The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

"Homage to Coralie Delaume, sovereignist of the people"

2021-09-23T23:50:18.842Z


FIGAROVOX / TRIBUNE - The posthumous book by Coralie Delaume Necessary Sovereignty was published on September 15 by Michalon editions. Economist David Cayla pays tribute to the work of the intellectual, who died last year.


David Cayla is an economist and lecturer at the University of Angers.

He is the author, with Coralie Delaume, of

The End of the European Union

(Michalon, 2017).

Coralie Delaume's posthumous book,

Necessary Sovereignty

, has just been released by Michalon, her publisher. His untimely death at the age of 44, on December 15, 2020, marked the brutal conclusion of a thought that has never stopped evolving, questioning itself, refining itself and asserting itself. .

Until the end, she worked. This little book, completed at the beginning of summer 2020 and which can be found today in bookstores, is only one element of a much larger reflection that she had initiated on the Nation and the State. . The subject is actually immense, partially neglected by the intellectuals of television sets who often prefer to engage in the struggle for identity or chant long sentences on freedoms rather than to be interested in the prerequisites of democracy, in what makes it live. and its consequences.

Coralie Delaume didn't care about the postures; it did not enter into the debates which touch the affects without nourishing the intellect. She was not one of those for whom the defense of national identity could be summed up in the fight between the steeples of churches and the minarets of mosques. For her, France is not just a collection of customs and buildings, a history that we look at and a culture that we admire; it is above all a nation which wants and which can - and which must - act on the world, shape its environment, decide its destiny. And this nation, Coralie Delaume tells us, still has a story to write, and cannot be satisfied with looking to the past. However, without its institutions, its democracy, without the Republic which gave its people the levers to act, France is nothing,or almost.

This capacity of the state to empower itself and pursue ends that are no longer those of its people was the big question that obsessed Coralie Delaume.

David Cayla

"

What remains of “national identities” if we confiscate everything that politically determines the identity of countries, from their legal tradition to their relationship to money or to their conception of the role that the State must play? in the economy? Not much apart from memories suitable for nourishing nostalgia and vague “manners”, of which we can easily feel all that the ardor put into defending them carries with it potential frictions within societies. The question is all the more central for France, where the State preceded the nation and shaped it, where the Revolution consisted in proclaiming, precisely, the sovereignty of the people, and which we can hardly imagine being satisfied. in the very long term with a horizon limited to the celebration of the joys of "camembert-sausage-pinard", even embellished withan asterisk “Vive la Francophonie”.

(

The End of the European Union

, 2017).

For Coralie Delaume sovereignty is not an abstract concept that one learns in political science class. Students are taught that the nation is a community of people linked by a common destiny, and that the state is the political and institutional form that this nation gives itself to act on that destiny. In this classic representation, sovereignty plays a central role, since it forms the interface between nation and state. It expresses the freedom and emancipation of this nation. Let it disappear and it is the link that connects it to the State that is broken. The latter comes to empower itself, to extract itself from its primary function to become the instrument of exogenous forces and specific interests.

This capacity of the state to empower itself and pursue ends that are no longer those of its people was the big question that obsessed Coralie Delaume. A concrete, vital question that touched her personally. In history, the nation has rarely been sovereign, she recalled. Under the Ancien Régime, she was submissive; France was the property of the King and the aristocracy, its cities were the playground of merchants and bourgeois, its culture was in the hands of a picky and jealous Church. For the sovereignty of the people to be established, the nation had to wake up, take up arms, the revolutionary spirit to spring up and break down the fetters created by sclerotic institutions.

Read also Coralie Delaume: "European civilization did not wait for the Maastricht Treaty to hatch"

In

The Franco-German Couple Does Not Exist

, Coralie Delaume recalls that the French Revolution was first of all a national revolution led against the European coalition founded by conservative monarchies.

It reminds us, above all, that the French elites have never really accepted the emancipation of the people and that they have sought to limit its extent.

It describes, for example, how the Parisians of 1870 refused to capitulate to the enemy and how this capitulation was imposed on them by the Versailles bourgeoisie who sought to preserve their class interests.

