 I'm Dirk Holmans, Co-President of the Foundation and Director of Oracle's The Flamish Green think-tank. As we learned yesterday during our first talk, people are following these talks from all over Europe via live stream on Facebook, which is great. And so you also can follow it without having an account. As we want to make it an interactive session, you can put questions through chat on Facebook, but you can also do it on Twitter using the Jeff Europe account. As I said already yesterday, I really want to repeat this. The corona crisis is of course in the first place a health crisis, which has to be dealt with in the best way. This is priority number one. But the crisis is also changing our societies in profound ways. It has resulted in a huge economic crisis. Therefore, it is really important to have a better understanding of the impact of the crisis. How does it affect people living in different parts of Europe? When you're living in Sweden, Belgium or Spain, this really can make a difference. Next, we want to explore how we can imagine a better world after corona. And organizing a better world after corona, we have of course already to do it today. I'm very happy to announce two inspiring speaking today. We have Philip Lombards, who is co-president of the Green's AFI group in the European Parliament. And we have Mar Garcia, who is Secretary General of the European Green Party. Mar, I will start with you. The corona crisis is now already affecting several months our societies. It is clear we have to handle this crisis on a coordinated European level. Of course, every country is different. But I think it's clear that only by working together, we can manage it in a very effective way. And especially, I think for Greens, who are really fighting for more cooperation, more solidarity in Europe, these are very special times. So, from the position of the European Green Party, how do you deal with this crisis? Hello, Dirk. Hello, everybody. First of all, thank you for the invitation. Thank you for also such an inspiring virtual table. Both Dirk and Philip are people that I look when I very often search for inspiration. So, here's what my contribution, yeah. Well, you've also asked me to speak about from my Spanish perspective. I think that I will combine a bit both. I think there are still many open questions about how the post-COVID will be. Where we need the most clarity about is, will there be a vaccine and when will it be available? But also, along, etc., of questions that we do not know today about the evolution of these virus. These are not minor issues for anybody, but especially for those countries must hit by the highest numbers of deaths in Southern Europe, like in Italy and Spain. Let me remind you that according to the World Health Organization from ADATA from the 21st of April, the sum of those infected from France, Italy and Spain represent 20.3 of the total increase and 37.7 of those killed by the COVID worldwide, 37.7. So, those countries, France, Italy and Spain are the three countries whose governments have imposed the strictest confinement. I can explain a little bit more how, as you were pointing out in the beginning, how different it is to be confined in Spain than in Belgium, for example, or in Sweden. But in that sense, I have the feeling the confinement down here is going to take longer and will look pretty different from other countries as the actual confinement has already been. So, when will these answers be available? Really matters, because that will shape in a major way our immediate future, our way immediately after the health crisis is a bit over, yeah? What we do know is the negative health, economic and social effects this crisis has brought, and they are the ugliest the current generation have experienced. So, if you apply common sense to those negative effects, we need to apply unprecedented measures to overcome them, yeah? The shaping of these measures and thus the recovery plans will be the battlefield on my understanding the Greens should aim to influence. I will focus now a bit in my Spanish perception of this crisis. I rarely do that since my responsibility is to represent the European perspective, but I will do so today since this is a bit what you asked me for. This crisis has arrived when the consequences of the big recession caused by the 2008 financial crisis are still very, very present within the Spanish society. Let me illustrate that with some figures that the human greed and the casino economy brought us. We reached level of unemployment of 27%, 55% of youth unemployment. Our public debt went from 36% in 2007 to 93% in 2013. Currently, we are at 95.5. The risk premium rose 600 points and rescuing the Spanish banks costed the magic figure of 63,000 billions of euros, which is approximately 6.3 of our GDP. The subsequent austerity measures brought us a level of poverty, exclusion, social inequalities, very painful social costs that it has been lengthy discussed among the Greens. These memories are still very, very present in our societies. It is still remembered and acknowledged what does budgetary stability mean or the frivolity about the extravagance way of spending of the South that some manifested. Unfortunately, this is the main voice many Spanish citizens have associated to the European Union the last decade, a recipe that was diagnosed through the, was digested through the pedagogy of pain. If we translate the perception to the current crisis that hints GDP drop of 10% and unemployment rent rate of 20% and an increase of the public debt of 10% over horrible figures I mentioned, what the Spanish envisage to come is just a disaster. But let's shine a bit of light. It's obvious that this crisis is not going to last forever because nothing does. And that we are soon going to start a new phase that will require a new setting because too many things are different, too many things have changed. Already what the European Council with yesterday is far from what was the framework only three months ago, the framework that we all were aware of. I hope that Philippe Spains a little bit more about this. For me, there will be no return to the previous normal, there won't be a back to business as usual. So when we talk about recovery, what is at stake in my humble opinion is something that it sounds pretty big and it is actually pretty