[Note: As French people go to the polls today, May 6, in the second and decisive round of the presidential election,

we look at the meaning of the first round of the election in a series of four articles/statements published in Informations Ouvrires (Labor News), the weekly newspaper of the Independent Workers Party (POI) of France. All articles appeared in the April 23-30 issue of the newspaper.] * * * SPECIAL REPORT ON FRANCE -IN THIS MESSAGE: 1) Statement by the Independent Workers Party (POI) After the First Round of the Presidential Election -- Issued at 10 p.m. on April 22, 2012 2) A Massive Vote Against the Consensus: Editorial -- by Daniel Gluckstein, Conational Secretary of the Independent Workers Party (POI) 3) What is the Progression of the National Front, and Why Its Score? -- by Yan Legoff 4) The End of Jean-Luc Melenchon's Campaign -- by Marc Gauquelin ********** 1) STATEMENT BY THE INDEPENDENT WORKERS PARTY (POI) AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION An immense rejection was expressed on 22 April 2012 in this first round of the presidential election, in which almost 80 percent of registered voters refused to vote for President Sarkozy (an unprecedented fact, which deepens the crisis of the institutions of the Fifth Republic). A rejection of this government, its policies, its practices and its "affairs". A rejection that has been brewing for a long time, one which enhances the message delivered in the win for the "No to the Constitutional Treaty" vote on 29 May 2005. A rejection of all the policies imposed over the last twenty years by governments of every political stripe in application of the Maastricht Treaty. Today, 22 April, the vast majority of the population - industrial workers, rural workers, office workers, the youth and the unemployed -- have said: We can no longer stand the poverty and unemployment, we do not want this country to

have imposed on it measures that would lead to every one of our rights suffering the same fate that the Troika [European Union, IMF, European Central Bank] wants to impose on Greece. A majority wish has been asserted through both votes and abstention: "We want to get rid of Sarkozy, but his policies too", expressing what had already been present in the hundreds of strikes and other working class actions that occurred continuously right up to the eve of the election. This is a warning, linked to the movements that are developing strongly today from Greece to Spain, throughout Europe. One demand is being expressed: There is an urgent need to reverse the course of things, to put an end to the dictatorship of the IMF-European Union-ECB Troika which wants to impose policies of privatisation, poverty and unemployment. To put an end to this dictatorship and its directives which forbid the prevention of job-cuts, which bail out the banks to the tune of billions upon billions, and break up the rights and guarantees of the workers and the youth! There is an urgent need to declare null and void the plans dictated by the supranational institutions and to re-establish the peoples' sovereignty over decisions that commit them. This is called democracy. Having won the first round, Franois Hollande is stating his intention to "renegotiate" the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG) signed on 2 March in Brussels by Sarkozy and Merkel. But there is a simple fact that everybody must know: the TSCG Treaty, like any other European treaty, cannot be amended or renegotiated in any way once it has been signed by the other twenty-five heads of state and government. Other documents can be adopted and annexed. But the treaty itself is untouchable: the obligation to write permanent austerity into law (the "Golden Rule") and to cut 80 billion euros of public spending by 2013 (starting with the budgets of the Social Security system and the local authorities), the system of automatic sanctions, the sending of European emissaries tasked with dictating the execution of murderous plans in our country, etc. -- none of this can be modified or renegotiated. The day after the second round of the presidential election, what will the elected President decide on this crucial question? The vast majority of the population have spoken: they aspire to come together in the broadest possible unity to turn back the offensive by finance capital, the offensive by the hedge funds and all sorts of speculators who are trying to dictate their demands to all the peoples of Europe. They do not want a "Super-