"

The French Revolution and its Republicans winning in Valmy to the cry of" Vive la Nation! " against a European coalition coming from the German states and eager to perpetuate the old order. The war of 1870 and Parisians refusing, although besieged and exhausted, to surrender to the enemy because they were patriots. But the French authorities doing it for them in the hope of getting rid of the armed people, so true is it that, as Marx says, between national duty and class interest, some do not hesitate. Here are some indications of the deep reasons which animate those so quick to trumpet even today that "the Nation is war", that patriotism is a rancid feeling, and that "Europe is Peace".

"(

The Franco-German couple does not exist

, 2018).

It is true that the French nation, undisciplined and reluctant to authority, has often been managed in its history as an irresponsible that had to be kept under supervision.

It is sometimes by taking direct control of the state that conservative forces have been able to stifle its spirit of independence.

But as democracy took hold, other ploys had to be found.

Democracy, in fact, does not suppose that the people are

right

.

It assumes that he

decides

, and that he is in a position to change his mind if, after having assessed the effects of his decisions, he considers them negative

, ”she writes in

10 + 1 Questions on the European Union

(2019).

Coralie Delaume had wondered about the reasons why the economic and political elites had so much difficulty, unlike the rest of the population, to identify with the nation.

David Cayla

Allowing the people to decide sovereignly, even if it means letting them make mistakes, this is what terrifies those who believe themselves to be the legatees of France and who intend to leave it in a state of permanent minority.

Coralie Delaume had wondered about the reasons why the economic and political elites had so much difficulty, unlike the rest of the population, to identify with the nation.

Why had the national idea become so suspect in the eyes of those who make up opinion, to the point where it always had to be belittled and shouted that "nationalism is war"?

In a column written in 2018 for the Figarovox, she sought to answer this question by studying in detail the causes of "elite separatism", this temptation of the most privileged part of society to withdraw from the rest of society and of the responsibilities she owes to herself. Coralie Delaume was not anti-elite. She was perfectly aware that any human community necessarily relies on a body of better informed people who have specific means, economic or institutional, to act. But for what and for whom are these people acting? If they are aware of belonging to a nation, they will naturally feel responsible for it and act for the common interest. Conversely,in a world where the principle of responsibility is diluted and where the nation becomes an abstract and meaningless thing, the elites will no longer feel the duty to be accountable.

"

We can see how much the phenomenon [of elite separatism] is linked to the withering away of the national framework, withering which allows the “elites” to live more and more in a kind of alter-world in suspension, while the others are riveted. to a here below which begins to turn into fallow land, and will end up turning into a jungle. Because it is they, of course, who hold the feathers and speak into the microphones. They share with us their own way of apprehending the mass of "people who are nothing" as Macron would say, in other words people who are not like them. They paint them to us as cautious, "reactive", primitive and irrational hostile to reforms as well as to any type of change. They explain to us that if they vote “populist”, it is because they are xenophobic, and thatthey vote badly in referendums because they don't understand the questions.

"(" The secession of the '' elites '' or how democracy is being abolished ",

Le Figarovox

, 04/20/2018).

Read also Coralie Delaume: "Macron is a federalist when the Germans become sovereignists"

Citing the posthumous work of the American historian Christopher Lasch,

The Revolt of the Elites and the Treason of Democracy

(1997), Coralie Delaume saw in elite separatism a characteristic of our society which provides an indispensable key to understanding electoral cycles and The political life. Thus, she analyzed the populist movements, often marked by sovereignty and national reaffirmation, as a demand for the repatriation of the ruling classes so that they return to the people, that they finally render account and that they assume the duties. that they owe to society.

But this request is in vain, as she had the lucidity to admit. Political leaders enjoy perfect institutional impunity because "

the construction of Europe is a formidable tool for disempowering national '' elites '', in particular political elites

," she continues in this forum. “

These, all anointed as they are with the legitimacy offered by universal suffrage, do not assume the real burdens. The ability to make the big choices has been massively transferred to the supranational level, which is not accountable to it.

"

Coralie Delaume's great fight was against Europe, or rather against the way in which she claims to be embodied today in the European Union. She devoted her very first book to it,

Europe, the Disunited States.

