France’s first major debate ahead of the 2027 presidential election brought the country’s strained public finances and its place in the European Union into direct political conflict. Seven candidates meeting in Paris agreed that the economy was under pressure, but their proposed responses ranged from spending cuts and wage rises to closer European cooperation and challenges to EU economic rules.
In brief
- Seven candidates in France’s 2027 presidential race took part in a first debate organised in Paris by Medef.
- France’s public debt stood at €3.536 trillion at the end of March 2026, equivalent to 117.5% of GDP.
- Candidates disagreed over spending, wages, debt management and France’s relationship with European Union rules.
- No clear winner emerged from the debate, which continued for more than an hour beyond its scheduled end.
The debate, organised by the Mouvement des entreprises de France, or Medef, gave an early indication of the arguments likely to shape the campaign to succeed President Emmanuel Macron. For readers following the European economy, the discussion matters because it connected France’s domestic budget choices with wider questions about the EU’s economic framework and its ability to act collectively.
Debt and deficit set the terms of the argument
The scale of France’s public finances provided the central reference point. According to RFI’s account of the debate, public debt stood at €3.536 trillion at the end of March 2026, equivalent to 117.5% of gross domestic product. The public deficit was about €152.5 billion in 2025, or 5.1% of GDP.
Those figures did not lead to a shared prescription. Marine Le Pen said the National Rally would present a €125 billion spending-cut plan. The debate did not establish how that plan would be structured, funded or implemented, but the announcement positioned expenditure reduction as a principal answer to the fiscal situation.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of France Unbowed, took a different route. He called on business leaders to raise wages, arguing that this was needed to prevent France from falling into recession. His intervention placed purchasing power and demand alongside the debate over public accounts, rather than treating lower expenditure as the only available response.
The disagreement illustrates a practical issue for voters and businesses: the debt and deficit figures are shared starting points, but the candidates differ over which economic pressures deserve priority. The discussion was therefore not simply about the size of the public balance sheet. It was also about whether the immediate focus should be on cutting spending, increasing wages, reshaping debt obligations or changing the policy framework around them.
Europe became a dividing line on economic policy
France’s relationship with the European Union was inseparable from the economic exchange. Mélenchon said France should disobey EU trade and economic rules that conflict with French interests, and called for the treaties underpinning the bloc to be rewritten. In reporting on the debt debate, Euractiv noted his proposal that the European Central Bank be asked to waive interest payments on a substantial part of the debt.
That proposal was presented as a political position, not as an agreed European policy. The debate offered no indication that the European Central Bank would accept such a request, nor did it settle how any treaty changes or departures from existing rules could be pursued.
Le Pen also argued for a different balance between Paris and Brussels. She said France should cut its contribution to Brussels by €5 billion and remove thousands of European rules. Her position did not amount to a call for France to leave the EU, but it underscored a more sceptical approach to the role of European regulation in French economic policy.
Édouard Philippe defended the opposite direction. He argued for greater European cooperation, including an EU-wide capital markets union, and called for a firmer European stance towards China and the United States. His case linked domestic competitiveness to the EU’s capacity to pool financial markets and to act with greater weight internationally.
Raphaël Glucksmann likewise argued that France should play a stronger role in Brussels. He rejected the idea that competition from neighbouring European countries was France’s main industrial problem, pointing instead to concerns about China. Together, these interventions showed that the debate over Europe was not confined to institutional questions. It reached into trade, industrial competition, investment and the way France positions itself alongside other European economies.
An early debate without a settled outcome
The candidates represented a broad political range: alongside Le Pen, Mélenchon, Philippe and Glucksmann, the debate included Bruno Retailleau, Marine Tondelier and Gabriel Attal. Their appearance in the same forum made the contrasts visible, but it did not produce a clear winner. The event continued for more than an hour beyond its planned finish.
An Ifop-Fiducial poll cited by RFI placed Mélenchon in a position to reach a second round against Le Pen, who was described as well ahead in first-round polling. These figures are a snapshot of the campaign environment, not a result. The debate itself did not establish a measurable change in voting intentions.
What it did establish was the likely terrain of the contest. France’s debt, deficit, purchasing power, industrial competitiveness and relationship with the EU are now being debated as connected questions. The candidates agree on the seriousness of the economic backdrop, while offering sharply different accounts of how France should respond.
Featured image. Source: Pexels. Credit: Werner Pfennig. License: Pexels License.
