[0:00] While we are recording, the state will
[0:02] have generated 180 million euros in
[0:04] debt. That's 300,000 € per minute.
[0:06] That's 5,000 € per second. It’s
[0:08] cooked. The current presence, it’s
[0:09] dead. There will be losers when I
[0:11] implement my policy. It’s going to be
[0:13] the whole caste of those who cling to
[0:14] their privileges.
[0:15] » Do you believe in your election?
[0:16] » Today, I don't appear as someone who
[0:17] can win. I am aware of all that. He
[0:19] » We have the envelope left.
[0:20] » My great temptation is to tell you no,
[0:21] out of a spirit of provocation.
[0:23] » Spring 2026, the French will elect a
[0:25] president. Between now and then, you'll
[0:28] see it everywhere in the media,
[0:29] everyone talking about polls, alliances
[0:31] , and everyone picking out a soundbite
[0:32] to make a headline. That's not what
[0:34] we're going to do here. We decided to
[0:36] do the opposite, take 60 minutes with
[0:38] the candidate so they can lay out their
[0:40] vision for France. Not the one for
[0:42] tomorrow, not the one right after their
[0:44] election, no, the one they have for the
[0:46] tens, or even twenties, of years to
[0:48] come. So, to structure this interview
[0:49] as best as possible and make it as
[0:51] interesting as possible for you, we
[0:52] decided to build it in stages. And in
[0:53] the interview, there are four. Green,
[0:55] blue, red, and black. Yeah, a bit like
[0:58] ski slopes. The idea is that as the
[1:00] video progresses, the questions become
[1:02] increasingly difficult to answer and I,
[1:03] facing them, challenge them a bit more.
[1:06] And at the end of the interview, we
[1:07] keep the concept of our "confidential
[1:09] interview" that you can also find every
[1:10] Thursday on our channel. An envelope
[1:12] next to them that is present throughout
[1:14] the show and if they want to at the end
[1:16] , they can open it. But be careful, if
[1:17] they decide to open the envelope, they
[1:19] are required to answer the question.
[1:21] The first to sit across from me is
[1:22] David Lisnard, who is the mayor of
[1:24] Cannes, president of the Association of
[1:26] Mayors of France, and a candidate in
[1:27] the presidential election representing
[1:29] his party, New Energy. So let's get
[1:31] started, we have 1 hour with David
[1:34] Lisnard.
[1:39] » Friends, before starting the video, we
[1:41] wanted to give you a quick word. Thank
[1:42] you for being more and more numerous to
[1:44] follow us here. If you like our work,
[1:45] consider subscribing. It takes you 10
[1:47] seconds, but for us, it changes
[1:48] everything. Enjoy the video.
[1:50] » David Lisnard, hello.
[1:51] » Hello.
[1:52] » Thank you for accepting our invitation.
[1:55] » Thank you to you.
[1:56] » Today, we are going to have about an
[1:58] hour. We are going to exchange and
[2:00] discuss your vision for France in the
[2:01] context of the 2027 presidential
[2:03] election, since you are a candidate for
[2:05] the 2027 presidential race. I am
[2:07] warning you right now that during this
[2:09] show, the difficulty level of the
[2:10] questions will increase as the program
[2:12] goes on. We will move a bit like skiing
[2:14] , from the green zone to the red zone,
[2:16] then the black zone. I will try to
[2:18] increase the level of my answers.
[2:20] » I hope they will always be interesting,
[2:21] even from the beginning. And before we
[2:23] begin, there is also an envelope placed
[2:25] right next to you. So on this envelope,
[2:27] it says "confidential." It is a
[2:28] question, this time we are even above
[2:30] the black run. We are
[2:31] » If it is confidential, you shouldn't
[2:33] » Well, if you want to open it at the end
[2:35] , you ask the question, you open it.
[2:37] You will have to answer this question
[2:38] if you open it. If you decide not to
[2:40] open it.
[2:40] » OK,
[2:41] » You don't answer it in any case. What
[2:43] is the ideal France of 2050 for you? Uh
[2:47] , it is a France where my children and
[2:49] hopefully grandchildren can go where
[2:52] they want, how they want, dressed as
[2:55] they want, in safety, where their
[2:57] descendants themselves can look forward
[3:00] to prosperity. It is a France that
[3:03] creates wealth. It is a France that
[3:07] realizes its assets are essential in
[3:10] the 21st century, and notably the
[3:13] creativity of the French people, which,
[3:16] once liberated, makes us an
[3:18] entrepreneurial Eldorado. We see it
[3:22] sometimes, almost absurdly, through all
[3:24] the French people who go abroad, of
[3:26] course from top universities, but also
[3:28] many autodidacts who are often super
[3:30] business leaders who succeed, who are a
[3:32] hit, who invent things. So, for France
[3:35] to be a country that shines through its
[3:37] creativity, a country that has managed
[3:39] to restore its public accounts, that no
[3:41] longer depends on others, a country
[3:43] that, among its assets, is aware of the
[3:45] strength of its geography, of the rock,
[3:47] of the geology. It always strikes me. I
[3:50] was there not long ago, in August, for
[3:53] a few days in the mountains. You see
[3:55] the power of Mont Blanc. There you go,
[3:58] I told you about all that, but all the
[3:59] vibration that one encounters
[4:01] everywhere in France. Uh, when I go to
[4:04] Corsica, it's the same, the rock, it's
[4:07] a magnetic country, right? It is, there
[4:11] you go, a country that has understood
[4:13] that in the century of quantum, since
[4:15] in 2050 we will have finally stabilized
[4:17] quantum technology. Uh, the century of
[4:20] robotics, we absolutely must talk about
[4:22] that. The century of AI, uh, the brain
[4:25] must be permanently augmented itself
[4:28] and not weakened by technology. Let the
[4:32] body and the mind remain the two
[4:34] engines of a fulfilled life, of
[4:36] individual elevation. It is a France
[4:40] that embraces its history, a France
[4:42] that proudly upholds the values that
[4:45] built it: from Aristotelian logic,
[4:47] Greek philosophy, to Roman law, to the
[4:50] immense Judeo-Christian culture that
[4:53] shaped everything, our way of life and
[4:55] our way of rising in ethics and
[4:58] morality, even to the point of
[5:00] abolishing slavery, right. Slavery, it
[5:07] was a global, planetary reality, but
[5:09] ultimately it is here, here in Europe,
[5:11] that the perception of human dignity
[5:13] led to the abolition of slavery.
[5:16] » Which was reinstated later, then
[5:17] re-abolished, or not, but that doesn't
[5:18] change the fact that these debates
[5:20] existed, there you go. And that comes
[5:22] from Judeo-Christian culture, it comes
[5:23] from medieval scholasticism, it comes
[5:25] from the spirit of the Enlightenment;
[5:26] so all these layers that have
[5:28] accumulated. A France that will master
[5:31] breakthrough technologies, that will
[5:34] master the most advanced technologies,
[5:36] you know. A France that will produce
[5:39] its own robots. We will have roughly 50
[5:41] million robots in France by 2050. 20
[5:44] million in industry and services. We
[5:46] will have 20 million in our homes. We
[5:49] will have 10 million to help people
[5:51] with reduced mobility. Well, I hope we
[5:53] will produce them, that companies like
[5:55] VERCraft and others will have become
[5:57] hyper-capitalized global leaders. That
[5:59] every individual will be the owner of
[6:00] their own life
[6:01] » Thanks to quality education, thanks to
[6:03] a funded pension system. that we will
[6:05] have put in place starting in 2027
[6:07] after my election. And precisely to
[6:11] talk about that, because we are talking
[6:13] about robots, today France is still in
[6:14] last place or very far behind in
[6:16] producing robots, even if French people
[6:18] probably use a negative view, then,
[6:24] that you have of France today.
[6:27] » That is a good, that is a good point to
[6:28] bounce off of. Yes. I have...well, if I
[6:31] am here before you, and it is a
[6:32] pleasure to be here, it is because it
[6:34] seemed to me that we must be very
[6:36] clear-eyed about our country's decline,
[6:38] the most serious of which is the
[6:40] educational decline.
[6:41] » Some say that France is becoming a
[6:42] third-world country, by the way.
[6:43] » Yes, yes, of course it is becoming a
[6:44] third-world country. You are too young,
[6:46] but I knew a time when the...well, when
[6:49] you could take a plane without having a
[6:51] delayed flight 9 times out of 10. Right
[6:54] , it's...Yes, there is a form of
[6:57] third-worldization, obviously, but at
[6:59] the same time, along with a fantastic
[7:02] potential...I often say that I fight
[7:04] for the real country, to quote Victor
[7:07] Hugo. The real country is very creative
[7:12] ; common sense is just asking to take
[7:15] power once again. Meaning,
[7:18] understanding that work must pay more
[7:20] than idleness, that investment must be
[7:23] rewarded, that risk-taking must be
[7:25] rewarded, and that we cannot live in a
[7:27] society that only aims to protect
[7:30] itself through egalitarianism,
[7:32] standardization, and the most sordid
[7:34] uniformity. The whole challenge of the
[7:38] coming months and years will be to make
[7:40] every individual strong, to recreate
[7:42] national concord, to regain security,
[7:45] to regain prosperity, and to regain an
[7:47] educational and scientific ambition.
[7:50] That is the foundation of all of this.
[7:51] I am developing a project on this, and
[7:54] yes, by symmetry, it points to the fact
[7:56] that we were among the top 10 countries
[7:59] producing the most wealth per capita
[8:01] just 30 years ago. We have dropped to
[8:04] 27th place. We were a country envied
[8:06] for the quality of its public education
[8:08] . Today, we are the dunces of Europe.
[8:11] We are last in the PISA rankings in
[8:12] Europe, and in the TIMSS rankings for
[8:14] mathematics as well. We must put
[8:16] mathematics, grammar, French, and
[8:18] critical thinking back at the heart of
[8:20] the national project. Uh.
[8:22] » And what happened? Why did we arrive at
[8:24] » First, there are cyclical effects, as
[8:25] always in life. Moreover, if you like,
[8:28] we will talk about the great cycles
[8:30] that we will have to master. The long
[8:33] cycle of the end of the Renaissance,
[8:35] the cycle of the end of the welfare
[8:37] state, and the short cycle of the end
[8:39] of Macronism, to return to more
[8:40] political matters. And what happened is
[8:44] that there was a tremendous renewal of
[8:46] elites after the Second World War. And
[8:50] periods of great crisis, like wars,
[8:52] mean that personalities who have a bit
[8:55] of edge, who have character...You have
[8:57] to reread General de Gaulle’s words
[9:00] in his books from the 30s! The Edge of
[9:03] the Sword, in particular, Towards the
[9:04] Professional Army as well, but The Edge
[9:06] of the Sword, when he defines the man
[9:07] of character, the person of character.
[9:10] So we had elites who both had a
[9:12] classical rigor, who had been trained
[9:15] in the most classical way but who had
[9:18] faced the harsh edges of life and who
[9:20] had become leaders in situations that
[9:23] reveal characters who know how to face
[9:26] turbulence. And so we arrived, and
[9:29] there were the "Glorious Thirty" years
[9:31] with demographic growth upon which our
[9:33] entire prosperity relied. We had more
[9:36] children, we invested, we paid early,
[9:38] and then for about thirty years, there
[9:40] was a desire to prolong this system
[9:43] even though productivity isn't there,
[9:45] we don't control immigration, and we
[9:47] have settlement migration instead of
[9:50] the labor migration we had before, and
[9:52] it is massive now, whereas before it
[9:54] was controlled. Uh, that we aren't
[9:56] having kids anymore. That the entire
[9:59] pension system is collapsing and that
[10:01] the elite, through certain top schools,
[10:03] has become uniform and reproduced
[10:05] itself. And these are the three ages of
[10:09] aristocracy from, I believe,
[10:11] Chateaubriand, but there you go, we've
[10:13] arrived at the age of privileges. So
[10:17] now we need a circulation of elites, we
[10:19] need a renewal of elites, and otherwise
[10:21] our country will collapse. As it is,
[10:24] it's collapsing while amplifying its
[10:26] own decline. Twenty or twenty-five
[10:28] years ago, we were at the same standard
[10:29] of living as the average American.
