Macron’s ‘New European Paradigm’ is the Same Old Technocratic Rhetoric

In an attempt to rejuvenate his flagging campaign and jostle his supporters out of the doldrums, Emmanuel Macron gave a programmatic speech on Europe at the Sorbonne on Thursday, April 25th. He aimed to embody a vision and ambition, but the exercise met with moderate enthusiasm both in France and abroad.

The choice of venue was a nod to another speech on Europe, held on the same premises seven years ago, when Macron had just been elected president of the Republic for the first time. But the tone was completely different. Back then, he was enthusiastic and hopeful. This time, he preferred to play a dramatic tune, speaking of a “mortal” Europe. According to him, Europe―faced with crucial decisions―is threatened with extinction by a lack of ambitious choices. 

The refrain is familiar: Europe must make “fundamental choices as a matter of urgency in the face of war, the rise of artificial intelligence, the attack on our values and global warming.” Don’t expect, of course, any kind of revelations in terms of loss of identity, demographic crisis, or economic decline. 

The enemies were clearly identified: “uninhibited powers”—in other words, China—but also “American disinterest.” Macron’s ‘Bidenomania,’ which was still alive and well a few months ago, has long since subsided. 

Faced with this apocalyptic-looking situation, Macron naturally had a number of solutions to propose, and used his usual disembodied technocratic rhetoric to put them forward. The French president called for “a new European paradigm” based on “power, prosperity and humanism.”

He made a few concrete proposals, for example in the area of defence, putting forward a “credible” project for defending the European continent, “beyond NATO”―a role which Europe would assume “alone if necessary.” It’s not certain that this voluntarist declaration of independence is to the taste of all member states. The whole thing would be based on a “European military academy”, “cybersecurity and cyberdefence” programs, and European industrial programs financed by “joint loans.”

Macron also took a stance on the divisive and long-awaited issue of immigration and border control, calling on Europe to “regain full, complete control of its borders and assume responsibility for them.” To this end, he proposed the creation of a “political structure” to deal with migration, security, the fight against organized crime and terrorism, without specifying its scope or mode of operation. 

Speaking in a linguistic coquetry of personalities who often struggle to give meaning to their political action, Macron made one emphatic enumeration after another. A prime example is when he commented on what, for him, Europe’s future budgetary policy should be: “a joint investment shock, a major budgetary investment plan,” mixing up defence, artificial intelligence and decarbonization for ecological good measure.

In Germany, a certain skepticism has greeted Macron’s declarations—far from the enthusiasm aroused by his speech seven years ago. Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, greeted his French counterpart’s speech with a deliberately vague post on X: “Both France and Germany want Europe to remain strong. Emmanuel Macron’s speech contains good impulses. Together, we will move Europe forward, politically and economically. For a sovereign and innovative Europe. Vive l’Europe!” (those words in French). The German press remained circumspect—a few days ago, Die Zeit was asking whether Macron was a “chaotic or strategic” president. To ask the question, in this case, is to answer it.

It’s always about moving forward, but the destination is as vague and soulless as ever. Macron’s speech came at the same time as the opening of the CPAC event in Budapest, which gave Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the opportunity to present a different vision of Europe, one in which Hungary would figure as a blissful island of conservatism. Macron preferred to end his speech with a dig at Orban’s supporters, whom he likens to supporters of the Rassemblement National (RN). He accused them of wanting to stay in the European “building” without “paying the rent” or respecting the “rules of co-ownership”—a resolute signal of hostility to the line, now defended by Jordan Bardella and Marion Maréchal alike, that it is possible to change Europe from within without slamming the door. 

In conclusion, Emmanuel Macron’s speech was long, abstract and terribly technocratic, as is his wont, proving, if proof were needed, that the Europe he defends has long since lost touch with the people—a people he only mentioned twice during his almost two-hour logorrhea. 

Macron certainly presented his vision of Europe, but above all he campaigned for his party, Renaissance, which is struggling and lagging behind in the polls, almost ten points behind the list led by Jordan Bardella for the RN. “Europe is threatened with death. Europe is us. If you want to save it, you know what you have to do on June 9th. Politics is sometimes simple,” according to the editorialists of the centrist magazine L’Express with irony. A little too simple.

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/macrons-new-european-paradigm-is-same-old-technocratic-rhetoric

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *