For the first time since the creation of the large regions in 2016, a text aiming at the resurrection of an Alsace region was examined this Tuesday in the hemicycle by deputies. Several bills were proposed in this direction in recent years but were never selected by the respective political groups for consideration, whether it be the Republicans, the National Rally, or the centrists. It took former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and president of the group Together for the Republic to tackle the issue this fall, probably also with the presidential election in mind, for the text proposed in September by the deputy Renaissance Brigitte Klinkert and co-signed by 97 deputies from six political groups to be put on the agenda.
This bill aims, let’s recall, to transform the current European Collectivity of Alsace (CEA), created in 2021 and which falls under the category of departments, into a collectivity with a special status that would combine the powers of a department and a region. The text initially had a national scope but was refocused on the Alsace case only in the laws committee.
This Tuesday, after setting aside the preliminary motion of rejection, deputies spent several hours debating the future of this text and the project of Alsace’s exit from the Grand Est region. Very often, the Alsatian deputies spoke on behalf of their group.
The left criticizes the method
“This initiative is not an attack on the Grand Est region but strongly advocates the right to differentiation,” summarized the rapporteur of the text, deputy Jean-René Cazeneuve at the opening of the session. Simplify, adapt, differentiate. A pragmatic objective firmly focused on efficiency.” The Minister of Territorial Planning Françoise Gatel announced the launch of a mission to assess the potential impact of such a reform without officially supporting the text.
The left-wing groups were particularly critical, criticizing both the method and the performance of the CEA. “This text is a tool to make the CEA, which is already an unfinished tool, into something stronger, to continue where it doesn’t work, with more resources,” accused Sandra Regol for the Greens.
In a similar tone, his colleague, Emmanuel Fernandes, from the rebellious party stated: “We are not in favor of large regions, but revising the country’s administrative map and the distribution of powers cannot be done in a fragmented manner.” He added: “Don’t be fooled. A sense of belonging is being instrumentalized. Being Alsatian does not depend on an administrative division.”
“Repairing the mistake of 2015”
The socialist Thierry Sother outright stated “refusing to support a separatist text. I do not adhere to this ideology which claims that Alsace would be better off if it were not associated with Lorrainers and Champardenais.”
But for supporters of the text, it is about “repairing the mistake” of 2015 and the merger of Alsace with Lorraine and Champagne Ardennes; as well as simplifying the administrative structure by eliminating a territorial layer. According to the author of the bill Brigitte Klinkert, it is indeed a “text that carries a territorial and democratic ambition. Recognizing a unique territory. Because in 2015, the legislator denied the Alsatian singularity. Since then, the Alsatians have constantly expressed their desire for Alsace. The institutional legitimacy of Alsace is not new.”
“The RN rewrites history”
“This is neither nostalgia nor identity closure, but a more efficient organization,” added his LR colleague, Patrick Hetzel. “The CEA is a first step, now it is about enabling it to exercise the powers of a region and a department.”
The RN and UDR groups also expressed support for the initiative. RN deputy Théo Bernhardt stated, “the RN did not wait for this bill. These ideas, we defended them when no one wanted to hear them.” These statements were challenged by the rapporteur himself accusing the far-right party of “rewriting history.”
The return of Alsace to the National Assembly hemicycle was to continue late into the evening with the examination of amendments, beyond the deadline for our editions.
