In July 2024, centrist deputy Charles de Courson, who had recently been appointed as the new general rapporteur of the budget, referred a proposal for a law by the “La France Insoumise” party on repealing pension reform to the Bureau of the National Assembly for consideration. Despite the approaching summer break for parliament, political activities were still ongoing. Following a surprise loss of his position as rapporteur general of the budget to a member of the group Liberté, indépendants, outre-mer et territoires, pressure was put on de Courson by members of the Macronist party. In a letter dated July 25, deputy Mathieu Lefèvre and his colleagues from the finance commission asked for de Courson’s position on the proposed law, citing constitutional concerns regarding public spending.
The French constitution states that proposals or amendments that would reduce public resources or create additional public spending are not admissible. The lawmakers from the Ensemble pour la République group highlighted the significant impact of the pension reform on public finances, estimated at 14 billion euros annually. They emphasized the importance of maintaining financial balance in their communication to de Courson. In response on July 26, de Courson reiterated his opposition to raising the retirement age to 64. He also clarified the parliamentary procedure for assessing the financial viability of proposed laws, stating that it is the responsibility of the Bureau of the National Assembly or designated members to evaluate such matters.
Given that the Nouveau Front populaire holds the majority in the National Assembly, the procedural clarification provided by de Courson was seen as crucial. In light of this, the La France Insoumise party swiftly submitted a new proposal for repealing the pension reform, taking into account the intricacies of Article 40 of the constitution. Interpretations of Article 40 vary, with a more flexible approach often being taken for proposed laws compared to amendments to allow for greater parliamentary initiative. Furthermore, lawmakers usually ensure their proposals are financially sustainable to avoid being restricted by Article 40. The new proposal by La France Insoumise proposes the introduction of a “green” wealth tax as a funding measure.
Despite these developments, the issue remains unresolved as the complexities surrounding Article 40 persist. The nuances of its application suggest that a balance must be struck between allowing parliamentary initiative and ensuring responsible financial decision-making. Lawmakers must carefully navigate these considerations to avoid any potential conflicts with the constitution. As discussions continue within the National Assembly, the adherence to constitutional principles and financial prudence will be paramount in shaping future legislative decisions. The outcome of this process will have far-reaching implications for pension reform and public spending in France.
