VIDEO - The Grand Tribune of the Presidential with Jean-Luc Mélenchon

LA TRIBUNE - We are witnessing a dazzling return of the Covid crisis. Are we going to live in the permanent pandemic? Will the vaccination become annual, as for the flu?

JEAN-LUC MÉLENCHON - This has been my thesis from the start when I said that there would be a second wave. Virologists said it from the start: pandemics of this nature work in waves. I wanted us to learn the lessons of the first. This earned me sarcastic comments from those who do not take into account the long time cycles of nature and human beings.

The state of a pandemic will truly become permanent if its causes are not addressed. This virus emerges and degenerates into a pandemic in a particular social context. No Covid without intensive farming which promotes the passage of viruses from animals to humans. Nor without the forced departure of wild animals from their natural habitat destroyed by a particular model of culture.

The health phenomenon has an ecological root and a social starting point. However, since the start of the pandemic, no decision has been taken on the closure of intensive farms. On the contrary, it continues. We recently had a new demonstration. Cases of bird flu have been detected in France, in a farm of 160,000 hens. Can we still call it breeding? “Factory farms” are one of the main causes of pandemics. If the capitalist model of agriculture does not change, the pandemic will be permanent.

Is the health pass still a good solution to prevent the closure of borders, and thus avoid a relapse of the economy?

The health pass has never been a protection and never will be. It was imposed in France to require vaccination even though the WHO gave instructions not to make this vaccine compulsory. If we set ourselves the objective of "convincing without constraining" and the results are not up to par, we must attack the "unconvincing", not the "unconvinced". Moreover, the health pass gives the illusion of security. The only solution to have it is vaccination since no one can afford to pay for a test a day. However, vaccination does not guarantee that you will not be infected and that you will not infect others. So that's not a solution.

But vaccination reduces severe forms of disease.

That's for sure. Myself, I am vaccinated for this reason. I made a rational assessment: it is better to be vaccinated than not. But I know that I remain in danger. The only way to know what to expect is to take a test. The government has made it impossible, by removing free tests (for the unvaccinated, editor's note). We want the return of free testing. Republican France has a common rite: the confectioners' truce. Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, everyone does it. We're going to have family reunions. Everyone should be able to behave responsibly. How to do it, if we have to pay 40 euros every 24 hours to find out if we are contaminated? Especially since everyone is going to want to get tested 24 hours before Christmas. What was organized? Nothing. The mess is guaranteed, as well as the transformation into sources of contamination of the two Christmas Eve.

So what should I do?

Close the borders from the countries where the contamination leaves. This is a basic precautionary measure. Better that than to be faced with a crisis that no one can control. And then we should finally understand that we must model ourselves on societies that Europe tends to look down on.

All of Africa has been living with pandemics for generations. So she learned to cope, with daily precautions. We must learn to live with the virus, with the permanence of barrier gestures, the wearing of masks, rotating societies, rotating classrooms, air purifiers... No lessons have been learned from previous waves. I deplore it, especially since Les Insoumis have set up a commission of inquiry, with plenty of solutions. Which was chosen? None.

For example, in the workplace, those who know best what to think about it are those who work there, not someone outside. I am for assemblies of workers in the workplace to make recommendations. But this comes up against the general contempt for working conditions. And yet we focus on events related to security in this or that neighborhood. It is about the health crisis, like everything else. There is a gaze, a way of treating it as a sociological phenomenon, which depends on the balcony from which one looks at it. The owners of capital do not look at this quite in the same way as the workers directly concerned.

You said you fear the public mind will be obsessed with health security issues in the coming months. Is this reflection integrated into your political strategy?

Yes, from the beginning. This is one of the reasons why we started our campaign very early. We knew that we would be uncertain until the end. To build a favorable public opinion, we need more time than those who defend the established order. They have less work to do to convince people than us who explain that we are going to move on to ecological planning, the 6th republic, to convene a Constituent Assembly... We need more time to anchor convictions and form an opinion stable and firm capable of withstanding the blows that will be dealt to us at the end of the campaign.

