It would indicate that this is a shared project

Do you share the concerns of local elected officials, particularly of mayors, as to the removal of business tax

Not at all. The concerns of the mayors are fortunately totally unfounded. I think instead that they are doing a double deal. First, the reform of local Government will consolidate their role in making only responsible actors of the intermunicipal. Then, the business tax was sitting on industrial investments that are stagnating and are very concentrated geographically. It will be replaced in part by an assessment on the added value totally attached to real and spread economic activity throughout the territory.

Remained a disadvantage: companies doing less than EUR 500 000 of sales business is not imposed, might penalize small municipalities, with for example a small grocery store or a garage, who might perceive no recipe for added value. With the amendments of the Senate, we will address: revenues will be centralized at the national level, and then the distribution between Commons will be the real added value in their territory, whether or not the company pays the value added assessment

Why then a such distrust of mayors

Because the reform is worn by the specialists of Bercy and not by the Subdivisional field. And because elected officials do not exactly know to this day what sauce they will be eaten.

The Government refused the package minimum 250 euros that the Senate wants to introduce small business...

It is a minimum contribution for companies making more than EUR 500 000 of figures business. This appears to be still acceptable! Otherwise, companies wouldn't pay nothing up to 1.2 million euros of turnover, which is not reasonable: all need Commons.

What about the departments

Their situation is more complicated, as they face increasing social spending. On current revenue, the departments could no longer increase the rate of tax, face flee companies. Without reform, they would be so dead financially! Here again, the Senate will improve the Government copy in that reassessment revenues are distributed in supportive way, on the basis of three criteria: demographics, activity, area. Thus, revenue from general advice will be more related to spending.

Jean-Pierre Raffarin and 23 other senators have reason to threaten not to vote the reform Will they change

We have satisfied our colleagues, I think, that the project has evolved in the right direction. Especially if one accepts the principle of an appointment for evaluation and simulation of the effects of the reform in the next spring. Even if everything in this reform is not an absolute rationality, the worst would not discuss them, not to vote and continue to push ahead the chimera.

Michel Rocard and Alain Juppe recovering Thursday their report on the great loan. 35 billion, is this too much or not enough

If it was 35 billion which private, I find that it would look. The great loan me plaît because it forces us to ask ourselves whether what we wish for the future and if we are willing to pay the price. I do not see the great loan as a kind of proactive delirium, but as an opportunity for those who are in charge of competitive economic future to go further in their ambitions. It is a way - I say half jokingly - reinventing the Commissioner of the Plan. Essentially, it is that there is a very close public-private partnership and that the share of the private sector is very significant. It would indicate that this is a shared project.

Is the France enough proactive reduction of deficits

Was clearly chose the support conditions and delayed the résorpt ion of deficits out of crisis. I understand - it is probably the price to pay to continue structural reforms - but this worries me. Do not be fooled on the fact that it continues to push debt before us. The difficulty is not for today; It will be from 2011, when it will be recalled that the gains of growth, if there is, will have already been eaten. Because there is not another release of debt as the refund.

Is the time well chosen, on the eve of the regional, to discuss national identity

This is a very good time. The approach of elections gives the impact to the debate. Even though there may be a part of malice policy on the part of Eric Besson. The question "who are we, we, the 64 million French" is essential. There is no wrong time to deal with it. I liked the speech of the President of the Republic to the Chapelle-en-Vercors. But that things are clear, it is not reasonable to conclude it before the regional. It lasts beyond. Even in 2012, I am not sure that it is exhausted...