"Monsieur Léaument, c'est Robespierre de Wish, il se croit en 1789" (Matthieu Valet)

This Europe 1 segment is a long political interview with Matthieu Valet, described by the host as an MEP and spokesperson for the Rassemblement national, with a repeated focus on public order, police protection, and institutional conflict. The discussion opens on violent clashes in Paris ahead of the Coupe de France final, where Valet argues that the people involved are not supporters but criminals and hooligans. He backs the cancellation of fan zones, says the state should deploy more specialized police and gendarmerie units, helicopters, armored vehicles, and recalled officers, and insists that the priority should be protecting honest supporters and public property rather than allowing violent groups to dominate the event. The interview then shifts to the Conseil constitutionnel and the cancellation of the abolition of low-emission zones (ZFE). …

1. Valet’s core message is that public order failures around football and street violence require a much stronger security response.
2. He treats the Conseil constitutionnel as a recurring obstacle to laws he considers protective, especially on immigration and ZFE.
3. He argues ZFE are socially unfair and should be replaced by less punitive environmental policy.
4. He defends specialized police deployment, saying the state should mobilize every available unit during high-risk events.
5. He criticizes Macron-era nominations as cronyism, while insisting the RN would appoint competent people from any background.
6. He portrays police as insufficiently protected by the justice system and argues aggressors face too little punishment.

• Valet offers strong opinions on policing and judicial leniency but little concrete evidence beyond anecdotes and broad claims.
• He treats the Conseil constitutionnel as repeatedly overriding the will of the people, but does not engage with the constitutional rationale or safeguards behind its rulings.
• His claim that fan zones are inherently ineffective is asserted rather than demonstrated with comparative evidence.
• He links ZFE to social exclusion but does not quantify the pollution or health trade-off versus the distributional costs.
• He frames police testimony as broadly reliable and complaints as tactical, but does not address documented cases where police conduct is disputed or sanctioned.
• His solution set is mostly more force and more deployment; there is little discussion of operational limits, proportionality, or civil-liberty costs.