Charles de Courson, LIOT representative for the Marne, was guest on “Everything political”, Monday 24 November.
This text corresponds to the interview transcription section above. Click on the video to watch it in full.
Charles de Courson, LIOT deputy for Marne, former general budget rapporteur and member of the finance committee, renowned for his independent spirit and honesty, is the guest of “Everything political” this Monday, November 24.
Franceinfo: Charles de Courson, we will talk about the draft budget, the revenue side of which was rejected by a very, very large majority. Only one voted and that was the MP from your area, LIOT MP. You abstained, why?
Charles de Courson: I abstained because I think we are destroying parliamentary democracy. What do French people see? Because they elect representatives who are unable to prepare a budget. So what’s the big danger? This is why our colleague Harold Huwart chose it, out of provocation, to call for responsibility.
If we want there to be an authoritarian regime in France, let’s continue like this, because we are showing an inability to sit down and try to find a compromise. So we vote in all directions with alliances, sometimes even opposing votes, and we arrive at a copy that is rejected by almost all groups. Finally, there were two groups whose majority abstained, two groups from the former president’s minority. But we see the system is blocked, so direct it to the Senate. What will happen in the Senate? There is a majority in the Senate, so they will draft a financial bill. Later the joint committee… Conclusive or not? We don’t know. That depends on Senate approval. I think there’s a greater chance that this will be conclusive than the other way around. However, in one case or another, the final decision will come back to the National Assembly.
And there, under the current circumstances, even if there were socialist groups who abstained in return for some of the things they asked for, would there be a majority? It’s too early to know. It depends on what will be in the joint committee agreement, or in the Senate text if it resurfaces after the joint committee failure.
So you’re not completely ruling out the possibility that this budget will ultimately be voted on?
The probability of the candidate being selected is lower than if they were not selected. Depending on the discussions, negotiations will take place in the Senate, especially in the joint committee and afterward in the final vote. I add, the government can make amendments, if there is agreement in the joint committee, it can still submit amendments before the final vote, taking into account certain requests from certain groups.
As you describe the 125 hours that have just passed, it sounds like you’re a little depressed. Do you attribute responsibility to this or that political group, or do you ascribe collective responsibility as a whole? And is everything we are told about the views of the Assembly, the restoration of parliamentarism, just a joke?
The problem is that the Prime Minister is currently proposing a financial bill that is very close to what Bayrou proposed, with measures…
Less savings.
Yes, or some savings he knew he would never choose. So I think he is not independent enough compared to his predecessor. Even so, fortunately he only had a little time.
And would it be a mistake to immediately eliminate 49.3, which allows adoption of the text without a vote?
Listen, it was a request made by our socialist friends that the Prime Minister was satisfied with in this regard. Did you know, not only 49.3, there are also blocked votes. Then if there is no budget, we will choose a special law like last year.
But basically, we get the impression that many people in the Assembly now regret, including among the socialists, that the government does not have the tools 49.3. Basically, it allows us to not take responsibility for things when we oppose them, to put the responsibility on the government and then the responsibility passes. What do you think about it?
I think we are in a dangerous period. Basically, the National Assembly demonstrated its inability to find a compromise. So that’s dangerous because it means parliamentary democracy is no longer functioning. So, if this doesn’t work anymore, put yourself in the shoes of a citizen seeing this. I came back from my constituency, I heard it everywhere: “But what is this mess? Why are you unable to reach an agreement? etc.” So, if this continues for months and another 17 months until the presidential election, my biggest worry, I’ve said it several times, including publicly, is that France will say, we want a strong government, to put things in order at home.
Click on the video to watch the full interview
