Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Ben, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us on Bloomberg TV. Let me ask
Speaker 1: you what you see as the way forward.
Speaker 2: But well, the Prime Minister and his government have just
Speaker 2: fallen because of a budget that we felt was extremely
Speaker 2: bad for the country. A new prime Minister will most
Speaker 2: certainly be appointed this evening and he will form his
Speaker 2: government quickly and we'll go back to the drawing board.
Speaker 2: That is to say, we'll work again on a budget
Speaker 2: that is likely to be able to renew France with growth,
Speaker 2: with the creation of wealth, without hitting the French people
Speaker 2: with a very French problem, which is taxes.
Speaker 1: L you've asked yesterday, or you've said yesterday that the
Speaker 1: President macn does not need to resign. Why not?
Speaker 2: Well, in any case, what I said that the president's
Speaker 2: resignation is a personal decision on his behalf and can
Speaker 2: only take place in my view, when a political crisis
Speaker 2: takes place or an institutional crisis can find no other
Speaker 2: solution than the resignation of the President of the Republic.
Speaker 2: It is not the case for the moment. What I
Speaker 2: do wish, on the other hand, because for sure there
Speaker 2: will be new legislative elections in the next few months.
Speaker 2: Is that we work on a voting system by then
Speaker 2: that enables us to have a real majority, whatever that
Speaker 2: majority may be. But the country needs a majority. It
Speaker 2: can't live for months and years with three blocks, which
Speaker 2: in reality can't implement a policy.
Speaker 1: Would you resign if you're a president of France today.
Speaker 2: I would hope that I wouldn't find myself in mister
Speaker 2: mccron's situation, because, after all, he is majorly responsible for
Speaker 2: this situation, because the result of my Aniel Macron on
Speaker 2: an economic level are extremely bad. He introduced himself as
Speaker 2: being the Mozart of finance, but the reality is when
Speaker 2: you look at the figures when he came, and the
Speaker 2: figures today were not even drifting. We're going down a slope.
Speaker 2: Whether we're talking about debt, just to remind you, in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen, two thousand, two hundred billion of debt now
Speaker 2: three thousand, three hundred billion of debt, whether we're talking
Speaker 2: about industry nine percent of GDP in twenty seventeen, sorry
Speaker 2: I meant eleven percent in twenty seventeen, nine percent today,
Speaker 2: and the commercial deficit seventy billion to one hundred billion
Speaker 2: deficits that have increased in a spectacular way. We were
Speaker 2: at two point six percent of GDP in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: now we're at six point one percent. So he has
Speaker 2: placed the country in such an appalling situation from an
Speaker 2: economic point of view that I don't really want to
Speaker 2: compare myself to him.
Speaker 3: Economic.
Speaker 1: But this latest budget and Monsieur Vamier was actually considered
Speaker 1: very respectable, liked by the markets in terms of the budget,
Speaker 1: and he gave your party quite a lot of concessions.
Speaker 2: And well, first of all, that's wrong, and that's not
Speaker 2: what we're talking about. What we're talking about is that
Speaker 2: we can't consider and I can't imagine the markets considered
Speaker 2: that a good budget is a budget when in fact
Speaker 2: we have record taxation within Europe that increases taxes by
Speaker 2: another forty billion, and that four billion of extra taxes
Speaker 2: on companies is good news at a time when we
Speaker 2: had sixty five thousand companies going out of business, that
Speaker 2: is to say, a record last year, at a moment
Speaker 2: when unemployment is increasing again and once again there were
Speaker 2: two hundred and sixty redundancy plans throughout the country. And
Speaker 2: the budget was bad. And not only did it give
Speaker 2: rise to enormous extra taxes, but there were no savings
Speaker 2: as far as the state was concerned.
Speaker 3: I'm going for a example, sur.
