October 2, 2024 • 53 mins
French President Emmanuel Macron discusses Europe’s role in a multipolar future. Macron spoke in an exclusive conversation at the Berlin Global Dialogue event hosted by Bloomberg's Stephanie Flanders.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let's go now to an exclusive conversation with French President
Emmanuel Macron speaking with Bloomberg Stephanie Flanders in Berlin.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Roller and thank you for organizing the seventh look. I
hope the maximum number of items because I really believe
that we are at risk. To be honest, and it's
just a word. I think our own model was completely
(00:29):
changed and has to be research. And when you look
at the European model, largely based by the way on
the strength of German during Germany during the past decades,
we were based on exports and a big part of
(00:50):
the key industry can making industry. To China, we were
based on localst energy. Russian guys. We were based on
deferend umbrella from the US without any question, and everything
now is shaken. China has over capacities and is clearly
(01:13):
a competitive place, so it's no more secured place for
our exports. Russian war killed locals energy and the killer
of our competitiveness today is a big gap in terms
of energy prices every worse. This is why we have
to completely change our business and have an integrated energy model,
because we can deliver with nuclear and renewables, but not
(01:33):
without being integrated and very clearly Afghanistan. Some people are
gonna have doubts, and the potential change in leadership in
the US means that this is not a guarantee total total.
So this is I want to insist on that because
it's super important to assess fairly the fact that our
(01:56):
former model is over and this is not a question
of act adjustment. This is not the same world twenty
twenty four, twenty twenty five. And on top of that,
we are making the same mistakes. On top of the
key elements I mentioned, we are overregulating and underinvesting. So
just if in the two to three years to come,
(02:17):
if we follow our classical agenda, we will be out
of the market, I have no doubt. So I think
what we have to deliver in the two three years
to come is capital market union. My view is that
we have to rush on energy beyond what we already decided,
which will be implemented for twenty twenty six, which will
(02:39):
avoid the big pick and the unstability of the energy
market we had during the past few years. We corrected that,
but we have to go much faster and further, and
we need this investment shock I mentioned and I think
the simplification agenda and the derec let's say pose in
(03:01):
terms of regulation, but even the regulation in some issues
it's absolutely critical.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Can you have any investment Can you have that investment
shop without issuance of joint debt?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I think you know the best way to deliver is
not to to create big trauma at the beginning by experience.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
But you persuade, You persuaded the Germans before. Can't you
do it again?
Speaker 2 (03:26):
This is true, but I was, if I want to
be fair, I was a little bit helped by a
colleague called COVID nineteen and it changed the reality. But
what I think we have an external systemic shock. I
think we have to assess that during the pandemic we
(03:46):
all experienced a symmetric shock for all our economies. And
this is why we made this move move with Chancellor Merkele,
and I think it was a unique movement. This is
really for me, a fundamental change of our EU. Now.
I want us to be totally aware of the fact
that we are leaving a symmetric shock on our economies
(04:10):
whose scale and magnitude is underestimated because the real location
factor is huge. Look at the chemical industry, in Europe
completely being relocated because of Irea I mentioned, if you
don't deliver the level playing filled agender, we will be
super happy with rich as a good regulation for European consumer,
(04:34):
but for no more existing chemical industry, and it will
be the same for still it will be the same
for I mean the existing business we have because of
energy costs and overregulation. So we have to fix energy
issue and overregulation and for me the single market and
(04:54):
energy and on top of that, diversification of our phoney
to reduce this discrepancy and acceleration of level playing field
agenda and pose in terms of regulation is critical. And
if we don't have the level playing field agenda, we
will be killed in this market. And in parallel, for
(05:16):
clean energy and artificial intelligence, we have to invest much
more rapidly and protect as well or key players, otherwise
they will be relocated in the US.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Lars Hendrik I mentioned the joint debt question, but actually
there's a broader issue here that you listen to President Macron,
you read the drug report, you read many speeches frankly
from from European leaders, but not from the German Chancellor,
not from German leaders assessing the threat to the growth
(05:50):
model in as fundamentally as this the stark language that
President Macron has used it just if looking on the outside,
if how will we get how does Europe move forward?
Rush forward on this agenda? If there isn't that understanding,
that same analysis at the top in Germany.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
I'm not sure that you don't share the analysis with
with mister with the Chancellor shots obviously he's a different person.
But I think the analysis that we need simplification what
you were just saying, we need more investment, we have
less regulation. I think that is something which you know
the chancell he also says, and I think that's a
(06:32):
fundamental issue. I think capital market union, as I said,
is an important step. But in the end, and you know,
he has been a remarkable European. I remember when you
first came. You're actually a chaperd for a while. If
I may say that.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
Yeah, both sapers together.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
Right, But he has moved on a lot.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
I don't think you should feel bad. I think it's okay.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
And of course you know he there's a reason why
he's moved on, and so he you know, he came
on stage and he said, we want Europe, and you
give your speech, and there was a debate whether Germany
was responding appropriate to the to the young French president
who was doing that. But I think he was always
(07:20):
this good European and I think we're very lucky to
have him actually as a European. Also if you think
about the latest developments in your country, if I may
say so, mister president, and also in our country. And
I think the ultimate problem always in the end, and
you alluded to that in the previous round on AI
either just to the two or the European industrial policies,
that there's still no European answer to many of these things.
(07:43):
And if you know, an industrial policy and deregulation and
drug report makes that point and is Europe really ready
to give more power? You always also talked a lot
about the governance of Europe, and you know the way
we are organized with Commission and counsel and very powerful
national leaders, and that is a fundamental issue which I
(08:05):
think makes it very difficult. But I think this is
something which in the end is going to be again
a very important issue. So I think that is something
which is But I think that the Dragon reports on
the common debt, this is where I was getting here.
I think if I may say that, then you're closer,
of course than I am. I don't think it is.
(08:28):
The problem is not the common debt per se, But
I think it is that you want to make sure
that the money is spent properly and there's no moral
hazard with it. We discussed this long time, many many times.
So I think it requires also certain governance. For example,
you think about the Defense Union. I think if you
want common debt on the defense, you also need competencies
(08:49):
at the European level because you have to have the
decision power and the debt really hand in hand. So
I think the common debt is easier once you give
more of the governance also to the impavement. But that's
really a difficult issue. So I would you know, and
I think this is an ongoing process, but I think
what you're saying makes sense. But I think in the end,
(09:12):
the big disadvantage of Europe is really I mean, i'd
be interested in what you think is that we really
don't have in many of these areas this European vision
which you of anybody has actually he does, yes, but
it's not easy in Europe, you know, with and even
if I may say so, if Germany and France. You
said on Capitol Market Union in Meserbach, you have a
(09:33):
paper which took us I think ten years or something
to get a French and a German position on that.
Then the question is also is the rest of Europe
going to fall in line? That's also an interesting question
because they're getting more competent and more confident as well.
So the leadership of Germany and France is very very important.
I think the only way actually to move Europe forward.
(09:55):
I think that's also your view. But are the others
then also in the future more likely to fall in
line in terms of moving Europe forward?
Speaker 7 (10:03):
Those are Can we move on just because you have
Maybe it took ten years to have Franco German agreement
on that, but we've only got a few days to
have Franco German agreement on the tariffs on Chinese electrical vehicles,
and you mentioned it in your speech.
Speaker 5 (10:20):
On this stage.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
A year ago, actually I spoke to Chancellor Schultz who
said he didn't want to see a trade war with China.
He didn't like tariffs. His minister earlier said something quite similar.
But there is a vote on whether those tariffs go
through on Friday, so can I just ask do you
think that will pass, that the EU governments will confirm
(10:42):
those tariffs.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
I don't know before the vote. I can tell you
that I do supports the European Commission on that because
what I was speaking about electrical vehicles on the European market,
and what is a reality. You have the European car makers,
they go to the market and by the way, we
(11:04):
use our taxpayers money to subsidize the consumer to buy
these cars, and they have to compete with some car
makers producing in China with an existing advantage. But it's
part of the offshoring production because they produce in much
lower cost condition. But on top of that they benefit
from subsidies from the Chinese government. This is a bias
(11:28):
for your market. I think this is the question is
which model do you choose? Do you want to be
a consumer or a producer. And now this dilemma we
have twenty years ago for solar panels, we decided to
kill our markets and we exactly we had the same dilemma.
We did choose. We killed our industry. We had an
(11:48):
existing industry, we killed it, and we had we deployed
solar panels in a lot of places Chinese once, so
we created a dependency which could create some problem. We
experience that in COVID time, and we killed the ability
to produce on the European soil. It's not a good
idea when you need growth and you have to finance
(12:09):
such a social model as the one we have now.
The question is do we want a fair competition or not.
I don't want a fair competition. So the EU Commission
launched precisely a series of studios exchange with all the
(12:31):
car makers and just correct the level of discrepancies to
establish the level playing field, so you have something from
nine to ten for those who are less helped. And
I think the range is between twenty one and thirty
five percent tariffs for these car makers. But with evidence
and figures which could be which way exchanged with the
(12:53):
car makers and will be exchanged with the Chinese industry.
We already have retaliation. By the way, I can speak
with a clear of you because it's on Cognac, nothing
to deal with with with the car and I can
tell you that Cognac was never held by the French government,
so which means it is a pure retaliation. But this
(13:14):
is a matter of credibility for our market, and I
insisted that if you don't preserve the love of the
playing field, just don't hope that you want to produce
and preserve your industrial foot print in your hope.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
You spoke to Chancellor Shows earlier.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
I think.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
Did you make progress?
