0:00:00 > 0:00:02talks to Andrew Marr about France's relationship with the UK,
0:00:02 > 0:00:08and about Brexit and the future of the EU.
0:00:08 > 0:00:10I'm here at Government House at the Royal Military Academy,
0:00:10 > 0:00:12Sandhurst, outside London, where the French president
0:00:12 > 0:00:14Emmanuel Macron has just been holding talks
0:00:14 > 0:00:15with the British Prime Minister Theresa May
0:00:15 > 0:00:24about defence and immigration.
0:00:24 > 0:00:26Of course, in the context of Brexit, after those talks were over,
0:00:26 > 0:00:29I sat down with President Macron to discuss those issues,
0:00:29 > 0:00:31but also France's role in the wider world, with China,
0:00:31 > 0:00:41and of course with President Trump.
0:00:50 > 0:00:52Mr President, we're sitting here at Sandhurst at the heart
0:00:52 > 0:00:54of British military culture, and you've just come
0:00:54 > 0:00:55to a new military agreement.
0:00:55 > 0:00:58Can I start by asking you what you've agreed with Theresa May?
0:00:58 > 0:01:00We agreed a series of cooperations.
0:01:00 > 0:01:04Cooperation in terms of capacities, on future projects,
0:01:04 > 0:01:09on new capacities for new weapons in the future, which represent
0:01:09 > 0:01:15very huge investments, but it is very important
0:01:15 > 0:01:18because we have a very strong relationship in terms of defence.
0:01:18 > 0:01:20That's a bilateral relationship, nothing to do with Brexit.
0:01:20 > 0:01:23Is that because the Russians are tooling up with new weapons
0:01:23 > 0:01:28all the time, and there is a threat from the East, or what?
0:01:28 > 0:01:32Not just a threat from the East - we have a series of security issues.
0:01:32 > 0:01:37Obviously we have security issues coming from the East, but we have
0:01:37 > 0:01:40to deal with the Middle East, in Africa with the war
0:01:40 > 0:01:44against terrorism, and that is why we decided this cooperation in terms
0:01:44 > 0:01:48of capacities and a series of new weapons, because that is very
0:01:48 > 0:01:51important from a strategic and personal point of view.
0:01:51 > 0:01:56We decided on our side to commit ourselves in 2019
0:01:56 > 0:01:59for cooperation in Estonia, in the framework of Nato,
0:01:59 > 0:02:02so that's a series of very concrete cooperations in the short run,
0:02:02 > 0:02:08because we have the same vision of security and collective threats.
0:02:08 > 0:02:10Let let me ask, if I may, about the wider picture.
0:02:10 > 0:02:12Do you think it's possible, in Theresa May's words,
0:02:12 > 0:02:15for Britain to have a deep and special relationship
0:02:15 > 0:02:16with the EU after Brexit?
0:02:16 > 0:02:19I do hope so.
0:02:19 > 0:02:23I do hope, because I think it will be good for the EU and for the UK.
0:02:23 > 0:02:29She said a deep relationship, however.
0:02:29 > 0:02:33If the UK, and I imagine your view is if the UK is not going to be
0:02:33 > 0:02:36a member of the customs union or the single market,
0:02:36 > 0:02:42or accept the four freedoms, it can't be that deep?
0:02:42 > 0:02:45Look, it will be by definition less deep than today,
0:02:45 > 0:02:47because the deepest possible relationship is being a member
0:02:47 > 0:02:50of the European Union, so I think you have to be lucid
0:02:50 > 0:02:52and you have to be fair with people.
0:02:52 > 0:02:56As you decided to leave, you cannot be part of the single market,
0:02:56 > 0:02:58but in terms of the nature of the negotiation,
0:02:58 > 0:03:00you can have some deeper relations than some others.
