Delphine Bagarry decided the LREM group in the National Assembly without however “entering the opposition”.
“Maybe this 49.3 was the last straw”, explains ex-MP LREM Delphine Bagarry Tuesday March 3 on Franceinfo. She left the LREM group in the National Assembly after the recourse to article 49.3 of the Constitution by the Prime Minister, Édouard Philippe, to adopt without vote the bill of the pension reform. “There is an accumulation of political decisions or orientations which means that I no longer find myself in phase with the political project that we are carrying out”, She said. “I am not in opposition”, certifies Delphine Bagarry. She does not necessarily want to create a new group with other MPs who share her ideas.
franceinfo: Do you think 49.3 really broke the mold?
Delphine Bagarry: It is a process that is absolutely undemocratic and above all that we could have avoided in these cases. There is a large majority, of which I am a member, who supported this pension reform, this change of system to adapt it to our new way of working, in the 21st century. We were presented with a text that had not been completed. We parliamentarians were asked to vote on a text with a lot of ordinances, a text for which we were also awaiting conclusions, in particular the conclusions of the financing conference. A text for which we also expected consultations, consultations on transition. We talked about lawyers, but also a text which does not give any guarantees for the public service for the moment and in particular, I think of civil servants either category C or teachers, whom we know that in a new system, it will you have to pay them in another way.
Want to keep chatting?
It is certain that the way it started, the text could not lead to the state, because we are facing a parliamentary obstruction. That said, I think there were other ways to avoid this. Either to make a text in normal procedure with a programmed time, that is to say a speaking time allocated to each political group in advance which precisely allows not to have this parliamentary obstruction or then simply, from the moment when we had put this text down, maybe postpone it. I don’t understand why we had to vote on this text before the municipal elections. Somewhere, we were robbed and dispossessed of the discussion that we could have to improve it.
Are you going to vote on one of the censure motions?
No, I will not vote for the censure motion because I still believe in the text, I still believe in the possible improvements in consultations with the unions, I believe in the possible improvements by the Senate also. We will have a final vote and this is where I will make my decision.
–
