Get ready for riots. Macron trying to increase pension age in France

[lfromnj]

https://www.ft.com/content/0629e392-5b28-4114-9f52-2a00ed804e47

Macron decides to ignore Parliament. He is the hero who France needs but not what they deserve.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://www.ft.com/content/0629e392-5b28-4114-9f52-2a00ed804e47

Macron decides to ignore Parliament. He is the hero who France needs but not what they deserve.

libertarians hating democracy, what else is new

[Хahar 🤔]

I was not familiar with this constitutional mechanism, but it's just a presidentialized version of convention regarding money bills, right? The way that this would work in Britain would be that the government would simply declare the bill a supply issue, which would have broadly the same effect.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://www.ft.com/content/0629e392-5b28-4114-9f52-2a00ed804e47

Macron decides to ignore Parliament. He is the hero who France needs but not what they deserve.

libertarians hating democracy, what else is new

Article 49.3 effectively makes this a confidence vote rather than just bypassing Parliament. This doesn't ignore Parliament's powers; it just forces forces MPs to choose between keeping the current government and blocking this part of its agenda.

In principle, I think it's a good thing this kind of mechanism exists (although there may be a problem with the legal mechanisms surrounding votes of no confidence/Macron threatening to call elections). If governments can't pursue their own key agendas, there are cases where they should give the keys to alternative administrations which can. The Brexit Bill Ballad of Theresa May springs to mind.

[lfromnj]

Article 49.3 was also used dozens of times under Mitterand. Its effectively opt out instead of opt in and is basically a do or die. I apologize for my framing by saying Macron did it. This does allow soft supporters scared of the public to hide behind the government.  IIRC didn't Trudeau do a similar move a few months ago?

[Santander]

I love Macron.

[Hash]

This is the second 'extreme' constitutional provision used by the government to speed up and limit, if not ram through, this reform.

The pension reform was presented as a 'projet de loi de financement rectificative de la sécurité sociale' (essentially amended/correct social security funding bill) so that the government could use article 47.1 of the Constitution. Article 47.1 of the Constitution gives the National Assembly a limit of 20 days on first reading before it automatically goes to the Senate, which has 15 days to reach a decision. And if Parliament fails to reach a decision within 50 days, provisions of the bill may be implemented by ordinance. The National Assembly didn't have time to debate the entire bill - it only debated through article 2, notably never formally voting on article 7 (which raises the retirement age) - and yes, this also owes in part to the opposition's tactics and LFI's behaviour throughout. As a result of the use of article 49.3 on the text of the CMP, the National Assembly will never have formally voted on the entire text itself or arguably the most controversial article in it. Regardless of one's opinions on the use of article 49.3 (I personally, like most French people, dislike it), this will just add fuel to the fire and make this whole mess even more toxic. In this case, it's also a very clear admission by the government that it lacked a clear parliamentary majority on the text.

[Sir John Johns]

Macron is going with the 49-3 because, after having proclaimed there will be a majority in the National Assembly to pass his pension reform, it turns out the number of rebels inside LR, the centrists in the LIOT motley parliamentary group and even inside the Macronist parliamentary groups who would have either abstain either vote against the reform was sufficiently high to not guarantee the approval of such key bill. As a defeat would have been obviously a disaster, Macron choose to ‘play safe’.

But the resort to the 49-3 is politically not much better because the Borne government has spent months negotiating with LR (unlike the unions it decided to totally ignore) to get their approval, even integrating in to the bill a series of concessions that, wait for it, considerably reduce the economic savings the reform is supposed to accomplish (with stuff like mechanisms to increase some small pensions and exemption from social security contributions for businesses hiring senior workers) making the whole exercise largely pointless. In the last line, there were even a threat from Macron to dissolve the National Assembly in case the bill had been rejected (a move that has reportedly convinced some LR to change their vote from... support to abstain in fear of losing their seat in early elections due to the heavy unpopularity of the reform; Macron is such a political genius!). And yet, Borne, who has been appointed the prime minister because of her alleged talents for negotiations, has failed to secure the support of the whole LR caucus (this is of course also a defeat for Éric Ciotti, the biggest loser of the day, who has thrown his support behind the bill but is unable to whip his own deputies) with followers of Bertrand, Pradié and even Wauquiez deciding they would not vote for the reform.