0:03:00 > 0:03:03For instance, we have a deeper relation with Norway than the one
0:03:03 > 0:03:13we have with Canada, so it depends on the outcome
0:03:14 > 0:03:17of the negotiation, but for sure - except if you change your mind -
0:03:17 > 0:03:20but you will not be part of the single market,
0:03:20 > 0:03:24as you will not be part of the European Union.
0:03:24 > 0:03:26And in concrete terms let's talk about what that might mean.
0:03:26 > 0:03:30So for instance there are a lot of people in this country who say,
0:03:30 > 0:03:32well, not much of the British economy is actually directly
0:03:32 > 0:03:33trading with the EU.
0:03:33 > 0:03:35That bit of the British economy could divert,
0:03:35 > 0:03:41but bits of the British economy that are trading with it
0:03:41 > 0:03:43That bit of the British economy could diverge,
0:03:43 > 0:03:48but bits of the British economy that are trading with it
0:03:48 > 0:03:52the EU will converge.
0:03:52 > 0:03:55In other words, we can have a sophisticated bespoke deal
0:03:55 > 0:03:56specially for Britain.
0:03:56 > 0:03:58Now, you said in the past you can have Canada,
0:03:58 > 0:04:01or you can have Norway, but you can't have your
0:04:01 > 0:04:02own special deal.
0:04:02 > 0:04:04Is that really fair, given how long Britain has
0:04:04 > 0:04:05been part of the year?
0:04:05 > 0:04:08No, is not a question of being fair or unfair.
0:04:08 > 0:04:11I take that as a reference, but for sure you will have your own
0:04:11 > 0:04:12solution, and my willingness...
0:04:12 > 0:04:14So there will be a bespoke special solution for Britain?
0:04:14 > 0:04:17Sure, but I take these two references, because this special way
0:04:17 > 0:04:19should be consistent with the preservation of the single
0:04:19 > 0:04:22market and our collective interests.
0:04:22 > 0:04:24And you should understand that you cannot by definition
0:04:24 > 0:04:28have the full access to the single market if you don't tick the box,
0:04:28 > 0:04:31and to get full access to the single market you need to contribute
0:04:31 > 0:04:33to the budget, and you have to accept...
0:04:33 > 0:04:37The freedoms.
0:04:37 > 0:04:38The freedoms, and the four pillars.
0:04:38 > 0:04:43And you have to accept that jurisdiction.
0:04:43 > 0:04:46As soon as you decide not to join these preconditions,
0:04:46 > 0:04:47it's not a full access.
0:04:47 > 0:04:49So it's something perhaps between this full access
0:04:49 > 0:04:54and a trade agreement.
0:04:54 > 0:04:57But what is important is not to make people think or believe that
0:04:57 > 0:04:59it's possible to have... Your cake and eat it?
0:04:59 > 0:05:04Exactly.
0:05:04 > 0:05:06So when I talk to David Davis, our main Brexit negotiator,
0:05:06 > 0:05:09and I say, what does Britain really want out of this, David?
0:05:09 > 0:05:16And he says, we want Canada plus plus plus,
0:05:16 > 0:05:19and by "plus plus plus" he means a deal on services, because so much
0:05:19 > 0:05:21of the UK economy is based on services in general
0:05:21 > 0:05:23and on the City in particular.
0:05:23 > 0:05:25From what you've said today, I guess that you don't believe
0:05:25 > 0:05:29we can have any special deal involving the City?
0:05:29 > 0:05:32I mean, you don't just speak about services but you speak
0:05:32 > 0:05:37about financial services.
0:05:37 > 0:05:39Cooking a deal is the job of Michel Barnier.
0:05:39 > 0:05:41We have a very dedicated organisation.
0:05:41 > 0:05:43I don't want to start a negotiation country by country.
0:05:43 > 0:05:47It would be ridiculous.
0:05:47 > 0:05:52And the best way to dismantle the whole EU.
