On Friday, an elite French institution was anticipated to rule on the constitutionality of President Emmanuel Macron’s controversial proposal to raise the retirement age, a decision that could either calm or enrage opponents of the change.
Macron forced through a complex pension reform plan without a vote by the lower house of parliament. All eyes were on the heavily guarded Constitutional Council, which can veto all or portions of the plan. Before the nine-member court’s decision, spontaneous demonstrations were likely to occur in France.
The president’s proposal to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 sparked months of labor strikes and demonstrations. Since January, unions have organized twelve otherwise peaceful nationwide marches that were marred by enclaves of ultra-left radicals.
A top French tribunal will decide whether President Emmanuel Macron’s controversial retirement age increase is constitutional.
In addition to rendering a decision on the pension reforms, the Constitutional Council will also rule on a request by legislators who oppose the plan to use a rarely-utilized and protracted procedure that could lead to a referendum on a proposal to limit the legal retirement age to 62.
The court can dismiss the pension law in its entirety or in part. Any sections they deem constitutional must be enacted into law, regardless of whether the council grants the referendum request.
According to union leaders, the body’s decisions will be respected. They have also pledged to continue demonstration actions in an effort to convince Macron to simply withdraw the measure.
“As long as this reform is not rescinded, the mobilization will continue in some form,” said Sophie Binet, the president of the left-leaning CGT union, on Thursday.
Laurent Berger, the leader of the moderate CFDT, warned that “there will be repercussions” if the Constitutional Council grants the French government the go-ahead.
Consistently, polls have shown that the majority of French citizens oppose working two more years before receiving pension benefits. Opponents’ anger was renewed by the government’s decision to circumvent a parliamentary vote in March by using special constitutional powers.
Opponents have contested the government’s decision to include the pension plan in a budget measure, which expedited the legislative process significantly. They anticipate it will provide the Constitutional Council with grounds to reject the entire text.
