adrian: nationwide strikes in france as parliament debates to raise the retirement age. present macron and is government says the choices reform or. whether the proposal is unfair to workers. this is inside story. welcome to the program. a day after france's national assembly started to debate an

overhaul of pensions, workers walked off the job and took to the streets in nationwide strikes. it is the third time such major demonstrations were held this year. reforms were at the heart of president's campaign last year but are proving deeply unpopular across the country. they include raising the retirement age from 60 to to 64 years and increasing the number of years people must make contributions to receive a full state pension. union leaders say all of this is dangerous for democracy. macron's party argues it is balance in the system as that current ages dragging on public finances. we will get to our panel shortly. harry force it reports from paris. reporter: for a third week, a major national strike affecting all sorts of sectors in france. the transport network, teachers, and for the first time, farmers unions are taking part in this

national action. there are demonstrations in the works in paris and cities across the country. more than a million people took to the streets, opposed to president macron's plan to raise the retirement age from 60 to to 64. there is a consensus in this country that something needs to be done to reform the system. the finance minister it will be a 14 billion euro hole by 2040 of nothing is done to fix the problem but there are real differences what to do about it. the opposition parties are arguing against it to my trying to get it scrapped or sent to a referendum. neither of those are looking likely. they are also proposing some 20,000 amendments trying to slow it and make their arguments as public as possible against it. for president macron, this is his issue of identity as a reformer. he wants to leave a legacy

having tackled this extremely difficult problem. if he needs to, there is an option to force it through, the national assembly says. for others, this is an issue of national identity for france. people your value life overwork, they value the idea of having worked all their lives and retiring with dignity with time to enjoy that retirement. this is a major issue, really disrupting life in this country. adrian: let's bring in our guest for today's discussion. we are joined by the associate fellow at the french institute of international and strategic affairs. the public -- contributing editor from politico. in london, a professor of politics at queen mary university, london. good to have all three of you. welcome to the program.

for the last decade, elections and most eu countries have accepted a later retirement age, largely without protests. why is france different? do the unions and the public have the appetite for a long fight over this issue? guest: pension reforms is really something in france that is one of the last kinds of reforms and political discussions that really raise so much interest and passion. there is a series of reforms every 10 years and in 1993, 2003, 2014 and again this year, there is a repetitive access -- aspect to these reforms. the discussion is a bit the same. it's about the previous reform

and raising the retirement age by two years from 62 to 64 years. there is a sense of continuity and repetition. a general lack of economy about what is being achieved and a lack of understanding of the broader economy. how much pensions are going to way or not on workers and the future and in general, we have this limited discussion with a lot of passion on all sides. it's related to the lack of broader economic discussion. you have these movements and political parties lost in recent

years and decades. which really sees on this opportunity to be vocal on their side of the political equation. adrian: do the -- does the public have the appetite for a long fight here? guest: it is crucial for the unions. there loss in recent years, it is crucial for them to be vocal, to be heard on this issue and for the government as well. they can't really go back because they have postponed reforms and this is seen as key. it is not as essential as it is claimed to be economically. it is not as imbalanced as is

often said. there's been a series of reforms already but political messaging is important on both sides for the government and the unions, there isn't so much opposition anymore. there are hundreds and hundreds of amendments proposed by opposition partners but there is that much key in the political discussion. the government wants to avoid having passed by force, which is allowed by the french constitution, so they are trying to get some more support but they will have two pass at some point anyway. adrian: you wrote that macron has staked his second term on being a reformer. the question has to be why, when

it is so unpopular or at least appears to be so unpopular with large swaths of the electorate. adrian: reform is historically unpopular in france and the french have a way of going through this routine, almost a ritual of strikes and street demonstrations and then swallowing it. that is what the government is ultimately counting on to happen again. why? because all of emmanuel macron's presidency has been about trying to make france a more modern, more investable country, trying to get the economy growing faster and balance the books without having to cause deep pain. he hasn't managed to balance the books but that's because of the covid pandemic which means no one has been able to balance their books. it's partly because of the war in ukraine but nevertheless, his

key economic reforms have been to get more people into work to get unemployment down and make the centerpiece. it is rather strange that the french, they latch onto a symbol. they care more about symbols than they do about numbers. if you like, they prefer demagogy to democracy. when the retirement age was reduced to 60 by francoise mitterrand, the great achievement in the 1980's, in those days, there were four can tripping workers for everyone pension. the average age of life expectancy was 74. today, we have 1.7 workers per pensioner and life expectancy has risen to 83. that is all very good but somewhere, you have to find a

