 Felly, rydw i'n meddwl Alexandra i chi'n gweithio i gweithio'r gwaith o'r dweud o'r ddoeithio yma y ddweud y ddoeithio ysgrifennu Ffrasilwr, i'w ddweud y ddweud o'r ddweud i eu gwirio yn yw'r ddweud o ddweud yma. Byddai ddod i'r ddwybod gwneud yn ddweud, y ddweud, yn y ddweud o'r ddweud, yn ddweud o ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o ddweud o'r ddweud, ..a swyddi wedi gwybod ngeigwyd y ffynol. Roedd yn siŵrio ar y cynyddiadau ymmerchol yn eisiau ymddiogol.. ..yni i gael y gweithi piwyr. Roedd ymddir wir i'r metall Alexander yn i wneud. Roedd ei wneud29r oaf bod yn modd unrhywbeth yn y siŵr. Alexander wedi ysgawr ymddir o'r ysgawr ysgawr Ddiog Luckywyr.. ..a'r Ffarn-sgwrdd ymmerchu. Mae'r cyfnod yn ei wneud o'r brosweith yng Nghymru a'r ffarnio ac yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrcholol yng Nghymru. Mae'r cyfnod yn ymgyrch, mae'r cyfnod yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, mae'r cyfnod yn ei wneud, ac mae'n cael ei wneud o'r cyfnod yn ymgyrch. Mae'n fawr, ac mae'n fawr i'r gweithio yng Nghymru. Yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, mae'n gweithio'n gwybod i'r ffordd yma, a mae com fascinating studio 선 ymarfer sydd ei addyn nhw yw ym krymol. Rwy'n addyn nhw'n gweithio, ac mae Dflodi fascinating studio Parece. Yn 1985, ac yn gennym Cymysgwatergol, sy'n ddim ar y cyfnod and it, an interactive and interesting conversation. So, just two days ago, last Sunday took place what we could call a political earthquake in Paris, because for the first time since the creation of the Fifth Republic, the two main political mainstream parties have not made it to the Second Round. The first time that the right centre would have been re-baptised by the Republicans has not made it to the second round. You end up with a very close result just to remind you of the numbers. The front-runner Emmanuel Macron, who is not attached to any political party, but in fact created his own political movement in March one year ago, did a bit more than 24% than Marine Le Pen, 21.3%, which represents around 7.7 million voters. So that's huge because now everyone is focused on Macron, but let us not forget that this is a historical score for the Front National. It's extremely high. François Fillon, the centre-right candidate, 20%, Mélenchon 19.58%, and then Benoit Hamon from the Socialist Party, so the party of François Hollande, the current president, 6.3%. So you basically had four candidates that ended up being extremely close, and that's also I would say quite unique, I would say result for a French presidential campaign. What is also quite unique is that between Mélenchon, the far left, radical left, and Emmanuel Macron, you can see that they both created their political movement just one year ago, la France insoumise for Mélenchon and En Marche for Emmanuel Macron. Why is this a political earthquake? Because you end up having a situation where both the Socialist and the centre-right parties are totally fragmented today with very diverging visions of what the party should do and the politics and the policies to follow. And so now they have to engage in a rebuilding process, and this is not going to be easy at all. And to a certain extent we can say that Jean-Luc Mélenchon from the far left is trying to self-portray himself as the new leader of the divided Socialist Party. So that's where I would say the very immediate reaction. And what you can probably see is that these four candidates that I just quoted, Macron, Le Pen, Fillon, Mélenchon, have already reshaped the French political landscape. And as you know, and I usually repeat that a lot, especially when I travel to Washington, because it's difficult also to understand the specificity of the French political system. This is not just a presidential election. You have to look at the French presidential election as a four-round election, because after May the 7th we will have two rounds for the legislative elections on June 11 and June 18. And if the elected presidents, either Macron or Marine Le Pen, do not succeed to have a majority at the parliament, they will be very much constrained in terms of what they can actually do and implement in terms of their programme, both domestically but also in terms of foreign and security policies. So this is really something that we have to be very careful about. And Macron now is actively engaged as he has just created his movement. It's really a very recent movement one year ago. He has now to build in a few days a new majority at the parliament. And this is going to be a big challenge for him. The second takeaway that I take from these elections is that this is the first time also that the French presidential campaign takes place under the so-called state of emergency. You might have followed these certain amount of anxiety within which these elections have taken place. The latest terrorist attacks on the Champs-Élysées and other terrorist attacks that have been avoided and prevented. But also it's interesting to see how these terrorist attacks attempts or the one that took place under Champs-Élysées has not changed that much the final result. And in fact, I mean Marine Le Pen can be very happy to be in the second round, but you can also sense a big amount of disappointment that she didn't end up being the front runner. So to say what could get Marine Le Pen elected next May 7 terrorist attack, I don't think so. I don't think so and it didn't help her at all in the first round. What could actually help her is a low turnout, that's for sure. But again the first round showed that the turnout has been much higher than what had been predicted and I would predict a much higher turnout for the second round than what we are currently talking about. So I'm not particularly concerned about that. So that I would say is for the particularity of this presidential campaign. The