Karim Bouamrane: «Bruno Retailleau fragilise le ciment de notre République» • RFI

Good evening, it's time for Tuesday Politics on France 24 RFI. Good evening Frédéric Rivière. Good evening Roselyne, good evening everyone. And together we receive Karim Gouamran. Good evening. You are the socialist mayor of Saint-Ouen in Seine-Saint-Denis and you are vice president in charge of culture at the departmental council of Seine-Saint-Denis. So, was this speech of General Politics a speech of rupture, as M. Barnier likes to say? Unfortunately, it's a predictable speech. It's a big statement of intention. That's the principle of the General Politics statement. Yes, but we would have liked to hear a little hope, a little hope. Very concretely, when you look at the topics that are rife, retirement, housing, public account, health, well, there are a little bit of bribes on New Caledonia. But nothing concrete, nothing concrete. I stay on my line. Namely, this government will not hold. A heteroclite government, a totally heterogeneous government, without political red lines, totally disembodied, disembodied. And the subject now is that the left must prepare to draw the lessons of why we are here. With an interior minister who questions the very foundations of the Republic and the very foundations of the state of law. By the way, I would have liked him to be a little more intransigent about the interior minister's view of what is happening. He mentioned it in his speech. He said he was very attached to the state of law. We can take it as a little reminder. The intangibility. A reminder to order. Our comrade Barnier met him a little harder, especially during these negotiations. We will talk about the background. But we stay for a moment on the form. When he describes the Barnier method, that is to say, listening, respect, dialogue, it is the opposite of the Macron method. It is especially the opposite of the Rotaillot method. Ah yes, you focus on Rotaillot. No, not at all. It is that behind, he is the Prime Minister of France or his government. So I hear the new methods of listening, I expect to see the intermediary bodies. So I hope it will trigger a whole round of discussion especially with the trade unions, with the living forces. I think in particular about the issue of retirement, on the issue of wages, on the issue of education also with the entire teaching body. Very good, this method. Is it in conflict with that of Emmanuel Macron who had a more ascending vision? Probably. Vertical. Vertical, completely. I agree with you on that. But what bothers me deeply is that I do not feel, as we say, France 24 above, in English, the juice. It's soft, it's soft. And I wonder if he believes in it himself. We had the impression of seeing a bit of a Titanic. The Titanic. So we pretend as if nothing happened. We continue to play and we're going to get the iceberg. And that's it, that's the Barnier government. And so everyone plays their part. So we have the Minister of the Interior who plays his part. It's a very particular government in a very particular context. You know, he can't arrive triumphant either with a perfectly clear program. He arrives in circumstances where he has to compose. It's the problem of... It's the problem of the political situation. It's the problem of having put the who before putting the what and the how. More than one word, he was a little shaken up from the start. We saw, in particular, a number of deputies, almost all of them. Besides, I thought the girls were going to say their electoral cards. Do you think that's correct? Does that give a good image of democracy? No, no, no, no. It gives a very bad image of democracy. I hate this spectacularization of political life. We're here. We can totally disagree with the Prime Minister. Then each group president has the opportunity to express himself. I understand that after Mrs. Le Pen, it was Mrs. Pannot who expressed herself. So everyone has the right to express themselves. But this gadgetization, running after the buzz or the battle of the image, are methods that I refuse and I totally disapprove of, whether it's political training. It's still serious politics. One more word. Michel Barnier quoted General de Gaulle to summarize the state of mind in which he is. With this quote from General de Gaulle, to do a lot with little, starting with almost nothing. Does this way of looking at things, this ambition, seem interesting to you? What I was saying in the X network, it's especially those who have very little, to whom we will ask a lot and who will continue to suffer enormously. That's especially what's going to happen. Because today, when you look at the measures for low wages, the measures in terms of education, the measures in terms of territorial collectivization, there is absolutely nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. Are you worried? Because to straighten public finances, Michel Barnier said he wanted to reduce expenses. So of course, without saying which ones, but above all increase the taxes of the richest and companies that make considerable profits. There, the man on the left that you are, do you agree with that? Tax justice is a prism of the philosophy of the left. We completely agree with that. Now, it is still necessary that in the next debate on the law of finance, we are exactly the paths that Michel Barnier would like to take. There, we had bribes on fraud. Fraud allows you to clear 13 billion. You have to clear 30 billion. We have some measures on companies. Well, very good. It's basically going back to the time of 2016-2017, especially the taxation of