Marie Toussaint: “I refuse the war of all against each”

Marie Toussaint was one of the only EELV executives to strongly condemn the coming of Medina to their summer universities. When others endorsed the Le Havre rapper, justified his anti-Semitic tweet targeting the essayist Rachel Khan and tried to explain that there would be assumed anti-Semitism and insidious anti-Semitism, she recalled on France Info that “we don’t mess around with anti-Semitism.” “The problem is not Medina, it’s us, we made a mistake,” she added, regretting that her party had sought the “buzz”. Today, the head of the EELV list for the 2024 Europeans does not want to talk about it anymore. She does not want to talk more about school and secularism. She chooses her subjects, confining herself to “Europe and ecology”.

That she is little known does not seem to matter to her. She is not looking for media coverage, precisely, and says she refuses to “give in to the war of the left and the temptation of murderous little phrases. » The MEP tries to spare the rebels – who nevertheless booed her at their “Amfis” near Valencia – and opens up about her vision of Europe. She wishes, in particular, to “make the fight against poverty the backbone of the European Union” and calls for “a fundamental rethink of our tax model” at European level.

Update: The summer universities of the party you will represent in the European elections have passed. What do you take away from this?

Marie Toussaint: All the activists are mobilized, and the party is ready to rebuild itself to surpass itself. Marine Tondelier spares no effort to make this possible. However, I can see what we are missing: we have not yet won the credibility battle. We are working on it. I suggest we draw inspiration from the excellence of our municipal practices where our mayors have found the right balance between reform urgency and managerial efficiency.

They should also allow you to make yourself better known. This was supposed to be, in a way, your launching pad for the Europeans and, instead, you shot yourself in the foot by inviting the rapper Médine. Shouldn’t you have canceled his visit?

I have already spoken on this subject and do not wish to talk about it again.

According to a recent Ifop poll for Charlie Hebdo, 79% of your supporters are in favor of banning the abaya while you are vigorously opposed to it… Aren’t you challenged by the discrepancy on the subject of the abaya between the opinion of the party leadership and that of your electoral base?

I will not comment on this poll, or any other for that matter. I did not come here to bring water to the mill of the polemic. I accepted your interview request to talk about ecology to your readers. Because I cannot resolve that the depth of the ecological crisis does not penetrate all consciences. So, let me talk to you instead about heatwaves, elderly people in distress, workers exposed to terrible heat, and the economic and social consequences of the environmental crisis. We are at the foot of the climate wall. This is what should obsess us.

So we’re not talking about abaya, secularism, school?

I can clearly see that the question of the abaya unleashes passions. However, I do not intend to submit to the tyranny of emotion, because I observe the rise of a society of resentment of which identity quarrels are the fuel, and the immediacy of social networks the vehicle. Let’s keep a cool head. I want to say this: the question of the abaya is for me secondary in view of the major questions which concern humanity: the accelerated destruction of living things, the collapse of biodiversity, our inadaptation to the new climate regime. Sorry to say it like that, but you will have to get used to ecologists talking about ecology.

The Insoumis have been trying for months to convince you of the need to build a common Nupes list for Europeans. Your refusal seems to annoy them: you were booed at the LFI university in Valencia. Is dialogue impossible?

No, not at all. The dialogue is not broken. I will neither give in to the war of the left nor to the temptation of murderous little phrases. Everyone will have noticed that it is paradoxical to think of building unity through whistles. But if these boos are regrettable, they did not reach me, because my epidermis has the thickness of my convictions. I called in my summer days speech to consider gentleness as a political force and I repeated it in the face of La France insoumise.

This is a basic assessment: In the Age of Anger, populists revel in the frustration and tumult it engenders. I sincerely believe that defining a softer life as a political horizon is a form of response to national populist imprecations and brutalism. As the tree is in the seed, the path to gentleness can hardly be found in virulence. The first stone of this path consists, for the left and the ecologists, in questioning us about our militant methods and our strategies. I do not see gentleness as a weakness in the face of conflict, but as a strength of resistance to the law of the strongest. I want to bring this debate forward. It goes beyond Nupes and concerns our living together: I refuse the war of all against each.

On Sunday, September 3, the president of Restos du coeur, Patrice Douret, launched an appeal for help “to political and economic forces. » His call was heard by Bernard Arnault, who promised a donation of 10 million euros. Do you welcome that?

We are talking about human lives, people who are hungry, so this donation is obviously good to take. But the question is more global. I don’t think you can base solidarity on philanthropy. I refuse this Americanization of our society. Then, the appeals of the Restos du Coeur, the Red Cross and other associations raise important political questions. Victor Hugo said something like this: “You want the beggars rescued, I want poverty eradicated. » Basically, I therefore aspire to a model in which we would no longer even need these associations since everyone would see their right to live with dignity, in mutual respect and in society, guaranteed. I call for the fight against poverty to be made the backbone of the European Union.

Your priority is therefore not the fight against the “rich” but the defense of the most disadvantaged. Don’t you dream, like the national secretary of EELV, Marine Tondelier, of a “France without billionaires”?