Unlike Mitterrand, who had then to get both the Communists and the Simone Veil-type centrists (not the easiest combo) on board to get important stuff passed, Macron had only LR to convince of the soundness of his reform. And he has failed.

A motion of non-confidence against the Borne government is currently planned to be motioned by Charles de Courson, a center-right maverick deputy sufficiently well-respected to redact a text able to gather support from both the NUPES and the RN without alienating the moderates. Various LIOT and LR deputies have already announced their intention to vote in its favor and, while it has few chances to pass, the result should be relatively close.



The whole episode is anyway a debacle for Macron that absolutely nobody in France is trying to portray as some victory for the president. Even Macronist deputies have expressed their discontent with the use of 49.3, using strong words:

We should have go to the vote. We owed that: to our oppositions, to those who have until now expressed their disagreement with the reform always peacefully and dignity. Defeat or victory in the vote, democracy would have speak.

This has been a mistake to trigger the 49.3 on a bill like that considering the state of our democracy.

Macron is just putting France to fire for a bill:

- whose urgency is highly questionable

- which will not fix the financing problems of the pensions on the long run

- which will not fundamentally reform the pensions system but change only a few parameters

- elaborated and sold in an incredibly amateurish way

- which have been rushed in the parliament without consultation with workers’ organizations and without a willingness to reach a wide consensus

- which have been legitimately and democratically approved in the sole Senate (the non-directly elected high house, which controversially decided to abolish all special pensions schemes but the one of their own members and whose president, Gérard Larcher, refused to disclose the amount of his personal pension of senator)

- which the government deliberately lied about its content as Dussopt, pressed by the NUPES deputy Jérôme Guedj, has been forced to acknowledge the famous €1,200 minimum pension will only benefit 10,000 to 20,000 pensioners each year and not 40,000 as previously announced, only few weeks after several Macronist deputies disingenuously tried to sell its as a minimum universal €1,200 pension.

- that is rejected by a large and growing share of the population as it is perceived as unjust and as disproportionately hurting manual workers and women and is mostly supported by pensioners, i.e. the ones who will not been affected by it.

- that is proposed by a president who got reelected in 2022 while barely campaigning and systematically dodging political debates (bar the ‘mandatory’ runoff one), promised to take into consideration left-wing voters who voted for him in the runoff before totally forgotting about that in the minute following his reelection, got disowned in the subsequent legislative elections by failing to reelect a majority (the only time an elected or reelected president failed to win a parliamentary majority in the subsequent legislative elections with 1988) and decided to act as if the Yellow Jackets movement never happened

- in a context of economic difficulties for poorest households

- in a context of exacerbated distrust in the institutions, at its highest level since the Yellow Jackets protests according to a recent OpinionWay poll for the Cevipof (pdf file)

The French democracy is very ill and what Macron is only doing is making it even sicker.

[lfromnj]

Why does increasing pension age hurt women more than men?
Women are less likely to do manual labour and live longer .

Is this anglophone wokism infecting France?

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://www.ft.com/content/0629e392-5b28-4114-9f52-2a00ed804e47

Macron decides to ignore Parliament. He is the hero who France needs but not what they deserve.

libertarians hating democracy, what else is new

Article 49.3 effectively makes this a confidence vote rather than just bypassing Parliament. This doesn't ignore Parliament's powers; it just forces forces MPs to choose between keeping the current government and blocking this part of its agenda.

In principle, I think it's a good thing this kind of mechanism exists (although there may be a problem with the legal mechanisms surrounding votes of no confidence/Macron threatening to call elections). If governments can't pursue their own key agendas, there are cases where they should give the keys to alternative administrations which can. The Brexit Bill Ballad of Theresa May springs to mind.

What sets the 49.3 process apart from analogous confidence mechanisms found in most parliamentary democracies is that:
1. The bill is presumed to be approved UNLESS a no-confidence motion is introduced and voted by the National Assembly, which, in a very formal sense, does indeed deprive the parliament from the ability to vote for the bill on its merits.
2. The procedure for a no-confidence motion is itself abnormally onerous. It requires an absolute majority of the Assembly's members to vote against the government - essentially allowing the government to go on with the support of a minority as long as enough deputies abstain.