way of balancing these things out and expecting people in their early 60's to work a bit longer, providing french employers will employ them, that's an important part the government has yet to properly address is to say companies have to to step up to the plate. trying to get expensive old dogs that allegedly cannot learn new tricks off their payroll and then putting them on the public payroll on various benefits, disability or whatever years before their retirement age. that is what needs to change. adrian: how much of this has to do with macron and his legacy? the pension system is not as imbalanced as perhaps politicians would have us believe. does he actually need to do it? guest: pension accounts are

currently at a slight surplus. predictably, on a normal path by 2030, they will be in deficit and that deficit will grow and stabilize. something does need to be done about pensions in the medium-term, the question is is this the right time? macron tried a more ambitious reform a few years ago and then he abandoned it when covid struck. he was essentially an political difficulty at the time. there's always a good argument for postponing any reform but france needs to grasp the metal. the message, if macron were to be defeated and france were unable to raise its retirement age when most of europe is already at 65, 66, 60 seven, it would send that old message that

france is ungovernable and i don't think that would be to the country's advantage. adrian: do these reforms affect some sectors of society more than others? if so, is that fair? guest: this is one of the main claims made by the unions that they have impact on different sectors of society. they argue people from the upper middle classes and white-collar jobs tend to be able to work for longer and enjoy a longer retirement once they do finish working whereas people who are in more physically taxing jobs, a lot of manual labor and working-class professions, people find it difficult to work for as many years as people and less physically demanding jobs. they have a shorter time due to low life expectancy, so their argument is this is a reform

that has little or no consequence to people in cushy professions who were already working past their retirement age where people who are struggling or display looking forward to their retirement, this is an extra two years that comes out of their life that they don't want to sacrifice. so they state is an unfair reform that unfairly penalizes working-class people. adrian: the growing generation have to pay for the growing burden and retirement of the older generation which you could argue applied more wealth than the young could hope to acquire. guest: there is very much an aspect of generational equality here. there is a decreasing number of people of working age paying for people of retirement age. this is why retirement ages -- we have a growing number of

people partly due to growing life expectancy. if you don't reform this now, that is a problem of generational inequality that will carry through. adrian: president macron has already had to make concessions to the unions and his political opponents. will he be forced to make further concessions? you say this is going to happen whether people like it or not, but is he going to have to make further concessions, perhaps back down entirely as jack chirac had to do or as we were hearing from harry, will he be able to force it through without a vote? guest: forcing it through without a vote is always an option. we cannot really go back at this point because it's one of his main reforms. i don't think it is that

significant. that is one reform he has put forward that was a centerpiece in his manifesto. he has to move forward with it and he is certainly willing to do it by force. obviously, he is trying with this prime minister to find an alternative solution gaining more support from the center-right, which has shrank a lot in election after election. we are facing the challenge of a very limited political stage. also unions, on all sides, people are fighting for

survival, for political relevance, so the government has to move forward with this reform on the political grounds even though it's not that essential compared to other issues. adrian: i saw you both agreeing on this point that macron has already had to make concessions and will he have to make anymore? guest: i think he will probably have to make some more, whether he makes them to the unions or the opposition party, which has always worked for a later retirement age, therefore you can hardly vote against it now. but they are holding out for more concessions so they can show they want some socially fair changes. there are a couple of changes.

they have conceded that people who start work under the age of 21 should not have to work until 64 if they have their full contributions. all other concessions that can be made, they have made some amendments for women. one thing they may can see later on, though i am told treasury is still resisting is they have put out this headline number and said the minimum pension will be 1200 euros. which would be quite a significant boost for the poorest pensions. the question is is that 1200 net of tax or 1200, but then they take off a social deduction. that is still something that is in play and they may have to

make a concession there. the issue of forcing it through -- there's a french legal provision that they cannot call a vote of confidence and invoke this article of the constitution and the law is deemed to have passed unless they find a majority to overthrow the government. this is a minority government, it does not have a majority on its own. therefore needs extra votes or extensions to pass laws. it is a possibility the government could be toppled. it would require all the opposition forces and they hate each other almost as they hate mr. macron. more likely, they will be able to get all or most to vote for this bill with one or two more changes. the cutoff day under the procedure is the 26th of march.

