HASnannounced by some as the premises of a historic union of the left, the LFI-EELV agreement for the next legislative elections was the subject of a noticed and much discussed press release on 2 May. The subject of Europe occupies a preponderant place since almost 40% of the press release aims to draw up an inventory of the positions common to the two political parties.
If the joint press release recalls that “A founding country of the European Union, France cannot have as its policy either the exit from the Union, nor its disintegration, nor the end of the single currency”it is immediately to proclaim that it is necessary to be “ready to disobey certain European rules”in the forefront of which “the stability and growth pact, competition law, productivist and neoliberal orientations of the common agricultural policy”.
And the release to conclude that this disobedience “can only be done in compliance with the rule of law (as defined in Articles 2 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union)”. Followed since by the LFI-PCF then LFI-PS press release, the term “disobedience” comes up there on each occasion and constitutes one of the markers of the New Popular Ecologist and Social Union (Nupes) that a recent column by Manon Aubry heard clarify.
A contradictory position
The references to Articles 2 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter TEU) and the rule of law present a questionable reading of European rules. What do these two articles provide? Article 2 TEU lists several values common to the European Union, including human dignity, the rights of minorities and the rule of law, while Article 7 TEU provides for an alert and sanction procedure for a Member State not respecting these values (procedures which have so far yielded nothing against Poland and Hungary).
The Court of Justice of the EU recalled in two judgments of February 22 that the rule of law refers to the existence of a sure and predictable law, a submission of every person – public authorities included – to the existing law and the presence of an effective remedy before the competent courts to verify its correct application.
However, disobedience does not give any stability to the law, implies a lack of knowledge of the legal commitments and obligations to which France has subscribed and an emancipation from the existing judicial processes. In other words, advocating disobedience to European rules while respecting the rule of law is actually saying exactly the opposite.
You have 51.61% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.