Marine Le Pen verdict: the implications for Europe?

Having the voters' support doesn't give anyone licence to bend the rules, Večernji list insists:

“The theory that support at the polls automatically exonerates a politician for breaking the law is simply wrong, because it leads nowhere. However, in the current era of populism, Trumpism and modern nationalism this theory is apparently very tempting. That's why so many people are going along with the story that Marine Le Pen is genuinely the victim of a political and judicial conspiracy. ... But just as in a democracy voters can elect almost anyone they choose, it's also true that no one is above the law, and that prosecutors can follow the evidence to wherever it leads them, without fear of repercussions. Even if it leads them to a high-ranking politician.”

This battle isn't over yet, Politiken writes:

“There is no evidence that either the prosecution's indictment or the court's decision were politically motivated. Nevertheless, the verdict may well be seen by Le Pen's supporters as precisely that. Donald Trump is an example of how purported judicial martyrdom can promote election victories later on. Marine Le Pen's conviction may well be the death knell for her. Let's hope so - for the sake of both France and Europe as a whole. ... But as elsewhere, the far right in France must ultimately be defeated politically and at the ballot box - not in the courtrooms.”

Tvnet comments:

“Le Pen's forced retirement from politics comes at a time when far-right forces are gaining ground across Europe, both in the polls and in political discourse. The RN's transformation over the last decade into an 'acceptable' conservative alternative has served as a model for similar parties – from Vox in Spain to the AfD in Germany and the FPÖ in Austria. This is why this verdict will resonate beyond the borders of France: it sends a signal that normalisation does not guarantee immunity. At the same time, the court's decision could also strengthen populist rhetoric in sectors where, as in France, disillusionment with the political elite and the judiciary is growing.”

The verdict against Marine Le Pen could set a dangerous process in motion, warns European Pravda:

“Marine Le Pen had gone to great lengths to rid the RN of its image as a party of toxic radicals, also for example by adjusting its positions on Ukraine and Russia. This was the only way she could hope to win the presidential elections. But now the strategy could change and radicalisation with the promise to 'tear down' the entire current political system could make a victory seem more likely. This would be a path that appears extremely dangerous for France itself, as well as for Europe and especially for Ukraine.”

The verdict brings some fundamental problems to light, Svenska Dagbladet writes:

“According to the EU's statutes, assistants are employed not by the MEPs but by the European Parliament as an institution. So they're not allowed to write a speech that has nothing to do with the affairs of parliament, for example. In practice, however, that's not how things work, regardless of which party we're dealing with. ... Against this backdrop, the judgement seems both a little odd and disproportionately harsh. ... In terms of legislation, yes, the judgement is possibly correct. But when the legislation itself lacks legitimacy and its enforcement has such enormous consequences, equality before the law risks undermining the democratic system rather than strengthening it.”

The sentence is fair, finds The Guardian:

“The law was clear, and so was the court in its sentencing: no special treatment for Marine Le Pen, no deference to the powerful, no using a candidacy for office as an excuse to break the law with impunity. ... The far right has to be made to face its contradictions. It tells voters that the government is full of corrupt elites, or that immigrants are stealing social benefits - yet here are Le Pen and 24 other members of RN, convicted of the massive fraudulent use of public funds. It demands harsher sentencing from courts, and then plays the victim when it is handed harsh sentences.”

The judgement is legally sound but tactically unwise, Les Echos comments:

“The court has every right to hand down this judgement. But did it really have to rule that the ineligibility should take immediate effect? It had some leeway. This sentence will fuel the resentment felt by millions of French people towards the judicial system, even if it is unfounded, and add to suspicions that the judges intentionally eliminated the Rassemblement national's candidate. ... Beyond that, this development allows us to measure the contours of the international alliance of conservatives and the new geopolitics that is challenging liberal democracies. The Kremlin, Viktor Orbán, Elon Musk and Matteo Salvini were among the first to offer Marine Le Pen their support.”

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung is not writing off the National Rally:

“Le Pen herself knows that talk of 'political death' is exaggerated. She is 'only' 56 years old, and the party now has a different financial basis than it did ten years ago. And in recent years she has built up a potential replacement candidate in Jordan Bardella, over whom she has so far had considerable influence and who is also well received by the population. He will reinforce the narrative of fighting for the people against a political elite. This will tend to strengthen the party's popularity.”

In the eyes of French voters Le Pen's likely successor Jordan Bardella will be a weaker candidate, writes Tygodnik Powszechny:

“Despite Bardella's great popularity on social media, it's by no means certain that he can rally as much support as Le Pen. The question is whether the French, in an extremely uncertain geopolitical situation, will be willing to hand over the supreme decision-making authority in their country – including the ability to deploy French nuclear weapons – to someone who has almost no political experience and has been dubbed 'Le Tik-Tok king'.”

Corriere del Ticino takes a look at who is criticising the sentence as undemocratic and draws its conclusions:

“The fact that critics of the French judiciary and the alleged violation of democratic rules include people such as Kremlin spokesman Peskov, a representative of a dictatorial regime, and the Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán, who introduced a media gag law in his country in 2010, says a lot about the credibility of those who would like to give the French judicial authorities lessons in democracy.”

Le Pen is not the only one to divert EU funds, writes Krystian Szkwarek, columnist and former liaison officer for the far-right European Conservatives and Reformists Group, in Trud:

“It's about EU funds that were used to pay the salaries of MEPs' staff. According to the indictment, the people in question worked not only for the parliament but also for Le Pen's party. ... As someone who has officially worked for the European Parliament and has first-hand experience of its practices, I can say with a clear conscience that the above-mentioned practices are absolutely widespread. The diversion of EU funds by MEPs to cover the needs of their [national] parties is a common practice among all political families, groups and parties in the EU Parliament.”