It has become a tradition. France entered it with a certain greed. The last time was the Fillon affair: four weeks of debate on Monsieur Fillon's costumes, rather than his program. In 2012, we had a month of discussions on halal meat, while the European financial stability mechanism was being voted on. There is a capacity of the media class to manufacture absolutely extraordinary diversions.

All the transmission devices that used to be machines of political convictions such as mutual insurance companies, associations, large unions have disappeared. All the power now goes to those who can fabricate events and, by a daily stupefying effect, obstruct the public mind, prevent thinking and offer debunked nonsense the next day. It's continuous information. The campaign under Covid will be very complicated if it leads to banning large gatherings, and banning demonstrations of force ourselves.

You are going to hold a big meeting on Sunday December 5 at La Défense in Paris. Can the Covid dissuade people from coming?

We'll see on Sunday! But indeed in the health context, how long can we continue to do so? It was already not easy to organize the meeting of December 5th. There was no room at an affordable price in the entire Paris region. Democracy has become horribly expensive. We wanted to go to the Zenith! But we were told that all the rooms were occupied. Two months later, surprise: she is free for Zemmour. This showed that his candidacy had been effective for a long time.

Yes, we need shows of force! Polls will not give us this strength since they only take into account people who are sure to vote. Popular backgrounds are not taken into account. We are therefore under the pressure of a machine to resign ourselves. I planned it from the beginning, that's why I said: "we start early" and we had meetings online.

You are very creative on social media.

It's the only way to circumvent the media officiality. But it is not 100% effective. The formality remains necessary. We can not deprive ourselves of going to his shows. Not everyone has yet understood that you can go directly to your TV screen with your phone. Once we have understood this, we will have overcome the officiality, because we will be able to circumvent it. Until then, you have to be present everywhere at the same time.

Besides, we have a huge device against us. The only real adversary, the only one who matters, is Mr. Macron. He has a lot of sympathy in many media circles and a huge government apparatus, the so-called public audio visual service. From morning to night, he dumps government propaganda and drags in the mud everything that does not agree with the leader. It is enough to look at only one of these emissions to realize it.

You won 11% in the 2012 presidential election, 19% in 2017 and you were 4th both times. For 2022, you hope to turn in the lead to the left, with 9% to 10% of the voting intentions currently. What strategy will you deploy to bring your camp together, divided and weak as ever?

The left seems weak because it is not a camp. There are committed neoliberals in there, the socialists. There are also European federalists, for whom the Nation-State has no meaning and are organized for its disappearance. This is the case with environmentalists. Still others for whom victory is not a subject. The Communists made the choice of a candidacy of testimony. This does not make a "camp". So I took the problem from the other end. We cannot have an agreement at the top, for valid reasons. If we were to despise them, it would destroy us.

Suppose I agree with Madam Hidalgo. I should put water in my wine. No question of the 6th Republic for example. Or to restore this or that tax. We wouldn't talk about anything. It looks like “look, we are united”. But people would say, “That's exactly what you're being blamed for. We don't believe what either of them says. You get together, so you pretend. We don't believe what you say. You are not credible”. Unity would kill our credibility.

However, I tried. I proposed the Popular Front, then the Popular Federation. I was sent for a walk. We entered the regional and departmental elections saying since the main thing was not involved - the institutions, finances, Europe - we could make common lists. I was sent for a walk. And that even when I proposed to the Greens all the top lists, except one. I was also kicked out and even excluded from the lists. I understood the message perfectly.

We organized ourselves as in 2016: flag and music in the lead, we will try to convince. But also a method posed by Manuel Bompard, our campaign director. He decided to use the star tool prized by the media - which the latter present as being the pure truth - by having us also do surveys on the main measures of our program. And there, we discover percentages of 70% or even 80% of favorable opinions.

The question that arises is why, when we have a program whose content is approved by such a majority of French people, this majority is not found in the ballot box? As early as August, I announced to the summer lecture halls how we were going to do it. It's arithmetic: the stronger the abstention, the less good it will be for us. We therefore concentrated all our logistics with the aim of reducing the abstention of popular circles via door-to-door, caravans, referents by building. This is our campaign strategy. Get popular circles to vote. If they vote, our chance of winning is immense.