[10:30] Today, we are 40%less wealthy than
[10:32] Americans. It's all happening very fast
[10:34] , what is going on today. Either
[10:36] through violence, with engineers of
[10:38] violence, engineers of chaos—well, I
[10:40] don't know if they're engineers, by the
[10:41] way, but in any case, they produce
[10:43] chaos, especially the far-left, and the
[10:45] LFI, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon's whole
[10:47] clique. You are currently the mayor of
[10:50] Cannes, and have been for a long time.
[10:52] Uh, what has being mayor of Cannes
[10:55] taught you regarding what we have at
[10:57] the city scale compared to France?
[11:00] » Well, first of all, I applied
[11:01] principles there that I have always
[11:03] applied in everything I've been
[11:04] entrusted with, in both the private and
[11:05] public sectors. I managed a large
[11:07] drinking water authority, I believe in
[11:09] the public sector, and when I left, the
[11:12] price of water was 30%cheaper than the
[11:14] national average. We had paid off its
[11:15] debt and it was functioning well. Uh,
[11:18] there you go, I have businesses and so
[11:20] on. It means that the principles of
[11:22] good management apply everywhere,
[11:24] including in the public sector. When
[11:27] you manage to motivate your teams, when
[11:30] you manage to define objectives, to
[11:32] think in terms of—as we used to say
[11:34] in previous generations, but it works
[11:37] very well—zero-based budgeting, which
[11:39] means building budget surpluses and
[11:41] saying that it’s unavoidable, that it
[11:44] can’t last otherwise, that you only
[11:46] borrow for investment, to practice
[11:48] participative management, to remove the
[11:52] bad ones—there are 22%fewer employees
[11:55] at city hall than 12 years ago—but to
[11:57] reward the vast majority of people who
[11:59] work well, to lead, to direct, to
[12:01] encourage the civil servants, the staff
[12:04] , to be pragmatic, by applying this, it
[12:06] works. So we have lowered the debt by
[12:09] —we are going to be at 84 million
[12:10] euros in debt reduction without
[12:11] off-balance sheet accounting in a city
[12:13] that is very complicated, you know. I
[12:15] —because I am forced every time to
[12:16] deconstruct the cliché linked to the
[12:18] festival, if you like. Cannes is a city
[12:20] that, historically, is a cosmopolitan
[12:23] city. It is a city of strong
[12:24] immigration, poor immigration. It is a
[12:26] city that has had a very high poverty
[12:27] rate since the 19th century, and we
[12:29] welcome poverty. There you go, 21%or
[12:31] even 22%poverty, so very strong social
[12:33] contracts.
[12:35] » And that one must always remember the
[12:38] goal, which is that of the common good,
[12:41] so the principles of rigorous
[12:43] management, of listening to everyone
[12:46] and of not trivializing the testimony,
[12:49] the words of each individual we meet,
[12:52] but not falling into clientelism. There
[12:56] must be proximity, but not familiarity.
[12:58] It is, and that the exercise of
[13:01] authority, you know—
[13:03] » With your collaborators, you mean?
[13:04] » With everyone, with the residents as
[13:05] well. I am mandated by the residents.
[13:07] Uh, it’s what I understand at the
[13:09] national level. I think many people
[13:11] forget that. We are one resident among
[13:12] other residents, but mandated. So when
[13:14] you are mandated, you are accountable;
[13:16] when you are an agent, you answer to
[13:17] the principal. So always being
[13:19] accountable, explaining, trying to lead
[13:22] positively, obviously. We all do
[13:24] communication, we try to promote what
[13:26] we do well, to explain when things go
[13:28] wrong, not to hide things, not to mask
[13:30] security problems, drug dealing, or
[13:32] incivility that drive me crazy.
[13:34] Problems one might encounter with
[13:35] construction work, there are
[13:36] difficulties. Well, it's a magnificent
[13:39] experience because the commune,
[13:42] community, it's all the same etymology,
[13:45] it's truly the geographical space that
[13:48] carries meaning, history, and and
[13:50] future. That's where you realize it
[13:52] physically. Uh, man is a social animal,
[13:55] and we will see it more and more with
[13:57] the rise of of of the of of the digital
[14:00] world, which is already exponential.
[14:02] Anyway, and uh, and so it's this, it's
[14:06] a human community. Uh, a mayor is a
[14:09] practitioner, uh, you must have
[14:11] principles, convictions, values, but
[14:13] the thing that counts is the reality.
[14:16] It is always the reality that must
[14:18] prevail. So, very concretely, there are
[14:20] services that I have outsourced,
[14:21] privatized. There are other services
[14:23] that I have brought back in-house, even
[14:24] though it was counterintuitive for me,
[14:26] because it was rational. For example,
[14:27] regarding green spaces, I outsourced
[14:29] them; regarding urban cleanliness,
[14:31] which is a service that I find has
[14:33] progressed a lot, enormously, where I
[14:35] think we are really, well, we're doing
[14:37] pretty well thanks to good teams. The
[14:40] teams explained that there had been, in
[14:42] the past, the privatization of certain
[14:43] cleaning services for stickers,
[14:45] something like that, which actually
[14:47] cost a lot because there was no
[14:48] competition in the private sector and
[14:50] that our agents could do it, provided
[14:52] they were paid better, and in the end,
[14:54] it would cost us less, and it worked.
[14:56] There are other things, however, where
[14:58] in the private sector there was real
[15:00] competition, so there was better
[15:01] productivity, so we outsourced; it's
[15:03] about being pragmatic.
[15:05] » Yes. What you're advocating is
[15:06] pragmatism, if I if I...
[15:07] » Yes. But while keeping objectives in
[15:09] mind, because pragmatism alone goes in
[15:11] circles, and you also have to give it
[15:12] sense, give it meaning.
[15:14] » Yeah. And to what extent does your
[15:17] liberal logic, since you claim to be a
[15:18] liberal, apply to your political
[15:20] persona? Is the idea to make budget
[15:24] cuts? You advocate for pragmatism; to
[15:27] what extent does pragmatism also align
[15:28] with liberalism? How...
[15:30] » Your question is very peculiar because
[15:32] it reveals, forgive me, but an
[15:34] ideological bias. Uh, so we must, we
[15:36] must really put all that aside. You
[15:39] tell me liberal, budget cuts.
[15:41] » I, I don't really see the connection,
[15:42] if you will. What is a liberal? Who is
[15:45] that? It consists of thinking that
[15:47] freedom is the characteristic of the
[15:52] human being, of humanity, that it is a
[15:53] permanent struggle and that it is both
[15:55] the best tool for efficiency (so it has
[15:57] a utilitarian value; we must certainly
[15:59] not rely solely on utilitarianism), but
[16:01] it also has a moral value, meaning that
[16:03] freedom is the condition of dignity. So
[16:05] , without resorting to low-level
[16:07] philosophy, we only know we are free
[16:09] when we know we assume responsibility
[16:11] for our actions, because that is the
[16:12] condition of freedom. And so it is what
[16:15] makes for human dignity, what makes us
[16:17] have choices, makes a person full in
[16:19] their dignity because we have freedom
[16:21] of choice, and to be free, one must
[16:23] have ownership of one's life, ownership
[16:25] of one's actions. Liberalism is a
[16:28] vision of man, a vision of humanity;
[16:31] it's not about making budget cuts.
[16:33] Sometimes you might have to make budget
[16:36] cuts. It's a method to free people
[16:38] through
[16:38] » Starting with a philosophical principle
[16:39] . Shall I tell you why? It's to free
[16:41] individuals from the burden of taxation
[16:42] . Because to talk about budget
[16:44] expenditures is to talk about revenue,
[16:46] which means less individual freedom in
[16:48] controlling one's income and capital.
[16:49] » So, more taxes mean less freedom.
[16:52] » Of course. Well, yes, if you have €
[16:54] 100 and you have the freedom to control
[16:56] your € 100, and I say to you, "Well,
[16:58] here, I'm taking 50," well, you are no
[17:00] longer free to do what you want with
[17:01] the € 50 I took from you. So, you
[17:04] lose € 50 of freedom of action, you
[17:07] see. It's as simple as that. And it's a
[17:09] principle that is the matrix of
[17:12] prosperity. When you are the owner of
[17:15] the gains from the fruits of your
[17:17] efforts, you are motivated. Exactly.
[17:21] And every country—so it's a question
[17:22] of balance, because we also need taxes,
[17:24] we need the common good, we need public
[17:26] services operating on subsidiarity,
[17:27] doing what the market cannot do or what
[17:29] the market should not do. Not
[17:31] everything is for sale. Precisely, the
[17:33] human body is not for sale. There we
[17:34] are, well within the principles we call
[17:36] natural rights. It is therefore the
[17:38] preservation of life
[17:39] » The mastery of the human body is
[17:41] essential. And the principle is very
[17:43] simple; it is at the base of liberal
[17:45] societies and the progress of humanity.
[17:47] Meaning that freedom never has to be
[17:48] justified; it is the restriction of
[17:50] freedom that must be justified. And so,
[17:53] freedom must be restricted so that the
[17:54] freedom of some does not infringe upon
[17:56] the freedom of others. The finest text
[17:58] from that perspective is the
[17:59] Declaration of the Rights of Man and of
[18:00] the Citizen of 1789. And in very
[18:02] concrete terms, what does that mean? It
[18:04] means that I cannot, well, I am not
[18:06] free to steal the property of others. I
[18:09] am not free to damage public space
[18:11] because I am encroaching on the freedom
[18:13] of other citizens who will pay taxes to
[18:15] restore the integrity of public space,
[18:17] repair urban property, and so on. It is
[18:20] always a balance. It is never as
[18:21] obvious as that. I must absolutely
[18:23] preserve the freedom to demonstrate and
[18:25] to express oneself. But that freedom is
[18:27] not a freedom to destroy. So, when a
[18:30] prefect issues an order, a prefectural
[18:32] decree to ban a demonstration, it is
[18:34] often abusive, and there has been a
[18:36] shift toward restricting liberties in
[18:38] France in recent years. On the other
[18:40] hand, if the demonstration
[18:41] systematically smashes all the shops,
[18:43] it is obvious that it must be banned
[18:44] because it is an attack on the property
[18:46] of others, and thus on the freedom of
[18:48] others. It is an extraordinary way of
[18:49] thinking, actually. In fact, it is just
[18:51] common sense. For me, if you will, I do
[18:52] not care about ideology. I, many people
[18:54] claim common sense on both the left and
[18:56] the right.
[18:57] » Yes, of course. But, listen, in any
[18:59] case, nonsense exists, that is for sure
[19:01] , in every sense of the word. If you
[19:03] allow me, liberal, then.
[19:05] » It is, but there too you fall into "
[19:06] isms," but that is because we are going
[19:07] to define you, we are going to fall
[19:09] into intellectual stuff. Common sense
[19:11] is letting individuals flourish,
[19:13] prosper, and understanding that the
[19:16] common good needs individuals who can
[19:18] express themselves, that there is
[19:20] nothing, that 1,000 controls cost
[19:22] society much more than one or two
[19:24] people who abuse the system, and so on.
