From our special correspondent in Saint-Denis (Seine-Saint-Denis)
As during their first meeting at the end of August, we should not expect a revolution from the meeting of party leaders with Emmanuel Macron in Saint-Denis this Friday, and there was none. After almost ten hours of discussions (it was twelve the first time) one very concrete thing emerged: there will be no referendum on immigration. The left-wing parties, only represented by the communist Fabien Roussel and the ecologist Marine Tondelier, were in good spirits when they left: “At this time, the possibility of having a referendum on immigration is no longer possible. “the agenda,” said the communist. “After hours of discussions in Parliament on the immigration bill, perhaps we will have covered the subject,” said the environmentalist in substance.
More generally, “the president concluded that there was no majority to extend the referendum on social issues”, explained the secretary general of Renaissance, Stéphane Séjourné, to the outlet. Even if the Macronist party was rather favorable to this measure, it was less enthusiastic about immigration. In the absence of Éric Ciotti, president of Les Républicains, Jordan Bardella, his counterpart from the National Rally, was in fact the “spokesperson” for the measure. At the exit, he took the opportunity to appear alone against everyone on a theme on which he felt he had the opinion with him.
A sanction for Ciotti
Would the outcome of the immigration referendum have been different if Eric Ciotti had been there? “You give a lot of importance to the Republicans,” replied Jordan Bardella, always keen to appear as the only “government party”, to use his formula upon arrival, on the right. It is true that with the member from Nice also around the table, there was still neither consensus nor majority on the subject. The president of LR may well claim that he was right not to come, this change of footing on a subject that he strongly supports appears as a sanction for his absence.
Without going that far, the president’s entourage sees this as a major inconsistency. In the score, we do not count the LR president of the Senate Gérard Larcher among the pros. Perhaps a stone in the garden on the right.
Broadening the scope of the referendum was not the only topic of discussion on institutions. There is the facilitation of the shared initiative referendum, of which it is not clear whether this constitutional modification could go ahead. Almost half of the meeting was devoted to a point on the international situation, in the Middle East and in Ukraine of course. “The president was able to give us information that we did not have on this part, but on the rest of the subjects he spoke much less than last time. He asked the topics and listened. We didn’t necessarily hear his point of view, but I didn’t get the impression that that was the purpose of the meeting,” described Marine Tondelier. The leader of the environmentalists, who assumed her presence, reaffirmed that it was important “for the parties and the president to discuss”.
“Yes, it’s communication, but we do it too. It’s good not to always stay on the hot news, to exchange points of view, it was interesting. »
Still, at the end of this third meeting in this format, the second really on substantive issues, the only concrete thing that comes out of it is that… something will not take place. There is nothing dishonorable in giving up a project that does not have consensus and is not even in the majority among them. But did we need this political summit to see it? Not sure. This makes, for the moment, the results of “the president’s major initiative” very light. Even if the president’s entourage insists on “not making definitive conclusions” on the “Saint-Denis format” with this result, we still felt they were less enthusiastic than at the end of August. At the time, the presidency wanted to “strike while the iron is hot” and move quickly. There, a very hypothetical next meeting could take place in three months. But on what concrete content?