Do you think the Greens could withdraw in your favour, if you are in first position in the final stretch?

I don't know. They were able to do it for the socialists. But there was such demonization, on purpose, because we were the strongest. I was personally demonized in every possible way. Over hours of searches, we got 40 seconds of my bulging eyes. Without once anyone asking if it was normal that there were 100 people searching us?

Have you embarked on a de-demonization strategy?

No, because I'm not my caricature, sorry to tell you. Many have not paid attention to where I came from, what I have done and how I evolve. We stopped at tribune effects.

You are a bit of a tribune after all.

A lot and I'm proud of it. This is my historical tradition. Sometimes I overestimate the culture of my opponents. When I say "my person is sacred", I identify myself with the tribune of the people. In ancient Rome, it is a crime before the gods to prevent him from acting. It's a bit romantic and I admit that I shouldn't have thought of my opponents that they knew the story. Just like the day when I said: “I am the sound and the fury”. The current world leads to such inequality that there is going to be violence everywhere and I said I am “the sound and the fury”. How did I manage to ignore that most of those who heard me then didn't know that this is the title of one of William Faulkner's greatest novels based on a verse from Shakespeare? I even heard a journalist say: "this guy is crazy, he wants to be 'the noise and the Führer'". That made me laugh a lot.

Have you grown wiser in a world of fury?

Time flies on everyone. At 70, expect less of me doing backflips. I don't do comedy. I am as I am, at each stage. There is something else. Seeing this extraordinary wave of hatred against Muslims rising, something woke up in me. This is due to my childhood, in the Maghreb, during the period of decolonization. From this huge crush in which I found myself caught: the departure from the Maghreb.

I was leaving from Morocco, where there were no particular problems, but my whole family was leaving from Algeria. This brought me back to the idea of ​​how to make sure this doesn't happen all over again. I don't want us to find in this country the doses of hatred that I have seen being created. The men who were my models of adventurous, entrepreneurial spirit suddenly turning into these surly people, against whom I was protected by my upbringing. I don't want it to start again here.

That young people aged 10, 11, 12 feel rejected by the national community, as we have been, we young Pieds-noirs. This prompts me to take it easy. You have to calm down. Because I know that if you let this paste out of the tube, it will not be able to return. We must do what we can, each in his place, to prevent things from degenerating.

You said that security and defense issues were poorly addressed in the elections. Five years ago you mentioned a gradual exit from NATO. We have seen that the themes have caught up with you. Emmanuel Macron spoke of the state of brain death of the transatlantic military alliance. There is a beginning of debate on the question of NATO, following the affair of the French submarines which should have been sold to Australia. On several security topics, you may be able to raise these questions more. If France gradually leaves NATO, what are the solutions to ensure the country's security, and what are the possible alliances?

You say the themes are on the table. Now, here, yes, but that's usually not the case. This situation is exceptional. We never talk about defense. Everything is frozen, everything is taboo. If you say something against the United States, you are instantly called a primary anti-American. To which I reply that I would do superior anti-Americanism, the day when there will be superior Americanism.

But if you ask me about these questions, it's because you know how fundamental it is. The security of the world and the place of our country are at stake. We are only 67 million: it is in our interest to be vigilant. But we are visible, boasters and above all present on all continents and all seas. We are therefore a nation directly involved in the progress of the world.

French leaders treat this very casually. The worst being Mr Hollande who was not interested in it and had a vision made up of a lot of ignorance. He, for example, signed a month after being elected, an agreement in Chicago for NATO, accepting the installation of anti-missile batteries in Poland. We were sold it as a machine to counter Iranian missiles. He swallowed it whole, saying “I made my reservations known”. But immediately Europe was transformed into a battlefield.

If we accept anti-missile missiles in Poland and they threaten 70% of the Russian defense process, that means we are threatening the Russians. And so they will retaliate. We accept that part of the battle takes place in Poland. Similarly, North American nuclear bombs in Germany are no deal for the French, as they bring a target closer to France.