[19:28] That is to say, at a given moment,
[19:30] there is a notion of spontaneous order
[19:33] which is the matrix of progress, of
[19:35] prosperity, of solving material
[19:37] problems, and that public authority
[19:39] must intervene; it has a major role,
[19:41] violence, a monopoly on legitimate
[19:43] violence, as Max Weber said, to ensure
[19:45] order in society, order at the service
[19:48] of individual liberties. And it is all
[19:51] about that balance. And today, I am
[19:53] still labeled as a liberal. Well, I
[19:54] thought it was a compliment. At first,
[19:55] I understood that it was a bit
[19:57] pejorative in France, but that’s
[19:58] simply because the country has become
[19:59] super socialist, you know. H
[20:02] » You see, in other countries, I wouldn't
[20:03] even be called a liberal economically
[20:05] speaking, I mean, you know. And when
[20:08] you have a public apparatus that today
[20:11] captures 57%, soon 58%, of all wealth
[20:13] produced, it has never happened in
[20:16] history. It’s the absolute record,
[20:19] France is. Public spending is 58%of
[20:22] wealth. There is obviously a prosperity
[20:25] problem, but there is a freedom problem
[20:27] . That’s obvious. And so, we
[20:29] absolutely must carry out this
[20:31] revolution of freedom. So, to reach the
[20:33] ideal France you mentioned at the
[20:36] beginning for 2050, if you take power
[20:39] in 2027 and perhaps subsequent terms,
[20:42] how does that happen concretely? If we
[20:45] decide to lower taxes as you mentioned,
[20:48] how do we manage public services, how
[20:50] is all that organized? Knowing that
[20:54] today we already feel that public
[20:56] services are struggling with France’s
[20:58] current tax levels. How do we manage?
[21:00] Second deconstruction of the question.
[21:03] » Very well.
[21:03] » It’s because there is too much public
[21:05] spending and too many taxes that there
[21:07] is a problem with public services. Now,
[21:08] that’s counterintuitive. So I’m
[21:10] curious, explain.
[21:12] » But, and this has actually been
[21:13] theorized in economics, by the way. Uh,
[21:16] but it’s very simple; you see, I’m
[21:19] going to turn it around. I’ll take
[21:22] one of the most highly administered
[21:23] countries where they have very good
[21:25] public services in Europe; I won’t
[21:26] compare it to Asia, Latin America, etc.
[21:28] , or the past. Today, you take the
[21:31] Netherlands; the Netherlands has a per
[21:33] capita income higher than ours and
[21:35] better social coverage than ours. In
[21:38] the Netherlands, you get very, very
[21:39] good care, you have emergency services,
[21:41] and there is an effective justice
[21:42] system. They have managed to contain
[21:45] delinquency, and they even have
[21:47] under-occupied prisons. Prevention, a
[21:50] lot of prevention I imagine, but
[21:52] prevention and above all, no, there is
[21:53] especially a very strong authority and
[21:55] very fast, very quick. We move very
[21:56] fast.
[21:56] » OK.
[21:57] » And do you know the amount of public
[21:59] spending in the Netherlands relative to
[22:01] wealth? For us in France, I say 57%of
[22:03] GDP, of the wealth produced. In the
[22:05] Netherlands, it’s 45%. Do you realize
[22:08] that? There is a 12-point gap. That
[22:10] means 12 points of French GDP—we'll
[22:13] verify, but it must be 350 billion
[22:15] euros. That means that in the
[22:18] Netherlands, they have better public
[22:19] services while spending, all things
[22:21] being equal, 350 billion euros less.
[22:23] Why? Because in France, there is a
[22:26] diversion of taxpayer money toward
[22:28] hyper-bureaucracy. H
[22:30] » The OECD—not me, not some
[22:32] ultra-liberal think tank—estimates
[22:33] that French over-bureaucratization
[22:35] compared to European bureaucracy (and
[22:37] Europe is already the most
[22:38] bureaucratized continent in the world)
[22:40] ...That over-bureaucracy accounts for
[22:42] at least three points of wealth. That
[22:45] is to say, over 80 billion, almost 90
[22:47] billion euros in excess costs. So the
[22:50] goal, the goal is to have more nurses
[22:53] taking care of us in hospitals, to have
[22:56] more police on the streets. I mean,
[22:59] after 1 AM in police-patrolled zones,
[23:01] you have almost no national police left
[23:03] in France—in the country that holds
[23:05] the world record for taxes, social
[23:07] charges, and public spending—to have
[23:09] more court clerks, more prison spaces,
[23:11] more effective and better-paid teachers
[23:13] , and to rediscover a scientific
[23:14] ambition, including in public science.
[23:17] And for that, there must be less
[23:19] bureaucracy. To have less bureaucracy,
[23:21] we need fewer absurd, contradictory
[23:24] rules. So, we have to start all over
[23:25] again. Debureaucratize, deregulate,
[23:28] decentralize. Fewer bureaucrats paid
[23:30] with our taxes, more police, more
[23:33] teachers. You know, I remember France
[23:36] —it's the privilege of age—before
[23:37] the ARS,
[23:39] » Before the regional health agencies,
[23:41] » Before the regional environmental
[23:43] directorate, before the MRAE, well,
[23:45] before all these...
[23:47] » 11 entities that today must give us
[23:49] authorization to build a factory or
[23:51] create a school, purely from an
[23:52] environmental standpoint, that
[23:54] contradict each other, that contradict
[23:56] those in charge of health, which
[23:57] themselves contradict those in charge
[23:59] of urban planning law. There is an
[24:02] inflation of regulations, there is
[24:03] textual harassment. So the major
[24:07] challenge is to reorganize governance,
[24:09] to reorganize public authorities.
[24:13] » Is it possible to do that today?
[24:15] » We have the impression that we are
[24:16] stuck. I say, as a young person too,
[24:18] what is impossible is to continue like
[24:20] today. We have a system that creates
[24:22] poverty. We have a system that locks
[24:25] people into poverty traps. 60%of French
[24:28] employees have a salary below 1.6 times
[24:30] the minimum wage. Why? Because we
[24:33] created surcharges on labor, and since
[24:35] that didn't work, we offered exemptions
[24:37] below 1.6 times the minimum wage. So,
[24:39] we’re locking people in. I want to be
[24:41] the movement for those who want to get
[24:43] ahead, for social mobility. France has
[24:45] been in a calamitous situation several
[24:47] times in its history, just like today.
[24:49] I’m thinking in particular of '58,
[24:50] the end of the Fourth Republic, the
[24:52] decolonization—it was colossal.
[24:54] General de Gaulle—now, I’m not de
[24:56] Gaulle, but General de Gaulle in '58,
[24:58] in nine months, went from a 6%public
[25:00] deficit to a surplus. We are at nearly
[25:02] 6%today in France. He restarted the
[25:04] machine and overhauled the institutions
[25:06] . Other countries have done it:
[25:09] Schröder's Germany, Milei's Argentina,
[25:12] Thatcher's England—even the social
[25:14] democrats, I'm talking about people on
[25:16] the left in Sweden, Denmark, they’ve
[25:18] succeeded, as have Canada and New
[25:20] Zealand. We have remained stuck in
[25:23] patterns that are overly statist,
[25:25] overly Keynesian, and overly socialist.
[25:27] All of that pretty much goes together.
[25:28] So, it is time to move on to something
[25:30] else. That is what I am proposing. This
[25:33] is the complete opposite of extremism.
[25:35] It is extremely rational and reasonable
[25:37] , but it is radical. Meaning we are
[25:38] going to the root of things. And it’s
[25:41] the only way to regain effective, local
[25:43] public services. It’s the only way to
[25:45] regain economic oxygen. It’s the only
[25:48] way to recreate social mobility. Look,
[25:50] I'll give you some things we are going
[25:53] to do. We are going to remove the
[25:55] precautionary principle from the
[25:56] Constitution, and we will truly
[25:57] implement a powerful environmental and
[25:59] ecological policy.
[25:59] » Could you briefly explain the
[26:00] precautionary principle in the
[26:01] Constitution?
[26:02] » Well, it was introduced by the Charter
[26:04] for the Environment, and today it has
[26:06] created case law that prevents us, for
[26:08] example, from scientific research on
[26:10] corn and GMOs, and so on, which...all
[26:12] business leaders will tell you, it
[26:14] blocks projects and doesn’t even help
[26:16] the environment. The environment is
[26:18] fundamental; it is essential. So, if
[26:21] you like, I will detail what my
[26:22] ecological policy will be, and we are
[26:24] going to replace it with a principle of
[26:27] responsibility. We must not pollute, we
[26:29] must not endanger the lives of
[26:31] employees, we must not—you see,
[26:33] simple, effective general principles of
[26:35] law that truly protect. And then,
[26:37] everyone is free to allocate their own
[26:39] resources. It’s essential. We're
[26:43] going to set up a system, a single
[26:45] social allowance, which will ensure
[26:47] there's at least a € 500 income gap
[26:50] between those who work and those who
[26:53] don't, because we need to incentivize
[26:55] work again. Thanks to the reduction of
[27:00] unnecessary spending...Over the last 25
[27:02] years, the state has created 1,153
[27:04] senatorial reports, agencies, entities,
[27:06] and directorates that cost us this year
[27:08] , and that contradict each other,
[27:10] including the High Commission for this,
[27:12] the High Authority for that, the
[27:14] regional directorates, all these state
[27:16] services that cost...we are going to
[27:18] exceed 100 billion euros in operating
[27:21] costs. 100 billion euros. So we must
[27:23] reduce and eliminate all these things
[27:25] that feed on each other just to find
[27:27] spots for buddies. It has been a
[27:30] Republic of cronies and rogues, as they
[27:32] say, with 500,000 extra hires, 500,000
[27:34] more public service employees. There
[27:36] are some very good people in there,
[27:37] mind you.
[27:38] » Mind you. And well, we won't replace
[27:40] those who retire. We will reorient and
[27:43] eliminate most of these things. We will
[27:45] need to keep a few agencies that
[27:47] guarantee independence and...
[27:49] » How do you judge which agency is
[27:50] useless? Which agency is useful? Well,
[27:53] it's very simple; it’s like when you
[27:54] arrive in a company, you say, "Show me
[27:56] the utility of what you do." People
[27:58] write memos to each other, and I say, "
[28:00] We don't care about your memos." You go
[28:02] to Bercy. French excellence at Bercy,
[28:06] except that many agents there only
[28:08] write memos to each other that serve no
[28:09] purpose. They serve no purpose. You see
[28:11] , you have to understand that creation
[28:13] requires an act of suppression. That is
[28:15] the whole paradox. It's like cooking,
[28:17] you reduce the sauce, and what about
[28:19] the agents at Bercy watching?
[28:21] » Yes, I embrace them, but they will be
[28:23] happy because they will be
[28:24] participating in the modernization of
[28:26] the state and the performance of France
[28:27] . And those who remain will be better
[28:29] paid than before, for those who are
[28:30] currently underpaid. Ultimately, we
[28:32] will become a modern power again, a
[28:34] modern state that will use
[28:36] digitalization and all the current
[28:38] means of performance. So we will have
[28:41] to launch three major projects
[28:43] simultaneously. A major prosperity law
[28:45] through the liberalization of economic
[28:47] activity. Removing bureaucratic, fiscal
[28:51] , social, and administrative overloads.
[28:55] A major law, or at any rate a major
[28:57] policy for restoring order, means
[28:59] rewriting the juvenile penal code,
[29:01] partnering with countries that have
[29:03] available prison space, like the
[29:05] Netherlands, and launching a program
[29:08] for 20,000 prison places. A policy
[29:11] aimed at breaking free from the grip of
[29:13] European and high-court jurisprudence
[29:15] to control our population. We cannot
[29:18] envision the future of a nation without
[29:19] controlling its population, without
[29:21] deciding who comes in. A drastic
[29:23] reduction in immigration, better
[29:25] integration. Many immigrants actually
[29:26] agree with me. They tell me, "We can't
[29:27] take any more, it's not possible, you
[29:28] have to turn off the tap." What? I am
[29:30] in a city with high immigration, and
[29:31] many immigrants support me. So, no
[29:32] issues there. The third policy is how
[29:35] we finally become a great educational
[29:36] power again. How we set schools free.
