In Paris, on October 7, 2025, the resignation of Sébastien Lecornu, amid a budgetary deadlock, plunges the executive into a gray area. Emmanuel Macron bides his time. Gabriel Attal, now head of Renaissance, refuses any early presidential election and pushes for a cross-party compromise. Édouard Philippe, on the other hand, calls for a decision at the polls after the 2026 budget vote. Two lines, the same institutional vertigo.
The backdrop of an institutional deadlock
Paris is abuzz with a grave and precise rumor, this October 7, 2025. On the steps of Matignon, the sound of flashes is no longer enough to cover the obvious: on October 6, 2025, Sébastien Lecornu, the most ephemeral Prime Minister of the recent Fifth Republic, submitted his resignation amid a clamor of phrases about "egos" and the lack of compromise. At the Élysée, Emmanuel Macron keeps control and asks him to extend for another forty-eight hours, an ultimate stitch before a possible rupture. The countdown is on, as everything converges towards the same deadline: the adoption of the 2026 budget.
At the Palais-Bourbon, each group scrutinizes the other like wary dogs. Since the legislative elections, the National Assembly has no clear majority. Thus, the ordinary mechanisms of law-making are grinding. The budget, which should have stabilized the trajectory, becomes the central revealer of a system pushed to its limits. In the corridors, there is talk of appointing a new Prime Minister. Moreover, a dissolution is mentioned, or the unlikely search for common ground. The scene is familiar, but the urgency today has changed scale.
At Renaissance, Gabriel Attal seeks agreement and imposes the method
In a meeting room with drawn blinds, Gabriel Attal, president of Renaissance and former tenant of Matignon, speaks calmly. His guiding principle is clear: there is no question of demanding the resignation of the President of the Republic. Moreover, he refuses to open the door to an early presidential election. He expresses his incomprehension at the succession of decisions that led to the deadlock but refuses to rush forward. In his view, the time is for a cross-party compromise.
For weeks, Attal has been pushing the same logic: bringing together all formations ready to save the situation. This would be done in a neutral framework, far from the usual postures. The goal is to seal a general interest agreement limited in time. He advocates for a negotiation figure accepted by all, tasked with setting a few priorities. This figure must lead a technical discussion on various subjects. For example, the spending trajectory and the protection of the most vulnerable are essential. Moreover, it must address useful investment. The goal is neither a coalition nor a fixed pact, but an effective method. This should allow, before December 31, to achieve a viable budget text. Attal speaks of responsibility and measure, reminding everyone of their share of duty.
His supporters approve without effusion. The watchword: hold. Hold the line of support for the head of state, Emmanuel Macron, whose legitimacy, they remind, extends until 2027. Hold the line of reforms, but loosen ideological jaws to cobble together a minimal consensus. "A neutral place is needed," confides a strategist, convinced that at the Élysée and Matignon, symbols already blur the conversation. Attal wants to be the patient craftsman of a method agreement that all oppositions do not reject on principle.
Édouard Philippe presses the clock and assumes the trial of truth
At the other end of the presidential spectrum, Édouard Philippe, mayor of Le Havre and head of Horizons, moves openly. He believes that "we cannot remain like this until 2027." His diagnosis is sharp: the paralysis undermining the country requires a return to the people. He says he accepts an orderly sequence: voting a budget to avoid political bankruptcy, then paving the way for an early presidential election. He insists that it is not about pouring oil on the fire. However, it is essential to bring clarity to a landscape blurred by negative alliances.
Philippe speaks on the radio, answers questions directly, outlines the path of a flash mandate that would lay all cards on the table. The former Prime Minister knows the cost of prolonged indecision: postponed decisions, suspended reforms, worried markets, eroding public trust. Behind the call for an early election is the idea that legitimacy cannot be improvised. It is sought, obtained, or relinquished. His close associates assure that the option would allow the political economy of the country to be relaunched, avoiding two years of procrastination.
This strategy is not without risks. It assumes that a 2026 budget is adopted very quickly, under pressure, since the campaign brings back a clear majority. It also bets that the electorate would choose stability over a leap into the unknown. Philippe takes the gamble. He puts everyone before their responsibilities, the president first and foremost.