I have given these few examples to show that these are questions that require character and courage. There are also the models of those who knew how to do it. Mitterrand said that the threat from the Soviet Union was not taken seriously. He had this terrible phrase: "The rockets are in the East, the pacifists in the West!" ". This is not in my opinion the best moment of his presidency, but he assumed it. We were obliged to say whether or not we supported him.

General de Gaulle before him had taken an incredibly provocative position: to create the French nuclear force “all over the place”. The journalists told him: “all over the place!! but also for the Americans? ". I share this position. France defends its borders alone. And it must take all means to retaliate. Nuclear deterrence is a posthumous weapon. Everyone lives in peace with the French because they are able to retaliate with unbearable violence. Knowing that this violence would not have the same meaning if it were applied to a country comparable to ours, or to an immense nation, with billions of people. A nuke doesn't make the same sense if you have to fire 4-5 times before you get the same result as a single shot at France.

There we were, asking ourselves questions about the effectiveness of our resources. France began to remove the rockets from the Albion plateau, which were too visible. We kept a nuclear force that we transport by plane and another under the sea. For submarines, everything rests on their indetectability. If they are, everything we have at sea is useless. We have strong doubts about the non-detectable nature of French submarines. Because we learned that the submarine cables were detectors and we wonder if from space it is not possible to see.

A sea change in this area has occurred. Space was demilitarized by an agreement signed in particular by France and the United States. But the Americans decided to tear it up and create a Space Staff. Everyone understood what that meant. Then, we learned that the Chinese had fired on a satellite, then that the Americans and the Russians knew how to do it. If we are able to destroy a satellite, that means we have the capacity to cut all the connections that depend on this satellite. A large part of the French army's detection and communication systems are linked to space. Not only from the French army for that matter. Deterrence today takes place in space. And conversely from space you can shoot at the earth.

Are you in favor of space deterrence and nuclear disarmament?

You have to do both. If you are not a threat, able to resist, you are not credible. The situation presents a new technical possibility. From space you can also shoot on the ground. All it would take was one shot at the Nogent power plant and there would be no more France. We would be totally disorganized if 12 million people moved. We can do the same to others. Who would we face? Not our neighbors. Nothing draws a conflict with them. Those in a position to strike us, we know them: those who have the capacity to do so from space. We know how to respond. No more need for nuclear deterrence if we are able to practice it from space.

Is France credible on this issue of space? The sector is 15,000 people who pull the technology. Do we have enough civilian and defense resources, knowing that the future of the world is being played out up there?

We have a space industry. This is not the case of everyone. Everyone thinks it's easy to make a rocket. The technical question settled by our scientists and our technicians is the control of the launchers. In Kourou, we have the 3rd spaceport in the world. We fire beautiful machines: Ariane 5, soon 6 and Russian, Italian rockets. We know how to do everything, from one end of the chain to the other. We even know how to do missions in deep space, like Rosetta.

You mention a mission to Mars.

Why don't we? The United States has launched a probe on Mars. In Toulouse we see the robot, the cameras are French, the device that made the lab is French. The Americans made the rocket, which we also know how to do.

Will you put money in? The Americans have their Nasa/Elon Musk model which produced a space entrepreneur.

If the space industry continues and plays a bigger role, it would drag down the rest of the economy. This is why I am in favor of investing a lot in this key sector. I want to tell the French that they are the 2nd people in the world for the individual contribution to space. We must first get rid of the bad allies, who do not keep their word: the Germans. They do not reserve their placement of satellites for European rockets, of which they are nevertheless shareholders. They feel the need to drag themselves at the feet of the Americans, whose allies and vassals they are. We need to have sure, stable, reliable allies like the Italians. To those who despise southern Europe, I want to remind you that the 2nd economic power in Europe is France, the 3rd is Italy and the 4th is Spain. The wealth of Europe is produced in the South, not in the North, nor in the East. We have to come back to reality.

