Will the ECB Save France in a Debt Crisis, at the Risk of Losing Its Credibility?
France’s debt sits at a point where investors currently consider it manageable, but the path traced by the new government’s budget plans could tilt the financial calculus in ways that alter how markets fund the state. In this evolving context, a prominent economist from the Circle of Economists highlights a central question: will the European Central Bank be willing to preserve credibility and support France if a debt shock were to materialize? The analysis probes the tension between fiscal ambition and market discipline, and it reframes the debate around monetary-fiscal coordination, market expectations, and the potential spillovers for the euro area. The discussion is timely, given the sensitivities of sovereign debt dynamics and the elevated prominence of debt sustainability as a macroeconomic priority.
The Current Landscape: French Debt, Market Bankability, and Budget Outlook
France’s public debt is described as bankable in prevailing market conditions, a label that rests on several interlocking factors. First, investor demand for French government securities remains robust, driven by a combination of credit quality, deep and liquid markets, and a broad investor base that spans domestic institutions and international funds. This demand translates into favorable funding costs and predictable rollover opportunities, which are essential for maintaining debt sustainability even when deficits widen. The bankability of debt is a function of perceived fiscal discipline, macroeconomic resilience, and the credibility of policy institutions in the eyes of lenders.
Second, the structural features of France’s economy contribute to a degree of resilience. A diversified economy with a sizable industrial backbone, strong export capacity, and a history of policy adjustment in response to shocks helps anchor expectations about revenue collection and growth trajectories. In recent periods, the credibility of fiscal planning has been reinforced by a track record of targeted reforms and a willingness to address long-standing structural issues that could otherwise undermine confidence in the fiscal framework. All these elements create a stable baseline for debt management, even as the environment remains susceptible to cyclical and structural tensions.
Third, the debt profile—comprising the maturity structure, debt composition, and currency mix—plays a critical role in how sensitive France is to changes in financing conditions. A well-distributed maturity ladder can cushion the immediate impact of shifts in interest rates or appetite for risk, while a diversified funding program reduces refinancing risk. The quality of debt management, including the credibility of budgetary targets and the transparency of funding plans, feeds into the market’s perception of risk and influence spreads and yields. In this context, the status of debt as bankable is not a static verdict but a dynamic assessment that reflects both macroeconomic momentum and the soundness of fiscal governance.
Yet the situation is nuanced. Bankability does not immunize a sovereign from market pressures when fiscal policy adopts a notably different stance from market expectations or when political signals imply persistent higher deficits or a slower path to debt stabilization. In such cases, investors may demand higher compensation for risk, raising borrowing costs and complicating the financing equation. The current confidence in France’s debt structure rests on a delicate balance: the ability of the state to manage deficits prudently, the market’s confidence in the policy framework, and the overarching macroeconomic environment that shapes growth and inflation trajectories. This equilibrium can be disrupted if the government’s budgetary intentions introduce themes that markets interpret as longer-term divergence from responsible consolidation or growth-supported fiscal expansion that could become self-reinforcing.
The discussion around bankability also intersects with the overall health of the European Union’s fiscal architecture. France’s fiscally sensitive position does not exist in isolation; it interacts with partner countries, regional institutions, and shared monetary policy. Market judgments about France are thus entangled with beliefs about the euro area’s resilience, the effectiveness of common policy tools, and the willingness of supranational bodies to engage in crisis management if needed. The bankability of French debt, therefore, is as much a reflection of domestic policy credibility as it is a barometer of confidence in the broader European framework for sovereign risk management.
Finally, the macroeconomic backdrop matters. Growth prospects, labor market dynamics, productivity trends, and external demand all influence revenue potential and debt sustainability. When growth accelerates, the debt-to-GDP ratio can stabilize or improve through stronger nominal GDP and revenues, even if deficits remain elevated. Conversely, a weaker growth outlook can raise sensitivity to financing conditions, as lower nominal growth makes debt harder to manage relative to the size of the economy. In this sense, the bankability of debt is a moving target, continuously shaped by how the economy evolves and how fiscal policy adapts to changing conditions.
This section underscores that the current bankability of French debt, while reassuring, is contingent on a coherent and credible fiscal strategy. The next sections explore how the new government’s budget intentions might influence financing conditions, and what that implies for market discipline, central-bank credibility, and financial stability across Europe.
