I won’t take PM role without an absolute majority, says French far-right leader Bardella

Jordan Bardella, President of the French far-right National Rally party, visits the Eurosatory international land and air defense and security trade fair on a campaign trip for the upcoming French parliamentary elections, in Villepinte near Paris, on Jun. 19, 2024. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 19 June 2024
Follow

I won’t take PM role without an absolute majority, says French far-right leader Bardella

  • The absolute majority that would guarantee its ability to govern and pass laws without allies could be out of reach.
  • The RN has said 28-year-old Bardella would be its choice for prime minister, rather than long-time leader Marine Le Pen

PARIS: French far-right leader Jordan Bardella said he would turn down the chance to be prime minister if voters do not hand his party an absolute majority in a parliamentary election.
Opinion polls see Bardella’s euroskeptic, anti-immigration National Rally (RN) winning the June 30 and July 7 ballot following President Emmanuel Macron’s decision this month to dissolve parliament.
But the absolute majority that would guarantee its ability to govern and pass laws without allies could be out of reach.
“If tomorrow I’m in a position to be appointed to the Matignon (prime minister’s office) and I do not have an absolute majority because the French have not given me an absolute majority, I will refuse to be appointed,” Bardella told France 2 TV late on Tuesday.
The RN has said 28-year-old Bardella would be its choice for prime minister, rather than long-time leader Marine Le Pen, who would be its candidate for the 2027 presidential election.
“I tell the French people that to act, I need an absolute majority,” Bardella told reporters on Wednesday. “A prime minister ... with a relative majority cannot change things, I would not be able to act in the daily lives of French people, on the country’s policies.”
Macron’s centrist party has been running a minority government since it won most seats, but lost its absolute majority, two years ago.
But it could be more difficult to run a minority government this time, with pollsters seeing parliament divided into three groups — the far right, Macron’s centrist group, and a left-wing alliance.
The French constitution says the president appoints the prime minister, but it does not say which criteria he should use. This means Macron has a range of options.
If the RN wins the election without an absolute majority but does not want to run the government, Macron could offer the prime minister’s post to the second-biggest party or try to pull together a coalition of mainstream parties.
Whatever the scenario, there could be a risk of political paralysis, analysts say.
The constitution says there can be no new parliamentary election for another year, so a repeat election is not an option.


EU leaders work into the night to ease Belgian fears of Russian retaliation over a loan to Ukraine

Updated 58 min 32 sec ago
Follow

EU leaders work into the night to ease Belgian fears of Russian retaliation over a loan to Ukraine

BRUSSELS: European Union leaders worked into the night on Thursday, seeking to reassure Belgium that they would provide guarantees to protect it from Russian retaliation if it backs a massive loan for Ukraine. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky meanwhile pleaded for a quick decision to keep Ukraine afloat in the new year.
At a summit in Brussels with high stakes for both the EU and Ukraine, leaders of the 27-nation bloc discussed how best to use tens of billions of euros in frozen Russian assets to underwrite a loan to meet Ukraine’s military and financial needs over the next two years.
The bulk of the assets — some 193 billion euros  as of September — are held in the Brussels-based financial clearing house Euroclear. Russia’s Central Bank launched a lawsuit against Euroclear last week.
“Give me a parachute and we’ll all jump together,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told lawmakers ahead of the summit. “If we have confidence in the parachute that shouldn’t be a problem.”
Belgian concerns over Russian pressure
Belgium fears that Russia will strike back and wants the bloc to borrow the money on international markets. It says frozen assets held in other European countries should be thrown into the pot as well, and that its partners should guarantee that Euroclear will have the funds it needs should it come under legal attack.
An estimated 25 billion euros  in Russian assets are frozen in banks and financial institutions in other EU countries, including France, Germany and Luxembourg.
The Russian Central Bank’s lawsuit ramped up pressure on Belgium and its EU partners ahead of the summit.
The “reparations loan” plan would see the EU lend 90 billion euros  to Ukraine. Countries like the United Kingdom, which said Thursday it is prepared to share the risk, as well as Canada and Norway would help make up any shortfall.
Russia’s claim to the assets would still stand, but the assets would remain locked away at least until the Kremlin ends its war on Ukraine and pays for the massive damage it caused.
In mapping out the loan plan, the European Commission set up safeguards to protect Belgium, but De Wever remained unconvinced and EU envoys were working late on Thursday to address his concerns.
Zelensky describes it as a moral question

Soon after arriving in Brussels, the Ukrainian president sat down with the Belgian prime minister to make his case for freeing up the frozen funds. The war-ravaged country is at risk of bankruptcy and needs new money by spring.
“Ukraine has the right to this money because Russia is destroying us, and to use these assets against these attacks is absolutely just,” Zelensky told a news conference.
In an appeal to Belgian citizens who share their leader’s worries about retaliation, Zelensky said: “One can fear certain legal steps in courts from the Russian Federation, but it’s not as scary as when Russia is at your borders.”
“So while Ukraine is defending Europe, you must help Ukraine,” he said.
Allies maintain support for Ukraine
Whatever method they use, the leaders have pledged to meet most of Ukraine’s needs in 2026 and 2027. The International Monetary Fund estimates that would amount to 137 billion euros .
“We have to find a solution today,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters. EU Council President António Costa, who is chairing the meeting, vowed to keep leaders negotiating until an agreement is reached, even if it takes days.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said it was a case of sending “either money today or blood tomorrow” to help Ukraine.
If enough countries object, the plan could be blocked. There is no majority support for a plan B of raising the funds on international markets, although that too was being discussed at the summit.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that he hopes Belgium’s concerns can be addressed.
“The reactions of the Russian president in recent hours show how necessary this is. In my view, this is indeed the only option. We are basically faced with the choice of using European debt or Russian assets for Ukraine, and my opinion is clear: We must use the Russian assets.”
Hungary and Slovakia oppose a reparations loan. Apart from Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and Malta are also undecided.
“I would not like a European Union in war,” said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who sees himself as a peacemaker. He’s also Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest ally in Europe. “To give money means war.”
Orbán described the loan plan as a “dead end.”
High stakes for the EU

The outcome of the summit has significant ramifications for Europe’s place in negotiations to end the war. The United States wants assurances that the Europeans are intent on supporting Ukraine financially and backing it militarily — even as negotiations to end the war drag on without substantial results.
The loan plan in particular also poses important challenges to the way the bloc goes about its business. Should a two-thirds majority of EU leaders decide to impose the scheme on Belgium, which has most to lose, the impact on decision-making in Europe would be profound.
The EU depends on consensus, and finding voting majorities and avoiding vetoes in the future could become infinitely more complex if one of the EU’s founding members is forced to weather an attack on its interests by its very own partners.
De Wever too must weigh whether the cost of holding out against a majority is worth the hit his government’s credibility would take in Europe.
Whatever is decided, the process does not end at this summit. Legal experts would have to convert any political deal into a workable agreement, and some national parliaments may have to weigh in before the loan money could start flowing to Ukraine.