The left, which was the first to submit such a provision, denounces a “scandalous choice” by the Conference of Presidents.
A decision strongly contested by the left. After a draw at the Conference of Presidents, it was the referendum motion of the National Rally (RN) which was retained, in favor of that of the New Popular Ecological and Social Union (Nupes). This provision, which makes it possible to organize a referendum on certain bills, will be presented on Monday February 6 during the opening of the debates in the hemicycle on the pension reform.
This choice [est] absolutely scandalous” denounced André Chassaigne on LCP. The leader of the Communist deputies relies on the analytical table of the regulations of the National Assembly. This specifies that only one motion can be “filed”. the Nupes argue that they were the first to do so, so the filing of the far-right provision should not have been validated according to them.
“There was no precedent”
However, Regulation 122 of the National Assembly indicates that only one motion can be “presented”. In fact, it does not specify “how to decide between” the two provisions, explains the entourage of Yaël Braun-Pivet, president of the National Assembly, to BFMTV.
Which also indicates that there “was no precedent” of a similar case. And insists on a decision falling under the Conference of Presidents, “which voted by majority”, and not Yaël Braun-Pivet.
Still, this choice puts the left in trouble. She thought her motion would be accepted. Shortly before the decision fell, Jean-Luc Mélenchon had provided after-sales service for the referendum from Marseille, where he is present to demonstrate against the pension reform.
The rebellious boasted of a “democratic and peaceful outcome”, explaining that “the only obstacle” to this is “Emmanuel Macron”, the President of the Republic holding the last word on this subject, even if the two chambers of Parliament speak favorably.
This is now another obstacle for the Nupes: is it ready to vote for a provision presented by the far right? When the latter had voted motions of censure from the left, the majority had not hesitated to dismiss these two political families back to back.
