Invited on franceinfo on Monday January 24, the Minister of the Economy Bruno Le Maire spoke at length about the increase in energy prices, which weighs on the economy and on households. There are, in fact, two different subjects. The first is the increase in electricity prices. To deal with this, the government has decided to force EDF to resell electricity at low prices to its competitors. “When you’re in politics, you have to know how to make decisions, explained Bruno Le Maire. And it’s not white or black: there are advantages and disadvantages. I believe that when prices are very high, unbearable for French households and businesses alike, it is fair and legitimate for EDF to make an effort to support the French.
A decided decision, therefore, and which offered Bruno Le Maire an angle of attack against one of his political opponents: the Republican presidential candidate, Valérie Pécresse.
“Very candidly, Valérie Pécresse tells us: ‘I have no short-term solution.’ When you’re in business, with responsibilities, it’s better to have short-term solutions!”
Bruno the Mayorat franceinfo
The attack is scathing, perhaps justified. But we can also be surprised, given the second subject that is currently on the table: the increase in fuel prices. You remember that the government responded to it a few months ago, with the “inflation check” for €100. The question now is whether to take further action. For example lower the tax on gasoline, as proposed by some presidential candidates? For Bruno Le Maire, it’s no: “Lowering fuel taxes, as some are suggesting, I don’t think that’s the right solution. We’re not responding to a structural problem with short-term measures. The structural problem is the increase in price of oil is our dependence on fossil fuels.”
The real answer is therefore to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, for example by developing the electric car or public transport. Why not ? But you see that suddenly, this question seems to be mainly posed in the very long term. And Bruno Le Maire does not present specific leads to answer it …
“I think we can consider specific measures on people who have no choice but to take their vehicle. I don’t want to put specific leads on the table, I’m just saying that the philosophy would be that. .”
Bruno the Mayorat franceinfo
So, here, you have to connect the decryptor: “I think we can consider specific measures on people who have no choice but to take their vehicle”, said the minister. Decryption:
– “I think” : joint use of the first person singular and a verb of subjectivation: it therefore expresses a reflection in its own name, and not a governmental decision.
– “that we can consider” : use of a modal verb, this means that the decision-making remains hypothetical.
– “Specific measures” : so he didn’t say which ones…
And by the way, he adds right after: “I’m just saying the philosophy would be that.” When we are talking about “the philosophy” of a measure a few weeks before a presidential election, there is little chance of seeing it succeed in the immediate future…
The Minister of the Economy therefore does not propose any short-term measure, even though he recognizes the existence of a problem, since this is precisely what he reproached Valérie Pécresse for the increase in prices. electricity !
Independently of this self-contradiction, which does not lack piquancy, this sequence is rich in teaching on the rhetorical level. She shows us that there are many ways to get out of a delicate question. You can answer off topic of course. But we can also respond to the mishap of the problem. The maneuver is more subtle. But it is no less effective!