Is Eva Joly really a candidate?

The negotiations between the Socialist Party and EELV on nuclear energy are annoying. When you have convictions, you don't negotiate them, you defend them, you argue, you build your own electoral base, you don't stand on the sidelines.

There are little things like that which happen under our noses and which do not move anyone. We are 5 months away from the presidential election, 7 months away from the legislative elections, and for several days now, quietly, at the microphones, at the podiums, the Socialist Party and Europe Ecologie-Les Verts have been negotiating for government posts and seats in parliament. And all this in total indifference, with complete impunity, even though it is properly and incredibly shocking.

Eva Joly explained, by issuing ultimatums to the Socialist Party, that there would be no governmental agreement if the disagreement on nuclear power persisted. François Hollande explained that "governmental agreement and electoral agreement on the constituencies are linked". The Socialist Party and the Greens would therefore discuss ceding constituencies to each other, or in plainer language, giving each other space here or there. But what are they talking about? Has anyone won yet? Cede constituencies? ... But who has constituencies before the election? Who confiscates the electoral choice?

What would we say if large stores were to divide up catchment areas in order to benefit from exclusive territories, with Orange ceding such and such a town to SFR, which would leave it such and such a town, depending on what would suit Bouygues Telecom...? What does the competition authority do about the application of the free democratic game when it is so quick to denounce, and this is quite normal, commercial agreements. The subject here is not so different.

But above all, what is Europe Ecologie-Les Verts, and its candidate Eva Joly, doing? We are in the time of the electoral campaign. As soon as a candidate, in a competitive situation, negotiates after the match, not only does he shock public opinion, which abhors these little political arrangements, but above all he loses credibility. When you are a candidate, you are a candidate to the end, you run in your lane.

So, Greens, if ecology is at the centre of your political project, if it is even an opportunity, as I believe, then defend your ideas, assume your convictions, really go for it, don't be subservient to the Socialist Party. When you have convictions, you don't negotiate them, you defend them, you argue them, you build your own electoral base, you don't stand on the sidelines. Stop following the lead of the Socialist Party, or more precisely at its feet. Being against nuclear power is not forbidden, but we live in times when being against it is not enough, when we must above all be "for" something, for alternatives, for other solutions. To revolt, to be indignant, to criticise, why not, but to propose, to innovate, to reveal other possibilities, that is so much better, but so much more difficult.

What will make the environment progress is not socialism, it is a revisited market economy, it is new energy solutions, it is research and development, it is diplomatic and economic weight in international negotiations, it is getting out of nuclear power, why not, without resorting massively to coal and gas power stations during peak consumption, without creating energy inflation intensifying the already rampant energy insecurity of many households, etc.

Why is ecology necessarily left-wing? As you know, the left does not have a monopoly on ecology ... but ecology is monopolised by the left. By its attitude, EELV positions itself as the ecological cell of the Socialist Party. EELV is not a political party. Either EELV is a component of the Socialist Party, in which case they should join it and make ecology a structural component of the left's offer and not something extra, on the side, optional. Either EELV is a political offer, a party in its own right, which defines governance according to the yardstick of ecology, where ecology is not the last item on the agenda, but IS the agenda.

Eva Joly is not a presidential candidate, she is discussing and negotiating with possible future leaders. By choosing not to choose, to be both confrontational and negotiating, we end up with these little pre-match deals that skew the democratic offer, by denying both her ideas and the electorate. Eva Joly should know best that these OM-VA style pre-game deals are reprehensible!

By dint of being in the background, the Greens are politically at a loss. A turn was undoubtedly missed after the European elections, to make this party a great political offer, constructive but independent. And this rant is also a cry from the heart, to be heard as one talks to friends, well, to friendly convictions, and shared well beyond Eva Joly's supporters, it is so obvious!

Moreover, even the name of the movement has not been decided. Gathering is good, deciding is better. Moreover, as Pierre Mendès France, an illustrious figure of the left, obviously said, "governing is choosing". And when you reread this speech of 3 June 1953, from which this famous phrase comes, you will notice that he also talks a lot about "rigour" (in French in the text), a rigour "for which youth will be grateful"... It goes to show that these words, ecology and rigour, are not intended to have a partisan colour.