maurn,
FP is correct, the interview is at
http://www.elysee.fr/magazine/actualite/sommaire.php?doc=/documents/discours/2004/IT040401.htm
You can always translate most common language pages using Alta Vista's Babelfish.
http://world.altavista.com/
Go there, type in the URL of the webpage you want translated. Use the
drop down menu to pick the To and From language, and click "translate"
I'll post the english version here for you as well.
INTERVIEW
OF MR JACQUES CHIRAC
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
BY
MRS ARLETTE CHUB AND MR PATRICK PEPPER D?ARVOR
NEWSPAPER OF 8 P.m. - TF1 - FRANCE 2
***
PALATE OF L?ELYSEE
THURSDAY APRIL 1, 2004
ARLETTE CHUB ? Mr. President, good evening. Thank you to accomodate us
with Patrick PEPPER Of ARVOR. Then, quite simply, here: twice, at the
time of the two turns of the regional elections, the French expressed
very strongly their dissatisfaction and then, there is quarante-huit
hours, you again chose Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN like Prime Minister. And
much of French wonder, today, if you of course and included/understood
their message.
THE PRESIDENT ? Yes. I listened attentively and I heard the message of
our compatriots. Much of them has indeed, like say it to you,
expressed concerns, impatiences, dissatisfactions. It is a fact. And
the government must hold account of this message. It must hold account
of it initially, while being, more still than in the past, in
offensive on two fields essential with the life of the nation:
employment and growth.
Then, while keeping more than ever in mind, a fundamental requirement
which is the social justice and which must be, to some extent, the
point of passage obliged of all the reflexions relating to the action,
evolution of the things.
And finally, by showing very clearly its will of opening and dialogue.
Opening and dialogue which are, it should be said, of qualities which
are not traditionally in the French culture and which must be
developed.
Then, from there, of the corrections of actions are perhaps necessary.
We will return there.
? QUESTION; If it is you who intervene this evening in first line and
not him, it is perhaps that you regard it a little as your Principal
private secretary. Certain observers spoke about fuse or Prime
Minister with CDD a three months, just to face the unpopular reforms
and elections European rather badly parts.
THE PRESIDENT ? Mr PEPPER Of ARVOR, be wary of the stereotypes. I
fixed a course. We will return there. I made the choice of constancy,
of the determination and of the action, by naming Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN
with the head of a team altered, renewed and which, believe well, will
be able to hear it and heard the message which much French addressed.
And, Mr PEPPER Of ARVOR, I estimated in conscience, that Mr. RAFFARIN
was with same, taking into account his experiment to draw these
conclusions and also to continue the action.
? QUESTION; Because the man is of quality?
The PRESIDENT - Because, naturally, it is a man of quality, if not I
would not have chosen it and I would not have it famous, but also,
because he knows France well and French and he is completely
harmonizes some with the course which I fixed in 2002 and who am a
course which was directed towards two objectives.
The prime objective, it is to give again solid foundations with the
Republic. From where the action to restore or restore the authority of
the State and the safety of the citizens, to refuse any form of
intolerance or exclusion - it is a major problem for France of today
-, to reaffirm and make respect the republican values in the forefront
of which the equal opportunity and secularity are.
The second objective being, of course, to put itself in measurement to
assume what the evolution of the world requires, of which France
cannot abstract itself - except disappearing or assuming serious
difficulties -, the in particular economic and social evolutions. Here
are the two objectives that I fixed and the course that I fixed since
2002 and which remains the same one.
? QUESTION; Then, small precision, the question was indeed: it is not
there for three months, Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN, whatever the result of
the European elections. There will be no rehandling, it will remain,
so that it is clear.
THE PRESIDENT ? Mrs CHUB, one does not name a government for one given
duration. One names a government to achieve goals. It is well in this
spirit that I named this Prime Minister.
? QUESTION; Another small precision, so that the things are clear. You
did not choose Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN because you do not want Nicolas
SARKOZY.
THE PRESIDENT ? I include/understand the taste very well that one can
have for the polemic. That formed part, I was going to say slags, but
also pleasures of the democracy. Nicolas SARKOZY, who is a man of
great quality, which succeeded perfectly in an essential mission which
had been entrusted to him and which was not easy, in all connections,
completely legitimately has his place in another essential mission
today, which is that to assume the economic policy and financial of
our country.
? QUESTION; But, it is one day First potential minister. You do not
have a major problem with him, of personal problem with Nicolas
SARKOZY?
THE PRESIDENT ? Listen, I read sometimes the echoes which appear here
or there. It is completely normal. And I must say that I never
recognize the reality of the things there.
? QUESTION; Then, precisely, on Nicolas SARKOZY. People said
themselves: good, it made a success of Place Beauvau indeed well.
There was a second minister who was very popular which was Domenica of
VILLEPIN which thus carried with plume the French word abroad. And
these two there change station. Does that correspond to what?
THE PRESIDENT ? With the requirements of the day. It was obvious that
fresh impulse was to be given from the economic point of view, even if
Mr. Francis SEA had taken up his duties with a very great quality, a
very great authority and I make a point of paying homage to him. But,
that needed a change, d?une new impulse, and it was true also in the
other ministries. I chose Mr. of VILLEPIN to take up the completely
essential duties of Minister of Interior Department. I am persuaded
that it will assume them with the quality which it put to assume its
preceding functions.
? QUESTION; If you say, you continue, Mr. President, in 2002, after
the shock of April 21, c?était a government of mission which had been
set up. Qu?est this which n?a not gone?
THE PRESIDENT ? This government did many things. We had known a long
phase d?opposition to progress. It was completely obvious that France
required d?un certain number d?évolutions, d?adaptations, of reforms
and that l?on pushed back these reforms indefinitely, probably parce
qu?elles are always difficult to make and that l?on feared the
consequences that that could comprise on the purely political level.
They had to be done and the government of Mr. RAFFARIN assumed this
difficult responsibility. The most typical L?exemple is that,
naturally, of the reform of the retirements. You know that if l?on
n?avait anything made before 2020, one would have been practically
obliged to decrease by two, to divide by two our retirements. And more
one advanced in time, plus the reform was difficult and more the
results were compromised. Well d?autres reforms was made. You know,
when one changes a little the things, there is always..., especially
in a country like France. But c?est true in all l?Europe. To look at
what occurs in our neighbors. They are subjected to the same
treatment, for the same reasons. They assume them perhaps a little
better, although I n?en am not sure.
? QUESTION; Because there, the electoral sanction was very strong, 24
areas or 25 areas out of 26 on the left?
THE PRESIDENT ? Yes, of course, that holds with this dissatisfaction
that j?évoquais. But when you look at the number of the French who
approved l?action of the government, compared to the number of the
French who l?ont disapproved, the difference n?est all the same not
considerable. There is a general responsibility for the government,
which qu?il is, with l?égard evolutions which s?imposent with our
country in all the fields. If not France will be on the roadside, it
will not follow. France is country which has assets considerable,
which has voice which carries in the world, which is considered and
respected, c?est indisputable. Naturally, if she wants to preserve
this situation which allows him, in addition, to defend her values and
her interests in an effective way, also qu?elle s?adapte is needed,
and the adaptations, c?est always a little painful. That whose
government must be convinced, c?est d?une share qu?il is necessary to
continue l?action d?adaptation of our company in the modern world, but
qu?il is necessary to do it, I l?ai says very to l?heure and I repeat
it, while having in permanent background, therefore in the glance
permanently, l?exigence of social justice, qu?à right title, the
French consider for essential.
? QUESTION; To take again second once the question d?Arlette CHUB,
qu?est this which n?a not gone in the preceding government? Are they
for example, the ministers resulting from the civil company Luc FERRY,
Jean-Jacques AILLAGON, Francis SEA who failed?
THE PRESIDENT ? You know in the changes, there is always much
d?injustice, inevitably. There is always the nécessité?
QUESTION - does ?On tend to think qu?il has professionals of the policy there?
THE PRESIDENT ? The policy, as opposed to what many people think or
believe, c?est also a trade, c?est also a vocation which requires a
formation. It is necessary to have, at the same time, the vocation and
the formation. C?est the reason for which changes sometimes
s?imposent. They are often painful, regrettable, perhaps unjust, but
c?est l?intérêt general which must precede.
? QUESTION; Don't you regret that this government, for much, appeared
as a government which gave the privileged people already? That was
lived like that. The falls d?impôts, during qu?en even time there were
unemployed who were erased of l?UNEDIC, that specific l?allocation of
solidarity was reduced. And one said: "eh well here are, c?est social
l?injustice, there is more safety in the field of the life and less in
the social one".
THE PRESIDENT ? You are right, Mrs CHUB, and in very critical there is
always a bottom of truth. I do not believe that l?on can say that l?on
supported the rich person with the detriment of the others. What, on
the other hand, was essential, c?est to release energies and to make
in kind qu?en France, one is encouraged to work, invest, produce,
create jobs. And we arrived at a situation where, alas, the
discouragement existed at the sharp forces most essential with the
nation. And it was seen, in particular, through number d?entreprises,
capital, workers who left to l?étranger. And that, this n?est not
possible. C?est a situation which cannot last. To maintain our capital
of growth, but also to maintain to l?espoir at those which want to
invest or s?investir to create and create richness, therefore of
l?emploi and thus of the social progress, it was necessary to take a
certain number of measurements. They were taken. Then as I said it to
you with l?instant, there is always a bottom of truth. You quoted
specific l?Allocation of solidarity, you are right. And there, there
is probably a correction to make. There was a circumstance which would
have, can be, due being envisaged better, which made that arrived,
together, at the same time, d?une share the essential reform of
l?UNEDIC, which was in the train d?être in bankruptcy and which the
two sides of industry decided - that n?était responsibility for the
government at all, the two sides of industry decided a reform of
l?assurance unemployment within the framework of l?UNEDIC- and in
parallel the service given so that l?on calls the unemployed at the
end of the rights, which l?on calls which l?ASS, it, concerns the
responsibility for the government. This reform was made at the same
time. And this simultaneity, which n?a sufficiently not coordinated,
s?est translated by the difficulties that you evoke, rightly, and
which were felt very hard by a certain number of the workers or
unemployed in our country.
? QUESTION; But you had been alerted on these difficulties, parce
qu?au Parlement, there were people who hesitated?
THE PRESIDENT ? Yes, I say to you that j?ai listened to this qu?ont
says the French. C?est the reason why j?ai requested from the
government to suspend the setting in ?uvre measurement relative to
l?ASS. The law of mobilization for the employment, which currently the
Minister for social Cohesion prepares, Mr. Jean-Louis BORLOO, must
make it possible to take again the things in an overall logic. And
that with a principal objective which is better to help, to better
accompany the unemployed, people who are with unemployment, in the
return to employment, to find an employment, an activity. It is in
this context that it will be necessary to regulate the problem of the
ASS. I thus asked that one suspend the setting in ?uvre this
measurement.
? QUESTION; And would you say like the n°3 your government, François
FILLON, who what it is spent Sunday is one April 21 with back?
THE PRESIDENT ? I am always wary of the formulas.
? QUESTION; What also weighed, perhaps, in this dissatisfaction with
the French? There are such social problems which were not regulated,
or of the conflicts, the intermittent ones...
? QUESTION; ?Par example the intermittent ones of the spectacle, it is
a conflict which lasted. And then at the same time it was not
understood perhaps that you do not lean rather on the requests of the
researchers whereas at the same time one gave the restorers, which was
not inevitably illegitimate, but there too there is the feeling,
perhaps among certain French, whom there were injustice?
THE PRESIDENT ? You raise three problems which deserve indeed answer.
The intermittent ones of the spectacle: at the beginning a decision
taken by the qualified organizations within the framework of the
compensation for unemployment, to face a considerable deficit of the
mode of the intermittent ones, whose consequence was that this mode
was in bankruptcy. And that the deficit was dealt with, necessarily,
by the whole of the other workers. What could seem inadmissible or
unacceptable by the trade-union and professional persons in charge.
Honestly I believe that they were right. On the other hand, one does
not know, seems to me T-it, one did not take conscience of French
specificity sufficiently. In the field of the culture, we are baited
defenders, you know it, on the international level and the national
level, of cultural diversity, French specificity. And one did not
realize consequences that that could comprise, in particular for young
people. Admittedly there were abuses. Abuses of which many large
companies, follow my glance, assumed a share of responsibility and
which had to be corrected indisputably. But the effects on a certain
number of young artists were badly appreciated.