0:05:52 > 0:05:56I think what we have to do, and what we will do,
0:05:56 > 0:05:59is firs to take the decision in March regarding the mandate
0:05:59 > 0:06:01we want to give to Michel Barnier for the negotiations.
0:06:01 > 0:06:04After that, he will have to negotiate, with your negotiator.
0:06:04 > 0:06:10And they will decide, and it depends on the proposals made by the UK,
0:06:10 > 0:06:13but, for sure, full access for financial services to the single
0:06:13 > 0:06:16market is not feasible, given the functioning
0:06:16 > 0:06:18of the single market.
0:06:18 > 0:06:21So by definition it's not a full access.
0:06:21 > 0:06:24So in concrete terms some form of passporting deal is off the table
0:06:24 > 0:06:30in these negotiations, as far as you're concerned?
0:06:30 > 0:06:33I'm not the one to negotiate, and I don't want to close doors,
0:06:33 > 0:06:36but it depends on what you're ready to put on the table,
0:06:36 > 0:06:41in terms of preconditions.
0:06:41 > 0:06:44If you respect the precondition to get access to the single
0:06:44 > 0:06:45market, it's feasible.
0:06:45 > 0:06:47But there is no cherry picking with the single market.
0:06:47 > 0:06:50I mean, if I had to wrap up the full philosophy,
0:06:50 > 0:06:55no cherry picking of the single market, because it's not feasible.
0:06:55 > 0:06:57Because otherwise that's the dismantling of the single
0:06:57 > 0:07:01market, and for me it's one of the pillars of
0:07:01 > 0:07:04the European Union, and something you loved in the past.
0:07:04 > 0:07:06And you say that you are not negotiating, and that's absolutely
0:07:06 > 0:07:09right, but when you went to China, for instance, you were very
0:07:09 > 0:07:11much saying that one of the consequences of Brexit,
0:07:11 > 0:07:14you thought, was to reaffirm Paris's centrality in the financial system
0:07:14 > 0:07:17and France has made a very very strong pitch to British financial
0:07:17 > 0:07:18institutions to come over to Paris.
0:07:18 > 0:07:19How's it going?
0:07:19 > 0:07:29Look, in China I didn't speak about Brexit, and I didn't -
0:07:35 > 0:07:37I would say - push any message due to Brexit.
0:07:37 > 0:07:41I fully disagree...
0:07:41 > 0:07:45I think for China, as I look at Europe, we have to be
0:07:45 > 0:07:46very much coordinated.
0:07:46 > 0:07:49And we are linked and we are closely linked on nuclear and a series
0:07:49 > 0:07:52of topics which are very important for both of us vis-a-vis China.
0:07:52 > 0:07:54Secondly, in terms of European dialogue on financial
0:07:54 > 0:07:56services, but for sure - for sure, we want to attract
0:07:56 > 0:07:57the maximum activity.
0:07:57 > 0:07:58Why?
0:07:58 > 0:08:01Because this decision has an impact for a lot of players.
0:08:01 > 0:08:05So a lot of players will decide to be part of the EU
0:08:05 > 0:08:07and the Eurozone, and have to choose between different countries
0:08:07 > 0:08:09so there is a competition between different countries.
0:08:09 > 0:08:10Of course there is.
0:08:10 > 0:08:11The case, I suppose...
0:08:11 > 0:08:15And you had the decision regarding the regulator,
0:08:15 > 0:08:18so as you leave you lost this regulator.
0:08:18 > 0:08:22I suppose the case for the City is that it has built up a very big
0:08:22 > 0:08:24part of the whole global financial system, and to unplug the City
0:08:24 > 0:08:28from the rest of the European financial structure is a big risk
0:08:28 > 0:08:37and a danger?
0:08:37 > 0:08:40Look, I think - first of all it is absolutely
0:08:40 > 0:08:42not my willingness and I think not reasonable perspective.
0:08:42 > 0:08:44Secondly, it is something to taken into consideration
0:08:44 > 0:08:45by your negotiator, and your own proposals.
