 Merci beaucoup. Alors, je propose maintenant, il nous reste environ 11 minutes et je propose d'élargir la discussion, and we can speak English or French as you wish, perhaps even Arabic, but I am not sure of that. So, who would like to intervene? Even though I don't see him, yes, I see Karl Kaiser, that's Karl. I was sure you would be the first one. You recently pointed out that majority voting is one way for the European Union to act, to be able to act now. How do you get there and how do you see it now, particularly after the events of the recent two months which make the notion of European capacity to act much more urgent? Well, it would be much easier for me if the decision making process would be based on a majority, qualified but majority. But to be realistic, I don't think that in the short term, we are going to change the rule. Because to abandon unanimity, it requires unanimity. And I don't see this unanimity coming, frankly speaking. Everybody will be attached to their veto right. So, we have to build with the tools that we have. It's certainly a big disadvantage. This is my point of view. A point of view which is not shared by everybody. President Michel, for example, believes that unanimity is a good way of deciding. Because it puts everybody together. Yes, certainly, it puts everybody together. But about what? Because we are together about nothing. Or about very little thing. For me, it would be much better to have the capacity of deciding by qualifying majority, because it would be a big incentive for people to engage in discussions. If you know that without you, nobody can do anything, you stay in your corner. You don't need to participate in the debate. You block it. And this is not the way to face the geopolitical problems of the world, for sure not. But they have to be realistic. I don't think we are going to change the rule. So, we have to look for some ways of going behind it. And I think the treaty provides by some ways of acting according to unanimity, but with a little bit more flexibility on the implementation of the decisions. But forget about having majority rules on the next month. Bogdan. Thank you. We have overcome, fortunately, the longest crisis of CSDP after 2008. And such instruments that were expected and designed in this treaty, like PESCO, for example. And those that were created recently, I mean, European Defence Fund, show our ability to overcome such crisis. But now, we are in a very difficult financial situation, I mean, with allocation of so many funds, you know, to define with coronavirus and with recovery fund. What about CSDP in future? Because CSDP, in fact, is an expression of our strategic autonomy of Europe. What do you think about the future of CSDP? I'm strongly in favour of reinforcement of that policy. Maybe for those who do not know the acronyms, maybe could explain what CSDP is. Well, I suppose everybody knows the common security and defence policy. The will to build a common way of ensuring our security and providing defence capacities. Well, it's true that in the current financial perspective, member states, when they allocated resources, they were not privileging this policy. Because the pandemic was there, and because internal issues were much more important at that critical moment. So CSDP has not been very well treated on the allocation of resources for these years. Nevertheless, we have started with a defence fund to provide support to industrial military capacity. We need to have an industrial military capacity. It's topical to believe that you are a security provider actor if you don't have an industrial capacity on the field of defence. So this has to be done. We need to increase our capabilities. And this starts by industry. It's not sufficient, but it's absolutely necessary. So we have this fund. We have the peace facility, a new instrument, that we allow us to provide even little equipment to our partners. When we go to train our partners in the Sahel, for example, we train them, but we are unable to provide them with military warfare. And when we train the men and soldiers in our training camp, they have to come with their ammunition, because we don't even provide ammunition for the training. Well, this has to be overcome, and this peace facility will allow us to do that. Not the solution for everything, but the biggest step forward. PESCO, it is still on the first years of its development. We cannot ask PESCO to deliver results, because everything in the defence field takes quite a long time. It will provide better results, and we will try to orient the PESCO projects to a more field orientation, to more implementation, less logistic, and more action, more capacity of deploying. But it takes time. It takes time, we cannot ask PESCO