(2014), which brought her notoriety. Written with a sharp and ironic pen, this book intended to provide an assessment of sixty years of European construction, from the ECSC to the management of the euro crisis. At that time, the anti-democratic turn of European authoritarianism had not yet given its full potential. Greece, led by a right-wing coalition supported by the Socialist Party, bowed its head and signed without complaint the memorandums imposed by the "Troika", these representatives of the IMF and European institutions who intended to impose on the country a "consolidation" of its public accounts by pushing it down the path of endless austerity. In 2014, this “medication” had, in general indifference, produced disastrous effects. Greek GDP had collapsed by almost 25%,the poverty rate had exploded, public services, from port infrastructure to national television, were meticulously dismantled and sold to pieces. Greek youth, abandoned and in the throes of massive unemployment, had no other choice than exile to leave this hell.

Coralie Delaume explained how the ECB was the instrument that precipitated the end of the Greek revolt.

David Cayla

This small Balkan country, late in arriving at democracy, late welcomed into what was then called the EEC and late in joining the euro, doubtless doubted having the means to assert itself against the European powers. He bowed down for five years, agreeing to sacrifice his people to pay for a crisis that was not his, in the name of respect for rules, treaties and creditors. But suddenly, in 2015, the Greek nation, quartered and imprisoned, dared to come together and assert itself. Twice, she raised her head to say "no", or rather "Όχι". The first time, in January 2015, when it brought to power a radical left-wing sovereignist coalition; the second, in July of the same year, to refuse the proposal oftake it or leave it agreement that the European authorities imposed on it. But his revolt, which recalled the “day of no”, this national commemoration during which Greece celebrates, at the end of October, the rejection of the ultimatum addressed to the country in 1940 by Mussolini, was short-lived. Despite the overwhelming “no” victory which won over 60% of the vote, the government of Alexis Tsipras was forced, a few days later, to sign the surrender of his country and to impose a new program on its people. austerity with no real prospect of obtaining partial cancellation of its public debt.ultimatum addressed to the country in 1940 by Mussolini, was short-lived. Despite the overwhelming “no” victory which won over 60% of the vote, the government of Alexis Tsipras was forced, a few days later, to sign the surrender of his country and to impose a new program on its people. austerity with no real prospect of obtaining partial cancellation of its public debt.ultimatum addressed to the country in 1940 by Mussolini, was short-lived. Despite the overwhelming “no” victory which won over 60% of the vote, the government of Alexis Tsipras was forced, a few days later, to sign the surrender of his country and to impose a new program on its people. austerity with no real prospect of obtaining partial cancellation of its public debt.

How did we collectively get there? How were we able to put into practice and in such a violent form the famous formula of the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker who had premonitiously asserted in January 2015 that "

there can be no democratic choice against treated

”?

Reading and relaying passionately the analyzes of economic journalist Romaric Godin, who then worked at the Tribune, Coralie Delaume managed to dissect the stages of this tragic semester which had led Greece to humiliation. This episode demonstrated the relevance of the analyzes of his previous work. Far from being a tragic accident, the Greek-European conflict was a textbook case reflecting the cold reality of the EU. Between creditors and debtors, between the interests of finance and those of the people, the choices were already made. Everything had been decided upstream, without discussion, without negotiation and without concessions. Everything was in the treaties and in the institutional organization of the European Union, far removed from the smiling face thatshe likes to display on the glossy brochures that she distributes en masse.

Read also Libya, Ukraine, Greece: "Europe is peace ... and chaos all around"

So what happened between January and July 2015?

How did the Troika manage to subdue a country that had the bad taste to refuse the endless impoverishment imposed on it?

In addition to the cowardice of François Hollande who made France a passive spectator, in addition to the will of Germany and its inflexible Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schäuble, it was the European Central Bank which provided the European Commission with its decisive assistance.

In the detailed report that she gives to the journal

Le Débat

, Coralie Delaume explains how the ECB was the instrument which precipitated the end of the Greek revolt. By deciding to gradually dry up the funding of Greek banks, the ECB engaged in a strategy of stifling the Greek economy, to the point of depriving the Greeks of access to their own currency. In July 2015, by the time Alexis Tsipras launched his all-out campaign by organizing a referendum, it had become impossible to pay abroad, and most of the ATMs were empty. Thus, continued resistance led the Greek authorities to make an impossible choice: either to let their banking system and their economy collapse for lack of money,or organize a hasty exit from the euro zone.

