When budget choices divide the executive, it is parliament that suffers. The government’s decision not to present an amended financial bill (PLFR) after the finding of a surge in the public deficit animated the debates of a parliamentary commission of inquiry on Wednesday,with the implicit criticism of an arbitration that reduced Parliament’s room for maneuver.
Listening to the former chief of staff of former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and the former director of the Treasury, Emmanuel Moulin, the deputies of the Finance Committee of the National Assembly tried to understand who was behind this arbitration.
In February, to urgently remedy the situation, the than Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire, announced a saving of ten billion euros on the state budget, the maximum that could be cut by decree, without having to go through an amending financial law. in Parliament.
Debates on PLFR
It was “the most meaningful cancellation decree published, I believe, under the Fifth Republic”, according to Emmanuel Moulin, who specified that “an additional 10 billion euros” of savings would then have to be found, “to the State, social security and of local authorities, in particular through the freezing of spending”.
But the advantage of a PLFR is “that we can also discuss the revenues”, underlined the president of the Finance Commission Eric Coquerel (LFI). Raising taxes “was not the idea we had”, replied Emmanuel Moulin, assuring that “there was no desire to bypass Parliament”.
The question of favoring a PLFR had also sparked unrest within the previous majority, in particular between Bruno Le Maire, former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and the President of the Republic Emmanuel Macron. A corrective financial law has paved the way for a possible motion of censure by the opposition.
macron and Attal “on the same line”
At the beginning of November Bruno Le Maire regretted before the Senate Finance Committee that he had failed to convince citizens of the need for an amending finance bill in the spring. The Finance Minister proposes, but the “arbitrage” is up to President Emmanuel Macron, he underlined, while saying he was “in solidarity” with the decisions taken.
But «who really opposed the presentation of this amending financial bill? » launched Eric Ciotti (UDR),who also questioned him on a possible link between this decision and the European elections that preceded the dissolution. Emmanuel Moulin replies that the topic has been at the center of numerous conversations between the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic.
“All the decisions you make, you discuss them with the president,” he explained. “The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister were on the same line, and constitutionally it is the Prime Minister who decides” whether to present or not present a bill, he concluded.
Regarding the imminence of the European elections, “as head of the prime minister’s cabinet I did not have the feeling that this dimension weighed on his decisions”, assures Emmanuel Moulin.
– How can effective communication between the executive and legislative branches improve trust in government financial decisions?
Title: Budget Battles: An Interview with Dr. Lisa Parnell, political Economist
Editor: Welcome, Dr. Parnell! thank you for joining us today. The recent debates in Parliament about the government’s financial decisions have been quite heated, especially after the public deficit surge. What’s your take on the government’s choice not to present an amended financial bill?
Dr. Parnell: Thank you for having me! The decision not to present an amended financial bill is quite significant. It essentially signals a lack of consensus within the executive branch regarding budget priorities.When the government chooses to forgo an opportunity to revise its financial strategy,it leaves Parliament with restricted options and can undermine legislative oversight.
Editor: That’s an insightful point. You mentioned the implications for legislative oversight. Can you elaborate on how this impacts Parliament’s role in the budgetary process?
Dr. Parnell: Certainly. When executive decisions limit the scope of Parliament’s action, it diminishes the democratic process. Parliament serves as a check on the government’s financial decisions,and without the ability to debate and amend proposed budgets,lawmakers are essentially sidelined. This means that the concerns of the electorate may not be adequately represented.
editor: It sounds like the decision could foster a sense of disillusionment among lawmakers. How might this affect public trust in the government?
dr. Parnell: Absolutely. When Parliament feels marginalized, it can lead to increased frustration among lawmakers, which might spill over into public sentiment. Voters expect their representatives to have a voice in budgetary matters that affect their daily lives. If Parliament is perceived to be ineffective because of executive overreach, it can erode trust in both the government and democratic institutions as a whole.
editor: Speaking of trust, former officials have been critical of these moves.Do you think that hearing from former high-ranking officials, like the former chief of staff, strengthens or complicates the debate around fiscal obligation?
Dr. Parnell: It can do both. On one hand, insights from experienced officials help provide context and expertise to the conversation. Thay can highlight the complexities of budget management and accountability. On the other hand, if their criticism seems like a political maneuver or self-interest, it can muddy the waters and distract from substantive discussions about fiscal responsibility.
Editor: Captivating perspective! How do you see this situation unfolding in the future? Will we see more tension between the executive and Parliament?
Dr. Parnell: I believe so.If the government continues to act unilaterally, we may see a brewing conflict that could ultimately result in a more assertive parliamentary response.This might lead to calls for reforms in how budgetary decisions are made or even greater public demonstrations, as citizens rally for more transparency and accountability.
editor: So civil engagement could be a significant factor moving forward. What advice would you give to policymakers facing this divide?
Dr.Parnell: Policymakers should prioritize open communication and collaboration between the executive and legislative branches.Engaging Parliament in the early stages of budget planning can help create a sense of joint ownership of financial decisions. Transparency is crucial; if the public sees their representatives actively engaged in discussions about budgets, it can bolster trust and participation in the democratic process.
Editor: Wise words, Dr. Parnell. Thank you for sharing your insights on this vital issue.We look forward to seeing how this situation develops in the weeks to come!
Dr. Parnell: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to discuss such an important topic.