You have to have a very supple spine, or a very confused intellectual argument, to explain that you can straddle the principles while renouncing, with equal conviction, the very essence of your principles: your DNA. . Martine Aubry, one of the loudest voices of what remains of the French Socialist Party (and incidentally the daughter of Jacques Delors, eminent architect of today’s Europe), dubbed a new form of ethics, that of flexible principles. Let’s call them “flexipes”. About the agreement between the Socialist Party and the New Popular Ecological and Social Union (Nupes), this coalition of left-wing political parties in the service of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, she writes: “For the Socialists, our European commitment is part of of our DNA. […] Disobedience to treaties and guidelines is not an option.”
A very convenient flexibility
We feel a “however” coming. Here he shows up, giving birth in pain, a few paragraphs later: “However, admits the mayor of Lille in this landmark press release, left-wing voters expressed, during the first round of the presidential election, a strong aspiration to unity and unity…” Ah! What wouldn’t we do for a “however”! When only 1.7% of the votes have been obtained in the presidential election, the conclusion comes without much suspense: the Socialist Party, consubstantially European, therefore joins forces with the rebellious France of Jean-Luc Mélenchon (22% of vote), consubstantially anti-European, which announces disobedience to the treaties and the fundamentals of the EU. Same flexibility of the “however” among the Greens, yet united in a party, Europe Ecologie Les Verts, which claims Europe even in its title. Why bother? What does its DNA weigh against a few guaranteed seats in the National Assembly? And if Paris is well worth a mass, a Nupes is well worth giving up what we are. To hell with antagonistic disagreements on subjects as small and derisory as respect for European partners, NATO membership, Putin’s ideological claims or the delivery of arms to Ukraine, since the union is agreement on the word “left”! A word in common, isn’t it already enormous? As for the idea of giving young people an example of sincerity, loyalty to the principles and values of political commitment, we will see that later.
The art of bifurcation
In the chapter “European Union and international” of the Nupes program, there is much talk of “bifurcation”. From an ecological, democratic, social, solidarity point of view, we are “bifurcating”. We also want to “bifurcate European policies”. The Union of the Lefts ended up agreeing on this seemingly fluffy word to which Jean-Luc Mélenchon, when it comes to European treaties, prefers that of “disobey”. In both cases, it is a disguised exit from the EU. Which national team arrives at a football match by announcing to the one opposite that it is going to “fork” in relation to the rules? Yes, the European countries, France in the lead, regularly break the rules of the club, in particular that of the budget deficit limited to 3% (moreover in the process of renegotiation). They discuss their application together. They get yellow cards. But the Nupes program is not about the application of the rules, it calls into question the fundamentals of the EU. Which amounts to a Frexit without saying it.
The flexipes of the Nupes led to the signing of this anti-European agreement, including a sub-chapter entitled “The points that will be put to the wisdom of the Assembly” (sic) testifies to what the united lefts have really failed to unite on – this trifle: NATO. “The common objective” is to “put an end to the liberal and productivist course of the EU”, write the signatories, saying they are ready “not to respect certain rules”, such as “the free movement of capital” . These assertions alone are the negation of the single European market wanted by François Mitterrand (socialist) and set up by Jacques Delors (socialist), based on a growth economy and the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. The UK, which wanted everything but people, came out. Why are these four freedoms inseparable? Because not all countries want the same. Because there are already 26 elected leaders who do not share the whims of Mélenchon, who wants this but not that when it suits him, forgetting one detail: the others.
* Marion Van Renterghem is the winner of the Albert-Londres Prize, author of a biography of Angela Merkel and an autobiographical essay on Europe entitled “Mon Europe, je t’aime moi non plus” (Stock, 2019).