
The French Right will survive the banning of Marine Le Pen
Marine Le Pen, hitherto the favourite to succeed Emmanuel Macron as French President, has been barred from standing for public office for five years with immediate effect after being found guilty of embezzlement to fund her party. For French politics, this is an earthquake.
Her angry reaction – storming out of court before the end of the two-hour judgement – indicates that the sentence is a devastating blow to the leader of the National Rally, who has been leading the polls for the 2027 presidential election. Although she will appeal, her candidacy is effectively over.
There will be a widespread sense of injustice across France – not only on the Right, but also on the far-Left, which is equally hostile to unelected judges meddling in politics. Jordan Bardella, her deputy in the National Rally, declared that, while Le Pen had been 'unjustly condemned, it is French democracy that has been executed'. Many will dismiss the trial and verdict as an establishment stitch-up – although two former presidents, Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, have been convicted of corruption, which is endemic in French politics.
Yet the gravity of the offence and what the judges called the 'cynicism' of Le Pen, who masterminded the systematic embezzlement of €4 million of EU taxpayers' money, left the court little choice but to impose the harshest penalty available. Her two-year jail sentence has been suspended pending appeal, but the lengthy judgement, solidly grounded in legal argument, will be difficult to overturn.
Marine Le Pen has worked hard to detoxify the movement she inherited from her father Jean Marie – an anti-Semite who championed Pétain and the Vichy tradition. She has been winning the battle of ideas, too: her hardline policies on migration and Islam are now government policy.
After the family psychodrama of Marine Le Pen kicking her father out of the party, while seeing off a challenge from her own niece, this trial may be the dénouement. Is this the end of the Le Pen clan's grip on the French Right, which has endured for over half a century?
Still, Le Pen is nothing if not a fighter. At 56, she is certainly not ready to abandon what she sees as her destiny to lead France. She will draw strength from the example of the septuagenarian Donald Trump, who used his courtroom convictions to present himself as a victim of the 'deep state'.
Waiting in the wings to replace Le Pen is Bardella, the 29-year-old dauphin of the National Rally. He has been slavishly loyal to her so far, but she admits that he is ready to step into her shoes.
Bardella recently published a bestselling memoir of growing up in an urban slum. Given his youth, there are bound to be doubts about his ability to win the presidential election, but unless the verdict can be overturned the National Rally has little choice but to elevate the dauphin to the throne.
The party's platform for 2027 envisaged Le Pen standing as President and appointing Bardella as her Prime Minister. The irony is that her long march through the institutions may now end in curtains for Marine Le Pen – but with the son of immigrants installed in the Élysée Palace.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Courage on the seas, silence on our shores over Gaza
Scottish Green Party co-leader Lorna Slater In the early hours of yesterday morning, the world witnessed yet another brazen violation of international law by the Israeli government. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Madleen, a UK-flagged humanitarian aid vessel, was intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters while en route to Gaza. Aboard were 12 peace activists, including high-profile figures such as climate activist Greta Thunberg, Irish actor Liam Cunningham and French MEP Rima Hassan. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This ship was not a threat, Israel knew that before it had even left port. It carried no weapons, only vital humanitarian supplies - food, water and medicine for the besieged people of Gaza. Greta Thunberg with part of the crew of the ship Madleen Yet, despite the clear protections of international maritime law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israeli forces boarded and seized the vessel in a violent, nighttime raid. Let us be clear, this was not just an attack on a ship. It was an attack on humanitarian principles, on international law and on the right of civilians to live free from siege and starvation. It was an attempt to silence the growing global demand for justice and dignity for Palestinians. Scotland and indeed the UK, cannot look away. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The presence of global figures like Thunberg and Cunningham on the Madleen highlights the international scale of concern over the continued blockade of Gaza and is putting the strongest of spotlights on Israel's actions facilitating arguably the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. We must not allow the UK Government's silence to imply consent. Successive governments have remained complicit in the face of clear war crimes, continuing to arm and support the Israeli regime while turning their backs on the victims of its actions. With a UK vessel now seized and its passengers detained, the Labour government's refusal to speak out is both shameful and dangerous. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We cannot claim to stand for peace, human rights and the rule of law while funding, arming and enabling a regime that so flagrantly violates all three. We must demand action. The blockade of Gaza must end. The UK must halt all arms sales to Israel, suspend military cooperation and stand on the side of humanity. The Madleen's mission was to shine a light on the suffering of Gaza and the complicity of the international community in its ongoing tragedy. That light is now brighter than ever. What happens next will show whether the world is willing to act or merely watch. Lorna Slater, Scottish Green party co-leader


Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
How a Luxembourg village divided Europe
I am in the most EU-ish bedroom in the EU. That is to say, I am lying in a refurbished room in the handsome 14th-century Chateau de Schengen, in the little village of Schengen, Luxembourg. From my casements, opened wide onto the sunny Saarland afternoon, I can see the exact stretch of the river Moselle where, on a boat floating between Germany, France and Luxembourg, the Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985. This was the agreement that sealed Free Movement as Europe's defining ideal – one whose consequences are still unfolding. I've been in Luxembourg for a week, on assignment, and this week has given me an insight into why the nations of the EU undertook their bold, remarkable experiment of no more borders. The first and obvious motivator was war. Luxembourg can look oddly new, or newish. Ancient-sounding villages are full of blocky 1960s houses. Supposedly medieval churches are clearly modern, lacking the rich patina of age. This is because they were all flattened in war – especially the last German offensive of the second world war, the Battle of the Bulge – which raged across snowbound Luxembourg from December 1944 to January 1945. As a result, much had to be rebuilt or heavily restored. Reviving international trust took even longer, as the war here was brutal. In little towns like Diekirch, teenage Nazi conscripts casually gunned down innocent civilians in the streets. The angered Allies felt no huge need thereafter to take German prisoners alive. The yearning to overcome this evil trauma – and reconcile – was one big driver of the EEC, which reached its frontierless, post-national apotheosis here in Schengen. But another was sheer practicality. Yesterday, my local guide, Anna, told me how she once had to show her passport every day to cross the Moselle to and from Germany. She can remember the queues and frustration. She recalls a crimped, claustrophobic Europe – like an office with too many cubicles. Nowadays the quaint old customs houses have been turned into tourist bureaux or posh chocolatiers, and everyone breezes between countries with total freedom. The other day I drove a meandering route through the rustling green winelands and must have crossed between Lux and DE half a dozen times, barely noticing. At its best, Schengen is indeed wonderful. But there's the geopolitical rub. Schengen at its Platonic best is magnificent. In practice, it may be turning into a tragic failure. A primary reason is migration – not within Europe, but without. To illustrate my point, Anna told me another story of Luxembourg. She explained how, in the 1970s, the now-prospering little Duchy required workers. As she put it, with bracing candour: 'We chose the Portuguese because they were poor and wanted the work, but also because they are European, Christian, Catholic, like us. We felt they would assimilate.' And so they have. You can see unexpectedly good selections of Douro wines in Luxembourg supermarkets. Otherwise, the 15 per cent of the population that is Portuguese is barely discernible. Schengen might, perhaps, be in much less trouble if every other country had followed those careful Luxembourg policies. But they didn't. France drew people from its old empire – Algeria, Morocco, sub-Saharan Africa. Germany imported millions of Turks, then another million Syrians under Merkel's idealistic Willkommen policy of 2015. Britain turned to the Caribbean, then Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Combining open internal borders with sovereign external migration policies – inviting millions from far outside Europe – was, in retrospect, bound to create a problem. It's like a flat share where everyone agrees to leave their doors open and split the rent, but each person gets to invite their own guests, who then stay forever, use the bathroom, and host loud parties. Irritation is guaranteed. Some housemates will get seriously annoyed. Take, for example, the Somali migrant population in Holland. Tens of thousands of them moved to the UK under Free Movement. The UK could do nothing to stop this – as Britons duly noted. This is one example of how Free Movement, which peaked with Schengen, led quite directly to Brexit. It was perhaps sheer bad luck that Schengen coincided with one of the most ill-conceived experiments of recent times: multiculturalism plus mass immigration. Or maybe it wasn't coincidence, and they derive from the same well-meaning, liberal universalism – only this time taken too far. