Friday, July 10, kept – everywhere in France except in French Guiana, and Mayotte – the state of public health emergency. An exception regime, unprecedented in the history of the Republic, authorizing the government to act in the name of the imperative health. Limited Circulation, mask-wearing mandatory, the measures of deprivation of liberty have succeeded at the same rate as the progression of the virus. Up to a containment widespread in the country, qualified by Emmanuel Macron, on the 14th of July last, of the " difficult decision ". Last may, the think tank Generation libre, founded by the philosopher and writer Gaspard Koenig, launched an Observatory of the freedoms contained. His director of studies, Vincent Delhomme comes back to The Point, on an output-like extension.
also Read "as Soon as there is a purpose to be virtuous, the freedoms go by the wayside"
The Point : France is just emerging from a state of health emergency. What lessons could be drawn after weeks of confinement ?
Vincent Delhomme : Overall, the balance between the respect of freedoms and the necessary measures in the fight against the pandemic has been held, to share the example as regrettable kerfuffle on the extension of detention on remand. There has also been a few interventions by the State Council, in particular on the freedom to manifest, which have been important. We finally had a fall progressive of the virus at the same time a progressive decrease of the restrictions. But today, the output of the state of emergency is the false exit. We put an end to the state of emergency, while it retains the same powers to the Prime minister, simply by other means. We are still in a legal situation is exceptional.
also Read "The State acted as a supervisor of court school"
What response to expect from the State in the face of a possible second wave ?
Since the beginning, we thought the freedoms Observatory confined as an information tool. The idea was that citizens, journalists and the public, can have access to all of the measures as well as restrictions and their justifications by the government. We are aware that the virus is still circulating, as they were talking about a hypothetical second wave. This is precisely where the more unfortunate, it is said that one out of the state health emergency by suggesting that " things go better ", but the State retains the measures in the law. Are we not in the process of putting people to sleep who could say to themselves : "We are out of the state of health emergency, so, finally, all is better ? "There is a communication a bit blurred on the part of the government reminiscent of the beginnings of the containment.
Read also Covid-19 : the government's plan to avoid a reconfinement
The appointment of Jean Castex, " Mr. Déconfinement ", is it the sign, watermark, that the state of emergency continues ?
We are always in a situation that is far from normal legally. Already, because of the powers granted by decree to the Prime minister persist until October 30, 2020. Tomorrow, the head of the government may decide to reconfiner all or a part of the country, close to the restaurants, for example, without real democratic control. The tools are still in place. It is obviously difficult to predict what will happen next, predict if there will be a return back. I imagine that you will find, perhaps, solutions containment more localized, even more thin. The real question is whether, in France, are put in place measures appropriate to the jurisdiction in the form of differentiated measures, for example. We are very clear on the fact that not everything is going to be set with only good will. Individual initiatives have seen the light of day and it is good that the State takes it over. On the mask made it mandatory, if it is possible to limit the movement of the virus with a measure as mild as this one, it would be a shame not to enjoy it.
How to explain this "false exit" otherwise than by a double discourse of the State ?
I don't know if this is a double speech in the sense that this would be a great deal of duplicity and malice. What is certain, is that there was a great pressure to get out of the state of emergency, which was a derogation. At the same time, the State does not want to deprive oneself of a number of tools that may be needed. They do not know on which foot to dance. If we are not out of the epidemic then shares the things. This is to say that we are always in a state of emergency signalling, at least to the population, that the situation is still not back to normal. Today, one has the feeling that it is one step forward, two steps back.
This is the grand return of gaullism social in the form of the State as a strategist. What would be the forms of an obstacle in the way of public authorities to the economic freedoms ?
there are the forms that we know more. The advance of statism would not pass most traditional recipes : more deficit and more taxes. We are talking about a possible commissioner of the Plan, even if we don't know exactly what it covers. Is that this would be a branch of the State which might reflect more long-term or something else ? I don't suspect Emmanuel Macron of the desire to reintroduce economic planning, but there is this risk, more broadly, to discredit liberalism and the market. We would explain to us that, finally, economic actors may not resolve things. One of the visible consequences is the increase of the intervention of the State with areas in great difficulty, as the air and the automobile while in the same movement we speak of ecological transition. The public money would not be better used to save industries that have any legitimacy, but that this rarely as sectors of the future ?
Read also Coronavirus : "The world is not out of the woods ", warns the IMF
As after the attacks, the state of public health emergency is it soluble in the law ? In the name of what's best interest ?
there are two things. The state of public health emergency has been created of all parts – the people know little, but it did not exist before the Covid-19. It has not only enabled, it was created. It remains in the public health Code until next October with the possibility for the State to use it or not. It is a possibility, which, in itself, is not necessarily objectionable. But there is the question of whether its content will always be in place. I think there is a real risk, because, as long as the virus circulates, the State did not relinquish. If it is a seasonal virus, will it get used, three to four months per year, to live this way or these powers will be limited in time ? It also raises the question of ecological risk and health, because there always will be. Envisage-t-on a state of health emergency perpetual ? It is a possibility which is not to be neglected and justifies the meaning of our approach.
