PARIS: France’s Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, who has called for radical action to cut immigration numbers, easily won an election to become leader of the conservative Republican party (LR), according to results released Sunday.
Retailleau won 74 percent of the vote from party members against 25 percent for Laurent Wauquiez, the head of the party in the French national assembly.
Although LR and its allies hold only 60 seats in France’s 577-member national assembly and the party candidate barely registered in the 2022 presidential vote, experts predict a better run in 2027 when President Emmanuel Macron must step down.
The LR’s last leader Eric Ciotti quit the party last year after calling for an alliance with the far-right National Rally (RN). The LR has wrangled since over its stance but has adopted a tougher line on issues such as immigration.
National opinion polls currently suggest the RN would perform well in the 2027 election, which has however been shaken by legal woes for its figurehead Marine Le Pen.
Retailleau, in his government post since last year, has emerged as one of the most high-profile ministers in the centrist-led coalition government. He said he would stay in the government but he is likely to use his victory to press his case for the presidency.
“Our political family is now able to carry our project forward for the presidential election,” Retailleau told broadcaster TF1 after the results were announced.
The LR is the successor of the UMP, which traces its origins to postwar leader Charles de Gaulle and was the party of former presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy.
Some 80 percent of the 120,000 LR party members took part in the weekend vote for the leader. The LR membership had increased from 43,859 to 121,617 in the two months before the leadership election.
Anti-immigration minister becomes leader of French conservatives
https://arab.news/w7b73
Anti-immigration minister becomes leader of French conservatives
- Bruno Retailleau has become leader of the conservative Republican party (LR), which traces its origins to postwar leader Charles de Gaulle
London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe
- ‘Cumulative disruption’ cited to ban, reroute rallies but power granted by concept withdrawn by Court of Appeal in May
- Network for Police Monitoring: This demonstrates ‘ongoing crackdown on protest’ that has reached ‘alarming point’
LONDON: London’s Metropolitan Police have used powers that have been withdrawn to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies in the capital, legal experts have said.
The Guardian and Liberty Investigates obtained evidence that police officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on the principle of “cumulative disruption.” But that power was withdrawn by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts.
All references to cumulative disruption have been removed from relevant legislation, yet the Home Office and the Met continue to insist that police officers retain the power to consider the concept when suppressing protests.
On May 7, five days after the powers were withdrawn, the Met banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly rally in north London, citing the cumulative impact on the neighborhood’s Jewish community.
Last month, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its rally on three days’ notice, highlighting the cumulative impact on businesses during Black Friday weekend.
Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original (legislation). The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”
The Met appeared “not to care” if it was acting within the law, the Network for Police Monitoring said, adding that the revelation surrounding “cumulative disruption” demonstrated an “ongoing crackdown on protest” that had reached an “alarming point” by police in London.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans in October to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form.
But Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer from Leicestershire Police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them, they not only use them (but) as in this case, they stretch them.
“They go beyond what was intended. The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”
Cumulative disruption was regularly considered and employed in regulations if protests met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The Court of Appeal withdrew the power following a legal challenge by human rights group Liberty.
Ben Jamal, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director, was reportedly told by Alison Heydari, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, that her decision on imposing protest regulations “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.”
She reportedly added that “this is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.
“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well. So, there is an impact.”
The repeated disruption to PSC-hosted marches, the largest pro-Palestine events in London, was a “demobilizer,” Jamal said.
It also caused confusion about march starting points and led to protesters being harassed by police officers who accused them of violating protest conditions, he added.
A Met spokesperson told The Guardian: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of communities.
“To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is, of course, important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing.
“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”