to change the defence landscape of the Europeans in four or five years. Missions, we have launched two new missions. So yes, little by little we are advancing. But I think that we have to have a kind of breakthrough, a jump. Something different, something more, a qualitative step. And that's what we are proposing on the strategic compass. We have the battle groups. We have never used them. We have never used them because it has never been the need to use them. We have never been used them because we don't have the will or maybe the instrument is not well designed. That's why we propose new instruments on the strategic compass to reinforce the CSDB. Because frankly speaking, I don't see how we can be a real security provider at the geopolitical level if we don't pull more our forces. Altogether, the member states are spending defence five times more than Russia. Five times more than Russia. Altogether, we have as many soldiers as the US. But evidently, we don't have the same strength. So the only solution for us, if we want to exist in the world, is to pull more our capacities. Not to abolish the national armies and build the European army. This is utopical. But to complement our capacities, our individual capacities, with a collective one. Which could become the European pillar on NATO. Complimentary to NATO, as President Biden, Macron has said. If we are not able to advance on this field, our strategic shrinking will continue. And we cannot afford that. We should not afford that. Thank you very much. The last, I will take two questions and then I stop. The first row to the area, that's Lebanon. Thank you, Thierry. Daniel Khatib from Research Centre for Cooperation and Peacebuilding in Lebanon. I want to ask you something. The gentleman had told you that because there is unanimity when in decision making, it's very difficult to make decisions. But Europe is surrounded by a very unstable neighbourhood, look in the North Africa, Lebanon, Syria. Do you think at some point in time, we will come where Europe has an overarching strategy to deal with its neighbourhood? Thank you. An overarching strategy for the whole Mediterranean neighbourhood. It's really something difficult to build. And maybe we don't need an overarching strategy. In Europe, we use an abuse of the word strategy. We have a strategy for everything. We have produced a strategy on a weekly basis. Well, that's good. We have to have an idea of how to act. But sometimes we call a strategy to think that there are not strategies. And a strategy is something of linking, means and purposes. Resources you have and objectives you want to get. This is a real strategy. Sometimes we call a strategy what is at the end an analysis. I don't think we need a whole strategy from Gibraltar to Syria. But we need to have a clear idea of how to deal with our neighbours. And I think we have. Another different thing is that in the case of Lebanon, all our requests for the Lebanese political class to take their responsibilities have failed. Since the explosion on the harbour in Lebanon, President Macron, myself, President Michel, we have been pushing to the Lebanese political class to act and to face the challenge of the country. And it has been a big collective failure of the Lebanese political class in spite of our pressures. Now it seems things are moving. But this is not a matter of having a strategy. This is a matter that in some countries there is a complete failure of the political system. And Europeans cannot replace the political system of others. We can help, we can push, we can provide financial support, we can put political pressure, but we cannot substitute them. And in the case of Lebanon, for me it's very clear that if there is no inside the country itself, the political resources, you cannot process to bring a solution. Today we have, for example, the case of Tunisia where there is a political development and we have to replace ourselves with respect to this political development. In general terms, our ambitions for the Mediterranean have not been fulfilled. In general terms, the Mediterranean is not improving from the economic point of view. The gap between the north and the south is increasing. Our trade relations are not improving. The integration of the Mediterranean states and North Africa states and thinking of Morocco and Algeria continues being very weak. But there are some things in which Europeans, believe me, it's impossible that we could provide the solution. In some other cases, I think that we have been very active and our action has been providing good results. The last case, I can mention Libya, in which not only us, together with other actors, we have managed to stabilize the situation. But in the case of Lebanon, only the political