From our special correspondent in Châteauneuf-sur-Isère, Drôme
The return of insubordinate France (LFI) smelled of clash. The season of summer universities and similar regularly sees certain political personalities go to debate in the meetings of other political families than their own. And when it’s downright antagonists who meet, it often creates the event. The Insoumis, who brought together their “Summer Amfis” again this year near Valence (Drôme), had scheduled no less than four debates, including three against members of the government (Marlène Schiappa, Olivia Grégoire and Clément Beaune), and one last against LR Rachida Dati.
One of the organizers of the raout, MP Bastien Lachaud, made no secret of LFI’s intentions a few days ago: to attract media attention and “demonstrate that for the government we are the most credible and the most serious one with which they have to debate. “Even if the party denies it, it is also a way, perhaps, of normalizing LFI, returned to the margins of the Republic in the same way as the RN in recent weeks by the Macronist majority. Moreover, the first of the debates, which saw Marlène Schiappa and Alexis Corbière confront each other, had the theme of “being a republican today”.
Hello
“Marlène… Schiappa” and “Alexis… Corbière”, visibly more accustomed to calling each other by their first names, did not exactly give each other patents of mutual republicanism. They even wanted to demonstrate that their respective visions of the Republic are not diametrically opposed either. On several occasions, the member for Montreuil used the debate as a platform to demonstrate, for example, that rebellious France was not communitarian, as it is sometimes described. As if he was giving pledges, with a Macronist minister as a witness.
The Minister Delegate for SMEs, Trade, Crafts and Tourism, Olivier Grégoire, nevertheless put the kibosh: the arrival of Macronist ministers is not a “breast bench” to rebellious France. “We must not try to link everything, to extrapolate everything”, warns Grégoire. Was the Prime Minister right to put LFI on the margins of the Republican field? Yes. “It is not because I come to debate with an insubordinate that I do not have problems with others”, stings the Minister Delegate. In this case, the converse seems true. Behind the scenes, we gladly explain that we would not have invited just any minister either. A priori, those with whom interpersonal relations were still the best were invited.
Right left
The debate on inflation between Olivier Grégoire and the deputy of Lille, Adrien Quatennens, was clearly the hardest of the four organized. “We differ on the how, on the means, but not on the objective”, believes the minister delegate. The room – although not full early on Saturday morning – does not agree and will make it very loudly understood throughout the exchange. Two visions were directly opposed between a rebellious who describes a hypothetical “price-benefits loop” which would explain the current inflation, and a macronist who defends “dividends, symptoms of an economy which is doing better”. Sometimes a bit of a lesson giver (“facts are stubborn and you don’t like them”) but clearly brave to have come.
Everyone had their points in this economic debate which mostly looked like a good old left-right debate. As the Nupes has been trying to put it back in place in the National Assembly since the start of the new legislature – and with some success during the debate on purchasing power. A type of debate that macronie prefers in principle to avoid. It was even more literal during the justice debate between North MP Ugo Bernalicis and former Keeper of the Seals, LR Rachida Dati. “I have always believed in the left-right divide, and never in the ”at the same time”, launches the mayor of the 7th arrondissement. French society is structured like that! Left and right can come together at times, but there is a left-wing vision of society and a right-wing vision of society. »
Good resolutions ?
Of course, during these debates, no one came out convinced by his adversary. “It’s very difficult to convince, but I wanted to say what I believe in”, explained after her rowdy debate Olivia Grégoire. To explain the attitude of the rebellious public, Adrien Quatennens replied, mockingly, “I think they are well trained, quite simply! “. But if the assistance was sometimes noisy – frankly, no more than sometimes in the hemicycle of the National Assembly – the debates clearly did not have the acrimonious character which sometimes marked the beginnings of the new legislature.
“I did not expect to be greeted with love and roses but it was a satisfying debate, without ambiguity and without hysteria”, recognized Olivia Grégoire. “The reactions are naturally epidermal but the debate was argued and of quality”, confirmed Adrien Quatennens. And it was true! Was the summer beneficial to the various political actors? We will leave the answer in abeyance pending the resumption of debates in the National Assembly on October 3.