[29:39] We must abolish the egalitarianism of
[29:41] the school zoning system. Public
[29:43] funding must follow parental choice, so
[29:47] all kids and all parents can put their
[29:50] child in the school they want. It
[29:53] shouldn't be the administration telling
[29:54] you, "You go to this school or that one
[29:55] ," and we will have competition between
[29:57] institutions. Principals will choose
[29:59] who they admit. We will keep a network
[30:02] of public schools at the level of
[30:04] former districts, centers of excellence
[30:06] with boarding schools and elite
[30:07] teachers to maintain consistent
[30:09] geographical coverage, but for
[30:10] everything else, we will fully liberate
[30:12] the school system, and there are many
[30:14] initiatives being taken simultaneously.
[30:17] There it is. Anyway, aren't you afraid
[30:19] that—it's interesting, but aren't you
[30:21] afraid that this logic will actually
[30:23] create inequalities?
[30:24] » But that is also counterintuitive.
[30:26] Today, we are the country in Europe
[30:28] where people are most trapped by their
[30:30] social conditions. I have a very simple
[30:32] point. I am the first in my family—
[30:34] well, along with my brother—to have
[30:35] earned my high school diploma. You have
[30:37] to understand that. For you, that might
[30:39] seem good.
[30:39] » No, but that's my case too. The current
[30:42] system is the most unfair, all in the
[30:44] name of egalitarianism. It creates
[30:46] inequality of opportunity and breeds
[30:48] inequity and injustice. The current
[30:51] system means that the middle and upper
[30:53] classes, a fortiori, bypass the entire
[30:56] zoning system; all the more or less
[30:58] leftist education ministers we've had
[31:01] who criticize independent schools and
[31:04] so on. I am a product of the secular
[31:05] public school system, you know. I never
[31:06] put my kids in private school. Well,
[31:08] but it was a different era, too. Uh,
[31:10] they all put their kids in private
[31:11] schools. It is absolute hypocrisy. So
[31:14] what we need is to put an end to the
[31:16] leveling down. All these children from
[31:18] modest backgrounds must be able to
[31:20] access the best schools, provided, of
[31:22] course, they work hard and meet the
[31:24] right adults who will raise them.
[31:26] Actually, we call them a "student"[
[31:27] élève], because you have to be raised
[31:28] [élevé] by someone higher than
[31:29] yourself, who is called an adult. I
[31:31] assure you that everywhere what I'm
[31:33] saying has been implemented—in
[31:34] certain Baltic countries, in some
[31:36] schools in Finland, in Finland, in some
[31:38] cantons in Switzerland, and now in
[31:40] Germany—everywhere it has worked.
[31:44] Milton Friedman theorized this, but it
[31:46] works wonderfully well, and we do it
[31:47] because the current system is total
[31:49] hypocrisy in the name of equality; we
[31:51] use school zoning, sectorization, the
[31:52] administration tells you where you have
[31:54] to put your kid in school, for heaven's
[31:56] sake. What an authoritarian act that is
[31:59] . Honestly, well, and in the end, we
[32:02] realize that we are amplifying social
[32:04] inequalities; that the children of
[32:06] teachers know very well where they need
[32:08] to be, that the children of senior
[32:10] executives, of bosses, know very well
[32:12] where they need to be, even going on to
[32:14] study abroad, and it's, it's fantastic.
[32:17] But it is time—that is why the
[32:19] working classes must have access to
[32:20] equal opportunity. It is time for the
[32:22] working poor to be the owners of their
[32:24] own retirement. That's why we're going
[32:25] to...I have been fighting for this for
[32:27] over 10 years. They will have a funded
[32:29] pension system, they will have access
[32:30] to financial markets, and they will be
[32:32] winners. There you go, the poorest, the
[32:34] poorest workers will be less poor. It
[32:36] is time we defend the most modest in
[32:38] this country, not with what has led
[32:41] them to social stagnation, what traps
[32:43] them in poverty traps, in identity
[32:46] traps, but by liberating all of their
[32:48] capacity.
[32:49] » By the way, if you prefer audio over
[32:51] video, know that you can find our shows
[32:53] on all podcast platforms. You spoke
[32:56] about immigration, it's a point I find
[32:58] interesting because it is one of the
[32:59] subjects of the presidential election
[33:01] that will dominate the debate. For you
[33:04] today, is there too much immigration?
[33:06] » Yes. Yes, there is too much immigration
[33:09] quantitatively, since in 2025, last
[33:11] year, I am talking about new residence
[33:13] permits. They are additional residence
[33:15] permits. It represented one and a half
[33:17] times the population of Corsica. There
[33:19] you go, it's 400,000 residence permits.
[33:21] I'm talking about additional residence
[33:24] permits.
[33:25] » Excluding asylum, mind you, because
[33:27] contrary to what a journalist corrected
[33:28] me on—he was wrong—and we aren't
[33:30] talking about illegal immigration. And
[33:33] of those additional residence permits,
[33:35] only 17%are work-related; that means 83
[33:37] %are people who come and don't work,
[33:39] and who don't come for work—these
[33:41] people will probably find a job later
[33:43] and contribute to the economy, they
[33:45] aren't going to stay. No, I'm sorry,
[33:48] but we can tell ourselves stories as
[33:51] much as we want. The reality is that
[33:54] among the temporary residence permits
[33:56] issued for a reason of stay, 17%are
[33:58] linked to an employment contract. 83%
[34:01] are not linked to that. It is a factual
[34:03] reality. Even at 25%, it would still be
[34:05] a problem. Even at 50%, it would be a
[34:07] problem. So the reality is that France
[34:10] must be a country that welcomes
[34:13] oppressed people, people in difficulty.
[34:17] Obviously, France is also about
[34:19] humanism, but you cannot import so much
[34:22] poverty, especially from countries that
[34:24] are in great difficulty and have
[34:26] different customs, without creating
[34:28] enormous unrest. And once again, who
[34:31] gets the short end of the stick in all
[34:32] this? It's the French people,
[34:34] regardless of their origin, including
[34:36] those from less recent migrations, who
[34:38] are in the poorest and most
[34:39] working-class neighborhoods, since we
[34:41] pack people into those neighborhoods
[34:43] because they are poor. So they go to
[34:45] neighborhoods where they can find
[34:46] housing, where it's still possible to
[34:48] find housing, and so we amplify the
[34:49] problems. So it is a question of both
[34:52] social cohesion and a humanitarian and
[34:54] human one. We can no longer welcome
[34:58] people who cannot find work, who cannot
[35:02] find housing, it's just not possible.
[35:07] I've had classes in my working-class
[35:09] neighborhoods where you have entire
[35:11] classrooms where they say they need
[35:13] allophone classes because a sometimes
[35:15] very large majority of children do not
[35:17] master, or master the French language
[35:19] very poorly. It is not socially
[35:21] possible. It is not possible. You are
[35:23] amplifying social divides, you are
[35:25] amplifying territorial divides, you are
[35:27] amplifying every difficulty. So it is
[35:29] both a question of social cohesion, a
[35:32] question of order in every sense of the
[35:34] term, and of public order. And it is
[35:36] also simply a human question. So we
[35:39] must welcome fewer people, but welcome
[35:41] them better.
[35:43] » But at the time, it's been 10 years now
[35:45] that we know how to do it legally,
[35:46] since François Fillon had proposed it.
[35:50] It is that we must, through a
[35:52] referendum, escape the vice of legal
[35:54] precedents and the over-interpretation
[36:00] of the founding texts of the European
[36:02] Court of Human Rights, and so on, which
[36:05] have caused the right to family
[36:07] reunification, the right to immigration
[36:09] —to put it simply—to take
[36:11] precedence over the right to control
[36:13] immigration. So we must do as almost
[36:16] every nation in the world does,
[36:18] including great democracies like Canada
[36:20] and others. Saying, "Here is who we can
[36:23] welcome," and regarding countries of
[36:25] origin—it's not just about having a
[36:27] vision; it's simpler. I mean, France
[36:30] has the Mediterranean, there are people
[36:32] coming from African countries who cross
[36:34] the Mediterranean and end up on the
[36:36] shores of Italy or sometimes even
[36:38] France. How can we, then—the main,
[36:42] the essential migratory flows take
[36:44] place largely by land, so that's the
[36:46] first element, second element. It's,
[36:51] well, I mean, just as we...
[36:53] » Is there a sense of humanism? Should we
[36:55] have humanism? Those are the questions.
[36:57] And afterward, should we also have an
[36:59] international policy regarding African
[37:00] countries?
[37:01] » Well, several things in your question,
[37:02] several things in your question. First,
[37:04] it is always paradoxical to see that
[37:06] often the same people who tell us we
[37:07] can influence the climate—and I do
[37:09] think we must fight against the human
[37:10] part of climate change. So I can talk
[37:13] about it at length if you wish. You
[37:16] think we could manage to modify the
[37:17] climate, but we couldn't manage to
[37:19] control migratory flows? I find that
[37:22] quite paradoxical. The second element
[37:25] is that...There are several ways. There
[37:29] are several—we have to look at
[37:31] several parameters. Humanism is
[37:33] primarily an individual approach. I
[37:36] personally would not let someone die of
[37:38] hunger or sleep outside. We try to
[37:40] ensure that people can sleep and have a
[37:42] roof over their heads in my town, and
[37:43] so on. There is an element of
[37:45] individual charity, but I am talking to
[37:47] you about immigration as a social
[37:48] phenomenon, and that is how we must
[37:49] approach it in politics. By saying "we
[37:52] regulate those who come" and "we must
[37:54] welcome them," you create flows that
[37:56] amplify the problem and the social
[37:58] tragedy. Uh, those who are
[38:00] pro-immigration today bear a very heavy
[38:02] moral responsibility for, uh, the
[38:04] development of all these smuggler
[38:06] networks, uh, for, uh, besides, I saw
[38:08] that in Germany, well, there was a case
[38:11] against so-called humanitarian
[38:12] associations that, in reality, uh, are
[38:15] endorsing smuggler networks. So there
[38:17] isn't a single nation in the world that
[38:19] is a community of destiny, that is a
[38:20] democratic community, which doesn't
[38:22] want to control its own population.
[38:24] It's logical. At some point, if we
[38:27] decided to colonize, to invade, to
[38:29] immigrate thoughtlessly elsewhere, it
[38:31] would be rightly perceived poorly. So
[38:34] here, there is no desire for
[38:35] colonization, since these are
[38:36] individuals who are trying to get by,
[38:37] right? So it has nothing to do with
[38:38] that. But what I mean is that the
[38:39] social phenomenon ends up being just
[38:41] about the same. So there are several
[38:43] things. One, obviously we can better
[38:46] control the borders, and while there is
[38:48] no absolute system, whenever we have
[38:49] made efforts in this regard, we have
[38:51] managed to reduce the flow. Two, we
[38:54] must put an end to this welfare state
[38:56] model which is a vacuum that, that
[38:58] draws in immigration. That is
[39:00] self-evident. Look, I knew the world
[39:01] from before. Look, we didn't just let
[39:03] people, uh, die, uh, from illness.
[39:05] That's not true. On the other hand, we
[39:06] didn't treat the entire world,
[39:07] including people from rich countries,
[39:08] sometimes, for that matter.
[39:09] » We should abolish the for
[39:10] » Yes, of course, we must, we must return
[39:12] to an emergency assistance system, but
[39:14] not some kind of right that means—1.5
[39:16] billion, it costs us 1.5 billion per
[39:18] year—and that you are better treated
[39:20] when you are in an irregular situation
[39:21] than when you are regular, French or
[39:23] not French, that's not even the
[39:25] question, if you're poor, right? That's
[39:27] a reality that, that I live; I chair a
[39:28] hospital board of directors, you talk
[39:30] about it, it's, it's not political,
[39:32] it's not left or right. It is therefore
[39:34] obvious that we must review the welfare
[39:35] state system. It is obvious that we
[39:37] need an international policy, and
[39:39] notably at the European level, to, to
[39:41] control external borders. It is obvious
[39:43] that the, the, the source countries
[39:45] must be able to develop, hence at the
[39:47] time the great initiative of Jean-Luc
[39:50] Borloo, whom you know I am close to,
[39:52] for the electrification and so on of
[39:54] Africa. Well, all these questions, but
[39:55] it is up to the countries to take their
[39:56] destiny into their own hands. When you
[39:58] look at the success of many African
[40:00] countries, for that matter, and many
[40:02] Asian countries, all the countries in
[40:04] those regions of the world that knew
[40:07] how to trust in investing in work have
[40:09] made it out. The best example is Korea.
