Pensions: Riester thinks it’s ‘logical’ Lyot’s repeal text doesn’t go to vote

Will MPs again vote for pension reform? In any case, this is not the wish of Frank Riester, who considered it “logical” that the bill to abolish the transfer of the retirement age should not be voted on June 8. And not in vain, according to him: it is not funded.

The three groups that make up the majority in the National Assembly (Revival, MoDem, Horizons) were scheduled to meet on Tuesday morning to consider applying Article 40 of the Constitution against this text submitted by the Lyot group. The latter provides that the proposals and amendments of parliamentarians are unacceptable if they lead to a reduction in revenues or an increase in public spending.

“This is logical, since they create 15 or 18 billion additional costs without explaining how they are financed,” Frank Riester assessed on Radio J, considering the bill of the Libertés, Indépendants, Outre-mer et Territoires (Liot) group “irresponsible”.

Last resource

The bill, backed by the opposition, is seen as the last opportunity to question the pension reform, or at least issue a fresh political warning to the executive branch. In the event of a vote, it is likely to collect the majority of deputies.

The text provides for the organization of a social conference to decide how to finance the future deficit of pension funds, in addition to raising the statutory retirement age to 64 years.

“Unconstitutional”

According to the minister, this “does not comply with the Constitution, because because of this article 40, the discussion is clearly not ongoing.” Already anticipating criticism from the opposition, he added: “It’s still funny to imagine that in a democracy like ours, we should sit above the Constitution. »

For him, Article 40 is an element of “organizing democratic life so that we do not discuss unfunded topics.” In addition, he criticized the “lies” of the text’s defenders, as if it had been passed by the Assembly, it “would not have been put to a vote in the Senate”.

Fearing not to get a majority on the original text, the prime minister used article 49.3 of the constitution in mid-March to pass it without a vote. She then avoided a vote of no confidence by nine votes.