They are not in the same political camp, but they are, for a few days, in the same boat. Seized by the President of the Social Affairs Committee, Fadila Khattabi (Renaissance), Éric Coquerel (La France insoumise), his Finance counterpart, must rule on the financial admissibility of the bill to repeal the pension reform filed by the Liot group.
“I will indicate my answer by the discussion in committee scheduled for May 31”, he replied on Tuesday. From May 16, evoking the possibility of such a referral, the Insoumis explained: “I’m going to look at two things. On the one hand, case law (…) and whether this law actually provides for compensation in relation to expenses. And I will judge accordingly. »
“In Uncharted Territory”
“The pressure is on him” affirms an executive of the Renaissance group, who adds, as a threat: “He may have a flash of lucidity. A commission president who is not considered impartial knows very well that he will not be able to continue in this position. upon renewal in October. “I would not understand that we study this text. It opens the door to all windows! Otherwise I, tomorrow, I can file one to cancel the budget! This text needs to be removed.” complete another.
Article 89-4 of the regulations of the National Assembly stipulates that once a bill has been tabled, failure to comply with section 40 of the Constitution can be raised “at any time” by the government or by a deputy, even if the text in question has previously been declared admissible by the office. This is the case here. He then returns “to the president (Eric Coquerel) or to the general rapporteur of the finance committee (Jean-Rene Cazeneuve) » to judge its financial admissibility.
An “or” which is precisely the subject of debate, given the differences between the two elected officials. “There is no precedent, everyone is in uncharted territory, and everything is played out on questions of interpretation of article 89-4”, summarizes a parliamentary adviser. “We are waiting for Éric Coquerel’s response and we will adjust ours accordingly”, we already say at Renaissance.
“A lack of political courage »
Several members of the Finance Committee, from the three majority groups, also wrote a few days ago to their president asking him to convene the bureau. No response yet. “It will be a battle between Coquerel and Cazeneuve”, predicts a socialist deputy.
The eyes of the majority are also turned towards the president of the Palais Bourbon, Yaël Braun-Pivet (Renaissance). Many, in his camp, urge him to reconvene an office of the Assembly… where they are in the majority. If she is convinced, on a personal basis, of the inadmissibility of the text, she refuses to twist the rules, according to her entourage. What earned him from one of his colleagues, the following criticism: “It denotes a lack of political courage. »
The macronists, however, constructed a final scenario, as revealed by Mediapart: if article 1 of the text were deleted in committee, the opposition would have no choice but to reintroduce it, in session, through of an amendment. It is at this point that the session chair could decide to pull article 40 out of her sleeve. Braun-Pivet’s entourage delays: ” We have to let the parliamentary work be done. It’s useless to make plans on the comet. »
