The institutional roots of the vote of no confidence can be traced back to the British parliamentary system in the 17th century. With the spread of representative democracy, it has gradually become the core political rule of most parliamentary countries in the world.

The prototype of the vote of no confidence originated from the British system of responsible government under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. After the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century, Parliament (particularly the House of Commons) gradually gained control of the purse strings, and the government (cabinet) relied on majority support in Parliament to implement its policies. If Parliament refused to pass important government bills (such as the budget) or explicitly passed a resolution opposing the government's actions, the government would lose the confidence of Parliament and would be required to resign or request the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections.

In the early days, there was no clear "no-confidence vote" procedure, and no confidence was more indirectly expressed through "vetoing key bills"; after the 19th century, with the maturity of party politics, a clear "no-confidence motion" voting procedure gradually took shape, becoming a direct tool for parliament to check and balance the cabinet.

In modern parliamentary countries, votes of no confidence have become a standardized process, the core of which is the closed loop of "trigger-vote-consequences", which profoundly affects political stability and market expectations (which is particularly critical for financial transactions).

These actions are typically initiated by the opposition in parliament in response to government missteps, policy disagreements, or political scandals. Common triggers include: failure to pass a government budget; opposition to key policies (such as pension reforms or tax policies) in parliament; or government failures or corruption controversies.



It was another chapter in the French political drama, as Prime Minister Sebastien Le Cornu survived two no-confidence votes in parliament. The French political crisis has caused little turmoil in eurozone sovereign bond markets, as investors see no logic in selling French government bonds without a snap election.

But analysts pointed out that although the French Prime Minister successfully curbed the sharp escalation of the crisis by postponing pension reform until after 2027, it also significantly increased the complexity of public financial management.

French PM faces tough budget talks after surviving no-confidence vote

French Prime Minister Sebastien Le Cornu survived two no-confidence votes in parliament on Thursday, buying his days-old government a brief breathing space and the opportunity to present its 2026 budget.

Le Corneille's victory comes at a high price. Earlier this week, he pledged to suspend President Emmanuel Macron's controversial pension reforms in a bid to secure crucial support from France's Socialist Party in the deeply divided National Assembly.

Despite Thursday's lifeline, the no-confidence motions underscore the fragile position of Macron's government halfway through his second and final term.

Opposition Socialist Party demands more concessions

The Socialist Party has previously made it clear that if Le Cornu's austerity budget fails to meet the party's demands for more concessions, it will vote to force the government to step down.

The far-left and far-right opposition described the government's victory as a "temporary reprieve." Eric Cockrell, a far-left MP and chairman of the Finance Committee of the National Assembly (lower house), wrote on the X platform: "The Le Cornu government is on its last legs, and the budget war has officially begun."

The no-confidence motion put forward by Cockerell's far-left France Indomitable party received 271 votes, just 18 short of the 289 needed to overthrow the four-day-old government.

A second no-confidence motion proposed by Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally (RN) party failed by an even larger margin.

Macron's domestic legacy fades

France's public finances are currently in a high-risk state. Le Cornu has put pension reform on the abolition agenda. This move may completely end one of Macron's core economic legacies, leaving the president, who has served for eight years, with almost no highlights in his domestic political achievements.

If Le Cornu loses any vote, he and his cabinet members will have to resign immediately, and Macron will face tremendous pressure to initiate early parliamentary elections, which will plunge France into a deeper crisis.

"Today, a majority cobbled together through political bargaining has retained its position at the expense of national interests," said Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally, on the X platform. After two consecutive rounds of voting, the French bond market remained stable as the government's victory was within investors' expectations.

Le Corneille faces tough budget talks

Le Corne now faces weeks of arduous negotiations in parliament to pass a slimmed-down 2026 budget, during which time his government could fall at any time.

Debates in parliament's finance committee will begin on Monday. National Assembly President Yael Braun-Pivet, an ally of Macron, said Thursday's vote showed there was a parliamentary majority to finalize the budget.

“The French people need to know that we are working at full speed precisely to finalize the budget – it’s crucial for the future of the country,” she told reporters.

After making concessions on pensions, the Socialist Party has set its sights on including a "billionaire tax" clause in the 2026 budget, a move that fully exposes Le Cornu's weak position in the negotiations.

Le Corneille's draft budget proposes more than 30 billion euros ($34.96 billion) in spending savings and will reduce France's high deficit to 4.7% of gross domestic product (GDP) from a projected 5.4% this year.

"Our decision today not to vote to overthrow the government is in no way an agreement, we have made no commitments," Socialist MP Laurent Beaumer said in parliament.

In summary, pension system reform is the "fatal weakness" of French politics

France is in the midst of its worst political crisis in decades: successive minority governments have tried to push deficit-cutting budgets through a hawkish legislature that has split into three distinct ideological camps.

Reforming France's generous pension system has been the Achilles' heel of French politics since Socialist President François Mitterrand lowered the retirement age from 65 to 60 in 1982.

Currently, the average actual retirement age in France is only 60.7 years, while the average level of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is 64.4 years.

These problems in the French pension system are essentially the deep-seated contradictions between "high welfare promises and low financial support" and "short-term political interests and long-term economic sustainability."

Its "fatality" lies not only in the imbalance of the system itself, but also in the fact that it has become a "trigger" for political crises and a "source of consumption" for public finances. As long as reforms cannot be advanced, fiscal pressure will continue to accumulate, and political games will continue to amplify this contradiction, ultimately having a long-term impact on France's sovereign credit, bond market stability, and even the eurozone's economic expectations.