The was a good one, a comprehensive speech that highlighted the challenges facing the country and gave the right avenues to follow, say , the CSV fraction leader and , DP fraction leader. It’s a vision that is not necessarily shared by the opposition.

“A speech that lacked intellectual honesty and amounted to recycling,” says  (déi Gréng), who regretted the lack of new and inspiring elements. A speech with no surprises for (LSAP), who deplored the lack of announcements relating to a comprehensive policy to combat poverty. “Almsgiving is not a policy,” she insists. For (Piraten), ’s speech was an exercise in “announcements of announcements. I didn’t see any substance. I got the impression that it was the announcements that were supposed to take precedence. More than the state of the nation, it was the state of the work in progress that we were invited to hear.”

A comment that underlines the staid and agreed aspect of the exercise. A bit “old school” for (déi Gréng), who suggests replacing this exercise with another tried and tested one in the UK: the address to the prime minister. The prime minister regularly appears before MPs and has to answer all the questions asked about the state of the country. It’s a different kind of exercise.

In the gallery, the parties engaged in a sort of counter-exercise: presenting the state of their demands. Two subjects in particular gave rise to heated exchanges between MPs: the actual state of social dialogue in Luxembourg and the effects of pension reform.

Pensions: inevitable and unfair

The issue of pension reform and its consequences was a source of controversy and verbal confrontation between MPs. An inevitable reform for one side of the political spectrum; an injustice for the other.

For Marc Spautz, this reform is necessary. And to justify it, he points to polls: “75% of people think pension reform is important” and . He highlights the broad consultation carried out by social security minister  (CSV). “The minister discussed not only with employers and trade unions, but also with young people, those who will be most affected and paid the most.” As a result of these discussions, the statutory retirement age of 65, the “baby years” and the years of study have been maintained. Challenged on the concrete consequences of the announcements concerning the extension of the contribution period, he denounces the “fanciful” calculations of some and others and indicated that the minister would answer all these questions in committee. A date for the meeting should be announced shortly.

Gilles Baum also stresses the need for reform and supports the government’s plan, in particular the possibility of phased retirement. He also looks forward to discussing the details in committee.

(déi Lénk), meanwhile, criticises a reform that amounts to “working more so as not to lose money,” a reform that is to the detriment of young people and current pensioners.

From the LSAP side, pension reform is a casus belli. points to an increase in the contribution period from 40 to 42.5 years, which would no longer guarantee an effective retirement age of 65. Taina Bofferding stresses the impact that this reform will have on young people, “who will have to work longer to receive less. They will benefit less from the system than previous generations.” For Bofferding, this undermines the principle of intergenerational justice. “It’s a step backwards for society,” she insists. On this point she is in step with (ADR), for whom this reform will be done “on the backs of young people.” “Young people will be the big losers in this reform, which is not very fair.” Taia Bofferding is calling for pensions to be increased by €300.

For Sam Tanson (déi Gréng), many concrete questions remain about the implementation of the reform, asking whether de facto increasing the contribution period will not force people to work beyond the age of 65. It was--above all--the question of funding that bothered her, and more particularly the possibility of drawing on the revenue from the CO2 tax, which were originally earmarked to finance the ecological transition. It’s a criticism echoed by Tania Bofferding.

Social dialogue: meeting on 28 June

Controversy also surrounding the state of social dialogue. Frieden said that social dialogue was going well in Luxembourg; the trade unions do not feel the same way. The OGBL, LCGB and CGFP consider social dialogue to be “at a standstill.” Picking up on the prime minister’s view that social dialogue is not a co-decision process, they point out that the Luxembourg social model is based on the search for compromise between the social partners.

The MPs also raised the issue of the quality of social dialogue. Marc Spautz believes that it remains “essential and decisive for peace and social cohesion” and that it is in good shape--contrary to what the opposition claims, he insists--and he underlines the fact that the prime minister has “regularly” organised social meetings “out of sight of the cameras” to find compromises. And he welcomes the prime minister’s desire for more social dialogue in the future. Turning to the controversial issues of Sunday working and the negotiation of collective agreements, he points out that it will be up to MPs to decide--and that compromises can be found through committee work.

(LSAP) doubted the quality of the social dialogue put forward by Frieden, as did Taina Bofferding (LSAP), who felt that Frieden was governing “with a cold heart.” “Social dialogue is under pressure and the social partners are being presented with a fait accompli. The LSAP will stand by the trade unions,” she says. “The prime minister talks of a good social dialogue, but this does not correspond to the reality as perceived by the unions,” comments Sam Tanson, for whom “the messages heard by the government are not the same as those I hear on the ground.” What does she see in the situation? “An unprecedented conflict.”

The grassroots will have a chance to make its voice heard on 28 June at the . Proceedings will be scrutinised by both the government and MPs from all sides of the parliament.

The final word went to Frieden. Echoing Seric Mehovic’s comments above, he wondered whether we shouldn’t rethink the exercise and the amount of speaking time. “Nine hours of debate is a long time.” This prompted a protest from (LSAP), who pointed out that the organisation of debates was a matter for the Chamber of Deputies. On the substance, the prime minister remained straight in his boots.

This article was originally published in .