He does not intend to let go of the government. Aurélien Pradié sent this Wednesday, March 22, “observations” to the Constitutional Council, seized of several appeals against the pension reform. The deputy Les Républicains (LR) from Lot denounces the “insincerity” of the debates and the blows dealt to Parliament. Ephemeral number 2 of LR, the elected official does not intend to leave his political family and describes a right “at the crossroads”.
L’Express: Social mobilization against the pension reform experienced a marked revival on Thursday. Emmanuel Macron affirmed on Wednesday his wish that the pension reform “come into force by the end of the year”. Is the game over?
Aurelien Pradie: Deep fractures inflame the country. Emmanuel Macron no longer has the right to ignore them, or even to be satisfied with them. Political cynicism is no longer allowed. The crisis is not only social: it is political, institutional and is becoming democratic. The breaking point awaits us.
We are getting used to the unprecedented: ultra degraded democratic functioning, a succession of forced passages and finally the use of 49.3. The government was saved from rocking by nine votes, and it boasts of a political victory. The anger that is expressed comes from the accumulation of years of general downgrading of France. The reign of fatality sets in, and in a democracy, this is an extreme danger. We cannot accept the scenes of violence that are taking hold. To bet on the conflagration of the country is to bet against the national interest. It is unforgivable.
Given the state of tension in France, should Emmanuel Macron withdraw his reform?
By dint of ignoring the country, the president himself embodies the camp of disorder. This text is now poisoned, both in substance and in its mode of adoption. On the 1200 euros minimum pension, as on women’s careers, the government has tried to deceive the French. On the long careers, for which I particularly fought, the executive tried until the end to make believe that those who started before 21 years would leave with 43 annuities. What is wrong.
It was out of the question for me to become a liar by proxy against the French. If this text enters the social body, it will damage what remains fundamental in our country. The Head of State must urgently convene a social conference, broadening the subject beyond retirement. We must talk about work, wages and youth unemployment. Postponing the legal age should no longer be a totem. I am in favor of a pension reform but not this one, nor with this method used. Agreeing to start all over again is a form of political courage.
The National Rally and the Nupes both seized the Constitutional Council against the bill. The Prime Minister too. What do you expect from this referral?
No parliamentarian for or against reform should accept such contempt of Parliament. I therefore submitted individual observations to the Constitutional Council on Wednesday. This reform has accumulated gags. In addition to 49.3, the government has used a social security amending finance bill to reform pensions. Many measures, such as the senior CDI, are obviously social riders that have nothing to do with a budget text.
Finally, the debates were marked by manifest insincerity. During the last day of examination at the Assembly, Olivier Dussopt never answered our question on long careers. If this text is partially censored, Emmanuel Macron must put everything back together. An amputated and wobbly text will no longer even have real financial benefits.
Emmanuel Macron assured Elisabeth Borne of his “confidence to lead his government team”. Can the Prime Minister stay in office?
Replacing Madame Borne with Madame Borne bis will not change the problem. The country is too damaged, the situation of the Prime Minister is only the tree that hides the forest. The responsibility of the president is not to fracture but to unite and appease the Nation. France will not be able to meet any challenge if it is made up of “camps” set up against each other.
Half of the LR deputies were ready to vote for the pension reform. A third voted for the no-confidence motion to overthrow the government. Do you still form a parliamentary group?
Yes. But the right is to be rebuilt from top to bottom. It takes courage to lift the rug under which we have buried so much dust for years. Stop sneezing. We are at the crossroads. Either we find that of the people and make this political crisis a start. Either we will become the conciliatory “aides de camp” of Emmanuel Macron.
Those who reproached me for an individual adventure now understood that the movement was deeper. The aspiration for a popular right is collective. I assume to have voted the motion of censure, with 18 of my colleagues. Radicalities are exploding, even the most reasonable French have this temptation. If the only responses to radicalism are those of the extremes, then we are headed for disaster. When the right stands firm in the face of injustice, it gives hope to the French.
But the right is unreadable today…
We have to go through it. We are not slingers, but rebuilders. Let’s accept healthy breakups. Like in 1995 when Jacques Chirac made the choice of the social divide. Or in 2007, when Nicolas Sarkozy marked a break with Chirac. The line will not go from less than 5% to more than 50% without an electroshock.
You mention the Sarkozy case. But he did not make a major ideological break with Chirac in 2007, as we see today on pensions…
At Sarkozy, there was more than a break in style. He was clearly returning to popular France. Perhaps the example of 1995 is more striking. At the time, Philippe Seguin gave a speech on “Social Munich”. This pension reform is part of this logic. It’s a fight about the value of work and social justice. Behind the battle for long careers hide more symbols and political messages than it seems: a fight for dignity.
You are defending a fight for “dignity”. If Valérie Pécresse had been elected president and had submitted the same reform to the Assembly, the right would surely have voted for it en bloc. It’s hard not to see in your positioning a pure opposition to Macron…
I assume my opposition to the infantilizing way in which Emmanuel Macron treats our country. Many fires could have been avoided if he hadn’t been blowing on the embers. But it goes beyond that: I oppose unjust reform, which is based on a sterile theory that wants us to believe that “there is no alternative.” This kills democratic debate, and leaves the choice between technocratic reform and financial chaos. However, other paths are possible, in particular by thinking about working time, wages and the duration of contributions.
Is your place still with the Republicans?
My place is more than ever in this party. The lines move and will move again. Crises inspire the most salutary decisions. To renounce a popular, strong and unifying right is to abandon the people to Le Pen or Mélenchon. It is betraying him. Nobody among the Gaullists can accept it.
But can this right speak to voters who have gone to Emmanuel Macron? Eric Ciotti wants to recover this electorate…
The idea that we could win the presidential election by recovering Emmanuel Macron’s electoral “capital” is a mistake. The ambition of the right cannot be to become the petty shareholders of Macronism. We will win back by ceasing to ape others badly. Our country lacks benchmarks. If the right is erased, it is one more benchmark that disappears and the door is open to extremists. I will not allow this scenario to unfold which the French, deep down, do not want themselves. On condition of giving them a new alternative.