? QUESTION; There too you ask that one correct then?
THE PRESIDENT ? Then there was, not, then, but that is another
problem, it is a decision which was made by the trade-union
organizations, it is not the responsibility for the government.
? QUESTION; One can try to perhaps make it less unjust?
THE PRESIDENT ? But the problem arises, and thus I asked the
government, immediately, to make all the contacts necessary, within
the framework of the essential dialogue, to find the solution with the
problems which are posed, in particular for the young artists. After
you evoked the researchers. That is also a true problem. There were
this faintness and this reaction. With what was it due? Initially with
an evil, a faintness due to the insufficiency of the means devoted to
research. And that, it is a faintness justified. Since 2002, I had
indicated that, research being I would say the principal engine of the
growth and of the future, one needed that France makes a great effort
to reach before 2010, 3% of its national richness assigned to
research. One probably took delay in this field, for reasons holding
with the budgetary constraints, themselves resulting from the
insufficiency of growth. When there was growth, there are three, four
or five years, it was easier. Now, it is obviously more difficult. It
is true besides for all the European countries. It was thus necessary
to meet this need, in particular because it had been expressed, but
especially because he is in conformity with the national interest,
from where the idea for a great law of orientation and programming of
research. And then, there was a specific problem which was a problem
of distribution of the stations, between the statutory stations and
the contractual stations. And this problem should be re-examined. I
also asked the government to re-examine this problem of stations. But
it is not essence there. The problem will be regulated. But essence,
it is that one makes a careful thought on our research, and in
particular our university research which misses means. Whereas it is
essential. There is a particular effort to make, it is one of the
missions of the new government.
There is the problem of the reform, probably, the adaptation of our
institutional system, and in particular of our great establishments of
research. That supposes a dialogue, a careful thought to see how one
can modernize, making more dynamic, more effective this research.
There is of course the law of programming which must envisage the
means necessary for the years which come and there are finally the
peremptory necessities for a very appreciable increase in the private
research, which in France is very insufficient compared to what one
sees in all the large countries. There is thus a general problem of
research.
? QUESTION; And in all were these businesses, researchers,
intermittent, professors, you shocked to see that it was said that you
made a kind of war to the intelligence under pretext that in fact
categories usually do not vote you?
THE PRESIDENT ? That formed part of the polemic and I do not shock
myself a polemic. The polemic, it is also, I said it presently to you,
one within the competences of the democracy, still is necessary it not
it to misuse. And still is necessary it to include/understand an
essential thing, it is that in France, we do not have the culture of
the dialogue. That it is true for everyone, the government, the
professional or trade-union organizations. We do not have a culture of
dialogue. We have spontaneously, for reasons which one can
historically explain, a culture of the confrontation. Here is a reform
which is essential: to insert, gradually, in the spirit of people to
France what already entered the majority of the countries which
surround us - what supposes that each one makes an effort in this
field, the leaders, the trade unions, professionals etc -, that the
dialogue is always better than the confrontation.
QUESTION - will you arrive there for a very important reform which is
awaited, the reform of the sickness insurance? Will you differ it or
it will hold the deadlines that you assigned to him?
THE PRESIDENT ? You know, there we are on a completely essential point
for the future of our country and our social pact such as we consider
it necessary.
Today, the level of the deficits and the not-control of the
expenditure lead to a deficit of the sickness insurance immaîtrisable
and whose consequences cannot not be dramatic, i.e. the setting causes
some even sickness insurance must be considered.
QUESTION -... is Donc there urgency?
THE PRESIDENT ? Yes. However, when one blames the sickness insurance,
one knows very well what it occurs: the rich person, them, naturally,
preserve the means of assuming their responsibilities as regards their
health or that their close relations and naturally, they are the poor
which do not have the means. It is besides for them that the system
had been made, the social pact, of 1945. Therefore, the sickness
insurance, the social security in general, the sickness insurance in
particular, it is a completely vital field for the nation. It is thus
necessary to make what is necessary.
QUESTION - And how to make, in your opinion? It is the dialogue?
