The sequence of retreats will have at least had the merit of familiarizing the French with the Constitution. After the use of Articles 47.1, 42.2, 44.3 and 49.3, it is Article 40 that has been at the centre of debate in recent days and which should be again on 8 June, when the Liot Group's bill to repeal the pension reform arrives in the Hemicycle.

A bill totally distorted since the presidential majority managed, Wednesday, May 31, during the examination of the text in committee, to delete Article 1 which aimed to repeal the passage of the legal retirement age from 62 years to 64 years. Thus, the Liot deputies, supported by the New Ecological and Social People's Union (Nupes), the National Rally and part of the Republicans, will have to reintroduce this article on June 8, this time in the form of an amendment, so that their text can be voted with the desired symbol of a National Assembly voting against the pension reform.

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

It is at this time that the President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, will intervene a priori. "I will take my responsibilities," she said on Tuesday, making it clear that she would consider this amendment inadmissible, under Article 40 of the Constitution. It stipulates that legislative proposals and amendments by parliamentarians may not lead to a decrease in revenue or an increase in public charges.

But as is often the case with the Constitution, there is the letter and spirit of the law. This is essentially what Anne-Charlène Bezzina, constitutionalist and lecturer in public law at the University of Rouen, explains, for whom there are "arguments of reason" on the side of both the presidential majority and the opposition.

France 24: The presidential majority has managed to empty of its substance the bill to repeal the pension reform. This time, it relies on Article 40 of the Constitution which should allow the President of the National Assembly to prevent the return of the article repealing the passage to 64 years.

Anne-Charlene Bezzina: This rodeo about this bill, with the president of the National Assembly who lets it pass at the time of its tabling, then the president of the Finance Committee who, seized under article 40, also validates it, before the deputies of the presidential majority delete in committee article 1, Pending its possible reintroduction on 8 June in the form of an amendment, this is a first.

It is clear that there is an atmosphere of panic on board in the government and in the majority. These maneuvers to avoid a symbolic vote on the pension reform on June 8 raise questions. All this feeds the opposition's discourse on the denial of democracy and the fear of discussion on pensions. Especially since there has been wavering in the strategy, including Yaël Braun-Pivet, who has changed his position in recent days, moving from the defense of Parliament to that of Article 40 of the Constitution. Finally, the executive was faced with a dilemma: block the road to this bill and pass again for a government that manipulates the Constitution or let it go until the vote in the Hemicycle, take the risk of defeat and emerge weakened.

Was the bill to repeal the pension reform unconstitutional, as claimed by the Prime Minister and the majority?

It's neither all white nor all black. The truth of the figures means that this bill is contrary to Article 40 of the Constitution in its philosophy, because it not only aggravates public burdens, but also reduces resources. So, if we stick to the text, the repeal of the pension reform is indeed unconstitutional.

Except that this argument is theoretical. Because in practice, it is customary to accept so-called "pledged" bills, as is the case with this one, which establishes compensation through tobacco taxes. This is extremely common. There is not a bill that has not "gedged" on tobacco, it is really the tradition in parliamentary practice.

So there are arguments of reason on both sides, each going to find those that go in their direction. On the other hand, what is certain is that it seems difficult to navigate between the orthodoxy of Article 40 and the desire to let the bills flourish. If we took the Constitution literally, there would never be any bill. This is why the Office of the National Assembly is accustomed to being very flexible regarding compliance with Article 40 so as not to stifle parliamentary initiative during the parliamentary niches of the opposition.

Between the use of Articles 47.1, 42.2, 44.3, 49.3 and now Article 40 of the Constitution, what does this sequence of retreats reveal about the relationship between executive and legislative and the role of Parliament in France?

Throughout this sequence of retreats, constitutional tools have been used, which raises the question of their legitimacy, with a form of misuse, particularly on the choice of the legislative vehicle that has made it possible to restrict the duration of debates. The fact that the Constitution is only a tool in the hands of a majority and that the law can be made to express the political meaning that is given to it has created greater resentment among the population. Because not everything that the Constitution allows is necessarily in the spirit of the Fifth Republic. Respecting the text of the Constitution is not enough. Basically, what the French remember is an extreme feverishness of this majority, which had to use the tools of rationalized parliamentarism to pass its reform.

Parliament has been little heard, whereas almost a year ago, after the legislative elections, the discourse of the government and the majority consisted in saying that the new face of the National Assembly, without an absolute majority, was an opportunity for democracy, that we were going to have to learn to govern the German way. Elisabeth Borne spoke of building "project" majorities. But these few months showed that we were bad students. The government has neglected the necessary time by wanting to move quickly at all costs. In Sweden, for example, it takes two years to pass a pension reform. Public opinion is much less favourable to very strong majorities. We can no longer govern today as we did yesterday. The relationship between executive and legislative, the place of Parliament, these are questions that will have to be asked in the context of institutional reform.

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