Marine Le Pen: ‘I am deeply Euroskeptic; the way the EU works is anti-democratic and anti-national’

Marine Le Pen’s life accelerated in June with the unexpected dissolution of the National Assembly decreed by French President Emmanuel Macron. Six months later — following a snap election, the appointment and fall of a prime minister, Michel Barnier, and his replacement by François Bayrou — the leader of the National Rally (RN) still has the Government of France in her hands. No matter how hard the president of the Republic may try, without the support of the leftist New Popular Front, and without a candidate designated by the progressive flank, which has a majority in Parliament, the government’s fate will continue to be bound by the will of the far right. But the cold war between the two is also decided outside of politics.

The 56-year-old leader of RN received EL PAÍS on Tuesday afternoon in her office in the National Assembly for the first interview with a foreign media outlet since the appointment of François Bayrou as prime minister. Members of her predominantly young team came and went from the office. Behind her desk, she appears arm in arm and smiling in a black and white photo with Jordan Bardella, the 29-year-old party president and her successor and replacement in the event of an accident. Or a court ruling.

Le Pen has been a presidential candidate three times and has twice made it to the run-off vote. She has transformed the RN into an almost hegemonic party that has devoured the classic political right. At the last legislative elections she obtained more than 10 million votes. She has never been so close to achieving the old presidential dream of the Le Pen family. And yet, everything could go off the rails on March 31, when the verdict in the trial for embezzlement of European funds will be announced, which could ban her from seeking public office for five years. The next few months will mark the future of the French executive, of Macron and of Le Pen herself, who is at the center of gravity of this chaotic moment. It is her make-or-break moment.

Question. What do you think of the choice of François Bayrou as prime minister?

Answer. Bayrou must remember that he was not appointed to develop his policies, but to draw up a budget taking into account the three major forces in the National Assembly. I know his attachment to democracy, he has good intentions. But we will wait to see what budget he presents. If it is similar to Barnier’s, the same causes will produce the same effects.

Q. Tell the truth: did you really bring down Barnier just for not updating pensions with the Consumer Price Index?

A. Yes... he fell due to an excess of pride. He made an error of judgment about the RN, he thought that we would be content with a few crumbs.

Q. Will you file a no-confidence motion against the Bayrou government if it does not give in to these same demands?

A. Yes. We are the country with the highest tax burden in the world. And people wonder where their money goes. The problem with the French is not that they don’t accept taxes, but the way their money is squandered. We cannot raise taxes when people cannot pay their electricity bills. And to do that, it is essential to attack the other side of the problem: the excessive spending of the State.

Q. The feeling is that you are letting Macron slowly stew without any regard for stability and that, at the slightest opportunity, you will introduce another no-confidence motion.

A. You are wrong. Otherwise, we would have done it immediately. What moves us is the interest of the French: if it is preserved, we will not take the step for no reason.

Q. Your party, which aspires to govern, has created instability.

A. If there is instability, it is Macron’s fault alone. He has generated a trillion euros of debt in seven years, and that is what has complicated the situation in the country. He also dissolved the Assembly thinking that he would win the elections, and he lost. And he has just appointed a prime minister, but in reality the latter has appointed himself. We are not here to destabilize, but to change the policies imposed on the French people. We are not afraid to use the instruments offered to us by the Constitution to enforce the will of our 11 million voters. But I find no pleasure in it.

If there is instability, it is Macron’s fault alone

Q. Should Macron resign?

A. I am not here to tell him what to do. It is up to him to decide whether, at some point, he can continue in his position while no longer really pushing for anything positive for the country. If at some point he finds himself trapped by the limits of the French Constitution, it is up to him to make a decision.

Q. The instability that you have caused with the motion, among other things, eased the way for the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to sign the Mercosur agreement, which all of France was opposed to, while there was no government.

A. Not at all. She boarded the plane to Uruguay when the no-confidence motion had not yet been voted on. She had made her decision months ago. She believes that nations no longer have any say in their own future. And who is responsible for this? The French and European political leaders, who allowed the European Commission to become an all-powerful entity. I hope that there will be a blocking minority in the European Council to prevent it from being signed.