THE PRESIDENT ? What is necessary, it should be done, I believe, Mrs
CHUB, with with the spirit four ideas simple: the first, it is the
transparency, i.e. the dialogue. This transparency, it leads in
particular, I say it immediately, to challenge the recourse to the
ordinances, it is not at all a field where one can operate by the
recourse to the ordinances.
QUESTION - It was the intention which one lent to your gouvernement?
THE PRESIDENT ? Second principle: it is necessary to make evolve/move
our behaviors. It is not normal that France is the champion of the
world as regards drug. It is not normal that per capita of inhabitant,
the Germans consume three times less antibiotics than the French.
Therefore, there is a problem of evolution of our behaviors. The
medicalized control did not go.
QUESTION - ?Ce will not be easy because it much is repeated.
THE PRESIDENT ? The third point, it is that one needs a pilot on the
aircraft of the sickness insurance. For the moment, one has the
impression that there is not really. The State is occupied some and
wanted to always intervene sometimes for reasons which are not
completely justifiable. The trade-union and professional organizations
are not in their place. In the spirit and the line of the social pact
of 1945, the pilot they was the two sides of industry.
QUESTION - There is of them one which does not sit any more.
THE PRESIDENT ? Yes, but that it is not suitable. The pilot, they was
the two sides of industry and that must return, there is not an other
solution which is in conformity with the general interest and I would
say to morals, with the ethics even of social protection. This is why
I asked the government to enter into the negociations necessary in
this direction. And then, the last not, it will be necessary to take
measures of rectification. They do not have yet were decided whole.
They are essential, they will be difficult. This is why I estimate
that they must be taken, I said it presently, in the transparency and
the dialogue. This is why, like one makes the majority of our large
European partners and in particular our German friends, it is
essential that the two sides of industry and the government, but also
that the majority and the opposition on such a vital subject for the
future of the French, gather to discuss together and to seek a
solution together.
Look for secularity, there was a great debate, a discussion in depth,
of principle and finally one arrived at a solution which was approved
as well by the opposition by the majority. When there are a great
national debate, a great essential stake for the life of the French
and in particular of most modest, it is essential to find an agreement
national. To take refuge simply in the polemic or criticism are not
possible, to think that "there is not case" or to impose a solution is
not possible either. Therefore, there is a great challenge, the
minister Philippe DOUSTE-BLAZY, who is a man at the same time of a
great competence and a great sensitivity, will have to assume this
responsibility, I repeat it essential, for the years which come. I am
sure that it will do it with many qualities.
QUESTION -... I.e. you do imagine of the round tables of work over one
rather long duration with partners of the opposition?
THE PRESIDENT ? Not "rather long".
QUESTION -... You do not fix a date.
THE PRESIDENT ? Enough longue?c' is limited all the same, it should be
known that there is urgency, as there was urgency to make the reform
of the retirements, if not we go in the wall.
QUESTION - All does that precisely intervene on an economic situation
which is nevertheless rather dull, a relatively soft growth, told us
INSEE yesterday, with this small growth, it appears sufficient to you,
in any case, to reabsorb the deficits, to give pleasure in Brussels
and to continue the fall of the taxes which you had promised?
THE PRESIDENT ? I would like initially to point out that the fall of
the taxes, it is not a gift which I want to make with one or the
others, it is a need, this is why it was a promise. We are today one
of the large countries most taxed with the world, it is a formidable
handicap with our growth and our development. There is necessary to
cure it, it is no mystery, if one discourages people one discourages
the initiative, the growth, the development, employment, the social
improvement, the social progress. Therefore, it is essential in all
the cases to return at least in the European average.
QUESTION -... will Donc one continue the next year?
THE PRESIDENT ? Therefore, it will be necessary to continue, in all
the measurement of our means, naturally, and taking into account the
constraints which are ours. It will be necessary to continue, I repeat
it, not to give pleasure with one or the others, but because it is
vital if one wants to continue to have employment, growth, investment,
research, it is essential, if not, all the creative sharp forces are
likely to leave on our premises.
QUESTION - And how will one make to return in the nails?
THE PRESIDENT ? Then you say the growth is soft. It is always too
soft, one always can, in all the cases, to hope for it always better.
