Social Security budget rejected by 115 votes to one: Lecornu faces the temptation to force it through

On Friday 23 October, the National Assembly rejected at first reading the "revenue" section of the 2027 Social Security financing bill (PLFSS). The result, reported by LCP, is decisive: 115 votes against, just one in favour. With no revenue section adopted, deputies cannot examine the spending section. The bill therefore goes to the Senate in its original form, the government's version, for examination from 9 November.

The facts

Sébastien Lecornu's government was aiming for a Social Security deficit of 12.7 billion euros in 2027, down from 21.8 billion in 2026, according to AFP. To get there, it proposed an effort from retirees, with full uprating reserved for pensions of up to 1,260 euros a month according to NosParlementaires, a freeze on family allowances, around one billion euros of savings on sick leave and a reduction in employer contribution relief.

Over the course of the debates, deputies reshaped the text profoundly. They removed the extension of the tax on sugary products and the renewal of the contribution required from supplementary health insurers. They also adopted, at the initiative of the ecologist Sandrine Rousseau, a measure allowing employees who have contributed for 42 years to stop working at 62. According to the minister for Public Accounts, David Amiel, quoted by several media outlets, these choices would have pushed the deficit to 24 billion euros, almost double the target.

According to LCP, every group voted against, except the central bloc (Ensemble pour la République, Les Démocrates, Horizons), which abstained.

The positions

Each camp has its reasons, and they do not overlap. On the right, deputy Justine Gruet considers that the need to restore the accounts has not been met. On the left, the Socialist Sandrine Runel deems the text unfair and its resources insufficient, while Sandrine Rousseau denounces an isolated government. The RN, through Joëlle Mélin, speaks of a series of "patches".

The government, for its part, places the responsibility on the opposition. David Amiel told RN deputies that France's budget is not "a video game", according to BFM TV, pointing to the weight of interest rates. Even within the central bloc, the MoDem deputy Cyrille Isaac-Sibille used very harsh words, speaking of "mad irresponsibility".

The rapporteur general, Thibault Bazin (LR), is now calling for a path to compromise. The Health Minister, Stéphanie Rist, had warned senators as early as 14 October, according to Public Sénat, that without a budget in 2027, France would be exposed to "brutal future decisions".

The analysis

It must be said honestly: the government's argument is not without foundation. A social deficit that doubled, financed by borrowing, would shift the burden onto future generations. The Cour des comptes had in fact urged Parliament to hold to the 12.7 billion target, AFP reports. A sense of the State requires that debt not be treated as an abstraction.

But this near-unanimous rejection says something other than a sum of partisan moods. It reflects the failure of a method. Last year, AFP recalls, the social budget was adopted only thanks to an agreement with the Socialists, who obtained the suspension of the pension reform. This year, no comparable negotiation was undertaken beforehand. One cannot ask retirees, families and the sick to make an effort without sharing the burden more widely, nor without discussing it with those whose votes are needed.

The paradox is cruel: it is now the government's original version, the one the Assembly was never able to amend to the end, that will be examined at the Palais du Luxembourg. The nation's representatives find themselves partly sidelined, not by a show of force, but by the deadlock of their own votes.

Two tools remain. Article 49.3, which allows adoption without a vote unless a censure motion passes. And the ordinance provided for by Article 47-1 of the Constitution: if Parliament has not reached a decision within fifty days, the government may implement its bill by this means. This would be, LCP points out, a first in budgetary matters. Legally possible, this route would be politically heavy: financing the nation's social protection without a vote in Parliament would weaken consent to taxes and contributions, which underpins our republican pact.

Conclusion

Social Security, born of the programme of the Conseil national de la Résistance and consolidated by governments of all stripes, deserves better than a forced passage or a game of cross-rejections. The Senate's time offers a window. The government could seize it to open, with the groups willing to build, a public negotiation on three points: protecting small pensions, the contribution of capital income and of the least useful employer relief measures, and a credible deficit trajectory. The question is simple: does the executive prefer to be right alone, or to find a majority to protect Social Security?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.