Budget Proposals and Financing Risk: From Ambition to Market Pricing
The core concern in this debate is that the intentions behind a forthcoming budget could shift the risk calculus that markets apply to French debt. If policy makers pursue more expansive spending or slower consolidation without commensurate revenue-raising measures, deficits could widen more than markets anticipate. In such a scenario, the market could reprice risk, demanding higher yields to compensate for longer-term fiscal uncertainty. The mechanics are straightforward, but the consequences are far-reaching: higher borrowing costs, steeper debt dynamics, and the possibility of a self-reinforcing cycle in which debt service consumes an increasing share of revenue, crowding out other important public investments or social programs.
A central channel through which this risk manifests is the market’s interpretation of fiscal credibility. Investors rely on a credible fiscal plan to form expectations about future tax collection, spending obligations, and the pace of debt reduction. If the budget signals a persistent tilt toward higher deficits without credible offsetting reforms or growth-enhancing measures, markets may price in a higher risk premia. This can manifest in higher yields on long-dated government bonds, wider spreads relative to safer benchmarks, and greater volatility in funding conditions. Such repricing is not limited to the direct cost of debt; it also affects the indirect channels—bank lending conditions, corporate borrowing costs, and overall financial conditions that influence investment and consumption.
The interplay between budget design and market sentiment is shaped by several elements. First, the composition of planned expenditures matters: are the envisaged outlays targeted at productive investments with clear medium-term payoffs, or do they lean toward one-off or non-productive spending that does not expand the economy’s capacity? Second, the structure of taxation and reform plans matters: credible, efficient revenue measures that avoid stifling growth are more likely to preserve market confidence than opaque or regressive tax changes that threaten growth potential. Third, the timeline of consolidation plays a pivotal role: a gradual, credible path with clearly communicated milestones can help markets adjust smoothly, while abrupt shifts or frequent policy reversals may undermine confidence and invite volatility.
From a risk-management perspective, the potential impact on France’s debt financing is not solely about deficits; it also concerns how the plan interacts with monetary policy and central-bank behavior. If fiscal ambitions create a scenario where inflationary pressures intensify or if growth remains lackluster, the central bank’s response becomes a critical factor. The market would weigh not only debt sustainability but also the probability and credibility of the central bank’s actions to support macroeconomic stabilization without compromising its inflation mandate. In other words, budgetary decisions are assessed not in isolation but in the context of how they align with, or challenge, the broader policy mix.
Another dimension is political and institutional credibility. Markets prize predictability, transparency, and a track record of meeting commitments. If the new government’s fiscal program is accompanied by a clear, time-bound reform agenda—structural reforms that improve efficiency, broaden the tax base, or enhance productivity—investors might view this as a credible framework that supports longer-term debt stability. Conversely, ambiguity about policy directions, frequent changes in policy stance, or a perception that short-term political gains are prioritized over long-run fiscal health can erode confidence. In such a climate, even if the debt remains orbiting a bankable status today, a shift in policy orientation could be enough to alter market expectations and financing conditions.
The risk to market funding is thus not purely a matter of deficits, but of the entire architecture of fiscal credibility. It includes how budgetary choices align with growth projections, how reforms translate into improved revenue capacity and cost control, and how the government communicates its plans and milestones. The combined signal—deficit trajectory, reform momentum, and credibility in execution—ultimately determines whether debt funding remains stable or becomes more expensive over time. This dynamic is particularly sensitive in a euro-area context, where national policy choices can have cross-border implications and where the monetary transmission mechanism is intertwined with shared policy objectives.
In this section, the emphasis is on the plausible mechanism by which budget intentions can mutate financing risk. The key takeaway is that bankable debt does not automatically guarantee uninterrupted access to finance if budgets signal a sustained departure from prudent consolidation or growth-supporting investment. Market pricing would react to the perceived alignment or misalignment between fiscal plans and economic fundamentals, and the consequences would echo through interest rates, debt-service costs, and the available fiscal space for essential public programs in the medium term. The following section turns to the central bank’s role in this intricate dance and asks whether the ECB would risk credibility to stand by France in a debt crunch.
Will the ECB Compromise Its Credibility to Support France in a Debt Crisis?
The European Central Bank faces a formidable credibility calculus when a member country’s debt profile comes under renewed stress. On one hand, a robust, rule-based monetary policy posture emphasizes price stability as the primary objective, with a vigilant eye on inflation dynamics. On the other hand, the prospect of a sovereign debt crisis raises questions about whether the central bank should act as a lender of last resort or a backstop that preserves financial stability and prevents a wider euro-area contagion. The tension here is not theoretical; it translates into real consequences for inflation expectations, credibility with financial markets, and the effectiveness of monetary policy transmission.
A key question is whether the ECB would deploy its standard tools to support France in the event of a debt shock, and under what conditions. Historically, central banks in the euro area have shown a willingness to intervene in market functioning—through asset purchases, liquidity provision, and other measures—when such actions are seen as preventing disorderly markets or stabilizing the transmission mechanism. However, each intervention comes with trade-offs. Expanded support for sovereign debt can raise concerns about moral hazard, potentially blurring the lines between monetary and fiscal policy. It can also influence inflation expectations if markets interpret such actions as a signal of ongoing accommodation to fiscal loosening. The central bank must balance the objective of preserving financial stability with its mandate to maintain price stability over the medium term.
Credibility considerations lie at the heart of this decision. Markets must believe that monetary support is a calibrated tool that does not undermine the central bank’s commitment to price stability, while also ensuring that a financial shock does not escalate into a broader macroeconomic crisis. The central bank’s diagnostic framework would examine the sustainability of debt dynamics, the credibility of fiscal reforms, and the prospects for a growth-enhancing policy mix. If deficits remain elevated without credible anchors, the risk is that even a supportive monetary stance could be interpreted as endorsement of unsustainable fiscal trends. In such a scenario, the central bank might be reluctant to absorb all the adverse effects, preferring targeted interventions aimed at preserving market functioning rather than delivering a comprehensive backstop.
There is also the issue of conditionality. A credible monetary response could be paired with fiscal obligations—temporary backstops that come with reform milestones or macroeconomic safeguards. This approach would aim to deter moral hazard while preserving the essential objective of stabilizing markets during a transition period. The risk, however, is that conditionality becomes a point of political contention, complicating the execution and signaling to markets. The timing and precision of any intervention matter profoundly: premature or excessive support could destabilize expectations, while delayed action could amplify market stress and raise the probability of a disorderly adjustment.
Beyond instrument choice, the ECB’s credibility would hinge on the coherence of the broader policy stance. The central bank’s actions would be interpreted alongside the fiscal framework, growth projections, and the evolution of inflationary pressures in the euro area. If the fiscal program is evaluated as credible and growth-supportive in the medium term, markets might view monetary support as a stabilizing but temporary measure. If, by contrast, the fiscal path is seen as uncertain or misaligned with growth prospects, the central bank could face greater skepticism about the effectiveness and legitimacy of its interventions. In either case, the central bank’s communication strategy would be pivotal: clear, consistent messaging about the conditions under which support is provided and the long-run commitment to price stability could help preserve credibility even in volatile times.
The broader implication for the euro area is that the ECB’s stance toward France in a hypothetical debt shock would not occur in isolation. It would influence market expectations for other member states’ vulnerabilities, shape risk premia across sovereign markets, and affect the transmission of monetary policy across the union. The credibility of the euro and the integrity of the monetary union depend in part on coherent actions that respect the boundaries between monetary policy and fiscal decisions while providing stabilizing support when needed. The debate about whether the ECB would risk its own credibility to sustain France in a crisis ultimately reflects a broader, ongoing negotiation about the balance of responsibility and the limits of backstops in a highly integrated monetary system.
This section highlights the central dilemma: the ECB’s potential actions could stabilize markets in the near term but carry longer-term implications for inflation expectations and the perceived discipline of fiscal policy. The assessment is not binary—there are degrees of intervention, conditional commitments, and strategic communications that can influence outcomes. The ultimate question remains whether the central bank can credibly act as a backstop without eroding its commitment to price stability or inviting moral hazard that could destabilize the euro area’s fiscal architecture in the longer run. The following section provides a focused look at the perspective of a leading economist in the Circle of Economists and what his analysis implies for the credibility debate and for policy paths ahead.