These two factors combined mean the 49.3 isn't just a mere confidence-question process. It's a plain usurpation of the principle that any law must receive the assent of parliament, which has been the foundation of modern democracy in the Western world for two centuries. Sure, you can make democratic arguments for it (especially if you buy into De Gaulle's hyper-personalistic conception of democracy, which is obviously where this all came from), but this is at best a deeply heterodox argument.

At least since 2008 there are limits to uses of the 49.3. Before then, a government could theoretically ram each and every bill through it (and yes, many left-wing governments badly abused this, especially Rocard's). I have to give credit to Sarkozy for putting some restrictions in place, although as we've seen they're still way too lax.

[Tintrlvr]

Perhaps I am just an ignorant American... but what makes this bill unpopular to LR deputies in particular? My impression is that they are heavily concentrated among the very wealthiest and most economically right-wing constituencies in France at this point, with little remaining downmarket base, and should be as in favor or even more in favor than LREM from an ideological perspective. I recognize that perhaps they are trying to avoid taking a position on an issue that is unpopular with the general public, but is it actually unpopular with the sort of people who would consider voting for LR in the first place?

[Red Velvet]

https://www.ft.com/content/0629e392-5b28-4114-9f52-2a00ed804e47

Macron decides to ignore Parliament. He is the hero who France needs but not what they deserve.

If this was in Peru he would’ve been already impeached for passing over congress lmao

[lfromnj]

Fwiw i do have qualms about the use of 49.3 but not in a scenario where unions threaten to cut power to politicians . It clearly takes a strongman like Macron to stand upto this terrorism.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/french-union-threatens-cut-electricity-mps-billionaires-amid-nationwide-strike-2023-01-18/

[S019]

Perhaps I am just an ignorant American... but what makes this bill unpopular to LR deputies in particular? My impression is that they are heavily concentrated among the very wealthiest and most economically right-wing constituencies in France at this point, with little remaining downmarket base, and should be as in favor or even more in favor than LREM from an ideological perspective. I recognize that perhaps they are trying to avoid taking a position on an issue that is unpopular with the general public, but is it actually unpopular with the sort of people who would consider voting for LR in the first place?

I don't know much about which seats they hold, but their true old money base in the wealthy parts of Paris and its vicinity flipped to LREM in 2022. That said, I don't really understand the reason for their opposition either, though I wonder if some of it is just meant to "stick it" to Macron, as their new leader is a far right triangulator who opposed Macron in 2022 and 2017.

[Oryxslayer]

Well the title came true and there are riots tonight, and there also are now multiple no-confidence motions. But can any of them get LR to support new elections, and therefore reverse the policy?

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Why are the French setting the entire country on fire because some union workers won't get to retire at below 60 anymore?

[CumbrianLefty]

Why are the French setting the entire country on fire because some union workers won't get to retire at below 60 anymore?

New to France?

[lfromnj]

- that is rejected by a large and growing share of the population as it is perceived as unjust and as disproportionately hurting manual workers and women and is mostly supported by pensioners, i.e. the ones who will not been affected by it.

Again can someone explain how the pension reform hurts women more than it hurts men according to Sir John from above?

He even admits it hurts manual workers which I guess is correct but most manual workers especially in heavy and dangerous manual work are men. Women might do other stuff like say hotel cleaning which poses much less risk to their body. The only way I can see it hurting women is that on average they will now retire later because they are more likely to enter and graduate from college.

If you look at it from an actuarial standpoint. Previously lets say the average French male person at retirement would get 18 years of  retirement while a women would get 22. Now it might instead be 16.5 and 20.5. This percentage cut hurts men more than woman if you look at it that way.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

- that is rejected by a large and growing share of the population as it is perceived as unjust and as disproportionately hurting manual workers and women and is mostly supported by pensioners, i.e. the ones who will not been affected by it.

Again can someone explain how the pension reform hurts women more than it hurts men according to Sir John from above?

Well first of all, he didn't say it "hurts women more than men". He said it hurts manual workers and women.

He even admits it hurts manual workers which I guess is correct but most manual workers especially in heavy and dangerous manual work are men. Women might do other stuff like say hotel cleaning which poses much less risk to their body. The only way I can see it hurting women is that on average they will now retire later because they are more likely to enter and graduate from college.

If you look at it from an actuarial standpoint. Previously lets say the average French male person at retirement would get 18 years of  retirement while a women would get 22. Now it might instead be 16.5 and 20.5. This percentage cut hurts men more than woman if you look at it that way.

