At 6:30 p.m. on Monday, September 28, the municipal council of Strasbourg had already been in session for four and a half hours. The elected officials were discussing the city's financial audit and budgetary changes. After a long discussion on the accounts and budgetary trajectory, the agenda moved to the internal regulations of the municipal council, a document meant to set the rules for the next six years, including speaking time and rights granted to opposition groups. Jean-Philippe Vetter, president of the right-wing group Les Républicains, took the floor and requested a suspension of the session to allow opposition groups to review the text and consult. The suspension ended up lasting more than an hour and a half, as the opposition sought a longer delay. The new regulation reduces several rights of the opposition, such as limiting the second round of speech to three minutes and restricting the time for additional texts. It also removes the possibility of submitting municipal resolutions, which previously allowed groups to propose concrete ideas related to the city's responsibilities and put them to a vote. When the session resumed at 8:03 p.m., the opposition proposed an amendment to restore some of these rights, including two hours and 30 minutes for additional texts and the ability to submit a resolution per group and per year. They also requested more time for oral questions. Jean-Philippe Vetter stated he would support the amendment if it preserved the essential elements. Jeanne Barseghian announced that the four elected ecologists would support the amendment, as would Florian Kobryn for the four elected members of La France insoumise. However, Catherine Trautmann, the mayor, argued that the amendment was not submitted in time and could only be presented by herself. She raised a contentious question: would the opposition vote for the internal regulations if the majority committed to voting the amendment? This led to a tense discussion, with the opposition questioning why they should commit to voting for the regulation before knowing if the majority would accept their changes. Jeanne Barseghian criticized the majority for what she called a "pusillanimous" dialogue and emphasized the importance of democratic debate and political diversity. She argued that even with the amendment, the new regulation still represented a setback for minority rights. Catherine Trautmann, on the other hand, defended the concessions already made, including increased time for additional texts and the reintroduction of a second round of speech. She also refused to make further changes, citing concerns about the length of council meetings. The amendment was ultimately rejected by the majority, and the internal regulation was adopted with 45 votes in favor and 20 against. Jeanne Barseghian described the decision as an "unprecedented democratic regression" and accused the majority of wanting to control and muzzle the opposition. She announced that the opposition would leave the assembly, and the benches gradually emptied. The session continued without opposition members, leading to a calmer and faster conclusion. The majority had aimed for shorter debates and more work in committees, and their goal was achieved, with the end of the session marked by a noticeable absence of opposition and debate.