“We’re going to have a drink on “Plux” before we meet again in 2027”. The scene has become ritual. On the Place du Luxembourg, in Brussels – the “Plux” for those in the know –, a stone’s throw from the European Parliament, the young collaborators of the EPP (where the Republicans sit), the ECR (where Marion Maréchal’s MEPs sit) and the Patriots (where those of the RN sit) meet regularly to “debrief” their weeks, in a conviviality that transcends partisan borders. But these exchanges are not limited to employees. In Brussels as in Strasbourg, the MEPs themselves happily meet at the MEP Bar – for Member of European Parliament –, just opposite the hemicycle, or around lunches which sometimes cause a lot of noise. Last November, a table bringing together Marion Maréchal, Christophe Gomart, Laurence Trochu, François-Xavier Bellamy and Mathieu Bock-Côté sparked heated discussions in France.
These Brussels meetings are not anecdotal, quite the contrary. If the union of the rights seems complicated at the Palais-Bourbon, the dikes at the European Parliament have been blown up. This Tuesday, May 5, on CNews, Jordan Bardella states it bluntly: “The union of the rights exists when they find their courage”before adding that“we happen to work together, hand in hand, with LR elected officials and more broadly conservative elected officials within the European Parliament”. Words confirmed by Ciottist MEP Laurent Castillo. Recently switched from the EPP to the Patriots, he is clear: “The sanitary cordon no longer exists. » The Nice resident details a well-established cooperation on administrative simplification. On the texts calling into question the Green Deal, on support for industries or even on the “Return” regulation, recently defended by François-Xavier Bellamy, the deputies of the three groups do not just vote together, they prepare their strategy in advance.
“Everyone talks to each other in the corridors, we pass each other on trains, in cars. There is no enmity: we form groups of people who like each other and who are ready to work together. Especially since what unites us is so much more important than what separates us”continues Laurent Castillo. With one nuance: on the side of the ENS group, where Sarah Knafo sits, if the votes are sometimes the same, the MEPs do not seem inclined to build a concerted common strategy.
Voting strategies
This good understanding has increased since the last European elections. RN MEP Jean-Paul Garraud testifies to this, having observed this development since his election in 2019. Charles de Meyer, coordinator of the French ECR delegation, agrees: “I worked at Identity and Democracy, the former Patriots for Europe, and, at the time, when we obtained a victory thanks to the union of the rights, it was an event. » Its role today consists precisely of preparing meetings between MEPs from different groups and of coordinating voting strategies in advance. Sometimes, good understanding also comes from simpler things, courtesy for example.
On April 29, LR MEP Céline Imart publicly thanked Nicolas Bay, close to Marion Maréchal, for organizing a conference on the Muslim Brotherhood to which she had been invited. A scene difficult to imagine in the National Assembly. “ Bruno Retailleau stepped up to the plate against the Muslim Brotherhood, I was invited on this subject. Thanking him is just the most basic politeness and courtesy.”she explains. Maybe. But in the National Assembly, these elementary conventions are rare. In the European Parliament, they go without saying.
In Brussels, the sanitary cordon no longer exists
Laurent Castillo, MEP
Has the European Parliament become the laboratory for uniting the rights? Charles de Meyer prefers to talk about “coalition of the rights”. “The union of the rights would mean that the EPP systematically works with us, which is not the case. The EPP still alternates between the Ursula majority and the Giorgia majority. » In Brussels language, the Ursula majority designates the alliance between the EPP, Renew and the social democrats, while the Giorgia majority brings together the EPP, the ECR and the Patriots. Céline Imart is more nuanced on the idea of an institutionalized union of the rights. For her, it all depends on the text: “We even vote with LFI, look at the Mercosur. We look for majorities in all groups. » Convinced that, “as a matter of principle, everyone should talk to each other all the time”she sees in the configuration of the European Parliament what makes these exchanges possible. “I was not elected to play marbles. I have no position of principle: if I think that the socialists have a good idea, so much the better; if it comes from RN deputies, so much the better too. »
Far from the cameras of the 20 Hours
If dialogue and working together seem so natural in this forum, what is the recipe that the National Assembly seems stubbornly incapable of applying? Several elements explain the phenomenon. First, ambitions and personal egos seem to be put aside more in Brussels than in Paris. “Here, we work on substance and on the long term. There is no risk of dissolution, no supreme election on the horizon”judge Laurent Castillo. Jean-Paul Garraud also points out the lesser weight of the media gaze: “In Paris, there are displays, positions of principle that come to the surface. »
In the European Parliament, far from the 20 Hours cameras, we can allow ourselves to think. The diversity of nationalities also plays a role. “The Italians, the Germans don’t even ask the question, they discuss among themselves”observes Céline Imart, who goes further by invoking the defense of French interests. “We are of 27 different nationalities. To defend French interests against others, we are obliged to discuss and exchange between all groups. » Europe, paradoxically, reconciles where France divides. In a deleterious domestic political climate, with the approach of a presidential election which promises to be decisive, the rights of Paris should take inspiration from their cousins in Brussels. Not to find lessons in ideology, but at least to cultivate the art of speaking to one another.