Because the reform now requires that you pay into the system for 43 years before you get full benefits. This disproportionately will hurt women because they are more likely to take time off for childcare, and the maternity leave that is given to women counts against them when calculating pensions. Furthermore, there is more social pressure/expectations for women to stay home with children in countries like France, Germany, Italy, etc.

[jaichind]

I wonder if this is some Macron-LR deal.  LR cannot vote for pension reform but will vote against no-confidence motions. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://www.ft.com/content/0629e392-5b28-4114-9f52-2a00ed804e47

Macron decides to ignore Parliament. He is the hero who France needs but not what they deserve.

libertarians hating democracy, what else is new

Paul von Macronberg is in charge now. Hope that doesn't mean he'll make Le Pen PM one day.

[Hash]

Not sure if it's worth making an effortpost but...

Two motions of no confidence have been presented - one by the RN only and another by the hodgepodge LIOT group co-signed by several NUPES deputy. The former will only get the votes of the RN deputies and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, like the two other RN motions of no confidence under article 49.3 in 2022. The latter is the more interesting one: while it has very little chance of actually passing, it will come closer than any other motion of no confidence has in this legislature.

The LIOT is a hodgepodge 'technical' group made up of 20 deputies who are a bit all over the political map: three Corsican nationalists and Breton regionalist Paul Molac (an ex-macronista), the remaining UDI deputies, other miscellaneous centrist/centre-right deputies (the group's leader, Bertrand Pancher, and Charles de Courson, a more maverick and independent-minded centre-rightist who's held his seat since 1993), two ex-macronista Guadeloupean 'divers gauche' (Olivier Serva and Max Mathiasin), centre-right deputies from overseas (Mayotte, La Réunion and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon) and four PS dissidents elected in 2022. The deputies all have free votes. They're an opposition group but no LIOT deputy has ever voted in favour of a motion of no confidence in this legislature - but do note that Borne (unlike most of her predecessors) never sought a vote of confidence under article 49.1.

The LIOT motion of no confidence is signed by Bertrand Pancher, an ex-LR/UDI Radical elected in the Meuse since 2007 (and reelected in 2022 as the right's candidate), and co-signed by 90 other deputies. 14 other LIOT deputies co-signed it: the ones who didn't sign are are Béatrice Descamps (UDI, Nord), Pierre Morel-À-L'Huissier (UDI, Lozère), Christophe Naegelen (UDI, Vosges), Jean-Luc Warsmann (UDI, Ardennes) and Estelle Youssouffa (DVD, Mayotte) -- so basically most, though not all, of the more right-wing members of LIOT.

Adoption requires 287 votes in favour, because there are five vacant seats now. The RN, always down to make other people feel uncomfortable by voting with them (they did that to a NUPES motion under 49.3 last October), has announced that it would support this motion too. The NUPES should vote unanimously in favour as well. Among the five non-inscrits, Adrien Quatennens (suspended from the LFI group) and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan will both vote in favour, while Véronique Besse (a former villieriste from Vendée) is undecided and Emmanuelle Ménard (far-right but distanced from the RN now) and David Habib (PS dissident) will not support it. If all 20 LIOT members vote in favour, this would give 260 votes in favour (if Besse votes for it). In this best-case scenario it'd still need 27-28 votes from LR. There are a few LR deputies who seem pretty likely to vote for it: Fabien di Filippo, Pierre Cordier, Maxime Minot and maybe a few more... the numbers going around have between 5 to 10, or maybe 5 to 7, LR deputies who could vote for the motion. Which would still put if far short of the 287 votes required to pass.

[Hash]

278 votes for the LIOT motion of no confidence, so it fails by 9 votes. Looking forward to seeing the breakdown of votes but it's clear a fair number of LR deputies voted in favour.

With this resounding victory, one assumes that FBM and his clowns will continue with their best imitation of the 'dog in burning house' meme and teach us all lessons about democracy.

[President Johnson]

Slighty off topic, but I wonder whether Macron would actually lose if the 2022 election was re-run now?

[lfromnj]

Slighty off topic, but I wonder whether Macron would actually lose if the 2022 election was re-run now?

One thing to note is that Macron made this unpopular policy a campaign promise . I actually respect Macron a lot for doing that. The warnings were clearly there, anyone who cared so much about pensions could have voted for icky Le Pen.