French MPs unanimously reject 2027 budget as political deadlock continues

The National Assembly rejected the revenue section of the government's draft budget for 2027. This was decisive because 458 MPs voted against it, none voted in favour, and only two abstained. MPs from across the political spectrum joined the rejection.

The vote followed roughly 10 days of amendments. MPs removed several proposed savings affecting pensioners and local authorities. They also scrapped a planned surtax on large companies' profits. The spending provisions had already been rejected in committee, so the revenue vote left the Assembly unable to continue its first reading.

The result sends the legislation onward while preserving the government's original draft for the next stage. The Senate will examine those initial proposals. Afterward, the bill returns to the National Assembly, where parties may try again to negotiate an agreement. If no compromise emerges, the government faces difficult constitutional choices.

A budget's revenue section sets out how the government expects to collect money. It normally includes tax measures and other receipts. That section matters because spending plans depend on the income available to finance them. If lawmakers reject the revenue framework, the budget cannot proceed normally.

In this case, MPs voted 458 to zero against the revenue section, with two abstentions. They had already rejected the spending provisions in committee. The Assembly therefore could not move on to debating those provisions during the first reading. The rejection effectively closed that stage of parliamentary examination.

The bill now goes to the Senate in the government's original form. This means the heavily amended Assembly version does not become the basis for the next reading. The Senate will examine the initial proposals, after which the legislation returns to the National Assembly for possible negotiations and further debate.

The government's target combines a very large savings effort with a modest deficit reduction. It planned approximately €43 billion in savings for 2027. Those measures were intended to lower the public deficit from a projected 5.4 percent of GDP this year to 5 percent in 2027. The goal is to improve France's public finances despite weak growth.

The challenge became clearer during the Assembly's debate. MPs removed proposed savings affecting pensioners and local authorities. They also rejected a surtax on large companies' profits. Public Accounts Minister David Amiel warned that the amended budget would instead produce a deficit of 5.9 percent of GDP.

That figure shows how quickly the financial position could worsen when planned measures disappear. Weaker-than-expected economic growth has already cast doubt on the original targets. The government must now negotiate with the Senate and opposition parties. The final result will determine whether the savings and deficit goals survive.

The rejection did not end the budget process. It ended the National Assembly's first reading and sent the legislation to the Senate. The Senate will examine the government's original proposals, giving the bill another formal stage before it returns to the lower house.

The reason for the original form is procedural and political. Assembly MPs had heavily amended the draft before rejecting its revenue section. Because that section failed, the amended version could not complete its reading. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu's office said future negotiations would be based on the government's initial draft and the Senate's version.

This creates a new negotiation window after the Senate's examination. The bill will return to the National Assembly for further debate. Parties must seek agreement before the end of the year. If deadlock continues, the government may consider Article 49.3 or, in a more unusual scenario, an ordinance.

The cross-party rejection reflected disagreement with the government's draft from several directions, not a shared political programme. MPs on the left, far right, and centre opposed the amended version because each judged it unacceptable for different reasons. Their unity was tactical and temporary rather than evidence of agreement on France's future policies.

The National Rally's Jean-Philippe Tanguy blamed the government for proposing a budget it could not balance. France Unbowed's Éric Coquerel said it failed the population's needs and worsened the deficit. Laurent Marcangeli of Horizons said the legislation had been completely distorted and called for a more responsible approach.

The amendments show the competing pressures. MPs removed measures affecting pensioners and local authorities, while also scrapping a large-company surtax. The government warned that these changes would push the deficit to 5.9 percent of GDP. Negotiations must now bridge these fundamentally different objections.

The government has two main alternatives if negotiations do not produce a budget. Article 49.3 would let it push the legislation through without a parliamentary vote. However, MPs could respond with a motion of no confidence. The government would therefore risk being brought down, especially in a deeply divided parliament.

To survive that risk, Lecornu's government might need the tacit support of the Socialists or the National Rally. The other possibility is adopting the budget by ordinance. The article describes this as an unprecedented procedure that could bypass Parliament if constitutional deadlines expire.

An ordinance could prevent the budget process from collapsing when time runs out, but it would restrict the government's room for manoeuvre. For now, the Senate stage comes first. The legislation will then return to the National Assembly, while parties face pressure to agree before the end of the year and avoid another government crisis.

A public deficit occurs when a government spends more than it receives in revenue during a period. It is often measured as a percentage of GDP, the total value of goods and services produced by the economy. This comparison shows the deficit's scale relative to the country's economic capacity, rather than using a standalone euro figure.

For France, the government projected a deficit of 5.4 percent of GDP this year and targeted 5 percent in 2027. It planned approximately €43 billion in savings to support that reduction. After parliamentary amendments, the Public Accounts Minister warned that the deficit could reach 5.9 percent of GDP instead.

Persistent deficits can increase pressure on public finances because governments must keep funding the gap. In general, they may respond by reducing spending, raising taxes, or using more borrowing. The article connects this pressure to France's proposed cost-cutting measures and the political struggle over them.