 I would like to thank you for your invitation. My first words will be words of gratitude to you, Chairman, to Mary McGuinness, my colleague in the European Parliament, who happens to be the best vice president of the parliament. And I am particularly touched by your presence. But also in the present circumstances, you have just referred to, Mr. Chairman. I would express my gratitude to the president of the Irish Republic, to your T-shirt, to your doll, and to the Irish people for the solidarity. They spontaneously and very sincerely and impressively they expressed after our terrible tragedy in Paris. This ordeal brings us even closer. The relationship between our peoples have always been very close, very tight. And I would add that for me, the relationship with Ireland is also a family matter. Because I gave my elder son the Christian name of Patrick, and every year we celebrate Patrick's Day. And my first words will also be words of admiration towards the Irish people. From financial and economic affairs, and particularly economic recovery in today's economists, there is a title, the Irish phoenix, the Celtic tiger, is back again. From economy to rugby, the French have a lot to learn from Ireland. I propose we exchange views on the question, is this EU fit to the 21st century? And I will start with an anecdote which was recounted to me by the former British prime minister, John Major. It was in November 1991. He came back from Moscow when he had just met President Gorbachev. And he asked Gorbachev when arriving in Moscow, how is the Soviet Union? And the answer was, in one word, well, then silence. So John Major tried to get a bit more. And in two words, in two words, not well. Well, is the EU fit to this century? In one word, no. In two words, not yet. A quarter of a century ago, after the unexpected miracle of the demise of the Soviet Union, pundits hailed the hand of history. And even after September 11, 12 years ago, in his paper, Strategy for European Security, Harrier Solana, the then high representative of the EU, could write, I quote, Europe has never been so prosperous, so secure, nor so free. Violence has given way to a period of peace and stability unprecedented in European history. Successive enlargements are making a reality of the vision of a united and peaceful continent. And of quotation. Against that background, the main concern of European leaders was then the upgrading and updating of the European institutions in order to accommodate the new members, to widen the European home, and to make the enlarged union more efficient and more democratic. Unfortunately, the weather of history is as unpredictable and capricious as the authentic water you enjoy here, and I enjoy in Basque country. After years of relatively blue sky, we have undergone a flurry of storms, of crisis, of which we have not yet come out. The financial crisis, the recession, particularly deep here, the public debt crisis, the slow growth, the wars next door in Ukraine and Middle East, the migration crisis, and now Islamic terrorism at the heart of our cities on our continent. Hence, the question I would like to try to answer is this large European Union devised 12 years ago in the European Convention, and now regulated by the Lisbon Treaty, is it really suited to today's world? Are we able to overcome this crisis and prevent some more in the offing? The way the European Council has tackled the recent challenges does not arouse some spontaneous optimism, unfortunately, nor the mounting Euroscepticism with fits of xenophobia in many member states. What has gone wrong? In most of the member states, the sense of the original aim, Europe seen not as a policy or a bunch of common policies, but as a project. The gradual construction of a political union meeting the requirements of the time of this new century, this sense has been forgotten. 10 years ago, it used to be an indispensable motto of any political speech. Today, on the continent, no national leader refers to it anymore. The political impetus still alive in the early 2000s and which inspired the authors of the current treaty has been exhausted in muddling through this successive crisis. But if there is a common lesson to be drawn from this crisis, it is that we are halfway through. We are now too united for one of us taking action on its own on an important subject. But not yet enough united to be able to act together smoothly and efficiently. Therefore, my point is that we must relaunch the European project. Let me take stock briefly of what has been achieved and where we are. What do I mean by we are halfway through? We have built and we agree on three pillars of the European foundations. First, the common values. The rule of law applying to our relations between sovereign states. And for the individuals, the values lay down in the charter for fundamental rights. Those values unbearable by the extremists. Second, second pillar, the spirit of the union. In France, we like to call the union, or to dub the union, a federation of nation states. On the one side, we resort to an institutional model looking like a federation to deal with the competences granted to the union. The law is passed by an agreement between a majority in a lower chamber representing the citizens, the European Parliament, and a higher chamber, an upper chamber representing the component states. And the head of the executive, the president of the European Commission, is elected by the lower chamber and through the lower chamber, the parliament, by the citizens themselves, as is the T-shock in Ireland or the prime minister, elsewhere. But on the other side, we all are deeply attached to our sovereignty and independence. That's why we have retained, at the state level, some major competences which usually are granted to the union in a fully federal construction. But after half a century of living together, our economies, our universities, our scientists, our artists, our societies, our families, and finally our destinies are so intertwined that it is impossible for us to act separately also in these fields. It is a huge difference with the US. The 50 governors of the US meet only once a year for a ceremonial dinner. I know that because I was invited