discussions, the debates, the divides have not been between the right and the left and the programs that they promote. It has really been a lot about pro-Europe, anti-Europe, pro-globalisation, anti-globalisation. But also to a certain extent we could compare that to the US elections, a urban rural divide. And if you take for example the map of how the voters actually voted, it's really striking to see how this divide has been reinforcing and deepening these last years. Basically the big urban cities have voted massively for Macron and for Fillon as well. And the map next to it is Marine Le Pen map. You can see that the north-east and the south regions have massively voted for Marine Le Pen. Then when you look at who voted for who, it's extremely interesting. Macron has the most balanced, I would say electorate. So he is the one who has taken the most votes from the intellectuals, from high-ranking people working in companies. To a lesser extent, employees, workers and employers, actually people without jobs have voted almost 18% for him. Marine Le Pen, it's very clear she has succeeded her normalisation strategy and she has also succeeded to take a large part of the traditional far-left electorate. For example, workers have voted almost 40% for her, employees 30% and people without jobs almost 30%. But then in the higher categories, people have voted much less for her. And so this tells you a lot also about, I would say, the result from this election. So what you're going to have in between the two rounds is now a battle of visions. A battle of completely opposite visions. You could not have had more opposite visions than Le Pen and Macron. They both portrayed themselves as political outsiders. In fact they are not, that's a total myth. Macron is a pure product of the classic curriculum of a political elite in school. He has been François Hollande's economic advisor, then economy minister. And Marine Le Pen has been in politics for an hour, several decades and even more through her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. They both portrayed themselves as, as they say, the alternative of the alternance, the alternative to the right and the left. They both expressed their satisfaction with the current political status quo. But in fact they defend radically different visions for French society, French economy, France's role in Europe and France's role in the world. But also a relationship vis-à-vis Russia and the United States. We can get more into the details in the discussion part. I would say basically now Macron's challenge is going to be to show that he is not going to be a president of this expression that is often used when talking about Macron of Hollande's mobis. Of a second mandate for president Hollande. And that's a challenge for him. In fact as you've seen Hollande himself yesterday just said that he was supporting Emmanuel Macron. Well he cannot really do otherwise. The country would have been surprising. All of the traditional socialist figures are supporting him very visibly and tangibly. And that's going to be difficult for him. He will have to try to show that he can surround himself with new faces. He has deployed a strategy actually in the different departments in the country in terms of the legislative elections. Putting the focus on encouraging people from civil society, from the private sector. Much more women, much more younger people to join his movement. So that's something he has been really putting the focus on. And he really has to show that he has in fact an alternative vision for French politics. And an alternative vision for France's role in Europe. And in the world at a time where the current French president François Hollande's popularity rate has declined to 4%. Which is really historically extremely low. So what you are seeing now is people from the right, from the left, from the center rallying around Emmanuel Macron. You have the same scenario than we had in 2002 when you had Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen, what we call le fron républicain. This sort of rallying around the flag of different parties to block the scenario of having the far right reaching the Elysée. The scenarios right now that we see happening is that Macron obviously has very high chances of becoming the next French president. If so he would be the youngest president in the entire French political history, 39 years old. He still has a lot of experience to build especially in terms of foreign policy. But I think that he represents because also of his youth, of his optimism. He's the only one actually to have conducted an optimistic campaign on optimistic pro-European outward looking vision of what France should be in Europe and in the world. He has attracted a lot of young voters and a lot of voters who have been hesitating between the center right and center left. And because of his discourse, neither left, neither right, I want to federate all those who believe in the idea of the center has worked. And his campaign has been to that extent exceptional. And to the same extent that Jean-Luc Mélenchon's on the far left campaign has been exceptional as well. What does it mean in terms of the, I would say, foreign policy issues? The European and Macron would be very different presidents in terms of their vision for France in Europe and the world. What has been interesting with this campaign in particular is that because of the international context, Brexit, Trump's election, it has been striking to me how foreign policy has been much more present in this campaign than in any other campaign. And has to a certain extent forced the different candidates to position themselves on foreign policy issues. The number one issue being Trump at least at the beginning of the campaign. And there you have a very different, I would say, perspective when you look at Le Pen and Macron. Macron has, I would say, a traditional approach to the U.S.