Pensions and 49.3: the Elizabeth Born method, compromise against beliefs

One, two, three… Then we stopped counting. “Compromise,” the word seemed to clutter up those of Elizabeth Bourne, sent on TF1 this Thursday night to try to put out the fire ignited by the (almost) surprise appeal to Article 49.3 of the Constitution. First of all, show, shout that this government is capable of negotiating, composing. Avoid the Jovian trap at all costs: a one-shot decision that throws the crowd out on the street for lack of dialogue. But compromise is not performative; it is not enough to invoke it in a speech or conversation in order for it to occur and calm the heated souls. First of all, the overused compromise also has an unflattering side: the collapse of beliefs.

Reiterating that “the text is the result of a compromise”, recalling the long “months of consultations with trade unions”, expressing confidence “that it is through finding compromises [décidément] that we can offer the best solutions for the French”, Elisabeth Bourne forgot to tell those who this evening did not take their eyes off the TV screen, wanting to know if they really have to work until the age of 64, about the reasons for his deep faith in this pension reform.

Why is pushing back the starting age, in her opinion, an absolute necessity? What bleak future awaits the French if the reform is not adopted? So many questions remain unanswered for months due to a lack of political and philosophical reflection on the evolution of the world of work. Pension reform could give Emmanuel Macron and his government the opportunity to discuss the debate that is taking place in our society, digital and climate challenges, new working conditions… Instead, the leader wanted to start with technology, figures, to approach a second time, which seems to be everything more and more distant, to this world of work in complete revolution.

A confession that speaks volumes

Join my white train! But who would have dared to follow Henry IV if he had not encouraged his troops, convincing them of his deep faith in victory? How to support the reform, in which the Prime Minister herself forgets to remind what she believes in?

During this ridiculous speech, the current tenant of Matignon also did not have the audacity to contradict the sometimes utopian speeches of the opposition. Faced with the dream of retiring at 60 that leftists love to babble about, isn’t there a reality principle they could remember? “We moved around a lot,” she preferred to testify, and it’s too bad if a supposed LR ally, to whom we have given up a lot, did only what she pleased. It’s just that Elizabeth Bourne dared to be shy: “Some wanted to play a personal card.”

No, now is not the time to rise up and believe in his reform, otherwise why conclude this confession: “There are even measures with which I do not necessarily agree”? There is no doubt that the prime minister was keen to prove that this government was capable of listening and being compliant. But it is too quick to forget that success in politics is always achieved through the ability to persuade.

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.