[40:11] I find that it's something we don't
[40:12] talk about enough. You have the same
[40:14] people, the same history, centuries of
[40:16] shared history. Exactly the same people
[40:18] . And for political reasons, all of a
[40:20] sudden, there's a border. You have one
[40:22] in the north, they are communist, one
[40:23] in the south, they are liberal. You
[40:25] compare the—that doesn't mean there
[40:27] aren't problems in South Korea, but you
[40:29] compare the way of life, the standard
[40:31] of living per capita, the freedoms
[40:33] between North Korea and South Korea.
[40:35] There you go. There you go. So every
[40:36] country can find its own path to
[40:38] development. And I encourage every
[40:39] country to find its own path to
[40:40] development. In any case, what is
[40:42] certain is that the integrity of France
[40:44] must be respected like the integrity of
[40:47] any country on the entire planet, like
[40:49] the integrity of Congo, like the
[40:51] integrity of the United States, the
[40:53] United Arab Emirates, Australia,
[40:55] Ireland, Algeria, Italy. There you go.
[40:57] To talk about the environment, since we
[40:59] don't have that much time left, to talk
[41:01] about the environment and ecological
[41:03] policy, I imagine you are pro-nuclear,
[41:04] that you are for the electrification of
[41:07] France using nuclear power. Uh today,
[41:09] the plants are struggling a bit and we
[41:11] need to build new ones. Do we create an
[41:14] energy mix with renewables? Do we go
[41:17] full nuclear? How how do you foresee it
[41:19] ?
[41:19] » Well, I am truly for the
[41:21] decarbonization of growth. It means
[41:22] human activity absolutely must be
[41:24] decarbonized.
[41:25] » Green growth. Yes, yes, of course. Yes,
[41:27] yes, yes. It's it's where the
[41:29] degrowthers uh have it all wrong,
[41:30] really. It means that we will need a
[41:33] lot of growth to finance the transition
[41:35] and the change, and not degrowth, which
[41:37] is an aberration from every point of
[41:39] view, but I'm not sure we have the time
[41:41] to talk about it. And uh and so for me,
[41:44] I am the pragmatic approach. If one day
[41:46] there is something other than nuclear,
[41:47] well, there will be something other
[41:48] than nuclear. Today, the least
[41:50] carbon-intensive energy of all, the
[41:52] most controllable, the most abundant,
[41:54] and the cheapest—well, there are
[41:56] actually two: nuclear and hydroelectric
[41:58] , like a major dam.
[41:59] » Uh
[42:01] » Uh, so it is obvious—and I have been
[42:02] saying it for years, and I said it at a
[42:04] time when it was less easy—that we
[42:06] must go all-in, given the current state
[42:08] of science, on nuclear and
[42:09] hydroelectric power. It’s a given.
[42:12] Next, we must allow local projects to
[42:14] proceed with renewable energies. I am
[42:16] developing solar energy where I live.
[42:19] We are going to have to use the power
[42:20] of the oceans. Uh, there are all the
[42:23] heating networks. I lead a very
[42:24] pragmatic urban area. We are doing
[42:26] solar, but we are also going to cover
[42:28] the entire urban area with a heating
[42:29] network. For example, we are going to
[42:31] have the largest and the first
[42:33] underground marine energy plant in
[42:35] France. There are very few in Europe
[42:37] that allow us to provide energy. We are
[42:39] reducing energy-related carbon
[42:41] emissions by 70%at a very low price
[42:42] across a large part of the city. We are
[42:44] going to use energy from treated
[42:46] wastewater. So we are very advanced in
[42:48] this regard, very pragmatic and very
[42:49] advanced. But those are local points.
[42:53] Energy is the foundation. If we want to
[42:55] reindustrialize, we need abundant,
[42:57] cheap, decarbonized energy because we
[42:59] are in the 21st century. And so we need
[43:02] an energy backbone, right? When dealing
[43:05] with other subjects where you need
[43:06] spontaneous order, and then in the end
[43:07] the state comes along later
[43:09] » Well, the state—in any case, the
[43:10] state and its private partners—in any
[43:12] case, there must be a backbone, which
[43:14] is what was done in the 60s, and this
[43:16] backbone must be nuclear and
[43:17] hydroelectric today. The mix must not
[43:19] be done, must not be irrational. The
[43:21] mix must not be made to the detriment
[43:23] of what is cheaper and more
[43:24] decarbonized. Nuclear power, even when
[43:27] including construction costs and waste
[43:29] treatment, is more decarbonized than
[43:31] solar and wind power, and furthermore,
[43:33] we master the technologies; we don't
[43:35] import stuff from China. So, it is
[43:38] obvious that we must go all-in on that,
[43:40] that wind power should be implemented
[43:42] when there is local support, when it
[43:44] doesn't concrete everything over,
[43:46] because France has adopted the "net
[43:47] zero artificialization" policy, which
[43:49] is a completely idiotic measure. The
[43:52] goal is good, as always. We must fight
[43:55] against soil artificialization, but we
[43:57] are starting from a top-down vertical
[43:58] system that will be inapplicable, and
[44:00] we are making many exceptions,
[44:02] including the regime for wind turbines,
[44:04] which—I don't know if you've seen the
[44:06] reality of the underground installation
[44:08] of wind turbines—is an incredible
[44:10] amount of concreting. It's an
[44:12] underground Atlantic Wall, not to
[44:14] mention the disfigurement of marine
[44:15] landscapes, for energy that is more
[44:17] expensive and less reliable. Because
[44:20] the problem with what we've called the
[44:23] mix is that we've injected solar and
[44:25] wind power into the energy backbone by
[44:27] giving them priority over nuclear.
[44:31] However, nuclear is not—it's not
[44:33] intermittent. So we turn off nuclear
[44:35] power plants, we turn them back on, and
[44:37] that means our nuclear plants have a
[44:38] much lower utilization rate than
[44:40] elsewhere in the world and a much
[44:41] higher rate of wear and tear. So there
[44:45] absolutely must be priority on the grid
[44:48] for nuclear and hydroelectric, and then
[44:52] local projects for so-called renewable
[44:55] energy—essentially solar today, and
[44:58] wind power as a supplement—to be
[45:01] clear.
[45:03] » Yes, yes, I see, I see very, very well,
[45:04] and it's—and it's very clear.
[45:06] Speaking of the backbone, for energy.
[45:10] In all other areas, are we
[45:12] decentralizing, leaving as much
[45:14] responsibility as possible to the
[45:16] lowest possible level? That's it, just
[45:18] to be sure I understand.
[45:19] » Yes, sub—what we call subsidiarity.
[45:21] Well, not for sovereign functions. I—
[45:24] I am, my next question was: are the
[45:25] French people ready for this? Do you
[45:29] really think that the French, who are
[45:30] used to the sovereign state in
[45:32] particular, but also to having the
[45:33] State accompany them, to having a
[45:35] welfare state around them, are they
[45:36] ready for this? Either way, a choice
[45:39] will have to be made. Either we
[45:41] continue to impoverish ourselves, to
[45:43] lock the poor into poverty, to—to
[45:48] depend on over-indebtedness. I mean,
[45:50] today, what is France? Do you realize
[45:53] that we have an hour of recording,
[45:54] we'll see about that. Perhaps,
[45:57] » But let's imagine it is an hour. While
[45:59] we are recording, the State will have
[46:02] generated 180 million euros in debt.
[46:05] Okay? That's 300,000 euros per minute
[46:07] currently in additional debt.
[46:09] Additional debt, that's 5,000 euros per
[46:11] second. And the absolute cynicism is
[46:13] that you go to a restaurant, you pick
[46:15] out a good wine and everything. By the
[46:17] way, it's getting worse and worse
[46:18] because we have fewer and fewer means,
[46:19] after all. But but in the end, you’re
[46:21] handing the bill to your children and
[46:22] grandchildren, but who can reason like
[46:24] that, saying as long as it lasts a
[46:25] little longer, you know? As long as it
[46:28] lasts just a little longer.
[46:29] » There you go, that’s all dead. It’s
[46:31] it’s cooked. The illusion is dead. So
[46:32] we really must invent other things that
[46:34] provide hope. And the the it’s not
[46:36] the French people who think who think
[46:37] that. Uh, there are a multitude of
[46:40] French people who are, who know very
[46:42] well that work must be better rewarded,
[46:44] that investment must be better rewarded
[46:45] , that we, we must be prosperous and
[46:47] free in the 21st century, that this
[46:49] requires: we can no longer stick to the
[46:51] '45 model because it was based on
[46:52] something else. It was based on
[46:55] enormous productivity gains. It was
[46:57] when we were having a lot of kids. We
[46:58] are going to close 4,000 schools in
[47:00] France in the next 5 years. We are
[47:01] going to open 10,000 nursing homes.
[47:02] It’s it’s it’s a colossal
[47:04] upheaval, uh, between the ecological
[47:07] revolution, the, uh, digital revolution
[47:09] , and the demographic revolution. If we
[47:11] reason like we did 100 years ago,
[47:13] we’re dead. And today the entire
[47:14] political class wants to make us
[47:16] believe that we will return to the
[47:17] glorious thirty years, playing on
[47:19] nostalgia. There was, it was great
[47:20] before. Wonderful. But we need to move
[47:21] on to something else. What we are going
[47:22] to do now will be great. The future,
[47:24] we’re going to seize it, you know.
[47:25] And, uh, there isn't a gene in the
[47:27] French individual that consists of
[47:29] thinking that you have to go to the
[47:30] counter to get an allowance. That is,
[47:32] that is false. It is, it is completely
[47:35] false. The French, the French are
[47:36] rational like all people in the world.
[47:38] So if we create a society where the
[47:40] counter pays more than the job, well,
[47:42] they go to the counter. They aren't
[47:44] stupid. They are, it's rational. But
[47:48] that’s why when I spoke of incentives
[47:50] , of guaranteeing a positive gap for
[47:52] the worker compared to those who
[47:54] don’t work, uh, that’s what will
[47:56] recreate prosperity. Uh, it is truly
[48:00] the, the basis for building the future.
[48:04] » And I, I, uh...
[48:05] » But you speak of prosperity,
[48:06] » We are a nation of entrepreneurs. Uh,
[48:09] look when, when Uber arrived, the
[48:10] number of people who, who suddenly
[48:12] created their, their...well, afterwards
[48:14] , it evolved more or less well, and
[48:15] precariousness too, but what does it
[48:17] matter! There is a fantastic
[48:18] entrepreneurial need, there is a need
[48:20] for freedom, there is a need for
[48:21] independence. I I It's not a majority
[48:22] of French people who are entrepreneurs.
[48:24] There are many, but it's not a majority
[48:25] who are.
[48:25] » Yes, but when you look at the the
[48:27] wishes, it's it's constantly growing.
[48:29] More and more people want to undertake,
[48:31] the relationship to work is going to
[48:33] evolve considerably. So, objectively,
[48:36] I'm not saying we don't need businesses
[48:38] , we need employees, we need, well, I
[48:40] was an employee in my life, I was an
[48:41] entrepreneur, I was both. We were
[48:44] talking about prosperity, but—and you
[48:46] mentioned examples earlier like
[48:48] Thatcher—is there not going to be, if
[48:50] you are elected in 2027, isn't there
[48:51] going to be a moment that will be hard
[48:53] for the French before arriving at
[48:55] prosperity? That is the question. I
[48:57] want to.
