Budget, continued: back in the Assemblée on Tuesday, Parliament must not be bypassed

The state budget returns to the chamber this Tuesday, 27 October, after a week's pause devoted to the social security budget. That pause ended badly for the government: the social security bill was rejected before MPs even examined its spending. As the presidential election approaches, every vote becomes a test, and the question is no longer only what budget France will have, but how it will get one.

The facts: two bills, two dead ends

On Friday 23 October, the Assemblée nationale rejected the "revenue" section of the 2027 social security financing bill by 115 votes to one, LCP reports. Only the centre bloc abstained; all the other groups voted against. With no revenue adopted, the spending section, which notably included a freeze on certain pensions and on family allowances, was never debated.

The Minister for Public Accounts, David Amiel, called the situation "very serious", according to AFP as quoted by several outlets. According to him, the amendments adopted would have pushed the social security deficit to 24 billion euros in 2027, whereas the government was aiming for 12.7 billion, compared with 21.8 billion in 2026.

The bill therefore goes to the Senate in its original version, with examination starting on 9 November. As the website NosParlementaires points out, Article 47-1 of the Constitution gives Parliament fifty days to decide, that is until 26 November. Beyond that, the government could implement the bill by ordinance, a procedure never used before.

The state budget is hardly in better shape. According to LCP, the first week of debates would, in the government's view, have worsened the deficit by around 10 billion euros. MPs struck out the lowering of the cap on retirees' tax allowance and part of the savings demanded from local authorities. More than 2,600 amendments remain on the revenue section alone, whose vote is now expected on 3 November. The seventy-day constitutional deadline expires on 17 December, according to NosParlementaires.

The positions at stake

Sébastien Lecornu's government is sticking to its target of bringing the public deficit down to 5% of GDP in 2027, from 5.4% in 2026. According to LCP, the Prime Minister could resort to Article 49.3 or, once the deadlines have passed, to ordinances; no decision has been announced.

In the centre, MoDem MP Cyrille Isaac-Sibille, quoted by LCP, defended an initial bill that was "difficult, but courageous" and denounced the version that emerged from the debates. On the right, Justine Gruet (Droite républicaine) believes that the recovery of the social accounts has not been achieved, while rapporteur Thibault Bazin (LR) calls for finding a way forward at second reading.

On the left, Socialist Sandrine Runel considers that the bill provides no revenue matching the needs, and Sandrine Rousseau (Ecologist) secured a vote on retirement at 62 for careers with 42 years of contributions, according to Econostrum. The Rassemblement national, through Joëlle Mélin, speaks of "patches" and obtained the abolition of the C3S, a production tax.

In an interview with Mediapart, Jean-Luc Mélenchon links the budget directly to the social anger of recent weeks: in his view, the government could fall to a no-confidence motion if the bill does not take up the protesters' demands.

The authorities will have only one choice, accept the demands or go — Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Mediapart

Analysis: the risk of a budget without Parliament

One point must be granted to the government: a deficit that spirals is not an abstraction. Debt weighs on the State's room for manoeuvre, and the October Ipsos BVA barometer shows that 33% of French people rank it among their concerns. But the same barometer puts purchasing power far ahead, at 54%. A budget that asks retirees, families and municipalities to make the effort first, at a time when the high cost of living is driving young people into the streets, cannot find a majority. The votes of the last two weeks say so clearly.

The danger now is institutional. Passing the social security budget by ordinance would be legal, but it would be a first, six months before a presidential election and in a tense social climate. Consent to taxation and to sacrifices is built in Parliament, not in the silence of a decree. A Gaullist tradition attached to the authority of the State should know that this authority rests first and foremost on its legitimacy.

Last year, AFP recalls, Sébastien Lecornu secured the adoption of his budget thanks to an agreement with the Socialists, which included suspending the pension reform. This precedent shows that compromise is possible when one agrees to share the effort. Nothing comparable has emerged this year.

It would be just as irresponsible, conversely, to strike out revenue without providing anything in its place. The deletions voted one after another, without compensation, feed the deficit that everyone claims to be fighting. Neither the left nor the RN can denounce debt in the morning and deepen it in the evening.

Conclusion: a tax compromise, now

The most reasonable path lies in a clear trade-off: give up the pension freeze and the cuts imposed on municipalities, and fund this choice through a greater contribution from the highest incomes and the largest fortunes. The back-and-forth with the Senate offers the opportunity.

The government has until the end of November for social security and mid-December for the State. The question is simple: will it prefer an imperfect compromise voted by elected representatives, or a technically sound budget imposed without them?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.