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Unfortunately you didn't even have any advisers in the room
and the reporters were unable as no chance of us
finding out.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
So and I do respect all the positions and the
sensitivity of the market. I think the question is what
will become the Chinese market for the for the carmakers.
My view is that it did change during the past
few years and it should not be underestimated. This market
(13:59):
is not just a market open to our carmakers. You
can deploy through GVS good operations, but this is much
more competitive than it was a few years ago. Chinese
carmakers are super competitive and sometimes better than we are.
And this is a market in other capacities. And if
(14:21):
we don't protect but just restore the condition of level
playing field, we will be the adjustment zone of the
other capacities. Because the US just put a one hundred
person tax one hundred person tax undifferentiated, so let's wake up.
We live in the same world. You cannot have China
(14:43):
over subsidizing a lot of countries, even India and others
reacting to these subsidies, the US overreacting by one hundred
person Tife and the odd thing. You're welcome and it
doesn't fly. Otherwise we will be happy consumers of non
European producers. I can tell you we would have an issue,
(15:06):
of course in a few years time.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
How important is it to have Europe You spoke about
the importance of Europe speaking with one voice in order
to get one voice on this would you be would
you agree to a delay or some kind of compromise
or you think I want.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
To be efficient and find compromise and respect all the positions.
I think the I want to advocate the CEO commissions
they did a great job. It was both to do
so honestly, because they had a lot of pressure not
to do it. And in the DNA of the Commission.
You know that you work there, Larsendric, doing years. It
was not in the DNA of the European Commission to
(15:43):
work on this type of issue. And I think it's
for me. This is a signal that clearly we have
a strategic a much more strategic and geo strategic commission
as we wanted then before. But clearly I want to
insist in that we are not just a market of
(16:05):
consumers and we were used just to behave following these
nine and this is not a good idea and we
will have exactly the same issue on still industry. I
believe that on still industry we are much more aligned
with the Chancellor in Germany. I do believe. I'm sure
that on capital market union simplification we are very much online.
(16:28):
So I want to insist on the fact that there
is a very strong Forcal German alignment. Here is an
issue very sensitive for some key players in your country.
What I do respect. So the work has to be
finalized with European Commission and I'm optimistic. But today and
Arsdrig was right to mention it. We worked very hard
(16:49):
with Chancellor shots on these issues and I mean it
is very much aligned on capital market union simplification, a
bit to invest much more public and private money and
as well being much more reactive to protect our still
industry or chemical industry. So you have a strong Franco
(17:10):
German alignment set.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
You talked about protectionism as an ugly word, and that
it's about having a different strategic and more realistic strategic vision,
as the US does and certainly as China does. I
wonder if, at the same time as having these tariffs
for a level playing field, if you were to support,
for example, finally moving ahead with Mercasore, would that send
(17:35):
a message to other parts of the world that Europe
is still open for business, that this is a specific
thing with China, But actually Europe is still very much
open to trade deals.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I'm in favor of any deal which will be fair.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Does it look fair right now?
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Why? Because exactly the same reason level playing field. You
cannot impose a bunch of regulation to your industries and
your farmers that they are digesting by the way, because
it's not yet completed, and at the same time open
to economies totally designed with this regulation, How do you
(18:16):
want to explain to a farmer that it will be
it will not be allowed to use this pesticide, this
chemical ingredients and so on. And at the same time
on ease sector you say you are more than welcome,
you can come with your food without respecting the same world. Honestly,
(18:37):
I I never advocate regulation that I don't understand myself,
and I think this is a good rule and don't
be naive. We speak about Merco Shore Brazil just imposed
tariffs for if It as well, and in the care system.
(18:58):
They want to exclude public procurement for the deal from
the deal. They protects themselves, the protect the economies. And
my point is just we I think a lot of
people in Europe underestimated what happened during the past two
to three years. But we had two huge shocks which
could completely change our approach. I and war in Ukraine,
(19:23):
the end of our energtical model and the end of
the WT or order I love Andngzi. I am a
strong advocate of the W two. To understand me, but
just for the first time in our recent histories, the
US decided not to be compliant with the W two
for clintech. But this is two huge change. If we
(19:45):
stay and stick to the same policy we are, we
have no chance. And just look at the real location
of so many industries, so many part of our industries.
Speaker 5 (19:55):
Just to follow briefly on Maca.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
So because after you saw him, I think Chancellor Shows
gave a spe each today where he was proposing a
sort of Mercasare light that that the EU specific bit
of Mercasore, which doesn't involve some of the investment guarantees
and things which involve government needing to all agree. So
I just wondered, is that something that you would support
(20:18):
or would be resigned to that.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Happens without perfectly understand it is?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
It is the bit of the Mercasore deal that has
been negotiated that only involves I think Lars Henry will
be an expert.
Speaker 6 (20:28):
You can understand.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
Well, I can only continue to.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
Express strategically not understanding.
Speaker 5 (20:39):
I can be very clear.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I'm afraid to understand.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Well, the truth is it could happen without you, that's no.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
But I mean, I mean, you know, you know there's
a you know, sorry way, there's all these trade deals
have an EU part, EU only part, and then they
have something usually investment, which is national that has to
be approved by all national governments. And if you split
this and just to the EU part, it only has
to be ratified by the European Council. But because France
(21:09):
is in the European Council and without France is not
going to be ratified.
Speaker 6 (21:13):
So if he doesn't agree, why.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Is your chancellor suggesting today that you just move ahead
with the EA that micro feels this way.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
Well, yeah, I mean he still has to work with
France obviously, even if it's EU only, but he will
avoid going through all the national parliaments.
Speaker 6 (21:29):
But let I mean, but you know that.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Carey, I mean favor. We negotiated and not even notified
a lot of trade dealdering the past few years. I
mean set with Canada, with Chinese, Chile, New Zealand and
some others, and these one are a good example of
those where we integrated the climate change issue because Paris
agreements if you implement it, and this is what we
(21:54):
decided to do, and I think we're right, it's sustainable
if you use the fact that you I mean, we
don't use our capacity to put pressure on our partners,
given the fact that we are a market on more
than four dred million consumers. But if you decide to
push your producers to make a move to be compliant
(22:15):
with perase agreement, which I do support, we have to
do two things at the same time, not just constraints
with milestones and new regulation. You have to invest to
help them companies our households and to make the change
acceptable and to preserve precisely part of their competitiveness. And
at the same time you have to use that to
(22:37):
make it a strategic instrument of your industrial policy. Otherwise
you have always to choose between climate sovereignty and an industry.
You can reconcile them if you are ready to use
it as a bargaining poorer. Don't you think that countries
are interested to have better access to the European market.
For sure, it's an instrument to create incentives for them
(23:04):
to be compliant and have the same level of regulation
than we have on these key issues. Otherwise, I can
tell you in the years to come, you will have
a majority to stop with the climate change agenda, and
people with dismant will dismantle the carbon neutrality agenda for sure,
(23:24):
because it's just it is not compatible. And I'm sorry
to say that, but in Marcosio it since you have Argentina.
When I hear the friend I've got relation with President Milay,
but I don't hear somebody with total is convinced by
the climate agenda and wants to deliver. A matter of fact,
and two years ago in Brazil we had complete a
(23:46):
skeptical guy on climate change. This is matter of fact,
So I'm totally in favor of trade. I think we
live in an open world. It provided a lot of
growth during decades in awaconomy. I think we have. It's
part of the change of our own ya. Just wake
up bus US and China. They do protect their market,
(24:11):
they do subsidize their economy. They do invest much more
than we do buss public and private innovation. So we
have to adapt ourselves.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
One of the big features of your presidency in the
first few years, President Macaun was that strength at home
gave you strength in Europe. You made decisive reforms the employment,
many other things. You've got the fiscal house in order,
and that gave you the power to push things through.
(24:44):
I think many people here will be looking at the
time what has happened in the last few months in France,
the fragility of the new government under Monsieur Balny, and
wondering whether you still have that capacity to push through change.
Do you worry that it was a mistake to call
that election.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
No, I don't think so. Why because it never happened
without a coaptation in France to be re elected. So
I'm very lucid about my situation and we had a
relative majority without any partners, so I called for snap
elections for this reason. After two little bit more than
two years, well we delivered. I mean, during the past
(25:25):
two years we delivered the reform of indignification of unemployed people,
a pension scheme, reform, an immigration reform. I mean, when
I look around in Europe, I don't see a lot
of countries deploying such a reform agenda. So we were
under pressure, and I was very clear on the fact
that when you have the far right more than thirty
(25:46):
five persons, you cannot follow up during three years to come,
because I had three years to come without making a move.
But I think you should not see that as a
source of instability. The reaction of the French people was
the opposite, because if they had confirmed the thirty five
percent for the far right and what a lot of
(26:07):
people thought, I would have a far rightists prime minister.
Today it's not a case. So what we had for
the first time in our history, which is much more
the custom in your country and a lot of European country,
is a fragmented parliament. Fine, this is less our culture
to have cooperation between the parties. This is my problem,
(26:29):
so I'm trying to create this dialectic work between the
parties to work together. It's not a natural move, but
I'm reasonably optimistic about the fact that reasonable social Democrats,
Centrists and reasonable writers can work together for the years
to come to deliver strong agenda. And what we have
(26:50):
to do is first to preserve and digest all the
reforms we delivered during the past seven years, and we
have to deliver more for our young people. We have
to complete what we did on apprenticeship to have a
better and faster access to the markets. It's one of
the key points for the French system to have more growth.
