Why the second RIP on pensions still has many hurdles to overcome

The Constitutional Council studied the draft referendum of shared initiative transmitted on March 20, intended to prevent the postponement of the legal age of departure beyond 62 years. But, on April 14, the members of the Constitutional Council ruled that this bill was not admissible. JULIAN KUMAR/GODONG/PHOTONONSTOP

Less than three weeks after invalidating a first request for a shared initiative referendum (RIP) aimed at prohibiting the setting of the legal retirement age beyond 62, the Constitutional Council will rule on Wednesday May 3 on an edited version of this application.

Filed on April 13, on the eve of the invalidation of the first text, this new version has been reworked in order to obtain validation. But is this enough to lead to the organization of a referendum of shared initiative?

What does the Constitutional Council rely on to validate or reject a draft RIP?

The first step in the process is to verify that the shared initiative referendum complies with Article 11 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Council therefore ensures:

• that it is supported by a fifth of parliamentarians, ie at least 185 deputies and senators. This is the case for the last RIP, filed by more than 250 left-wing deputies and senators;
• that the bill has not “for the purpose of repealing a legislative provision promulgated less than one year ago” or a proposal rejected by referendum less than two years ago. It is the date of registration of the referendum initiative which must be taken into account, according to a decision of December 5, 2013 of the Constitutional Council.
• that the text is about “the organization of the public authorities, on reforms relating to the economic, social or environmental policy of the nation and to the public services which contribute thereto, or tending to authorize the ratification of a treaty which, without being contrary to the Constitution, would affect the functioning of the institutions. ;
• and that no provision of the proposed law is contrary to the Constitution.

What happened to previous RIPs?

Between the constitutional reform of 2008, which created the RIP, and the start of the examination of the pension reform in 2023, only three proposals had been submitted to the Constitutional Council:

• only the first, intended to affirm the public service nature of Aéroports de Paris (ADP) has been validated, May 9, 2019 and was able to continue the process;
• the second, aimed at guaranteeing universal access to public hospitals, was declared non-compliant as a whole in August 2021, when only one provision was unconstitutional;
• for the third, which provided for additional taxation of superprofits, in October 2022, the Constitutional Council considered that it did not meet the criteria of Article 11, namely to constitute a “reform relating to the economic policy of the nation” because she had “for the sole purpose of supplementing the State budget (…) by a measure which merely increases the level of the existing taxation of the profits of certain companies”.

You have 68.45% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.