“Unfair and unnecessary reform”, “serious attack on democratic principles”, “apogee of a denial of democracy” … What the two motions of censure contain
The examination of these two texts will be scrutinized closely. The two motions of censure tabled by deputies, following the use, by Élisabeth Borne, of article 49.3 of the Constitution, will be studied, in principle, “Monday, March 20 at 4 p.m., subject to the decision of the Conference of Presidents”, according to the site of the National Assembly.
In the first, Marine Le Pen and her group accuse the Prime Minister of having recourse to this article “to pass an unfair and unnecessary reform». «While the French are massively demonstrating their opposition to this reform, the national representation has never been able to vote on this text, which is, despite the legality of the process, a serious attack on democratic principles.“, denounce the elected RN.
The second is intended to be cross-partisan. Among its 91 signatories, we find elected representatives from the Libertés, Indépendants, Outre-mer et Territoires group, such as Charles de Courson or Bertrand Pancher, ecologist deputies, such as Delphine Batho, Aurélien Taché or Julien Bayou, socialists, such as Marie- Noëlle Battistel, Christine Pirès Beaune or Valérie Rabault, members of the radical left, like Stéphane Peu or the Insoumis, like Elsa Faucillon, Éric Coquerel or Rachel Kéké.
Read alsoPensions: after 49.3, does the cross-partisan motion of censure have a chance of being adopted?
The signatories are indignant at a 49.3 “apogee of a denial of democracy unacceptable in its constancy and its contempt for our institutions and our social bodies“. They also denounce the use of the social security amending finance bill (PLFRSS) to pass the reform, and accuse the executive of doing “the choice of circumventing our institutions in order to have an unjust reform adopted which did not enjoy the support of the population while that of Parliament was not acquired». «In the end, this bill will never have been passed by the National Assembly. He has no parliamentary legitimacy“, adds the text, considering that the social republic”has been flouted». «This pension reform project has neither social legitimacy, nor popular legitimacy, nor democratic legitimacy“, he concludes.