In a letter addressed to the President of the Republic, Olivier Faure justifies his choice not to attend the meetings in Saint-Denis by his desire to “not endorse in any way” through his presence the proposal for a possibility of a referendum on the migration issues.
The boss of the Socialists, Olivier Faure, defended Thursday in a letter to Emmanuel Macron his decision not to accept his invitation on Friday to Saint-Denis, refusing to “endorse” a possible referendum on immigration and to participate in a “staging”. In a letter addressed to the President of the Republic, Olivier Faure justifies his choice not to attend these closed-door meetings between the Head of State and the leaders of political parties, by his desire to “in no way endorse “by its presence the proposal of a possibility of a referendum on migration issues.
“A major political mistake”
“You are acceding to the long-standing request made by the far right to open the possibility of a referendum on migration issues. Demand taken up by LR parliamentarians and who made it a condition for the adoption of your draft immigration law”, remarks the deputy for Seine-et-Marne. Recalling that the Renaissance senators on Tuesday “approved the senatorial version of this bill by largely taking up the demands made by the extreme right”, Olivier Faure also deplores that Emmanuel Macron has closed the door to a referendum on superprofits and pension reform.
“How can we imagine that tomorrow it would be possible to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a subject as complex as migration policy, but that this would not be possible to demonstrate the simple desire to make the big fortunes contribute more and multinationals to our collective projects, or to vote on the retirement law”, he asks.
However, he did not respond to criticism from Emmanuel Macron who considered on Wednesday, during a trip to Switzerland, that the absence of Olivier Faure, but also that of the President of the Republicans Eric Ciotti was “a political fault major”. Denouncing “a staging”, Olivier Faure specifies: “The existence of an institutionalized meeting – of which you alone have control of the agenda and the conclusions – must not give the illusion of a cenacle which would replace Parliament or at least preempt its decisions.