The Perspective of a Leading Economist from the Circle of Economists
A well-known economist affiliated with the Circle of Economists emphasizes a cautious stance on the debt and budget dynamics facing France. The central claim is that while the current debt is, at present, considered bankable by markets, the introduction of new budgetary intentions could shift the risk landscape. The economist argues that the credibility of the fiscal framework is paramount for sustaining market confidence and, by extension, stable financing conditions. In this view, the market’s willingness to fund debt at favorable terms is not guaranteed indefinitely; it relies on a consistent and credible plan that aligns with growth prospects and long-run debt suppression.
The analysis underscores several critical themes. First, it stresses the need for transparent, credible fiscal consolidation that demonstrates a balanced approach to deficits, revenue generation, and productive public investments. The presence of clear reform milestones, accompanied by a credible timeline for reducing the debt burden, can reassure investors that higher deficits are not a perpetual feature of fiscal policy but a transitional phase with planned reversals. Second, the economist emphasizes the importance of structural reforms that enhance productivity and competitiveness. Such reforms can contribute to a stronger growth path, which, in turn, supports revenue growth and improves the debt ratio dynamics. If investors perceive that fiscal expansion is matched by growth-enhancing measures, the risk of adverse market re-pricing diminishes.
Third, the analysis draws attention to the role of communication and governance. The credibility of fiscal plans depends not only on the substance of the policies but also on the clarity and consistency with which they are explained and implemented. When policy channels are predictable and the government demonstrates commitment to meeting its targets, markets price in lower uncertainty, reducing the probability of abrupt financing cost increases. Conversely, ambiguous policy signals or frequent changes in direction can increase the perceived risk, prompting markets to demand higher compensation for the added uncertainty.
Fourth, the economist highlights the central bank’s role in this ecosystem. The Circle of Economists recognizes that monetary policy must remain focused on price stability while maintaining flexibility to respond to adverse shocks. In this framework, the central bank acts as a stabilizing force that supports the economy during transitions, but it cannot substitute for a credible and growth-oriented fiscal plan. The analysis implies that a credible combination of disciplined fiscal policy and prudent monetary policy is the most effective way to sustain debt payment capacity and preserve market confidence over time.
Finally, the commentary warns against complacency. Even in a context where debt remains bankable, a sudden shift in fiscal sentiment or a breakdown in reform momentum can rapidly alter the risk calculus. The market’s sensitivity to policy predictability means that even moderate departures from a well-articulated plan can trigger disproportionate reactions in financing conditions. In this sense, the Circle of Economists’ perspective calls for a sustained, coherent, and transparent approach to fiscal policy as a prerequisite for maintaining market trust and ensuring the long-term viability of debt funding.
This section reflects a nuanced, diagnostic view of how policy credibility interacts with market dynamics and central-bank behavior. It suggests that the sustainability of debt funding hinges on more than immediate deficits; it rests on the coherence of reform, the growth trajectory, the quality of governance, and the careful orchestration of monetary and fiscal tools. The next section extends these ideas to consider broader implications for France and the eurozone, including potential spillovers, risk management, and policy coordination challenges.
Broader Implications for France and the Eurozone
The tension between fiscal ambition and market discipline has implications that extend beyond France’s borders. When a major euro-area member signals a significant shift in its budgetary stance, investors reassess cross-country risk premia, and the transmission of monetary policy can be affected across the union. France’s debt dynamics, while individually creditworthy today, can influence the broader market’s perception of the euro area’s fiscal-health dynamics, potentially altering the appetite for risk across sovereign bonds and influencing the cost of capital for both public and private sectors.
A key channel for spillovers is the signaling effect on confidence in the euro area’s policy framework. If market participants perceive a credible path to debt stabilization and a growth-supporting reform agenda, the euro area’s collective risk environment could improve, reinforcing cohesion among member states. Conversely, if the market interprets fiscal plans as insufficiently anchored to credible consolidation or growth, it could trigger a tightening of financial conditions across the bloc. This dynamic would interact with the ECB’s policy stance, potentially constraining the central bank’s room to maneuver and complicating the synchronization of monetary and fiscal objectives.
Another consideration is the impact on investment behavior and macroeconomic stability. Higher financing costs for France could influence corporate investment, household consumption, and public investment plans. If the debt servicing burden becomes more burdensome, the government might face choices about reallocating resources toward debt service and away from growth-enhancing outlays. This reallocation could have knock-on effects on job creation, productivity gains, and the overall pace of convergence within the euro area. The degree to which reforms boost productivity and competitiveness would determine the extent to which France can regain trajectory momentum and reduce vulnerabilities to future shocks.