class of Lebanon can bring a solution to deliver any problems. Un des problèmes de l'Europe, qui a souvent été décrit, c'est le manque de confiance du citoyen ordinaire dans les institutions européennes. Ma question, est-ce que vous ne pensez pas que pousser actuellement une politique de santé unifiée au niveau de l'Europe qui n'existe pas, aurait un intérêt évident pour le citoyen, mais aurait un intérêt au-dessus de ça pour la constitution de l'Europe elle-même pour défendre d'autres bureaux européens et que ce serait quelque chose de très concret qui permettrait d'augmenter la confiance dans l'Europe ? Une politique européenne de santé, de santé cohérente, comme une question de... Une politique européenne de santé. Non, répétez-le, allumez les micros parce que sinon... Une politique européenne de santé, c'est ça que vous dites. Est-ce que c'est du domaine du haut représentant pour la politique étrangère des affaires de sécurité ? Des capacités d'agir dans le domaine de la santé. Parfois, on demande à l'Europe des choses que l'Europe ne peut pas faire, parce que personne lui a demandé de les faire. Qu'est-ce qu'elle doit faire à l'Europe ? C'est que le traité dit qu'elle doit faire. Dans le domaine de la santé, le traité ne dit pratiquement rien. Le compétence de la Commission des institutions communautaires sont très faibles. On les a développés à marge forcée parce qu'il fallait bien qu'il y ait une instance de coordination des politiques nationales. Alors peut-être que dans la réflexion sur le futur de l'Europe, il faudra ce sujet sur la table. Est-ce que dans les futurs, il ne faut pas que l'Union ait des compétences communes pour faire face de façon plus coordonnée à une menace commune ? Oui, sans doute. La pandémie nous l'a appris. La pandémie nous a appris que la réponse a été parfois trop nationale parfois il a montré que chacun pour soi on a vu les images au début de la pandémie qui ont donné de l'Europe une image pas trop positive et les gens se disaient mais qu'est-ce qu'il fait à l'Europe ? L'Europe ne fait pas grand-chose parce que l'Europe n'a pas les compétences pour le faire. Puis après, oui, c'est au niveau européen qu'on a poussé le développement des vaccins. C'est au niveau européen qu'on a poussé un achat commun qui a été aussi critiqué au début mais imaginez-vous si tous les pays européens étaient allés chacun pour soi au marché des vaccins à essayer d'acheter des vaccins en faisant la compétence les uns contre les autres une sorte d'enchère. Ça aurait été catastrophique. Donc ça, au moins, on l'a évité parce que les États membres ont dit à la commission allez-y, au nombre de nous tous pour chercher ce bien collectif après on va le partager. On pourrait penser que maintenant avec la montée du prix des gaz ça serait une sage idée de faire une sorte d'achat central d'achat du gaz. Ça serait sans doute dans l'intérêt de tous. Donc, oui, il faut avoir plus de compétences et permettez-moi que je réponde à votre question d'un point de vue géopolitique. Il faut accélérer les dons des vaccins de la part de ces États membres au pays en développement. Il faut absolument accélérer ça parce qu'on a promis on est déjà à quelques 300 millions d'eux de promesses mais jusqu'à maintenant les dons réels, effectifs sont vraiment sous pas les rimes de nos promesses et on fait face à une situation mondiale le secrétaire général de l'ONU l'a dit en New York le jour qui n'est pas n'est pas très acceptable 3% de la population vaccinée dans les pays en développement 3% en Afrique 70% en Europe le déséquilibre de vaccinal est énorme l'Europe a exporté 700 millions de doses mais il faut s'exporter une chose est donnée les donations il faut les accélérer on est encore loin de nos engagements. Merci infiniment je crois que nous sommes obligés de nous arrêter là mais à propos de la dernière question il faut toujours rappeler que comme dans les armées on ne peut bien faire que ce qui a été très préparé à l'avance et que dans les opérations aussi complexes que la crise sanitaire on peut dire que finalement compte tenu du fait que comme vous le rappeliez pas que la santé n'est pas une vraie compétence de l'UE on sait quand même pas si mal d'ébrouiller que cela mais effectivement tout le monde reconnait que ça doit être un sujet majeur pour l'avenir maintenant nous allons nous arrêter là je vous remercie infiniment de votre présence et de cette conversation je dois rappeler que nous avons pris du retard à 5 heures précises il y a la session d'ouverture officielle et nous ne pouvons pas être en retard pour la session d'ouverture officielle ce qui veut dire que la session suivante doit être un petit peu raccourci et je vous demande de ne pas quitter vos sièges merci cher Joseph Morel de tout cœur merci professeur