Second LR debate: Unity comes up against the Zemmour wall and his comments on Hollande

POLITICS – They do everything to display their “unity”, until they collect themselves side by side on the tomb of General de Gaulle in Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, the anniversary of his death, November 9.

Because the Republicans, despite the divisions of the past, still have a lot in common, starting with the questions ofimmigration and security which occupied nearly two hours of debate this Sunday, November 14, on the two and a half hours initially planned by BFMTV, two weeks before the vote of the members of the congress from September 1 to 4.

“We will have the capacity, whatever the winner, and I hope that it is me, to make this great project for the security”, concluded Eric Ciotti, very aware of these questions to bring them within the party for ten years. Apart from a few shocking proposals, such as the reestablishment of blood rights defended by Eric Ciotti and refused by Valérie Pécresse, who prefers that we “choose France” or the reestablishment of a 2012 decree so that “no one entered illegally. can be naturalized ”, for Xavier Bertrand, who also assumes“ a policy of firmness ”, few glaring differences emerged between the candidates who often cited themselves and displayed their nuances above all. Xavier Bertrand, Valérie Pécresse and Michel Barnier being aligned with the proposal for annual quotas voted by Parliament, after the three-year moratorium for the Savoyard.

Technical debates, sometimes caricatured

But behind these often technical, sometimes caricatural debates – we spent several long minutes listening to how Valérie Pécresse scrapped the bikes of the urban rodeos or would pick up the authors at the exit of the television sets when they are invited to Hanouna’s; or Eric Ciotti who refuses veiled women in hospitals, but “not in the emergency department” – it is not surprising on the positions ofEric Zemmour that the differences are emerging.

From the start of the debate, and throughout the discussions on security or immigration issues, Eric Ciotti took up the arguments of the polemicist, sometimes to the word or to the figure, in particular on the 2 million immigrants who would have arrived on French soil since 2017, a figure disputed and cited by Éric Zemmour during his debate against Jean-Luc Mélenchon on the same antenna on October 9. He also pointed to “Arab-Muslim” immigration which “threatens France, heir to the Enlightenment and our Judeo-Christian civilization”. No opposition from its competitors.

On the other hand, it is on the recent pass of arms between Éric Zemmour and François Hollande on the subject of the latter’s “criminal responsibility”, denounced by the former in the attacks of November 13, 2015 on the scene of the tragedies and in front of the Bataclan, that the difference, politically significant, was felt.

“I will not allow myself to be locked into the political correctness of commentators who limit the camp of good or bad and who authorize to say or not to say”, begins the candidate from Nice, who declares himself for “a whatever ‘it costs security ”and who intends to“ tell the truth in this campaign ”.

“Of the 43 terrorists who have committed attacks in France since 2015, 90% are either foreigners or from an immigrant background, that is to say ‘French people’ who harbor a hatred of France”, further supports Eric Ciotti. An expression appreciated by the extreme right that he specified to use to speak only of the terrorists.

“On November 13, it is obvious, as the trial which took place has shown, that most of the perpetrators of this terrifying attack returned because of the naivety of Europe by these flows”. A doubly false statement. Three of the twenty defendants currently on trial in the ongoing attacks trial have indeed gone through this flow. The others were of Belgian, French, or Belgian-Moroccan nationality.

Valérie Pécresse was not so far from the deputy for Alpes-Maritimes. From the start of the debate, she made a very clear link between “immigration, Islamism and terrorism”. “We knew that people from Daesh were infiltrating, I questioned Bernard Cazeneuve on this subject at the time who told me: ‘don’t worry, Madam MP, we are filtering and we are checking’”, reports the president of the Île-de-France region, who goes in the direction of Eric Ciotti, without giving more details on the figures: “The truth is that many Islamists have passed through these migratory routes”.

Philippe Juvin stands out from the two first responders by insisting that François Hollande “obviously does not have personal responsibility”, but “he was bad and a very bad president”, he added.

More seriously, Michel Barnier made a point of expressing that “on the day of the sixth anniversary of the attacks in Paris, making this provocation is not very dignified. Yesterday, we all thought of these families, it deserved more respect than this controversy ”, launches the former Brexit negotiator. ”Now the link exists between immigration and terrorism ”, he hastened to add, aware that the hearts of some LR members can switch to a vote Éric Zemmour.

Same tone for Xavier Bertrand who wanted to attack Eric Zemmour more than his opponents. “Yes, Islamist terrorists take advantage of illegal immigration to enter our country and we must fight them”, he begins, before attacking the polemicist directly: “On this anniversary day, we expected dignity and respect; obviously dignity and respect are not two concepts that inhabit Mr. Zemmour ”, he launched.

The president of Hauts-de-France, who has always positioned himself as a fierce opponent of the RN in his region, summed up his doctrine as follows: ”I will not let anyone be judged on their skin color, their origin or their first name, but I will be intractable with those who do not respect the law of the Republic, whatever their skin color, their origin or their first name ”. One way to clearly differentiate himself from Eric Zemmour who said that first names of foreign origin given to future children would be banned if he was president.

This is too much for Eric Ciotti who takes back control: “JI’m still astonished, everyone is free, I’m not going to judge what one or the other is doing ”, he argued, thus placing himself as the sole defender of the polemicist in his targeted attacks against the former -President Holland. And to conclude, as if he implied that his opponents were almost leftist: ”He can say what he wants where he wants. Why this Moscow trial? ”.

In any case, this was not the spirit of this debate – which ultimately lasted nearly three hours – where we saw little direct confrontation. On several occasions, Valérie Pécresse has asserted her vision as a woman and did not hesitate to conclude on this theme: “I cannot work with someone who has a vision of women like that of a to be inferior ”.

See also on The HuffPost: At Michel Barnier, we prefer the “presence” of the outsider to the “beasts of the platform” of politics.