Since we are so strong, we will have an expedition on a space object to develop our abilities. You have to participate in things on which you will keep autonomy from one end to the other. If the United Arab Emirates can send something to Mars, why not the French and the Italians? Not against, no question of continuing joint maneuvers with the Germans and the Americans in space. If I am elected President, I would not accept that Toulouse should remain the center of NATO for space. They will go further, but not within earshot of their “big ears”.

So Elon Musk is not your hero?

The guy reminds me of sci-fi books. But the truth is that Elon Musk does not exist. It only exists through the contracts that NASA gives it, and therefore the American state.

He had the audacity to send satellites cheaply via reusable launchers.

We'll find a solution. Ariane 6 is a technical marvel. It will considerably lower the cost of the satellites that will be sent into space. The French space industry, with me as President of the Republic, will experience developments that it has never had until now. We will create a French-speaking space university to welcome all the young minds of the French-speaking world. These are hundreds of millions of Francophones, not far from a billion. This is where energy and vitality are found. This is where France's future lies.

You talk a lot about the sea. What is your idea of ​​developing the seas and should we exploit the ocean floor?

I am quite happy to have succeeded in bringing back into politics a debate that no longer existed: the sea. I did so with the friendly complicity of seafarers, whatever their political side. We are the second largest maritime territory in the world. Under Lionel Jospin, France has increased its territory by 10%, without firing a shot (by the extension program of the continental shelf "extraplac", Editor's note).

But to guarantee and ensure our responsibilities on this set, we have the equivalent of 2 police cars for the whole of France. This is all the more deplorable as we are faced with major problems at sea. There is no law on the deep seas, which are places where everyone does what they want. We don't care. Because at the first oil spill, no one is able to plug the boreholes. We saw it in the Gulf of Mexico, where oil spilled on the coasts for months following an accident. If we take the situation in the Mediterranean, France cannot agree to dig holes to find gas or oil off Cyprus or Gaza. The Mediterranean Sea takes 100 years to renew itself.

So you don't dig in until we're sure we can handle an accident. And this is true for all the seas of the world. One of our first tasks will be to put all of this back on the table. This illustrates my conception of power. As soon as France is able to protect itself, it's not the most difficult part, so it no longer needs to show force. It can be a power through its moral authority, by taking charge of tasks of general interest for humanity such as the protection of the oceans. By doing this, we are also creating a flywheel for our economy. We will have to build boats. That's good, the French have shipyards. Not everyone has one.

We almost lost ownership.

You don't move a shipyard just like that. It's true that the Italians had shipyards in China. We had reason to be wary of them. But there is always a way to get along with the Italians. In the meantime, the shipyards exist. This is where we will manufacture what we need. I'll take a silly example. Do you find it normal that we have only one boat to go to the French southern lands? France is positioned at the South Pole where we have a boat that turns sometimes for the army, sometimes for scientific research, sometimes for another. Three co-owners. We sold the old boat to an NGO which also does research work. We need several boats for the French southern lands. We need an icebreaker. All equipment must be renewed. Otherwise why a permanent scientific base in Antarctica?

It will cost a lot of money, like the ecological bifurcation plan. You are talking about 200 billion. Where do you find them?

It's not very difficult! We have a French bank, which depends on the State, the BPI. It can obtain supplies from the European Central Bank (ECB). But we can also borrow from others. At the moment, it's rather interesting to borrow. These are the people who pay us to lend to us. The current rate is 0.1% and inflation is 3%. It's a good situation. It's time to get into debt.

That could change...

If we spend our time being afraid, we do nothing. My basic thought on the subject of debt is that no one will ever pay it. Today, France's debt has never been so large but has never paid so little. For what ? Because what matters with a debt is the burden it imposes, not the overall amount.

The ideologues of the camp opposite have invented a new rule to scare: the relationship between the debt and the wealth produced over a year. A ridiculous rule. Imagine that it is calculated with your personal real estate debts. Instead of looking at what it costs you every month and if it is bearable in relation to your income, it looks like: it represents 200 to 300 times your annual salary. You have an instant heart attack. It is however the calculation applied to the Nations.