between now and the 26th of march, the government will have some concessions up its sleeve which will you get out some key moments as it sees the number of strikers going down and number of demonstrators going down. today is the third big protest day and the number of strikers and street demonstrators appear to be slightly down. but it is by no means over. it's during a school holiday. but one thing you are hearing from the more radical training is talk of an all-out strike which would be open-ended and could be extended every day. that is something that would cause serious damage to the economy, particularly if they were to do things like prevent petrel from getting two gas stations. on the other hand, that might well split this movement.

i don't think all the unions will agree to an open-ended general strike. in my political judgment, they unions, though they have justice on their side, they are on a losing track and need to work out what they can settle for or at what point they call it quits. adrian: pensions eat 16% of gdp compared to the eu average of 13.6. the opposition parties argue the way to fund earlier retirement is to make employers pay more through taxes and that in a country that has the highest tax taking in europe, is that a realistic solution? are there other alternatives,

and if not, why not? guest: i'd rather speak to the put aspect because i'm a political scientist and not an economist. it was mentioned earlier the government might try to ram the legislation through using the bypass of parliament. even though they have the option of doing that, i thick it's unlikely they will. they have done this repeatedly for the budgetary rules they have done throughout the autumn legislative time. the nature of this parliamentary override is they are allowed to do it unlimited times for budget reforms. after that, they can only do it one time during a parliamentary session. this is a politically sensitive issue. i made it fear they don't want to go down that path, they want

to get a legislative consensus, so it is much more likely they will go down the route working with other applicable parties. the republicans are aware of the fact that on the one hand, this is something they have been promoting for a long time. it is an issue that is not very popular in terms of public opinion. they are going to be a bit wary of propping up a minority government most voters stand against. adrian: are there viable alternatives to later retirement? is there something the government is missing? guest: increasing their contribution of employers or current workers is an option, but the opposite is on the table, trying to lessen this

burden which is already too high, so it is not really discussed and you just see if you amendments proposing that direction. considering the outlook for this burden of pensions in terms of gdp, it is expected to drop than align with other european countries as a result of previous reforms. we've had rather major reforms with the past 30 years and this one is not such a major reform, it is more of an acceleration of rigorous reforms as far as the contribution time is concerned, adjusting the age of retirement. the main adjustments have been

made to lower the burden on active workers, the burden of pensions and you also have a very disruptive job market. very unequal as was mentioned before. lots of people below the age of retirement have no option to go back to work when they are fired and lots of people at any age, whether educated or not, we have difficult access to the job market and can't expect to contribute to the system and will be left out of it at the end of their careers. the issue of economic crisis, they will be facing economic crisis after economic crisis and

cannot be entirely dismissed. it's not just a matter of arithmetic in the end. you can take european countries which would implement the same reforms but if in the end, it had different growth path, especially the outcome would be very different. adrian: sorry to interrupt you. time is rapidly running out. how much money will raising the retirement age save? it's not going to plug the deficit in french pension funding and will it save enough money for france in other areas -- for example, defense, given the amount the country is spending on assistance with ukraine? guest: that's not the intention of this reform. the hosel is it will generate 18

billion euros in savings by 2030 but that doesn't help with current defense spending raid to ukraine. almost a third by the time they have made more concessions of those savings will be redistributed to various different forms of disadvantaged groups, people doing physically wearing things, exactly that things for people who do heavy labor and need to retire earlier. i come back to this point, france is an exception because so few older people are in work and that is something the country needs to address and this country is starting on that but in a timid way. they want to introduce an index of senior employment, name and

shame the companies that don't employ enough seniors and companies are screaming blue murder, saying we don't want to be forced to employ more quotas on all people. but if you look how germany and the nordic countries handle this, they are much better at using older workers as mentors and people with experience teaching younger people, apprentices partnering novice workers and so on. france needs to start doing that and that is not in the minds of people demonstrating today. adrian: we have to end it there. we are out of time. thank you all. thank you for watching. you can see the program again at any time by going to the website. you will find that at al jazeera.com. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you will find that at facebook. come and this conversation will

continue on twitter. from me and the team in doha, thanks for being with us. we will see you again. goodbye for now.

- hey, i'm valerie june. comin' up on "reel south." - [woman] it became this place at was a safe haven for black famies to build commuty. - [verie] th histori african-erican town is enguld by indtr - [womyove got 1 dustrialacilities and tremendous potential for incidents and releases every day. - [verie] anone man refuses to leave his home and his ancestral community. - [stacey] my relatives are direct descendants the people who found mossville. freelave - alerie] discov "mossvie" up nexon el south.