large companies. We are waiting to see. But behind, are we going to focus on reducing expenses or are we going to look for more resources? We are waiting to see the roadmap. Obviously, it is first of all to prioritize expenses, that is to say to reduce expenses. Then we increase the taxes of the richest. But are you worried about spending reductions on local communities, for example? I am waiting to see. Do you think we can vote again in your budgets? No, we can't anymore. What you have to know is that cities cannot vote a budget in imbalance. That's the rule. You are under surveillance. Today, a city is a functioning budget, an investment budget. Investments are schools, roads, cultural and sporting infrastructures. Today, cities are in a completely out-of-place situation. Why? Because with the real estate crisis, you have what we call the rights of mutation, one of the first fiscal resources for cities that no longer enter. So behind, if in addition we continue to point the finger at the responsibility of local communities, as was the case, I think it's a political mistake. Especially when you look, when you analyze the accounts, you see that local communities are the least indebted of all administrations. One of the least indebted of all administrations. Michel Barnier reminded us that the debt charge, which is about 50 billion euros for 2024, was the second state expenditure after national education. Isn't there something quite unacceptable in this state of affairs? To say that we pay 50 billion euros for the interest of the debt. The debt charge. There is an excellent article that came out, one of your colleagues in the Journal du Soir, which actually reviewed the aspect of the denial of debt for years and years, since Nicolas Sarkozy, through François Hollande. Because today we want to take measures that are pleasant and that bring nothing, or drastic measures that would alter growth, employment and investment. I think that today, yes, we need to think about spending, about simplification, about reallocation of certain investments, but that it is not an impact or collateral damage on those who suffer the most. One of the links that was missing, for example, we have a project called the Metropolitan Regional Express Services, the CERM, the transports, which are a form of economic recovery plan, Keynesian via the territories. I was, no later than last week, this Carol Delga in Occitanie, and I was able to see how much the lack of transport can impact growth. So to answer your question precisely, yes, we must review some of the expenses. Above all, we must focus on the resources to know what can be the different plans that will give us the opportunity to have growth in the medium and long term. Today, it was each time the end of the line economies with, in addition, those who are most in a fragilized situation. The Prime Minister has defined a certain number of priorities during his speech, among which the mastery of immigration, he said, treated this subject with lucidity and pragmatism. We no longer master, he said, our requirement for integration. Michel Barnier therefore wants to reduce the number of non-executed QTFs, he is not the first in this regard, extend the delays in retention centers in some cases, get more consular leave, if necessary, by renegotiating treaties with the countries concerned. Do you have fundamental reservations with these guidelines? I have reservations with the philosophical, ideological, political statements of the member, of one of the members of the government Bruno Retailleau which fundamentally weakens the foundation of our Republic in terms of principles, in terms of values. Considering that immigration is a historical, philosophical problem for our country it literally questions a good part of our history and especially our perspectives. Should we harden our ability to execute QTFs by giving more means to justice than to the police? Obviously. So, in this regard, I would like to know, precisely in the context of the programming law, the 1,500 masters that were planned, is it confirmed or not? I would like to know, in this regard, if we can go from 20,000 to 40,000 masters to be able to be in the same trends as our European countries. So, the missing link in the Prime Minister's statement was precisely justice. So, we can have big statements, but will we have more masters and more means? So, that's the first question. The second question is how we work with the different countries, notably the countries of North Africa, the sub-Saharan African countries, which are precisely the source of migratory flows, without taboos, without stigmatization. Then, how do we manage to work in the so-called legal migration, sector by sector? Here too, it must be a discussion that we must have on the left to avoid feeding the fantasies of the far right or the far right. Should we do it like Germany, that is, better monitor our borders and better control them? I think we must above all know exactly what the sectors of activity are where we must have a need for our economy to immigrate and where we have dysfunctions to harden the OQTFs, without taboos. So, this summer, your name circulated for Matignon. Would you have been seen this afternoon in the place of Michel Barnier? Above all, what I would have wanted is for him to be a left-wing Prime Minister who would have had a left-wing statement. It would have been you then? It would have been me. I would have made the general political speech with a little more pep, with a little more desire, with a little more hope and with a little more pragmatism and with a little more