The eurozone’s policy toolkit would also come under scrutiny. The coordination between national budgets and the euro-area framework—including the provisions for crisis response, backstops, and macroprudential oversight—would be tested by shifts in France’s fiscal stance. The effectiveness of policy coordination depends on clear rules, transparent mechanisms for crisis management, and a shared understanding of risk distribution across the union. The long-term health of the euro area rests on the ability of member states to pursue fiscal credibility without compromising financial stability or sacrificing essential growth-oriented reforms. This balance requires ongoing dialogue, credible policy commitments, and robust institutional arrangements that can withstand market scrutiny during periods of transition.
In sum, the implications for France and the eurozone hinge on the credibility of fiscal plans, the resilience of growth prospects, and the judicious use of monetary policy instruments. A disciplined approach that couples credible consolidation with growth-enhancing reforms can strengthen confidence and reduce the likelihood of destabilizing changes in financing conditions. Conversely, a misalignment between fiscal intentions and market expectations could precipitate a broader recalibration of risk across European sovereign debt markets, with adverse consequences for inflation dynamics, financial stability, and the pace of economic recovery.
Policy Tools, Risk Mitigation, and Strategic Pathways
To navigate the delicate balance between debt sustainability and market confidence, several policy tools and strategic pathways deserve careful consideration. The following framework outlines a set of approaches that could help maintain debt funding stability while preserving room for growth-supportive initiatives.
First, anchor credible consolidation plans with transparent milestones. Establishing a credible timetable for deficit reduction, with clear targets and independent verification, can reassure markets that the long-run debt dynamics are on a sustainable path. The milestones should be realistic, measurable, and adaptable to changing macroeconomic conditions, ensuring that the plan remains credible even if growth underperforms in the short term. A credible path reduces uncertainty and can moderate risk premia, improving financing conditions over time.
Second, couple reforms with growth-enhancing investments. It is not enough to pursue consolidation alone; the strategy should prioritize productive investments that improve productivity, innovation, education, and infrastructure. Such investments can raise potential growth, increase revenue base, and support debt stabilization in the medium term. The challenge lies in balancing short-term budget discipline with long-term growth dividends, a balancing act that requires careful policy design and rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
Third, enhance fiscal governance and transparency. Robust governance mechanisms, including independent budgetary oversight, clear accounting standards, and transparent reporting, contribute to market confidence. Investors respond positively to predictability and accountability; thus, strengthening governance reduces uncertainty about future policy trajectories and supports a stable financing environment.
Fourth, communicate consistently about policy aims and constraints. Clear, consistent, and credible communication reduces ambiguity and reassures markets that policymakers recognize trade-offs and are managing them prudently. The communication strategy should explain how current deficits fit into a broader strategy for growth and debt reduction, including the rationale for any temporary deviations and the mechanisms by which deficits will be rolled back.
Fifth, maintain an appropriate monetary-fiscal policy balance. The central bank’s role as a stabilizing force remains essential, but its actions should be designed to support macroeconomic stabilization without compromising long-run price stability. A well-balanced approach to liquidity provision, asset purchases, and market functioning can help mitigate market stress without signaling a permanent shift in the monetary regime.
Sixth, prepare contingency mechanisms for crisis scenarios. Europe has built-in tools and frameworks for crisis response, but readiness is essential. Establishing clearly defined triggers, exit strategies, and conditionalities for any extraordinary measures helps align expectations and reduces the probability of crisis-driven disorderly adjustments.
Seventh, invest in resilience to global shocks. The economy’s exposure to external shocks—be they geopolitical, energy price movements, or supply-chain disruptions—should be mitigated through diversified sources of growth and energy resilience, as well as structural reforms that reduce susceptibility to external risks. A resilient growth path supports revenue generation and improves debt sustainability even in the face of adverse conditions.
Eighth, preserve social fairness and inclusive growth. Budgetary choices that protect vulnerable segments while promoting upward mobility can bolster social cohesion and maintain broad-based support for reform. Inclusive growth supports long-term demand and productivity improvements, contributing to a healthier debt trajectory and reducing political risk to reform efforts.
