President Macron talks to Andrew Marr BBC News Special

talks to Andrew Marr about France's

relationship with the UK,

and about Brexit and

the future of the EU.

I'm here at Government House

at the Royal Military Academy,

Sandhurst, outside London,

where the French president

Emmanuel Macron has

just been holding talks

with the British Prime

Minister Theresa May

about defence and immigration.

Of course, in the context of Brexit,

after those talks were over,

I sat down with President Macron

to discuss those issues,

but also France's role

in the wider world, with China,

and of course with President Trump.

Mr President, we're sitting

here at Sandhurst at the heart

of British military culture,

and you've just come

to a new military agreement.

Can I start by asking you what

you've agreed with Theresa May?

We agreed a series of cooperations.

Cooperation in terms of capacities,

on future projects,

on new capacities for new weapons

in the future, which represent

very huge investments,

but it is very important

because we have a very strong

relationship in terms of defence.

That's a bilateral relationship,

nothing to do with Brexit.

Is that because the Russians

are tooling up with new weapons

all the time, and there is a threat

from the East, or what?

Not just a threat from the East -

we have a series of security issues.

Obviously we have security issues

coming from the East, but we have

to deal with the Middle East,

in Africa with the war

against terrorism, and that is why

we decided this cooperation in terms

of capacities and a series

of new weapons, because that is very

important from a strategic

and personal point of view.

We decided on our side

to commit ourselves in 2019

for cooperation in Estonia,

in the framework of Nato,

so that's a series of very concrete

cooperations in the short run,

because we have the same vision

of security and collective threats.

Let let me ask, if I may,

about the wider picture.

Do you think it's possible,

in Theresa May's words,

for Britain to have a deep

and special relationship

with the EU after Brexit?

I do hope so.

I do hope, because I think it will

be good for the EU and for the UK.

She said a deep

relationship, however.

If the UK, and I imagine your view

is if the UK is not going to be

a member of the customs union

or the single market,

or accept the four freedoms,

it can't be that deep?

Look, it will be by definition

less deep than today,

because the deepest possible

relationship is being a member

of the European Union,

so I think you have to be lucid

and you have to be fair with people.

As you decided to leave, you cannot

be part of the single market,

but in terms of the nature

of the negotiation,

you can have some deeper

relations than some others.

For instance, we have a deeper

relation with Norway than the one

we have with Canada,

so it depends on the outcome

of the negotiation, but for sure -

except if you change your mind -

but you will not be part

of the single market,

as you will not be part

of the European Union.

And in concrete terms let's talk

about what that might mean.

So for instance there are a lot

of people in this country who say,

well, not much of the British

economy is actually directly

trading with the EU.

That bit of the British

economy could divert,

but bits of the British economy that

are trading with it

That bit of the British

economy could diverge,

but bits of the British economy that

are trading with it

the EU will converge.

In other words, we can

have a sophisticated bespoke deal

specially for Britain.

Now, you said in the past

you can have Canada,

or you can have Norway,

but you can't have your

own special deal.

Is that really fair,

given how long Britain has

been part of the year?

No, is not a question

of being fair or unfair.

I take that as a reference,

but for sure you will have your own

solution, and my willingness...

So there will be a bespoke special

solution for Britain?

Sure, but I take these two

references, because this special way

should be consistent

with the preservation of the single

market and our collective interests.

And you should understand that

you cannot by definition

have the full access to the single

market if you don't tick the box,

and to get full access to the single

market you need to contribute

to the budget, and

you have to accept...

The freedoms.

The freedoms, and the four pillars.

And you have to accept

that jurisdiction.

As soon as you decide not to join

these preconditions,

it's not a full access.

So it's something perhaps

between this full access

and a trade agreement.

But what is important is not to make

people think or believe that

it's possible to have...

Your cake and eat it?

Exactly.

So when I talk to David Davis,

our main Brexit negotiator,

and I say, what does Britain really

want out of this, David?

And he says, we want

Canada plus plus plus,

and by "plus plus plus" he means

a deal on services, because so much

of the UK economy is based

on services in general

and on the City in particular.

From what you've said today,

I guess that you don't believe

we can have any special deal

involving the City?

