The “hundred days” and the riots did not totally overshadow the retreats. More than a month after the last demonstration against the reform, and while unions and employers are meeting the Prime Minister this Wednesday, the rebel Manuel Bompard wants to continue to fight against the postponement of the legal age to 64 years. Invited on Public Sénat, the LFI coordinator said on Wednesday: “The battle for pensions will never be lost.” The deputy for the South-East thus intends to multiply the amendments and repeal laws. This, “every time we have the opportunity to do so,” he says.
“The battle for pensions will never be behind us and the battle for pensions will always continue”, hammered again this defender of retirement at 60 years old. A position from which La France insoumise does not intend to vary according to him, since “the idea of the repeal of this reform” will appear, according to him, in the program of his camp for the next presidential election in 2027. “Sooner or later in the country, this pension law will be repealed because it is not legitimate,” he insisted.
On the parliamentary level, the possibilities of turning back are actually limited in the current legislature. Regarding the amendments, opponents of the reform will only be able to file them within a specific framework and timetable: from the fall, when the Social Security budget is voted on, the vehicle through which the reform has already been adopted in last spring. As for a possible repeal law, the deputies of the Nupes will have to wait for their respective parliamentary niches. These certainly allow the various forces present in the hemicycle to set the agenda for the National Assembly, but they are limited to one meeting per group and per year.
The Nupes, which brings together the four main left-wing parties (LFI, EELV, PS, PCF), will therefore have four opportunities a year to reconsider the unpopular measure voted in mid-April. At least on paper anyway. Because the same threat will however continue to hover over this scenario, namely the use of Article 40 of the Constitution, which provides that a bill cannot burden the state budget by introducing unfunded expenditure. Rarely used so far, this safeguard was invoked to declare the Liot group’s repeal bill inadmissible on June 8th.