This policy toolkit is designed to offer a coherent route that aligns fiscal credibility with growth-oriented ambition. It emphasizes the importance of credibility, transparent governance, and a balanced policy mix that supports debt sustainability without sacrificing the economy’s ability to invest in its future. The final section synthesizes the key takeaways and suggests how France can navigate these fiscal and monetary challenges in the months and years ahead.
Historical Context and Comparative Analysis
In evaluating France’s debt dynamics and the ECB’s potential response, it helps to place the current discussion in a broader historical and comparative context. Sovereign debt management has long been a balancing act between fiscal discipline, monetary support, and market trust. Across advanced economies, episodes of deficit expansion have often been followed by periods of consolidation and reform as governments respond to market signals. A critical lesson from past cycles is that credibility is a durable asset in debt markets; once eroded, it takes substantial time and consistent policy actions to rebuild.
Comparative analysis with other euro-area countries reveals both shared challenges and distinctive circumstances. Countries with similar debt levels or deficit trajectories have faced analogous questions about the role of the central bank, the conditionality of support, and the importance of structural reforms to sustain growth. The euro-area framework adds a layer of complexity because the policy reactions of a single member state can have spillover effects that influence the entire currency union. This interconnectedness makes disciplined, growth-oriented policies even more essential for maintaining overall stability.
From a historical vantage point, the effectiveness of emergency backstops and market interventions has depended on the clarity of the legal and institutional framework governing such actions. The evolution of crisis-management mechanisms in the euro area has strengthened the capacity to respond to sudden shifts in sovereign risk, but the credibility of long-term policy remains anchored in the consistency of fiscal and growth-enhancing reforms. Lessons from earlier episodes underscore the central role of coherent communication, predictable policy trajectories, and credible plans for debt reduction in preserving market confidence over time.
Furthermore, the relationship between deficits, inflation, and central-bank credibility remains a persistent theme. Episodes of high inflation can complicate debt dynamics, particularly when fiscal expansion coincides with rising price pressures. The key policy challenge is to coordinate the pace of consolidation with the trajectory of inflation and the growth outlook to avoid a destabilizing spiral. The analysis of a leading economist from the Circle of Economists emphasizes that credible reform and growth-enhancing policies are instrumental in sustaining debt sustainability and avoiding a loss of market confidence that could feed into higher risk premia.
In sum, a historical and cross-country perspective reinforces the central message: credibility, coherent policy design, and growth-oriented reforms are critical to maintaining debt financing conditions and ensuring macroeconomic stability in a euro-area context. The present discussion about France’s budget intentions and the ECB’s potential role must be interpreted against this longer arc of policy experience, learning, and adaptation. The final section consolidates the key conclusions and outlines the path forward for policymakers seeking to safeguard debt affordability while fostering inclusive, sustainable growth.
Conclusion
France’s debt remains bankable under current market conditions, yet the trajectory of the next budget could reshape financing dynamics if it signals a deviation from a credible consolidation path. The central question—whether the ECB would risk its own credibility to support France in a debt crisis—highlights the delicate balance between preserving financial stability and maintaining a steadfast commitment to price stability. The analysis from a respected member of the Circle of Economists emphasizes that debt sustainability hinges on a credible fiscal framework, growth-oriented reforms, transparent governance, and disciplined monetary support when needed.
As France considers its budget strategy, the emphasis should be on crafting a plan that aligns deficits with credible revenue measures, growth-enhancing investments, and clear reform milestones. This approach minimizes the risk of adverse market repricing, preserves the resilience of debt financing, and reduces the likelihood that the central bank faces a choice between steep inflation pressures and destabilizing market conditions. The broader euro-area implications underscore the importance of policy coherence, robust crisis-management mechanisms, and a shared commitment to sustaining financial stability and growth across the union.
Ultimately, the path forward rests on the credibility and coherence of policy actions. If the new budget is designed alongside a credible reform agenda that enhances productivity and growth, debt sustainability can be preserved without sacrificing public investment or social objectives. If, however, fiscal plans lack a credible anchor or rely excessively on short-term stimuli, the risk of market re-pricing grows, with consequential implications for France and the eurozone. Policymakers, investors, and observers alike will be watching carefully to assess how the balance between fiscal ambition and market discipline evolves, and how the ECB and national authorities coordinate to ensure a stable, growth-oriented economic horizon for France and its euro-area partners.