Sébastien Lecornu spoke in the courtyard of the French prime minister's residence on Monday, October 6, after submitting his resignation to President Emmanuel Macron, who accepted it. Below is the full transcript of his address:
Sébastien Lecornu: Good morning, everyone,
I am pleased to once again address, via the press, the French, with a few spontaneous words, having submitted the government's resignation. Being prime minister is a difficult task, undoubtedly even more so at this moment. But one cannot serve as prime minister when the necessary conditions are not met. For the past three weeks, however, I have built, or tried to build, the conditions needed to pass a budget for France, for the government, as well as for Social Security, while addressing some urgent matters that cannot wait until the 2027 presidential election.
I do not want to list them all, but we know them: everyday security, concerns related to purchasing power and employment, New Caledonia, the armed forces in a difficult international context, and numerous other issues. For the past three weeks, I have rarely spoken, and I have tried to carve a path with the social partners – employers' forces, forces representing workers' unions – notably on subjects that have been deadlocked for weeks now. On some matters, such as pensions, difficult working conditions, women, long careers, issues that have been stalled for more than 20 years, we were beginning to make real progress on concrete solutions. On unemployment insurance, on funding our Social Security, and ensuring that the two protests held throughout the country this September could help revive joint management and social democracy.
I also devoted this time to working with the political parties that make up the common base [as the recent coalition between centrist and conservative parties was known], to develop a roadmap, but also, of course, with the opposition, since it is largely the opposition that determines not only the government's fate and future [as the government had no majority], but also the country's, through the adoption or rejection of a budget. These official, and sometimes more discreet, consultations allowed us to make progress on several issues. As I said on Friday morning: Behind closed doors, people speak more freely and red lines become orange, and sometimes green, with, of course, a few lines that shift: on unemployment insurance, on tax justice or on the question of pensions. Yet, always with the sentiment that the line moved backward every time we made progress, but to that, too, I will return in a moment.
Then, last Friday, I came to the conclusion that Parliament must always have the final say, that Article 49.3 of the Constitution [which allows the government to pass the budget bill without a vote] was intended as a means to constrain one's majority, in the spirit of the constitutional framers, particularly Michel Debré and General de Gaulle, and that there was no point in giving the impression that debate would not be allowed to run its full course.
On this Monday morning, the necessary conditions were no longer in place for me to serve as prime minister and enable the government to appear before the Assemblée Nationale tomorrow.
For three reasons: First, because some political parties sometimes pretended not to see the profound rupture represented by the decision not to use Article 49.3 of the Constitution. In other words, there was no longer any excuse for a preemptive motion of no confidence. At the very least, lawmakers no longer had an excuse to refuse to do their job, which is to debate the law, amend it, and, if necessary, vote for or against a bill. And this rupture, I must say, was highlighted by many observers and political actors, and even by some opponents who have long called for it. Yet it did not produce the breakthrough of telling ourselves: We can do things differently and we can build things differently.
The second thing is that political parties continue to adopt a posture as if each of them had an absolute majority in the Assemblée Nationale. And, basically, I found myself in a position where I was ready for compromises, but every political party wanted the other political party to adopt its entire platform. That is true for parties, sometimes those in the common base, and true also of those in the opposition. Yet, we said: No broad coalition. It was a choice made by various opposition parties not to join the common base in government, but instead to allow debate and then compromises, knowing that compromise does not mean being compromised. But for that, of course, there needs to be a change of mindset and not wanting to implement one's entire project and program.
The third thing is that the forming of a government within the common base did not go smoothly and reawakened some partisan appetites, sometimes not unrelated, and that is very legitimate, to the upcoming presidential election. I say, or repeat, that if this moment is the most parliamentary in the history of the Fifth Republic, under no circumstances should we relive the worst moments of the Fourth Republic, and therefore, by definition, the formation of a government must be carried out in accordance with the Constitution: on the proposal of the prime minister, named by the president of the Republic.
The last message I want to share with the French is that, ultimately, and this is truly a message of hope and optimism – though by nature I am not always so – it would take very little for it to work. I said here before, "We will get there," and I want to say it again: Based on the confidential conversations I have had, it would take very little for us to get there, by being more selfless and by showing more humility. Perhaps, at times, by letting some egos step back a little. I have tried, at least I hope I have, to do so.
Then, always keep in mind the sense of the common good and the substance. What counts is what we do, with the humility to recognize that some things can be accomplished before 2027. Others will be done later, during the presidential election debate. Ultimately, there are many red lines in the mouths of many, at least of some – not all, not all. There are rarely green lines. Yet the very principle of building a compromise between political parties is being able to combine green lines and take into account a certain number of red lines. But you cannot stand at both extremes. Some opposition parties understood this, and I want to thank them.
Now, we must be able to move forward – or at least, those who want to find a path for the country must be able to do so. Finally, I say this respectfully, as someone who is an activist at heart and climbed the rungs of republican meritocracy through being elected as mayor, as president of a department, as senator.
I am an activist, and I have respect for those who engage in activism. But you must always put your country before your party. You must know how to listen to your members, but always think of the French. Thank you all. Thank you.
Translation of an original article published in French on lemonde.fr; the publisher may only be liable for the French version.