I mean, you don't just speak

about services but you speak

about financial services.

Cooking a deal is the job

of Michel Barnier.

We have a very

dedicated organisation.

I don't want to start

a negotiation country by country.

It would be ridiculous.

And the best way to

dismantle the whole EU.

I think what we have to do,

and what we will do,

is firs to take the decision

in March regarding the mandate

we want to give to Michel Barnier

for the negotiations.

After that, he will have

to negotiate, with your negotiator.

And they will decide, and it depends

on the proposals made by the UK,

but, for sure, full access

for financial services to the single

market is not feasible,

given the functioning

of the single market.

So by definition it's

not a full access.

So in concrete terms some form

of passporting deal is off the table

in these negotiations,

as far as you're concerned?

I'm not the one to negotiate,

and I don't want to close doors,

but it depends on what you're ready

to put on the table,

in terms of preconditions.

If you respect the precondition

to get access to the single

market, it's feasible.

But there is no cherry picking

with the single market.

I mean, if I had to wrap up

the full philosophy,

no cherry picking of the single

market, because it's not feasible.

Because otherwise that's

the dismantling of the single

market, and for me it's one

of the pillars of

the European Union,

and something you loved in the past.

And you say that you are not

negotiating, and that's absolutely

right, but when you went to China,

for instance, you were very

much saying that one

of the consequences of Brexit,

you thought, was to reaffirm Paris's

centrality in the financial system

and France has made a very very

strong pitch to British financial

institutions to come over to Paris.

How's it going?

Look, in China I didn't speak

about Brexit, and I didn't -

I would say - push any

message due to Brexit.

I fully disagree...

I think for China, as I look

at Europe, we have to be

very much coordinated.

And we are linked and we are closely

linked on nuclear and a series

of topics which are very important

for both of us vis-a-vis China.

Secondly, in terms of European

dialogue on financial

services, but for sure -

for sure, we want to attract

the maximum activity.

Why?

Because this decision has an impact

for a lot of players.

So a lot of players will decide

to be part of the EU

and the Eurozone, and have to choose

between different countries

so there is a competition

between different countries.

Of course there is.

The case, I suppose...

And you had the decision

regarding the regulator,

so as you leave you lost this

regulator.

I suppose the case for the City

is that it has built up a very big

part of the whole global financial

system, and to unplug the City

from the rest of the European

financial structure is a big risk

and a danger?

Look, I think - first

of all it is absolutely

not my willingness and I think

not reasonable perspective.

Secondly, it is something

to taken into consideration

by your negotiator,

and your own proposals.

But my willingness is not

precisely to unplug,

as you say, the British City.

I think it doesn't make sense.

Because it's part of the whole

financing of our European Union.

But, for sure, if there is no change

in terms of full access

to the financial single market,

it doesn't make sense

for the others.

So I want to preserve

what we created post-World War,

and what we created is this

sophisticated organisation

called the European Union,

which is for the very first time not

a hegemony of one over the others,

but a very concrete democratic,

economic construction.

Why do you think the British

voted to leave this

sophisticated structure?

Look, I'm not the one

to judge or to comment

on the decision of your people,

but my interpretation is that a lot

of losers of this new globalisation

and this new system suddenly decided

that it was no more for them.

You always take a risk

when you have such a referendum -

just yes or no in a very complicated

context.

If France had had a referendum it

might have had the same result?

Probably.

In a similar context,

but our context was very different,

so I don't want to make any...

I mean, to take any bets,

but I would have definitely

fought very hard to win,

but I think it's a mistake

when you just ask yes or no,

when you don't ask people how

to improve the situation,

and to explain how to improve it.

That's why I do believe in these

conventions we will organise

to better associate people.

on to the Brexit for my

understanding is that working

classes and

middle-class, and

especially the oldest in your

country -- but on the Brexit vote,

my understanding. They decided it

was not in their favour, and that

the adjustments made by both the EU

and globalisation, because for me it

was a mixture of both, they decided

it was not in their favour. Which

means what? Firstly, it is not

sustainable to have an unbalanced

organisation. Probably, when I look

at your debate, it was too

favourable just for the City and

less for the rest of the country, so

I'm very much...

