D-3 before the meeting between the NFP and Emmanuel Macron, in the company of Lucie Castets. Suffice to say that the leader of the socialist senators, Patrick Kanner, has very little taste for the threats of impeachment, made by Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his lieutenants, against the President of the Republic. “LFI has been playing the rubber band game for several months now, seeking conflict with the other members of the alliance”, he deplores to L’Express. He asks the candidate for Matignon to make her voice heard clearly.
L’Express: A recent video revealed by The Point shows LFI MEP Rima Hassan demonstrating in Jordan in tribute to Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader killed in an attack attributed to Israeli intelligence. Why didn’t the rest of the New Popular Front unanimously condemn the move?
Patrick Kanner: I am not the spokesperson for Olivier Faure, Fabien Roussel or Marine Tondelier. I do not have words strong enough to condemn the presence of Ms Hassan, a Member of the European Parliament, at the tribute to the leader of a terrorist organisation, a man who danced for joy on 7 October. It is an insult to democracy. By authorising this pogrom and keeping the hostages captive, Ismaël Haniyeh provoked a terrible response from the Israeli forces, plunging Palestinian civilians into an unbearable tragedy. Rima Hassan, I remind you, was the symbol of the strategy of the Insoumis during the European elections, which imported the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with electoral aims. In some respects, it was a success for them; for me, it was above all an approach contrary to republican principles and secularism. French Muslims have the right to vote taking this conflict into account, but La France Insoumise has continued to essentialize them. Rima Hassan will of course continue to play the provocations constantly because it is her trademark: we must therefore prepare ourselves for many other sallies of this kind from LFI.
In a text published in The Sunday TribuneJean-Luc Mélenchon and his lieutenants threaten Emmanuel Macron to initiate impeachment proceedings against him if he does not appoint Lucie Castets. Three days before your meeting with the Head of State, do you interpret this initiative as yet another “salience”?
After plunging our country into an unprecedented crisis, the President of the Republic has nevertheless ended up agreeing to receive us collectively, accompanied by Lucie Castets. This is therefore an unnecessary provocation, but above all a political error with regard to our collective dynamic. And I do not accept that this platform suggests that, since the NFP is in the majority in the bureau of the National Assembly, we would naturally be in favor of this procedure and would vote as Jean-Luc Mélenchon wishes. On the substance, it is also a constitutional incongruity: in no way do the words or attitude of the Head of State fall under Article 68, even if we can regret the procrastination of the person concerned. As you will have understood, I am in total disagreement with this initiative, signed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his lieutenants.
Lucie Castets simply indicated that impeachment was not her subject. In her central position, she certainly does not want to offend one of the political parties that make up the NFP. But in the face of such excesses, is the search for a consensus possible, and even desirable? This platform is a firebrand, and I see it as a grenade with the pin pulled, thrown at the feet of those who will meet Emmanuel Macron. One really wonders why it is appearing at this time.
Their approach has particularly divided the Socialist Party. Some, already very critical of the NFP, are demanding to meet the head of state without the Insoumis. What do you say to them?
I understand their weariness – and that’s an understatement: I myself consider that we are crossing the red line. Beware, danger, because we can’t continue like this for much longer. LFI has been playing the rubber band game for several weeks now, seeking conflict with other members of the NFP. There are these incendiary and insulting tweets from MP Sophia Chikirou, in which she compares Hollandism to bedbugs. Those of her colleague Thomas Portes, who, on the eve of the Olympics, stated that Israeli athletes were not welcome in France. There is indeed a bundle of suspicions: the Insoumis are seeking to create conflict in relations with the so-called “government” political parties – the PS, the Greens and the PCF. This cannot be the normal functioning of a coalition. Ours was built in a few days, and resulted in it coming out on top, admittedly by a small margin, in terms of the number of MPs. And it was doubly useful, to say no to Emmanuel Macron’s policy, and to the probable victory at the time of the National Rally.
Is Jean-Luc Mélenchon falling into the trap of the head of state who continues to bet on the erosion of the alliance?
The alliance remains fragile in light of our respective histories, and it is true that this type of statement gives arguments to the President of the Republic. Jean-Luc Mélenchon is pressed for time, and I have the impression that he does not want to wait until 2027 to be a candidate again. At least, that is the strategy that emerged from the negotiations: on one side there was the left ready to govern for the long term, and on the other a left of testimony that was mainly playing the score of the next presidential elections. But like any good politician, my rebellious colleagues do not want to take the blame for the disappearance of the New Popular Front! The political future of the united left cannot be correlated with the personal future of the leader of LFI. The balance of power on the left has been rebalanced in favor of the PS, thanks to the performances in the last senatorial elections, the good European score of Raphaël Glucksmann, and the last legislative elections. Jean-Luc Mélenchon must mourn his past leadership.
How can we claim to govern together under these conditions?
Basically, this union has crystallized what the French want in terms of political projects for the country. But it does not solve all the problems. We certainly agree on the subject of social justice and societal reforms. But will the Insoumis maintain unconditional support for Ukraine? For our European commitment? There is a way to create the conditions for joint management, but there are still gray areas that Lucie Castets will have to quickly resolve. We have a historic responsibility towards the French. We cannot afford to disappoint them.
Is an alliance in Parliament with elected representatives from Macronie or the right desirable?
It is not with 193 deputies that we have a majority. If we are convincing and our program is fair, we will have to rally more widely. And possibly appoint other personalities to the government capable of providing majorities of projects, while maintaining an executive faithful to our left-wing values from the NFP program. There is a major deadline: in less than a month, a budget will be presented to the Council of Ministers. And I do not wish institutional instability for my country.
The hypothesis of Bernard Cazeneuve at Matignon is circulating, and is clearly not meeting with any opposition in principle in the Socialist Party. Could he be an alternative to Lucie Castets?
Bernard Cazeneuve is a statesman and a man of duty, who has marked the political history of this country. He has successfully held multiple positions within the State. He is capable of reassuring. But if he is appointed, it is up to him to say which project he wishes to commit to. Would his possible arrival at Matignon be a matter of cohabitation? If so, could he have the means for his action, which would take up all or part of the NFP program? Majorities are needed for that. The Greens and the Insoumis have already expressed their reservations. It is therefore difficult to imagine them giving their approval to such a government. But we are in a deadlock situation and the French risk being the first to pay the price. There is a real urgency to appoint a government.
.