(27:12):
We have to follow up what we did on the
unemployment system. We have to work on the access to
our labor market for senior workers, and we have a
lot of sectorial reforms to be launched. We have in France.
(27:32):
This is our chance, the ability even with a relative majority,
to deliver these reforms of the parliament. But I think
we can create dynamic and I do trust mister Banneer's
government to be in this situation to deliver useful reform
for the countries. Because the agenda is quite clear. We
have to modernize the country. To be part of this agenda,
(27:54):
we have to deliver the European scale and at the
same time we have to make more effort on social
coasion and stability of the country. This is normal in
the lifetime of the country after seven years, so I'm
totally elucid about that and optimistic. But I want to
focus on the fact that today the key points of
(28:18):
the reform agenda for me is at the European scale.
I think we put in place a lot of reforms
that now we have to deliver, and we have to
deliver in concrete terms. We have less lows to be
passed and what points in the pension scheme is for
the years to come and it's already voted, but the
key elements are to be decided at the European scale,
(28:41):
and I think if we want to improve our growth
both in Germany and France, for me, the top of
my priority are at the European scale. So this is
a sort of reverse agenda if you compare with twenty
seventeen twenty twenty, is that today we have to focus
much more on how to simplify at the European scale,
how to accelerate on the energy market, how to accelerate
(29:03):
our financial services at the European skate. So I will
indicate much more energy at the skate because this is work.
We can unlock a lot of growth and potent shils.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
But Las Henric, when you have a country coming to
these discussions that has a six percent of GDP budget deficit,
as France now has one hundred and ten percent debt,
is having to have an extended period to get back
within the convergence criteria, that is not a strong negotiating position.
Speaker 6 (29:33):
You mean that country has that country being front.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
I don't think that negotiation position of France depends on
the on the budget deficit. I think there's more to
that than just that one. And I think that the
European rules, I think on the deficit criterion, which have
been adjusted actually as the Minister was saying yesterday, very
much in line actually with a German debt rule. So
(29:58):
there's not that much difference here, and I think it
should be it should be applied, and I think, you know,
I think generally there's a question of debt in the world.
I mean, if you look at the US economy, they're
very much you know, over debted and if you look
at both sides of the aisle, all of it is
more spent, lower taxes, more subsidies, in some cases tariffs,
(30:21):
which are also not going to necessarily increase growth. So
I think the problem of debt in the world, I
think is an issue, and I think Europe needs to
be careful of, you know, having having prudent fiscal rules
and stimulus, and I think that's important. But I think
I agree with Aman with President Macrant that it is
(30:43):
much more of a European issue. I think the future
of Europe than it is a domestic French one, as
he has done a lot of the reforms when he
became president. I think labor market reforms, many of the
things you have done and I don't you know, and
I think they're the regulatory are more important than the
dead issues.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
I mean to be just to highlight the point and
make it clear why are we in the situation. We
had an issue during the low growth this year, so
we have less written on our budget in terms of taxes.
This is why we have this discrepancy with the forecast.
And we had a difference in terms of focus with
some public expenditure at the local level, but more than that.
(31:25):
To understand the French metrics we started to diverge in
the eighties because we build progressively a much more generous
social model. The main factor of adjustment if you take
our balance sheet, I would say is clearly pension reforms
and healthcare system. This is a big bunch of where
(31:47):
we have discrepancies, and especially as well because in terms
of public expenditure we have so we have a social
model where it's one hundred person through the budget of
all the public administrations. This is why it was a
necessary to pass this pension reform. And I mean the
figures and the negotiation we'll see, but probably in the
(32:08):
next mandates my successor will have to pass another one
if they want to adjust. But the main focus and
I put my energy on one point, how to create
more activity? Because why did we accumulate so many deficits
and debt in the French model. This is because we
never fixed the mass unemployment. And during the past seven years,
(32:32):
because of our tax reforms, because our label laws reforms,
because our attractiveness agenda, we've been the number one country
in terms of attractive net during the past five years,
we created more than two million jobs. When we decreased
even with COVID, even with the cranins are by more
(32:52):
than two points. Our unemployment rates, so we are a
converging and this is the main topic because if we
had the same level of activity as Germany, we will
don't have public deficits and it's much smarter to look
to work on that than being obsessed by a short
(33:14):
term adjustment, which is a killer for growth. The top
priority of the French economy should be how to be
sure that to improve the activity rates of young people
because we have I think two to three points less
than Germany. Your system is more efficient we start. When
I was elected, we had two hundred and fifty thousand
(33:34):
apprentices per year. We have nine hundred thousand. We are
converging with the German model. We still have some work
to be done at the university to better are located
off of training, but this is a primittee. Second reducing
unemployment rate again because we are not yet at the
(33:54):
German level, so we have to continue the reforms and
improve the rate of access of activity of senior workers
because we have two to three points less than Germany
as well. And part of the explanation of these points
is the fact that we have not the same retirement age.
So the key drivers as is ones. Let's be clear.
(34:17):
So yes, you need political courage and you have to
be fair with your people. But solution is not to
have a short term adjustment by cutting some social expenditure
because it's super hard without any agenda, or over taxing,
because we don't have a lot of room to maneuver
in terms of taxation given the fact that we are
(34:38):
number one or two. It depends with Denmark in Europe.
Here's the gender.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
I mean the cults that are being proposed, we had
them a little bit today that just for next year,
to make Monsieur Barney's numbers add up, we have a
squeezing of the of the deficit by sixty.
Speaker 5 (34:56):
Billion euros exactly.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Next year, some of which will be taxes on wealthy
individuals and big businesses. There are any higher taxes that
you would.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Say will discuss that. I think having an exceptional taxation
on corporate is something which is well understood by large companies.
If this is for one year, given the level of
effought which should be made, but it should be limited
and we don't have to forget I mean, we have
(35:25):
not to forget the reality of our economy, the reality
of our competitiveness and our position. Just take an OCD comparison.
We are number one or two in terms of taxation.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
We are.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
Not in the best year in terms of level of
activity and how working participation or how to be worked
per year. So this is what we have to improves.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
But as you say, the most important things that you
can do for the long term is the reforms like
the pension reform, and that is another reason why people worry.
They look at the cost of the uncertainty of the
last few months and you say that the far right
threat has been contained with this new arrangement. But Marie
Le Penn wants to reverse that pension reform and tomorrow
(36:18):
she could call a confidence vote and probably bring down
the government over that. So do you think that there
will be opposition, will be an effort to overturn the
pension reform.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
I think when you look at the figures and you're
sincere with people, all the reasonable parties will look at
the fact that this pension reform and these chymetris has
to be preserved. And we have a structure with all
our unions, and this structure now is very clear and
issued figure that it was a necessity to do so,
(36:49):
and after a dissolution you cannot change to parliament during
at least one year time. But I want What I
want to tell you is, at first I ask the
reality and the pricing of uncertainty by calling for these
nap elections. If I did not ask for this election,
I could be in front of you and you would
(37:10):
tell me, Okay, you cannot go the next you cannot
go for election in two and a half years. Look
at this course. They are air and they were in
a situation to call for a confident vote and force
me for a dissolution, and I wouldn't answer. Now we
were bold collectively, I took my responsibility. I asked the
(37:31):
firm people, do you want them to go to govern
They answered very clearly no. Eleven million of my people
did vote for them. So it means that there is anger, fears,
and clearly some top priorities that we have to face
on security, on social justice on the ground, the situation
(37:52):
of poor neighborhood and so on, rural areas and so on.
So this is the agenda we will have to fix that.
The government as in front of him, but they didn't
give the floor to them, and look at the situation
everywhere in Europe. Look at what happened in Austria, look
at what happen in Nezerlands, look at what happen in Italy,
look at what's happening in a love of Leander in
your country. So this is why I'm a strong advocate
(38:17):
of EU growth agenda, because this is the only way
to give a return to our middle classes. Otherwise this
is a killer for them, and this is the only
way to reconcile economy and the reality of politics. But
don't you think that having farmers to which you ask
(38:38):
for reforms and efforts, and at the same time you
explain I will welcome the sawyer been coming from Mercursire
is the best way to kill the far right. I
can tell you for my country, not at all. And
at the end of the day, do you think what
is the priority today for all of us? Delivering growth
(38:58):
and political stability, fixing the society of our societies, and
convincing reasonable people and our middle classes not to go
to the extremes. But let's be clear, didn't we deliver
collectively good policies for our middle classes during decades we
delivered good policies to have the maximum of exports, the
maximum of profits, but they have a feeling sometimes for
(39:21):
good reasons. They were the adjustment factor of our economy.
This is why preserving level playing physics not just sacrifying
a lot of pieces of our economy where the middle
classes work. I try to be consistent.
Speaker 5 (39:37):
You've been very clear.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
I want to get onto a question from some of
the young people here, but just to very quickly follow
on on that, because you have defended very clearly why
you took that decision to call the election in the summer,
and at the time you said it was for clarity,
and I guess some people would say you didn't get
the clarity. But would you make the same decision again, Yes,
(40:00):
because I sat in the next two years.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
No, no, no. My view is that we have to
preserve now till the end of my mandate. But it's
important because this is a new phase of the political
modernization of France as well. I was elected in twenty
seventeen in this commitment precisely to go beyond the party system,
and I gathered with me people coming from the left,
(40:25):
the right, in the center on a common project. And
now the question is how to work collectively with not
just my party but other parties. This is a new
way to move forward at the Parliament. But this is
a very positive one for me, and this is the
only one to provide stability and not to be precisely
(40:48):
super sensitive to the extremes. At the same time, we
need bold reforms and the agenda has to be bold,
and the Prime Minister was right to push some key
items of this agenda. And I know that a lot
of men is us will will advocate for very important
reforms from economic, social and and and and and from
a first point of view. But for me, we are
(41:12):
just building something. But look at the situation, nothing was sacrificed. Also,
reforms are preserved and this new government has to work
with parliament and progressively will build consensus. So I'm I'm
not naive, I'm a resonantly optimistic, but I think at
the same time we have to accelerate to deliver a
(41:34):
positive view agenda.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
Lars Hendrik, the President, has spoken very clearly about how
he saw the challenge presented by the fact that you
had a third of the population potentially or voters voting
for the far right. Do you think I mean that
is obviously an issue here. Do you think it's realistic
for the center to continue to lock out the extremes
(42:01):
of in European politics?
