Social security budget: National Assembly rejects LFI knowledge issue

In the autumn devoted to the discussion of budgetary texts, the National Assembly continues the rhythm of 49.3 and the motion of knowledge. For the sixth time in just over a month, on Monday, November 28, several MPs present at the Hemicycle were called to discuss a motion aimed at bringing down the government. This was filed by La France insoumise (LFI) after the new 49.3 social security financing bill (PLFSS) activated by Prime Minister Elizabeth Bourne on Friday evening in the “expenditures” section was not considered in a new hearing without any amendments. by elected officials.

Sixth, the “rebels”, supported by some environmentalists and communist allies, failed to get an absolute majority with only 93 votes – far from the 289 required. Although there is no doubt about the outcome of this election, which has caused some tension in the New People’s Environmental and Social Union (Nupes) due to the need to systematically submit census petitions to trivialize their results, the LFI must continue to condemn the repeated use of 49.3. Executive. From the rostrum of the National Assembly, Loire Atlantique member Ségolène Amiot (LFI) thus accused Elizabeth Bourne’s government of “Democracy is slowly being killed ». “We all know how you work as a board of directors. But the French Republic is not a company, and it will never again be an absolute regime.He cursed the Prime Minister.

While the Socialist Party (PS) once again did not vote for this censorship proposal and justified “Tactical Differences” togetherS “Rebellious”, Calvados MP Arthur Delaporte also lashed out in his speech “Long Litany 49.3 “, reminded the government of the promise of construction “new method” Consultations with the opposition in June after losing an absolute majority. “We want you to remember that democratic vitality is the main bulwark against populism. Indiscriminate use of 49.3 sends the opposite signal., supported the elected socialist. In response to these attacks, Elizabeth Bourne assessed from the podium that this was not the case. “It is not serious to talk about cruelty because of the use of a constitutional instrument by which the government exercises its responsibility in front of a numerically more numerous opposition.”.