big. I think that it's what it's at stake is the political reordering of the economy, the political reordering of the economy, not only at a national level, but also if we are able to address it at the European level. Because let's be honest, yeah, there is no way to pay in the short term and with the economic rules that were in place until three months ago, the public spending that will be necessary to face this crisis. Hence, the question will be who will define and which are the new rules in place. I think there is two options basically. The one built only taking the national approach built by narrow provincial mines that understand nations are the only elements to take into consideration when designing the recovery plans and that what is needed is to return to what we had before. For the one that understands that the way forward must come through a united, a common strategy that's strengthened us to face future crisis because let's not forget that we have a scientific proven crisis in front of us and that's the climate one. This one that comes from the ones that understand that we need welfare states set for the 21st century. As for the first option, what this pandemic has already made us all aware of is our extraordinary fragile nations. We've been very fragile as member states. We have been dependent on large global production and distribution change which were not able to guarantee access to the goods that were needed in key moments. We just need to remember the amount of shameful newspaper articles about EU member states competing and speculating in the international market for medical equipment. I think that today the concept of a nation that cares is no longer viable detached from a European caring framework. And in that sense I believe our societies are for the second option and here is where it comes also my positive note. Unlike the period 2008-2014 in which we the citizens were victims or in the best cases passive spectators of the financial crisis and its consequences, in this health COVID crisis citizens are proactive protagonists, active characters of the film. But then we were forced to assume the lowering of our salaries, the reduction of our hospital beds, the decrease of the number of teachers for our kids without having a chance to intervene beyond what we already did which is voting and some of us did vote for a change. Today though I think that is different and that and that is very important and key. Today it is the citizenship, the one that has taken the option to consciously follow the confinement. Our societies have very clearly understood that it is an act of responsibility to be confined. We wear masks and gloves to protect our neighbors. We give up visiting our loved ones to protect them. We have kept our kids at home depriving them from socializing, from mixing with their friends and we have done that aware, thoroughly understanding, complying, everybody complies with the restriction and recommendations of the authorities. Let me just illustrate this difference on the perception of a regular citizen with an example. In 2008 and on a citizen felt that the deterioration of the welfare state of the public services of the labor market in an individual way. A kid accord the personal needs of each person's daily life. Today I think or I believe this is no longer the case, the threats to our public health and to our welfare states are perceived and acknowledged in a collective level, in a collective way. I think that this is no longer about me not having access to a hospital bed or an operation when I need it on the time that I need it. This is about our health system. This is no longer about my child having two hours less of class a week. This is about the education of this whole generation. In this crisis, the COVID crisis, citizens are active contributors to the solution. While in 2008 and on, they were passive victims. It's a very, very important change, I believe. And this is why I think that we've seen, we've been able to witness so much solidarity also along this crisis. We have the clapping that goes all over Europe every day to thank the workers from the many sectors at eight o'clock. We have massive support of people to provide neighbors with necessary food, shopping facilities, people allowing homeless to stay in their empty apartments. I've also witnessed that. Citizens contributing to local business in order to help them overcoming their sales rock. So I believe that this crisis has also shown the honest solidarity of human being in a generalized way. But to summarize, what is at stake at the new is the new normal, the new rules. And citizens have played that part. It's now time for politicians to play their role. But these politicians will be faced with a society that has memory, that is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, that has been active and solidarity at its most, and that has a comprehensive social perception of what is really important when life is at stake. So the definition of this new normal, of this post-COVID normality will have to take into consideration all these. And I think it's going to be about values. The battle that we're going to have to play is going to be an ideological, a purely ideological one, about which values are the recovery measures going to mirror. And I think that this is where we Greens are best placed. We bring along the values our societies are ready to embrace, because they're the best recipes to become resilient, sustainable, and just. And in that debate, Europe, the role of Europe is going to be at the very center. The recovery measures cannot be like the ones that were used and put in place in 2008. I'm convinced that they will not be the same, but the Greens have to fight for a recovery plan that also highlights our priorities. I think that until now, we have been able to highlight two issues that nobody dares at that stage of the crisis, dares to contradict. A joint European response to the crisis is needed, you know, and the confirmation that COVID is a new symptom of the main and more serious disease that afflicts the planet. And that it's unsustainability. So just to finalize, I mean, I believe the only possible way forward is that one committed to solidarity, sustainability, and shared progress. I very honestly believe that the public opinion is going to back our