[48:58] » I'm not going to, I...I'm not going to
[49:00] cheat on the...the question, but what I
[49:02] want to say is that the hard moment is
[49:04] now and it will be more and more...it's
[49:06] that if we don't...if we remain on all
[49:08] the nuances of...of socialism, of
[49:10] conformism, of technocracy that...that
[49:12] we are sold, or if we go into the
[49:13] adventure of the extremes, it will be
[49:15] even harder. That's it. That...do you
[49:19] pay taxes? I think the pencil is a
[49:22] great success. I wish you well.
[49:24] » Well, I congratulate you on that. Do
[49:26] you know that this year we are paying
[49:28] with our taxes, we are paying seven
[49:30] times more in taxes for just the
[49:32] interest on the state's debt than for
[49:34] the entire justice budget? And we lack
[49:37] prison space and we have
[49:38] multi-recidivists on the streets. No,
[49:40] but do you understand? That is to say
[49:42] that everything you are telling me, I
[49:43] am willing to hear it if things were
[49:45] going well, but things are not going
[49:46] well and will go less and less well.
[49:49] There will be losers when I implement
[49:51] my policy, it will be the whole caste
[49:53] of those who cling to their privileges.
[49:56] Exactly. Yes, they will be losers. A
[49:58] minority. What I was saying is that I'm
[49:59] not for it, but of course not.
[50:01] » But of course not. because by managing
[50:04] to reduce the dead weight of
[50:06] over-administration. Why is it that in
[50:09] Denmark, a highly administered country,
[50:11] there are 24%administrative and
[50:13] technical posts in hospitals, while we
[50:16] have climbed to 35%? Why? It’s not
[50:19] inevitable. There is no inevitability
[50:21] to multiplying management controllers
[50:23] and reporting. I mean, the number of
[50:26] stupid procedures and compliance in a
[50:28] company or a local authority—I spend
[50:31] my life signing folders. Now, when I
[50:32] sign a letter to a resident, I love
[50:34] that. When I validate memos with 47
[50:36] stamps and whatnot, I fight against
[50:38] that. The requirements, the
[50:40] deliberation reports, I have to sign
[50:42] the thing 10 times. I don’t know,
[50:44] maybe there’s a giant cellar in
[50:45] France where we put all these documents
[50:47] . I don’t know where it goes, or
[50:49] maybe incinerators to produce energy.
[50:51] At least that would be useful; the
[50:53] point is, it’s not inevitable. When
[50:55] we succeed in cutting spending—80
[50:57] billion the first year, reaching a
[50:58] cruising speed of 200 billion (we need
[51:00] to hit 300 billion)—we will return 60
[51:02] %, that’s 120 billion of the 200
[51:03] billion in spending cuts, in immediate
[51:05] purchasing power, right away, through
[51:06] lower contributions. Contribute less to
[51:08] earn more. I mean, the first winners
[51:11] will be the people who work, the people
[51:13] who want to get ahead. When we create a
[51:16] funded pension system, the transition
[51:18] will be very complicated, very
[51:19] difficult, because we are currently in
[51:21] budgetary apnea. But it remains that we
[51:24] will ensure that people who earn little
[51:26] money, who have low salaries, will
[51:28] finally own their retirement with a
[51:30] return far superior to the
[51:32] pay-as-you-go system, which is finished
[51:34] , and that’s what will allow us to
[51:36] finance the economy. We will reinvest,
[51:40] we will finally have French investment
[51:41] funds. We won't be dependent on the
[51:44] Americans, the Dutch, the Norwegians,
[51:46] or the United Arab Emirates, who have
[51:49] these immense investment funds.
[51:51] » Exactly. Well, precisely on that note,
[51:55] there is a growing sentiment,
[51:57] especially among the young, that part
[52:00] of the debt we have and must finance in
[52:02] France is due to pensions and the
[52:05] current system, and that a pension
[52:08] reform moving toward capitalization
[52:10] could already alleviate much of the
[52:13] debt we have today. Maybe overall, what
[52:16] I mean is that perhaps this reform
[52:18] alone is enough and no other reforms
[52:19] are needed. Oh no, no, that won't work
[52:21] here. Well, this reform, it's it's
[52:22] unavoidable. I'll come back to the
[52:24] pensions if you like.
[52:27] » But what I mean is that we still have
[52:29] to ask the question of public
[52:31] dysfunction, meaning why you well, the
[52:33] pension system makes up 25%of public
[52:35] spending, so it's colossal. Over a
[52:38] certain period, it was even half of the
[52:40] increase in debt, you know. But
[52:42] regardless, why why is € 1 of taxes
[52:45] in France less effective than € 1 of
[52:48] taxes in almost all other European
[52:51] countries? Why? The problem is that
[52:56] this debate is fundamental, but it
[52:59] shouldn't distract us from the even
[53:01] more fundamental question of the
[53:03] performance of the public sector, which
[53:06] , well, occupies many of my thoughts.
[53:10] It works like in any organization. A
[53:12] head of state should manage the state,
[53:14] not manage society; I mean, they
[53:16] shouldn't tell me what temperature to
[53:18] take my shower at. We even had ads
[53:20] telling us how long to shower and what
[53:21] setting to put the thermostat on.
[53:23] Whether I should wear a turtleneck in
[53:24] winter, how many fruits and vegetables
[53:25] —leave us alone. That's not your
[53:26] problem. It's my problem as an
[53:27] individual. Okay. Well, let them just
[53:29] give us the information. You're yes,
[53:31] it's very much like the Soviet Union.
[53:33] They'll tell you how much
[53:34] » No, but through the energy backbone,
[53:36] perhaps if it's the state controlling
[53:37] that
[53:38] » But I didn't say the state should
[53:39] control the energy backbone. I said the
[53:40] citizen sees their energy bill and they
[53:42] will optimize their behavior all by
[53:44] themselves. They don't need it. I mean,
[53:46] the state doesn't know how to manage
[53:47] money. It takes more than elsewhere and
[53:49] it runs higher deficits than elsewhere.
[53:50] And it wants to explain to us how we
[53:52] should live. But it's less capable than
[53:53] we are. Honestly, get rid of this idea
[53:55] that's been shoved down our throats for
[53:57] years in France, which consists of
[53:59] saying that the larger the entity, the
[54:01] more state-run, the more effective it
[54:03] is. It's not true. I am for a state
[54:04] that is strong in its sovereign duties.
[54:06] So, it should worry less about what
[54:07] doesn't concern it, especially our
[54:09] private lives. Next, pensions. There is
[54:12] obviously the need to acknowledge that
[54:14] the pay-as-you-go system relied on
[54:16] three pillars, as I said earlier: labor
[54:18] immigration, productivity gains, but
[54:21] above all, a high birth rate. It is a
[54:23] broad pyramid of contributors. We
[54:26] aren't having children anymore.
[54:27] Therefore, the pay-as-you-go system
[54:29] cannot last, and even today, it is
[54:31] largely kept on budget life support by
[54:33] the taxpayer. Even today, we have the
[54:35] highest contributions in the world. We
[54:39] spend three points more than Germany on
[54:41] pensions. Yet our pensions are not that
[54:43] high. That is the whole paradox. And
[54:45] the system is exploding and doing so to
[54:46] the detriment of the young and the
[54:47] working population. Therefore, we need
[54:49] a mandatory tier of funded pensions.
[54:51] For pensions of at least € 2,000, we
[54:53] will have to stop indexing them in
[54:55] order to manage a transition. We will
[54:57] have to review this whole system, but
[54:59] there are also many retirees who are
[55:01] struggling and having a hard time; I
[55:02] see many of them.
[55:04] » That is the worry with reforming this
[55:05] system, too: making the young wealthier
[55:07] but paradoxically impoverishing the
[55:08] retirees if we go through with it.
[55:10] » No, but we will have to—I am on the
[55:12] liberal side—we do not call into
[55:13] question a contract that has been
[55:15] signed. So, a contract signed by people
[55:18] back then, a social contract, must be
[55:20] honored. But the issue, and you know
[55:23] what is crazy, is that I recently heard
[55:26] people in green-left politics saying
[55:27] that we should have fewer children to
[55:30] save the planet. It was even in a
[55:33] Nathan guide, a Nathan school textbook
[55:35] from 2000, that said the most effective
[55:37] way to preserve the planet is to have
[55:39] fewer children. Can you imagine the
[55:41] brainwashing we are doing to our kids?
[55:43] But these are the same people who are
[55:45] against funded pensions and say we must
[55:46] keep the pay-as-you-go system. Yet, the
[55:49] pay-as-you-go system can only work, it
[55:51] can only make sense, if we have more
[55:53] children; it was designed at a time
[55:55] when there were 4.7, almost 5, workers
[55:58] per retiree. Today, we are at 1.7. So,
[56:01] these people who say both that we must
[56:02] keep the system as it is, even though
[56:04] it is bankrupt, and not to have
[56:06] children—I think they shouldn't even
[56:07] have the right to a pension. We have to
[56:10] be consistent, because I have kids, I
[56:12] want my kids to have kids, and I don't
[56:13] want those who have children to bring
[56:15] little debtors into the world who will
[56:17] be saddled with debt to pay for the
[56:18] retirement of those who are against
[56:20] birth. As long as we don't pay the debt
[56:23] , it's fine, but kids with a big debt
[56:27] on their shoulders. Whose fault is it?
[56:30] The politician's.
[56:31] » The politician is a Frenchman with a
[56:32] mandate, you know.
[56:33] » Yeah, but
[56:34] » Let's never forget that. Fault, I don't
[56:37] like, I don't...fault is for everyone
[56:39] to say. I don't know. What I mean is
[56:40] that today, we have to change all of
[56:41] that. There you go.
[56:42] » The French have the feeling that it's
[56:43] the politicians 'fault. That's why I'm
[56:44] saying it. It's the politicians who are
[56:46] precisely putting the country. Well,
[56:49] the country has been poorly managed for
[56:51] too long, that's for sure. So the
[56:54] politicians, no, the politicians, I'll
[56:56] paraphrase Simone de Beauvoir. Uh, one
[56:58] is not born a politician, one becomes
[57:00] one, there you go. Uh, there you go.
[57:03] » And maybe it's in becoming one that we
[57:04] ...But no, what I mean is there has
[57:05] been a problem with the quality of the
[57:07] representatives, you know, that's for
[57:08] sure. But the constituents chose them
[57:10] too, you know. Anyway, so we're not
[57:11] going to dwell on the past. Uh, and
[57:14] then it's really a system of a system.
[57:19] Meaning the system today, as it has
[57:21] evolved based on the emotional, for
[57:23] which every French person also has a
[57:25] responsibility. Uh, for every news
[57:28] event, we made a law, we piled on an
[57:30] extra layer of regulation, and so on.
[57:33] Resulting today in this textual
[57:35] harassment that I mentioned earlier, a
[57:38] hyperinflation of texts. We went from
[57:40] 100,000 words in the environmental code
[57:42] . 12 years ago to 1,200,000 words today
[57:44] , uh, things that are inapplicable and
[57:46] don't defend the environment. And if it
[57:48] actually helped the environment, at
[57:49] least it would be understandable, but,
[57:50] uh, the principles of environmental
[57:51] defense, we've known them for a long
[57:52] time. That the polluter must be
[57:54] sanctioned, we must not threaten the
[57:55] ecosystem, and so on and so forth. Well
[57:57] , and, uh, so what is needed today is
[58:00] to change those who govern, but also to
[58:02] change the governance as I mentioned
[58:05] earlier.
[58:05] » To change, and I'm coming back to the
[58:07] transition, it takes time. In reality,
[58:09] if you are elected, you have 5 years,
[58:11] you won't be able to do everything you
[58:12] want in 5 years. Maybe, maybe you have
[58:14] the ambition to do it in 5 years. But
[58:15] how do you do it? Because like all the
[58:17] predecessors of political figures who
[58:19] have been presidents, in the end, time
[58:20] is also what they lack to give great
[58:22] answers.