Maastricht". Democracy demands that this majority wish is responded to, that the elected President refuse to begin the ratification process: and then, the Treaty will not be ratified and will not be implemented in France, and as a result it will be difficult to impose it on other peoples of Europe. This demand is addressed to all the political forces that claim to stand for the working class and democracy. On 22 April, it is addressed first and foremost to the man who won in the first round of this election, Franois Hollande. Let him give a clear answer to this question facing him, one that determines every area of policy that will be implemented by the new government! Will he do it? Unquestionably, someone won today. But for working people to win, it will not be enough to get rid of the outgoing President, there needs to be a clear break in practice. The central question is indeed that of breaking with the European Union, and as a first step, of not ratifying the Treaty. One cannot avoid noting that this evening of the first round vote, not one candidate has referred to the question of the TSCG. For its part, the Independent Workers Party took the initiative of an appeal against ratification of the Treaty. Over 40,000 workers and youth, activists from every tendency, have already endorsed it. Throughout the country, the number of joint appeals is growing rapidly. Nothing is more urgent than forging unity against ratification of the "Super-Maastricht" Treaty. This is the meaning of the proposal by the Independent Workers Party (POI) to prepare a national demonstration called jointly by all those who oppose ratification. On this evening of the first round vote, we once again launch that appeal: What has been expressed on 22 April is an incentive to bring together workers, youth and organisations on a united basis, all those who want to put an end to the European Union's policy of poverty, unemployment and decay - a wish shared by all the workers and peo- ples of Europe, from Greece to Spain and from Germany to Italy. Paris, 22 April 2012, at 10 p.m. The National Secretaries of the Independent Workers Party: -- Claude Jenet, Daniel Gluckstein, Grard Schivardi, Jean Markun (The POI's National Bureau will meet on 28 April to review the situation.) *****

2) A Massive Vote Against the Consensus Editorial

By DANIEL GLUCKSTEIN Co-national Secretary of the Independent Workers Party (POI) It's been 30 years since the "austerity turn" was inaugurated by the Francois Mitterrand-Pierre Mauroy government (and its PS and PCF ministers). It's a policy that would later be pursued by the government of Mitterrand on the "left" and then his governments of cohabitation with conservatives - first with Jacques Chirac, then Edouard Balladur. In 1992, under the aegis of Mitterrand, with the support of the right, the Maastricht Treaty was signed and ratified. The result: Twenty years of antworker austerity imposed by all the governments, whether they be those of cohabitation (Mitterrand-Balladur or Chirac-Lionel Jospin, which holds the sad record for privatizations) or those of the right. That includes the Chirac government, which suffered the snub in 2005 of a "no" vote by the French people on the proposed treaty for the Constitution of the European Union; a vote subsequently trampled on through the treaty ratification by a majority of the UMP-PS in parliament, under Nicolas Sarkozy. This is what it comes down to: Thirty years of anti-worker consensus, dictated by the European Union, was rejected April 22, placing the country on the edge of an explosive situation. The French people looked around them. They saw the destructive blows brought to Greece and Spain and everywhere else by the Troika [European Union, IMF, European Central Bank]. So, on April 22, they said it is urgent to reverse the course of things and, therefore, to progress toward a break with the past. They said it in their own way, with the most diverse of instruments. And Marine Le Pen's vote total doesn't change this assessment at all. Is the National Front an ultra-reactionary, anti-worker party? No doubt about it. But for those who care, with reason, about its progression, we ask this question: Why did the "left" allow Ms. Le Pen the apparent monopoly on rejecting the consensus and the European Union?

If Francois Hollande and Jean-Luc Melanchon had been truly committed to sweeping away the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties; breaking with the European Central Bank; refusing to pay the debt and to block the available funds for the support of jobs and the prohibition of layoffs ... how well would have Ms. Le Pen fared electorally? Still, Sunday night, mesmerized viewers were present for another consensus: Radio and TV silence on the European Union and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG). All the candidates present circumvented the question. Yet everyone knows that the two candidates for the second round have made a commitment to submit within the next few weeks -- with the agreement of Brussels and its Troika -- a plan of brutal and unprecedented attacks against workers and the youth. Everyone knows that Social Security and the territorial authorities are in the crosshairs. Everyone knows and everyone understands that the April 22 vote was against that. That's why no one talks about it. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso didn't have this reluctance. The day after the election, he issued a call "not to yield." While he recognized "the economic crisis has exacerbated social inequalities," he still concluded, "the proper response is to introduce more Europe." More Europe? That means the TSCG and, therefore, the dictatorship of the Troika, which pillages and destroys everything. The dictatorship of consensus has already driven the country to the edge of misery and forfeiture -- with more than 11 million poor people officially identified, with employment that doesn't stop diving and with, for the first time, indicators that show "healthy aging" dropping. The April 22 vote has the value of a mandate, that of beginning to reverse the course of things; to take a step on the path of rupture with the European Union and its Troika. Simple respect of democracy requires that this will should be respected. It can start with the renunciation of the ratification of the TSCG. Will this be the case? *****

3) What is the Progression of the National Front?