Surely it was about

Europe as well?

Secondly, I think

one of the reasons was precisely an

organisation of our European Union

probably which goes too far in terms

of freedom without cohesion, towards

the free market without any rules

and any conversions, and I have to

say that your Government had some

responsibility with it.

Too liberal,

perhaps?

Ten years ago, thinking

about the free market clearly

without any regulation. All of your

people saying the Hungarian workers

or the Polish workers are much more

favoured than I am, it was exactly

the debate we had in France 10-15

years ago against some directors

that a lot of your Government pushed

at the time saying, guys, you are

not the free market. I do believe in

the free market, I do believe in a

market economy, but we need

regulation and convergence, which

means that what we lost in recent

years in Europe, that is the

convergence and that stage so it is

no more sustainable to have some

countries taking money from the

European Union, in order to

converge, then using this money to

divert. To reduce their corporate

taxes. So that is why...

Sorry to

interrupt, but your vision seems to

me to be a deepening Europe, as a

response to this. You want a single

financial minister, more European

taxes, more done at the centre.

Again, is that not a terrible risk?

How many European people look at

this and say it is too far away

already, they don't feel engaged?

No, because it is not just my view.

Firstly I think we need to have a

much more protective Europe. From

the very beginning I am totally

dedicated to making our Europe more

protective to our people. What I do

believe is that first Europe should

not mean just adapting yourself when

you are part of the working class or

the middle-class, but the best

answer, we have collective risks and

threats. Europe is something which

will protect you, on Digital, the

environment, migration, collective

security, and a fair organisation.

But I would see in the midst of long

run, my view of Europe is the

following. I do believe we have a

European Union, and we will be,

unfortunately, 27.

Inevitably,

definitely?

It depends on you. I do

respect this vote. I do regret it,

and I would love to welcome you

again. I can see...

Eurovision...

My

vision, in the very short run --

your vision. To be much more

concrete, and less bureaucratic, to

protect people and address their

issues and our collective issues,

concrete issues. But we have to

prepare for a new organisation which

could be the following. There will

be 27 of us at EU level, and for me

the mid to long run by definition is

to gather some countries, within or

in some corporation with this EU,

let's say, but it will enlarge

precisely to be and that will be a

counterpart of

Turkey or Russia.

I

don't know whether through

corporation or through joining, but

it should have a pillar of the

single market, common values and

rights, to be defended. That is the

first circle.

And then a series of inner circles.

By definition, and it is already the

case with the Schengen agreement.

But on defence, migration. For me

the core of Europe, the very inner

circle, is an open avant-garde,

where we decide to have a much

stronger integration and to work

very closely together in strategic

and economic terms, that is my view.

But it is not just...

Let me move

on, if I may. I want to ask you

about France.

More sovereignty, more

unity, more democracy, the recipe

for success in Europe. If you lose

your sovereignty and you don't

protect people, they don't believe

in you. If you are not based on a

democratic approach they will not

follow you. If you are not following

this unity with consistency and

convergence, they will leave.

You

said France is back. What did you

mean?

I mean we are delivering

reforms which seemed impossible for

decades. We fixed a series of

internal difficulties, and we

increased our capacity to produce

and be competitive. This is for me

the pillar, because when we are not

credible at home there is no chance

to be credible outside.

You speak

about values which presumably must

involve freedom of the press and

human rights and so forth. Did you

raise those with the Chinese

president when you were speaking to

him?

Arrested with all the leaders I

met, and that's why. -- I raised it

with all the leaders I met. I do

this job in France in order to be

launched Europe, for you to

understand the full picture. The job

would make in France is good for

France. I am sure in the coming

years we will improve our figures in

terms of employment, reduce our

deficit and so on. That's it. It

allows me to be more credible at

European level and convincing,

especially to Germany, to work

together to relaunch this new

Europe. Thirdly, it allows us to be

more credible at international

scale. On different subjects,

different topics, taking leadership

against climate change, on Lebanon

on and several issues. On human

rights, I always raise it.

On

climate change, since you mention

it.

I just wanted to...

Very

quickly.

