French PM proposes cutting national holidays to cut debt
But the proposed measure sparked an immediate protest from Jordan Bardella, leader of the far-right National Rally.
Holiday protests
He said abolishing two holidays, 'especially ones as filled with meaning as Easter Monday and May 8 is a direct attack on our history, our roots and on labour in France'.
The party's parliamentary leader, Marine Le Pen, warned that 'if Francois Bayrou does not revise his plan, we will vote for a no-confidence motion'.
Leftist firebrand Jean-Luc Melenchon of the France Unbowed party called for Bayrou's resignation, saying 'these injustices cannot be tolerated any longer'.
His party colleague Mathilde Panot accused Bayrou of starting 'a social war'.
Bayrou had said previously that France's budgetary position needed to be improved by €40 billion ($78.09b) next year.
But this figure has risen after President Emmanuel Macron said at the weekend he wanted €3.5 billion ($6.8b) of extra military spending next year because of rising international tensions. France has a defence budget of €50.5 billion ($98.5b) for 2025.
Bayrou said the budget deficit would be cut to 4.6% next year, from an estimated 5.4% this year, and would fall below the 3% required by EU rules by 2029.
To achieve this, other measures would include a general freeze on spending increases – including on pensions and health – except for debt servicing and the defence sector, Bayrou said.
'We have become addicted to public spending,' Bayrou said. 'We are at a critical juncture in our history'.
Remember Greece
The Prime Minister even held up Greece as a cautionary tale, an EU member whose spiralling debt and deficits pushed it to the brink of dropping out of the eurozone after the 2008 financial crisis.
'We must never forget the story of Greece,' he said.
France's debt stands at 114% of GDP – compared to 60% allowed under EU rules – the biggest debt mountain in the EU after Greece and Italy.
The Government hopes to cut the number of civil servants by 3000 next year, and close down 'unproductive agencies working on behalf of the state', the Premier said.
Bayrou said wealthy residents would be made to contribute to the financial effort.
'The nation's effort must be equitable,' Bayrou said. 'We will ask little of those who have little, and more of those who have more.'
- Agence France-Presse
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Impotent Effusions: The Joint Statement On Gaza
Impotence takes various forms. Before the daily massacres, incidents of starvation and dispossession of Palestinians taking place in the Gaza Strip with primeval cruelty, international impotence in the face of actions by the Israeli state has become a mockery of itself. The calls to end the war in Gaza grow in number, even among Israel's allies, but little in substance is being done about it. What matters are statements that speak to a wounded conscience that do little to alter anything on the ground. One such statement, released on July 21, proved to be yet another one of those flossy effusions made by, as Macbeth might have said, idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The idiots numbered many: 28 international partners, including the foreign ministers of 27 states and, obviously not wanting to miss out, the EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management. All, bar Australia, were from Europe. 'We, the signatories listed below, come together with a simple, urgent message: the war in Gaza must end now.' The statement goes on to mention the drearily obvious. 'The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity.' The 'drip feeding of aid and inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of food and water' deserved condemnation. The deaths of over 800 Palestinians (the numbers are most certainly higher) while seeking aid was 'horrifying'. Even here, the language lacked rage. Israel's 'denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable.' The government 'must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.' To that end, Israel was called upon to restore the flow of aid and enable the work of the United Nations and humanitarian NGOs to resume in the Strip. This is obviously something that the Netanyahu government is conscious of avoiding, given the systematic program of controlled starvation and deprivation being inflicted. To add balance, the statement also notes the plight of the Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, their continued detention also something to be condemned. They were to be immediately and unconditionally released with a negotiated ceasefire being the best way of doing so. The signatories do go so far as to acknowledge the dangers and intentions of Israel's administrative measures that seek 'territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The E1 settlement plan announced by Israel's Civil Administration, if implemented, would divide a Palestinian state in two, marking a flagrant breach of international law and critically undermine the two-state solution.' The West Bank is also recognised in similar light, with the signatories urging a cessation to the violence taking place against Palestinians and a halt to the building of settlements across the territory 'including East Jerusalem'. These statements are always interesting for what they omit. No toothy measures to address the maltreatment of Palestinian civilians are stipulated, other than an encouragement of 'a common effort to bring this terrible conflict to an end'. A benign, most unthreatening promise is made: the prospect of taking 'further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.' This may be code for recognition of a Palestinian state, fanciful given the systematic pulverisation of the people who would inhabit it. The signatory list also omits Germany and, most importantly of all, the United States, Israel's arch guardian and evangelical sponsor. The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, gave us a flavour of feelings in Washington about the signatories in a post on X. 'How embarrassing for a nation to side [with] a terror group like Hamas & blame a nation whose civilians were massacred for fighting to get hostages released.' In another post that made a vague shot at justifying the unjustifiable, the ambassador absolved Israel in its conduct; only the militant group Hamas deserved exclusive blame. The nations in question had 'put pressure on @Israel instead of savages of Hamas! Gaza suffers for 1 reason: Hamas rejects EVERY proposal. Blaming Israel is irrational.' The Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar, ever lurking in the twilight of alternative reality, reasoned the statement away, much as relatives would the views of a demented, unloved aunt. 'If Hamas embraces you – you are in the wrong place.' Praise from the group was itself 'proof of the mistake they [the signatory countries] made – part of them out of good intentions and part of them out of an obsession against Israel.' While the various foreign ministers were flashing their plumage of principles and international humanitarian law, the Israeli Defense Forces had busily commenced an operation on a part of Gaza they have yet to level: Deir al-Balah. Given its importance as a humanitarian hub that still houses UN staff and guesthouses, more slaughter is imminent. Till Israel assumes the status of a pariah state it seemingly craves to become, its rogue army confined and depleted, its economy humbled and isolated, the industrial appetite for slaughter and dispossession will only continue. The Palestinians will be left to be relics of moral anguish, banished to the footnotes of bloodied history along with many more statements of concern and sheer impotence.
NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- NZ Herald
China stood up to Trump and is pushing Europe, seeing more room to assert its interests
Beijing has learned that it has leverage it can use against outside pressure. It stood up to the Trump Administration's punishing trade war by demonstrating how dependent global industry was on China for its supply of critical minerals. And Beijing likely assesses that it is in a stronger position because Western unity is fracturing, analysts say, with United States President Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign policy weakening the historical bonds between Europe and the US. 'Beijing perceives that the global order is in flux,' said Simona Grano, a China expert at the University of Zurich. 'From its perspective, the US is overstretched and preoccupied with multiple conflicts around the world and domestic polarisation.' 'And with signs of division or fatigue within the transatlantic alliance, the Chinese leadership sees more room to assert its interests, not least in trade, tech and security,' Grano said. That calculation has been evident in China's approach to the summit talks on Thursday, which will include its top leader, Xi Jinping, and Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, as well as other senior European leaders. The two sides will be commemorating 50 years of diplomatic ties — the type of anniversary that ordinarily would be a chance for Beijing to showcase its partnerships. Yet each detail of the meeting appears to underscore China's view of the power dynamic. The summit is being held in Beijing even though it was Brussels' turn to host the rotating event. The meeting will only last one day, according to the EU, despite having been billed earlier as a two-day affair. Expectations for any concrete results from the summit are low. The 27-nation European bloc is caught between wanting to cut a trade deal with the US, which is putting pressure on the region to commit to taking a harder line on China, and the need to maintain stable ties with China. But Brussels has grown more confrontational with Beijing in recent years about a massive trade imbalance that amounted to more than US$350 billion last year, as well as Beijing's alignment with Russia. In a speech this month in the European Parliament, von der Leyen accused China of 'flooding global markets with cheap, subsidised goods, to wipe out competitors', and of discriminating against European companies doing business in China. She also warned that China's support for Moscow in its war with Ukraine was creating instability in Europe. She said she planned to raise these concerns with Chinese officials at the meeting in Beijing. China is unlikely to be accommodating of such criticisms at the summit, if its recent muscle-flexing is any indication. Mao Ning, a spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, fired back at von der Leyen, saying it was the EU's 'mindset' that needed 'rebalancing', not China's trade relationship with Europe. This year, China slowed exports of rare earth minerals to Europe, sounding alarms at high-tech firms across Europe and triggering a temporary shutdown of production lines at European auto parts manufacturers. And this month, China hit back at EU curbs on government purchases of Chinese medical devices by imposing similar government procurement restrictions on European medical equipment. Despite its combative stance, Beijing cannot afford to push Europe too far. China needs European markets to absorb the glut of electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels its factories are making. Domestically, huge price wars have shrunk profits, prompting even Xi and other leaders to warn companies against engaging in 'disorderly and low-price competition'. And Europe's importance has only grown as the Trump Administration tries to close off other markets to China. 'Europe remains an indispensable economic partner for China. But if Beijing overplays its hand, it could find itself more isolated,' Grano said. Still, China has remained defiant when it comes to its close relationship with Russia — which Beijing considers an invaluable partner in counterbalancing the West. Europe has long complained that Beijing's purchases of Russian oil and its supplying of dual-use technologies has enabled the Kremlin to prolong its war in Ukraine. China claims neutrality over the conflict, a position that has been met with deep scepticism in the West, in part because of the closeness of China and Russia. Xi called for Beijing and Moscow to 'deepen' their ties and 'safeguard' their 'security interests' when he met Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, in Beijing last week. And this month, China's top diplomat, Wang Yi, privately told EU officials in Brussels that it was not in Beijing's interests for the war to end because it might shift US attention towards Asia, according to a European official briefed on the talks, who spoke to the New York Times on condition of anonymity. Wang's remarks were first reported by the South China Morning Post. China has not commented on what Wang reportedly said. But Victor Gao, a former Chinese diplomat and vice-president of the Centre for China and Globalisation, a Beijing-based think-tank, argued that the assertion attributed to Wang did not make sense because China believes the US is able to project its influence in both Asia and over the fate of Ukraine at the same time. Gao was dismissive of European criticisms of China's relationship with Russia, saying that the region should essentially mind its own business and focus on improving the lives of its people. 'From the Chinese perspective, they are not qualified as a geopolitical rival,' he said. 'They think too much of themselves.' China's strategy towards Europe is essentially to divide and conquer. It saw the EU as hawkish and sought to minimise the impact of its policies while courting Europe's leading businesses, namely from Germany and France, Gao said. Hopes that Beijing will ever help Europe pressure the Kremlin to end its war have 'faded away', said Philippe Le Corre, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Centre for China Analysis, who is no more optimistic that Brussels and Beijing will compromise on trade. 'There is no trust between the two sides,' he said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: David Pierson and Berry Wang ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Analysis: Several smaller countries are taking a stand about Israel's conduct in Gaza
That includes a bombing campaign last week in Syria, which Israel says is aimed at defending minority Druze from sectarian attacks but analysts also believe is part of a deeper strategy to maintain influence over the country's fragile post-dictatorship transition. Away from the warzones of the Middle East, Israel finds itself fighting other battles. Judges at the International Criminal Court in The Hague rejected Israel's request to withdraw arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. They are both wanted for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity carried out under their watch in the aftermath of Hamas' October 7, 2023, strike on southern Israel. In a bid to pressure the international court, the United States has placed sanctions on some ICC judges and prosecutors. Last week, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar went to Brussels for meetings with European counterparts. He emerged, in his words, victorious, having achieved 'an important diplomatic feat' of persuading the European Union to avoid adopting punitive measures against Israel. Kaja Kallas, the European Union's top diplomat, said the bloc was keeping 'options on the table' but would not pursue mooted sanctions that it was considering after an earlier EU assessment found Israel possibly in breach of human rights commitments. But rights advocates were frustrated, given the scale of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and Israel's documented stifling of aid into the flattened territory. The EU's acquiescence, suggested Amnesty International's Agnès Callamard, would be 'remembered as one of the most disgraceful moments in the EU's history' and was 'a cruel and unlawful betrayal of the European project and vision'. The governments of Ireland, Spain, and Slovenia are the three European nations that have been outspoken in their criticism of Israel and spearheaded the attempted reckoning in Brussels. They are pressing ahead with their own measures to show their disapproval of Israel's conduct of the war, which has severely depleted Hamas but also destroyed Gaza and killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including many children. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez earlier this month accused Israel of carrying out a 'genocide'. Irish lawmakers are advancing legislation banning trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, much to the anger of some US officials. And Slovenia declared two far-right Israeli Cabinet ministers as personae non gratae, banning them from the country. 'This kind of measure is the first of its kind in the EU,' Slovenian Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon said. 'We are breaking new ground.' There's reason to be cynical about the efficacy of such attempts by small countries. In Europe, the governments of Britain, France, and Germany remain far more reluctant to confront Israel in similar fashion, while French President Emmanuel Macron's efforts to revive international momentum toward the creation of a Palestinian state seem to be fizzling out. Israel's boosters in the US can shrug and smirk. 'An unstated reason for Europe's particular animus toward Israel over the decades is that the continent's leaders secretly resent Israel's willingness and ability to regularly defend itself through tough military action,' mused veteran Washington wonk Robert D. Kaplan, 'something Europe's elites never had even to countenance, and arguably couldn't manage.' Kaplan and his ilk were unlikely to be impressed by a summit that took place last week in Bogotá, where delegations from 30 countries convened to pressure Israel to end its war in Gaza, as well as its occupation of the West Bank. The session of The Hague Group was co-hosted by South Africa, which is leading a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, and the left-wing government of Colombia. It concluded last Thursday with 12 countries agreeing to implement a set of measures to 'restrain' Israel. These include a denial of arms to Israel, banning of ships transporting such arms and reviews of public contracts with companies linked to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. A scan of the list of the countries that immediately signed on may suggest Israel's leadership isn't quite shaking in its boots: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa. But the conference's backers argued that it's a first step in a global shift. 'For too long, governments have been too afraid of the consequences of angering the US to risk taking action to uphold international law,' Annelle Sheline, a former State Department official who attended the proceedings in the Colombian capital, told me. 'This is about more than Israel and Palestine, this is about a new multilateralism taking shape to replace the old system.'
