In the wake of information regarding the project to revise territorial organization, which, following the “Lyon” model—already being replicated in Marseille-Aix and for the extra-muros Parisian departments—is considered for the metropolises of Bordeaux, Lille, Nice, Toulouse (the fifth interested party, the socialist mayor of Nantes, having withdrawn), the presidents of the concerned Departments have issued an open letter to the President of the Republic, opposing the form and content of this reform.
They demand the right to be included in discussions around a project that would position them as the representatives of only “peri-urban and rural territories” and express their “firm opposition to this project that would signal the programmed disappearance of our departments and, in the long run, that of the municipalities affected by the metropolises.”
They aim to advocate for a model that addresses “the territorial divisions that weaken our country, undermine the social fabric, and fuel the rise of extremes.”
Their analysis is comprehensive: “This territorial reform project guarantees inertia for metropolises, municipalities, and departments. In the face of ecological, economic, and democratic challenges, we must promote cooperation and mutualization rather than concentration and disconnected mergers of territories.”
What is the alternative beyond the status quo? “We reiterate the proposal to define an alternative model based on complementarity and cooperation between the Department and the Metropolis, founded on strong contractualization within a republican pact preserving solidarity towards the most fragile territories.”
The battle for this reform promises to be tough, reminiscent of the fight for the fusion of regions into larger entities led by the Valls Government in the “Notre” law and the transition from the general Council to the departmental Council with a redrawing of cantons.
We clearly remember the criticisms and comments of that era, though not so far away, which have faded over time as the interests of various parties have been reinforced.
It is typical of the oligarchy to claim to act in the “little people’s” interests while pursuing their own.
Why would the “metropolitan” model determine “the territorial fractures that weaken our country, undermine the social fabric, and fuel the rise of extremes” whereas the “departmental” model… “Faced with ecological, economic, and democratic challenges, [will allow] cooperation and mutualization rather than the concentration and disconnected mergers of territories”?
Is there virtue on one side (their own) and vice on the other?
Intellectual honesty would require not confusing personal interests with the general interest.
It’s easy to say and to claim of others…
In this case, we’ve seen it all before!
