During a recent visit to a Michelin factory, on the outskirts of Paris, the minister for industrial affairs Marc Ferracci was heckled and shouted at. The factory is one of many to be shut down as part of a wave of industrial closures across France. Added to this are expected strikes by public sector workers and the railways. Right now, it is too early to say whether the republic will experience a protracted social crisis as it has in the past, but the situation is far from promising.
In spite of these severe economic woes, the French political class is consumed by strategising and tactical manoeuvres, all tied to the possible fallout from the collapse of the Barnier government. It looks increasingly likely that Barnier will push through his budget using the famous Article 49:3 of the Constitution, which allows legislation to be passed without a parliamentary vote. The Left has said it would respond by seeking to bring down the government. The far-Right, whose votes will be decisive, has said that as things stand they are minded to vote with the Left. In which case, the Barnier government will collapse some time between 15 and 21 December.
In the last few days, the possibility of an even earlier move to bring Barnier down has been suggested — perhaps as early as next week. French public opinion is divided on the matter, though it seems surprisingly favourable to the prospect of a collapse. A recent poll found that just over half of those surveyed supported dissolution, despite the turbulence of the legislative elections over the summer. This number falls a little when the prospect of a financial crisis is evoked, but even then a hefty 46% still support a move against Barnier.
When the Barnier government was first put together, at the end of the summer, after an extended period of feverish uncertainty, it seemed as if it might signal some kind of return for the country’s centre-right Républicains. They were given some of the most powerful roles — the minister of interior, for instance — whilst Barnier himself came from this wing of the political spectrum. The Left cried foul, as they considered themselves the winners of the legislative elections, and yet the centre-right was back in power.
However, it was always dangerous to rest the revival of a party and a political tradition on an edifice as fragile as the Barnier government. Less than six months later, we see that the fundamental dynamic of political fragmentation — where no political force is able to create a majority of any kind — is reasserting itself. And the Barnier government is a distillation of that fragmentation rather than a way of overcoming it.
This fragmentation has not come out of the blue. It was already evident in the early 2000s, but it was masked by the rallying effect that came from surprisingly good scores by the French far-Right. The fact that neither the Left nor the Right could command the same sort of vote share as in the past was hidden by the power of the cordon sanitaire: majorities were built on a fear of letting the far-Right into power.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeTo the editor of Unherd: the constant use of the term ‘far right’ by your contributors needs to stop. The people referred to this way are not ‘far right’ at all. What separates them from their opposition is solely their belief that governments should act above all in the national interest and not on behalf of a supranational elite. Repeatedly describing them in this way is both dishonest and misleading.
I suggest we call the Rassemblement National ‘right’ or ‘just right’ and everyone else ‘kinda right’.
Or the opposite to the Far Right are the Far Wrong?
There used to be the term ‘right (or left) wing’, which perfectly described political views clearly to one side or other of the political spectrum. Why can’t this be used as a less contentious label?
The labels no longer mean anything. ‘Left’ used to mean solidarity with the working class, now it just means statist.
The Labour Party was founded by a Christian , Keir Hardie who wanted to improve the quaity of life of the un and semi skilled; he was against class war. Lenin believed in a small group of revolutionaries taking power; he had contempt for the lumpen proletariat.
Hardie was a democrat, Lenin a dictator who believed any action, be it murder, rape, mutilation was justified if it furthered the cause.
In France the revolutionaries adopted the belief in the Divine Rigtht of the King and the concept of Droit Administratif used ruthlessly by Cadinal Richlieu.Those running the EEC/EU have no experience of English Common Law and believe in the Divine Right of Politicians and Bureaucrats and the ruthless use of the Le Droit Administratif.
The modern day civil service have the same attitude as the higher echelons( abbots, bishops and above ) of the Romn Catholic Church pre- Reformation.
Agreed. This nonsense screams out of the page every time and makes it difficult to take seriously anything else in the article.
Why do we have to keep using these outdated terms of left and right at all?
All part of the language control and manipulation used by the left for many decades.
Old Stalin knew what he was doing when he called Trotsky “Right wing”, before he had him done away with. All good communists together.
I do feel a bit sorry for Barnier. Macron must have thought he was just the ticket to be dealing with a fractious coalition due to his skills at keeping people with different interests united which we saw during Brexit (you have to admit that, even if you’re still moody about it. Which personally I’m not).
If he’d have just stayed in retirement, then that would have been the crowning glory of his career. Now he’s added this car crash to the resumé. Quit while you’re ahead and all that.
Far-Right, Far-Left, left, right, centre-right, centrist.
What is going on with the capitalisation here? Is there a code I’m not in on And when is someone going to actually define these terms for me?!
Seen from France, our situation is an inextricable mess.
There are basically 3 camps in France (center, farleft, farright) and they have each one third of the vote.
So at some point, we’ll get an IMF administrator, maybe in a few years.
Sounds like you need a parliamentary guillotine.
Unfortunately all 3 camps are made up of fervent believers in the existence of the Magic Money Tree.
“a full-blown crisis of the eurozone still seems far-fetched, given the broadly robust nature of the French economy.”
I would disagree with this. Since the start of September, the French economy has undergone a marked economic downturn. Investment is slowing down, the unemployment curve is reversing, redundancy plans and bankruptcies are multiplying, the country’s economic attractiveness is deteriorating, and the social climate is tense. They cannot seem to reign in spending, the budget deficit is running at 6% plus (in complete contravention to the EU’s 3% rule) and their largest trading partner, Germany, is in recession. There is nothing very robust in this picture.
Once Trump gets going the same fate awaits all of us. His cheap oil, low-regulation, AI turbo-charged economy is going to suck every last penny of capital out of the sclerotic EU. If Starmer doesn’t ditch the Net Zero nonsense (and David Lammy) pretty promptly our future looks even worse.
I 100% agree with you, which is why on the day Trump won the election I switched the weighting across all my portfolios to overweight US.
Wise move.
France and Germany in political upheaval can not be a good omen for the EU. Especially with Trump back in the USA. How will they pay for increased defense spending, high social welfare costs, and the “green net zero transition?” Very tough choices ahead.
You are repeating yourself: the high social welfare costs are for the injured Windmills. 🙂