Gabriel Attal denounced on Monday a “preventive motion of censure”, for his first in this exercise since his arrival at Matignon at the initiative of the left which, according to him, advocates “permanent blockage” and wants to revive a “collectivist myth”.
Last week, a new record was broken, that of the speed of tabling a motion of censure, the Prime Minister began Monday morning in the Assembly, in response to the motion presented by the coordinator of La France insoumise (LFI) Manuel Bompard.
I had not even delivered my guidelines – during his general policy declaration – when you had already submitted your text, insisted Gabriel Attal, reproaching his opponents for a preventive motion of censure, like a snub to any desire for dialogue .
Your declaration of general policy, it is there: it is the permanent blockage, asserted the head of government, whose predecessor Lisabeth Borne faced 31 motions of censure and who, like her, did not seek the confidence of the ‘Assemble on its program.
The French, argued Mr. Attal, voted a clear majority, but not an absolute majority in the National Assembly.
But two years later, some still cry about the usurpation of the majority and still refuse to accept their defeat in the presidential and legislative elections. The reality is that the French have entrusted us with a democratic mandate to govern and find majorities text by text, he said.
Aiming at the left, the Prime Minister particularly targeted La France insoumise, accused of wanting to plunge France back into the 19th century and Europe 75 years back.
With each of your calls for tax bombast, the creation of new constraints, new rules, new taxes, you plunge us back into the collectivist myth where all initiative is restricted, suppressed, he also said.
Mr. Attal pledged to always keep (his) door open for negotiation, always respect Parliament and the debate of ideas, and always respect our institutions and always defend our democratic principles.
Everyone knows that you are only obligated by Emmanuel Macron, Manuel Bompard had previously told him, defending a motion to protect the people from suffering, from rising energy prices, from medical franchises. or even the reduction in unemployment benefits.