proposals. And at least from a very humble position, this is the endeavour of the European Greens. Thank you very much for this first answer, and I think it's already very informative. We need a political reordering of the economy. It will be a more collective response. There's an emphasis on values, the values we choose will guide the way we will rebuild our society, our economy. I think that's very clear. I just was informed that Philippe will join us within a few minutes. So let me ask you, meanwhile, this question, Mar, having said this, that we have to steer on values. How do you look at the European Commission? How have they dealt until now with the crisis? Well, I think that they have not tried their best, to be honest. I mean, von der Leyen herself already publicly admitted and apologised to the Italians at the very beginning of the crisis, the Italian call for solidarity. So I think that one illness of this current European Union is the lack of strong leaders with a clear plan on how to bring this European Union further. And I think this has been something that this crisis has shown, the way the answers have been addressed until now. So I wish that the current European Commission shows a bit more of this leadership and this clarity on what type of recovery plan they want to put forward. I believe they're going to present it next week, if I'm not mistaken. So very much looking forward to see what they come up with. There's, of course, already a plan on the table for some months. It's the Green New Deal. Some parts of it, like from to fork, seems to be postponed a few weeks. Should this Green New Deal be kept on the table reinforced? What role should it play? My humble opinion is there is no way this Green Deal can be postponed. Because if something has proved this crisis, is that we are not prepared. We were not prepared to face. I mean, I was reading also an interview from the minister of, from Spanish minister of technology saying that by far we didn't have a plan for this. Well, we should have a plan for facing the climate crisis. And that should be the Green Deal. We Greens have been advocating for very long time for this plan. I think that there is no more excuses not to have it ready. Okay. Thank you for this comment on the new Green Deal. Philip, if everything goes well, you can hear me. And of course, as the co-president of the Greens, if our group in the European Parliament, you have been following how the European institutions, the commission, the council, the parliament has reacted to the crisis. But I can imagine that for quite some people, it's not very clear what happened and week after week, what were the reactions. So I know it's a difficult question, but could you inform us how Europe reacted until now? It depends on what you call Europe. I mean, if you call that the European Union, there's at least three major institutions in the European Union. Let's start with the commission. Well, the commission has been taken by surprise as we all have. Obviously, we should have reacted, I think, more strongly at the beginning and probably put restrictions to our intercontinental travel. But anyway, I will not point any fingers to anyone because at every level, people were taken by surprise or did not basically get an idea of the magnitude of the pandemic before it became too late. Let's face it. So a blame game is not really interesting. Now, I heard many criticisms about the lack of reaction of Europe, citizens writing to me and expressing frustration. There's two sides to the response. The first side is an institutional one. When it comes to public health and health care, the competencies are at national level. That's fact. So the European Union is not a federal state which has the levers that allows it to impose its direction to 27 member states. That's not how it works. And by the way, there's a parallel here between the pandemic and the asylum crisis. Many people were angry at the European Union for lack of a common response. But then again, asylum and migration are mostly member state competencies. So I could say that basically, if you really want Europe to act, then the first thing that you have to do is to give Europe, European institutions the levers and transfer the competencies there, and then you will be able to judge whether you like the actions or not. But that's only one side of the response. The other side is what has been witnessed by the components of the European Union that is the member states. So yes, indeed, the competencies were in their hands. But when you listen to the prime ministers and heads of states speaking, when the crisis started and when measures were taken, actually every single head of state and government took decisions pertaining to its own country. I mean, when Angela Merkel spoke to the Germans, the word Europe was not mentioned once. And I asked Emmanuel Macron the first few times he addressed the French population. He did not even mention Europe. So basically the message, the implicit message of each member state is we are on our own. We are on our own. And the actions taken by a number of member states, like precluding export of medical equipment from one member state to the other, just confirmed the general perception that actually member states are not showing solidarity. And now we had a council yesterday, which was another of those meetings where this lack of solidarity becomes blatantly obvious. So that is maybe the more fundamental reason why people are not happy about Europe. It's because governments in Europe prefer to play their own game. And that's a fact. I mean, facing such a crisis, I mean, if at European level the leaders, as they like to call themselves, I mean the heads of states and governments, like to call themselves leaders, if they do not send a very clear message, dear fellow citizens, we are in this together and we are going to come out of this together and backing up that strong statement by strong actions. If that is not coming, then you may come to wonder, and I know that many in Italy, in Spain and in other countries feel like that, why do we have a European Union to start with? In such massive crisis, basically it's everyone on its own. And so I do believe that, and that was again, abundantly yesterday, the heads of states and governments do not believe that we are in this together. I would say