-French and I would say more broadly transatlantic relationship. He said several times that he believes that a strong French U.S. relationship is important and especially in terms of cooperation and intelligence sharing in fighting terrorism. And this obviously will be, if I can say, business as usual compared to the previous Hollande presidency. But he has also been the only actually candidate to have vocally opposed Trump on many of his policies and decisions. The immigration ban, his protectionist policies. And he has actually invited U.S. scientists, academics, entrepreneurs who are at odds with Trump to actually move to France. Just like he did so with the British who do not agree with Brexit. And he said in his pro-business approach, and that is probably something new that he would bring to French politics, is this pro-business approach. He has, you know, approached a Brexit in a very pragmatic way and say, hey, well, you know, France is open. We're very happy to welcome you. So I would say, you know, Macron, because he is young and he would be the youngest leader I've probably in the world could bring a new energy, a positive energy at a time where the far-right nationalist parties or leaders are making gains across Europe but also in the United States. He could prove what he says that France is a, he says, contrarian to show that this wave actually is stopping in France and with his election as the new French president. And so he could potentially become an interesting challenger for the Trump administration in terms of proposing and opposing a different vision, including on climate change. He has several times said that Trump's vision on climate change was not a responsible one and that it was France's role, especially as the country that had hosted the climate change conference and who played a key role in having this final agreement to, I quote him, to bring back Trump in the western block and in the camp of human rights and progress. So that could be, I would say, an interesting, I would say, addition in the transatlantic relationship. Le Pen is stuck in a complicated situation. Le Front National is traditionally, as you know, anti-American, anti-nato. We don't want to receive orders from the United States. In fact, Front National doesn't want to receive orders or to be dependent on anyone, either Germany or Brussels and even less Washington. Trump has kind of changed that a little. She celebrated Trump's election, celebrated his first executive order, the immigration ban, that she would definitely would want to implement in the French version if she got elected as president. But she doesn't agree at all with his foreign policy decisions, the strikes in Syria, the military escalation vis-à-vis North Korea. And she very bluntly say, I don't understand why Trump is contradicting his America first policy and suddenly getting back to the world's policeman role. So she's kind of stuck in a contradiction there and that's going to be a little complicated for her to manage. Then comes obviously Russia, the relationship with Russia. Macron was actually the only candidate to not take a pro-Russian position. If you look at Fillon, if you look at Le Pen, Mélenchon, you realize that he was pretty much isolated when it came to the relationship with Russia. His position is very classic. It would be business as usual as well, which is open dialogue with Russia on key issues, yet stay firm on the sanction and on the implementation of the Minsk agreement. Le Pen is totally at the opposite. She went to visit Putin a few weeks ago. She has a very pro-Russian vision of the world and in fact the link between her campaign and Russia are quite real. And it's interesting to see who in the world supports Le Pen. It's basically at least in a vocal way two major leaders. It's Trump who has not been hiding in his tweets that he supports Marine Le Pen and it's Putin. Just having these two foreign supports tells you a lot about the international vision that Le Pen has of the world. If you look at Macron, it's all over the place. All of the EU Brussels leaders have applauded Macron's victory in the first round as the front-runner. Angela Merkel, the German newspapers, if they could vote, they would vote for Macron. So you have different supports coming from different parts of the world but it tells you a lot about, I would say, the vision that these two candidates Le Pen and Macron have of the world. This leads me to Europe and the German-French relationship. Macron is really a convinced European, that's for sure. Everything he's been doing as the economy minister has always put a very strong focus on Europe but also on the French-German relationship. He believes in the interdependence between both countries. Germany obviously needs France to help keep the eurozone together and outreach to the southern countries but also to project military power in the south and to make Europe self-sufficient in defence. In fact, Germany has evolved in that domain, training Perchmerga in Iraq and supporting France militarily in Mali. So there has been some evolution, some rapprochement on the security defence domain from the part of Germany towards French leading role on this issue. And vice versa, Paris obviously needs Germany to relax its stance on deficit, to start consuming more and to move towards further eurozone integration. And so the idea of Macron is in fact to first, as all presidents have tried to do before him, implement the structural urgent reforms that France needs economically, especially in terms of the labour market, in terms of the fiscal policy, in terms also of the working hours. And there he has an interesting position. We can get into more details in the conversation. So that France could rise in this bilateral relationship as a more balanced