{"id":2248,"date":"2026-11-03T16:46:44","date_gmt":"2026-11-03T15:46:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.yes.bzh\/?p=2248"},"modified":"2026-11-03T16:46:45","modified_gmt":"2026-11-03T15:46:45","slug":"corsican-autonomy-rejected-by-the-senate-of-brittany","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.yes.bzh\/en\/corsican-autonomy-rejected-by-the-senate-of-brittany\/","title":{"rendered":"Corsican autonomy: a chronicle of an announced rejection"},"content":{"rendered":"

The rejection of Project for Corsican autonomy<\/a><\/strong> by the Senate, on October 26, 2026, exceeds the sole island dossier.
For those who want to give Brittany the means to decide more about its future, he imposes a strategic reflection: how to transform an aspiration into a political reality when the national institutions retain all the keys to change?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lock therefore precedes the Congress itself.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The result is now known: after its adoption in the National Assembly on June 23, by 271 votes to 202, the draft constitutional law was rejected in the Senate by 181 votes to 134. A first parliamentary victory therefore did not constitute a guarantee of success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The difficulty was indeed inherent in the procedure.
A constitutional revision must first be voted on in the same terms by the National Assembly and the Senate. For a government project, it can then be approved by referendum or, by decision of the President of the Republic, by the Congress, with a majority of three-fifths of the votes cast.
The National Assembly cannot impose its final word on the Senate.
The lock therefore precedes the Congress itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In these circumstances, embarking on such a reform without having sufficiently consolidated its support in both chambers would have exposed it to a predictable failure.
To claim that it was absolutely certain from the very start would be excessive: politics involves negotiations and twists and turns. But the gap between the hope engendered and the strength of the parliamentary path deserves to be questioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Brittany, another clarification is necessary.
This project concerned exclusively Corsica. The new constitutional article envisaged was expressly dedicated to it, with references to its insular, mountainous, historical, linguistic and cultural characteristics. It did not open any automatic right to Breton autonomy. A political precedent could have been useful; a legally applicable provision directly applicable to Brittany, certainly not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Above all, to confine autonomy, especially within a geographical exception, leads to evading the fundamental democratic question: why should a population not have more responsibilities to meet its needs?
The sea constitutes a particularity. It cannot be the universal prerequisite for the right to decide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it would be unfair to forget that the Corsican approach was also based on local will: the compromise had been approved by a large majority by the Corsican Assembly.
Failure therefore reveals a deeper difficulty: even a strong territorial expression can encounter resistance from the national institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Corsica and Brittany: autonomy is built through devolution<\/a><\/blockquote>