End of life: A referendum is unlikely
The idea of a referendum is again rearing its head in 2025. The process is similar to certain deterrent weapons whose effects are difficult to control: they are talked about more than being used. During his recent New Year address to the French people, President Macron implied that he would ask them, during the year ahead, “to make a decision on some decisive subjects. Because each and every one of you will have a role to play”. Some commentators then thought he meant a “citizens’ consultation” but most of them thought he meant a “referendum”.
The idea is recurrent with President Macron. On several occasions, the President has even considered a reform of the referendum procedure, always seeking greater facilitation and its extension, both in terms of the convening procedure and of the themes considered. Nevertheless, such intentions have never come to fruition.
Article 11 of the Constitution determines and establishes the conditions applicable to referendums, including the subjects which may be submitted to a vote: “The President of the Republic, on proposal by the Government (…) may submit to a referendum any bill affecting the organisation of the public authorities, on reforms relative to the economic, social or environmental policies of the nation and the public services which contribute to the same (…)”. Additionally, there is the ratification of treaties (as with the referendum in 2005 on the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe).
Although the procedure is simple, at the sole discretion of the President, article 11 proscribes any referendum on questions not mentioned in that article. One might therefore consider a referendum on a reform of pensions (as immediately called for by the LFI party), but not on immigration despite the wish expressed by Bruno Retailleau: the Constitutional Council confirmed such impossibility in April 2024. All societal topics are in principle excluded, therefore all those associated with the end of life.
When interviewed for Public Sénat on 2nd January, Public Law Professor Paul Cassia confirmed. He considers not only that “the end of life is not part of the different categories [covered by article 11 of the constitution] but also that “referendums are held only on a specific question, not on questions of such complexity”.
When questioned for the same article, Anne-Charlène Bezzina, another lecturer in Law, was less assertive: she suggested that the wording of the question could be “aimed from the point of view of the organisation of public services” and in that case the Constitutional Council “could hardly go against the President’s decision”. This convoluted appreciation suggests a slide towards politics to the detriment of compliance with the constitutional text. But more than that, what could the question be?
The idea of a referendum on the end of life was already discarded on 16th November 2023 on the same channel by Agnès Firmin-Le Bodo. At that time, she was the minister in charge of Territorial Organisation and Health Professions – and consequently of the legislative debate on the end of life – she stated: “I am not against it in principle. The difficulty with a subject like that, is that one cannot give a simple answer to the question: Do you want euthanasia or assisted suicide?”. She recognised the difficulty in finding a question “which allows a proper answer on a subject which affects intimacy and which is extremely complicated”.
Another type of referendum is however covered in the Constitution, under article 89, which deals with reforming… the Constitution. It was used successfully by Jacques Chirac in the year 2000, to modify the presidential mandate from 7 to 5 years. In the context of the current political turmoil, how could the executive powers take the risk of calling for two referendums in succession?
The first one, to revise article 11 to extend the subjects eligible for referendum, and the second one, on one of the “new” subjects (end of life, immigration etc.), always assuming that one or other of the subjects can be simplified into a clear question offering an alternative “yes or no”. Such a prospect seems doubtful. Added to which the two subjects of immigration and end of life act against one another (by mobilising different militants) whereas resorting to a referendum in itself, short-circuits parliament – and can easily lead to accusations of populism.
Observers think a more “conventional” subject is more likely, for example a vote on a reform of the election procedures, to reintroduce a degree of proportionality. It remains that, when an extremely unpopular President asks a question, a major proportion of the voters would be tempted to vote “No”, simply in protestation without even considering the subject. Since General de Gaulle and his referendum in 1969 on “the bill to establish the regions and the renovation of the French Senate” it is obvious that referendums are a dangerous weapon for those who wield them.
There remain two more realistic possibilities which could send the French people to vote: either another dissolution, from June onwards, or the resignation of the President, without involving any referendum.