0:08:45 > 0:08:47But my willingness is not precisely to unplug,
0:08:47 > 0:08:49as you say, the British City.
0:08:49 > 0:08:51I think it doesn't make sense.
0:08:51 > 0:09:01Because it's part of the whole financing of our European Union.
0:09:02 > 0:09:06But, for sure, if there is no change in terms of full access
0:09:06 > 0:09:08to the financial single market, it doesn't make sense
0:09:08 > 0:09:09for the others.
0:09:09 > 0:09:11So I want to preserve what we created post-World War,
0:09:11 > 0:09:17and what we created is this sophisticated organisation
0:09:17 > 0:09:19called the European Union, which is for the very first time not
0:09:19 > 0:09:22a hegemony of one over the others, but a very concrete democratic,
0:09:22 > 0:09:26economic construction.
0:09:26 > 0:09:29Why do you think the British voted to leave this
0:09:29 > 0:09:34sophisticated structure?
0:09:34 > 0:09:38Look, I'm not the one to judge or to comment
0:09:38 > 0:09:43on the decision of your people, but my interpretation is that a lot
0:09:43 > 0:09:46of losers of this new globalisation and this new system suddenly decided
0:09:46 > 0:09:54that it was no more for them.
0:09:54 > 0:09:57You always take a risk when you have such a referendum -
0:09:57 > 0:09:59just yes or no in a very complicated context.
0:09:59 > 0:10:02If France had had a referendum it might have had the same result?
0:10:02 > 0:10:03Probably.
0:10:03 > 0:10:07In a similar context, but our context was very different,
0:10:07 > 0:10:10so I don't want to make any...
0:10:10 > 0:10:17I mean, to take any bets, but I would have definitely
0:10:17 > 0:10:23fought very hard to win, but I think it's a mistake
0:10:23 > 0:10:26when you just ask yes or no, when you don't ask people how
0:10:26 > 0:10:32to improve the situation, and to explain how to improve it.
0:10:32 > 0:10:37That's why I do believe in these conventions we will organise
0:10:37 > 0:10:42to better associate people.
0:10:42 > 0:10:45on to the Brexit for my understanding is that working
0:10:45 > 0:10:48classes andmiddle-class, and especially the oldest in your
0:10:48 > 0:10:53country -- but on the Brexit vote, my understanding. They decided it
0:10:53 > 0:10:57was not in their favour, and that the adjustments made by both the EU
0:10:57 > 0:11:01and globalisation, because for me it was a mixture of both, they decided
0:11:01 > 0:11:06it was not in their favour. Which means what? Firstly, it is not
0:11:06 > 0:11:10sustainable to have an unbalanced organisation. Probably, when I look
0:11:10 > 0:11:13at your debate, it was too favourable just for the City and
0:11:13 > 0:11:18less for the rest of the country, so I'm very much...Surely it was about
0:11:18 > 0:11:25Europe as well?Secondly, I think one of the reasons was precisely an
0:11:25 > 0:11:32organisation of our European Union probably which goes too far in terms
0:11:32 > 0:11:39of freedom without cohesion, towards the free market without any rules
0:11:39 > 0:11:45and any conversions, and I have to say that your Government had some
0:11:45 > 0:11:54responsibility with it.Too liberal, perhaps?Ten years ago, thinking
0:11:54 > 0:11:58about the free market clearly without any regulation. All of your
0:11:58 > 0:12:01people saying the Hungarian workers or the Polish workers are much more
0:12:01 > 0:12:07favoured than I am, it was exactly the debate we had in France 10-15
0:12:07 > 0:12:12years ago against some directors that a lot of your Government pushed
0:12:12 > 0:12:16at the time saying, guys, you are not the free market. I do believe in
0:12:16 > 0:12:20the free market, I do believe in a market economy, but we need
0:12:20 > 0:12:24regulation and convergence, which means that what we lost in recent
0:12:24 > 0:12:29years in Europe, that is the convergence and that stage so it is
0:12:29 > 0:12:35no more sustainable to have some countries taking money from the
0:12:35 > 0:12:38European Union, in order to converge, then using this money to
0:12:38 > 0:12:47divert. To reduce their corporate taxes. So that is why...Sorry to
0:12:47 > 0:12:50interrupt, but your vision seems to me to be a deepening Europe, as a
0:12:50 > 0:12:56response to this. You want a single financial minister, more European
0:12:56 > 0:13:00taxes, more done at the centre. Again, is that not a terrible risk?
