Funny number, during the general discussion, and speaking at the podium of Marine Le Pen. To fully understand what this is about, we must remember that speeches from the rostrum of the Assembly generally have two parts. The voting instruction is when the speaker announces what his group will do: if he will vote for the text, or if he intends to oppose, abstain… It goes quickly. The densest part is the moment when the speaker explains why this position is adopted, what his group thinks of the substance of the text.
>> Purchasing power: what do the oppositions offer as an alternative to the government’s plan?
MondayMarine Le Pen explained for long minutes that the National Rally judged this law “unfair, inefficient and obsolete.” “This piece of legislation, she says, is completely removed from the concerns of the French and shows that Emmanuel Macron has not changed and that his government has learned nothing.” Very virulent at the podium, Marine Le Pen announced a few minutes later… that her group would vote for most of the proposed measures, “but telling the whole truth to the French”, giving to see as a form of discordance, even of hiatus in its presentation.
Marine Le Pen is at the same time an opponent of Emmanuel Macron by the verb and an ally by the vote, since she announces that she will not put him in difficulty. Even if she intends, she says, to improve the text by amending it, by making proposals. In the debates that night, its deputies seemed to have more at heart to mark their difference with La France insoumise. It’s not unskillful from a politician’s point of view, in the short term. By jumping into the Macronian wagon, or by saying in any case “I will not derail the train”, Marine Le Pen embarrasses the camp of the Head of State who will be criticized on certain provisions for owing his majority only to the voice of the RN. But that’s petty politics. Philosophically, the approach makes no sense. What does it mean to say: I will vote for outdated measures? I will vote in favor of ineffective measures? I will vote in favor of a text that I consider unfair?
In fact, the RN is still refining the role it sees itself playing in Parliament. His choice is not completely stopped. Is it better to bet everything on responsibility, which in the end boils down to voting for the texts or abstaining, and getting rid of all radicalism? Or should we keep radicalism because it remains one of the driving forces behind the vote in elections in favor of the RN and its candidates?
Marine Le Pen opts for a middle position: radicalism of the discourse so as not to lose its base, responsibility of the vote to hope to recover the right-wing conservative electorate in the event of dissolution… She tries to play on both sides, making a mistake in my opinion of analysis on what is a party of government and what is responsibility in politics. That’s not to say: I’m against it, but I’ll still vote for it out of political calculation… It’s at the very least incomprehensible, even cynical.