“Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s strategy does not require us to do anything,” says Dominique Potier (PS)

IThey can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Seven deputies from the New Popular Front (NFP) did not sign the motion of censure tabled Monday by their camp. Among them, the socialist Dominique Potier explains his choice to the Point. If he should vote this Wednesday, December 4 for the overthrow of a government that he considers too closely linked to the National Rally, the parliamentarian from Meurthe-et-Moselle believes that the Socialist Party should have tabled its own motion, to “express the perspective of the day after”. Above all, the elected official calls for the formation of a “republican union” to “free ourselves from the extreme right”. Even if it means breaking with the positions of La France insoumise, which is demanding the resignation of Emmanuel Macron.

The Point: You did not sign the motion of censure common to the New Popular Front (NFP). For what ?

Dominique Potier: I wanted there to be a motion specific to the socialist group which expresses the perspective of the day after. It is important for the country. Voting censorship to add to the chaos is impossible for me. I am campaigning for the PS to be in the construction of a republican union to achieve a government which is no longer under the control of the National Rally (RN).

We must move away from the summer fiction that we have maintained too much, consisting of believing that each of the political forces could govern alone. There is a strategy of chaos which is perhaps that of some, but it is neither that of the PS nor mine. We do not have the leisure to experience a new crisis. Especially since between summer and today, the situation has changed.

That's to say ?

There are three new items. First, the shock of the revelation of the scale of the public deficit. The second element is the threat to our industry and the emergency for our agriculture. For a month and a half, social plans have followed one another, with the prospect of a return of unemployment and the loss of industrial sovereignty. The third issue, geopolitical, is the election of Donald Trump. Its influence, combined with those of Vladimir Putin and China, can fracture the European Union. I don't imagine that France's voice is missing in the European Union. We need a France that is powerful in its diplomacy because the Union – even incomplete – is our most precious common good in a world that has never been so dangerous in decades.

Is this proposal for a “republican union” unanimous within the Socialist Party?

With others, I have been defending it since July 7. Our group dialogues in an exemplary manner. This majority position is the one that was affirmed in the press release that the socialist group published this Monday. I hope we will not be the only ones on the left to defend this line. Our environmentalist friends know that the EU is our strength in the energy and therefore economic challenge, and our communist allies are on the front line on industrial sovereignty.

But let's be clear: I am not making this solution an ideal of government, it is a project for 2025 and 2026. In 2027 the time will come to choose new directions and to decide between different projects for our society. But the urgency today is to free ourselves from the far right and prevent it from coming to power in 2027.

ALSO READ “The trouble begins”: the PS in the trap of the motion of censure But do the rest of the left like the central bloc really want this union?

I dialogue with environmentalist, communist, centrist colleagues and with some Republicans. Beyond the postures, I know that this aspiration exists. It is not a recomposition of political life that is proposed, it is a principle of reality! Today, if the democratic and republican forces are divided, they are at the mercy of the extreme right. This is the real instability! However, I think that Parliament can become a place for compromise on a certain number of essential points. We can agree on around ten texts on which there can be convergence, on territorial planning or the humanization of public service, for example. Of course, there are subjects on which we will never agree with the right and the center: we must accept that these differences will be resolved in 2027. Until then, we must give the signal that there is a political stability pact around a new government to avoid chaos.

However, you announce that you will probably vote for censure. Isn't that paradoxical?

As I told you, I wanted a motion from the PS which mentions the day after. Now, I believe that Michel Barnier's press release in which he reports his discussions with Marine Le Pen is the straw that broke the camel's back. I have no hatred for Michel Barnier, we can even have a form of esteem for the Gaullist values ​​and the European that he was, but here, he commits a major political mistake. He demonstrated the Republican impasse in which the executive finds itself. This is tragic for our core values ​​and censorship is therefore necessary. Has the left been sufficiently intentional in its effort at dialogue since July 7? I fear not, but neither from the Élysée nor from Matignon have we had any proposals that will allow us to move forward. Michel Barnier censored himself. Until the end, many of us on the left hoped for a compromise.

Doesn't adopting this compromise method require the PS to formally break with LFI?

The time has come to tell our part of the truth and our line. LFI is not our compass for knowing what is right for our country. Our press release is precisely intended to indicate that, concerning us, we are available to avoid chaos. That Jean-Luc Mélenchon chooses another strategy, which is that of the dismissal of Emmanuel Macron and an early presidential election, does not oblige us in any way.

Should Lucie Castets still be the left-wing candidate for Matignon?

I say this with great respect for her as for all those who are involved, but it is a hypothesis which is no longer mentioned today.

To Discover

Kangaroo of the day

Answer

But would you be ready, on the basis of a non-censorship agreement, to go so far as to accept a Prime Minister not from the ranks of the NFP?

Rather than the identity of the future Prime Minister, I am attentive to his abilities to understand what our social democratic and ecological aspirations are, to the proposed method and his capacity to “unite in diversity”. We must identify the subjects which must constitute an unshakeable foundation for the next two years. I am convinced that the left has reform projects that it can advance. Even with the center and the Republican right, there are subjects of general interest on which to move forward together. In the Senate, for example, the right and the left together supported the foundations of a bill to fight against the scourge of drug trafficking. This type of text or others on adaptation to climate change are likely to bring us together.