[58:23] » Several things. First, I think you need
[58:24] to have character. You must not be
[58:26] obsessed with your image and your
[58:28] popularity.
[58:29] » Are you not?
[58:30] » No. Truly, no. There you go. A
[58:33] political figure without being full of
[58:34] themselves. No, no, but I'm not the
[58:35] only one. I know plenty of mayors and
[58:36] such. They have, in the sense that, no,
[58:39] it's always wonderful to feel love and
[58:41] support, right? But if you're in
[58:43] politics to be loved, you should just
[58:45] get a cocker spaniel. It's
[58:47] » No, because furthermore, it distorts
[58:48] your personality. So yes, I think so,
[58:50] but I won't name them, though there are
[58:52] some I like a lot, by the way. But what
[58:54] you need to do is seek to be respected.
[58:56] It's the difference between trying to
[58:57] convince and trying to seduce. I don't
[58:59] seek to seduce, I seek to convince.
[59:00] There is PR all the time, of course.
[59:02] It's obvious, well, but it's very, very
[59:05] important to try to bring people along.
[59:09] I see it in my municipality, where
[59:10] there was never a mayor elected in the
[59:12] first round. I was elected, re-elected.
[59:14] Maybe if I run again, I'll get crushed,
[59:16] I don't know. But there are people who
[59:18] don't entirely agree with me, who don't
[59:20] like my personality, but there is an
[59:21] alignment between what I say, who I am,
[59:23] and what I do, and that is truly the
[59:24] foundation. For that reason, I wrote a
[59:26] book about Pompidou with Christophe
[59:28] Tardieu; that was really what made him
[59:30] inspire such trust. He was the most
[59:31] popular president during those 5 years.
[59:33] He was present, since he died after 5
[59:35] years, and at the time, that was it.
[59:37] But it's because there was an alignment
[59:40] , and I think that is very important.
[59:42] Then, you must say things from the
[59:44] start, beforehand, of course, because
[59:46] you mustn't catch people by surprise.
[59:49] You have to be credible; you have to
[59:50] say, "Here, if I am in power, here is
[59:51] what I will do." Above all, people must
[59:54] not feel dispossessed of power the day
[59:55] after you are elected. That's what has
[59:57] happened very often. Hence the
[59:59] necessity, I think, to evolve the
[1:00:01] institutions and to facilitate the
[1:00:03] popular initiative referendum. I look a
[1:00:05] lot at what is happening in Switzerland
[1:00:06] . I find it to be a very interesting
[1:00:08] model in several areas. Uh, next, with
[1:00:10] the people working around me, we are
[1:00:12] working on a massive plan for the first
[1:00:14] few months. It sounds a bit cliché,
[1:00:16] but it's essential. I go back to
[1:00:17] General de Gaulle in '58. In '58,
[1:00:20] between de Gaulle as President of the
[1:00:22] Council when René Coty left power and
[1:00:24] de Gaulle of the 5th Republic, 8 or 9
[1:00:25] months passed. A very interesting
[1:00:28] period with Pinay and Rueff. He
[1:00:30] launched the Rueff plan of extreme
[1:00:32] radicality. He completely turned around
[1:00:34] public accounts. He set the country
[1:00:35] back on track.
[1:00:36] » That's what you want to do.
[1:00:37] » 335 ordinances in less than 9 months.
[1:00:39] 335 ordinances in less than 9 months.
[1:00:41] So, I am working on a massive project
[1:00:43] around the three axes I mentioned
[1:00:45] earlier. A major law to liberate the
[1:00:47] economy, a major policy to restore
[1:00:49] order, a major policy of educational
[1:00:51] and scientific ambition, and therefore
[1:00:53] with referendums when necessary,
[1:00:55] organic laws when necessary, ordinances
[1:00:57] when necessary, and ordinary laws when
[1:00:59] necessary. That's why we have to
[1:01:00] prepare for the legislative elections
[1:01:01] too.
[1:01:02] » Do you believe in your election today?
[1:01:03] Well,
[1:01:04] » I wouldn't be here with you otherwise.
[1:01:07] » Yes, but I ask you the question because
[1:01:09] there was the debate at the MEDEF where
[1:01:12] you were not among the main ones. You
[1:01:14] had a debate with Fab Roussel, much
[1:01:16] better, by the way,
[1:01:18] » Thanks to Fabien Roussel. But no, but
[1:01:19] at least we had two, plus, I mean, I
[1:01:21] respect Fabien Roussel a lot. We had
[1:01:23] already hosted him.
[1:01:24] » There you go, I have no issues, he is a
[1:01:26] communist. I am for freedom. Well,
[1:01:28] there you go, so we have two
[1:01:29] contradictory visions, but we talked
[1:01:30] about it in the rest.
[1:01:31] » But precisely, because of that, some
[1:01:33] media consider you a "small candidate,"
[1:01:35] I don't like that expression, but
[1:01:37] anyway, it means what it means. Do you
[1:01:40] believe in the polls? How do you
[1:01:41] position yourself for the presidential
[1:01:43] election? How do we act, then, in your
[1:01:45] position? How do you prepare for the
[1:01:46] presidential election?
[1:01:46] » Well, in life, you know, you need
[1:01:48] belief. We are always—the human being
[1:01:51] is spiritual, we need love, we need
[1:01:53] faith, we need hope. Very well. But in
[1:01:56] this case, I try not to be in the realm
[1:01:57] of belief. I am like when I take the
[1:02:00] start of a marathon.
[1:02:02] » No, and if you want to be realistic,
[1:02:04] I'm not doing this for—well, that
[1:02:05] would annoy some politicians who like
[1:02:07] it when I say it, but it's not a
[1:02:09] question of wanting it or not, contrary
[1:02:10] to me, because everyone says the one
[1:02:12] who wants it the most, whatever. If you
[1:02:15] do it just because you want to, it
[1:02:16] feels a bit adolescent, you know. So,
[1:02:18] it's a...I feel like I'm, well, I don't
[1:02:21] feel illegitimate. I long thought that
[1:02:25] I, that this wasn't my world.
[1:02:27] » Yeah.
[1:02:28] » And that if I go for it, it's because I
[1:02:29] no longer identified with the political
[1:02:31] options. I get the feeling there's a
[1:02:33] big, that there's no lack of political
[1:02:34] demand in France. That's what makes me,
[1:02:37] that's what makes me think we can
[1:02:39] really govern the country effectively
[1:02:41] again. It's that a large part of the
[1:02:44] population, not the ones we hear
[1:02:45] protesting, the professionals of
[1:02:47] righteous indignation, the social media
[1:02:49] mobs, it's...I had the same ones 40
[1:02:50] years ago, with the red balloons and
[1:02:52] all that, telling you about the protest
[1:02:54] , the thing, well, Pavlovian responses.
[1:02:57] No, the majority of people who live
[1:02:59] their lives, who are humble, who are
[1:03:00] discreet, what I call the real people,
[1:03:02] it's this beautiful France that wants
[1:03:04] to rediscover the great France. I want,
[1:03:06] I am, I'm proposing the great France.
[1:03:08] So I think there is no problem with
[1:03:09] political demand. There is a majority
[1:03:11] political demand that is orphaned from
[1:03:12] a clear and distinct political proposal
[1:03:14] . There is still supply, it's just
[1:03:16] scattered. That's why I proposed a
[1:03:17] primary, something like that.
[1:03:18] » And my problem, you're right, is that
[1:03:20] today I don't appear like the people
[1:03:22] who can win. I'm aware of all that, you
[1:03:23] know. I'm not going to give you some
[1:03:25] super dynamic pitch. I have momentum,
[1:03:27] but this momentum is starting from zero
[1:03:29] , so yes, there is momentum. Yes, but
[1:03:31] is it—well, people tell me I should
[1:03:33] never say that, but I don't care, it's
[1:03:35] the reality. But I feel good about the
[1:03:37] approach, with some irony and
[1:03:39] self-deprecation too.
[1:03:40] » Does that allow you to be freer as well
[1:03:41] , perhaps?
[1:03:41] » Yeah. And yes. And above all, I—when
[1:03:43] we really work, I really work, I truly
[1:03:45] work. There you go. I
[1:03:47] » I, I really work. I don't know how else
[1:03:50] to tell you. It's that I accept a
[1:03:51] counterargument if it's a
[1:03:52] counterargument based on substance. Not
[1:03:54] if it's just a posture or a belief. Yes
[1:03:57] , but not if it's just chanting slogans
[1:03:59] . Exactly. And I, it's like a
[1:04:02] competition when I, when I sign up for
[1:04:04] a trail run or a marathon or a
[1:04:06] half-marathon or whatever. Well, I go
[1:04:09] for it, I try to get the best time
[1:04:11] possible. I'm going there to win the
[1:04:12] marathon, that I can't do. But, you see
[1:04:14] , when I when I ran for the municipal
[1:04:16] elections in Cannes, people explained
[1:04:18] to me quite learnedly for a long time
[1:04:20] that it wasn't for me.
[1:04:21] » Right, for a very long time. Uh, they
[1:04:24] told me later there was another
[1:04:25] candidate, the UMP hadn't endorsed me,
[1:04:27] and then, "Yes, but you..." No, wait,
[1:04:29] commerce was at once too popular but
[1:04:31] also too intellectual. Basically, they
[1:04:34] criticized everything at the same time.
[1:04:35] Well, and then finally I went for it
[1:04:37] and it worked. I didn't take a
[1:04:39] ministerial post that brought instant
[1:04:41] notoriety. But all the better, it
[1:04:43] bothers this caste, this conformism.
[1:04:46] All the better, I want to shatter this
[1:04:47] conformism. It's making the country
[1:04:49] lose, it betrays people, it's
[1:04:51] unconscious, but they all think the
[1:04:52] same. You see it clearly, you feel
[1:04:55] exactly what I'm saying. There's the
[1:04:56] same language, there's the same way of
[1:04:58] being. Even when they try to act cool,
[1:05:00] they make the cover of a popular
[1:05:01] magazine, they put their jacket over
[1:05:03] their shoulder, with the kids, and we
[1:05:04] pose looking at the thing,
[1:05:06] » They're serving fries now. Yes, but I
[1:05:08] don't even want to go there, but there
[1:05:10] have been worse things; well, maybe the
[1:05:12] moment was nice too, I don't know. So I
[1:05:15] saw that, but see, even the language.
[1:05:18] So sometimes they play the wise, a bit
[1:05:20] knowing, a bit solemn because of the
[1:05:22] war around Europe, and then they play
[1:05:24] the cool guy, and so on. I don't play
[1:05:26] games, I'm just having fun. I have
[1:05:28] self-deprecation, but on the other hand
[1:05:30] , I don't have a rehearsed speech.
[1:05:33] Afterwards, I try to adapt not the
[1:05:35] substance of my speech, but sometimes
[1:05:37] the form depending on the people.
[1:05:39] That's normal. But you won't catch me
[1:05:42] saying the opposite from one place to
[1:05:44] another. There you go. I...
[1:05:46] » But will you remain the mayor of Cannes
[1:05:48] ?
[1:05:48] » If I am President of the Republic?
[1:05:49] » Yes. No, if you are not President of
[1:05:50] the Republic,
[1:05:51] » Well, I...the capital will be in Cannes
[1:05:52] because I want to live by the
[1:05:53] Mediterranean. There you go. But I
[1:05:55] think many French people would
[1:05:57] appreciate the fact that there's some
[1:05:58] ...
[1:05:58] » I wouldn't be doing the people of
[1:05:59] Cannes a favor, unfortunately.
[1:06:01] » Yes, it wouldn't be, yes...
[1:06:03] » Or no, it actually wouldn't be good.