Speaker 4 (42:03):
I think this is a big issue right now also
in this country, in Germany, and if you look at
some of the elections you recently had in the Lenda
is a challenge. But I do think, you know, I'm
not a politician, but I do think not having them
part of the government to sort of disenchant them or
you know, show how they cannot do it, I think
that's the wrong strategy.
Speaker 6 (42:24):
I think you should not have the main part of
the government.
Speaker 4 (42:27):
I think the government has to deliver, and as you're saying,
I think showing to the people that you know, the
growth and the economy and you know, inflation and healthcare
and all these kinds of issues are solved.
Speaker 6 (42:39):
I think that's the.
Speaker 4 (42:40):
Way to get the people to vote for you, because
I don't think in Germany when it's thirty or more
percent of the people and vote for parties which are
very extreme. I don't think these people are very extreme.
I think you need to, you know, deliver to them
an important agenda and results and then they will vote
(43:02):
for the right thing. So I don't think the strategy,
but you're much much more of a politician here. To
include them and then to show that they can't govern,
I don't think that's the right strategy is also very risky.
I think you need to do a good job as
a politician and offer and show to the people that
it's a good thing. So I think that's but I
(43:23):
think that's what you were saying as well.
Speaker 5 (43:25):
I wanted to get to one of the should.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
Actually say if I may say so, it's going to
say that in my closing statement that we had a
survey by Egon Sina surveying business people around the world
what is the biggest challenge.
Speaker 6 (43:38):
For you right now?
Speaker 4 (43:40):
And the number one challenge was nationalism and populism. So
this is clearly also a business concern. So it's not
good for the economy actually to have these kinds of results.
So I think this is actually very important one.
Speaker 3 (43:55):
So one of the SMT students Global students, am I
Yagmurova from Kazaks Down, has has a question.
Speaker 6 (44:06):
Madame Flander.
Speaker 8 (44:08):
Yes, as mentioned, my name is Emma. I'm a student
here at SNC and I'm honored to be part of
the Young Voices program.
Speaker 5 (44:15):
And our question is with.
Speaker 8 (44:18):
A little lead in may you argue that deeper integration
within the European Union will strengthen EU ability to act
on the global stage, but at the same time others
fear that it undermines national sovereignty. In this regard, how
do you envision balancing further integration within EU and addressing
(44:39):
concerns about further European about national sovereignty.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
I thank you very much, by the way, I love
your country. Look, I think there is a there is
a way to move forward and and this dialma is
very well known and I think is right. But I
think we have to deepen the single market and we
(45:05):
have as well to increase subsidiety. And this is a
way to address this Dinama. When I say we have
to deepen single markets energy, for instance, telco telecom operators
and financial services. If you clearly deepen the single market,
(45:26):
because on this three sectors you don't have an evil
single market. It was out of the initial perspective. If
you build a single market at the same time, if
you alleviate as well as the burdens and the overregulation
on healthscare, on some other and there is almost no
impact on normal people because you just force people to
adopt the same regulation. It's a lot of noise work
(45:50):
and our full session for a lot of technicians and
the industry everywhere in Europe, but there is no impact
on the normal life. What makes people crazy with your
and integration is when just you bother households on their
normal life. Which is true, but this is a well
known anecdote. But when you force an olive oil producer
(46:13):
to be compliant with such a regulation, when you force
to stop this geographical indication in this part of Italy
and France to be compliant with this rule, when you
force the hunter in one place not to do it
there but to help you allow the other one. I
mean this feeling which is the resentment of some part
(46:36):
of our population to be blocked disrespected in the way
of life by leaders and by Europe, is due to
the fact that there is a sort of unadapted approach.
We go too much in the ittegrity. So for me,
we have to stop over regulating all the details of
this way of life and focus on the big issues.
Speaker 6 (46:58):
We have.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
Our big we have much bigger issue than all these regulations.
We did it for good reasons. But now we have
to stop and digest. It went too far from a
lot of these people. And I can tell you because
I do agree with what you said on the reasons
of the far right votes and nationalism. As you mentioned,
sometimes it's about very tiny things, just they are fed
(47:24):
up with this other regulation and because they are hurt
in their day to the life. But it's totally compliant
with deepening single markets in the critical areas because there
is an impact on them. So my point is, let's
focus on the big issues. Let's deepend single markets on energy,
teleco financial services, Let's create an actual single market on
(47:47):
AI and hydrogen. It's a super agenda for the years
to come. It's already an immense agenda. And let's stop
regulating on the nitty gritty and on the daily life
for housulds, and we will count on the resentment on
the feeding noting nationalism, and we will deliver concrete results.
Speaker 5 (48:08):
It's a president.
Speaker 3 (48:08):
I want to take you right back the final question.
We've run out of time, but from where we started,
which was the sense of urgency you had in your
remarks that you felt everybody in Europe should feel about
the challenges facing the European growth model, and as you know,
often in Europe.
Speaker 5 (48:25):
It's a moment of crisis.
Speaker 3 (48:27):
It's when politicians are looking over the ledge that they
actually have done things. Whether it's the global financial crisis
or as you mentioned, COVID, the invasion of Ukraine, all
of those things have forced changed. As an economist, I
would think that the fact that the EU could be
forty percent smaller than the US in twenty years time,
if it carries on like this is a pit of
a is a crisis, but it's a slow moving one.
(48:51):
Will it take an outside force to force this kind
of change? And I wonder in that context, with the
return of Donald Trump as president, help you get some
of this is down.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Look, I think it could have consequence of the defense
and security part of the agenda.
Speaker 5 (49:07):
For sure, good consequences.
Speaker 2 (49:09):
Consequences, but I think we should be honestly, I don't
want to speculate on the US elections. My point more
than that is that US is very strong partners. This
is a very important lie. But whoever will be elected
and whatever the administration is, I think we have to
be lucid on our situation. Europe is normal. The top
(49:33):
priority of the US. The US top priority is US,
which is normal unfair. The second top priority is China,
and for the rest it depends on the moment. They
are super loyal and reliable partner. In Ukraine, will it
class I don't know, but let's be clear. At the
(49:56):
same time, in Afghanistan we didn't have the call before,
and in the OCUS did. In Australia, I didn't have
the call before, but it's not a reproach. I try
to be lucid. The EU is not the priority of
the US, and this is why part of the wake
up call period of time we are living and part
of what we have to completely reshape is our defense
(50:19):
and security strategy. We are part of NATO no discussion,
We are stronger lives of the US no discussion, but
we have to derisk our model from the US agenda.
This is why we have to invest much more for ourselves.
We have to create much more European solutions. We have
to preserve much more our financing for European solutions. This
(50:40):
is the top priority. But what you say is very important,
and this is why I try to be vocal and
removed under the pressure of crisis. When they were perceived
by our fellow citizens, the financial crisis and the COVID crisis.
(51:02):
You are all here, business leaders, political leaders, intellectual leaders.
Our responsibility, your responsibility, our collective responsibility if to explain
our fellow citizens that this is a symmetric shock for Europe.
They don't see now the results and the consequences. But
our responsibilities is to pre empt the situation and to
(51:25):
act now. Otherwise it will be a rescue plan in
five to ten years time. It would be awkward. And
we know the situation. The figures are clear, the trends
are very clear. So our responsibility as leaders is precisely
to say, okay, we feel the pressure and for me,
Europe can make smart moves when we have symmetric shock.
(51:48):
During the financial crisis, don't over estimate. We did react,
but we didn't take automatically all the right decisions because
it was an asymmetric shock. And we fix this crisis
much more slowly than the US because we were precisely
divided between north and south. It was a weakness. It
(52:09):
was before bunking union and such a level of integration,
but it wasn't asymmetric shock, meaning we didn't have the
same interest. Today we can have in the nitty gritty
some different interests. You are much more invested in car
making business. Fine, which creates this kind of discrepancy, but
in reality we are already aligned. Because it's already too late.
(52:31):
If I'm fair, it's already too late. So we should
be aligned and just look at the situation. Whatever our
differences in the energy system could be or industrial system,
this is a symmetric shock for the European societies and economies.
So we have to precisely deliver this in depth reform
(52:52):
on our governance, on security and defense and the growth model.
If just we want to deliver for our people, this
is the best way, buys the way to help all
the countries precisely to limit and get rid of the
extremes because they are just held by the recent amount
(53:14):
of people and the lack of collective efficients.
Speaker 3 (53:17):
Ladies and gentlemen, you've had your marching orders from mister President,
and I think we have we've run out of time,
so thank you very much, mister President and Las Hendrick.