A society that tolerates some having their hands full and others having an empty stomach is a society without a moral compass. Politically, the question that is asked is that of our economic, fiscal and social model. Do we consider, as in an American model, that it is billionaires and charity who must respond to the difficulties encountered by millions of citizens? I do not believe that. So, how do we organize ourselves so that the wealth is better distributed? How do we organize so that everyone can live in decent conditions? This is the only question we are asked. This necessarily requires an in-depth rethink of our tax model. I aspire for it to be also rethought at the European level because Europe is a political project and the question of human dignity is a founding value of the European Union.

What do you respond to those who recall that, on the occasion of the creation of Nupes, ecologists and the Insoumis agreed on a common program, which includes a part on Europe?

I say to unity supporters of the left and environmentalists, including myself, that I know how precious the desire for unity is. I believe that we should not consider that leaving separated for the Europeans means leaving divided for the other deadlines. Our positions are not irreconcilable. The reality is that, despite our discussions and the work we have been doing together for years, there remain differences on the European question. I am delighted that we have found points of agreement, but convergence is not complete. What common points on federalism, the hierarchy of norms, the political project for our continent? The European elections represent precisely the right time to discuss it and to let the people decide. In the context of an election that is not majority-based in two rounds, but proportional and in one round, it is legitimate that all nuances can be expressed.

You say you want to fight for a Europe of “care”. What does that mean ?

We must change paradigm and build our public policies based on the question of social and environmental vulnerabilities. A Europe of care is an EU which, recognizing the multiple vulnerabilities of the world, offers the most humble protection and makes the protection of the living a golden rule. This idea is unfortunately still new. The all-market still seems to be the unsurpassable horizon of the European project. In this respect, I propose the establishment of an environmental treaty, which makes the protection of living things the norm and which establishes convergence criteria around respect for planetary limits.

Our challenge is to move from an economy obsessed with the search for profit to an economy inhabited by the concern for life. This is the mother of battles, in Europe, but obviously in France too. There is a lot of talk about France’s “green budget” these days and Mr. Cazenave even claims that it would be the greenest budget in history. In reality, we continue to pour billions of euros into fossil fuels and other activities toxic to our biodiversity. On the essential issue of nature protection, we are doing nothing, while 80% of European ecosystems are degraded. If these ecosystems are degraded, they will no longer be able to accommodate biodiversity, they will no longer be able to absorb carbon, they will no longer be able to filter the various pollution that surrounds us. We have an imperative need to restore them. No one should object to it.

Regarding the fight against global warming, Emmanuel Macron assures in the major back-to-school interview he gave to Le Point that we will solve “many of our problems through innovation. » What does this “ecology of progress” inspire you?

Technological innovation is obviously essential. But so is philosophical and political innovation. We want a policy of civilization, a global change, far from the techno-solutionist or transhumanist mirages carried by Silicon Valley where demiurges take themselves for God. It is the fate of humanity that is at stake, so it cannot be delegated to a few firms. The real ecology of progress is to make ecology progress. Where are we ? Emmanuel Macron was convicted in the Case of the Century for inaction against climate change. The court asked him to catch up on a trajectory and he failed to do so! He was condemned for inaction in the face of poor air quality, or for biodiversity. Finally, I observe that the presentation of its roadmap on ecological planning continues to be postponed. We can believe his big words, his big announcements, but the problem is that they have not been followed up.

On the Case of the Century, of which you are at the origin, Emmanuel Macron recalls that he was not yet president since the conviction concerns the period 2015-2018…

It is important to read court decisions carefully, especially when you value the rule of law. The period does not only concern him, in fact. But he should not be insensitive to the fact that the administrative court of Paris and the Council of State simply ask him to respect our laws. The central subject is that we have entered a new climate regime which is changing everything. The blindness of those who do not realize this is criminal.

What is your vision of “Defense Europe”?

To be concise, we defend an integrated Europe of defense, under democratic supervision of the European Parliament, which operates in transparency and which aims for peace and disarmament. This Europe of defense is one of the conditions of our sovereignty. We have months to debate it, and I will develop our program in the campaign that opens.

Should we go further in supporting Ukraine?

We obviously have to support the Ukrainians. Their defeat would be ours. Any weakness in the face of Putin will have dramatic geopolitical consequences. I am therefore surprised by the comments made by Nicolas Sarkozy. His experience as a statesman should lead him to greater lucidity, and more respect for the rank of France. Whose interests does it serve?

Jordan Bardella and Marion Maréchal have just been officially named head of the European list. Don’t you fear that the debate on immigration will become more important than climate issues?

It also depends on you. How many front pages are you going to devote to these two topics respectively? Personally, I despair at the delay of the French right on ecological issues. The emergence of a right that questions its dogmas to sincerely embrace the ecological question is a democratic necessity. This is a more urgent project than the fusion of the rights under Zemmourist cultural domination, right? The right is wrong to choose the field of identity to try to rebuild its health… There was once a social right in this country. It is missing today in public debate. For our part, we will fight step by step against the extreme right and against all those who want to establish a hierarchy between human beings. We will not give up anything, because our goal is to preserve a habitable planet.