once to celebrate the independence of the United States of America. But our national leaders at minister level, at prime minister or T-shirt level, meet every month, every week, and nowadays, every day. On economic and on foreign policy particularly, the responsibility rests with the national governments, but they have to inform each other, to coordinate their action, to cooperate permanently. Hence, the creation, for instance, of the Eurogroup, of the high representative for foreign policy, of the European Council itself. Our union is not a mix of federation and confederation. It is an addition of a federation and a confederation. Another consequence of this political will of maintaining national sovereignty is that we have introduced in the treaty Article 50, which is the divorce clause, the divorce provision, one of our common neighbor is now seems interested by this possibility. Possibly you will have questions on that. The third pillar we agree on is the geography of the union. A few years ago we were discussing can coup turkey join or Ukraine, et cetera. For me, this debate is over. The borders limits the boundaries of union, stops where they are, but a few more prospective members in the Balkans. That is the pillars agreed, but on the other hand, we still differ on three major issues to be solved now. First, the competences of the union. Not the legal competences laid down in the treaty, but those we do exert together at union level. The Lisbon Treaty is a wide-ranging toolbox. Which of these tools do we use? I give just two examples, particularly striking. First, energy. Everything the European adventure started in 1950 by energy, the Coral and Silk community. Today, the treaty allows to devise and implement a common energy policy. So far, we have been content with applying to part of the energy sector the common rules of competition, full stop. Second, example, migration. This is the most surprising, particularly for those of us who are members of the Schengen area, which is not yet the case of Ireland, but the problems are not very different. We have removed border controls exactly 20 years ago. I was then member of the French government. And I insist against my home minister to apply to implement the removal of border controls. And we got it. Since then, we know that to offset that removal, we must not only reinforce control at the external borders of the Schengen area, but also define and implement the same rules in all Schengen states. On the entry, the stay, the movement, and work of third country nationals, be it asylum seekers, tourists, or economic migrants. The Lisbon Treaty makes it legally possible. So far, we have not really moved forward in that direction. It's the first important problem to be settled. Second, the budget of the Union. Now, with the budget I'm treading on a highly unknown and dangerous territory, what I am going to point out now is said nowhere by nobody in Europe, at least on the continent. Of course, maybe different. Here. And, however, it's the main shortcoming of our construction. For me, the main threat to the future of the EU is not the debt, nor the migrants, nor the terrorists, nor a Brexit or a Brexit. It's the depth of the gap, the abyss, the chasm between the grandiose bombastic announcements made by our leaders at every meeting of the European Council and the tiny financial means allocated to these goals. According to our legal experts in France, 70% of the new regulations applying every year in France are now either decided upon in Brussels or decided in Paris, but within a European framework. But when a French person earns 100 euros, he or she pays 45 euros in taxes in France, redistributed in France, and one euro, one small euro, to fund all the European policies. Europe is a giant lawmaker and a budgetary dwarf. And this is, for me, the first cause of the disappointment of the citizens when they see that Europe never or hardly ever delivers. The programme Europe 2020 is doomed to fail for the same reason the strategy of Lisbon fell into the dustbin, no money. This shortage of cash has another harmful consequence. All the more perverse things, it is hidden. It's a consequence of the decision-making process. For want of the money necessary to fund decisions taken on behalf of the Union, by the summit, on behalf of the Union, in its sphere of competence, the Commission turns to the member states to cuff up. But if national budgets are mobilized, we come out of community procedures. Decisions which should be taken relatively easily by qualified majority now requires unanimity of the government. And in several member states, the government cannot even decide without the assent of its national parliament. Consequence, the decisions are much longer, much difficult to be taken, much painful, the process is more divisive, the discussions are more acrimonious, the European spirit gives way to selfish bickering with nationalist accents. For instance, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain need help, the EU budget is too small to guarantee the loans. The relevant decisions will be made not by majority in the national parliament, in the European parliament, but by 18 or now 19 national parliaments. 160,000 asylum seekers gather at the gates in Sicily or in Lesbos Island. The European council meets the first time, decides to break the EU piggy bank and found only three million to fund the budget of front-ex agency. They had to meet a second time to humbly solicit generosity from national coffers. The third shortcoming we have to tackle is the decision-making process of the union, which is now a mess. For want of money, partly, but above all, for want of political will, all the decisions are referred to the summit to the European council itself. And then applies what I call the rule of the three crises on very important subject. When tough decisions are to be made, it is impossible to decide in the European council before a crisis, when it would still be possible to keep a cold head. When the first crisis breaks out, the decision taken is to decide next time. With the second crisis, the decision is made. But it is not before the third crisis that the implementation starts. And sometimes it