Benjamin Morel is a lecturer in public law at the University of Paris-II Panthéon-Assas.
FIGAROVOX. - The Prime Minister delivered her general policy speech to the National Assembly this Wednesday, July 6. While many express doubts about her, has she managed to convince?
Benjamin Morel. -
A speech on general policy does not really aim to convince the opposition, even less the detractors.
It should make it possible to characterize a policy and give direction to the majority.
In this, the speech has kept its promises since all the major projects of the legislature have been tackled without us understanding too much, beyond the first texts, how the hierarchy of subjects can be constructed.
The fact remains that a speech on general policy is rarely predictive of the months that follow.
In view of the economic, health, diplomatic and political instability, this one was even less so than the others.
Such a speech should above all make it possible to characterize a prime minister;
to show what his style of government is.
The great speeches of general policy are those where the Prime Minister allows himself to exist alongside the Head of State.
Benjamin Morel
Such a speech should above all make it possible to characterize a prime minister;
to show what his style of government is.
The great speeches of general policy are those where the Prime Minister allows himself to exist alongside the Head of State.
Remember the “
new society
” of Chaban-Delmas;
Rocard
's "
duty of greyness ".
However, here, we have the feeling that, notwithstanding a timid personal interlude and a few expected remarks on the place of women in politics, the pen is Elysian.
When Elisabeth Borne tries to deliver her political identity during the speech, she gives it as content “
the values of our Republic: freedom, equality, fraternity, secularism
”.
The least we can say is that it does not eat bread.
Read alsoFaced with Elisabeth Borne, critical opposition, unconvinced by her speech
His speech lasted 1h30. Has it succeeded in proposing a real political vision, going beyond the criticism that is often addressed to it for being too technocratic?
1h30 is indeed very long.
Again, we have the impression that Elisabeth Borne took everything from Emmanuel Macron, even the lengths.
We find somewhat the same problems as with the head of state;
we go from very general ideas, even platitudes, to micro-measures (30 minutes of sports at school).
Above all, Élisabeth Borne only recounts the promises of the Head of State during the two campaigns that we have just experienced.
We must not be too hard on Elisabeth Borne, because since the quinquennium a speech on general policy is complicated to write.
Benjamin Morel
We must not be too hard on Elisabeth Borne, because since the quinquennium a speech on general policy is complicated to write.
In the aftermath of a presidential campaign, how do you expect a prime minister to exist in the shadow of the head of state?
Edouard Philippe had the same concern in 2017. Worse still, because Emmanuel Macron had had the good idea to simultaneously make a speech before Congress.
What do you remember from his speech?
This is precisely the problem.
Apart from the rise to 100% in the capital of EDF, there is not much new compared to the course that we already knew was set.
The Prime Minister called on the opposition to “build together” “compromises”. Did his speech take into account the disappointing results of the legislative elections?
You have to know how to make a virtue of necessity.
The question is not whether the government can draw the consequences of the legislative elections, it is forced to do so.
However, here again, we see that certain blockages are present, probably more at the Élysée than at Matignon, and make it difficult to envisage a change of method.
Proof of this is the scattering of micro-measures.
Whether you want to initiate education reform, so be it.
But in this case, we must leave room for negotiation, and not go into the details of artistic education.
If you do that, you restrict the scope of the negotiable and therefore the chances of success.
Then, relaunching the idea of the National Council for Refoundation (CNR) or multiplying the prior consultations on all the subjects of all that society has of intermediary bodies, it's very good when you have an absolute majority and it's It's about legitimizing your decisions by giving the feeling of listening.
When you have to negotiate with the opposition, arrive at Parliament with an agreement already tied up on which you have by nature committed not to go back too much and which you will have to get back to work, it is not a way to simplify life.
Moreover, the CNR is allergenic for parliamentarians and risks solidifying the opposition against any majority proposal that emanates from it.
In the Senate, Bruno Retailleau asked Élisabeth Borne again to give it up.
Here again, we find a mechanism from the first five-year term which can no longer be used: the Head of State put forward an idea, which was or has become stupid, but as he announced, we have to stick to it come what may and whatever it costs.
Presidential infallibility cannot survive minority government.
When she called on the various parliamentary forces to compromise on texts, she did not mention the names of the presidents of the RN and LFI groups. However, these two groups represent important forces in the hemicycle. Why ?
There is a will to address the "reconcilable" oppositions and to fracture the Nupes.
In this case, the rhetorical device you cite was a bit heavy.
It is not certain that this speech achieved its goal.
The pension reform has every chance of cementing the union of the left.
As for LR, pledges were given in the speech, but it is not they who will move this parliamentary group.