Can MPs vote a law to annul another law? Declared "admissible" but subject to a lively debate on its constitutionality, a text of abrogation of retirement at 64 years was more than ever, Tuesday, May 30, at the heart of a showdown between the oppositions and a presidential camp determined to prevent a vote in the National Assembly.

The bill presented by the centrist group Liot (Freedoms, Independents, Overseas, Territories) is to be examined Wednesday in the Social Affairs Committee, before arriving on June 8 in the Hemicycle.

And despite little chance of succeeding on the legislative level, it maintains the flame of opponents of the reform promulgated in mid-April and carries a political dimension such that it worries the government.

The president of the Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, herself descended Tuesday in the arena: "There must be no debate on this article which is clearly unconstitutional," she said on France 2, referring to the article of repeal at the heart of this text carried by the group of independent deputies Liot.

But the Insoumise Eric Coquerel quickly replied from the Palais Bourbon: "I have decided to make the bill admissible." He delivered to the press an unsurprising decision, after being seized as president of the Finance Committee by elected representatives of the majority calling on him to block in the name of the Constitution.

Surrounded by several elected representatives of the left-wing coalition Nupes, Eric Coquerel denounced "pressure that has been made in recent days", especially from Elisabeth Borne. "I find it a bit paradoxical that the executive is so involved in a purely parliamentary decision," he said.

An increase in public charges?

It is a "partisan and political decision" by Eric Coquerel, a "serious attack on our institutions", replied the presidents of the majority groups (Renaissance, MoDem, Horizons). This text is "unquestionably inadmissible", added the general rapporteur of the budget, Jean-René Cazeneuve (Renaissance).

At the heart of these seemingly legal jousts is Article 40 of the Constitution. It provides that parliamentary initiatives are not admissible if they lead to an increase in public burdens. But Liot's text costs "more than 20 billion", hammers the presidential camp.

>> READ ALSO: The tortuous path of pension reform still puts the government under tension

Eric Coquerel, defending himself from any "partisan logic", argued in favor of admissibility by asserting "the rights of oppositions" and the traditional "flexibility" on bills.

What is the outcome of this dialogue of the deaf? After the green light from Eric Coquerel, the presidential camp keeps assets up its sleeve to try to prevent a vote.

He hopes to succeed in removing, Wednesday, the article of abrogation of 64 years during its examination in committee. This would oblige the Liot group to reintroduce its measure by an amendment before 8 June. A scenario that would allow the President of the Assembly to brandish herself the cleaver of financial admissibility.

A "populist" text, according to the majority

"I will take my responsibilities," Yaël Braun-Pivet said on Tuesday, hinting that she would do so, after being criticized in her own camp for not blocking earlier. "I hear people saying: 'it would be anti-democratic to prevent the vote' (of the Liot proposal), I find it crazy because it is the application of the law and there is nothing more democratic than applying the law," she insisted.

The president "has changed footing, recalled by the patrol of the Elysee and Matignon," commented the deputy Liot, Benjamin Saint-Huile.

The majority calls the repeal text "populist" and a "scam". Because even adopted by the Assembly, it would have "no chance" to go to the end of its parliamentary career, she argues.

But the argument is not good, according to the Liot group led by MP Bertrand Pancher, confident of a possible victory on June 8 by federating the votes of the left, the RN and some LR. "I do not see how President Macron could ignore a vote in the Assembly, it would be a "political earthquake".

"Macron still wants to impose the will of the presidential monarch. Are we still in a democracy? In the Republic no," said on Twitter the rebellious leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

If the majority manages to avoid a vote on June 8, "it would be a deepening of the democratic crisis," thundered Communist MP Sébastien Jumel.

With AFP

The summary of the week France 24 invites you to look back on the news that marked the week

I subscribe

Take international news with you everywhere! Download the France 24 app