The strugge of Notre-Dame-des-Landes face the consultation

Soon after the extremely strong and continuously increasing mobilisations of December, January and February 2016 against the planned evictions, the government attempted a strategy : on one hand, they announced a study on alternative solutions to the construction of a new airport, on the other they introduced a referendum on the project of an airport in Notre Dame des Landes, which was soon renamed a « consultation ».

At that same moment, the inhabitants of the ZAD all became evictionable, and companies have granted the pitch for the building site. On the 27th of February, we have proved on the field that this tale did not damage our determination in the slightest. The actions that are to come will show more than ever that our demands remain intact : no to the evictions ! No to the constructions ! No to the airport !

Without going into technical details of the eventual consultation, let us ask a few crucial inquiries.

The State is judge and party at the same time

It is simulteously carrying the airport project and organising the consultation. The same people who have been at the head of the transfer project for 15 years would be determinating the composition of the question and the perimeter of said consultation, depending on a study that has already been made on the subject. On one side we are told it is a « State project », on another, a local consultation is proposed. In Bure, it is with that same argument that the nuclear garbage can-wielding opposing party of the ANDRA were refused a local referendum. How can we not observe that the consultation and its composition were dictated according to the needs of the people carrying the project ?

These project-carriers have money at their disposal and institutions to lead their campaign. How can we trust them when just yesterday, the barely-elected regional council spent 60 000€ for a forged petition (1) demanding the eviction of the [ZAD] ?

For years, they have been refusing the communication of essential documents, including those which served at the core of the Declaration of Public Utility, and they have also hid a study which revealed that the pseudo-ecological argument on the Grand-Lieu lake from us, among others. How can we trust them when they have constantly used their power to hide information that did not fit their narrative ?

How can we trust them when Valls himself announced that the consultation’s objective was to legitimize the beginning of the construction ?

We’ve observed in 2005 with the referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty that when the People vote badly, we are ignored.

Basing oneself on the Rule of Law or wielding it according to the opportunities

What legitimacy do the procedures linked to the Declaration of Public Utility (public debate, surveys, etc) that we’ve for that matter been denouncing the deficiencies for a while have, that would be swept under the rug with a swift ruling out by a purely consultative ballot, and without any legal worth ? A plea to the Administrative Court of Appeal concerns compensation mesures that are incompatible with the law on water and on the one proctecting endangered species. A dispute which was initiated by the European Commission is still running. Eviction procedures were lead to their end against the inhabitants and countrymen of the ZAD. A call for tenders has already been made to further the construction. What kind of collision will take place between the juridicial decisions of the instances and the results of the eventual consultation ? What then will become of the famous « rule of law » that the project-carriers constantly refer to ?

Our legitimacy is not present.

If the project was to be carried out, these nourishing grounds would be sacrificed and public money would be wasted for a threatening public project. The environment-protecting laws would be undoubtebly null and void, with humid zones and biodiversity ending up ravaged. All these experiments conducted on the ZAD , all that was ever built on it, would be crushed in the name of profit and a development model that we refuse. A yes or a no on the airport would not express our demands for other choices for society !

The announcement of the consultation changes nothing, not the legitimacy of our fight, or our determination to see the definitive withdrawal of the project of Notre Dame des Landes.

For the prosperity of the ZAD, their countrymen, inhabitants and occupants.