Unlike their fellow senators, LR deputies have not yet found a common position on pensions. The risk: scramble the message and display divisions for an already fragile party.
The return to parliament is not yet there that the Republican deputies are already put to the test. Here they are summoned to play a key role in pension reform. This will be unveiled by the executive to the French on January 10, before being presented to the Council of Ministers on the 23rd.
Without their vote, the government, deprived of an absolute majority in the National Assembly, will not be able to pass its text, unless it uses article 49, paragraph 3 of the Constitution – a scenario that the presidential camp would prefer to avoid, so that the social context is already looking very tense.
Make your own music heard
Admittedly, the positions between the LR senators – in favor of an extension of the legal age of departure from 62 to 64, and an acceleration of the Touraine reform on the contribution period – and the government have come closer. Elisabeth Borne thus declared on France Info on Monday that the postponement of the legal age to 65, as initially desired by Emmanuel Macron, is not a “totem”.
However, the LR deputies have not yet tuned their violins. It must be said that this vote, on a text of such importance, is quite a dilemma for a group often presented as the “crutch of the government” by the other opposition parties, after having allowed the adoption of several texts such as the purchasing power package or unemployment insurance reform.
“This reform will only be passed with our support or it will not pass”
So far, the right is defending itself by claiming the parliamentary victories obtained thanks to this pivotal role, such as the reduction in the price of fuel or the tax exemption of overtime up to 7,500 euros.
To maintain balance, Olivier Marleix, president of the parliamentary group, nevertheless showed the muscles in mid-December on LCP: the filing of a motion of censure “is part of the hypotheses”, if the government maintains its desire to postpone the legal age at 65. This Friday, after an interview with Elisabeth Borne, he put pressure on the executive:
“This reform will only be passed with the support of the Republicans or it will not pass,” said the deputy for Eure-et-Loir.
“Common good”
The threat of a motion of censure demonstrates “that we are not the crutch of the government”, wants to believe Annie Genevard, ephemeral interim president of the party before Eric Ciotti took the reins in December. And to insist on what is akin to a mantra for the right since the beginning of the XVIth legislature:
“When you are an elected official, there are two possible paths. Either you are in the tactical maneuver or you are in search of the common good.”
“The question is not whether we support the government, but to do things in the interest of the French”, supports the deputy of the Rhone Alexandre Vincendet, known for his Macron-compatibility. After being received by Élisabeth Borne at Matignon on December 21, Éric Ciotti explained to the Figaro that “The Republicans [sont] in favor of pension reform.
Yes, but which one? The new boss of Rue de Vaugirard says he is “in phase”, with the terms desired by his colleagues at the Luxembourg Palace. Olivier Marleix too. At the end of his meeting with the Prime Minister, he summarized his position: he wishes “to increase one quarter of contributions per year to reach 63 years of age at the end of the five-year term, before going to 64 years”, as is planned by the senators. Nothing insurmountable on this side then.
“Risk of divisions”
Where the case becomes more sensitive, it is rather with Aurélien Pradié and those who supported the deputy of Lot when he presented himself at the LR congress. The thirties, cantor of a “popular” and “social” right, had said yes to a pension reform, but on condition of doing it according to annuities and not a postponement of the legal age. Otherwise, it would create “unfair” situations for those who started working early, for example, he insisted.
Pierre-Henri Dumont, MP for Pas-de-Calais and supporter of Aurélien Pradié during the congress, highlights “divergences of views between the ancients and the moderns” within the group. Recognizing a “risk of divisions”, the 35-year-old elected euphemistically: “It seems very complicated to me to vote for a postponement of the legal age”. Raphaël Schellenberger, LR deputy for Haut-Rhin went further in the columns of Public Senateconsidering that the reform should be suspended.
“Courage is knowing how to wait. France is not ready for such a project and there is no urgency”, declares in particular the Alsatian, who also supported Aurélien Pradié during the Congress.
“Mother of Reforms”
But, with this text, there is also a “political” question, underlines Pierre-Henri Dumont:
“Can we vote for what was presented by Emmanuel Macron as the mother of reforms?” he asks.
Especially since the executive plans to integrate most of its reform into an amending social security financing bill (PLFSS), which would allow it to use 49.3, while keeping the possibility of using it on non-budgetary texts.
“Voting for a PLFSS, it still means that we are in the majority”, judge Pierre-Henri Dumont, this type of bill being a marker of government policy. Still, the pension reform would, in this case, be an amendment and not the entire text.
“For consistency”
For his part, Alexandre Vincendet thinks that if the LRs do not vote for an extension of the starting age, “we lose all credibility as a government party because we are doing in the opposition, the opposite of what we would have done if we had been in charge.”
Even if Éric Ciotti considers Emmanuel Macron’s approach “too brutal given the state of the country” in Le Figaro, the elected southerner underlines a “concern for consistency”. And for good reason: Valérie Pécresse like François Fillon defended a postponement of the legal age to 65 during their respective presidential campaigns.
“It did not escape us that it brought us luck and that the French voted massively for these commitments”, answers Pierre-Henri Dumont ironically.
To escape their divisions, the LRs could count on the use of 49.3 by the government before the vote on the text takes place. The executive could do so if the parliamentary obstruction – announced before the hour by the rebellious – prevented it from moving forward on the examination of its text. But this is, of course, not the preferred option.
