The sublime image of Notre-Dame resurrected thanks to the work of courageous and talented French people deeply moved me. But I admit to having felt uncomfortable observing the tense faces of our political leaders seated behind the foreign personalities. Did the 3 billion viewers who witnessed the spectacle of the most beautiful France know that the government which welcomed the heads of state, in fact, no longer existed?
Moreover, conspicuous by their absence – unsurprisingly – were the two extremes of RN/LFI, who, three days previously, had no qualms about liquidating the Barnier government in one afternoon. Hand in hand and smiles on their lips, the two populist parties kicked off the institutional descent into hell that now awaits our country. As an immediate consequence, France finds itself without a budget for 2025, plunging households, businesses and financial markets into what they fear most: the unknown. Marine Le Pen, by choosing to vote with Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has broken the supreme taboo and benefits in this regard from incredible intellectual and moral impunity on the part of commentators and a large part of public opinion. This shows the extent to which, for millions of French people, the rejection of Emmanuel Macron seems to prevail over everything else. From now on, Marine Le Pen, when she decides, will once again press the censorship button without hesitation and will be at the head of any government, whatever it may be.
You don’t have to politely wait until 2027
In this dramatic context, we have the duty to objectively examine the three scenarios that are on the table. The first of these is that which consists of politely waiting until 2027. This would mean that, for thirty months, France refrains from having the slightest reform adopted since, as we have seen since October 2, it is impossible to obtain an absolute majority. Impossible, therefore, to reduce public spending, to make a reform on immigration, delinquency and even less on schools or the civil service. In all cases, the mere fact of involving the RN vote will serve as a repellent to the Macronists and of course the left. I don’t see the French waiting quietly until 2027 without expressing their anger if nothing is done in all these areas.
The second scenario is the one that could occur after a second or even a third overthrow of government: a new dissolution, now possible from June 9. The risk would be maximum because it could lead the French to re-elect an equally unstable assembly. It would then be Emmanuel Macron who should resign. But the new president elected immediately could not dissolve for a year. He would therefore also find himself paralyzed by an assembly without a majority! Suffice it to say that we can close the house…
There remains a third scenario, which I mentioned at the risk of displeasing. It consists of clearly asking the question of taking control of the institutional calendar: early presidential election first, legislative elections via dissolution immediately. Obviously, this scenario cannot work before April since we must therefore wait until June 9 before a new dissolution. But Emmanuel Macron must understand that the best interest of the country requires letting the French decide again on a presidential project and allowing them to choose this time with full knowledge of the facts and not in panic.
Certainly, this requires that the right of government, made up of the Republicans, the Macronists of the right and the center, come together and think about how to build a project that will appeal to the French, to the point of dissuading them from throwing themselves into the arms of the RN. This is a historic issue for a country facing maximum risk. Emmanuel Macron, whose decision to dissolve is at the origin of the tragedy we are experiencing, must agree to hear this message before it is too late. The History of France is not a blank page, and everyone who knows it has in mind that the French have always been both monarchists and regicides…
.