“We want a debate and a compromise,” says Amélie de Montchalin, Minister responsible for Public Accounts

The day after a hectic week in committee on the draft budget, elected officials and parliamentarians comment on the political tensions around tax measures and pension reform. Invited on the “4 Vérités” set this Friday, October 24, Amélie de Montchalin, Minister responsible for Public Accounts, defended the government’s project and insisted on the need for debate and compromise in the face of the blockages observed.

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

Jeff Wittenberg: Are you able to maintain a certain dose of optimism as the draft budget arrives in the Chamber today, after a complicated week in committee to say the least? I remind you that this “revenue” part of the budget has already been rejected. We recorded only 37 votes in favor. There is also the general budget rapporteur himself, Mr Philippe Juvin, who declared, I quote, that this budget “is not credible”. Don’t you think the situation is off to a bad start?

Amélie de Montchalin: What I see is that two weeks ago, we were in a situation where it was said that there would be no budget. Then, a week ago, commentators said there wouldn’t even be a debate. However, if we look at the last two weeks, a draft text exists, I underline the word “draft” and a debate has begun.

Jeff Wittenberg: But the draft text was rejected in committee.

Amélie de Montchalin: The committee is a time when MPs can make proposals. Moreover, they voted for sometimes contradictory measures. Our role, that of the government, in this particular political situation, is clear: we do not have an absolute majority, and the Prime Minister has already announced that we will not use the famous 49.3. We want a debate and we are looking for a compromise. A public, democratic and transparent debate, which begins this afternoon, and where everyone will be able to see everyone’s positions: the National Rally and France Insoumise refuse the debate and do not wish to move things forward.

Jeff Wittenberg: But your difficulties are not limited to these parties. If I may, they also concern the right, the Common Core, and even your allies.

Amélie de Montchalin: What is a compromise? It is a moment when political forces remember that we are not here to be right individually, but to serve the French and restore the coherence of our action. We have made progress: there is a draft budget and a debate is taking place. I remain convinced that compromise is possible.

Jeff Wittenberg: We must build concretely for the French. Time being limited, let’s get to the heart of the matter: the famous Zucman tax, which has been divisive for a long time. The left systematically calls for it, while the Common Core rejects it. The problem of the contribution of the richest tax households remains unsolved. Are you going to propose new solutions to this blockage?

Amélie de Montchalin: There are those who want symbols and we want justice and efficiency. We want to fight over-optimization, but without harming businesses, entrepreneurs or individual success. The question is simple: do we want justice or symbols? This is the debate we are going to have.

Jeff Wittenberg: Are they symbols or just words? For example, on the suspension of pensions, you finally spoke of “suspension” rather than “shift” or “postponement”. Won’t you end up giving in to satisfy the socialist parties, who hold part of the key to government?

Amélie de Montchalin: Can we give the Prime Minister credit for good faith? We make commitments and translate them into action. Yesterday, during the Council of Ministers, we adopted a corrective letter to adjust our budget proposal for social security so that it corresponds to what the Prime Minister announced to the National Assembly.

Jeff Wittenberg: Didn’t President Emmanuel Macron embarrass you this week by talking about a simple “lag”? This did not make things easier and forced you to clarify the government’s position.

Amélie de Montchalin: By suspending the ramp-up of reform until the presidential election, the French will be able to retire later, for example three months earlier.

Jeff Wittenberg: Do you understand that the president’s comments may have sowed doubt: suspension or simple postponement?

Amélie de Montchalin: It’s definitely a suspension. And the president specified that in the event of agreement between the political forces, but also the unions and employers, a new retirement system could even be submitted to a referendum. The suspension is not intended to save time, but to allow a real debate, expected by the French. We want to move forward constructively and transparently, not go around in circles.

Jeff Wittenberg: Let’s return to the revenue part of the draft budget, which will be examined this afternoon from 3 p.m. The proposal to eliminate the 10% reduction for retirees in favor of a flat-rate allowance of 2,000 euros was also rejected in committee. Are you going to maintain this measure, which could penalize millions of retirees?

Amélie de Montchalin: As the Prime Minister indicated: the government proposes, parliamentarians debate and vote. I will defend the interest of this measure in the Chamber. This is a reduction, not a elimination.

Jeff Wittenberg: A flat-rate reduction of 2,000 euros instead of the current 10%.

Amélie de Montchalin: This reduction will allow a quarter of taxable retirees to pay less tax. For what ? For the sake of fairness: the wealthiest retirees will contribute a little more, which will benefit others.

Jeff Wittenberg: But among the three quarters who will pay more, it is not just the rich.

Amélie de Montchalin: 84% of the impact of this measure will concern the 20% of wealthiest retirees. This will be a subject of debate, and I will make things clear: it is a question of taking into account both age and income, and of guaranteeing a more progressive tax. Our proposal was designed with this in mind. In the end, it is the parliamentarians who will vote: the power is in their hands.

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