“This matter must be resolved in January. We are not going to go around in circles when we know what there are majorities on,” says Amélie de Montchalin, Minister of Public Accounts.

A special law was therefore passed this Tuesday, December 23 afternoon in the National Assembly. It will be in the Senate in the evening, to allow the State to continue to function, in the absence of a budget adopted before December 31. A transitional solution, before the vote on a budget in January. To talk about it, the Minister of Public Accounts, Amélie de Montchalin, is the guest of “20 Heures”. “I am not satisfied with this impotence and I am also sometimes not satisfied with a form of posture in debates”she assures, convinced of the need to find a compromise, after the vote on the Social Security budget in mid-December.

This text corresponds to the transcription of part of the interview above. Click on the video to watch the interview in full.

Jean-Baptiste Marteau: Good evening, Amélie de Montchalin. Thanks for being with us. You are Minister of Public Accounts. You were in the Senate a few minutes ago. You’re going back this evening. How long can this special law last? How long without a budget, without further degrading the economy?

Amélie de Montchalin: First, perhaps explain to those watching us what is happening, because there is a lot of confusion. Last night, you see, we had a budget for Social Security, for hospitals, for caregivers, it was good news. But we had no budget for the State, for education, transport, agriculture, defense, justice, the police… In short, everything that makes up the daily life of the French, we had no budget. And this evening, I unfortunately have to tell the French that we still have no budget. We have a minimum which is in the process of being voted on, in fact, in the Assembly then in the Senate and this minimum does not satisfy me.

Is this what you call minimum service?

Because we owe the French the maximum, but above all we owe the French the best. The best first for their daily lives, and also the best of what the political class can offer France. And what is the best? That’s the compromise.

The special law still allows us to do the minimum, to pay civil servants. It also doesn’t allow us to make investments, for example hiring civil servants for national education…

I’m going to give you two examples that are heavily featured in television news at the moment. These are the military and the farmers. Men and women who we know are committed to our sovereignty, to feeding us, to defending us. You see, for the military, the President of the Republic, in the very dangerous world that is ours, announced on July 13 that we had to rearm ourselves, protect ourselves better. Very concretely, with the special law, we can pay for all the commitments already made, for example the aircraft carrier. But, for frigates and planes, we will have to wait until we have a real budget to place orders. I don’t find it satisfactory. For farmers, all emergency situations, the health crisis, obviously, we will be there. For vaccines, for compensation, if there are slaughters, obviously, for the emergency fund. But you can see that managing only emergencies for farmers is not satisfactory. Winegrowers are waiting for support. Cereal growers are waiting for support. And I will not be able, with the means of the special law, to trigger them. Ultimately, what is at stake is: are we doing the minimum? We pay civil servants, we raise taxes, we pay our creditors, we pay our debt. And so, basically, we respond neither to emergencies, nor to the essential, nor ultimately to what the French expect. Or, do we have this collective burst, this moment when, deep down, the political class gives the best of itself, because the French expect the best from us?

The start, the compromise, do you hope for it? How long can we last with this special law?

The special law, you know, in 2025, it lasted six weeks. And the Prime Minister said it again, the President of the Republic said it again. Basically, this matter must be resolved by January. We are not going to go around in circles when we know what there are majorities on, the Prime Minister said it again a few minutes ago.

But how do we do it? There was no compromise. You’ve tried everything for months. The left and the right cannot agree. How do you do ?

It was a day of great pride for our country. It was a few days ago, it was December 16th. On December 16, while our government does not have an absolute majority, while the Prime Minister renounced the use of the famous 49.3, there was a positive vote which gave Social Security, hospitals, nurses, caregivers, disability policies, our seniors, a budget.

But the Social Security budget is less political than the state budget.

But look, how did we get there? Not by doing miraculous things. We got there by doing what the French do in real life. In real life, with your friends, in your family, in your business, sometimes we don’t immediately agree. We discuss, sometimes we argue, sometimes we debate. But in the end, we say to ourselves that to move forward, we have to find solutions. We did it for Social Security. And the Prime Minister said this evening, there are five subjects that he put on the table which are both urgent and on which I can tell you with great conviction that there is a majority. There is a majority for agriculture, there is a majority for overseas, there is a majority for housing policy, there is a majority for our youth, there is a majority for our local communities. If we already agree on the essentials, I am sure we can get there.

But you have clearly seen that the parliamentarians are not ready, you have not succeeded. How do we do it? Do we continue like this for months in January, February? Or do you take 49.3 again? Some push you to do it.

You know, 49.3 and all the articles of the Constitution, they basically give us a “how can we do it”. But none of the articles give us “how to compromise”. And to make a compromise, you basically have to do one thing. Besides, you see, all the parliamentarians, all the ministers, we are all going to find our children, we are going to find our families, we are going to leave Paris, and we are going to have French people who will all, in my opinion, tell us one thing. They expect a lot from us and they want us to be political leaders. I am not satisfied with this impotence and I am also sometimes not satisfied with a form of posture in debates. You have political actors today who want to skip the year 2026, preferring, basically, that 2026 does not exist and that we are immediately in 2027. Because in 2027, there is a presidential election. And I believe that for our children, for those we will find, for those who give us energy, for those who make us think about the future, we must also think about the future, of course, but the future is being built now. By acting here and now, in 2026, through a compromise, we were able to do it for Social Security, we must know how to do it for the rest.

And you think it’s possible? Do you think we can still reach a compromise?

I believe we can get there. I think we have to get there. The government will take all its responsibilities. But our responsibilities are to ensure that people come to an agreement. And I can’t resign myself to powerlessness. And getting there doesn’t mean waiting for a miracle. It is, basically, doing what the French expect of us and respecting them. Respect what the French expect for emergencies, for the essential, for daily life and not give the minimum, but do the maximum and give the best of ourselves.