Speaker 6 (53:28):
I thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (53:30):
All right, you've been listening to an exclusive conversation with
French President Emmanuel Macron at the Berwin Global Dialogue event
hosted by our own Stephanie Flanders,
Let's go now to an exclusive conversation with French President
Emmanuel Macron speaking with Bloomberg Stephanie Flanders in Berlin.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Roller and thank you for organizing the seventh look. I
hope the maximum number of items because I really believe
that we are at risk. To be honest, and it's
just a word. I think our own model was completely
(00:29):
changed and has to be research. And when you look
at the European model, largely based by the way on
the strength of German during Germany during the past decades,
we were based on exports and a big part of
(00:50):
the key industry can making industry. To China, we were
based on localst energy. Russian guys. We were based on
deferend umbrella from the US without any question, and everything
now is shaken. China has over capacities and is clearly
(01:13):
a competitive place, so it's no more secured place for
our exports. Russian war killed locals energy and the killer
of our competitiveness today is a big gap in terms
of energy prices every worse. This is why we have
to completely change our business and have an integrated energy model,
because we can deliver with nuclear and renewables, but not
(01:33):
without being integrated and very clearly Afghanistan. Some people are
gonna have doubts, and the potential change in leadership in
the US means that this is not a guarantee total total.
So this is I want to insist on that because
it's super important to assess fairly the fact that our
(01:56):
former model is over and this is not a question
of act adjustment. This is not the same world twenty
twenty four, twenty twenty five. And on top of that,
we are making the same mistakes. On top of the
key elements I mentioned, we are overregulating and underinvesting. So
just if in the two to three years to come,
(02:17):
if we follow our classical agenda, we will be out
of the market, I have no doubt. So I think
what we have to deliver in the two three years
to come is capital market union. My view is that
we have to rush on energy beyond what we already decided,
which will be implemented for twenty twenty six, which will
(02:39):
avoid the big pick and the unstability of the energy
market we had during the past few years. We corrected that,
but we have to go much faster and further, and
we need this investment shock I mentioned and I think
the simplification agenda and the derec let's say pose in
(03:01):
terms of regulation, but even the regulation in some issues
it's absolutely critical.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Can you have any investment Can you have that investment
shop without issuance of joint debt?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
I think you know the best way to deliver is
not to to create big trauma at the beginning by experience.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
But you persuade, You persuaded the Germans before. Can't you
do it again?
Speaker 2 (03:26):
This is true, but I was, if I want to
be fair, I was a little bit helped by a
colleague called COVID nineteen and it changed the reality. But
what I think we have an external systemic shock. I
think we have to assess that during the pandemic we
(03:46):
all experienced a symmetric shock for all our economies. And
this is why we made this move move with Chancellor Merkele,
and I think it was a unique movement. This is
really for me, a fundamental change of our EU. Now.
I want us to be totally aware of the fact
that we are leaving a symmetric shock on our economies
(04:10):
whose scale and magnitude is underestimated because the real location
factor is huge. Look at the chemical industry, in Europe
completely being relocated because of Irea I mentioned, if you
don't deliver the level playing filled agender, we will be
super happy with rich as a good regulation for European consumer,
(04:34):
but for no more existing chemical industry, and it will
be the same for still it will be the same
for I mean the existing business we have because of
energy costs and overregulation. So we have to fix energy
issue and overregulation and for me the single market and
(04:54):
energy and on top of that, diversification of our phoney
to reduce this discrepancy and acceleration of level playing field
agenda and pose in terms of regulation is critical. And
if we don't have the level playing field agenda, we
will be killed in this market. And in parallel, for
(05:16):
clean energy and artificial intelligence, we have to invest much
more rapidly and protect as well or key players, otherwise
they will be relocated in the US.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
Lars Hendrik I mentioned the joint debt question, but actually
there's a broader issue here that you listen to President Macron,
you read the drug report, you read many speeches frankly
from from European leaders, but not from the German Chancellor,
not from German leaders assessing the threat to the growth
(05:50):
model in as fundamentally as this the stark language that
President Macron has used it just if looking on the outside,
if how will we get how does Europe move forward?
Rush forward on this agenda? If there isn't that understanding,
that same analysis at the top in Germany.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
I'm not sure that you don't share the analysis with
with mister with the Chancellor shots obviously he's a different person.
But I think the analysis that we need simplification what
you were just saying, we need more investment, we have
less regulation. I think that is something which you know
the chancell he also says, and I think that's a
(06:32):
fundamental issue. I think capital market union, as I said,
is an important step. But in the end, and you know,
he has been a remarkable European. I remember when you
first came. You're actually a chaperd for a while. If
I may say that.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
Yeah, both sapers together.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
Right, But he has moved on a lot.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
I don't think you should feel bad. I think it's okay.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
And of course you know he there's a reason why
he's moved on, and so he you know, he came
on stage and he said, we want Europe, and you
give your speech, and there was a debate whether Germany
was responding appropriate to the to the young French president
who was doing that. But I think he was always
(07:20):
this good European and I think we're very lucky to
have him actually as a European. Also if you think
about the latest developments in your country, if I may
say so, mister president, and also in our country. And
I think the ultimate problem always in the end, and
you alluded to that in the previous round on AI
either just to the two or the European industrial policies,
that there's still no European answer to many of these things.
(07:43):
And if you know, an industrial policy and deregulation and
drug report makes that point and is Europe really ready
to give more power? You always also talked a lot
about the governance of Europe, and you know the way
we are organized with Commission and counsel and very powerful
national leaders, and that is a fundamental issue which I
(08:05):
think makes it very difficult. But I think this is
something which in the end is going to be again
a very important issue. So I think that is something
which is But I think that the Dragon reports on
the common debt, this is where I was getting here.
I think if I may say that, then you're closer,
of course than I am. I don't think it is.
(08:28):
The problem is not the common debt per se, But
I think it is that you want to make sure
that the money is spent properly and there's no moral
hazard with it. We discussed this long time, many many times.
So I think it requires also certain governance. For example,
you think about the Defense Union. I think if you
want common debt on the defense, you also need competencies
(08:49):
at the European level because you have to have the
decision power and the debt really hand in hand. So
I think the common debt is easier once you give
more of the governance also to the impavement. But that's
really a difficult issue. So I would you know, and
I think this is an ongoing process, but I think
what you're saying makes sense. But I think in the end,
(09:12):
the big disadvantage of Europe is really I mean, i'd
be interested in what you think is that we really
don't have in many of these areas this European vision
which you of anybody has actually he does, yes, but
it's not easy in Europe, you know, with and even
if I may say so, if Germany and France. You
said on Capitol Market Union in Meserbach, you have a
(09:33):
paper which took us I think ten years or something
to get a French and a German position on that.
Then the question is also is the rest of Europe
going to fall in line? That's also an interesting question
because they're getting more competent and more confident as well.
So the leadership of Germany and France is very very important.
I think the only way actually to move Europe forward.
(09:55):
I think that's also your view. But are the others
then also in the future more likely to fall in
line in terms of moving Europe forward?
Speaker 7 (10:03):
Those are Can we move on just because you have
Maybe it took ten years to have Franco German agreement
on that, but we've only got a few days to
have Franco German agreement on the tariffs on Chinese electrical vehicles,
and you mentioned it in your speech.
Speaker 5 (10:20):
On this stage.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
A year ago, actually I spoke to Chancellor Schultz who
said he didn't want to see a trade war with China.
He didn't like tariffs. His minister earlier said something quite similar.
But there is a vote on whether those tariffs go
through on Friday, so can I just ask do you
think that will pass, that the EU governments will confirm
(10:42):
those tariffs.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
I don't know before the vote. I can tell you
that I do supports the European Commission on that because
what I was speaking about electrical vehicles on the European market,
and what is a reality. You have the European car makers,
they go to the market and by the way, we
(11:04):
use our taxpayers money to subsidize the consumer to buy
these cars, and they have to compete with some car
makers producing in China with an existing advantage. But it's
part of the offshoring production because they produce in much
lower cost condition. But on top of that they benefit
from subsidies from the Chinese government. This is a bias
(11:28):
for your market. I think this is the question is
which model do you choose? Do you want to be
a consumer or a producer. And now this dilemma we
have twenty years ago for solar panels, we decided to
kill our markets and we exactly we had the same dilemma.
We did choose. We killed our industry. We had an
(11:48):
existing industry, we killed it, and we had we deployed
solar panels in a lot of places Chinese once, so
we created a dependency which could create some problem. We
experience that in COVID time, and we killed the ability
to produce on the European soil. It's not a good
idea when you need growth and you have to finance
(12:09):
such a social model as the one we have now.
The question is do we want a fair competition or not.
I don't want a fair competition. So the EU Commission
launched precisely a series of studios exchange with all the
(12:31):
car makers and just correct the level of discrepancies to
establish the level playing field, so you have something from
nine to ten for those who are less helped. And
I think the range is between twenty one and thirty
five percent tariffs for these car makers. But with evidence
and figures which could be which way exchanged with the
(12:53):
car makers and will be exchanged with the Chinese industry.
We already have retaliation. By the way, I can speak
with a clear of you because it's on Cognac, nothing
to deal with with with the car and I can
tell you that Cognac was never held by the French government,
so which means it is a pure retaliation. But this
(13:14):
is a matter of credibility for our market, and I
insisted that if you don't preserve the love of the
playing field, just don't hope that you want to produce
and preserve your industrial foot print in your hope.
Speaker 5 (13:26):
You spoke to Chancellor Shows earlier.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
I think.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
Did you make progress?
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Unfortunately you didn't even have any advisers in the room
and the reporters were unable as no chance of us
finding out.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
So and I do respect all the positions and the
sensitivity of the market. I think the question is what
will become the Chinese market for the for the carmakers.
