This is the start of a long battle in the National Assembly. After the heated exchanges in committee, the deputies begin this Monday evening the examination of the revenue side of the 2025 State budget in the Hemicycle. But will parliamentarians really be able to discuss all of the measures? Will Michel Barnier avoid the forceful passage of the text by using article 49.3? We take stock of the questions surrounding this first major challenge for the government.
Will the rebellious rejection motion close the debates?
The first exchanges were already eventful this Monday afternoon on the motion for preliminary rejection filed by the rebels. This system makes it possible to sweep aside a bill before even debating it and send it directly to the Senate, where the government has a majority. If this prospect has no chance of succeeding, since the RN is not associated with it, the rebels have indicated that they want to use this platform as a symbol. “We know that it will not pass, we do not want it to pass”, but “it is not too much to explain why this budget is bad”, explained Eric Coquerel this Monday on RTL.
Can the government keep control?
Key articles deleted, taxes increased for the richest, taxation of super profits of companies and capital income… During discussions in committee last week, Michel Barnier’s text was put through the mill of opposition, to the great displeasure of the leader of the government, which denounced “a Lépine tax competition”. The copy was ultimately not voted on, but these few days have shown that the executive could easily lose control during the upcoming debates in the Hemicycle.
“Without a majority, or even a relative majority, the government has no way of sticking to its texts. It has a very limited capacity to maneuver for its budget, unheard of under the Fifth Republic,” assures Benjamin Morel, doctor in political science from ENS Paris-Saclay. The Prime Minister was also annoyed at having had to put together such an important bill in such a short time. “This type of text, traditionally well-framed, was submitted hussar-style. If it wants to modify it, to give assurances to everyone, the government will have to vote on its amendments,” adds the specialist.
Will the presidential camp stay together?
The discussions in committee also showed the fractures within the fragile presidential coalition. The deputies of the right wing of Renaissance thus wish to eliminate the surtax on large companies, while their colleagues from the MoDem want, on the contrary, to perpetuate that on high incomes. Furthermore, the Macronist executives, Gabriel Attal and Gérald Darmanin in the lead, have repeatedly challenged Michel Barnier on the increase in taxes or the postponement of the indexation of pensions.
“Beyond the accusations of responsibility for the deficit, there is a desire on the part of the Macronists to preserve their electoral base: retirees and the upper classes, who are more targeted by this budgetary text,” notes Benjamin Morel. “There is a paradox: no one wants to overthrow Michel Barnier but no one really wants to support him, because this budget could then stick to the shoes of the Macronists,” he adds.
Is 49.3 inevitable?
In the absence of a majority, Michel Barnier could quickly opt for the use of article 49.3 of the Constitution, in order to “avoid parliamentary blockage”, in his own words, and force his text through. “This seems inevitable,” says Benjamin Morel, “especially since 49.3 would allow the Prime Minister to keep control of his text.” In this scenario, the government could select the amendments it wishes to make to the final copy of the bill.
An asset for maintaining the objective of reducing deficits… and for facing a potential motion of censure, which should logically be tabled by the left. “We will then be in a game of carpet merchant,” continues the political scientist. The Prime Minister will be able to give pledges to his camp and ask the RN: “what are your conditions to avoid overthrowing the government?”
What is Article 47 that could reshuffle the cards?
This article of the Constitution sets a time limit for budgetary debates. The National Assembly thus has a “period of forty days” to decide on the text. If this were not the case, the government would then send the copy directly to the Senate, which would have two weeks to decide. In recent hours, some elected officials have raised the possibility of the debates dragging on. And at the end of the allotted time, the effects of article 47 would then apply. “It is legally possible, but politically very risky. This would amount to ignoring the work of the Assembly, which would open the way to a motion of censure,” warns Benjamin Morel.
