“We were opposed to this reform of extraordinary social injustice,” said Monique Lubin, senator from Landes, according to comments cited by AFP and made during a press conference on April 10. The member of the Socialist, Ecologist and Republican group in the Upper House had tabled a text proposing the pure and simple repeal of the pension reform. This bill was supported by the other left-wing senators, in the minority at the Luxembourg Palace.

“The objective stated last year was to save money. However, we know that we are not going to do any,” argued Monique Lubin. She was notably supported by the environmentalist senator Raymonde Poncet-Monge du Rhône according to whom “the right and the government must not believe that this extension of the legal age from 62 to 64 years will become part of the customs”, reports again Agence-France Presse.

Debate on the evening of Wednesday April 10 in the Senate, the proposal was quickly rejected. The government has in fact used article 40 of the constitution. This states that: “proposals and amendments formulated by members of Parliament are not admissible when their adoption would result in either a reduction in public resources, or the creation or aggravation of a public charge.”

Asked whether or not this proposal was consistent with the constitution, the Senate Finance Committee deemed this text aimed at repealing the 2023 law inadmissible, as indicated on the Public Senate channel website.

This is not the first time that a proposed law in this sense aims to reverse the increase in the full retirement age from 62 to 64 years old enacted last year. Barely a month after the vote on the reform which had led to vast social movements, a bill of the same type was tabled in May 2023, this time in the National Assembly, rejected shortly after, already on the basis of the Article 40 of the Constitution. Here too, elected officials took advantage of their “parliamentary niche”, this possibility, once a month, to include the subject of their choice on the agenda.

The senators behind this latest repeal attempt wanted to “maintain vigilance” in the face of this “anti-social law”, “ineffective and inefficient”, as they expressed it during their press conference.

At the same time, negotiations between union representatives and employers concerning the employment of seniors came to an end, after three months of bitter discussions, notably concerning the adoption of a possible “CDI Senior”.