0:13:00 > 0:13:03How many European people look at this and say it is too far away
0:13:03 > 0:13:09already, they don't feel engaged? No, because it is not just my view.
0:13:09 > 0:13:13Firstly I think we need to have a much more protective Europe. From
0:13:13 > 0:13:16the very beginning I am totally dedicated to making our Europe more
0:13:16 > 0:13:20protective to our people. What I do believe is that first Europe should
0:13:20 > 0:13:25not mean just adapting yourself when you are part of the working class or
0:13:25 > 0:13:31the middle-class, but the best answer, we have collective risks and
0:13:31 > 0:13:38threats. Europe is something which will protect you, on Digital, the
0:13:38 > 0:13:42environment, migration, collective security, and a fair organisation.
0:13:42 > 0:13:47But I would see in the midst of long run, my view of Europe is the
0:13:47 > 0:13:56following. I do believe we have a European Union, and we will be,
0:13:56 > 0:14:00unfortunately, 27.Inevitably, definitely?It depends on you. I do
0:14:00 > 0:14:04respect this vote. I do regret it, and I would love to welcome you
0:14:04 > 0:14:11again. I can see...Eurovision...My vision, in the very short run --
0:14:11 > 0:14:18your vision. To be much more concrete, and less bureaucratic, to
0:14:18 > 0:14:21protect people and address their issues and our collective issues,
0:14:21 > 0:14:25concrete issues. But we have to prepare for a new organisation which
0:14:25 > 0:14:32could be the following. There will be 27 of us at EU level, and for me
0:14:32 > 0:14:39the mid to long run by definition is to gather some countries, within or
0:14:39 > 0:14:44in some corporation with this EU, let's say, but it will enlarge
0:14:44 > 0:14:50precisely to be and that will be a counterpart ofTurkey or Russia.I
0:14:50 > 0:14:53don't know whether through corporation or through joining, but
0:14:53 > 0:14:57it should have a pillar of the single market, common values and
0:14:57 > 0:15:01rights, to be defended. That is the first circle.
0:15:01 > 0:15:08And then a series of inner circles. By definition, and it is already the
0:15:08 > 0:15:13case with the Schengen agreement. But on defence, migration. For me
0:15:13 > 0:15:17the core of Europe, the very inner circle, is an open avant-garde,
0:15:17 > 0:15:24where we decide to have a much stronger integration and to work
0:15:24 > 0:15:27very closely together in strategic and economic terms, that is my view.
