After announcing his intention to hold a referendum to consult the French in 2025, President Emmanuel Macron continues his reflection on the topics to be addressed. End of life, work, social media: the outlines of the questions are becoming clearer—without including immigration, one of the major concerns of the French. Under the French constitution, the outcome of a referendum has the force of law.
During his New Year’s Eve ceremony, the president announced that he wanted to ask the French people to “decide” on subjects deemed “decisive,” without saying any more.
This is not the first time that Macron, since his first election in 2017, has promised a referendum. So far, it has not taken place. However, those close to him want to believe that, this time, he will follow through—twenty years after the last referendum, organised by President Sarkozy in 2005 on the EU Constitutional Treaty, which was rejected by a majority of French people.
The president plans to announce the format and details of the public consultation in early spring. Several subjects could be put to the French vote simultaneously in a single day. At the moment, Macron is still in a phase of reflection and consultation, but his opinion is becoming clearer.
Three subjects have caught his attention. First of all, a possible ban on social media for minors under the age of fifteen. The president has repeatedly expressed his concern about the damage caused by children’s overexposure to screens, and France was one of the first countries to legislate on restricting access to pornographic sites for minors. A referendum on this issue would be consistent with these previous commitments.
The issue of ‘work’ could also be a topic included in the referendum. The subject is vague and covers a whole range of concerns. Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, now head of the presidential party, is pushing in this direction: “We need a referendum to turn the table around, change our model, and give working French people a break,” he explained on January 29th in an interview with the public channel France 2. However, it is difficult to see how this complex subject could be resolved by a simple question to be decided by a yes-or-no vote. For others, the question should focus more on the structure of the country’s social policies: who finances them, and on whom should the nation’s efforts concentrate? The Left would prefer that the question focus on the retirement age, to circumvent the highly contested pension reform adopted by Élisabeth Borne’s government in 2023, but this is clearly not the route being explored by the president.
Finally, Macron wants to settle the heated debate on euthanasia reform through a referendum, which would de facto put an end to the ongoing debates in the National Assembly. Theoretically, the Constitution (Art. 11) does not allow a referendum to be organised on a subject of this type, because any referendum must relate to “any bill relating to the organisation of the public authorities, to reforms relating to the nation’s economic or social policy and to the public services involved.” But the Élysée has already discreetly consulted the Constitutional Council, which would guarantee a broad interpretation of Article 11 as worded. Resorting to a referendum on euthanasia would allow the president to hope for a symbolic victory—he who has been experiencing a string of political failures since the beginning of his second term. It could also help him overcome the disagreement on this issue with his prime minister: Bayrou is opposed to euthanasia and wants to dissociate the issue of assisted dying from that of palliative care, while Macron wants to link the two to make authorising euthanasia acceptable in the eyes of the most reluctant.
Despite the expectations of the French on the subject, Macron is ruling out a referendum on immigration. This, even though it is a recurring demand from the right-wing electorate, but more broadly, from a majority of French people, as confirmed by several polls on the subject. Interior minister Bruno Retailleau is personally in favour, but not the head of state, who emphasises that it is constitutionally impossible to address such a subject through a referendum. For euthanasia, the constitutional blockade is not considered insurmountable, and the wording of Article 11 could be interpreted according to the will of the president without any notable difficulty, but for immigration, the Left and the Centre have become accustomed to considering it insurmountable—in their best interest.