clarity and hoping that France can continue to be the winning France, that is, the one that gives the possibility to heal everyone, the one that gives the possibility to give perspectives in terms of democratization of excellence for a whole generation, the one that shines abroad, the one that democratizes the beautiful, the one that makes sure that we are at the bottom of Soclin or at the bottom of Corsica or at the bottom of the North, we can say to ourselves, well, I have hope and not just a kind of renewal of the elites for years and years where we feel like we are in an impasse. So, would I have seen myself? It means that I am in a personal and ego-tripping project. Would we have seen ourselves on the left? Yes. We should have been in the place of Michel Barnier. Did you believe in this hypothesis? On a personal level? Yes. Did you believe in it? That is to say that at some point it was serious, it had credibility to the point that you said to yourself, well, it may be possible. Of course it was serious. And when we are political leaders, we are ready for it. So, when we have explicit messages on you can be an option, we stand ready, we prepare and we evoke the conditions. And the conditions are that it must be done with the support of my political group. However, you have seen the different debates we had. We had been caught by the loop of the 100% of the program, nothing but the program. This is the reason why when the Barnier government falls, the left will have to be able to draw the lessons from what happened and to prepare to take responsibility. You will launch, the day after tomorrow, I believe, your movement. Yes, the day after tomorrow, that's it. A movement called La France Humaine est Forte. Does this initiative have something to do with precisely this sudden notoriety that we are talking about? I give you the reason that the day after tomorrow is the 3rd of October. Yes. On the second part of the month, right? So, is this the movement? Is there a relationship between this initiative and your sudden notoriety? No, the initiative was planned on the 28th of June. And the facts are verifiable. Except that there was a little anecdotal event called the dissolution. So we had to review our plans. And we start from the principle that all the dynamics on the left must be played inside the parties, but also outside the parties. And outside the parties, whether it's with Carole Delga, whether it's with Raphaël Mixman, whether it's with Philippe Brun, when we are asked if it divides, it reinforces. Because every day, every noon, every evening, we meet people who tell us, what is it, Mr. Mayor, dear Karim? It can't go on. What can we do to be useful? And our goal is to reunite. Find voters too. Above all, mobilize the energies that want to make sure that we can think together, act together and be useful. And you know, Madam, the electorate is not inspired by creating movements. It is translated by hope, hope, listening and ethical consideration. And that's what's missing today. What are you going to do with this movement? Is that what you're going to do? This movement will give us the opportunity to bring together all those who want to work, who want to believe in it, who want to work and who say... In a laboratory of ideas? Ideas and actions. Who say, you know what, in one or two generations, I have a link with the people. The people, what is it? It's either my father, or my mother, or my great-grandfather, were farmers or workers. And France is that. The Republican ideal is that. And today it's blocked. And I would like to be useful. I would like to act. Except that in the parties, unfortunately, I don't find myself. I don't find myself anymore. Because it's rigid, because it's quite blocked, or sometimes it's between you, or because there is a kind of barony. So the objective of this movement... And Olivier Faure, is he a baron at PS? I would not qualify Olivier Faure as a baron. I would simply say that he is a first secretary who today is contested on a line, namely, being in the wheel of LFI, and more and more, at the party level, we would like to have a vision... We have nothing against LFI, but it would seem that LFI has problems against people like us. And the goal is to create a real left-wing pole, which is in the real, which is in the compromise, and not in the rupture, not in the discord, and above all, which does not systematically respond to Jean-Luc Mélenchon's agenda, namely, to do everything, to put everything in place, so that we end up in a duel, Macron versus LFI. Quickly, quickly, because we have less than a minute left, Karim Bouamrane, the Prime Minister spoke, and he is not the first, of the need, he said, of an implacable struggle against drug trafficking. You are the mayor of Saint-Ouen, a city that has been, and is still, affected by this scourge. Do you have any suggestions for him? No, but we went from this point of view to two points of view. The reappropriation of public space with co-production, state, buyer, responsible for the association, elected, has been known and recognized by Beauvau, by the police, in terms of efficiency, and justice. So what we ask him, when we talk about the heritage of the Olympics, is to multiply and continue all the work that has been done in terms of staff, in terms of blue, as mentioned by the former Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin, with whom we had excellent relations, an effective work, so that we can work, being left-wing, with right-wing people, or people of the presidential majority. Pragmatism and efficiency. Thank you very much. My pleasure.