By Yan Legoff The candidate of the National Front (FN), Marine Le Pen, came in third place during the first round of the presidential election, receiving 6.42 million votes, or 17.9 percent of the total number cast. During the first round of the last election in 2007, her father received 3.84 million votes or 10.44 percent of the total cast. However, 2007 was a bad year for the National Front. The candidate of the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), Nicolas Sarkozy, captured a significant part of the National Front's electorate. Let us return to the first round of the 2002 election: Jean-Marie Le Pen came in second position, getting 4.81 million votes or 16.88 percent. To that total, it must be added the 667,000 (2.34 percent) votes received by FN dissident Brunot Megret, bringing the entire vote total of the extreme right to 5.48 million votes or 19.22 percent of those cast. Marine Le Pen, therefore, received a lesser score by 1.32 points. During the second round of the 2002 election, Jean-Marie Le Pen, facing Jacques Chirac, received 5.53 million votes or 17.79 percent of the total cast. The abstention reached 20.29 percent or - within some decimal points- the level reached during the first round last Sunday. Conclusion: If the FN has progressed significantly relative to 2007, it actually found its electoral weight in 2002. With more and with less. The France-Presse Agency paints the following picture: "As usual, they find the best results east of a line that traces between le-Pas-deCalais in the north to the Pyrenees-Orientales in the south (...) The geography of the FN vote is, therefore respected, but the party progresses in western France. Obviously, it's in the countryside that Marine Le Pen wins votes. In Ille-et-Vilaine, the tens of little rural communes gave her scores that ranged from 20 percent to 27 percent (Saint-Ganton), and even 31.5 percent (La Noe-Blanche) (...) It was also in the rural region of Limousin that the FN candidate made the best progress since 2002, going from 10.3 percent to 15.3 percent (...) Finally, it is in the large cities that Marine Le Pen seems to recede relative to 2002. She capped out at 6.2 percent in Paris (12.2 percent in Ile-de-France). In Lyon, she only got 9.8 percent (18.3 percent in Rhone-Alpes)." In the numerous working-class and popular suburbs, the National Front also didn't achieve the scores it achieved in 2002. For example, the party received

13.55 percent of the vote in 2012 in Seine-Saint-Denis, compared to 17.74 percent in 2002. In Vaulx-en-Velin (Rhone), it received 13.83 percent, compared to 21.70 percent in 2002. * * *

What Explains This Score?

It is a fact: The principal candidates in the presidential election refused to respond to anger of the voters, who watched for years as the European Union and successive complicit governments privatized public services, challenged Social Security, and went along with de-industrialization, unemployment and precariousness. In this context, some voters wanted to express themselves in their vote for Marine Le Pen, not so much for her hateful denunciation of immigrants, but for their rejection of the European Union. But who is to blame? Our editorial (by Daniel Gluckstein, see above) returns to this question. We also bring to the debate the reaction - on the French Communist Party (PCF) Internet site - of a PCF activist from Pas-de-Calais the day after the first round: "It should be less tactical and more political (...) It is true that we did a beautiful campaign. However, it is insufficient to obtain the objective, which is to make the left the majority and to make the FN retreat. We can only do that politically, because you can't catch flies with vinegar or by summoning a few voices of the left in the last line of the right. "From this point of view, there are a few positive aspects of the Left Front. Unfortunately, the FN was the only one to defend fighting that is openly anti-EU and anti-euro. Our party has let the Le Pen heir monopolize the theme of national independence, with national borders - notably for commercial trade. "I don't pretend that we are going to arrive at 20 percent quickly and easily. However, as long as the "left of the left" remains happy sticking with the false social-democratic slogan, "social Europe," or "reorientation of the euro," it will never take off, especially in popular circles. In the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, notably in the former coalfield, the FN scores were considerable. We need to move politically. "Yes, we will vote for Francois Hollande - I, myself, will distribute leaflets if it kicks out the other - but without any illusions. And we will quickly change our

program on the points I just outlined. This is the way for us to represent a credible force and a real alternative in the new landscape that will open with the probable victory of the Socialist Party (PS)." We may share, or not share, some of the practical conclusions of the PCF. But we can only approve of his implacable denunciation of "the false slogan of 'social Europe' or of the 'reorientation of the euro.'" * * *

