Emmanuel Macron had raised the possibility of a referendum on the end of life before the association of the presidential press: it was on September 12th. However, a month and a half later, the idea took off. Moreover, the Head of State did not hide it from a few journalists on his return from his visit to the Vatican last week. Among his explanations: the subject, active assistance in dying, does not fall within the scope of the referendums provided for by our Constitution.
>> INFO FRANCEINFO. End of life: Emmanuel Macron wants to launch a citizens’ convention on the subject and pass a law in 2023
But, in fact, that’s not the only reason for what looks like a backpedal that could be permanent. Emmanuel Macron was not unaware that the announcement of a debate on this hyper-sensitive subject would trigger the hostile and expected reaction of the major monotheistic religions. But it’s one thing to anticipate it, it’s another to really confront it, when, for example, the pope declares in front of French elected officials ten days ago that we cannot “ask nurses to kill their patients”. “A red line“not to be crossed, even adds the president of the conference of bishops of France, Sunday in One of the Parisian / Today in France. The condemnation is unequivocal.
Still, however, the opinion, it is still mostly favorable. In the polls, in any case, the change in legislation is needed by an overwhelming majority. And within the government, all those whom franceinfo was able to question are convinced of this: the “yes” would prevail. The risk is therefore very low, but it is a “yes” that would leave traces and possibly indelible consequences. According to a minister, if the yes vote is massive today, it would not necessarily be so at the polls, after weeks of tough campaigning. Without counting the share of “vote sanction” that a referendum, whatever it is, always carries in him against the power in place.
And then, adds the same government tenor, “it would be difficult to make it a societal victory” in the same way, for example, as “marriage for all”. Here, according to him, we touch more on the intimate and that the cleavage is such that the opponents would feel deeply hurt. Difficult, then, to put this reform to the credit of the president, and it is therefore to Parliament that the task of legislating will return. “And that’s good”, says another minister, certainly very favorable to active assistance in dying but not a fan of the referendum. Finally, on the side of the Elysée, we slip that the referendum remains on the table, but with the concern first of all to let the citizens’ convention live on the subject, which should start in December.