Connect with us

News

Emmanuel Macron gambles on snap French election after Marine Le Pen victory in EU vote

Published

on

Emmanuel Macron gambles on snap French election after Marine Le Pen victory in EU vote

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

President Emmanuel Macron stunned France on Sunday when he called snap parliamentary elections after his centrist alliance was trounced by Marine Le Pen’s far-right movement in a European parliamentary vote.

Exit polls showed the Rassemblement National (RN) secured 31.5 per cent of the vote compared with 14.5 per cent for the French president’s centrist alliance, a stinging blow to Macron. He appeared to have only narrowly avoided a humiliating third place behind the centre-left, which took 14 per cent of the vote.

“For me, who always considers that a united, strong, independent Europe is good for France, this is a situation which I cannot countenance,” he said. “I have decided to give you back the choice of our parliamentary future with a vote.”

Advertisement

The first round of the parliamentary elections will be held in just three weeks, on June 30, with a run-off on July 7.

The dissolution is an extraordinary gamble by the French leader who has already lost his parliamentary majority after winning a second term as president two years ago. His alliance could be crushed, which would force him to appoint a prime minister from another party, such as the centre-right Les Republicains or even the far-right RN, in an arrangement known as a “cohabitation”.

In such a scenario, Macron would be left with little power over domestic affairs with three years left as president.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Macron said he believed a vote was needed to calm the volatile debates in the French parliament and achieve clarity on the direction of the country. Elysée officials said he had been considering it for some time to address gridlock in parliament.

Advertisement

François Bayrou, a centrist politician whose party is in alliance with Macron, said the president was aiming to “end the impasse” in politics by asking voters a simple question of “whether France really recognises itself in the proposals of the far-right”.

Le Pen celebrated the victory and hailed Macron’s response to it. “This shows that when the people vote, the people win,” she said in a victory speech. “I can only salute the president’s decision to call early elections . . . We are ready to exercise power if the French give us their backing.”

RN has 88 seats out of 577 in the National Assembly, making it the biggest opposition party. Macron’s centrist alliance has 249, so has had to cut deals with other parties to further his agenda.

There have been three previous political cohabitations in France — where a president has to share power with a prime minister and government from an opposing party — since the Fifth Republic was founded in 1958.

Alain Duhamel, a veteran political analyst, predicted: “A dissolution means a cohabitation.”

Advertisement
Rassemblement National leader Marine Le Pen and the party’s lead candidate in the European elections Jordan Bardella
Rassemblement National leader Marine Le Pen, left, and the party’s lead candidate in the European elections Jordan Bardella prepare to address supporters on Sunday © Reuters

In addition to the RN’s big win in Sunday’s European elections, another far-right party, Reconquête, was estimated to have won 5.3 per cent of the vote.

The margin of victory could lend huge momentum to Le Pen’s ambition to succeed Macron as president in 2027. The decision to call snap elections was presented by people close to the president as a high-stakes attempt to thwart her advance.

“This is a severe defeat for Macron given that he has been president for seven years and he has long said his goal is to combat the far-right,” said Bruno Cautrès, an academic and pollster at Sciences Po in Paris. 

The loss came after Macron had argued that the future of the EU was at stake because of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, economic competition with the US and China, as well as the need to fight climate change — all topics on which he said the far-right could not be trusted.

Yet the message did not move French voters, who have historically used European elections as protest votes against the incumbent president.

“Given that Emmanuel Macron has sought to position himself as the intellectual leader of Europe, the fact that French voters don’t follow him is problematic for him,” added Cautrès. 

Advertisement

Voting estimates showed the RN’s list, led by the charismatic 28-year-old party chief Jordan Bardella, had won almost as many votes as the combined total of Macron’s alliance, led by a little-known MEP Valerie Hayer, and the traditional parties of the centre-right and centre-left.

“In according more than 30 per cent of their votes to us, the French have delivered their verdict and marked the determination of our country to change the direction of the EU,” said Bardella in a speech from his campaign headquarters. “This is only the beginning.”

The results show the rising popularity of the RN since 2019 when they won 23.3 per cent of the vote in the last European elections, coming in only slightly ahead of Macron’s list which took 22.4 per cent.

Additional reporting by Adrienne Klasa

How will the European parliamentary elections change the EU? Join Ben Hall, Europe editor, and colleagues in Paris, Rome, Brussels and Germany for a subscriber webinar on June 12. Register now and put your questions to our panel at ft.com/euwebinar

Advertisement

News

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

Published

on

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.

The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.

Advertisement

After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.

Continue Reading

News

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

Published

on

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.

Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years. 

Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”

They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010. 

Advertisement

Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze. 

The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.

Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.

Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”

From left, Maurice Pierce, Forrest Welborn, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were exonerated in February 2026 after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the December 1991 killings of four teenage girls in an Austin, Texas, yogurt shop. 

Advertisement

CBS News/AP


Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003. 

Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife. 

Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.” 

Advertisement

“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.

For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.

In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”  

Continue Reading

News

The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center

Published

on

This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending