Nicolas Sarkozy

How did you get the idea for this book?

Nicolas Sarkozy. As a fairly simple. The first problem of political life is a lack of authenticity. I do not deficit truth because I know from experience-that the truth may be more or less relative. So I want to take a step back in trying to bring what I lived, what I had not been able or explain the lessons I had learned. I wanted to create the conditions for dialogue with the French.

Who chose the title?

This is Cécilia.

Many feel they already know everything (or almost) on you. There are still things to discover?

I do not claim to be misunderstood. But I claim my share of complexity and, on occasion, errors. I am so happy to explain my relationship with the Americans, the value of affirmative action or its specific links with Jacques Chirac because political life is such that quickly makes you caricature. Rather than let myself, as far as I am speaking! I noted that François Hollande, speaking of "Testimony", said that Zahir much: I admire one who can talk about a book without having read! I particularly noted that despite having so little spoken of his € |

"I waited so forward to becoming an adult," you write ...

I always wanted to be free. I soon discovered that freedom went with adulthood. So I do not live in the nostalgia of childhood. Especially since I remember a Children ¹ where I asked many questions without answers, and where ¹ ¹ especially where there was always someone to tell me where it was ¹ I started, what I had to do and what my future was limited.

You say that France is today a situation comparable to the great turning point in 1958 ...

For thirty or forty years, we do not make the same efforts that our major neighbors. Look Great Britain or Spain, and compare them with France and Germany are we still in the race? Our famous "social model", nobody wants. Our model of integration, no one we want. If I register in the Gaullist affiliation because the Gaullist has been broken: he turned his back on the tradition of the French colonial empire, to institutional instability, monetary policy with the new franc, the old economic policy by launching the plan Rueff. In all areas, the Gaullist has repeatedly bring France into modernity. Today our challenge.

You say your "admiration" for a number of qualities of Jacques Chirac ...

I wanted to lift the veil on the reality of our relations. I did politics or my life what I see? He is a man who was twice elected President of the Republic, who was twice appointed Prime Minister, who has held every major Cabinet posts, which was party leader, who has overcome so many hardships . If I have no consideration for him, as I was for François Mitterrand, then who would I? And what would be sufficient! I say this without any spirit flagorneur all that, to the point where we ¹, the President can not give me anything. So a moment of my life where ¹ what I write is not only sincere but totally disinterested. These lines can also claim me more problems than benefits. However, I describe as our substantive disagreements that are not negligible, I put out our differences and I emphasize that we are not agacés either by the same things.

You would, in short, the heir to Chirac on the form, not substance ...

In my way of doing politics, there is certainly a pedigree. Some do not they say that if there were sparks between us, perhaps because Jacques Chirac recognizes me some of his traits of character, including how I took the UMP like himself in 1974, Porte Maillot, took the UDR. And can we consider that Giscard's choice at the expense of Chaban in 1974 resembles the choices I made Balladur in 1995? I also appreciate in the way Jacques Chirac never give up. For the rest, there are many differences that are respectable. I like the debate of ideas, I do not think that the passion. I convince him prefers ignite. He sees France fragile and reluctant to change, I see strong and eager for change. In our worst moments of confrontation, I felt at Jacques Chirac of irritation, sometimes exasperation. Of hatred, never. Including when he banned me to introduce myself to the presidency of the UMP, and that I refused to surrender. I am also aware of how it made me full confidence in hours of crisis: the suburbs, for example, or PBS.

In upholding a "regulated liberalism", do not you polish your image?

You can put it like that. At the same time, when I am Minister of Finance and that I buy by the state 21% of Alstom or j'empêche Novartis to buy Aventis, is out of conviction. I have reservations about the policy of the strong euro, I have expressed since 1993 for the Franc. With this book, I try to get back to basics. I am not decided to compromise.

"The break that I hope you write, is not a break with France that we love" ...

Of Australia-see history there are several. France rebellious, inventive, who does not renounce, which not only leaves the future locked in the past, this was France first I want to reconnect. As for the break that I hope is a way of doing politics.

For you, the middle classes have been abandoned, and they are the key to leap ...

