He has only this word in his mouth, or almost. Emmanuel Macron very often speaks of a referendum. In the past year alone, he has done so at least five times. On July 14, 2022, on television, he warns that in the event of institutional blockages, he will go “in front of the French” for their “submission”.[e] projects”. Two months later, in Marcoussis, at the time of launching his famous CNR, he did not rule out that proposals resulting from the debates could “lead to referendums”.
After the crisis caused by the pension reform, he resumed his little refrain. First trip to the Bas-Rhin, and to the Latest news from Alsace on April 19, he indicates: “The referendum is a tool and I will have to seize it for subjects which I will choose.” In case we haven’t noted it, he insists, four days later in The Parisian “I’m not going to launch a referendum today, but it would be quite healthy in the next few years to do so.” In Opinionon May 14, he repeated: “I am ready for all referendums, if it is useful for the country.”
LR only has this word in his mouth, or almost. And that’s apparently good, it’s the same as the president: referendum! A simple word for a complicated process. Because the leaders of the party are not totally in agreement among themselves on the path to follow. Strictly speaking, the right is even calling for two referendums. It has tabled, in identical terms in the National Assembly and the Senate, a constitutional bill, which can only be adopted in theory in this way, after conforming vote of the two chambers. And she asks, once the Constitution has been revised in its article 11, a referendum on immigration – Bruno Retailleau particularly insists on this point, when other leaders of LR consider that it is the whole text modifying the framework constitutional law on immigration which should be validated by all French people. In other words, some want a referendum according to Article 11 while others favor a referendum according to Article 89. “The main thing is to create the political conditions for a referendum to be possible, that is- that is to say that the president forces his majority in the National Assembly to move, summarizes a right-wing official. Then there are variants.
The hypothesis of an evolution of article 11
In the letter addressed to Emmanuel Macron on May 23, Eric Ciotti, Olivier Marleix and Bruno Retailleau use deliberately vague wording: “You alone are vested with the power to appeal to the people to solemnly manifest their sovereignty in a referendum .” In his interview with L’Express, Edouard Philippe speaks out against a revision of Article 11: “The circumstantial changes to our fundamental law rarely lead to lasting and intelligent solutions.” But have we forgotten? In 2019, a bill for democratic renewal, presented by the then Prime Minister, a certain Philippe Edouard, and the Keeper of the Seals Nicole Belloubet, proposed, among other measures, to extend the scope of the referendum planned for the Article 11 has two purposes: the organization of territorial public authorities, social issues (with the exception of fiscal and penal matters, “in view of their particular nature and our constitutional tradition”).
According to our information, the Elysée does not rule out in principle an evolution of article 11 within the framework of the institutional project launched by Emmanuel Macron. For the moment, the palace is awaiting the proposals of the Assemblies, but the deputies are struggling to progress in their working groups since the LIOT bill (and the way in which it was rejected) set fire to the Hemicycle. For the record, article 11 was modified in 1995 by Jacques Chirac, who had promised during his campaign a referendum on education – the scope of the referendum was therefore extended to reforms linked to “public services” but there was never referendum on education – and in 2008 by Nicolas Sarkozy, to include environmental policy.
Emmanuel Macron began to think about a referendum even before the eruption of the Yellow Vests, in the fall of 2018. “Very quickly, he thought that the time for the presidential election had become too long compared to the pace of society: he is tormented by the question of democratic fatigue, and the referendum is a punctuation tool”, says a fellow traveler. On his desk at the Elysée Palace, several options have piled up over the years: a constitutional referendum, when the first institutional reform is mentioned; a multiple-choice referendum – the means are then studied of legally circumventing the obstacles to a procedure which does not formally exist in our fundamental law. Emmanuel Macron likes the concept so much that it is a toy. On January 10, 2020, before the Citizen’s Climate Convention, he pulled out of his hat the “advisory referendum”, unknown to the institutional battalion. On December 14, 2020, this time he launched himself and announced that he wanted to modify article 1 of the Constitution, in order to stipulate that the Republic “guarantees” the preservation of the environment. Much ado about nothing: there will never be a sequel.
“To Switzerland rather than to De Gaulle”
It must be said that each time, those who are called at the Elysée “the old of the old” are reluctant, whether it is Richard Ferrand, then President of the National Assembly, or Gérard Collomb, first Minister of the Interior for the first five-year term. The trauma of 2005 is still in many memories: that year, Jacques Chirac tripped over the European Constitution, rejected by a majority of French people. It is no coincidence that no referendum has been held since.
Another point singularly complicates a hypothetical agreement between Emmanuel Macron and Les Républicains. If the president claims a very Gaullian reading of the institutions, there is only one point on which he moves away from it. Bad luck, it’s the referendum! “To Switzerland rather than to De Gaulle: he seeks in this procedure a democratic hygiene, even if it means that the president fades away, where the general sought to re-legitimize himself by being the central character of the ballot”, exposes a faithful.
There is a precedent. In 2000, Jacques Chirac organized a referendum to replace the seven-year term with the five-year term, indicating during a television interview: “We are asking the French a question, let them answer it. They answer yes, that’s very good, they answer no, that’s fine.” And he cites “Swiss democracy” as a model. The subject goes badly in France, to the point that he will be forced to correct it and commit to yes.
It is therefore useless to push the president a great deal so that he thinks of the referendum. But we must not push the president into the nettles either, he does not like it. The letter from LR leaders has remained unanswered to date. Either the post works really badly, or Emmanuel Macron does not want to answer it. The second explanation holds the rope: it is not him, but Elisabeth Borne or Gérald Darmanin who should take up the pen.