CEvery fall, the budget debate returns like a chestnut tree. The government submits its finance bill (PLF), the National Assembly dissects it, the Senate modifies it, and the bill returns like a game of parliamentary ping-pong.
This year, the practice seems even more dangerous. Since the 2024 legislative elections, France is experiencing an unprecedented period: Sébastien Lecornu does not have an absolute majority and refuses to rule with restrictions. The Prime Minister repeated it: he will not use clause 49.3 to pass the budget. A choice that makes the task much more difficult.
In this context, there is only one way that can still be taken: a conclusive joint commission. In other words: a budget compromise between the Assembly and the Senate. Even though it is possible on paper, in reality it is very difficult.
A little-known constitutional tool
Under article 45 of the Constitution, the joint committee (CMP) brings together seven deputies and seven senators responsible for finding a compromise when the two chambers cannot agree on a text.
This occurs at the end of a parliamentary meeting, after one or two readings. If agreement is reached, this common text is then submitted to both houses, which must adopt it without modification. In the case of the Finance Bill, this is an important step: if the CMP is successful, the budget will be approved without assistance 49.3; if it fails, things get complicated.READ ALSO “Smart Lecornu”: from Zucman taxes to the ISF, the “crazy day” of the Assembly budget
By canceling article 49.3, Sébastien Lecornu wants to stop his predecessor’s practice of making this asset a budget reflex. Élisabeth Borne has used it 23 times during her tenure at Matignon between 2022 and 2024. “In a divided chamber, a government, even if relying on a relative majority, cannot, in the long run, act without taking the opposition into account,” the Prime Minister said in his general policy speech.
But without an absolute majority, this option would push the government into a tightrope-walking parliamentary system. The Renaissance group and its allies, MoDem and Horizons, have only 162 MPs, far short of the required majority of 289 seats. Therefore, every vote turns into a negotiation. Hence the idea of the CMP emerged: a global agreement with the Senate, dominated by the right wing, that could guarantee the unimpeded implementation of the text.
Three conditions
However, for this CMP to be concluded, there are three conditions that must be met. First, the positions of the National Assembly and Senate must not be far apart. If differences of opinion concern the direction of the deficit, taxation or regional spending, then negotiations risk stalling.
Then, the fourteen members of the CMP must have sufficient political latitude to acknowledge sensitive points. A compromise cannot be established if each side sticks to its initial text. Ultimately, even after reaching an agreement, both chambers had to refrain from changing the text again. Without this, the shuttle continues, and the CMP fails.
When it comes to discussions regarding the PLF, the issue is more than just the budget itself. Rejection of article 49.3 places MPs facing their responsibilities. Either they reach a compromise or they reveal their inability to rule without constraint. A conclusive CMP would then appear as an institutional success as well as a political signal: a government without a majority capable of unifying basic policies such as the budget.
On the other hand, if the deal fails, the parliament shuttle will continue its journey. However, in terms of the budget, time is limited: The Constitution sets a deadline of 70 days for the PLF and 50 days for the PLFSS.If differences of opinion persist, the government can pass the final decision to the National Assembly under article 45 of the Constitution. A risky solution because it marks a break between the two rooms. Finally, if at the end of the constitutional period, no financial law has been enacted, then the government can implement the budget based on regulations, relying on allocations determined in the previous year (in the name of article 47.3 of the Constitution). A case that was never implemented under Ve A Republic that guarantees the continuity of the State.
