After a motion of censure which narrowly failed, and before the speech of the President of the Republic on Wednesday at 1 p.m., several members of the majority seem bewildered. What follow-up to the five-year term, what to change in macronie?
Laurent Marcangeli, president of the Horizons group, the party of Edouard Philippe, member of the majority, held a moderate speech during the debate on the motions of censure. Near 20 minutes, he again calls for “introspection” in the majority, which he deplores that it was unable to highlight “the benefits” of the pension reform.
The government escaped censorship by 9 votes on Monday. Is it the failure of the Borne method, which had to find compromises?
This is not necessarily the failure of the Borne method, but the mark of the difficulty in finding a compromise. We are not going to pretend to wake up and realize that in France, consensus is hard to find. It does not date from yesterday, but it turns out that today in the Hemicycle, but also in French society, consensus is more and more difficult. But it could have been worse: the motion of censure could have won.
In your speech of support for the government on Monday, you felt that the wrongs were shared. What did not work on the government side, on this pension reform?
I don’t want to throw stones at anyone. Moreover, I include myself in this questioning because I chair one of the majority groups. We were not able, at any time, even until the end of the examination of the text, to show the benefits of the reform on many subjects: women, long careers… Personally, this leaves me with a bitter taste because there were all the same 7 billion euros of improvements, repairs, justice in the text, and we will not talk about it.
An example: the question of reconstituted careers, in particular for people who have done work of collective utility (TUC). It was Paul Christophe who convinced the government to put it in, it concerns 2 million people, sometimes people who have worked for six years with these contracts. Philippe Martinez himself said that if there was one good thing about this reform, that was it. There was not, as I could hear, only injustice and massacre in the law.
So yes, there is a form of bitterness, and rather than saying it’s the fault of the LFIs, the RN or the Tartempion, maybe we weren’t able to wear it well . In any case, as president of a group of the majority, I question myself. Perhaps in the days to come, we will have to do a little introspection on our methods, on our communication, to make things clearer to the French.
Concretely, what can this introspection give?
It is, for example, each time we carry a text upstream, trying to prepare an intelligible communication as well as possible, making people understand the interest of the reforms we are proposing, exchanging, not being caught up in time, to have a more strategic vision, even if we always have the obligation of the moment when we are here.
To be in a form of pedagogy. François Bayrou said more or less the same thing: perhaps we did not succeed in demonstrating the urgency and the need for reform because we were not sufficiently pedagogical.
In recent weeks, there has been turbulence between Horizons and Renaissance. Are these relationships in the majority part of the things to improve to get out of the rut?
You are not going to find a member of the majority who is going to tell you that the functioning of the majority should not be improved. We all agree with that.
Including at Renaissance?
Of course. For what ? Because we are a coalition. A new coalition which acts in a constrained universe, that of a relative majority with particularly strong, noisy, incisive oppositions. We must work better together on our texts upstream, better prepare our parliamentary niches. It is true that that of my group was not very calm… There was also the day of parliamentary initiative where Aurore Berger suffered a failure on the law which she carried. This gave the image of a majority who rightly did not get along well at the time. So we have to work differently.
But working differently does not mean “we are no longer together”. It’s always like that, a coalition. And there you have one made up of three entities, in a country that is difficult to reform but which needs it, with a society full of tensions… All without an absolute majority. Additional difficulty: the President of the Republic, the keystone of the institutions, cannot compete for a third term. You have to learn to work with all these elements.
The President of the Republic, precisely, seems to have ruled out a dissolution, a reshuffle and a referendum. What tools do you see then to regain control?
First, the president must speak [le chef de l’Etat prendra la parole à la télévision mercredi à 13 heures]. I repeat, in our Republic, in our Constitution, the keystone is the president. He was re-elected less than a year ago in a very particular context. Whether we like or dislike our system, whether we like or dislike this President of the Republic, whether we support him or not, he is the one who sets the course. By his word, by his expression, he sets the scene.
In this course that the president must set, should there be a fundamental change? Among members of the majority, the “dogma” of zero tax increases is sometimes questioned…
I want us to provide an answer to our compatriots who want a fairer – some would say fairer – distribution of the fruit of the work, of the effort to make our solidarity system work, our public services. For what ? Because it’s a subject that motivates a lot of people in the streets when they demonstrate.
It is not just the question of pensions, there is justice. But it also concerns territorial fractures. Living in a rural area today is not easy. But in addition, if tomorrow you have low emission zones that prevent you from going to the center, or it costs you even more to access care, it’s even worse. All these questions arouse in the hearts of the French people a feeling of real injustice.
So it’s broader than tax fairness…
It goes beyond her. I know very well what millions of French people say to each other, but when we talk about the profits of large French companies, for example, we often forget that these profits are made for the most part outside the country. People see the profit, the salaries, especially of the managers of these companies. And during this time, the government, courageously, says “we will have to make an effort and work two more years”. For many, this is an injustice. I believe that to be balanced, to take account of the needs we have, in particular to operate our public services, there is pension reform on the one hand, but perhaps also a little more justice on the other .
It has long been said that Horizons could be the natural destination for LR members close to majority. The party now seems very divided. Could this long-awaited rally happen now?
I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that we are in the process, as far as we are concerned, of continuing to take root. We have our congress on Saturday, we have a parliamentary group, local elected officials, a political office which meets at regular intervals, committees and departmental delegates… Most of the country is now practically covered. And we are destined to expand, not to remain a club in between. If there are people who want to join us, provided they share our values and want to go a long way with us, we will welcome them.
Do you have contact with LR deputies in particular?
I don’t want to talk about it.