Speaker 2: The elephant in the room, if you will, is the
Speaker 2: state's TX expending, which carries on going up and up
Speaker 2: and up, linked first of all to a multitude of waste,
Speaker 2: thousands of agencies, various institutes, which of course cost a fortune,
Speaker 2: and then of course linked to immigration. Let's be clear
Speaker 2: about things. When there are five hundred thousand people that
Speaker 2: are coming into our country per year and only ten
Speaker 2: percent have got a work contract, how do we expect
Speaker 2: our social security system to take on this considerable weight
Speaker 2: of people who for ninety percent of them will not
Speaker 2: participate to the creation of wealth.
Speaker 1: But when you do the numbers, what can you promise
Speaker 1: the markets in terms of deficit? So this latest budget
Speaker 1: proposal meant the deficit would be five percent of GDP
Speaker 1: next year and then three percent in twenty twenty nine,
Speaker 1: you promise similar numbers.
Speaker 2: Well, I believe the markets would be right not to
Speaker 2: be contended simply with promises, especially when the promises can't
Speaker 2: be kept, Because, after all, the major difficulty in this
Speaker 2: area is that we've got to be able to make
Speaker 2: structural savings with regard to the functioning of the state,
Speaker 2: but at the same time recreate the conditions for wealth,
Speaker 2: that is to say, reindustrialization, to act on aspects that
Speaker 2: are essential, like, for example, the cost of energy, because
Speaker 2: after all, it's the cost of energy which is really
Speaker 2: the key to all of this. And we mustn't strangle
Speaker 2: the economy. If you want to go too fast, you've
Speaker 2: got to have a trajectory that's a reasonable trajectory based
Speaker 2: on the creation of wealth and structural savings, rather than
Speaker 2: saying you will see we're going to reduce the deficit
Speaker 2: by two points over three years, and in fact you're
Speaker 2: doing things that are so appalling that people no longer
Speaker 2: spend money, and they save too much. There is no
Speaker 2: longer any investment, and the economy collapses. And so we
Speaker 2: don't want to submit to deficits. It's been fifty years
Speaker 2: that we've been passing budgets with chronic deficits. We no
Speaker 2: longer want to be in that modus operandi. We want
Speaker 2: to reabsorb the deficits, but we want to do it
Speaker 2: intelligently without depriving us of the chance to reindustrialize, to
Speaker 2: be able to help companies, to count on them to
Speaker 2: create wealth and therefore to also create employment, and to
Speaker 2: make young people work, because after all, that's also the
Speaker 2: central problem, because if young people don't work, then social
Speaker 2: protection systems will be unbalanced. So all of those aspects
Speaker 2: are equilibriums that we have to try to find.
Speaker 1: So, in terms of numbers, three percent of GDP and
Speaker 1: twenty twenty nine is far fetched.
Speaker 2: Getting to three percent in twenty twenty nine, I don't
Speaker 2: think it's credible, but I'm not the only one. I
Speaker 2: don't think it's credible either. To the President of the
Speaker 2: Corte de Compte State Order, once again, these are simply
Speaker 2: promises and they know very well that they can't keep
Speaker 2: to them. Mister Barney made that promise and in reality
Speaker 2: his budget worsened the deficit by twelve billion. So if
Speaker 2: we don't make significant intelligent structural savings with regard to
Speaker 2: the state, and if we don't put in place the
Speaker 2: conditions so that companies can work invest without being suffocated
Speaker 2: with extra taxes, we won't get there. But with those
Speaker 2: two solutions we can succeed as quickly as possible to
Speaker 2: get back to a reasonable deficit. Even if the three
Speaker 2: percent was just decided on the back of an envelope,
Speaker 2: how fast could.
Speaker 1: That be.
Speaker 2: To Well, it's a matter of weeks. We'll discuss it
Speaker 2: with the new Prime minister. We'll work together, we'll explain
Speaker 2: what our red lines are. Our red lines are. We
Speaker 2: can't ask the French people to pay the bill for
Speaker 2: the mistakes of their leaders. That's what mister Barney did.