What we learn from the 2015 crisis is that its membership in the euro zone was Greece's Achilles heel.

Far from being a neutral administrative institution, the ECB demonstrated on this occasion that it was a political authority which could at any time turn against governments and peoples who “vote badly”.

For Coralie Delaume the facts were clear, "

the institution headed by Mario Draghi exceeded its prerogatives for an eminently political goal

".

Coralie Delaume believed that the technocratic nature of the European Union is not a youthful flaw that could be corrected over time.

On the contrary, it is the fundamental characteristic of this institution.

David Cayla

"

The interminable crisis of European construction - because basically, that is what it is all about - has given the ECB the opportunity to make a spectacular affirmation. Mario Draghi is now neck and neck with the German Chancellor, one of the most powerful leaders of the Union. But, at the end of the day, we cannot be surprised when we know that the fundamental ambition of the “fathers of Europe” was as follows: to entrust the destiny of the continent to the good care of technicians with no expertise. to account to no one, to induct specialists whose legitimacy would come entirely from their competence, in no case from suffrage. From the outset, it was a question of conceiving an unprecedented form of "non-representative sovereignty", capable ofexercise as far as possible the judgment of the people and impermeable to any democratic sanction. In this regard, the success is total.

”(“ Where is the European Central Bank going ”,

Le Débat

, 2015).

Coralie Delaume believed that the technocratic nature of the European Union is not a youthful flaw that could be corrected over time.

On the contrary, it is the fundamental characteristic of this institution.

The European Union does not suffer from a 'democratic deficit'.

It is undemocratic, it stems from a structural democratic impossibility

, ”she writes in

10 + 1 Questions on the European Union

.

Basically, what is the European Union? Originally, it was an international organization like so many others. But gradually, due to the action of the three "independents" that are the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, then the European Central Bank, it acquires supranational power. In other words, European law has become more powerful than local law, which concretely means that it is at the top of the hierarchy of law and that it is binding on each Member State in the same way as national constitutions.

"

It is the Court of Justice of the Union which, patiently, case law after case law, has worked to operate on what jurists rightly designate as a process of 'constitutionalization of treaties', progressively tearing European law away from the category to which it originally belonged, that of international law, to bring it closer and closer to a specific and new form of constitutional law. The European Community / Union had become, in the words of the German jurist Dieter Grimm,

"a singular supranational entity lying somewhere between the international organization and the federal state". " (

The End of the European Union

, 2017).

The problem of the supranationality of the EU, is not only that it makes disappear the nations under an exogenous legal order;

it is above all that it makes democracy disappear.

Because in the name of what does the EU act and take decisions?

In the name of which values ​​and which principles?

The answer to this question is generally that the European institutions act in the name of "the general European interest".

But how is the latter really defined?

Read also Coralie Delaume and David Cayla: we must break with "German Europe"

The Treaties state, for example, that

“the Commission promotes the general interest of the Union and takes appropriate initiatives to this end”

(Art. 17 TEU).

"

One wonders what general interest this is. Is the general interest of Germany soluble in that of Cyprus? Does that of Romania overlap with that of the Netherlands? We can doubt it. And we will doubt even more the existence of any "general European interest". In the Rousseauist tradition, the general interest is formed during the deliberation of citizens, the latter having consented, during this deliberation, to disregard their particular interests. In other words, in a representative democracy, it is only within Parliament that this common interest can emerge. How can we sincerely believe that a technocratic institution such as the European Commission can replace itself, in these fields,to a deliberative Assembly and the debates that take place within it?

”(

Europe, The Disunited States

, 2014).

What is certain is that the European Union does not have a democratic procedure to define what is or is not in the general European interest. As long as the democratic debate continues to be organized at the national level, it is supranational institutions a-democratic and inaccessible to the peoples that will continue to determine it sovereignly. In short, the European Union is an institution which serves above all to circumvent national wishes in the name of preserving major economic balances. “

Europe is absolutely not peace

.

