The JDD. The government presents a budget with 60 billion euros in savings, two-thirds reduction in spending, and one-third in tax revenue. Is this the right distribution?
François Bayrou. This is a crisis budget. Everyone would have liked to avoid this situation. But the cascade of accidents in recent years has incurred very significant expenses and reduced revenues. The Yellow Vests, Covid, the war in Ukraine, energy costs and inflation, the semi-recession situation in Europe… All this in a well-known French atmosphere: “Let’s always spend more. » As far as I can remember, I have never seen anyone proclaim from the podium: “I suggest you cut these credits. »
Everyone, from the right, from the left, a little less from the center fortunately, came declaiming: “I demand additional money for education, for health, for farmers, for defense, for security forces, for justice…” This addiction to public spending, I have known since I ran a presidential campaign on the subject of deficits and debt, no one was concerned about it. It is in the face of difficulty that we lament.
Would you say that there is a French culture of blindness? Denial of the reality of public accounts?
Certainly yes. With the planning commission, three years ago I produced the first truthful analysis of pension financing. The Retirement Orientation Council claimed – it’s ironic –, “slightly surplus”. His diagnosis carefully obscured the reality which was that the State is obliged to provide between 30 and 40 billion every year to balance it out! Billions that we must borrow in full.
The rest after this ad
Is it the same blindness that explains why there is a gap of 90 billion euros between Bercy’s forecasts in January and today’s reality?
I will respond to you with an allusion to Péguy’s thought which I really like: “There are two imperatives. The first is having the courage to say what you see. And the second is to have the courage, and it’s even more difficult, to see what you see. » We often only see what we want to see! And we never see the time long. This is why I have been fighting for years for an authority responsible for forecasting and strategy. This is what we lacked. Cruelly.
How would you characterize the general philosophy of this budget?
This is an emergency budget. Who asks everyone to share the effort, and that’s courageous, we’ll have to succeed. I have two warning signs: first, maintaining activity, creativity, initiative and growth; and the second, the search for savings must be undertaken with the actors on the ground themselves, and not imposed blindly.
Some political leaders from the “central bloc”, Gabriel Attal or Gérald Darmanin in particular, criticize Michel Barnier’s budgetary choices. You too ?
I will not relay their criticisms for two reasons. The first: it would be strange for the ex-majority to criticize the new government on the effort to be made to correct a record which is in reality its own. The second reason is that there is a very simple way to get out of these misunderstandings: parliamentary debate. Parliament once again becomes the place for discussions, negotiations and the development of compromises. Let those who disagree propose amendments. Let them take the draft budget and explain how to improve it. We will undoubtedly see that it is less simple to do than to say. But I am not in favor of organizing guerrilla warfare, especially when you belong to the main current from which this government was formed.
2,200 positions cut in teaching. Does your former Minister of Education approve of this effort?
2,200 positions for the whole of France is less than the thickness of the line. To take an example, in the Pau metropolitan area, there are some 2,800 education personnel. Of this total, 5 positions will have to be saved! And in many regions the number of students is falling… Who would present this effort as impossible?
Local authorities are also under pressure. Does the mayor of Pau understand this?
This is a very sensitive subject. Who invests in France? These are the local communities. They operate construction and public works, keep schools, health establishments, roads up to standard, etc. Communities invest where the State no longer invests. And they will no longer be able to invest if their financing is degraded. It’s mechanical. There are poorly managed communities, it must be said, but hitting them all indiscriminately is unfair and discouraging. And very dangerous. The debt of local authorities is barely 8% of the country’s total debt.
The government wants to cut tax reductions on low wages to the tune of 4 billion euros. Doesn’t this risk sacrificing jobs?
“Smicardization” is a death trap. What is the main cause? It is the concentration of reductions in charges on low wages. It’s a low-wage trap from which companies can no longer escape. And neither do the employees. These reductions should be concentrated on the youngest, on the start of their careers, on those entering employment.
Another point of friction, the postponement of the indexation of pensions, scheduled for January, to July. Does this seem unfair to you?
No. In the situation facing the country, everyone must make efforts. I think the majority of retirees know that it is not unfair for them to participate.
On immigration, Bruno Retailleau deploys a firm speech. He wants to significantly toughen the reception conditions for undocumented immigrants. Do you approve of his approach?
Let’s start by saying that I don’t believe in “zero immigration”. Madame Meloni, in Italy, proclaimed it with loud trumpets… She has just regularized 450,000 illegal immigrants! Britain voted for Brexit on the promise of “take back control” of immigration. This year they are announcing 800,000 entries, four times more than here! And when the Germans decree the closure of the borders, the same day, they sign an agreement with Kenya and Uzbekistan to welcome more than 250,000 of their nationals.
“Retirees must participate in the effort”
Walk through the streets of our cities, look at the scaffolding: 80% of those who climb there are from immigrant backgrounds. Go to restaurant kitchens, who works there? Very often immigrants. These are useful to the country! Any regularization should impose three conditions. The first: are you ready to really work? Second condition: do you learn the language? And the third: do you understand and accept the idea that we have principles of life in society, notably secularism, which are non-negotiable?
I met Bruno Retailleau. I told him that the subject of absolute urgency was the question of the OQTF. Today, barely 7% of them are executed, and still… The countries of origin refuse to take back their nationals. How can we force these countries to accept them? I add that France must also only issue OQTFs if it has a reasonable guarantee that it will be able to execute them. Otherwise, like today, it is hypocrisy and a clandestine factory.