It is in process of improvement. There is a thing which grains me
always a little, it is to see at which point we underline all
permanently that can generate pessimism. When I say us, it is us all,
it is also one of the French characteristics. One nourishes pessimism
without to return account that by nourishing pessimism, whereas we
have fantastic assets, that we show our know-how in the whole world,
by nourishing pessimism one discourages people, one discourages the
initiative, one discourages work. I am not pessimistic, I am not it by
nature and I am not it by conviction and it is not necessary today to
be it. One has an insufficient recovery compared to what we could wish
of the growth, but it is nevertheless a recovery, one observes it in
Europe, it should be accompanied. All the concern of the European
leaders, in particular at the time of the last Council which took
place a few days ago, was to mobilize us to try to give an impulse
together to the growth, one calls that the process of Lisbon, it does
not matter, it is essentiel?
Did QUESTION - ?Mais it will be sufficient to make it possible to
precisely return so that Brussels request?
THE PRESIDENT ? ?Mais in the impulse which one will give to the
growth, there is a capital element, it is to have a certain optimism,
reasonable, reasoned, but a certain optimism. All that feeds in France
much more than elsewhere, under conditions besides which are very
badly included/understood abroad, I can carry of it testimony,
pessimism is an additional element of our weakness.
QUESTION - I would not like to make you of sorrow and to show me very
pessimistic, but there is an element which does not take part in
general enthusiasm, it is the debt of France, which reaches a
considerable figure. Then isn't the first mission of Nicolas SARKOZY,
it precisely statement, one will reduce the deficit and gradually, as
one is committed there to respect the European applications? But 1 000
billion euros of debt that made fear.
QUESTION - There are two reasons and it is a great challenge which Mr
SARKOZY will have to take up, with Finances. One has let accumulate,
for 10 years, the immediate or potential expenditure, those which one
was obliged to assume immediately and those which one left with the
following the care to assume and we arrived at this situation where
our deficits are not acceptable any more for our partners and where
especially our debt, since it is the same thing, becomes such as
actually we defer on our children, in an unacceptable way, the load of
our current comfort. It is not possible. It is thus necessary to find
the control of this expenditure, which supposes in particular that one
looks at very exactly the cost-effectiveness ratio of a certain number
of actions, in particular of actions led by the government. There is
an effort to make. I looked at, Mrs CHUB, there are three or four
days, your excellent emission "crossed Words", it was very
interesting. Among the speakers, there was a Mister whom I did not
know besides, but who exposed with much force and with the obviousness
competence, moreover nobody disputed it, the fact that the perception
of the taxes in more expensive France east four times than in the
other European countries. I do not seek to make comparison, but it is
an example among much, of the need that there is to take again in hand
a certain number of bad habits, to modernize a certain number of
methods. If the private companies which make the richness of our
country had agreed anything to change for thirty years or fifty years,
then there, it is certain that France would have practically ceased
existing. Eh well, the State must assume the same responsibilities,
which said this expert was very to just make. It is an example among
others and it is as very difficult for that, one does not need
confrontation, one should not seek to impose the change of practices
often so old, as they are found completely natural when they are
assumed, one needs dialogue, dialogue, reason.
QUESTION - As to make that the word reform isn't always associated the
word sacrifice for the French, there is "gaining - gaining"?
THE PRESIDENT ? ... By employing this word less.
? QUESTION; Since one speaks about words, you employed the word of
social fracture into 95 when you were elected. There, you speak again
of social cohesion, national cohesion through the ministry of
Jean-Louis BORLOO. Since there, you are three years old in front of
you, three years without election, what you do want to make some these
three years before giving your mandate concerned or to withdraw you?
What do you wish that it remain of these three years?
THE PRESIDENT ? France which will have found all its dynamism and
which, consequently, will be able to assume its social pact without
chipping it and by developing it. This in a European context of peace
and democracy.
The problem of social cohesion that you evoked while speaking about
social fracture is a true problem in France. One is well obliged to
note there that, in spite of a very considerable increase in the
expenditure, and in particular in the welfare expenditures, for ten
years, twenty years, it has not mattered, I do not refer to a
political or governmental time, but with a social fact, poverty did
not decrease and exclusion either. It is a fact. And, gradually,
ghettos reinforced developed which are often ghettos of misery.