At the Élysée, the options and the solitude of power
President Emmanuel Macron observes, consults, holds back his words, then asks Sébastien Lecornu for two more days, as one adds a thread to an already fragile seam. In the antechamber of decision, several paths open, all strewn with obstacles. Appoint a new Prime Minister at Matignon capable of assembling a financial text. Then, dissolve the National Assembly hoping for a favorable recomposition. Moreover, maintain continuous pressure on the groups to extract a technical compromise. The head of state repeats that he does not consider his resignation. Furthermore, he will see his mandate through to the end based on the votes received.
The crisis presents an accounting face: the trajectory of public finances, the inflation to be contained, the debt that weighs down the state’s progress. It also presents a political face: distrust. The oppositions, from the far right to the left, cross their lines without converging. Voices within the majority acknowledge that rebuilding a parliamentary center of gravity requires concrete gestures. Moreover, it demands targeted renunciations and a humility that has become rare. The Élysée advances on a narrow beam, there is no longer a wide ground underfoot.
Chain reactions and escape lines
Beyond the muted duel between Attal and Philippe, everything moves at the same time. National Rally and La France Insoumise strengthen with each deadlock and call to replay the game: dissolution, then elections. Some socialists say they are ready to discuss, provided the compromise focuses on clear social priorities. The Republicans watch the storm pass, setting strict conditions for any convergence. The street breathes scattered anger. The country aspires to something other than the repetition of the same scenes.
In this tumult, article 16 of the Constitution is invited to the tribune, by media sleight of hand. The mere mention is enough to make the windows tremble. The jurists, however, remind of the law: the interruption of the regular functioning of public powers is a cumulative condition. Moreover, a serious and immediate threat against the Nation is also required. The temptation of an institutional shortcut is not a policy. It would be, in this case, a misinterpretation.
Conditions, safeguards, and limits of article 16
The founding text is clear. Article 16 allows the President of the Republic to exercise extended powers. However, this is possible for a strictly limited time when the institutions are threatened. Moreover, their regular functioning must be interrupted. Activation requires prior consultations: Prime Minister, presidents of both assemblies, Constitutional Council. The head of state addresses a message to the Nation to justify the decision, which is set in an exceptional timeframe.
Safeguards frame this mechanism. After 30 days, the Constitutional Council can be seized by the presidents of the assemblies. Furthermore, 60 parliamentarians can also intervene to verify if the conditions remain met. After 60 days, it proceeds by right to control. The opinion of the Council is published as soon as possible. Moreover, it assesses the necessity of maintaining or interrupting the use of article 16. Beyond the numbers, the spirit counts: this mechanism cannot compensate for an ordinary parliamentary deadlock, however serious. It is a last resort, not a tool for political management.
What the 2026 budget plays: a framing above all
The upcoming budget is the main piece. Attal insists on a method of minimal agreement: sanctifying investments that prepare the future, better targeting expenditures, protecting the ecological transition, avoiding the temptation of "all tax." Philippe bets that a vote, even a tight one, will then allow the landscape to be clarified with a close presidential election. The economic circles watch the scene, aware that political uncertainty is already causing tremors: falling indices, currency tension, investor caution. In public opinion, the debate on the favorite political personality of the French 2025 is invited in the background.
In the aisles, the same refrain is repeated: if a project majority still exists, it will nestle in the detail of the figures rather than in slogans. The French, for their part, want clear answers: public services that hold up, purchasing power that does not erode, a stable industrial and ecological direction. Politics is not just about budget equations. However, it is measured by them when winter approaches and the state’s coffers demand accountability.
Two strategies, the same imperative: to uphold the Republic
Ultimately, Gabriel Attal and Édouard Philippe tell two possible paths for the same necessity: ensuring continuity. The former bets on negotiation and the patient art of technical convergences, with the idea that France can, in 18 months, find support at the center of the game. The latter proposes a democratic shortcut, a presidential vote that would reshuffle the cards. Emmanuel Macron listens, weighs, decides with measured steps. His decision will say in which narrative the majority still wants to believe.
The country, for its part, is not swayed by words. It expects the truth of constraints to be told and promises to be kept. Moreover, it wishes for the restoration of trust. No one knows what compromise will emerge. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the comfort of a new mandate will be needed to get out of the rut. But the pressing hour of this October 7, 2025 imposes a simple thing: to rediscover the grammar of the essential and put it at the service of the common good.