Speaker 2: He massively increases taxation. He hits sick people, retired people,
Speaker 2: he hits everyone. And at the same time, once again,
Speaker 2: there's zero savings from the state. And that's inadmissible.
Speaker 3: For surely time that.
Speaker 1: Who would you like as prime minister?
Speaker 2: Oh, it's not for me to choose. That really is
Speaker 2: the role of the President of the Republic. It's his responsibility.
Speaker 2: And I don't really care about the name. I care
Speaker 2: about the method. I want the Prime minister to respect
Speaker 2: all the political forces that are represented at the National Assembly.
Speaker 2: It's quite simply called democracy.
Speaker 1: What can President Macun do today for your voters.
Speaker 2: But leave Well, no, there isn't a solution. Immanuel Macron
Speaker 2: will never do very much in reality, and he's not
Speaker 2: going to give up on what he's been doing for
Speaker 2: seven years, destroyed everything. He's destroyed everything in seven years.
Speaker 2: Lat He destroyed what used to function in our state,
Speaker 2: the prefectural etcetera. He destroyed France's load bearing walls. He's
Speaker 2: caused massive de industrialization, He's crushed the French people with taxation.
Speaker 2: He's done everything he wasn't supposed to do. So I'm
Speaker 2: not going to, for example, have any hope that tomorrow
Speaker 2: he'll be able to do absolutely the opposite of what
Speaker 2: he's done over seven years. Now, once again we will
Speaker 2: have to make do as long as he's there by
Speaker 2: hoping that the Prime Minister will be more reasonable than
Speaker 2: he is.
Speaker 1: Not. Even a referendum on immigration would would make a difference.
Speaker 2: He could have a referendum on immigration, but he won't
Speaker 2: do it because, after all, he said, I'm prepared to
Speaker 2: do a referendum on every subject apart from immigration. So
Speaker 2: it's kind of a taboo that we can't understand the
Speaker 2: justification for, because it's obvious that immigration that is totally
Speaker 2: out of control like we're living through, is not only
Speaker 2: a problem as far as our public finances are concerned,
Speaker 2: it's also a problem in terms of the consequences it
Speaker 2: has with regards to the explosion of delinquency. So I
Speaker 2: don't think he'll ever touch immigration vill.
Speaker 1: Go Len, But why not ask him to leave them
Speaker 1: before twenty twenty seven, even if the institutions say otherwise.
Speaker 2: Well, because to ask him to resign would mean to
Speaker 2: disturb our institutions. Once again, it's his decision now if
Speaker 2: there is a political crisis, an institutional crisis, and if
Speaker 2: he can no longer dissolve the assembly, if reshuffles serve
Speaker 2: no purpose and the French constitution only leaves other option,
Speaker 2: which is his resignation. But that wouldn't be a drama either.
Speaker 2: There would be new presidential elections. General DeGaulle, you know,
Speaker 2: designed our institutions and they are very solid. They are
Speaker 2: extremely solid. Everything's done to make sure that the life
Speaker 2: of the nation can carry on and not create disturbances
Speaker 2: that can't be dealt with. If he were to resign now,
Speaker 2: there would be new presidential elections and new legislative elections.
Speaker 1: But but are you worried about these crisis and leading
Speaker 1: to severe market reactions.
Speaker 2: Not no, because the reality is that what worries the
Speaker 2: markets is the economic situation in France. What worries the
Speaker 2: markets is the lack of perspective concerning reducing deficits. It's
Speaker 2: the absence of savings at the state level, the increase
Speaker 2: of taxation on companies that worries the markets. And in
Speaker 2: fact you've seen the markets have remained extremely stable over
Speaker 2: the past few days since the announcement of the no
Speaker 2: confidence vote, and even after the no confidence vote. In reality,
Speaker 2: they had concerns at the moment of the dissolution in June.
Speaker 2: But for the moment, whether it's the spread between France
Speaker 2: and Germany and the rates or the markets, for the moment,
Speaker 2: everything is relatively calm because once again they realized that anyway,
Speaker 2: there has to be at all cost another policy other
Speaker 2: than that envisaged by mister Barnier.
Speaker 1: But the market is probably looking at the fact that
Speaker 1: the ECB is standing close and that there's a want
Speaker 1: from France of getting the deficit down pretty quickly.
Speaker 3: No, I mean, I'm going to.
Speaker 2: Well, yes, but once again there's a long way to
Speaker 2: go between wishes and reality. Mister Barnier wanted to reduce
Speaker 2: the deficits, he's increased them by twelve billion, you see
Speaker 2: what I mean. So once again using a hammer to
Speaker 2: bash French people over the heads with attack is when
Speaker 2: we're the country with the highest rate of taxation in Europe.
Speaker 2: Is not the solution, but it's the only solution that
Speaker 2: French leaders have implemented for years. It doesn't work, sufunction
Speaker 2: a situation. Look at the situation we find ourselves in.
Speaker 2: So help companies enable them to do business. Reduce production tax,
Speaker 2: reduce the cost of energy or at least reduce it
Speaker 2: to the same level as the cost of production in France.
Speaker 2: Those are things that will allow companies to develop and
Speaker 2: thus create employment.
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all that the Bagnier actually proposal
Speaker 1: means that you know GDP would be the deficit of
Speaker 1: GDP would be five percent in twenty twenty five compared
Speaker 1: to six percent this year, so it's going down, no knowing.
Speaker 2: No, the deficit rose by twelve billion. The deficit rose
Speaker 2: by twelve billion. But you know, the head of Saffron,
Speaker 2: which is a major company, has just given an interview,
Speaker 2: and what did the head of Saffron say. He said,
Speaker 2: Barnier's budget is a bad budget. So in reality, the
Speaker 2: fact that it's last year's budget that's applied, however unfair
Speaker 2: it will socially, is actually rather good news for companies.
Speaker 2: There are a certain number of entrepreneurs in economic circles
Speaker 2: who are in fact pleased about the no confidence motion
Speaker 2: because they consider mister Barnier's budget was worse than last
Speaker 2: year's budget, and that's saying something.
Speaker 1: Will you meet Trump when he's here for the reopening
Speaker 1: of Notre Dame on Saturday.
Speaker 2: Well, I won't meet with him, but maybe we'll bump
Speaker 2: into each other, because I will indeed be there too
Speaker 2: at the reopening of Notre Dame, which is a major
Speaker 2: event for us in France. I don't have any relationship
Speaker 2: with Donald Trump. I will have one. I hope the
Speaker 2: day have become president of the Republic.
Speaker 1: You have a trial against you that will decide whether
Speaker 1: you can run for president that we're expecting that outcome
Speaker 1: on the thirty first of March. Will John N. Badella be,
Speaker 1: of course candidate for presidency if you cannot present yourself.
Speaker 2: I don't place myself in that situation of being prevented
Speaker 2: from being a candidate by the justice system. I think
Speaker 2: that in any country it's not acceptable to stop a
Speaker 2: candidate from representing themselves, and therefore I don't think about
Speaker 2: that situation. I hope that the magistrates will respect the
Speaker 2: will of the voters to be able to choose their candidates.
Speaker 2: I have an African friend who sent me a text
Speaker 2: after the raids carried out against me and said, look, Marine,
Speaker 2: there are some countries where people don't have the right
Speaker 2: to vote, and there are countries where candidates aren't allowed
Speaker 2: to stand for election. In fact, I prefer countries where
Speaker 2: people can vote and candidates can stand for election.
Speaker 1: Has it changed your thinking in actually you know, dealing
Speaker 1: with the budget?
Speaker 2: Absolute, absolutely not. It has nothing to do with it.
Speaker 2: In fact, I don't see the relationship between the two.
Speaker 2: My only compass is the interests of the French people,
Speaker 2: the interests of our companies and the future of my country.
Speaker 2: That's the only compass I've always had and we'll ever have.