0:15:27 > 0:15:32But it is not just...Let me move on, if I may. I want to ask you
0:15:32 > 0:15:36about France.More sovereignty, more unity, more democracy, the recipe
0:15:36 > 0:15:40for success in Europe. If you lose your sovereignty and you don't
0:15:40 > 0:15:43protect people, they don't believe in you. If you are not based on a
0:15:43 > 0:15:46democratic approach they will not follow you. If you are not following
0:15:46 > 0:15:52this unity with consistency and convergence, they will leave.You
0:15:52 > 0:15:58said France is back. What did you mean?I mean we are delivering
0:15:58 > 0:16:03reforms which seemed impossible for decades. We fixed a series of
0:16:03 > 0:16:10internal difficulties, and we increased our capacity to produce
0:16:10 > 0:16:15and be competitive. This is for me the pillar, because when we are not
0:16:15 > 0:16:19credible at home there is no chance to be credible outside.You speak
0:16:19 > 0:16:22about values which presumably must involve freedom of the press and
0:16:22 > 0:16:25human rights and so forth. Did you raise those with the Chinese
0:16:25 > 0:16:29president when you were speaking to him?Arrested with all the leaders I
0:16:29 > 0:16:35met, and that's why. -- I raised it with all the leaders I met. I do
0:16:35 > 0:16:39this job in France in order to be launched Europe, for you to
0:16:39 > 0:16:42understand the full picture. The job would make in France is good for
0:16:42 > 0:16:47France. I am sure in the coming years we will improve our figures in
0:16:47 > 0:16:52terms of employment, reduce our deficit and so on. That's it. It
0:16:52 > 0:16:56allows me to be more credible at European level and convincing,
0:16:56 > 0:16:59especially to Germany, to work together to relaunch this new
0:16:59 > 0:17:02Europe. Thirdly, it allows us to be more credible at international
0:17:02 > 0:17:10scale. On different subjects, different topics, taking leadership
0:17:10 > 0:17:13against climate change, on Lebanon on and several issues. On human
0:17:13 > 0:17:17rights, I always raise it.On climate change, since you mention
0:17:17 > 0:17:24it.I just wanted to...Very quickly.On human rights, taking the
0:17:24 > 0:17:29spot, I raised human rights directly with all the leaders. In China it is
0:17:29 > 0:17:34absolutely counter-productive to raise it, because, I mean, the
0:17:34 > 0:17:40system, the regime, the presidency, it is not in a situation or in a
0:17:40 > 0:17:44current environment...It is not going to help, you think?I believe
0:17:44 > 0:17:46it is totally current productive so what I did was have a direct
0:17:46 > 0:17:53discussion. We have tried to discuss this issue. We decided an
0:17:53 > 0:17:58organisation and I provided, I would say, visibility and the ability for
0:17:58 > 0:18:05him to be sure that this is not diplomacy in front of the camera, so
0:18:05 > 0:18:08that is it. It is different when I speak with President Erica won
0:18:08 > 0:18:13because we had hours of discussion on human rights in specific
0:18:13 > 0:18:18situations -- when I spoke with President Erdogan.No matter what
0:18:18 > 0:18:22you thought when you got up in the morning, and you read what President
0:18:22 > 0:18:26Trump, and I can't say the word, what he said about certain African
0:18:26 > 0:18:30countries, he denies it but a lot of people say he used that word, and
0:18:30 > 0:18:33among the African countries outraged and offended by that were many
0:18:33 > 0:18:36French-speaking countries in Africa. I wonder, did you sure there
0:18:36 > 0:18:43outrage?For sure. -- did you share their outrage? It is not a word you
0:18:43 > 0:18:54can use. And if we want precisely to build peace and development in this
0:18:54 > 0:18:57country, and a respectful relationship...You can't use those
0:18:57 > 0:19:02kind of words.But by definition, and I think a lot of our issues, in
0:19:02 > 0:19:06the Middle East and Africa, it is due to a lot of frustrations due to
0:19:06 > 0:19:14a lot of past humiliations, and we have to understand that. And I do
0:19:14 > 0:19:23believe... We have to respect all the countries. That is what we owe
0:19:23 > 0:19:27them, and that is much more efficient. I have a very direct
0:19:27 > 0:19:30relationship with President Trump, we have a very good relationship.