France is on average in debt over 7 years. That's barely 12% of the wealth produced in a year. It's nothing. The proof: everyone is running after French debt securities. They wanted to do us the trick of Greece by lowering our rating under Holland. But where is Greece? It all started in 2010, we are in 2022. Greek debt has more than doubled. All this is not serious from an economic point of view. Economic seriousness means being able to pay what you owe every month. I still find it excessive. We can reduce it. How ? By talking to the ECB. That's my position. The Covid debt is essentially, in value, in the coffers of the European Central Bank. This debt must be cancelled. It wouldn't cost anyone anything. No investor would be cheated. To reassure you, we can put it perpetual and at zero interest. This keeps it on the financial institution's balance sheet.

Note what I say as a commitment. No country will ever pay its public debt because it is too high. To get rid of it there are several other hypotheses. First cut the throat of the state. More public service: that's what the Orthodox are trying to do. Then do inflation. With 10%, in 10 years there is more debt. Third hypothesis, you are at war. You destroy a lot and you make a lot. Or, worst of all: bankruptcy.

But the most dangerous sector is not government debt, it's private debt. It represents more than the value of a year's production. And when a big debt-ridden company closes because it has too much debt, you'll never get your money back. He is therefore a public actor capable of taking over if things go wrong. I take a current example: loans guaranteed by the State. Many companies fail to repay. If the state does not pay, everything collapses into dominoes. So we have to take them back.

That's a bit like what Christine Lagarde says: by saying that she won't be raising interest rates anytime soon, is she doing Mélenchon?

I'm sure of one thing: we could also decide not to pay. If we were to be taken by the throat, for me it is: France first, the debt afterwards. I am not [Alexis] Tsipras. The Greek prime minister chose to give in, when he was in a position, because of the European financial stability mechanism, to command respect. To say that he was unable to pay. He didn't, that's his business.

If he had refused to pay, it would have cost France 45 billion and the Germans 65 billion. They would have dragged themselves on their knees for Tsipras to come back to the table to negotiate with them. I use colorful formulas to make people understand that the economy is a balance of power. We must stop believing that economics is only a science. It's a balance of power, a social relationship.

Let's go back to ecological investments and the methodology of your ecological planning to get all the players on board. How it works ?

The word planning was chosen on purpose, to get people talking. I was told: it's the Gosplan! People who believe the plan is a Soviet invention are mistaken. Planning was invented by capitalism, by Mr. Ford! You need a plan, because for such a bifurcation you need visibility. You can't say that “everyone does what they feel like” and leave it to the market. We must involve all the actors.

I am not in favor, within the framework of a 5-year mandate, of the collectivization of all the means of production. This is not my political proposal. Our program describes a mixed economy. We must give visibility to private entrepreneurship and to the State. We will incur expenses and do so by sectors. There are priorities.

If we want to reduce the use of carbon energies, we have to move on. You have to build wind turbines at sea, because on land, it's endless stories. We must use geothermal energy, work seriously to use the power of the ocean. We never talk about it but do you know where the largest air conditioning in the world is? In French Polynesia. It takes cold water from the sea. It serves for a hospital. We know how to do.

In the sea, you have 4 times the power that we need on land in electricity. There is also water from the rivers of France. You can put water turbines there. There is already a company that transforms old mills into small power stations. And there are the techniques of tomorrow. EDF has created the first chain of panels that work with luminescence. It is enough that it is daylight. They shut down that channel. I watch that they don't sell the patents. I remind you that there is something in the penal code to punish those who betray the interests of the Nation. I say this to create a working atmosphere. The fun is over if I take care of it.

Are we getting out of nuclear power?

It's an energy of the past. It was good when we did. It was done in a remarkable way. We have developed American patents, it worked for a while, but we are getting to the end. We already have 17 plants that are over 40 years old. We are in a risk zone and we are told that it costs 80 to 100 billion for the large fairing.

Disputed figures.

EDF says 50 but they have no interest in loading the mule, because that increases its balance sheet. But here we are talking about the redesign. And the waste? Nobody cares. This is the most problematic. We have them on our hands for 10 to 20,000 years. And the incidents? Even those responsible for nuclear energy do not say that there is no risk. Even 1% risk is 100% damage when it happens. In Gravelines, if there is a problem, you have to leave Calais and Dunkirk for 10,000 years. It is not serious to ignore such a danger.

