“I am unfortunately discussing positions today at different ends of the political spectrum. We believed that this snake was asleep and these poisons had been warded off, that we had the antidote, democracy and the Republic. Many believed France was safe from all this, that it was a refuge. This is a terrible and dangerous time. It is the responsibility of all of us to become aware of the seriousness of the moment and the risks to which our national community is exposed”, hoping that “this council can raise awareness because history has shown that when we accept to slip on These subjects take a very long time to get over.”
“The gravity of the moment”
A seriousness on which all his opponents agree, but asking him to position himself against the National Rally.
For his main opponent, Jérôme Marbot “our country is experiencing a turning point in its history which I hope it will not take”. But the socialist does not want to “put an equal sign between the two ends of the chessboard, because one has already shown what it is capable of, particularly in terms of attack and threat to public freedoms, national harmony. and equality defined by our beautiful declaration of human rights.
“I have never put an equal sign between anything,” replies the president of Modem, “but I cannot prioritize the risk. The risk between two drifts is equally serious. »
The ecologist Jean-François Blanco told him not to join “your temptation to send the National Rally and the New Popular Front back to back”. For him, “the program of the National Rally is post-fascist, based on a racist idea, that of national preference. I thought the choice would have been clear and we would have learned the lessons of history.”
“Pau is no longer spared”
Pointing out the “long drift” which has caused the far right to rise, the opponent pushes the mayor to take a position: “Your words and your clarity are decisive”. He emphasizes the result of the European elections “Pau is no longer spared, we wrongly thought that Pau and Béarn, land of tolerance, had not foundered, but it is the RN which is in the lead. For my part, there is no doubt about the Republican barrier against the National Rally. »
The GDS Tuncay Cilgi is on the same theme: “You are the president of a party supporting the presidential majority, with an eminent position, your words have weight and if your message confuses the political voice in a moment of such seriousness, This will have consequences! » Marion Bussy (GDS) supports: “the humanist and progressive left will call to vote for the candidates of the presidential majority” if they come up against the RN in the second round: “the message must be clear! »
François Bayrou sticks to his position: “We must analyze the programs and certain advanced directions are dangerous. We claim to defend the most fragile and at the end of that the victims will be the most fragile”, speaking of “legal immigrants who have spent years integrating and who will find themselves victims. I can’t accept it.” On the New Popular Front, which he almost never cites, the mayor says “not to mix inspiration within this agreement, sensitivities and identities, I reserve the right to look with discernment”.
“Not in the same bag”
The Ecologist Emma Camelot judges that François Bayrou “puts the extreme right and the left back to back, no component of which is categorized as the extreme left by the Council of State (….). Irresponsible procedures because your political family is in dire straits. If July 7 marks the victory of the National Rally, your responsibility will be obvious. We environmentalists have clearly expressed that we will block the extreme right.”
“Within this set of lefts that you mention, there are two main sensitivities that I do not put in the same bag,” replies François Bayrou, calling for nuance. “One of them participated with total lucidity in the brutalization of the public debate,” he describes, speaking of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who had “attitudes in the National Assembly that were clearly anti-republican practices.” […]. I do not mix democratic inspirations with others which call into question everything I believe in.” He criticizes this agreement which could bring the Insoumis to Matignon, before closing the ban.
