Following Marine Le Pen's statement that her far-right Rassemblement National party could vote in favor of a motion of no confidence alongside the left, the possibility of Prime Minister Michel Barnier government's downfall is gaining momentum. According to political scientist and constitutional expert Benjamin Morel, a lecturer at the University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas, the benefit of appointing a "technical" government is that "everyone will come away with the idea that this time, dissolution [of the Assemblée Nationale] is not an option, but a foregone conclusion."

If the motion of no confidence is passed, the government will immediately be considered a caretaker government, which is different from the situation in July, when the government could only legally be considered a caretaker government once the president had accepted the prime minister's resignation. Here, Emmanuel Macron would not be able to postpone the moment when the government is restricted to only dealing with day-to-day affairs.

So, the question that is likely to arise is: Does Macron keep a caretaker government until a potential dissolution [of the Assemblée Nationale, at the earliest in June]? Politically, this would seem completely crazy, but not legally impossible. Or does he appoint someone who might not be overthrown by the same opposition coalition that would have overthrown Michel Barnier, which would mean finding a five-legged sheep?

If the president deems it possible for a caretaker government to implement the budget, perhaps by means of invoking Article 47 of the Constitution [which establishes deadlines for the budget, enabling government action if Parliament misses the deadlines], the caretaker government could last a long time. There is little hindsight, and even less precedent, but legally there is a way. On the other hand, the political consequences would be very serious.

The government wouldn't be able to take any measures that would bind its successor. It would be blocked regarding numerous appointments, have difficulty introducing bills and would have absolutely no credibility in European negotiations. Additionally, it would struggle to reassure the markets about our ability to even have a budget... How long would this situation be democratically and politically tolerable? The question is, who can he appoint to address these issues?

You have 59.39% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.