• Since the beginning of the examination of the draft law on pension reform, the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly have been discussed almost daily in the hemicycle.
  • The opposition is accused of using it to slow down debates, while the majority is accused of using it to punish.
  • For 20 Minutes, Ile-de-France MPs Bastien Lachaud (LFI) and Mathieu Lefèvre (Renaissance) deliver their analyses, while Michel Lascombe, a specialist in constitutional law, believes that the use of the Rules of Procedure during this debate is not "more spectacular" than on other hard-debated texts.

As the sessions go on, his physical health declines, inexorably. Since 6 February, the date of the beginning of the examination in the hemicycle of the pension reform, MEPs of all stripes have read it carefully, annotated it, chipped it away. And, above all, they do not hesitate to invoke it to speak. In short, despite its unappealing red and blue cover and its content quite far from a holiday novel, it must be recognized a certain sense of spectacle.

He is the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, a little more than 160 articles compiled in a book that has become the bedside book of elected officials. During the debate on the pension reform, points of order punctuate the sessions, like this Friday morning the speeches of Danièle Obono (LFI) and Sandrine Rousseau (EELV). Last October, Le Figaro counted 220, against 77 at the same time during the previous legislature. In the midst of the government's invective, questions, amendments and responses, the Assembly's Rules of Procedure have emerged as a tool in this political sequence.

"We have a regulation designed for an Assembly with a majority and a minority. Except that, since the last legislative elections, there is a minority [a relative majority] and oppositions, recalls MP Bastien Lachaud (LFI). This regulation allows a minority to be in the majority, to direct everything and to punish its opponents. »

Obstruction vs. sanction

Distribution of places within the board, distribution of committee chairmen... For the elected representative of Seine-Saint-Denis, "it would be necessary to start from scratch" and amend a regulation that has presented limits, like the "pataquès" of referendum motions, on the first day of examination of the text.

An analysis far from being shared by Mathieu Lefèvre, Renaissance deputy of Val-de-Marne. "The Rules of Procedure are what should allow us to have calm debates, it is quite legitimate to refer to them when we must. The fact that the opposition, and in particular the Nupes, is constantly hiding behind the Rules of Procedure reveals a desire not to talk about the substance. »

The majority believes that the opposition has used the rules to obstruct parliamentary work, while the latter accuses the presidential party of repressing it. "Whenever there has been a period of obstruction, for all subjects since Parliament has existed, the point of order and therefore the rules have been a way to slow down debates. It is no more spectacular on pension reform than on texts such as abortion or marriage for all, tempers Michel Lascombe, associate professor in public law and specialist in constitutional law. When you have a more divided assembly, the opposition uses more of the few means at its disposal. If you go back to the time of Michel Rocard, when there was also a lack of an absolute majority, there was also a use of the Rules of Procedure in a whole series of situations. »

No originality to play with the rules therefore, but the subtlety lies perhaps in the intensity of the use of the latter. Since the introduction of rationalized parliamentarism in 1958, the arsenal available to opposition parliamentarians has been reduced. "Unlike the German or British system, in France, the opposition has almost no way of preventing a text from being voted on if the executive so wishes; continues the constitutionalist. One of the only techniques will be to slow down the debates. »

The regulation, a tool to "put the debate back on track"

Even if it means being slapped on the knuckles. As LCP pointed out, three of the ten sanctions imposed since the beginning of the 16th legislature were during the debate on pension reform. In comparison, only 15 sanctions were imposed in the previous legislature. "Yaël Braun-Pivet is the president who has sanctioned the most. What for? Because the rules allow it to do so. This is not a good sign for our democracy," says Bastien Lachaud.

The regulation and its disciplinary sanctions, "we do not use it to advance the reform but to put the debate on the right track when necessary," says Mathieu Lefèvre.

Before going to the Senate, the text on the pension reform is discussed for a last (long) day in the Assembly. There is no doubt that the rules of the Palais-Bourbon will be invoked, scrutinized and recalled. And, for dissatisfied parliamentarians, it is possible to modify it. "We must propose an amending resolution and that it be adopted. But beware, warns Michel Lascombe, all changes to the rules of procedure of the Assemblies (Assembly, Senate, Congress) are subject to rigorous control by the Constitutional Council. »

  • La France Insoumise (LFI)
  • Renaissance (political party)
  • Pension reform 2023
  • National Assembly