Europe is Order. A conservative Order, corresponding to the interests of a certain class and which we willingly entrust to the German world the care of

help maintain or restore it, ”explains Coralie Delaume in

The Franco-German Couple does not exist

(2018).

National sovereignty makes it possible for a people to decide for itself, it is a means.

It is not in itself a political project.

Coralie Delaume in The End of the European Union

Germany acquired the status of dominant country of the EU somewhat by chance, she explains in the same book. It is the conjunction of three events that put it at the center of the continent: the creation of the euro and the establishment of the single market, which allowed German industry to develop; reunification, which strengthened its economic and demographic power; enlargement, finally, which helped Germany to deploy to the east to take advantage of low-cost labor and strengthen its export model. Ironically, each of these events was often actively supported by French leaders, from Jacques Delors to Jacques Chirac to François Mitterrand. Germany has therefore become hegemonic because of French choices and not because ofa will on his part. At ease in the European institutions which are closer to its federal model, it naturally takes over positions of responsibility and gains in influence.

"Fortuitous hegemony", "power without desire", there are formulas to say more or less the same thing. Historian Ludwig Dehio speaks of "semi-hegemony" and sociologist Ulrich Beck "of accidental empire". But the expression most often used is that of "reluctant hegemon", at least in the Anglo-Saxon press where it has flourished since it was forged by the British political scientist William Paterson and then popularized by the magazine

The Economist.

in a 2013 issue entitled "

Germany and Europe: The reluctant hegemon"

. The dossier devoted by the weekly to the Federal Republic of course notes its status as an economic superpower in Europe. He also notes that the rest does not follow, that Germany sees itself first and foremost as a prosperous, quiet, politically modest and militarily non-existent “big Switzerland”.

»(

The Franco-German Couple does not exist

, 2018).

This accidental hegemony of Germany is a source of imbalances within the continent. Because this country dominating the EU de facto without having the will, is not up to its responsibilities. A truly hegemonic power must protect its vassals. However, as Germany sees itself as a big Switzerland, it demands of its partners that they resemble it without taking the measure of the fact that its model cannot be generalized, and that so that it itself can accumulate surpluses. trade, its partners must run up deficits. This contradiction between the reality of German domination and the German representation of themselves is a source of political instability in Europe. However, this "

instability ended up taking hold of theascetic germany

»She writes at the end of this book.

Thus, for the European Union to live, its dominant power would have to agree to change its status and pay the cost of its domination, for example by organizing compensatory transfers to allow the dominated countries to survive its overwhelming economic weight.

But nothing says that Germany will succeed in making this choice.

Therefore, the reluctant hegemon can freely crush its partners by denying its own strength, and in the name of Europe, as happened with Greece.

She passionately engaged with the yellow vests, not as one of its leaders, but within the processions.

She showed in the articles she published when most of their demands were addresses for a return to national sovereignty.

David Cayla

How to get out of it? How to break free from the oppressive framework of European neoliberalism and reaffirm the primacy of democracy over treaties? Faced with this question, Coralie Delaume was wary of purely legal and institutional answers. She did not believe in "Frexit", taken up as a slogan by a whole generation of sovereignists who saw the EU as a steel cage. “

National sovereignty makes it possible for a people to decide for itself, it is a means. It is not in itself a political project

”she writes in

The End of the European Union.

(2017). In other words, leaving the EU without having first clearly defined a political project is futile. But above all, this political project must be affirmed by the people. It is only on condition that it raises its head that the Nation will succeed in recovering what is owed to it, namely its sovereignty, and that it will regain the capacity to act on its destiny.

The movement of yellow vests was for Coralie Delaume one of those moments which show that the France of 1789 is not dead and that under the ashes of Europeanism still smolders the fire of the revolutionary spirit. She passionately engaged with the yellow vests, not as one of its leaders, but within the processions. She showed in the articles she published that most of their demands were addresses for a return to national sovereignty.