[1:06:05] » But no, I wanted to know if you are
[1:06:06] going to run for the legislative
[1:06:07] elections if the elected president
[1:06:09] dissolves the National Assembly. Are
[1:06:12] you, well, Nouvelle Énergie is
[1:06:14] preparing legislative candidacies. We
[1:06:17] will be very present in the legislative
[1:06:19] elections, especially if I win the
[1:06:20] presidential, we will need a majority
[1:06:22] afterward. So we will prepare for all
[1:06:23] of that. I, I have, I have, my mandate
[1:06:27] is mayor. There you go.
[1:06:29] » Mayor or president?
[1:06:30] » Yes, because I, I want to be the boss.
[1:06:32] » No, but you understand, it's, it's, uh,
[1:06:34] again, I was told I shouldn't say that.
[1:06:37] But
[1:06:38] » Because, because if you want, what,
[1:06:40] what interests me in life is not having
[1:06:41] a title; I've said it before, I'm not
[1:06:43] looking for lines on a CV or retirement
[1:06:44] points. I am lucky to be at a stage in
[1:06:47] my life where I've done things and
[1:06:49] things are going pretty well personally
[1:06:51] . What interests me is really being
[1:06:53] useful. It's creating a, creating a
[1:06:56] team for France, just like I have a
[1:06:57] municipal team. It's creating a
[1:06:59] collective while assuming my
[1:07:01] responsibility as a boss, because a
[1:07:02] boss is someone who tries to...I have
[1:07:04] always, in my life, learned this: I was
[1:07:06] lucky to start from not much and meet
[1:07:08] some great people. Who? I've had a lot
[1:07:10] of luck. I had Jacques Pélissard, who
[1:07:12] had some experience in politics and
[1:07:13] trained me, who was a great legal
[1:07:14] expert; I had Bernard Rocon, who was a
[1:07:16] great boss and was mayor of Caen, and
[1:07:17] so on. And there's one thing I've
[1:07:19] learned all the time: first, you have
[1:07:21] to work, uh, you shouldn't take
[1:07:23] yourself too seriously while working
[1:07:25] very seriously, and above all, you must
[1:07:27] look for people more competent than
[1:07:29] yourself. So I find them easily, which
[1:07:32] says it's concerning for me, but I've
[1:07:34] spent my life surrounding myself—when
[1:07:36] I was an employee, I looked for work,
[1:07:38] and then at some point, it shifted to
[1:07:40] where I could choose. And, and when you
[1:07:44] , when you trust someone, it pays off
[1:07:46] much more to trust than to be paranoid.
[1:07:50] You need a little paranoia because, as
[1:07:51] Woody Allen said, it's not because
[1:07:53] you're paranoid that you don't have
[1:07:54] enemies. That makes me laugh a lot. But
[1:07:58] so, you see, being a parliamentarian is
[1:08:01] magnificent, right? Making the law, and
[1:08:04] so on, it can be very interesting. But,
[1:08:07] but really, in my life, what interested
[1:08:09] me was being a minister. Being a
[1:08:11] minister can be very rewarding,
[1:08:13] provided you admire the person above
[1:08:15] you.
[1:08:15] » Provided you have a ministry where you
[1:08:17] can actually make decisions.
[1:08:19] » If it’s just about having a flashing
[1:08:20] police escort, a clerk serving you,
[1:08:22] doing PR stunts, and commenting on the
[1:08:23] news, the weather, and such—because
[1:08:25] that’s what ministers are 9 times out
[1:08:26] of 10 today—it doesn’t interest me.
[1:08:29] It doesn’t interest me.
[1:08:30] » Yes, it interests me—well, especially
[1:08:31] since the dissolution, it doesn’t
[1:08:33] interest me.
[1:08:33] » So, in my view, there are individual
[1:08:35] factors, you know; we make sacrifices,
[1:08:37] but there are still individual
[1:08:39] principles of personal fulfillment. If
[1:08:41] you could implement just one measure,
[1:08:43] perhaps as president, or potentially as
[1:08:45] a minister, or I don’t know. Perhaps
[1:08:49] you will carry this voice through the
[1:08:50] New Energy deputies; if there is just
[1:08:52] one measure, you look toward 2100 or
[1:08:54] 2150, perhaps the very distant future
[1:08:55] of France, and say, "That is my legacy.
[1:08:57] " What would it be? What I would like
[1:09:00] people to remember about my work is
[1:09:02] that France became a more prosperous,
[1:09:03] freer, and more just country. It’s
[1:09:06] about justice. The rest is just a sum
[1:09:07] of measures. So, when—if I am elected
[1:09:09] President of the Republic, because "
[1:09:11] when I am president" sounds a bit too
[1:09:12] presidential, there—I will
[1:09:13] immediately appoint a Chief Human
[1:09:14] Resources Officer for the State. Right
[1:09:16] away; there is no State HR director,
[1:09:18] there is no career management. It's not
[1:09:19] true. People tell you there are huge HR
[1:09:22] costs at the State level. But it might
[1:09:24] seem silly, yet that is how we will
[1:09:25] turn the country around. Uh,
[1:09:27] immediately I will launch a
[1:09:28] construction plan for prison cells or
[1:09:30] agreements with neighboring countries.
[1:09:32] Uh, anyway, we are coming back to what
[1:09:33] I was saying earlier. Immediately, I
[1:09:34] will liberate the school system and
[1:09:35] reinstate a common core curriculum.
[1:09:36] There. Immediately, I will reintroduce
[1:09:38] and include philosophy from primary
[1:09:39] school, because in the 21st century,
[1:09:40] with robots, we will need to learn how
[1:09:42] to decode the world. We will need to
[1:09:43] learn critical thinking more than ever.
[1:09:45] Immediately, I will create this
[1:09:46] mandatory differential of at least €
[1:09:48] 500 between salaries. There you go, you
[1:09:50] know, sometimes it’s not a bad thing
[1:09:51] if people don’t remember much,
[1:09:53] because in fact, for a president, it
[1:09:54] means things weren’t going so badly,
[1:09:55] if you see what I mean.
[1:09:57] » Thank you very much. We still have the
[1:09:59] envelope that's been here from the
[1:10:01] beginning. Would you agree to open it?
[1:10:03] » But I find there's a paradox; it says "
[1:10:04] confidential," so if I open it, because
[1:10:06] there are still people watching us who
[1:10:08] have seen "confidential" until now, so
[1:10:09] ...
[1:10:09] » But from the end, it's no longer
[1:10:11] confidential. If you want to open it,
[1:10:12] you can open it; if you don't want to
[1:10:13] open it...
[1:10:14] » My great temptation is to tell you no,
[1:10:16] out of a spirit of provocation, but I
[1:10:18] think if you put it there, it's because
[1:10:20] you have curiosity. Exactly.
[1:10:21] » We all have the curiosity to know. But
[1:10:23] » Well, you know, come on. Name a living
[1:10:28] person whom you sincerely think would
[1:10:30] make a better president than you. I
[1:10:35] shouldn't have seen the envelope.
[1:10:38] » There, you have to answer now.
[1:10:39] » But no, it's because let's imagine one
[1:10:42] comes to my mind.
[1:10:43] » But it could be someone who isn't a
[1:10:44] candidate for this, but I don't want to
[1:10:46] give ideas. Some already think we
[1:10:47] aren't numerous enough. Frankly, there
[1:10:50] are tons of us. Well, but the problem
[1:10:52] is that I have plenty who come to mind,
[1:10:54] but I won't tell you. There, that will
[1:10:55] be my ultimate freedom. Very well. Yeah
[1:11:01] , I thought you were going to tell me
[1:11:02] you'd say Francis Lalanne, but no, he's
[1:11:04] a candidate.
[1:11:05] » Yes, yes, that's true. But maybe
[1:11:07] » No, but I'm sure there are...so, I
[1:11:08] don't know if they would be better than
[1:11:10] me, because you have to be a bit sure
[1:11:12] of yourself, but people who, you see,
[1:11:14] people who manage to do simple things,
[1:11:16] to get results while managing
[1:11:17] complexity. I don't know, it hasn't
[1:11:19] always worked, but I'll take an example
[1:11:22] to surprise you, but I don't know,
[1:11:23] maybe Arsène Wenger.
[1:11:25] » Or
[1:11:26] » Okay, I would like to have people like
[1:11:27] that in my French team too, well, I
[1:11:29] have some who are joining me, great
[1:11:30] people.
[1:11:31] » People who come from sports.
[1:11:33] » From sports, yes, from sports, I have a
[1:11:34] lot of them. But people who, in
[1:11:37] addition, in sports, or in the arts, or
[1:11:39] in business, or in the non-profit
[1:11:41] sector, uh, in charity, uh, have
[1:11:43] managed complexity. You know, when,
[1:11:46] when, and here too, it's, when, it's
[1:11:48] complex, but Edgar Morin, the late
[1:11:50] Edgar Morin, said: "The round ball is a
[1:11:54] means of universal communication," but
[1:11:56] football too, football can be the worst
[1:11:58] , the money side, stuff, the violence,
[1:12:00] and can be the best.
[1:12:02] » In any case, there's nothing more
[1:12:03] selective. Everyone plays football, the
[1:12:04] whole planet; it's the most global
[1:12:06] phenomenon. And when you look at how
[1:12:08] football clubs are organized, the
[1:12:10] selection of talent, high-level sports
[1:12:12] don't lie; if you're not good, it shows
[1:12:14] immediately on the field. There are
[1:12:18] worlds where people cheat. In
[1:12:19] high-level sports, that doesn't happen.
[1:12:21] But high-level sport needs a popular
[1:12:23] base. So it's exactly the metaphor we
[1:12:25] need to launch the country. So we must
[1:12:27] ensure that everyone can have access to
[1:12:28] playing sports. But we must also ensure
[1:12:30] that the processes for creating elites
[1:12:32] aren't reserved for the same social
[1:12:33] class. In football, you can play, even
[1:12:36] your build can change and so on. And
[1:12:39] you see the complexity of creating a
[1:12:41] sports club, managing to get results
[1:12:43] even if you have much larger financial
[1:12:46] resources than others, and even then,
[1:12:48] it gets complicated. So yes, I mention
[1:12:51] Arsène Wenger because he also has ties
[1:12:53] to Cannes, though he's Alsatian, but I
[1:12:55] find people like that fantastic. It’s
[1:12:57] what, well, what Yanick Borot
[1:12:59] understands very well, what Alexandre
[1:13:00] Jardin understands; it's this whole
[1:13:02] country, this abundance that is
[1:13:03] actually very effective, integrating
[1:13:05] hundreds of thousands of young people.
[1:13:07] » Hm.
[1:13:08] » Today, we fail more than a million
[1:13:09] young people in the French system every
[1:13:11] year. So we will have to use all the
[1:13:14] levers, companies; a company's capacity
[1:13:16] for integration is fantastic. It is
[1:13:19] perhaps the primary source of
[1:13:20] integration along with sports clubs and
[1:13:22] artistic practice. When I developed
[1:13:24] arts and cultural education, I believed
[1:13:26] in it deeply. When you go to all,
[1:13:28] especially to difficult neighborhoods,
[1:13:30] but in all neighborhoods, you have a
[1:13:31] kid learn a musical instrument,
[1:13:34] » It's a wonderful discipline of effort,
[1:13:37] self-control, sacrifice, and
[1:13:39] fulfillment. It’s all there. So yes,
[1:13:43] people like that, they would make
[1:13:44] excellent Presidents of the Republic,
[1:13:46] of course. Very good examples. Thank
[1:13:48] you.
[1:13:49] » Thank you for staying until the end. If
[1:13:50] you're too impatient, you can already
[1:13:52] watch our other episodes that we've
[1:13:53] already published on the channel. We
[1:13:55] are putting suggestions on the screen
[1:13:56] that might interest you. Remember to
[1:13:58] like the video before you go. Bye!