My view is that it did change during the past
few years and it should not be underestimated. This market
(13:59):
is not just a market open to our carmakers. You
can deploy through GVS good operations, but this is much
more competitive than it was a few years ago. Chinese
carmakers are super competitive and sometimes better than we are.
And this is a market in other capacities. And if
(14:21):
we don't protect but just restore the condition of level
playing field, we will be the adjustment zone of the
other capacities. Because the US just put a one hundred
person tax one hundred person tax undifferentiated, so let's wake up.
We live in the same world. You cannot have China
(14:43):
over subsidizing a lot of countries, even India and others
reacting to these subsidies, the US overreacting by one hundred
person Tife and the odd thing. You're welcome and it
doesn't fly. Otherwise we will be happy consumers of non
European producers. I can tell you we would have an issue,
(15:06):
of course in a few years time.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
How important is it to have Europe You spoke about
the importance of Europe speaking with one voice in order
to get one voice on this would you be would
you agree to a delay or some kind of compromise
or you think I want.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
To be efficient and find compromise and respect all the positions.
I think the I want to advocate the CEO commissions
they did a great job. It was both to do
so honestly, because they had a lot of pressure not
to do it. And in the DNA of the Commission.
You know that you work there, Larsendric, doing years. It
was not in the DNA of the European Commission to
(15:43):
work on this type of issue. And I think it's
for me. This is a signal that clearly we have
a strategic a much more strategic and geo strategic commission
as we wanted then before. But clearly I want to
insist in that we are not just a market of
(16:05):
consumers and we were used just to behave following these
nine and this is not a good idea and we
will have exactly the same issue on still industry. I
believe that on still industry we are much more aligned
with the Chancellor in Germany. I do believe. I'm sure
that on capital market union simplification we are very much online.
(16:28):
So I want to insist on the fact that there
is a very strong Forcal German alignment. Here is an
issue very sensitive for some key players in your country.
What I do respect. So the work has to be
finalized with European Commission and I'm optimistic. But today and
Arsdrig was right to mention it. We worked very hard
(16:49):
with Chancellor shots on these issues and I mean it
is very much aligned on capital market union simplification, a
bit to invest much more public and private money and
as well being much more reactive to protect our still
industry or chemical industry. So you have a strong Franco
(17:10):
German alignment set.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
You talked about protectionism as an ugly word, and that
it's about having a different strategic and more realistic strategic vision,
as the US does and certainly as China does. I
wonder if, at the same time as having these tariffs
for a level playing field, if you were to support,
for example, finally moving ahead with Mercasore, would that send
(17:35):
a message to other parts of the world that Europe
is still open for business, that this is a specific
thing with China, But actually Europe is still very much
open to trade deals.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I'm in favor of any deal which will be fair.
Speaker 5 (17:51):
Does it look fair right now?
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Why? Because exactly the same reason level playing field. You
cannot impose a bunch of regulation to your industries and
your farmers that they are digesting by the way, because
it's not yet completed, and at the same time open
to economies totally designed with this regulation, How do you
(18:16):
want to explain to a farmer that it will be
it will not be allowed to use this pesticide, this
chemical ingredients and so on. And at the same time
on ease sector you say you are more than welcome,
you can come with your food without respecting the same world. Honestly,
(18:37):
I I never advocate regulation that I don't understand myself,
and I think this is a good rule and don't
be naive. We speak about Merco Shore Brazil just imposed
tariffs for if It as well, and in the care system.
(18:58):
They want to exclude public procurement for the deal from
the deal. They protects themselves, the protect the economies. And
my point is just we I think a lot of
people in Europe underestimated what happened during the past two
to three years. But we had two huge shocks which
could completely change our approach. I and war in Ukraine,
(19:23):
the end of our energtical model and the end of
the WT or order I love Andngzi. I am a
strong advocate of the W two. To understand me, but
just for the first time in our recent histories, the
US decided not to be compliant with the W two
for clintech. But this is two huge change. If we
(19:45):
stay and stick to the same policy we are, we
have no chance. And just look at the real location
of so many industries, so many part of our industries.
Speaker 5 (19:55):
Just to follow briefly on Maca.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
So because after you saw him, I think Chancellor Shows
gave a spe each today where he was proposing a
sort of Mercasare light that that the EU specific bit
of Mercasore, which doesn't involve some of the investment guarantees
and things which involve government needing to all agree. So
I just wondered, is that something that you would support
(20:18):
or would be resigned to that.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Happens without perfectly understand it is?
Speaker 3 (20:22):
It is the bit of the Mercasore deal that has
been negotiated that only involves I think Lars Henry will
be an expert.
Speaker 6 (20:28):
You can understand.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
Well, I can only continue to.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
Express strategically not understanding.
Speaker 5 (20:39):
I can be very clear.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I'm afraid to understand.
Speaker 3 (20:46):
Well, the truth is it could happen without you, that's no.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
But I mean, I mean, you know, you know there's
a you know, sorry way, there's all these trade deals
have an EU part, EU only part, and then they
have something usually investment, which is national that has to
be approved by all national governments. And if you split
this and just to the EU part, it only has
to be ratified by the European Council. But because France
(21:09):
is in the European Council and without France is not
going to be ratified.
Speaker 6 (21:13):
So if he doesn't agree, why.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Is your chancellor suggesting today that you just move ahead
with the EA that micro feels this way.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
Well, yeah, I mean he still has to work with
France obviously, even if it's EU only, but he will
avoid going through all the national parliaments.
Speaker 6 (21:29):
But let I mean, but you know that.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Carey, I mean favor. We negotiated and not even notified
a lot of trade dealdering the past few years. I
mean set with Canada, with Chinese, Chile, New Zealand and
some others, and these one are a good example of
those where we integrated the climate change issue because Paris
agreements if you implement it, and this is what we
(21:54):
decided to do, and I think we're right, it's sustainable
if you use the fact that you I mean, we
don't use our capacity to put pressure on our partners,
given the fact that we are a market on more
than four dred million consumers. But if you decide to
push your producers to make a move to be compliant
(22:15):
with perase agreement, which I do support, we have to
do two things at the same time, not just constraints
with milestones and new regulation. You have to invest to
help them companies our households and to make the change
acceptable and to preserve precisely part of their competitiveness. And
at the same time you have to use that to
(22:37):
make it a strategic instrument of your industrial policy. Otherwise
you have always to choose between climate sovereignty and an industry.
You can reconcile them if you are ready to use
it as a bargaining poorer. Don't you think that countries
are interested to have better access to the European market.
For sure, it's an instrument to create incentives for them
(23:04):
to be compliant and have the same level of regulation
than we have on these key issues. Otherwise, I can
tell you in the years to come, you will have
a majority to stop with the climate change agenda, and
people with dismant will dismantle the carbon neutrality agenda for sure,
(23:24):
because it's just it is not compatible. And I'm sorry
to say that, but in Marcosio it since you have Argentina.
When I hear the friend I've got relation with President Milay,
but I don't hear somebody with total is convinced by
the climate agenda and wants to deliver. A matter of fact,
and two years ago in Brazil we had complete a
(23:46):
skeptical guy on climate change. This is matter of fact,
So I'm totally in favor of trade. I think we
live in an open world. It provided a lot of
growth during decades in awaconomy. I think we have. It's
part of the change of our own ya. Just wake
up bus US and China. They do protect their market,
(24:11):
they do subsidize their economy. They do invest much more
than we do buss public and private innovation. So we
have to adapt ourselves.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
One of the big features of your presidency in the
first few years, President Macaun was that strength at home
gave you strength in Europe. You made decisive reforms the employment,
many other things. You've got the fiscal house in order,
and that gave you the power to push things through.
(24:44):
I think many people here will be looking at the
time what has happened in the last few months in France,
the fragility of the new government under Monsieur Balny, and
wondering whether you still have that capacity to push through change.
Do you worry that it was a mistake to call
that election.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
No, I don't think so. Why because it never happened
without a coaptation in France to be re elected. So
I'm very lucid about my situation and we had a
relative majority without any partners, so I called for snap
elections for this reason. After two little bit more than
two years, well we delivered. I mean, during the past
(25:25):
two years we delivered the reform of indignification of unemployed people,
a pension scheme, reform, an immigration reform. I mean, when
I look around in Europe, I don't see a lot
of countries deploying such a reform agenda. So we were
under pressure, and I was very clear on the fact
that when you have the far right more than thirty
(25:46):
five persons, you cannot follow up during three years to come,
because I had three years to come without making a move.
But I think you should not see that as a
source of instability. The reaction of the French people was
the opposite, because if they had confirmed the thirty five
percent for the far right and what a lot of
(26:07):
people thought, I would have a far rightists prime minister.
Today it's not a case. So what we had for
the first time in our history, which is much more
the custom in your country and a lot of European country,
is a fragmented parliament. Fine, this is less our culture
to have cooperation between the parties. This is my problem,
(26:29):
so I'm trying to create this dialectic work between the
parties to work together. It's not a natural move, but
I'm reasonably optimistic about the fact that reasonable social Democrats,
Centrists and reasonable writers can work together for the years
to come to deliver strong agenda. And what we have
(26:50):
to do is first to preserve and digest all the
reforms we delivered during the past seven years, and we
have to deliver more for our young people. We have
to complete what we did on apprenticeship to have a
better and faster access to the markets. It's one of
the key points for the French system to have more growth.
(27:12):
We have to follow up what we did on the
unemployment system. We have to work on the access to
our labor market for senior workers, and we have a
lot of sectorial reforms to be launched. We have in France.