We have lived with this risk for a long time. If we close the power stations, we risk finding ourselves with an explosion in the price of electricity or reigniting carbon-intensive power stations. Today we do not have the capacity to store intermittent energies.

Welding is what planning is for. But we have to close because the power stations have passed their age. The first nuclear power plants to close are those above large towns like Nogent on the Seine and the oldest, in Bugey.

The new energy must gradually replace the old. There is no question of quitting and falling into the dark. Those who rely on nuclear, saying that the new alternative energies are intermittent, everyone knows that there is night and day, thank you.

But who is going to tell them that in the context of global warming, the cooling of nuclear power plants presents itself differently. We experienced a situation where 4 reactors out of 10 had to be shut down, with the conjunction of repairs not made with the Covid and the warming of the water in the rivers. What alternative does Macron offer? Put EPR everywhere. But it does not work ! It costs more and there is no deadline, like Flamanville. And wait for the French to understand that we are taking away their wind turbines and putting them in mini nuclear power stations instead!

Concerning gas, there is the problem of France's independence from its suppliers, notably Putin's Russia.

When it comes to energy, it's best to manage on your own, whenever you can. For that, we are gradually changing the system. If we have more tidal and offshore wind turbines at sea, we won't have any more Russians or Americans coming to tell us what to do. The gas comes to France either from Russia or from the United States, by boat. It is useful to avoid being scared exclusively with the Russians, who have all sorts of shared interests with us, forgetting the very expensive deliveries from the United States. The only ones that have threatened us so far are the United States. When we refused the 2nd Gulf War. They decided on embargo measures against the French. With the embargo on military parts, our aircraft carrier no longer had a launcher.

This quest for autonomy works in favor of nuclear power, even if we depend on Niger and Kazakhstan for uranium.

Excuse the detail. Have you seen in Niger how simple things are? There's a French column stuck there. She managed to get out of Burkina, but she can't get back to Niger. And then you come to tell me that we are independent, but at what cost? And if the Nigerians decide that it is unbearable for the French to come and get uranium, what do we do?

There is uranium elsewhere, in Kazakhstan.

In a tyrant, that we were forced to repaint ourselves as a friend of France, while he is denounced by all the NGOs in the world. President Hollande was forced to dress up in a towel hat and coat during his visit. That day, there was no simpler demonstration that we depended on someone who could impose what he wanted on us. We must therefore stop with arguments that are not arguments. We are not independent. We are not out of climate change with nuclear power. It's not true.

Reason dictates that we do things in order. That's why I talk about planning. For the bosses and industries of the future, I'm great business. With me, goodbye to the vagaries of the market, goodbye to the day-to-day changes of speculators. You come across someone who tells you that we are going to do this for ten years. There is a guaranteed market. You can invest in it with visibility.

You criticized the alliance with Germany by advocating an alliance with southern Europe. What is your vision of Europe? You President, do you think that we can maintain industrial alliances on batteries, hydrogen, Airbus...?

I'm for international cooperation so I can't say that I'm not interested in cooperation that exists. However, Europe has found itself in an impasse on its own, with treaties that impose a single regime on it: free and undistorted competition within and with the rest of the world. The result is known: it is the destruction of public services. If with planning, I decide to go for food sovereignty in France, it will be necessary to create a market for subsistence agriculture. But if you decide that all the canteens in France are organic and supplied on the local market, you fall under the decisions of the European treaties which prohibit it. It is contrary to free and undistorted competition. In the same way, if we ban glyphosates, we will ban the entry into France of products that contain glyphosate. We will therefore ask for the “opt out” (withdrawal option, Editor's note), which is a clause in the treaties. We get out of the full application of the treaties. If we use the “opt out” method, we are in a positive crisis. We pose a problem and we try to solve it. As this concerns France, the second power of the continent, it is time to remember this, we will try to find a solution. But whatever happens, my program will apply. And it will be in no one's power to stop us, except the French themselves if they decide that Mélenchon must return home through a recall referendum.