requires a fourth or a fifth one. It took 22 meetings, dubbed last chance meetings, of the European council to overcome the sovereign debt crisis. After five meetings of the European council focusing on migrations, the decisions taken at the second meeting are not yet implemented. In the meantime, the flux of migrants has doubled. Terrorist attacks have aggravated the problems. Never the distrust or the disappointment towards Europe has been so high in so many member states, even in Poland, where six months ago 80% of the population cheered EU membership. And then the polls have just voted the Eurosceptics into power a few weeks ago. But on the other hand, never the events, the challenges inside and outside, have so much demanded a stronger and more efficient union. We have to choose. Either we follow the fears and prejudices of lots of our citizens, or we stand up to the historic challenges in front of us. Neither the Irish nor the French are peoples who yield to fear. What can we do, make a better use of the treaty, and adjust our decision-making process? And there, time has come for those who want a closer union to stand up and to speak up. I don't say those who want an ever closer, because I don't want to upset some of our common neighbor. But I do say closer, and I do say now, on what issues? First, external relations. We need to speak with one voice and to act together on all external relations. We are negotiating with United States on trade and standards in the TTIP. It's excellent. In the Conference of Paris on Climate Change, we will have one single EU stance. That's good. But we must go beyond that. We share the same currency. There is no reason why we don't have one single representation in the IMF and in all other foreign, international, global fora dealing with banking, with finance, with accounting, et cetera. The digital economy is triggering off revolution everywhere in industry, in working conditions, in society, in our private lives. By definition, the net web is global. It would be insane to have 28 different and conflicting regulations on the protection of personal data. As we are now doing in Paris, the French National Assembly is examining a national piece of legislation. It would be insane, likewise, to establish 28 so-called Google taxes as they did in London a few months ago. Let's regulate the digital at EU level. And let's negotiate with the US the main rules we need to ensure that the net is both an area of freedom, a cloud of freedom, and an area of play. And what applies to the digital economy for me is also, should also apply to, particularly within the EU, to corporate taxation. I have understood that it's a very sensitive issue here. I won't elaborate at this stage, but I will answer on corporate taxation if you want, of course. But now is the time to have a common definition among the member states of what is a taxable profit. When it comes to the hard foreign policy, we need now one and not 28 policy towards Russia. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, we have not been able, neither among Europeans, nor with the Americans, to decide whether from now on, after the end of the Cold War, Russia was to be considered as a potential enemy or a potential partner. We don't know. And without being able to specify that, we have let Mr. Putin to decide instead of us. Likewise, we need a common policy towards Turkey, towards Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism. We need, at long last, one common EU policy towards the crucible of the historic dispute between Islam and the West, the relationship between Israel and Palestine. Realize that, in France, I don't know what is the situation here. Every time an Israeli bystander in Jerusalem is stabbed by a Palestinian, in our friend cities, the Jewish community puts a blame on their Muslim neighbors. And conversely, whenever a Palestinian child is killed by Zahal, our suburbs in France catch fire. To assert this policy, we need a common defense. We boast being the first economic power in the world, the EU. But in spite of 1.5 billion troops scattered among 28 countries and poorly equipped, we are unable not only to wage a real war, but also to deter a middle-sized power from invading their neighbor or bullying their own population. The American, having repeatedly stated that Europe's security was no longer a priority for them, we need to take our security in our own hands, or it will be in the hands of undesirable friends or more undesirable fools. We need also a common policy on asylum and migration. In the short run, we have to control, of course, the exodus. In the longer run, given the deep outlook of the European demography, the best plan will be to establish a quota system along the lines of the Canadian one for economic migrants. Last but not least, we must speed up the reinforcement of the Eurozone in completing the banking union, the capital markets union, and also in presizing what we mean by fiscal union. We, on the continent, particularly in France, we admire, I repeat it, the way Ireland is now born again at the Celtic tiger it was once, but the continent is still lagging behind with a very low growth rate in spite of the fall of the barrel oil, the fall of the Euro, and the lavish quantitative easing of Mario Draghi. None of these objectives require a treaty change. All need only political will. Obviously, not all of the 28, even not all of the 19, will be ready to go that far right now. The first step must be to form a coalition of the willing. In France, we have a word, qui même me suive, the one who loves me, please follow me. Those ready to work together on all or on part of such an agenda can set up one or several enhanced cooperation to move forward. You are here in the run-up to your general elections. In France, we are preparing for our primary elections before our next presidential elections due in spring 2017. You must be aware, and it is my message, that a new French generation, I cannot pretend to be a member of the new French generation, but I am one of the spokespersons. A new French generation is working to initiate a new chapter of the European saga in the hope that Ireland will be intent on being part of it. Thank you.