(27:32):
This is our chance, the ability even with a relative majority,
to deliver these reforms of the parliament. But I think
we can create dynamic and I do trust mister Banneer's
government to be in this situation to deliver useful reform
for the countries. Because the agenda is quite clear. We
have to modernize the country. To be part of this agenda,
(27:54):
we have to deliver the European scale and at the
same time we have to make more effort on social
coasion and stability of the country. This is normal in
the lifetime of the country after seven years, so I'm
totally elucid about that and optimistic. But I want to
focus on the fact that today the key points of
(28:18):
the reform agenda for me is at the European scale.
I think we put in place a lot of reforms
that now we have to deliver, and we have to
deliver in concrete terms. We have less lows to be
passed and what points in the pension scheme is for
the years to come and it's already voted, but the
key elements are to be decided at the European scale,
(28:41):
and I think if we want to improve our growth
both in Germany and France, for me, the top of
my priority are at the European scale. So this is
a sort of reverse agenda if you compare with twenty
seventeen twenty twenty, is that today we have to focus
much more on how to simplify at the European scale,
how to accelerate on the energy market, how to accelerate
(29:03):
our financial services at the European skate. So I will
indicate much more energy at the skate because this is work.
We can unlock a lot of growth and potent shils.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
But Las Henric, when you have a country coming to
these discussions that has a six percent of GDP budget deficit,
as France now has one hundred and ten percent debt,
is having to have an extended period to get back
within the convergence criteria, that is not a strong negotiating position.
Speaker 6 (29:33):
You mean that country has that country being front.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
I don't think that negotiation position of France depends on
the on the budget deficit. I think there's more to
that than just that one. And I think that the
European rules, I think on the deficit criterion, which have
been adjusted actually as the Minister was saying yesterday, very
much in line actually with a German debt rule. So
(29:58):
there's not that much difference here, and I think it
should be it should be applied, and I think, you know,
I think generally there's a question of debt in the world.
I mean, if you look at the US economy, they're
very much you know, over debted and if you look
at both sides of the aisle, all of it is
more spent, lower taxes, more subsidies, in some cases tariffs,
(30:21):
which are also not going to necessarily increase growth. So
I think the problem of debt in the world, I
think is an issue, and I think Europe needs to
be careful of, you know, having having prudent fiscal rules
and stimulus, and I think that's important. But I think
I agree with Aman with President Macrant that it is
(30:43):
much more of a European issue. I think the future
of Europe than it is a domestic French one, as
he has done a lot of the reforms when he
became president. I think labor market reforms, many of the
things you have done and I don't you know, and
I think they're the regulatory are more important than the
dead issues.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
I mean to be just to highlight the point and
make it clear why are we in the situation. We
had an issue during the low growth this year, so
we have less written on our budget in terms of taxes.
This is why we have this discrepancy with the forecast.
And we had a difference in terms of focus with
some public expenditure at the local level, but more than that.
(31:25):
To understand the French metrics we started to diverge in
the eighties because we build progressively a much more generous
social model. The main factor of adjustment if you take
our balance sheet, I would say is clearly pension reforms
and healthcare system. This is a big bunch of where
(31:47):
we have discrepancies, and especially as well because in terms
of public expenditure we have so we have a social
model where it's one hundred person through the budget of
all the public administrations. This is why it was a
necessary to pass this pension reform. And I mean the
figures and the negotiation we'll see, but probably in the
(32:08):
next mandates my successor will have to pass another one
if they want to adjust. But the main focus and
I put my energy on one point, how to create
more activity? Because why did we accumulate so many deficits
and debt in the French model. This is because we
never fixed the mass unemployment. And during the past seven years,
(32:32):
because of our tax reforms, because our label laws reforms,
because our attractiveness agenda, we've been the number one country
in terms of attractive net during the past five years,
we created more than two million jobs. When we decreased
even with COVID, even with the cranins are by more
(32:52):
than two points. Our unemployment rates, so we are a
converging and this is the main topic because if we
had the same level of activity as Germany, we will
don't have public deficits and it's much smarter to look
to work on that than being obsessed by a short
(33:14):
term adjustment, which is a killer for growth. The top
priority of the French economy should be how to be
sure that to improve the activity rates of young people
because we have I think two to three points less
than Germany. Your system is more efficient we start. When
I was elected, we had two hundred and fifty thousand
(33:34):
apprentices per year. We have nine hundred thousand. We are
converging with the German model. We still have some work
to be done at the university to better are located
off of training, but this is a primittee. Second reducing
unemployment rate again because we are not yet at the
(33:54):
German level, so we have to continue the reforms and
improve the rate of access of activity of senior workers
because we have two to three points less than Germany
as well. And part of the explanation of these points
is the fact that we have not the same retirement age.
So the key drivers as is ones. Let's be clear.
(34:17):
So yes, you need political courage and you have to
be fair with your people. But solution is not to
have a short term adjustment by cutting some social expenditure
because it's super hard without any agenda, or over taxing,
because we don't have a lot of room to maneuver
in terms of taxation given the fact that we are
(34:38):
number one or two. It depends with Denmark in Europe.
Here's the gender.
Speaker 3 (34:43):
I mean the cults that are being proposed, we had
them a little bit today that just for next year,
to make Monsieur Barney's numbers add up, we have a
squeezing of the of the deficit by sixty.
Speaker 5 (34:56):
Billion euros exactly.
Speaker 3 (34:58):
Next year, some of which will be taxes on wealthy
individuals and big businesses. There are any higher taxes that
you would.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
Say will discuss that. I think having an exceptional taxation
on corporate is something which is well understood by large companies.
If this is for one year, given the level of
effought which should be made, but it should be limited
and we don't have to forget I mean, we have
(35:25):
not to forget the reality of our economy, the reality
of our competitiveness and our position. Just take an OCD comparison.
We are number one or two in terms of taxation.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
We are.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
Not in the best year in terms of level of
activity and how working participation or how to be worked
per year. So this is what we have to improves.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
But as you say, the most important things that you
can do for the long term is the reforms like
the pension reform, and that is another reason why people worry.
They look at the cost of the uncertainty of the
last few months and you say that the far right
threat has been contained with this new arrangement. But Marie
Le Penn wants to reverse that pension reform and tomorrow
(36:18):
she could call a confidence vote and probably bring down
the government over that. So do you think that there
will be opposition, will be an effort to overturn the
pension reform.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
I think when you look at the figures and you're
sincere with people, all the reasonable parties will look at
the fact that this pension reform and these chymetris has
to be preserved. And we have a structure with all
our unions, and this structure now is very clear and
issued figure that it was a necessity to do so,
(36:49):
and after a dissolution you cannot change to parliament during
at least one year time. But I want What I
want to tell you is, at first I ask the
reality and the pricing of uncertainty by calling for these
nap elections. If I did not ask for this election,
I could be in front of you and you would
(37:10):
tell me, Okay, you cannot go the next you cannot
go for election in two and a half years. Look
at this course. They are air and they were in
a situation to call for a confident vote and force
me for a dissolution, and I wouldn't answer. Now we
were bold collectively, I took my responsibility. I asked the
(37:31):
firm people, do you want them to go to govern
They answered very clearly no. Eleven million of my people
did vote for them. So it means that there is anger, fears,
and clearly some top priorities that we have to face
on security, on social justice on the ground, the situation
(37:52):
of poor neighborhood and so on, rural areas and so on.
So this is the agenda we will have to fix that.
The government as in front of him, but they didn't
give the floor to them, and look at the situation
everywhere in Europe. Look at what happened in Austria, look
at what happen in Nezerlands, look at what happen in Italy,
look at what's happening in a love of Leander in
your country. So this is why I'm a strong advocate
(38:17):
of EU growth agenda, because this is the only way
to give a return to our middle classes. Otherwise this
is a killer for them, and this is the only
way to reconcile economy and the reality of politics. But
don't you think that having farmers to which you ask
(38:38):
for reforms and efforts, and at the same time you
explain I will welcome the sawyer been coming from Mercursire
is the best way to kill the far right. I
can tell you for my country, not at all. And
at the end of the day, do you think what
is the priority today for all of us? Delivering growth
(38:58):
and political stability, fixing the society of our societies, and
convincing reasonable people and our middle classes not to go
to the extremes. But let's be clear, didn't we deliver
collectively good policies for our middle classes during decades we
delivered good policies to have the maximum of exports, the
maximum of profits, but they have a feeling sometimes for
(39:21):
good reasons. They were the adjustment factor of our economy.
This is why preserving level playing physics not just sacrifying
a lot of pieces of our economy where the middle
classes work. I try to be consistent.
Speaker 5 (39:37):
You've been very clear.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
I want to get onto a question from some of
the young people here, but just to very quickly follow
on on that, because you have defended very clearly why
you took that decision to call the election in the summer,
and at the time you said it was for clarity,
and I guess some people would say you didn't get
the clarity. But would you make the same decision again, Yes,
(40:00):
because I sat in the next two years.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
No, no, no. My view is that we have to
preserve now till the end of my mandate. But it's
important because this is a new phase of the political
modernization of France as well. I was elected in twenty
seventeen in this commitment precisely to go beyond the party system,
and I gathered with me people coming from the left,
(40:25):
the right, in the center on a common project. And
now the question is how to work collectively with not
just my party but other parties. This is a new
way to move forward at the Parliament. But this is
a very positive one for me, and this is the
only one to provide stability and not to be precisely
(40:48):
super sensitive to the extremes. At the same time, we
need bold reforms and the agenda has to be bold,
and the Prime Minister was right to push some key
items of this agenda. And I know that a lot
of men is us will will advocate for very important
reforms from economic, social and and and and and from
a first point of view. But for me, we are
(41:12):
just building something. But look at the situation, nothing was sacrificed. Also,
reforms are preserved and this new government has to work
with parliament and progressively will build consensus. So I'm I'm
not naive, I'm a resonantly optimistic, but I think at
the same time we have to accelerate to deliver a
(41:34):
positive view agenda.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
Lars Hendrik, the President, has spoken very clearly about how
he saw the challenge presented by the fact that you
had a third of the population potentially or voters voting
for the far right. Do you think I mean that
is obviously an issue here. Do you think it's realistic
for the center to continue to lock out the extremes
(42:01):
of in European politics?
