Jordan Bardella’s interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) highlights how he transposes his domestic political strategy to the European level. He refrains from harsh wording and sounds vague. The soft-spoken approach however stands in stark contrast with the far-reaching consequences Rassemblement National (RN) European policies would trigger if they were to be implemented. The apparent contradiction showcases a strategic dilemma the party will face during upcoming electoral campaigns.
The RN stands a realistic chance of winning the 2027 presidential elections. While it will probably pass the first round of voting with ease, recent polls suggest the run-off election will be a close tie. Bardella, at this point the likely RN presidential candidate, needs to consolidate his strong starting position and reach out to a wider potential electorate to improve his prospects. His interview with the FAZ shows how he intends to achieve this delicate balancing act.
Avoiding resistance
One of Bardella’s most important messages during the interview was his openness for a dialogue with chancellor Friedrich Merz: he suggested that they weren’t too far apart politically and could find common ground. In order to verify this bold claim, a closer look at the RN’s proposals on European policy is needed. This is no easy undertaking, as the RN wants to sound as harmless as possible, tapping into fresh, more moderate voter groups, by what is commonly referred to as “normalization”. Vagueness helps in achieving this, consequential proposals are formulated in such a way they don’t trigger immediate resistance. At the same time, the RN remains very much dependent on the support of its radical-minded core electorate. To win majorities, the RN needs both voter groups, thereby requiring a messaging cautious enough not to alienate any of them.
Being a system-breaker and a system-preserver simultaneously is a difficult task. Bardella tries to bridge the gap between both worlds with formulations such as: “We want to change everything without destroying anything” when referring to his plans regarding the European Union. Such a hazy catchphrase offers ample room for interpretation. Reminiscent of the RN’s strategy at a national level, it allows others to read it as they wish and nurture the hope of it being in accordance with their own preferences while avoiding hard commitments.
While for example the term ‘Frexit’ is off the table, the dismantling of supranational EU institutions remains an integral part of the RN’s programme. The party plans to downgrade the EU Commission from a guardian of the treaties into a mere secretariate to the Council, stripping it of any decision-making power. Given that one of the Commission’s roles is to ensure compliance with the EU treaties, the RN imagines a world where non-compliance by member states is met with impunity, effectively hollowing out treaties. It comes to no surprise that fundamentally changing the Commission’s role would require to renegotiate the treaties. Assuming all 26 other member states would change their positions on this major issue, the whole process would likely take anywhere between five and ten years to come into effect. Should the RN refrain from going down that road, it would have to abandon that demand or simply leave the EU. What will the RN choose to do?
In contrast, declaring the primacy of national law over EU law, as envisioned in the RN programme and emphasized once more by Bardella during the interview, would be quickly doable. It would however mean no less than an abrupt break with the EU, calling into question the very principles upon which it is built. A European Union where rules agreed upon jointly can be nullified by single national decisions without consequences is one that is genuinely unable to function. While it is possible (albeit difficult) to delimit opt-outs in single policy areas for member states, it is not when it comes to fundamental questions that substantiate the notion of membership. To simply disregard EU law would mean destruction, not change.
Will the RN opt for change, or for destruction? Time will tell. What is apparent however, is that the RN has little appetite for any kind of deeper integration. This stands in clear contradiction to Friedrich Merz’ competitiveness agenda, which entails a deepening of the single market. A blocking of further integration would nevertheless amount to a minor trouble compared to the sweeping consequences of a clear-cut break with EU treaties.
Conflicting statements
This RN’s strategy of not spelling out what its plans amount to has worked astonishingly well in recent years. Neighbouring countries and French voters have positively taken note of the RN abandoning its call for Frexit and mostly not questioned its European programme further. As the party comes closer to power, maintaining this stance and avoiding answers will get increasingly difficult. Discrepancies visible over the course of different publicly expressed messages are already glaring, increasingly so if talking about concrete measure rather than broad principles. The European Central Bank should “remain independent” all while being expected to buy up more French debt to reduce its interest burdens. Bardella addresses Germany in the interview with the FAZ as a key partner; in the subsequent interview with Le Point, he accuses it of always finding a way of getting its will. The flag of Europe is on display in the election manifesto and removed from town halls governed by the RN. The party condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and regularly votes against supporting Ukraine in the European parliament.
Statements on domestic policies follow the same pattern. The French constitutionis hailed as a benchmark of wisdom and put into question as soon as its underlying principles challenge the RN’s key projects. The party calls for a balanced national budget while proposing an ‘counter budget’ in fall 2025 that blatantly falls short of solving the country’s financial deadlock. Most striking is Bardella’s inability to answer the question asked by the FAZ about the legal retirement age he’s aiming for in France, arguably the country’s most discussed political issue, and one with major financial implications.
Bringing together two incompatible worlds
This is precisely where the RN’s strategy fails to deliver: giving clear answers could weaken its electoral base, damage the candidate’s international reputation, unsettle financial markets, and trigger party infighting.
This last point will grow in importance as soon as Marine Le Pen will learn on July 7th if she is forced to let Bardella run for the presidency. This will happen if the court ruling leading to her ineligibility is confirmed, which is likely but not certain. This will put tremendous strain on a party the Le Pen family has dominated since its foundation.
Up until now, the party hierarchy was well defined: Le Pen calls the shots, Bardella falls into line. This close coordination used to be one of the RN’s strengths. Having Bardella running for the presidency would create a new centre of power, disrupt established dynamics and give him the means to challenge existing stances. This is all the more important given that there have been increased public displays of programmatic conflicts already. Take the example of the debate over the taxation of windfall profits in the wake of the Iran war, with Le Pen in favour and Bardella against.
While the two politicians prioritize appealing to different types of voters, they will in the end have to attract both groups. They will have to live on their radical substance while projecting an air of moderation and rationality. Rejecting immigration is something most RN voters can agree on (albeit to different degrees), but that is unlikely to be enough to keep all voters in tow and reach out to others. Giving clear answers is dangerous, but so is staying elusive.
The ensuing dilemma can’t be simply brushed off, but that what extent will it define electoral outcomes? Assuming the RN succeeds in limiting internal strife to tolerable levels, the campaign will decide on its salience. Electoral campaigns should clarify party positions, question their merits and highlight their weaknesses. Media could however just as well neglect this and instead focus on personal gaffes, legal missteps, and conflicts breaking out in other parties. The RN could thus get away with riding from one buzzword to the next, sidestepping a serious debate on substance.
Would that work all the way through two rounds of presidential elections and the two voting rounds to the National Assembly after likely snap elections? While questionable, it would certainly not be impossible.
This policy position was first published on 29 May 2026 as a guest article on dokdoc.eu (in German).
Photo: marianne bos on Unsplash