Abstention: Another Form of Rejection

The abstention, although less than forecast by public opinion institutes, reached 20.53 percent, or 4.5 percentage points more than in the first round of the 2007 presidential election. This increase represents more than two million registered voters. This is one of the forms taken of the general rejection expressed in this election. As always, the abstention was particularly high in the cities and the workingclass and popular neighborhoods. In this regard, the fact that abstention in France (without talking about overseas departments and territories) was the highest in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis (26.54 percent) is particularly significant. And this rate was even still higher in certain cities of this department: 31.2 percent in Clichy-sous-Bois, for example. Moreover, such rates are found in cities such as Roubaix in the north (31.4 percent). We could multiply these examples in all the departments. * * *

Serial Siphoning
Nicolas Sarkozy lost 1.69 million votes as compared to 2007. However, this net number masks a crude collapse even more important. Indeed, Francois Bayrou received 6.82 million votes in 2007, compared to 3.28 million today (or 3.54 million fewer votes) - after the "siphoning" of centrists by the UMP over the last five years. It is likely that a significant part of Bayrou's lost votes went to Sarkozy, who, without this support, would have lost even more votes. There were, therefore, a lot more than 1.69 million voters, who having voted for Sarkozy in 2007, did not do so again in 2012. You don't have to look very far for the 2.58 million votes won by the National Front.

*****

4) The End of Jean-Luc Melenchon's Campaign

By Marc Gauquelin It is a question hard not to ask: How does one explain that Jean-Luc Melenchon, who is well aware of the destructive character of Treaty on the Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG) - the "Super-Maastricht - and who, moreover, rightly denounced it in the preceding phase of the campaign, then suddenly soft pedaled the major question of its ratification? These elections have just confirmed the power of rejection by the masses of the policy of "consensus," conducted for the past 30 years - in the name of respect for European Union treaties - by the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) and the Social Party (PS), with the "critical" support of the French Communist Party (PCF). We imagine the disappointment of the activists who still want to believe in the information put out by Le Canard Enchain (April 18). According to this newspaper, Jean-Luc Melenchon would be announcing on the evening of April 22 during a rally organized at Stalingrad Plaza that he would demand from Francois Hollande the holding of a referendum on the European treaty, if Hollande were elected. But Melenchon did not even hint at that in his official statement, following the first round, in which he calls on the French to vote "May 6 - without asking anything in return - to beat (Nicolas) Sarkozy." Why a sudden discretion on this major question? Not one word on the new European treaty Jean-Luc Melenchon himself provided the answer to all these questions in an interview he gave to Echos, Thursday, April 19, two days before the election. "I think," he said, "that Hollande will be obliged to come around to my methods and it will be enough to wait for him. Financial circles will attack him, just as they attacked Sarkozy. There aren't but two solutions: to resist or to capitulate. And I am betting he'll make the choice to resist." A declared admirer of Francois Mitterrand, he claims his political family and his heritage: "Under (former Prime Minister) Lionel Jospin, it was the left of the PS that set the tempo, with 35 hours without loss of salary (...) We had a useful

contribution." Speaking in the journal of finance capital, he said not one word on the TSCG. This is unfortunate, but this is the truth. "Reorganize Europe on new foundations" Melenchon goes right up to the point of defending the European Central Bank (ECB) against the hijacking by finance of the role he would have allegedly fixed: "It's a scandal!" he declared. "The ECB has become a bank of defeasance for the toxic assets of all the banks in the euro zone. Where is that trillion? It wasn't injected into the economy (...), this is unacceptable. In metallurgy, the Union of Metallurgies Industries (UIMM) is reduced to financing the PMEs (small and medium-sized businesses), which cannot find the money from banks. But where is it?" It's difficult to track down. As to the question of what attitude to adopt with respect to the European Union and its institutions, Jean-Luc Melenchon is clear: "Facing a European system that cannot hold, three postures are possible: Blindly defend the austerity plans in saying they will eventually work; leave Europe; or reorganize Europe on new foundations. This third posture is ours." The words have meaning. The "European system" about which he speaks to us, is the European Union, based on precise treaties. "Europe," from which he doesn't want to leave, is the European Union. His "reorganization" is a reform of the European Union. This is what Hollande proposes with his "renegotiation" of the TSCG. Isn't this contradictory to what many had understood from his previous declarations? These are not the "tricks" aspired to by millions of citizens, beginning with the Left Front voters, who have clearly pronounced themselves in favor of a break ... and that all that remains to be done is to impose the solution. This is why the fight for the organization of a national demonstration against the ratification of the TSGC - as unified as possible and inclusive of anyone, despite other differences we may have - immediately takes on decisive importance.