Speaker 4 (42:03):
I think this is a big issue right now also
in this country, in Germany, and if you look at
some of the elections you recently had in the Lenda
is a challenge. But I do think, you know, I'm
not a politician, but I do think not having them
part of the government to sort of disenchant them or
you know, show how they cannot do it, I think
that's the wrong strategy.
Speaker 6 (42:24):
I think you should not have the main part of
the government.
Speaker 4 (42:27):
I think the government has to deliver, and as you're saying,
I think showing to the people that you know, the
growth and the economy and you know, inflation and healthcare
and all these kinds of issues are solved.
Speaker 6 (42:39):
I think that's the.
Speaker 4 (42:40):
Way to get the people to vote for you, because
I don't think in Germany when it's thirty or more
percent of the people and vote for parties which are
very extreme. I don't think these people are very extreme.
I think you need to, you know, deliver to them
an important agenda and results and then they will vote
(43:02):
for the right thing. So I don't think the strategy,
but you're much much more of a politician here. To
include them and then to show that they can't govern,
I don't think that's the right strategy is also very risky.
I think you need to do a good job as
a politician and offer and show to the people that
it's a good thing. So I think that's but I
(43:23):
think that's what you were saying as well.
Speaker 5 (43:25):
I wanted to get to one of the should.
Speaker 4 (43:27):
Actually say if I may say so, it's going to
say that in my closing statement that we had a
survey by Egon Sina surveying business people around the world
what is the biggest challenge.
Speaker 6 (43:38):
For you right now?
Speaker 4 (43:40):
And the number one challenge was nationalism and populism. So
this is clearly also a business concern. So it's not
good for the economy actually to have these kinds of results.
So I think this is actually very important one.
Speaker 3 (43:55):
So one of the SMT students Global students, am I
Yagmurova from Kazaks Down, has has a question.
Speaker 6 (44:06):
Madame Flander.
Speaker 8 (44:08):
Yes, as mentioned, my name is Emma. I'm a student
here at SNC and I'm honored to be part of
the Young Voices program.
Speaker 5 (44:15):
And our question is with.
Speaker 8 (44:18):
A little lead in may you argue that deeper integration
within the European Union will strengthen EU ability to act
on the global stage, but at the same time others
fear that it undermines national sovereignty. In this regard, how
do you envision balancing further integration within EU and addressing
(44:39):
concerns about further European about national sovereignty.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
I thank you very much, by the way, I love
your country. Look, I think there is a there is
a way to move forward and and this dialma is
very well known and I think is right. But I
think we have to deepen the single market and we
(45:05):
have as well to increase subsidiety. And this is a
way to address this Dinama. When I say we have
to deepen single markets energy, for instance, telco telecom operators
and financial services. If you clearly deepen the single market,
(45:26):
because on this three sectors you don't have an evil
single market. It was out of the initial perspective. If
you build a single market at the same time, if
you alleviate as well as the burdens and the overregulation
on healthscare, on some other and there is almost no
impact on normal people because you just force people to
adopt the same regulation. It's a lot of noise work
(45:50):
and our full session for a lot of technicians and
the industry everywhere in Europe, but there is no impact
on the normal life. What makes people crazy with your
and integration is when just you bother households on their
normal life. Which is true, but this is a well
known anecdote. But when you force an olive oil producer
(46:13):
to be compliant with such a regulation, when you force
to stop this geographical indication in this part of Italy
and France to be compliant with this rule, when you
force the hunter in one place not to do it
there but to help you allow the other one. I
mean this feeling which is the resentment of some part
(46:36):
of our population to be blocked disrespected in the way
of life by leaders and by Europe, is due to
the fact that there is a sort of unadapted approach.
We go too much in the ittegrity. So for me,
we have to stop over regulating all the details of
this way of life and focus on the big issues.
Speaker 6 (46:58):
We have.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
Our big we have much bigger issue than all these regulations.
We did it for good reasons. But now we have
to stop and digest. It went too far from a
lot of these people. And I can tell you because
I do agree with what you said on the reasons
of the far right votes and nationalism. As you mentioned,
sometimes it's about very tiny things, just they are fed
(47:24):
up with this other regulation and because they are hurt
in their day to the life. But it's totally compliant
with deepening single markets in the critical areas because there
is an impact on them. So my point is, let's
focus on the big issues. Let's deepend single markets on energy,
teleco financial services, Let's create an actual single market on
(47:47):
AI and hydrogen. It's a super agenda for the years
to come. It's already an immense agenda. And let's stop
regulating on the nitty gritty and on the daily life
for housulds, and we will count on the resentment on
the feeding noting nationalism, and we will deliver concrete results.
Speaker 5 (48:08):
It's a president.
Speaker 3 (48:08):
I want to take you right back the final question.
We've run out of time, but from where we started,
which was the sense of urgency you had in your
remarks that you felt everybody in Europe should feel about
the challenges facing the European growth model, and as you know,
often in Europe.
Speaker 5 (48:25):
It's a moment of crisis.
Speaker 3 (48:27):
It's when politicians are looking over the ledge that they
actually have done things. Whether it's the global financial crisis
or as you mentioned, COVID, the invasion of Ukraine, all
of those things have forced changed. As an economist, I
would think that the fact that the EU could be
forty percent smaller than the US in twenty years time,
if it carries on like this is a pit of
a is a crisis, but it's a slow moving one.
(48:51):
Will it take an outside force to force this kind
of change? And I wonder in that context, with the
return of Donald Trump as president, help you get some
of this is down.
Speaker 2 (49:01):
Look, I think it could have consequence of the defense
and security part of the agenda.
Speaker 5 (49:07):
For sure, good consequences.
Speaker 2 (49:09):
Consequences, but I think we should be honestly, I don't
want to speculate on the US elections. My point more
than that is that US is very strong partners. This
is a very important lie. But whoever will be elected
and whatever the administration is, I think we have to
be lucid on our situation. Europe is normal. The top
(49:33):
priority of the US. The US top priority is US,
which is normal unfair. The second top priority is China,
and for the rest it depends on the moment. They
are super loyal and reliable partner. In Ukraine, will it
class I don't know, but let's be clear. At the
(49:56):
same time, in Afghanistan we didn't have the call before,
and in the OCUS did. In Australia, I didn't have
the call before, but it's not a reproach. I try
to be lucid. The EU is not the priority of
the US, and this is why part of the wake
up call period of time we are living and part
of what we have to completely reshape is our defense
(50:19):
and security strategy. We are part of NATO no discussion,
We are stronger lives of the US no discussion, but
we have to derisk our model from the US agenda.
This is why we have to invest much more for ourselves.
We have to create much more European solutions. We have
to preserve much more our financing for European solutions. This
(50:40):
is the top priority. But what you say is very important,
and this is why I try to be vocal and
removed under the pressure of crisis. When they were perceived
by our fellow citizens, the financial crisis and the COVID crisis.
(51:02):
You are all here, business leaders, political leaders, intellectual leaders.
Our responsibility, your responsibility, our collective responsibility if to explain
our fellow citizens that this is a symmetric shock for Europe.
They don't see now the results and the consequences. But
our responsibilities is to pre empt the situation and to
(51:25):
act now. Otherwise it will be a rescue plan in
five to ten years time. It would be awkward. And
we know the situation. The figures are clear, the trends
are very clear. So our responsibility as leaders is precisely
to say, okay, we feel the pressure and for me,
Europe can make smart moves when we have symmetric shock.
(51:48):
During the financial crisis, don't over estimate. We did react,
but we didn't take automatically all the right decisions because
it was an asymmetric shock. And we fix this crisis
much more slowly than the US because we were precisely
divided between north and south. It was a weakness. It
(52:09):
was before bunking union and such a level of integration,
but it wasn't asymmetric shock, meaning we didn't have the
same interest. Today we can have in the nitty gritty
some different interests. You are much more invested in car
making business. Fine, which creates this kind of discrepancy, but
in reality we are already aligned. Because it's already too late.
(52:31):
If I'm fair, it's already too late. So we should
be aligned and just look at the situation. Whatever our
differences in the energy system could be or industrial system,
this is a symmetric shock for the European societies and economies.
So we have to precisely deliver this in depth reform
(52:52):
on our governance, on security and defense and the growth model.
If just we want to deliver for our people, this
is the best way, buys the way to help all
the countries precisely to limit and get rid of the
extremes because they are just held by the recent amount
(53:14):
of people and the lack of collective efficients.
Speaker 3 (53:17):
Ladies and gentlemen, you've had your marching orders from mister President,
and I think we have we've run out of time,
so thank you very much, mister President and Las Hendrick.
Speaker 6 (53:28):
I thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (53:30):
All right, you've been listening to an exclusive conversation with
French President Emmanuel Macron at the Berwin Global Dialogue event
hosted by our own Stephanie Flanders,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.