The French government and Macron all lost in the pensions debacle

 

John Lichfield examines what will happen to Emmanuel Macron, his troubled prime minister, and the strike-weary nation after a turbulent 24 hours in the French parliament and on the streets.

Emmanuel Macron enjoys taking chances. It was always going to be a calculated risk to insist on a hated but necessary pension reform during a time of international crisis and domestic strife.

The President was forced to choose between two significant risks on Thursday afternoon, much like one of the priggish heroes of a classic French tragedy.

He could allow the National Assembly to vote on the pension reform, which he would probably lose, and which could have disastrous effects on France's standing in the international financial markets.

The reform could also be imposed by him using the extra authority granted to the French government by Article 49.3 of the constitution. Le Monde reports that three of his most senior ministers begged him not to. They foresaw a public outrage conflagration that might surpass the worst episodes of the Gilets Jaunes movement in 2018–19.

They argued that he should have lost the democratic election and carried out the remaining four years of his second term. But where to from here?

Macron declared last year that pension reform was the foundation for all other reforms and was a necessary first step in reducing budget deficits and boosting France's capacity to produce wealth for all.

The overnight riots in Paris and other French cities indicate that the ministers were correct to issue a warning regarding the gloomy public mood.

For several days, there had been a sense of unrest in the public, with militant union branches cutting off electricity to entire neighborhoods in provincial towns, including, in two instances, hospitals. Mountains of unremoved trash had accumulated in Paris, providing ready-made bonfires for the rioters on Thursday night.

However, it's crucial to consider who the rioters from last night were. Most of them were the young, black-clad, smug, middle-class, anti-system revolutionaries who participate in all French street protests. It is difficult to believe that they were genuinely outraged by the prospect of working past 62 and into their 64s.

This was not, or was not yet, a spontaneous outburst of genuine popular rage, unlike the Yellow Vest movement. What transpires the next night is still uncertain.

It is also unknown how popular the ninth union "day of action" against pension reform and Article 49.3 will be, which has been scheduled for next Thursday. In France, there is strong and sincere opposition to raising the retirement age, but after two months of intermittent strikes, there is also a lot of strike fatigue.

Is this the start of a new July 1789 or May 1968? I have my doubts.

If a majority of the National Assembly votes in favor of a motion to censure the government, pension reform may still be halted. Elisabeth Borne, the prime minister, and her administration would then be required to resign as well.

A motion for censure needs 287 votes in total to pass. Around 40 of the 61 Les Républicains (LR) deputies who support the center-right would have to agree for it to pass.

That seems highly improbable because a successful censure vote could prompt an early parliamentary election that would destroy the center-right.

In yesterday's vote on pension reform, Macron and Borne had hoped for—and been assured of—the support of at least 35 of the LR deputies. Only 28 could be guaranteed when it came time for the final muster by the LR leadership, which had backed and heavily influenced the legislation.

That grim information, delivered to Borne over the phone by LR leaders, convinced Macron to enact the law using Article 49.3. In the vain hope that the votes could be located, he waited until ten minutes before the Assembly vote was scheduled to begin.

You might wonder why there is such a fuss over the fact that Macron used a constitutional tool that President Charles de Gaulle thoughtfully provided 65 years ago. Since then, Article 49.3 has been invoked 100 times by presidents and governments of all political stripes. Elisabeth Borne invoked it ten times to unlock the 2023 state budget during the previous fall and winter.

There is a distinction between using A.49.3 to maintain the functioning of the state apparatus and using it to impose a pension reform that is opposed by 70% of French adults, as Macron was aware, which led to his predicament yesterday.

Beyond that, ever since the old left-right system in France collapsed, there has been a "hystericizing" of all political discourse (something Macron himself encouraged and benefited from). There has been a sterilization of Article 49.3 usage (which is perfectly legal after all).

The pensions debate has become particularly hysterical. It is acceptable and reasonable to question the necessity of this reform and its timing of it. To call it "brutal" and "violent," as the unions and opposition have, is neither reasonable nor respectable.

The French will still have a lower official retirement age in 2030 than most European nations do today if the reform is implemented, which it almost certainly will.

The supposedly self-financing pension system's ongoing losses place a significant strain on French state finances. The French media viewed Macron's comments about his concern for how the global financial markets would respond on Thursday as a sort of "gotcha" moment. You see, the goal here was to appease the bankers.

A reality check. A nation that has accumulated debt equal to 114 percent of its national annual income and that hasn't balanced its state budget in 50 years cannot afford to irritate its bankers for an extended period.

Nobody gains anything positive from the pension saga. In a debate he started, Macron has largely been silent. Elisabeth Borne has made a convoluted and unconvincing presentation of a complex plan.

The Left has gone crazy. The Far Right has smugly grinned, hoping to gain, but making no sensible contributions.

The center-right, a survivor of the great Gaullist movement, has made many demands and promises, but the government fell into an elephant trap as a result of their deceit, self-interest, and internal disputes. More than ever, they seem destined to fail as a significant political movement.

All are at fault, but only one will lose her job as a result.

Although Elisabeth Borne will survive the motion of censure, Macron will take her place in about a month. In French politics, it is an unwritten law that the PM, not the President, bears the consequences of failure.

The remainder of Macron's agenda will be carried out by a new prime minister, who will be chosen. I wish you luck with that.

The pension reform was intended to be the springboard for other reforms, but the way it was implemented will make it challenging to implement any additional initiatives.

And whether they like it or not, the French will still have to put in a little more time at the office.

Everybody loses in this situation.