“an alliance between political forces for Lyon”

Appointed head of Edouard Philippe’s party in Lyon, Pierre Bérat, former LR municipal councilor during the previous term, is calling for a union, within the scope of the current government, to block environmentalists in 2026. “A second mandate would result in us being a much less attractive city economically and we would see the effects with businesses that would have gone to set up a little further away or fewer businesses that would have come to set up. Tourism which will have been restricted so we will be able to rely less on tourism Transport where we will continue to suffocate the city, close access (…) Lyon is not a small average city, we are a metropolis, we. is the second largest metropolis in France. We cannot afford this type of policy. he points.

The full transcription of the interview with Pierre Bérat

Hello everyone and welcome, you are watching 6 minutes flat, the daily meeting of the Lyon Capitale editorial team, today we welcome Pierre Bérat. You have just been appointed delegate of the Horizons party, Edouard Philippe’s party. What does this function mean, that we are already looking ahead to Edouard Philippe and his Horizon party towards the municipal elections of 2026, there is this objective ultimately implicit?

The first reason is that municipal committees are the basic structure. Since Horizons existed, it has been structured by municipal committees unlike other parties which were based on legislative constituencies, so it is the basic structure but very important because it is at that level that Edouard Philippe wants us to liven up the debate and reach out to society. So there you have it, this is the first reason, after which obviously we will now enter an electoral phase of preparation for the territorial elections…

Perhaps even permanent if there are legislative elections in the meantime.

We will play our role as we played it during the last elections, we were very present in the different constituencies in Lyon and around Lyon, of course that for all the elections we will be present but it is true that we will will undoubtedly come back later. There is work to be done on the project and it is obviously in this municipal committee that we will work on the project for Lyon and for the metropolis.

But with what idea in the long term? Is it to present a candidate for the municipal election in Lyon, for the metropolitan elections or will it necessarily involve a gathering with other parties?

I believe that today, if we look at things pragmatically and pragmatism characterizes us quite well, it is that there will necessarily have to be an alliance between the different political forces who want another conception of the metropolis and another design of Lyon. So yes, it will be an agreement between several groups. As we have just said, I think that in terms of method, there are two things which in my opinion are important, the first is the project, that is to say that the solution is not is not to say we are going to be against and only against what is being done today and in a situation of opposition by bringing together all those who would be against without a project, so there is a first thing to do which is to work on the project.

And for you the project should be built on what priority?

I wanted to say, the second element of the method is that today, when you look at the political landscape, no one is in a position to impose their choices, to say it’s me, it’s my party who must have leadership, so these political groups which recognize themselves in this project to be built will have to agree to work together and not be in an imperialist position. On the project, I think that we must succeed in reboosting Lyon and re-enchanting Lyon because today it is still chronicle of an announced evolution in Grenoble what is happening in Lyon and if we draw the parallel with this which happened in Grenoble, unfortunately the effects will occur a little later in time but the reasons for this decline are there with the policy of this left-extreme alliance so we must find a way to reboost Lyon and to re-enchant it on several dimensions. Of course the question of travel, we can clearly see that today this question is very poorly addressed because it is approached in a very ideological way.

But Grenoble, the inhabitants are demanding, well they are asking for more since Éric Piolle was re-elected quite easily.

I took this example on purpose: if we are not careful, if we do not manage to get the message across to the residents that there is a significant risk of renewing such a team, What happened in Grenoble can happen because it’s the policy, it’s still a long time, so the measures that are taken produce effects in 3, 4, 5 years. A second mandate would have the consequence that we would be a much less attractive city from an economic point of view and we would send the effects with companies which would have gone to settle a little further away or fewer companies which would have come to settle down. Tourism which will have been restricted so we will be able to rely less on tourism. Transport where we will continue to suffocate the city, closing access. Look what happened, I have the photo behind you this Saturday with people who were asked to turn around because they were arriving in Lyon and the situation at the confluence was completely blocked. In a few days we will have the closure of Roosevelt Avenue in the 8th district when the HCL arrives in one direction even though it is the main access from the east of the city. These policies which we can clearly see, this overall plan which must exist somewhere to lock the city for ideological purposes on travel in a few years, I think that if it continues like this for a long time, it will really bring down Lyon as a than metropolis. And Lyon is not a small, medium-sized city, we are a metropolis, we are the second largest metropolis in France. We cannot afford this type of policy.

You mentioned your perhaps future allies. It is ultimately a perimeter that you are thinking about which must probably stick to that of the current majority, well the majority relative to the National Assembly. We find the Republicans of which you are a former member, the former presidential majority with Renaissance, with Horizons, with the MoDem. What allows you to say that locally you will be able to agree when we can see that nationally you do not agree on much?

So if you want us to talk about the national situation, I think we must first say that the situation is very critical, that the country is in a very critical situation and that today what it imposes it is for everyone to show responsibility. And in the case of what is the central space in the Assembly, I speak of space because indeed today it is not a bloc when we see the difficulties in structuring it. But Michel Barnier’s merit is to try to structure this central space and that is what should occupy everyone. And I am one of those who say put your red lines in your pocket and think instead about building, stabilizing the country, giving the country a perspective. So that’s what we have to do. And I think that within a few weeks the little pieces of identity music so that everyone remembers that it exists will have passed and that everyone will see the need to work collectively around Michel Barnier. And I think he’s the right person at the right time for this. I am even one of those who think that it should have happened in 2022. Besides, today you tell us we are very divided. I don’t think so much. When you look at the major national issues, we are not that divided and that far apart on the major positions. At LR there was clarification in Ciotti. That is to say that you are talking to me about my departure from LR. Since then I have actually noticed that there is a party who has left LR. Which could be the one I had the most difficulty with. So I think that today in what makes this central space, the differences are not that huge. Given what France’s challenges are, I think we can manage to work together. And it is once again a duty of responsibility.