On human rights, taking the

spot, I raised human rights directly

with all the leaders. In China it is

absolutely counter-productive to

raise it, because, I mean, the

system, the regime, the presidency,

it is not in a situation or in a

current environment...

It is not

going to help, you think?

I believe

it is totally current productive so

what I did was have a direct

discussion. We have tried to discuss

this issue. We decided an

organisation and I provided, I would

say, visibility and the ability for

him to be sure that this is not

diplomacy in front of the camera, so

that is it. It is different when I

speak with President Erica won

because we had hours of discussion

on human rights in specific

situations -- when I spoke with

President Erdogan.

No matter what

you thought when you got up in the

morning, and you read what President

Trump, and I can't say the word,

what he said about certain African

countries, he denies it but a lot of

people say he used that word, and

among the African countries outraged

and offended by that were many

French-speaking countries in Africa.

I wonder, did you sure there

outrage?

For sure. -- did you share

their outrage? It is not a word you

can use. And if we want precisely to

build peace and development in this

country, and a respectful

relationship...

You can't use those

kind of words.

But by definition,

and I think a lot of our issues, in

the Middle East and Africa, it is

due to a lot of frustrations due to

a lot of past humiliations, and we

have to understand that. And I do

believe... We have to respect all

the countries. That is what we owe

them, and that is much more

efficient. I have a very direct

relationship with President Trump,

we have a very good relationship.

You sat down for dinner with him at

the top of the Eiffel Tower. I

wondered what you make of him as

person, having come across him

closely?

He's not a politician. --

not a classical politician. Firstly,

he was elected by the people in the

United States, and that is a great

country. So I want to work with them

and I think we have built a very

strong relationship. We disagree on

several topics. I call him very

regularly. I am always extremely

direct Anne Frank. Sometimes I

managed to convince them, sometimes

I feel. -- I am always very direct

and Frank.

I am asking you...

Speaking about the mix of personal

and political reaction, and I think

it is not feasible when you are

president of the republic like the

USA.

The reason I am asking, with a

slight smile on my face but it is

very serious, when you have

something like the North Korean

situation, and Trump says my nuclear

button is bigger than yours, and a

lot of people in the world think

this is slightly unhinged and very

dangerous. Yes, but what is the

answer to that? Just to say we have

to

work very closely and seriously,

to force North Korea to come back to

the negotiating table. We have to

follow the UN sanctions and

implement them, and the critical

country for delivery on this is

China, and that is what we discussed

there with the president. It is just

to calm down everybody.

You think

there is any chance at all of

persuading the Americans to come

back to the table on the Paris

climate change agreement?

Firstly I don't think there is any

option to come back to the

negotiating table with the Paris

agreement. I've always been very

clear. It is negotiated and signed.

It is just deciding to sign what is

done.

To sign it, then, do you think

they can?

More than 180 countries

signed and are being ratified. Come

on. We will not renegotiate for one

person. I believe it is a big

mistake. I told him, but there is no

new negotiation. You join, or you

don't. China decided to remain in

the loop, and we will deliver. I

think we have to accelerate, but

what I see is that the private

sector, and states in the USA, they

are following this line, trying to

comply with the agreement, so we

will do it. I think it is a mistake

but there will be no new

negotiation, but I hope an option to

join the Treaty as negotiated.

Very

final question. You said you would

be a Jupiter like President. What

did you mean?

I think I never use

the expression like that when I was

asked, but you know how it goes,

people just capture one word and

take it without the context. I think

I was just making a comment with the

full context, but I meant when you

present you have to preside. It is

different from governing. You have

to avoid permanent comments, to

avoid the sort of day-to-day

presence without strong decisions.

You need to have a bit of ela, a bit

of 'gloire'...

I would say you need

efficiency, humanity, authority --

elan. That is why it is not

compatible with Jupiter or anything

like that. But what is important to

me and the message I wanted to say,

our credibility is to explain what

we want to do, to deliver, to change

the country and prepare the country

for the new century. That is what we

are doing in France because that is

a precondition to success in Europe.

And our role is to help to build

peace everywhere in this world.

That's it. That's my job.

Present

Macron, thank you very much indeed.

Thank you very much.