Q. I see you are still a Euroskeptic.

A. I am deeply Euroskeptic. I am not against Europe, but I consider the way it currently operates to be anti-democratic, anti-national and completely contrary to the sovereignty of nations. When a country can no longer defend its vital interests, I do not believe that this is democracy. The National Assembly voted a few days ago, with an overwhelming majority, against the agreement with Mercosur. But nothing prevents it from being signed without taking into account the opinion of the representatives of the French people. I cannot accept this.

Q. It would appear that you will try to get Macron to resign before March 30, when the verdict is expected in the trial in which you are accused of misusing European funds and which could get you banned politically.

A. That is absurd, and it reveals a conspiracy theory view of reality.

Q. Did you expect this request from the Prosecutor’s Office: five years in prison and a ban on seeking public office for five years?

A. Nobody expected such a violent and unjust attack. But the indignation went far beyond the ranks of the RN. Even Jean-Luc Mélenchon, [the leader of the leftist La France Insoumise], said that he found this kind of Inquisition unacceptable. The petition has created a kind of shock in the country. The French people have become aware that some judges feel they have the right to directly influence the elections. The sentence has not yet been handed down, and I do not think they will dare to go to such extremes.

Three judges could prevent me from running, even if 50% of French people want to vote for me

Q. So do you feel persecuted?

A. I am not inside the head of the prosecutors, but it seems as if some of them would like to hang all the politicians in a trophy room, as if their power were superior to the power of the people. But no power is. If the judges decided to follow the recommendations of the Prosecutor’s Office, we would be faced with a real conflict of legitimacy.

Q. It sounds like a call to revolt.

A. No, no, not at all. But imagine: I have been a presidential candidate three times, a runner-up on two occasions, and the polls indicate that I could win the next presidential election. Yet three judges could prevent me from running, even if 50% of French people want to vote for me?

Q. In the event that you are unable to run, what would happen in the RN control room?

A. The ideas of the RN are embodied by two personalities. And that is a form of security for its defense. But neither Jordan Bardella [her number two official and the president of the RN] nor I have put ourselves in that state of mind.

Q. Do you think Bardella is ready to be president of the Republic?

A. He has not prepared for that, precisely because we are presenting ourselves as a tandem: I will be a candidate for the presidency and he would be my prime minister.

Q. The RN has been trying to become more mainstream for years. Does the no-confidence vote close the doors to the liberal and bourgeois world that traditionally has not voted for the RN?

A. Not at all. All the journalists said that the RN would lose a lot of support after the vote of no confidence. But a few days later, a poll gave me 38% in the first round of the presidential elections. Now, is it possible that there are right-wing voters who thought that Barnier was right-wing and that we should not therefore have voted against him? He may be right-wing, but he presented a left-wing budget.

Q. You don’t even consider yourself right-wing?

A. No. Especially if a right-wing program entails abandoning all social policy. I believe in the strategic State of Gaullist inspiration. I don’t think it should limit itself exclusively to its regal [usurped] powers. In that sense, I am a bit unclassifiable.

Q. In Italy, we have seen harmony between Forza Italia and Meloni. In Spain, between the mainstream conservatives of the Popular Party and the far-right Vox. But not yet in France. Do you think something similar would be necessary in order to come to power?

A. We have very little in common with the rest of [liberal-conservative political party] The Republicans and with [party leader] Laurent Wauquiez. Just look at how he addressed me during the speech on the no-confidence vote. It was very insulting, very disdainful. In addition, we have very important fundamental differences.

Q. You don’t hold your tongue either when you talk to them.

A. In any case, I never show arrogance or contempt. Wauquiez is ready to govern with the Socialist Party, which is quite revealing. Jean-Marie Le Pen already spoke of the “UMP-PS,” a kind of single party. Today, we are seeing something similar: a political bloc ready to ally itself to keep its positions. This recreates a form of political bipolarity that makes our position even clearer: us against the single party.

Q. Meloni thus came to power in Italy. Why have you not managed to be in the same European group?

A. Because she has a relationship with Von der Leyen that I do not want to support: this Commission President is everything we must avoid in order to protect the European people. She, her Commission, the Agriculture Commissioner who supports the Green Deal, who is in favor of Mercosur... are exactly the opposite of what I believe in. I understand that Italy is in a different situation to France, and I am not judging Giorgia. The Recovery Plan that she received, essential for her financial stability, has nothing to do with that of France: €240 billion, against €40 billion. Italy needs to rely on the EU. We are not in that situation, we are free to criticize Von der Leyen’s Commission, the quintessence of everything we fight against.