partner. And his idea is to really build what he calls a co-leadership between France and Germany in Europe and get out of this asymmetric relationship. This obviously will not happen tomorrow but will take time. But this is something that he's really convinced about. Marine Le Pen is the totally opposite. She believes that Germany is imposing its vision to France and that we shouldn't be taking lessons from either Berlin or Brussels. And in terms of the Brexit debate, as you know she celebrated the Brexit decision as a liberation of the British from the EU institutions and bureaucracy. She has nuanced her discourse throughout the campaign and now her idea, at least for now, has stopped to the fact that she would very quickly, if she gets elected, do a referendum on whether the French people want to remain or exit the EU. And if the French wish to remain, she will take that into account and will not start the process of exiting the EU. She would, however, would want to push for reforms within the EU institutions. But that's not, I would say, really new. Even Macron or even the candidate Fillon have all included in their programs the necessity for EU institutions to be reformed. So she has nuanced her discourse and let us not forget, as I said at the beginning, that if she doesn't have a majority and she will not have a majority in the parliament, she will actually not be able to implement this program. So she will be stuck anyway and her powers will be completely constrained in terms of the decisions she can take in terms of the EU. And on that specific topic, recent polls show that her idea of Brexit is in complete contradiction with what the French people want. French people feel European. Part of Europe, yes, we need to reform European institutions the way it's working and try to bring more coherence in terms of fiscal policy, in terms of managing the refugee crisis, in terms of managing terrorism across Europe. But the French do not want to exit the EU. So she will probably be stuck in that sort of contradiction and probably the May 3 debate where she will confront Macron will probably highlight the contradictions, especially when it comes to her policy, the Euro, the EU, but also NATO, because she obviously would want to get out of the NATO military structures. So to, I would say basically conclude, I started with Trump, the transatlantic relations, Russia, Europe, UK, Germany. I would end up by saying that someone like Macron obviously would be much more a president of continuity. There is not going to be huge surprises even though his campaign book called Revolution is about bringing revolution in the way politics is made and in terms of the vision of France will be outlined in Europe and the international scene. It is obvious that it will be a lot about continuity with Hollande's presidency. He will probably add a more pro-business approach. He will probably try to move into what he tried to implement as the economy minister of Hollande in terms of the, I would say, implementing a sort of Nordic style, a Scandinavian style model of economy by bringing more flexibility into the labour market by allowing companies to decide about the working hours. We have this 35-hours weekly working hours, which is obviously a problem for French growth and economic model, so he would want to reform that. So, you know, as I say to summarize it, Macron is a gamble, a political gamble, and I think that the vote that people put for him in the first round, they were gambling on the fact that he was a young candidate and that he would probably bring a new energy for France. Le Pen, obviously, is a danger, a danger for France, for Europe and the world, that's for sure, and obviously the May 3 debate will be probably extremely decisive in terms of understanding their visions and their opposite visions for France in Europe and in the world. I'll end up because I am the director for a transatlantic think tank in Paris with what I thought was really interesting, a general, Jim Mattis' recent visit in the Sahel just a few days ago, the US Secretary of Defence, asking, calling for the next French president to continue France's economy. It's a commitment to fighting terrorism in the region. I quote him. He said, I have no doubt that the French will continue to make their own decisions and their own best interests and that the terrorists will not enjoy these decisions. So it's interesting to see that from the part of the Trump administration there is a lot of concern about what is going to be the outcome of the French presidential election, but there is also a desire for stability and continuity when it comes especially to cooperation in terms of fighting terrorism in the Sahel. There is a lot of concern in Europe as well. Germany has been the most worried country watching, looking at the French presidential elections. A few of my German colleagues said, nous sommes tous français. We are all French and we can understand that because the outcome of the May 7 election will determine a lot of things, not just for France, but also for Europe and more broadly. The world, and I don't think it's exaggerating saying that. So I'll just end up with that and by saying that it's not just about the next president, but it's also about the next composition of the French parliament. Because the election of the president on May 7 is just the beginning of a first phase, which will be much more challenging. And if Macron gets elected, hopefully he will get a majority and that this will allow to have a political stability, but at that stage it's still not, I would say, absolutely sure considering the fragmentation today of the French political landscape. So let's keep our eyes also, I would say, on the second legislative elections phase because it will actually be extremely decisive in terms of what the next French president will be able to do.