The RN announced that its deputies were going to vote on the motion of censure tabled by the NFP after the activation of article 49.3 by Michel Barnier on the Social Security financing project for 2025. Guest of Sonia Mabrouk on Europe 1 and CNews , Jean-Philippe Tanguy justifies this decision in view of the dangerousness of this budget for the French.
The government of Michel Barnier is undoubtedly living its last hours at the head of the country. After the activation of article 49.3 of the Constitution to adopt the Social Security finance bill for the year 2025, the National Rally announced that it had tabled a motion of censure and that it would vote also the motion proposed by the New Popular Front. Guest of the Great Europe 1/CNews interview, Jean-Philippe Tanguy, deputy for the Somme and deputy president of the RN group in the National Assembly, justifies this choice of the RN, because the proposed budget was “dangerous and toxic” for France .
The budget “did not respect the red lines that the Prime Minister had set”
“Our duty is to tell the French that the budget proposed by Michel Barnier was dangerous and toxic for France. It did not respect the red lines that the Prime Minister himself had set, namely reestablishing the accounts. We are still in a slippage of 12 billion euros on what was promised. And above all, there is no social and economic justice. With this decision, the National Rally intends to defend “the national interest” by “stopping this umpteenth drift”.
Jean-Philippe Tanguy believes, contrary to what members of the government suggest, that things would not be worse with the fall of the Barnier government, because this budget “was the museum of horrors of Bercy”: “All the old reforms that “It had been in Bercy's drawers for years, they took everything out and they made a kind of headless Frankenstein.” He also affirms that his group in the Assembly proposed a counter-budget: “We proposed a counter-budget, and it is rare enough that we are not criticized, where we could make 25 billion savings on the agencies, the territorial millefeuille, on bad decisions, already on immigration”, he concludes, regretting that the government did not take into account their economic proposals.
