At their summer university in Blois, the ecologists declared their love for the Socialists, who fell under their spell.

   They coo like doves before mating. We had known the union of the left at the end of the seventies. Knowing the end of that idyll, it's not presumptuous to predict the end of the current one between the PS and EELV, a sort of marriage of carp and rabbit. And what about the possible concubinage with the communists and the rebels? Fortunately, the latter two have made their disagreement known.

   Socialism is a party of freedom. The other three are totalitarian and oppressive. Antinomic, they will never get along. There are too many differences between them. Moreover, within the Greens themselves, there is constant contestation, and if it is as virulent as that of the few spongy recalcitrants we saw at the origin of the pink party's collapse, it concerns all members of the ecological movement, each with their own solution they would like to see adopted for each of the proposals put forward. How do you expect them to dialogue tomorrow? Unless we set up a perpetual forum open to all discontents, where we spend our time nitpicking rather than making progress.

   In addition to these purely functional criticisms, there are a number of others that are not acceptable to the association. Fundamental principles. As the movement claims, the values of the PS are at the service of human progress in all its dimensions. This means an evolutionary approach based on science, knowledge and respect for all.

   Ecologists only respect their point of view, even if the means to achieve it are cacophonous. Outside their worldview, there is no salvation. It would be tedious to list the abusive and unrealistic demands of a party that claims to govern. Abandoning nuclear power, both civil and military, is a sad example, as is leaving NATO or disarmament. Pacifism is not a relevant vision in a world of violence.

   I'll pass over in silence the aberration of an outdated agricultural policy, agro-ecology, where priority is given to reduced infrastructures, agro-ecology contrary to world needs, more akin to amateur gardening, practised with reason and happiness by rural dwellers, suburbanites or retirees, gardening sufficient for one or two families but totally unsuited to feeding an ever-growing population. Only large-scale agriculture is capable of doing this, with the need to increase the area under cultivation by reducing the number of farms, and to use, as gardeners do in their kitchen gardens, fertilizers and pesticides not so much yield but for the blossoming simple of a plant, rather than its programmed withering away if nothing is done (e.g. cherry trees and beet, which thanks to the ban on inputs are in danger of disappearing, or organic wine, which is perfectly undrinkable). Global competition is such that we'll have to adapt if we want to survive and not depend entirely on external production.

   As for the other points of friction that are bound to arise in the event of an alliance, and which no compromise will be able to smooth over, such as the Republic, the economy, health care, Europe, and other subjects whose approaches differ so that it is unlikely that we will be able to make common cause, following the example of Esperanto, this ecological marotte or evergreen topic on the school syllabus.

   Generally speaking, if you read the party's concerns, some of them are obvious - and I'm not disputing their usefulness - but the constraints envisaged to achieve them, and the application of most of the others, are not only too numerous, but authoritarian and therefore unacceptable.

    Too many obligations lead to the rejection of this new Leviathan.

    Too many differences in a couple are a recipe for divorce.

   It's only natural that the Socialists, totally disorientated after the beating they took in the last presidential elections and the mixed results of the municipal elections, should be looking for haemostatic solutions to this haemorrhage, but for them to join forces with a bunch of illuminati, euphoric after a few fleeting successes in the last municipal elections - who don't know that running an urban community is a hundred leagues away from national imperatives - is a collective suicide comparable to those organized by esoteric sects.

    There are undoubtedly better things to do, if only to propose something other than the systematic contradiction of current government decisions, and hold a responsible discourse, not the totally inaudible gibberish emitted over the last few months by the fluent and atonal voice of the first secretary.