If you have in front of you a social and ecological Germany with a new coalition, could you ally with them? They need some green planning too, right?

They need to do public spending.

They even raise salaries.

It was about time. The German coalition, its main flaw is to be German. They only care about themselves. It's normal. Mrs. Merkel defended the political position of the German right. She was elected for this. What was weird was when we elected people from the left in France who were doing the politics of the German right. There was a problem there. Today there is an agreement with which I do not agree. On defense they say: “it's NATO”. This is not our opinion. On pesticides? “As needed”.

What is good for the Germany of tomorrow is to solve its demographic problem. The German birth rate is a huge problem. Their only solution is to integrate people who have arrived at home and transform them into Germans, as we do in France with jus soli. No offense to the Zemmour and company.

Then, the Germans have to take care of their infrastructure, the roads, the bridges, which are in a disastrous state. If they did that, it would revitalize them. They have to start at home. We don't ask them to come and do our roads. They are so arrogant. Mrs. Merkel once said that there was no reason for them to work to pay the pensions of the South. It is a gratuitous and contemptuous accusation against the South.

Germans need to become more caring. They didn't care about anyone when they did the reunification. They increased their interest rates in an unprecedented way with consequences for all of Europe. And when they arrive in a cooperation, they take everything from us. We make rockets, they are with us, one day they pay more than the others and they want to stop the European space program.

Does the world as it evolves make your program more feasible than in the paradigm before, when in 2017, you arrived with a shock of competitiveness with the rise in the minimum wage? Are we in a momentum, with the Covid crisis, also marked by the rise in inflation, which makes possible an increase in the lowest wages? We even see it in the United States or Germany. Does this explain your change in attitude?

It is true that the order of the world is simpler today for the theses that I support. I no longer need to be afraid. The subject of wages is now well understood. I'm not a fanatic. I take into account the balance of power that I can create. I've read a lot about building power relationships, including when you're at your weakest. People have to be absolutely convinced that you will go through with what you intend to do. Not that you will give in 48 hours like a Hollande or a Tsipras. I am able to go all the way. I have no ties with this order of the world, with this system. I have no sympathy for him, because he is brutal. If it were to end, I wouldn't mind.

"There is no possible compromise with Mélenchon", reproach the socialists. Would you ever be ready to negotiate?

All trade unionists in the world understand my attitude. Not one of them enters into negotiations saying: “I will give in”. There is indeed a negotiation but I have no intention of giving up military independence from France, the space program and food sovereignty. Who will force me to continue vegetables with glyphosate, to bring into France products that are too sweet and make people sick? On these matters, the answer is no.

You want to restore and triple the ISF that Macron reformed to make it a property tax. Aren't you afraid of scaring away the rich?

No. The rich must share. But we'll do things reasonably, don't worry. We will do it gradually, because there are rich and rich. Those who are at the very top will indeed pay a lot, I will not hide it. If they want to be afraid, let them be afraid. If they are interested in their homeland, they will be a little less afraid. Especially when they're dealing with someone who says we're planning, we're planning.

And on the job, what will you do?

I will restore the principle of favour. One has the right to make a company agreement only if it is better than the branch and in the branch only if it is better than the law. I have the practice of concrete economy, more than many others who make sentences. I was Minister of Vocational Education. I negotiated with all the employers' branches in the country. Qualifications were negotiated. Mr. Macron blew it all up. Everyone who makes something will have the trained, high-level manpower available to do it. We will restore the professional baccalaureate in 4 years. I would like to remind you that I am the only candidate to propose that all students in vocational education from their first year, can receive 1,000 euros per month of allowance, so that they can only study and be at a good level.

The main part of the country's wealth is work. In France, we have no raw material and no intention of stealing it from others. Work value, I'm sick of seeing people gargle with it, because to them it means working hard and shutting up. No, the value of work is the value of the qualification acquired by the workers. This is why I think that reasonable people, even if they fight me politically, may have an interest in discussing with me and working within the framework of this mixed economy and ecological planning. Everyone will find their account.