0:19:30 > 0:19:33You sat down for dinner with him at the top of the Eiffel Tower. I
0:19:33 > 0:19:37wondered what you make of him as person, having come across him
0:19:37 > 0:19:45closely?He's not a politician. -- not a classical politician. Firstly,
0:19:45 > 0:19:52he was elected by the people in the United States, and that is a great
0:19:52 > 0:19:56country. So I want to work with them and I think we have built a very
0:19:56 > 0:20:01strong relationship. We disagree on several topics. I call him very
0:20:01 > 0:20:05regularly. I am always extremely direct Anne Frank. Sometimes I
0:20:05 > 0:20:12managed to convince them, sometimes I feel. -- I am always very direct
0:20:12 > 0:20:26and Frank.I am asking you... Speaking about the mix of personal
0:20:26 > 0:20:29and political reaction, and I think it is not feasible when you are
0:20:29 > 0:20:35president of the republic like the USA.The reason I am asking, with a
0:20:35 > 0:20:39slight smile on my face but it is very serious, when you have
0:20:39 > 0:20:43something like the North Korean situation, and Trump says my nuclear
0:20:43 > 0:20:46button is bigger than yours, and a lot of people in the world think
0:20:46 > 0:20:51this is slightly unhinged and very dangerous. Yes, but what is the
0:20:51 > 0:20:57answer to that? Just to say we have towork very closely and seriously,
0:20:57 > 0:21:01to force North Korea to come back to the negotiating table. We have to
0:21:01 > 0:21:07follow the UN sanctions and implement them, and the critical
0:21:07 > 0:21:12country for delivery on this is China, and that is what we discussed
0:21:12 > 0:21:16there with the president. It is just to calm down everybody.You think
0:21:16 > 0:21:19there is any chance at all of persuading the Americans to come
0:21:19 > 0:21:23back to the table on the Paris climate change agreement?
0:21:23 > 0:21:27Firstly I don't think there is any option to come back to the
0:21:27 > 0:21:30negotiating table with the Paris agreement. I've always been very
0:21:30 > 0:21:35clear. It is negotiated and signed. It is just deciding to sign what is
0:21:35 > 0:21:43done.To sign it, then, do you think they can?More than 180 countries
0:21:43 > 0:21:49signed and are being ratified. Come on. We will not renegotiate for one
0:21:49 > 0:21:53person. I believe it is a big mistake. I told him, but there is no
0:21:53 > 0:21:58new negotiation. You join, or you don't. China decided to remain in
0:21:58 > 0:22:02the loop, and we will deliver. I think we have to accelerate, but
0:22:02 > 0:22:09what I see is that the private sector, and states in the USA, they
0:22:09 > 0:22:12are following this line, trying to comply with the agreement, so we
0:22:12 > 0:22:17will do it. I think it is a mistake but there will be no new
0:22:17 > 0:22:21negotiation, but I hope an option to join the Treaty as negotiated.Very
0:22:21 > 0:22:24final question. You said you would be a Jupiter like President. What
0:22:24 > 0:22:31did you mean?I think I never use the expression like that when I was
0:22:31 > 0:22:35asked, but you know how it goes, people just capture one word and
0:22:35 > 0:22:42take it without the context. I think I was just making a comment with the
0:22:42 > 0:22:46full context, but I meant when you present you have to preside. It is
0:22:46 > 0:22:53different from governing. You have to avoid permanent comments, to
0:22:53 > 0:22:58avoid the sort of day-to-day presence without strong decisions.
0:22:58 > 0:23:11You need to have a bit of ela, a bit of 'gloire'...I would say you need
0:23:11 > 0:23:19efficiency, humanity, authority -- elan. That is why it is not
0:23:19 > 0:23:22compatible with Jupiter or anything like that. But what is important to
0:23:22 > 0:23:28me and the message I wanted to say, our credibility is to explain what
0:23:28 > 0:23:33we want to do, to deliver, to change the country and prepare the country
0:23:33 > 0:23:37for the new century. That is what we are doing in France because that is
0:23:37 > 0:23:44a precondition to success in Europe. And our role is to help to build
0:23:44 > 0:23:49peace everywhere in this world. That's it. That's my job.Present
0:23:49 > 0:23:59Macron, thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much.