It is a mistake to mobilize countries around the only situation of the excluded. Of course they need their reach. But devote social policy alone is a serious mistake. There is a category of employees in the public and private who have a family, a job, a car, working hard and that life is very difficult. What are the prospects it offers them? At home, 1 France 2 owns its housing. In England, 2 English 3. Is not it far more positive to mobilize a country saying, including low salaries, you will become owners of your home rather than as a single piece of France to cover housing? I believe in work, social promotion based on merit, effort. So I say to France that this works it does not despair. It must believe in social advancement of his family. The future must become a promise and not be a threat.

You fight illegal immigration, but you refuse the idea of zero immigration. A narrow path when there is difficulty to settle your folder undocumented students ...

When I see that members call PS not to apply the law, I remind them that it's theirs, not mine. Second point: these families need to be corrected arrived between 1998 and 2002 for the most part, in an era where all illegal ¹ saying we will be regularized, we need to take. What I want to do? 1. All those under the Dublin Convention will escort them. Clearly all those who applied for regularization under political asylum in another EU country will escort them in this country. 2. All those who have no links with France-that is to say, those who arrived after age 15, after the start of the school year or who try to take advantage of an effect 'Bargain-will be similarly escort. 3. We regulate those who came with us young and have not (or more) of links with their country of origin. On 24 July, I will publish the exact number of evictions and regularization. Each day, there are dozens of families who are evicted. If I cleared everyone, not only do I créerais a new stream of immigration, but the families of new regularized require immediate family reunification. A gear that no control.

London, you say, is poised to become the seventh largest city in France as a young French flock there ...

All children are unable to pass major competitions, but in the English system, provided they agree to work hard, we can integrate a large bank or a large corporation: it is formed and it is HEC. This is called a second chance. D'¹ where the influx of French. For the most dynamic of our youth thinks that to succeed, it must go. I do not accept this reasoning. What amazing where France ¹ those who have money are encouraged to settle in Belgium, Spain and Switzerland while our best young people decide to cross the Channel! Not a restaurant in London without a server French and, when asked why are you here? They respond because we want to work. In all European capitals, shops are open on Sunday: why is it not the case in Paris?

About the Clearstream affair, you say harsh things, including Jean-Louis Gergorin, and you want the whole truth ...

Put yourself in my place: I never met Mr. Gergorin. That Mr denounced me to a judge, transmits files bank fraud, evokes a trip to India that I have ever done, is spreading in multiple considerations on me and the more unbearable mask it under a pseudo-reasoning intellectual. Regarding Dominique de Villepin, I chose to trust it. I can not believe that behind this whole affair, there was political will. To some extent, this explains why I have chosen not to leave the government.

You talk about Cecilia. I realized, you say, for having "too exposed" ...

First, it is Cecilia who asked me to write these lines. Then, I never complained. I have been pursued, harassed. Our children, our parents had to endure the comments of those who claimed to know and knew nothing. So I found that devote a chapter of my book to close this chapter of my life was necessary. Who would have understood that I do not talk about it? I wanted to tell the feelings without saying anything of the facts. I did it with decency and truth. However, I underestimated the harsh political struggle and probably overestimated the capacity to collect Cécilia attacks which, at one time, focused on her. I am not having sufficiently protected mine.

In your book, did you all say?

Everything I have said, I will. It is a matter of respect and credibility of political speech.

What would you say that the French after completing your book?

It is true. He does not play comedy.

You say that the 2007 presidential, it will be of 50-50?

A destiny, it meets a character and situation. I wondered for years if I had the character. The situation, I favorably. I am ready as I've never been. But whatever the Socialist candidate, it will be difficult.

Y-there is a risk of destruction of Lebanon?

Yes. Because of the desire to continue to Syrian influence in Lebanon, the behavior of some armed militias to be that Lebanon get rid of fear of Isra 'l for his safety, there is a real risk of disintegration of a small country important for the region, important for France. You can not put on the same plane Hezbollah and Israel 'l-Hezbollah-terrorist movement is the aggressor. But that does not prevent me to advise Isra 'l do not over-react: "Do not irreparable, proportionate your reply. I also want to emphasize the harm caused by Iran, which is clearly behind Hezbollah. That the Iranian leaders want Israel wiped off "the map of this is not even any of the story. Why this war in Lebanon? Because the Iranians, Hezbollah intervened, seeking to divert world attention from what they prepare themselves nuclear.