I swear. After 49.3, the Joura deputies expressed their feelings

Perhaps the scene will remain engraved in the memories of French political and social history. The use of 49.3 marked the end of discussions about pension reform, after several weeks of debate in the National Assembly and the Senate. Inside the bloody ark, the three deputies of Jura were present to witness an unforgettable scene. During Prime Minister Elizabeth Bourne’s speech, left-wing MPs rose to sing French national anthem. The banners “64 years mean no!” and “Democracy,” were waved by the deputies LFI (La France insoumise) -Nupes.

“Fatal error”

“I was shocked by the air. On the one hand, the far left screamed, and on the other hand, the far right stirred up unrest to prevent the prime minister from speaking. I thought to the end we were going to go vote. Renaissance MP Danielle Pruleboa commented that the decision was taken not to take chances. And the loss by a few votes. And there will still be a vote on pension reform, because deputies will vote for or against a motion of censure. She emphasized that the democratic vote will be voiced. Justine Groh, deputy LR (Les Républicains), spoke on her Facebook page.

“I do not agree with the technique used by Mr. Macron of disdain for national representation by preventing deputies from expressing their views by voting, it is a big mistake. The government must take responsibility for the use of 49.3 and the fact that it did not refuel the majority seats. It would be unacceptable for this decision to be attributed To the parliamentary group to which I belong. […] I repeat my very clear position on the need for a pension reform that should, in essence, give work its rightful place. We cannot adequately suggest that it is possible to work 32 hours a week and that everyone can retire at 60. We must bring back the taste of effort to the French, and this is from the school.

What alliance could there be between RN and Nupes? »

By Marie-Christine Dallows, “We had to go through a reform: there are three parameters that could intervene. Either we lower the level of pensions, that was not possible for me. Or we increase the rate of contribution of assets: in the inflationary context, that was also an impossible sign. Either it’s a measure of age. We’ve been able to negotiate for 64 years instead of 65 years.”

As for the winds of anger swirling around this reform, I analyzed it as “social anger that goes beyond pensions. There is a context, Covid, the war in Ukraine, swell for a year … But what do we do? By thanking the government, are we going to deal with the underlying problem France does not have a coalition culture. What kind of alliance can there be between the National Rally and the Nubians? These elements make me confused, “analyzes the deputy.