dumont 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 that we are in the majority”.
Hence the interest of weighing as much as possible on this text. And then to be able to boast of having allowed the adoption of a “fair” reform and in “coherence” with the historic commitments of LR.
