“Gabriel Thatcher”, “reactionary”… Harsh leftists after Attalus’s general political speech

He didn’t wait until the end of the speech to react. Jean-Luc Mélenchon estimates in a post on “Attal is very unhappy because people refuse to admit that they live in paradise,” lamented the former presidential candidate of La France insoumise.

“Attal wants to forcefully generalize economic liberalism, which has already destroyed industry, agriculture, health care, education,” Jean-Luc Mélenchon lamented a few minutes later. always onregretting that “the country’s budget has decreased by 25 billion.”

The national secretary of the French Communist Party (PCF), Fabien Roussel, condemned the “very liberal (…) very, very right-wing” speech. “This is not Gabriel Attal, this is Gabriel Thatcher,” he said on BFMTV. “He spoke a lot, but I did not hear any specific statements for farmers, workers (…) I rather heard statements that scare us,” he also reacted.

“Demacronize”

“An emergency is demacronize this country as quickly as possible,” said the head of the rebel deputies, Mathilde Panot, referring to Gabriel Attal’s desire to “de-emcardize” and “de-bureaucratize” France. According to her, there remains “the only way to do this: a vote of no confidence,” for which “everyone will take responsibility.”

The left announced a motion of no confidence even before the prime minister’s speech on general policy issues. Gabriel Attal, in particular, expressed a desire to “de-emcartify France”, announced that unemployed people whose rights had expired would no longer have a special benefit and would be transferred to RSA, and that this same RSA would now be conditional everywhere in France at level 3 evening ‘activities.

“Through you, ladies and gentlemen, opposition MPs, these are the voices of millions of French people who express their opinions (…) This is also the method I want for my government: respect the French, respect the opposition, respect our parliament,” Gabriel Attal also announced to the National Assembly, calling for an end to “disputes over principles.”