And that is not acceptable. Then, why? There is a reason with that
inter alia. They is that the men, the women, the young people who are
victims of this phenomenon, actually, it should be recognized, are
seriously and effectively defended by nobody. They are not in the
system. Then, naturally, they cause a certain number of lamentations
at a certain number of observers which, then, n?en draw any
conclusion. And consequently, something really should be done.
If I wished that one create a ministry for the social Cohesion which
has in hand the whole of the elements to act in this field which goes
from housing to work while passing by integration, great the ten years
weakness last. We did not have of policy of integration. In all the
cases, a very insufficient policy and we let us carry still currently
the consequences from there...
? QUESTION; ... And you are a President since new ans?
THE PRESIDENT ? ... Yes, yes, I know well. But I did not have during
the last years, up to 2002, all the means to act. What did not prevent
me from saying the things. But, I was not always listened in a way as
desirable as I would have imagined it...
? QUESTION; ... By the preceding governments.
THE PRESIDENT ? It does not matter, I am not polemizing against
anyone. I note. Therefore, it is essential today that one has a policy
who allows us to reduce by all the average concentrates between the
hands of somebody who can act in a way coordinated and coherent, from
housing to work while passing by integration, by the whole of the
actions which can be led for, I will say, déghettoïser our company. It
is capital.
? QUESTION; Then, since one arrives at the end of this emission, one
can ask you a foreign question and which relates to the rehandling of
yesterday. To withdraw Domenica of VILLEPIN of the Quay of Orsay and
to replace it by European Michel BARNIER, it is a way, a friendly sign
with respect to the Americans and a sign with respect to Europeans?
THE PRESIDENT ? Allow me to say to you that one does not name in
France a Foreign Minister to make a sign with somebody. One names a
Foreign Minister to lead under the impulse of the President of the
Republic, eminent person in charge in this field, a foreign politics.
Then, the fact that Mr. BARNIER is an authority in the European field
is more indisputable. It is a man who knows the operation of the
European mechanisms perfectly. It is a man who is deeply Européen and
it is a man, consequently, who will be able, at the so difficult time
of the reform of the European institutions and widening, to lead the
interests of France in the best way. I trust him in this field
completely.
And, for the remainder, I say to you immediately that the policy of
France does not change. It emanates primarily from the President of
the Republic and as long as I will be there, this policy will not
change.
? QUESTION; Then, Mr. President, one heard you since a few moments ago
with Patrick PEPPER ARVOR correcting, to ask the government to make a
certain number of adaptations, to draw up his passenger waybill, to
give prospects. And much of French say themselves regularly: "but why
the President of the Republic more often does not speak it?" Because
at the bottom, that would go perhaps better and it is related its to
say to us where one goes and there is a lack?
And one has the impression that you occupy yourselves especially of
the international files.
THE PRESIDENT ? The Foreign Affairs and the defense whose to a large
extent the role and the place depend on France in the world, its
capacity to defend its interests, is, in an eminent way, the role of
the Head of the State. And I endeavoured to carry this voice as high
as possible because it is, in France, the voice of peace, the right,
justice, the respect of the others and the dialogue of the cultures.
And I will continue. Then, you say to me that I should express me
more, you are right perhaps...
? QUESTION; ... To give lines, prospects with the French...
THE PRESIDENT ? ... I would not like that one says either that the
President of the Republic interferes himself all. There is a
government which is responsible and which assumes this responsibility.
Consequently, it is legitimate that I give a certain d?orientations
number. It do not m?appartient to lead the daily policy of the
government. On the other hand, I would like to say qu?au-beyond
natural competences in our Constitution of the chief of l?Etat, and
which are large, in 2002 j?ai taken completely conscience of the
political reality which gave the result which you remember, and who
results to me in putting in the forefront these concerns and of this
vocation of the chief of l?Etat in our country the defense of the
values of the Republic. Quite simply because the French must be proud
France. The French must gather around the values which make France.
That is essential. And that c?est a little also and more still since
2002, such qu?en all cases I l?ai felt, the role of the chief of
l?Etat.
PATRICK PEPPER D?ARVOR ? With the name d?Arlette CHUB and our
televiewers, I thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT ? I thank you.
There you go, both languages. Good luck for your debate.
Nenna-GA
Google Answers Researcher
If this answer requires further explanation, please request
clarification before rating it, and I'll be happy to look into this
further. |