Von der Leyen’s European Commission is the quintessence of everything we fight against”

Q. So, your old idea of a common group with Meloni has died?

A. She didn’t want to. She was told that if she joined the RN, the cordon sanitaire would be applied to her. It’s not that we couldn’t find common elements, it’s that it was Von der Leyen herself who told Meloni that if she joined us, she would be treated like a pariah, without vice-presidents of commissions, without presidencies, without anything. And Meloni felt obliged to become the victim of this cordon sanitaire.

Q. What do you think of her plan to create deportation centers outside the EU’s borders?

A. I don’t think that’s the solution. We need to implement a deterrence policy. What’s happening in Europe is madness: attracting migrants and then wondering how to manage them. Asylum cases need to be dealt with in foreign consulates and embassies. No one should be able to set foot in Europe without proper authorization. We need to abolish the free movement of people and limit it within the Schengen area to nationals of Schengen countries. Ms Merkel brought in a million migrants a few years ago. Some stayed in Germany, but the rest, where did they go? To other countries. We can’t allow that.

Q. Are you referring to limiting free movement to just persons with EU country citizenship?

A. Yes. If a country accepts a million migrants, that is its problem. Its decision cannot cause problems for others. But that is what is happening today with Schengen.

Q. That goes against all the foundations of the European Union.

A. No, because the free movement of people with the nationality of the EU member countries is still preserved. The origins of Schengen were never about a person who Italy allows to be on its territory being able to go to all other countries. The original idea was that those with Italian, Spanish or Portuguese nationality could move freely.

Q. Of course, but the rules also speak of a redistribution of migrants who always enter through the same borders.

A. We are forced to accept migrants in our villages under penalty of being fined I don’t know how many million euros. Do you think I can accept that? Of course not.

Q. Does France need another immigration law, as the previous government offered to gain your support?

A. Look, as long as we do not incorporate the rights of foreigners into the French Constitution with the limitations that we want to impose, and as long as we do not remind the EU that its texts and jurisprudence cannot be applied in France if they are contrary to the Constitution, we will not really solve the problem.

Q. That also goes against the spirit of the EU.

A. It can be done with a constitutional referendum decided by the president of the Republic.

Q. France’s birth rate is at its lowest since World War II. Without immigrants, who will pay the pensions of Bardella’s generation?

A. That is a lie that has been spread for years. The reality is that only 10% of migrants arriving in France have a work contract. So, out of 500,000 people who enter each year, only 50,000 contribute legally.

Q. It is not their fault, but the fault of the system that should integrate them.

A. It is the fault of those who accept them, but these people cannot solve the problems of our country. In fact, they considerably aggravate all our social systems because they weigh on our system, on our schools, on healthcare, on the fact that we take care of them, on housing. The weight is too great and France is going through considerable difficulties. We must stop this immigration and make more children. All this is a process that must be reversed, because if not, obviously, we will be condemned to a slow death.

Q. That sounds like the theories of ethnic substitution, of the Great Replacement.

A. Not at all. The problem is that the entire history of the world is a history of demographics. If Europe stops having children, there will only be old people, while Africa has very high fertility rates. At some point, demographic pressure will be felt.

Q. Would you continue sending weapons to Ukraine?

A. This war will end. I said it from the beginning, Ukraine could not win this conflict. We pushed it to continue a war that turned into a real massacre of soldiers and civilians. The only way for Ukraine to win was for NATO to intervene, and that would have been World War III. I think Donald Trump will sit Putin and Zelenskiy at the table and there will be a diplomatic solution.

Trump will sit Putin and Zelenskiy at the table and there will be a diplomatic solution”

Q. Does Trump’s return to the White House seem like good news to you then?

A. Maybe if I were an American. But we are going to have to suffer the consequences of his defending the interests of his country. I cannot blame him, but I know that they may come into conflict with those of France, which does not even have control over its own trade policy and, in fact, depends on the EU to defend its economic interests.

Q. Is Putin a danger to Europe’s security?

A. I don’t think he has the ambitions or the means to conquer Europe, as is sometimes said.

Q. You have said he was a great statesman. How do you judge him now?

A. A few years ago, when France was trying to re-establish relations with Russia, I said that we should not underestimate Putin. Russia in the 1990s was devastated by Yeltsin’s plundering, and he managed to restore it to an important role on the world stage.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition