On Thursday, rebellious France has its hands on the agenda of the National Assembly. It’s LFI’s annual “parliamentary niche” day, as every group has one. For 20 minutes, the president of the group, Mathilde Panot, explains her priorities for this day: “the daily life of French people” and “the fight against abuse”. In a particularly tense context due to the political and international events of the year 2023, and the latest news items, the boss of rebellious deputies assumes her strategy considered divisive.
What is the philosophy of your Thursday niche?
First, talk about the daily life of French men and women confronted with a disconnected government. We will propose two emergency texts against the high cost of living, which continues to wreak havoc: one on the indexation of wages to inflation, the other to regulate the margins of the agri-food industry and refiners. We also have a text on the obligation for public services to have a physical reception, because dematerialization is a problem for access and equality of citizens.
Our second angle is the fight against abuse. On the margins, it is the fight against the abuses of big companies. And against certain police officers: this is the text that we are particularly concerned with the repeal of the Cazeneuve law of 2017 and the refusals to comply. Since Nahel’s murder, no political action has been taken to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again.
Do you have any hope of getting anything adopted?
I think that we are going to have the proposal for a commission of inquiry into the State’s management of major natural risks in the so-called Overseas Territories adopted. There are texts that we can win, such as the obligation of physical reception for public services. On the others, we will see how each one positions themselves.
You withdrew your bill to integrate abortion into the Constitution – which you had voted for at first reading last year – to give priority to the government’s bill…
This is the first victory for our niche, because Macron made it coerced and forced thanks to a crowd of women and activists who have been fighting on this issue for years. We need this signal for the women of the country, but even more so to send a signal to the rest of the world. We think of American women, Hungarian women, Polish women, and more recently Argentine women who, with the election of Javier Milei, risk seeing their right to abortion once again banned or almost banned.
Does this mean that LFI trusts Emmanuel Macron?
We don’t trust, we put pressure. There is a balance of power. We have had our foot in the door so much for over a year now on this issue that I don’t see how Emmanuel Macron will be able to back down or evade. I said that we were giving the president until June to constitutionalize the right to abortion and that if it was still not done, then we reserved the right, in conjunction with the associations, to restart the process. parliamentary and win the referendum, which would at the same time inflict an electoral defeat on the anti-rights in this country.
Your proposal to repeal the pension reform was deemed inadmissible, like that of the Liot group for its own niche in June. Is the fight lost on this reform?
The fight for pensions has been going on since the 19th century, so we are certainly not going to give up. The most serious in all these declarations of inadmissibility is that the President of the Assembly, without anything allowing her in the regulations, has decreed that from now on, any bill which would have the same object [la réforme des retraites] would in fact be deemed inadmissible! This means that under Emmanuel Macron, it will never again be possible to discuss, to repeal a law that has not even been passed. What solution do we have left? Make this government go. By motions of censure, elections. By all possible democratic means to change political trajectory.
You spoke of “denial of democracy” and insisted on the number 49.3 used by Élisabeth Borne. For you, is there a problem of legitimacy?
It’s obvious. I don’t know in what democracy it is possible to have a Prime Minister who does not ask for the confidence of Parliament and thinks that she can continue to govern France with 49.3. This week will be the 20th. The President of the Republic refused almost all democratic debates during the last presidential election. We therefore have major orientations which have neither been settled nor decided. Despite this, you have a government that decides to take force against everything and everyone. The pension reform is exemplary in this regard. The more you continue to make policies against the people, the more you need authoritarian tools.
On inflation, you want to control the margins of refiners and large retailers. But what does that mean? What is an acceptable margin for LFI?
We are in favor of there being a price reduction. It becomes impossible for everyone, with impossible choices between paying rent, food… On prices, either you play on the market, you incentivize, it’s Bruno [Le Maire] asks, Bruno begs… This is the choice made by the government. The result ? An increase in prices.
The other option is to intervene. The increase in prices, even the IMF says it, is 50% due to increases in profits. Regulating margins therefore makes it possible to combat the high cost of living. In our proposal, we are putting in place coefficients between the minimum purchase price to the farmer and the final sale price to the consumer, a way of limiting margins.
You defend a moratorium on megabasins, explaining that we can do without them by changing the agricultural model. Is this revolution possible when a majority of farmers support the current model?
First, not all farmers agree with megabasins, like the Confédération paysanne, which took a strong position against it. It is true that we have supported farmers towards an agribusiness model, in particular through aid from the CAP [politique agricole commune de l’UE], which favored large farms. But what is the reality? Fewer and fewer farmers, a farmer committing suicide every two days, people crushed by debt, unfair competition set up by free trade agreements… We must support them towards another model, agriculture peasant and ecological, to allow them to live with dignity from their work. For example, we propose debt forgiveness when there are transitions towards peasant and ecological agriculture.
Twenty people were arrested after gatherings in a district of Romans-sur-Isère, in reaction to the death of Thomas. Would you say, like Olivier Faure, that “the fascists gain confidence […] because they are encouraged by the Senate’s vote on Darmanin’s immigration law”?
It is obvious that there are political responsibilities in giving a form of impunity to people who believe they have every right to commit the act. On the part of the extreme right and what ideas it spreads in this country, with an attempt to recreate a civil war, a war of religion. But when I see that Mr. Ciotti, for example, cannot even condemn racist punitive expeditions, I find that very worrying.
Furthermore, the government is also responsible for the political agenda it imposes. He decided to put on the agenda a twenty-second Immigration law in thirty years, without ever evaluating the previous ones, and which we know will release the worst racist and xenophobic words.
For you, does Gérald Darmanin have a responsibility in the violence?
Gérald Darmanin is the one who implied that it was Muslims who had spray-painted the Stars of David on the walls, before we knew that they were in fact signs of support for the government of Israel. He’s also the one who said “you’re too soft” to Marine Le Pen [lors d’un débat sur l’immigration en 2021]. So he too has a political responsibility for what is happening. Being a shield against hatred starts by not singling out our fellow citizens of this or that faith. The responsibility of politicians is to offer collective outlets for current tensions. This is why we call on all people to a show of unity and solidarity on Saturday, December 2, for peace, justice and a ceasefire in Gaza.
In this context of tensions, is it not the time to adopt a less divisive strategy?
Basically, certainly not. It is important to show loud and clear that there is a political alternative in the country. In terms of form, we are in a moment where the anger is so strong that if we, representatives of the people, cannot express this anger, including with strong words, it is the assurance that behind it, the anger is growing. will express by other means. Many people come to us saying “for the first time, I feel represented. You tell the ministers what I would have liked to say to him.” It is not dishonorable, on the contrary.