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real Whatever the case, as I write this in my room in the Chateau de Schengen, I can also read the daily and unhappy news that springs from Europe's mass immigration experience: of riots and deaths in France following the football victory of Paris Saint-Germain; of another call for an inquiry into rape gangs in the UK; of a hard-right Polish politician becoming president, vowing to keep Poland migrant-free; of once-peaceful Sweden – now 'the bombing capital of the West'. Or I can read about de facto blasphemy laws in Britain and Denmark, introduced to placate militant Islam. And I can read of endless terror shifting across Europe untracked, leading even mainstream politicians in Germany, Austria, Italy to argue for the suspension of Schengen. Yes, of course there are multiple good, successful stories of integration and assimilation across Europe. But for many Europeans, judging by the remarkable electoral shift to the hard right, the good is now majorly outweighed by the bad. Is there any hope for that faded but shimmering Schengen ideal of a borderless Europe? I'd like to think so. Frontiers are intrinsically sad – divisions within humanity made all too real – even if Robert Frost knew what he was talking about when he said 'good fences make good neighbours'. The day is closing here in the Chateau de Schengen, and the summer sun sets lazily over the Auxerrois vines. They have a nice restaurant in the hotel, which has a classic French menu. I want to eat French food in Luxembourg while looking at Germany. It feels Schengen-y. But as the waitress brings my tranche de foie gras maison, the capricious Luxemburg weather turns. It's been in the forecast for a while – now it has arrived: a cold wind from the Ardennes is sweeping down the Moselle valley. The rain lashes the ancient gardens, and the waiters drift toward the windows, watching as the parasols surrender to the storm.


Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Four European countries 'outraged' over new airline luggage rules passed by EU
Last week, the Council of Europe made two major decisions on the future of commercial air travel. The first was on compensation rights, and the second related to free hand luggage Four European countries are outraged at new rules that could limit how much delayed passengers can claim in compensation and when airlines can charge passengers for carrying hand luggage. Last week, the Council of Europe made two major decisions on the future of commercial air travel. The first was on compensation rights. The Council decided that passengers on short-haul flights would have to be delayed by four hours or more before they could claim compensation, rather than the current three. For long-haul flights, delays will have to be six or more hours. The good news for passengers is that compensation for those delayed on short-haul flights will increase from €250 (£211) to €300. However, compensation for long-haul flights will be cut from €600 to €500. The changes were first tabled 13 years ago and must still be approved by the European Parliament before they become law. The European Consumer Organisation, the BEUC, has argued that the changes will be a huge blow for consumers and deprive 'the majority of passengers from their compensation rights". The BEUC claims that most delays are between two and four hours. While the UK now sets its own compensation rules following Brexit, the changes will impact Brits if they come into force, as it will apply to passengers taking flights with an EU carrier. This means it could affect a passenger travelling to and from an EU country on an EU airline. The second decision relates to baggage allowance. Under the new rules, the concept to free luggage will be limited to 'personal items' that can be placed under the front seat. That will leave other stowed cabin bags exposed to charges. Spain, Germany, Slovenia, and Portugal voted against the changes, warning that they could mean passengers end up paying extra for almost any cabin bag. The Spanish government criticised the new rules as 'too restrictive.' Spain's Minister for Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and the 2030 Agenda, Pablo Bustinduy, described the changes as an 'outrage'. The political agreement, adopted by a qualified majority in the EU Council, was voted against by Spain, Germany, Slovenia and Portugal. Minister Bustinduy argued that the new rules would violate consumer rights and "only strengthen the power and profits of airlines." If the rules are accepted, then Ryanair would have to change its free hand luggage policy. Right now, the budget Irish airline require customers to have a bag no larger than 40x20x25 centimetres, which must fit under the seat in front. Under the new rules, the dimensions will be changed to 40x30x15 centimetres. That means Ryanair would be obliged to allow a bag 10 centimetres wider, but could also reduce the depth currently allowed by 10 centimetres.