"

None of the demands formalized [by the yellow vests] is feasible in the current European Union, in the Single Market and in the euro, which are the framework within which national policies take place. National governments are ultimately only willing relays of the EU, authorized representatives satisfied with their powerlessness. […] One of the main slogans heard in the demonstrations of yellow vests or on the roundabouts is "Macron resignation". Under the present conditions, the renunciation of a man would remain very insufficient. To once again become masters of their destiny, the French (and all the peoples of Europe) must demand that the European maps be reshuffled in depth and that national sovereignty be restored,another name for “the right of peoples to self-determination”.

"(" Yellow vests: '' Macron has his feet and fists bound by the European Union '' ", Le Figarovox, 12/6/2018).

Read also Coralie Delaume: "No, Europe is not done with 'populism'"

National sovereignty is not just a legal question.

It requires a prior political awareness, a "national moment" which could have been that of the yellow vests.

And if this was not the case, if the yellow vests did not achieve their ends, their victory in the long term was no doubt in the mind of Coralie Delaume.

But for there to be victory, the tools that allow the nation to act must still be preserved.

However, it is the risk of losing these tools that is looming.

By making the state powerless, the European Union legitimizes its slow dismantling.

But to dismantle the state is to deprive the nation of its ability to control its destiny once its sovereignty has been recovered.

One of the last battles led by Coralie Delaume was that of refusing the privatization of ADP.

On February 24, 2019, we jointly launched a petition on the

Change.org

platform

in which we denounced the short-term logic of such a decision.

"

After the scandal of the privatization of the highways which resulted in price increases for users and exorbitant rents for concessionaires, the government decides to put it back. […] However, among the three privatizations provided for by law, the case of Aéroports de Paris is by far the most worrying. It is a strategic infrastructure presenting issues of sovereignty, security, land use planning and the environment. Should we recall it? Le Bourget, Roissy and Orly airports form a strategic border for our country. With 101.5 million travelers in 2017 - a continuous increase - they even represent the main border of the country! The sensitive nature of this type of infrastructure explains whyelsewhere that 86% of airports in the world are public.

"(Petition" No to the privatization of Aéroports de Paris! ").

This petition garnered very strong popular support.

In a few days, it exceeded 100,000 signatories;

in a few weeks, it exceeded 300,000. Such a success was made possible by the media relay, to which Figarovox and

Marianne

largely contributed.

But nothing would have been possible without the active support of the yellow vests collectives who widely disseminated the petition within their networks.

We also noted with interest that every Saturday, the day of the event, signatures flowed in.

In the last months of her existence Coralie Delaume continued to fight against the dismantling of the state.

David Cayla

As ADP's rejection of privatization gained traction, the debate became a media and political issue. On April 10, 2019, more than 200 opposition parliamentarians collectively tabled a bill "

aimed at affirming the national public service character of Paris aerodromes

". For the first time, a shared initiative referendum (RIP) procedure was tabled. Validated by the Constitutional Council a few weeks later, it required the collection, in one year, of 10% of the electorate, or more than 4.7 million signatures, to be effective.

La barre était trop haute. À l'évidence, cette procédure de RIP introduite lors de la réforme constitutionnelle de 2008 avait été pensée pour être inapplicable. Le fait de devoir signer par Internet et d'indiquer ses coordonnées était un frein évident à la collecte des signatures. Mais le RIP n'a pas été inutile. D'une part, il gelait toute possibilité pour le gouvernement de lancer la procédure de privatisation ; d'autre part, il nous permettait, ainsi qu'à de nombreuses associations citoyennes, d'aller à la rencontre des gens, de discuter avec les citoyens de services publics, de politique économique, et de souveraineté nationale.

Coralie Delaume, comme tant d'autres, s'engagea concrètement dans la collecte de signatures. Elle alla dans la rue, à la rencontre des gens, avec un ordinateur connecté sur le réseau 4G d'un smartphone ; avec moi, avec des amis, elle a participé, à son niveau, à collecter des signatures nécessaires durant l'été et l'automne 2019.

Finalement, ce fut l'arrêt brutal du trafic aérien pendant la crise du Covid qui empêcha le projet de se concrétiser. Les pertes subies par l'entreprise publique la rendirent non privatisable. L'ironie de l'histoire est que si l'organisation du RIP n'avait pas repoussé la privatisation d'ADP, la rente promise au concessionnaire se serait sans doute transformée en pertes abyssales que l'État, n'en doutons pas, aurait très largement couvertes, suivant en cela le vieux principe qui veut qu'on nationalise les pertes après avoir privatisé les profits.

Dans les derniers mois de son existence Coralie Delaume continua de lutter contre le démantèlement de l'État. «Chassée par la porte, la privatisation des routes nationales revient par la fenêtre LREM», écrit-elle dans une tribune pour Marianne en juin 2019.

À lire aussiCoralie Delaume: «Cet accord coûtera plus à la France qu’il ne lui rapportera»

Mais la crise du Covid avait révélé un autre démantèlement, plus discret et pourtant bien plus pernicieux sur le long terme, celui de l'industrie. La vente d'Alstom sous le quinquennat Hollande et auquel Emmanuel Macron fut étroitement associé, l'abandon du site sidérurgique de Florange et, plus généralement, la lâcheté dont faisaient preuve les gouvernements face aux intérêts des capitaux étrangers la révoltaient. «Après Alstom et Latécoère, la France va brader Photonis», expliquait Coralie Delaume dans une courte vidéo réalisée pour Marianne TV en février 2020. Le 12 novembre, un mois avant son décès, elle publiait un dernier tweet : «On savait que Bridgestone (qui a pourtant reçu 4 millions d'aides publiques ces dernières années) voulait fermer l'usine de Béthune. C'est désormais acté. Plus de 800 emplois détruits. D'autres seront créés en Pologne», écrivait-elle en renvoyant le lecteur vers l'analyse du collectif «Alerte Plans Sociaux».

L'analyse de la perte de souveraineté liée à la désindustrialisation, qui est elle-même le double produit de la mondialisation et des règles européennes, constitue une part importante de la thèse qu'elle défend dans son dernier ouvrage :

«La France et le monde doivent faire face à une pandémie dont on voit assez vite qu'elle a partie liée avec la mondialisation. En Europe, la Grèce et le Portugal, par exemple, sont relativement épargnés car excentrés, cependant que l'Italie du Nord, industrieuse et connectée, est frappée durement. La France également, dont la population découvre médusée que, toute sixième puissance économique qu'il soit, le pays est vulnérable et dépendant. On est incapable de fabriquer des tests sur son sol, on fait venir des masques de Chine. La comparaison avec l'Allemagne voisine est particulièrement humiliante. […] Les faits sont là. L'Allemagne a des usines, les PME industrielles de son Mittelstand, cette nébuleuse d'entreprises de taille moyenne ou intermédiaire, se mobilisent pour produire ce dont son système de soins à besoin, le confinement y est plus souple et le nombre de morts bien moindre. La France, dont l'un des grands patrons vanta en son temps la formule de «l'entreprise sans usines», constate qu'elle n'a plus ni souveraineté industrielle ni autonomie sanitaire (la dernière usine française de production de paracétamol, celle de Roussillon en Isère, a fermé ses portes en 2008). La crise sanitaire du Covid-19, en révélant à quel point cette autonomie s'était étiolée, a ainsi remis au premier plan une question : celle de la

national sovereignty. ”

(

Necessary sovereignty

, 2021).

Slaughtered by the Crab, it leaves an unfinished but profound work.

David Cayla

In the months leading up to her death, Coralie Delaume was still struggling.

For popular sovereignty, for democracy, for France.

She had started working on a new book that she wanted more ambitious than the previous ones.

She had told me about it in July 2020, while we were hiking on the stony paths of the Drôme Provençale.

The weather was fine, she had given up neither hope nor ambition, and at the same time she had no illusions about the capacity of an intellectual to change the world.

The thought of Coralie Delaume, like that of all great intellectuals, was marked by a profound coherence.

She never indulged in a demagogic posture.

She never wrote something that was not based on sincere conviction and dozens of hours of reading.

Slaughtered by the Crab, it leaves an unfinished but profound work.

We can bet that many of us will read it, reread it, take inspiration from it in order to gain clarity and continue its struggles.

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2021-09-23

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.