The future of the immigration bill lies in the hands of a handful of parliamentarians. Meeting Monday evening during a joint committee (CMP), seven deputies and seven senators must decide behind closed doors on a common version of the text, after the setback of the rejection motion. “Would it be good for democracy if we could not reach an agreement between the Senate and the National Assembly?” warned François Bayrou. Invited on Sunday to the “Grand Jury RTL-Le-Figaro-M6-Paris Première”, the president of MoDem called on the fourteen negotiators to examine the law “in the light of what the French want”. “They want there to be rigor and regulate entries and stays on our soil (…), effectiveness of public action when it comes to controlling and regulating, as well as a country in which we can integrate through work,” he listed. Before hoping that “an intelligent compromise will be found, in the service of the general interest of the country”.
If negotiations in the CMP fail, Emmanuel Macron has already made it known that he will withdraw the bill. “He is right (…) but I do not want failure,” argued the ally of the head of state. “The losers would be everyone who thinks this is an important subject, which is to say everyone,” he insisted. Especially since the deputies have already taken, according to him, a “very serious risk” by adopting the motion for preliminary rejection last week by just five votes. “The majority of them chose, in an atmosphere of extremely shocking exultation (…) to refuse their mission to vote for the law,” he lamented, emphasizing a “denial of representative democracy.” To the point that, according to him, the latter “failed in their duty” by refusing to debate.
To try to find a way out, maneuvers continue behind the scenes between the executive and the right. Unlike his MoDem troops, François Bayrou does not take such a dim view of the copy adopted in mid-November in the Senate and resolutely toughened compared to the government’s initial version. “There are things that suit me and that I find acceptable in their text,” he explained. Can we take away their French nationality from someone who commits a crime and who has dual nationality? It doesn’t bother me.” He is also not frankly opposed to the return of an “illegal residence offense”, demanded by the benches of the right and Horizons, the party of Édouard Philippe. “What is mentioned in the text is a fine. “That’s not a sticking point for me,” he conceded.
However, the High Commissioner for Planning displays several disagreements with The Republicans (LR) and their allies. This is the case of the “questioning” of State medical aid (AME), deleted during the passage through the Upper House and which would, according to him, “an extremely dangerous idea”. The reform of the system will ultimately not be integrated into the text, but will be the subject of a new law, announced the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin. The former Minister of Education also dismissed “the idea that for foreign students (…) they would be required to pay a deposit to ensure that they will leave again”. “It is the influence of France which is in question,” he said, in response to the senatorial measure. There remains the thorny question of “jobs in tension”, brandished like a red line by the right-wing benches. “It does not cause a draft if we are firm and fair on the fact that work is a path to integration,” defended François Bayrou. It is those who do not have work who commit the abuses.”
However, the subject divided many weeks within the presidential camp, where some were ready to give up on this aspect. The president of MoDem does not “believe” in the risks of implosion of the majority, despite “a lot of speculation” and “moods”. He also does not believe in the scenario of a dissolution in the event of a new disavowal for the executive with the possible withdrawal of his bill. “I know that, again, there are those who dream of it,” he whispered, aiming without naming the boss of the RN, Jordan Bardella. François Bayrou, however, does not seem to rule out the possibility of a reshuffle. “The change of government to make a new start is a weapon,” he admitted. Before calling back, cautiously: “But it’s a weapon in the president’s hand.”
