What lessons have you learned from the last parliamentary debate?
Personally, I did not vote for the extension of the state of emergency. Like the immense majority of LR deputies at first reading (96 against, 7 abstentions), before the joint joint committee. Giving quasi-full powers until July 10 to a government that has demonstrated its immense limits seemed inconceivable to me. On the contrary, we must urgently return to normal democratic functioning.
The majority ended up abandoning their amendment on the responsibility of elected officials. How do you explain this withdrawal?
I am convinced that one of the main objectives of the government is to establish a form of self-amnesty. Taking advantage of the legitimate concern of senators to better guarantee the legal security of mayors and business leaders, the government has unworthily wanted to extend this device. A compromise has been found, but like all compromises, it is not free from ambiguity and risk. The drafting of the text may concern senior officials and ministers. The term “in particular” could leave the door open to an exemption from their liability.
Do the conditions for a successful deconfinement seem to you met?
I hope it succeeds, but I am worried about the government’s amateurism. This deconfinement was largely prepared in confusion. A high official summed up the situation pretty well for me: the instructions oscillate between complete disorganization and Soviet administration. I do not trust a government that has been so lacking in anticipation, so hesitant and so much untrue. On the other hand, I trust the civic spirit of the French, but many questions remain. The Keeper of the Seals has recognized a predictable rebound in crime. The irresponsible choice to decrease the prison population by nearly 15,000 inmates will greatly contribute to this. On masks, we are not ready, because the government has not anticipated anything since 2018, the stock of masks went from 1.7 billion in 2012 under Nicolas Sarkozy to just 100 million, in January 2020. It the government will have to explain itself. In school, it’s total cacophony. On the economic front, the first figures show that France is dropping far more strongly than its European partners, with gigantic consequences on our public finances. In addition, I consider that the monitoring system for people affected by the virus must be better supervised, without violating medical confidentiality. For this I would have preferred that general practitioners, despised at the start of the crisis, be more at the heart of the system. However, thanks to the Republicans, the parliamentary debate has helped to mitigate certain risks to public liberties.
What do you expect from the referral to the Constitutional Council by the President of the Senate, knowing that the Head of State also seeks the advice of the Wise?
We cannot put our democracy in the dark for a long time. The executive legislates by ordinances and controls a Parliament reduced to its bare minimum. We have to get out of this situation. The President of the Republic wants to give himself the beautiful role but he only follows the timely initiative of the President of the Senate. Without Gérard Larcher’s approach, I doubt that he would have gone in this direction.
How do you see the rest of the relationship between the head of state and the Prime Minister?
The signs of conflict, which have appeared for several weeks and have been amplified for a few days, are truly astounding in this period. The President of the Republic speaks of a government of national unity, but he had better unite in his government. I recognize the Prime Minister’s form of rigor. On the other hand, the Head of State was unable to set a course for the nation, contenting himself with empty slogans, communication devices, inappropriate and offbeat visits until this improbable sequence with the world of culture where he seemed totally elated. The great statesmen have always appeared in the crisis. The least we can say is that Emmanuel Macron is not in this category. It’s not de Gaulle or Clemenceau who wants to. As for the dissidents of the LREM group in the Assembly, I note that the MPs En Marche! have no freedom. Today they are rebelling and I can understand it. But beyond arithmetic, the problem of this majority is its ideological inconsistency.