 Thank you, Janis, for this really touching introduction. In fact, we had the dream to do it the other way, but this time it didn't work, maybe the next time. We don't want to fail better, but to fail less. And I would like to congratulate you for what you presented to us. The whole initiative had so much energy, and I think it's absolutely necessary to do that. The passion with which all of you presented the endeavor of Europe and of restarting Europe. The passion and the energy which you personally also invested in that initiative is, for me, a reason for admiration, and I thank you very much for that. In fact, we struggled together in summer, during the last some weeks. We struggled a little bit between each other because you wanted me to be part of that movement. And I said no. And then you said, well, OK, then you have to explain. And I will do that in very few words because I think it's already late, and you won't be very interested in these words. But and what I certainly do not want is to calm down the enthusiasm and the energy and all that what has come up. But and of course, Europe is in a really big danger. What we see presently, and I totally agree with the analysis in your manifesto, that democracy has been replaced during the last years by, you say very much, bureaucracy. I would say technocracy because bureaucracy, I don't see any democracy which could do without bureaucracy. We will always need a bureaucracy. And I'm too old to deny that. But we have, of course, the main point, and there we agree, of course, is that this bureaucracy should not be, instead of politically decision making, that it should be transparent to a certain degree. Not all the bureaucrats can be transparent, but the decision making should be transparent. So I agree with you and what you say and your claim for transparency. I'm really very much looking forward and very curious to see what will happen when you publicize your claims for transparency for the reasons, for the institutions you mentioned. Now comes a little different in the analysis. Of course, the financial crisis was the start of de-democratization of destroying to a certain degree the democracy in Europe. But this has been the result of political decision making. Where I disagree is that in a certain way, in your manifesto, you see a necessity between the institutions of the European Union and the policy which has been made. No, I don't think that the institutions by themselves, or with all their weaknesses, of course, have really brought about neoliberalism and austerity, but it bears the political majorities we had in Europe. And these political majorities have to be changed. There we agree again. These political majorities have to be changed. And I'm particularly unhappy about the responsibilities the German government has in that deterioration of the European Union and desolidarization of the European Union. I think that the lack of solidarity has started with the Chancellor Merkel saying that there is no bailout for neighboring states, whereas there was a bailout for banks. This was the start of desolidarization. And this is a political decision making. And therefore, I think, with this blindness towards all the social disasters, consequences of austerity policy, this is what has to be changed. There was a saying of the German philosopher Adorno, wer vom Nationalsozialismus oder vom Fascismus spricht soll vom Kapitalismus nicht schweigen, who speaks about fascism should not silence capitalism. One could also say who speaks about rightist extremism should not silence austerity policy. This is a very close connection. There is a strong German responsibility. Unfortunately, and this is hard for me, I'm convinced social democrat for the values of the social democracy, for good traditions of the social democracy. But I have to say that in the Grand Coalition, this policy of austerity, which in the program has always been denied, has been supported by the Social Democratic Party. And that was extremely desperate. So I'm very unhappy about that. But I will tell you, I will tell you, the party is more than the leaders of the party. And I am traveling around the party, and I'm having a lot of meetings with the party. Until now, during the last months, I have never met a party meeting which contradicted my position and which supported the leaders, not one. This is interesting for the situation. Now, the present refugee crisis, as I see it, is not certainly the reason of the dramatic situation of the European Union. It is a catalysator of the dramatic situation of the European Union. And when I hear German politicians telling the Turkish government that for moral reasons, they should open their borders for the refugees from Aleppo. But at the same time, close their borders for these same refugees towards the European Union, I can't say what is that as a political and a moral behavior. Simply cannot stand such a contradictory position. And we should never allow ourselves to get used to that. We have to protest such a moral contradiction. If we did the same in our normal daily life to somebody, well, I want you to do some good, but afterwards I want you to do some harm. I mean, this is completely crazy. And we should not accept that. The difference is that I think we have to change the policy. Of course, the policy has also introduced procedures and institutions, for instance, as a European senator, which tried to judicially fix one policy, calling it not political, but just judicial. And this is, of course, this is a trick. This is not to accept. But again, it is a policy. So my crucial question is, how can we implement the goals which you pursue and which I share? And to implement the goals, I think we absolutely need partners which kind of bring about a chain from organized civil society or even less organized civil society, as I see the young lady over there and was there. And that reminded me sometimes in 1968 that it's nice, that it's absolutely necessary. 72 is a certain distance to that. OK, so to kind of bring about a chain, and I think we need all help and all cooperation from other parties, from the green. I have openly always spoken out for red, red, green in Germany. We need it from the trade unions. We need it from organizational powers, because without these organizational powers, we will not succeed. We have to do it. But of course, on the other hand, we need your initiative, because I've never seen in the last years that a political party would have really made something new or has taken a new initiative. It's coming from the organized civil society. Two more points. One, I have always been a reformist. So this is not really interesting. I know. But this is my conviction. And I know from the one hand that reformists, if they want to be successful, they absolutely need a radical movement. It's completely a reformist by themselves won't achieve nothing. They need a kind of motor, a need of movement, a radical movement, and sharp movements. This is indispensable. On the other hand, sometimes these radical movements also need reformists, because they could, in a way, also become either a little bit sectarian or a little bit populist in generalizing everything. So this is not just to have an equilibrium, but this is my experience of policy. For that purpose, we created a number of people from the Greens, from the left, from the social democracy, from the trade unions, a new initiative, Restart Europe. This is very close to your analysis. And we would like to cooperate with you. I don't think it would be good to be part of you, but to cooperate with you. And as far as I see, there are two very important things to do now in order not just to get out to have had a wonderful, overwhelming event, but then what comes after. You already said there will be these kind of attacks against the establishment, OK? But I think what would be good would be that in the following weeks and months, we would have all over Europe two kinds of events. One, which would discuss democracy, because what kind of democracy do we want? Anzio Urban spoke about that. I have been a professor for political theory and democracy, so I have dealt with that for about 40 years. So this is an important, not only theoretical point. And we have to try to agree upon that. At least not about everything, but about essential elements of what we understand by democracy. This is the first point. And the other point is to organize with all the artists and members of your movement to organize events where, again, the idea of solidarity, of Europe, of democracy, of justice, of freedom would come up to my minds, because this is really the reason why I'm extremely thankful to you. In a time of cynicism in which we very often live, in a time of resignation in which we very often live, you counteracted. You said, no, we will reanimate the real roots of European democracy, of European Union. And you, in this way, kind of encouraged us all, also myself, to not resign but to go on. I thank you for that, and I would like to cooperate with you. I have always liked the word of partnership. My husband is sometimes laughing at me, but even in a marriage, I like partnership to be equal in inequality, be equal, and not the same. So partnership, I like it. And I would be very glad if we could cooperate with you. Thank you again.