there's diversity, of course, around the table. And let's face it, you may like Macron or not, but at least he's been very outspoken in the Financial Times and in his statements that this is a time of truth for the European Union. But the fact is that between saying this and building the coalition to force solidarity to happen, there's a gap. And I mean, France here should have teamed up with Spain, with Italy, so you would have the number two, number three, number four economies of the Eurozone to basically corner the so-called virtuous states who are not that virtuous at all, and basically create tension within the council. And you know the way to do that is to basically say, okay, well, we need to react together. If the 27 don't do it, then there will be a coalition of the willing doing it. And I do believe that that will have governments like the German government, the Dutch government seem twice. Because then they will start realizing that the risk is a breakup of the Eurozone, a breakup of the European Union. And then they will maybe come to realize that actually it's not a matter of showing, I would say, charity to one another. It's a matter of common interest. And that is what is totally lacking. I mean, you still hear very much, and especially when you listen to the Dutch finance minister Wopke Buxtra, who is coming from the Christian Democrats, the terms he uses are moral terms. It's like they are the virtuous ones, and they are the lazy ones or the sinners, basically. And then that creates the opposite discourse in the south, where basically they call those countries or those governments as the egoists, the people who cannot show solidarity. We should get out of this moralistic debate. This is a matter of common interest. But the fact is that most of the heads of states and government do not see the response as a matter of common interest. And of course, citizens are not stupid. They feel this. Meeting after meeting, they realize that solidarity is not forthcoming. And if solidarity will be forthcoming, everyone will realize because of the duration to take the decision that this will be a reluctant solidarity. It will be a food dragging solidarity. And if this is what Europe is about, then I understand that many people will want to turn their backs on Europe. This is an existential challenge to the European construction. And we have to realize that. I'm proud to be part of a political family that has grasped this. Because again, if you speak with Greens, not just in the south, but in Germany, in Finland, in Austria, et cetera, they, we all sing to the same pinch. And this is what we're proud of. But then again, we represent 10% of the European population. So, well, we need allies. Okay. Thank you for this first response. You described very well what is lacking at the European level. I can imagine the Greens are developing their own proposals, their own package. What kind of package we need to really install responsibility of common economic recovery plan and solidarity plan also from the financial point of view? Well, first, the first issue that, well, the first question that you need to answer is a size. Because in such circumstances, it's obvious if you want keep our economy from collapsing, and if you want to give ourselves a chance to reorient it, well, you need massive, massive investments. And here we're talking about mobilizing between 1 and 2 trillion euros, that is between 1000 and 2000 billion euros, right? Now, you might say this is enormous. Well, actually, the GDP of the European Union is between 13 and 14 trillion, right? A year. So we are not talking about something that is out of our reach. It's perfect within our reach. We need to mobilize that. Now, second thing is who needs to mobilize that? Let's be clear, it won't be the market. What this pandemic does is reminding us that when vital interest of society is not the market, it's the state, it's all democracy that has to take over. And so there's hierarchy between the two. The defense of the general interest is the task of democracy, not the task of the markets. And therefore, you need leadership from the governments at all levels, I mean, European, national, regional, local. And there's a parallel to be drawn with the new deal of Roosevelt. Basically, the economy had collapsed, and it was only the initiative of the state that kickstarted the economy again. So the state takes the initiatives, I mean, the governments take the initiative, the size counts. So between one and two trillion, three, it has to be for the long haul. You cannot just say, okay, let's do an effort for the next two years. We are gone for probably a decade of reinvestment and reorientation. And that has to be funded by long-term debt. What? Debt? Yes, debt. Of course, debt. I mean, when again, vital interests are at stake, you need to commit massive amounts of means now for, in order to guarantee your future. And just to take an example, and that's another one that came 10 years after the meltdown in 1929, and that's World War II. I mean, when the British government decided to continue the war against Nazi Germany, they did not reflect in the sense of can we afford it? Or is it good for the economy? Or do our budgetary rules allow for that? No, perception was this is a vital threat to all societies, and therefore we will do whatever it takes. And you know what? The war debts of the British government that they were incurred during World War II were finally reimbursed in 2008. So we have to go for the long haul. And the final point, and this is again where the hands of states fall short, it has to be collective. It cannot be individual member states borrowing in order to do their part. It has to be done together. And there I would say it's a matter of solidarity, of course, because when there's divergences within the eurozone, within the European Union, not all member states are in the same fiscal position in the same economic structure are impacted the same way. I mean, when 10, 15% of your GDP depends on tourism, you are not in the same position as if 20% of your GDP depends from the wood industry. So I mean, you are not hit the same way. And therefore, if we leave it to member states, I guarantee you, don't forget the eurozone crisis, the tensions within the eurozone will explode and it will lead to the explosion of the eurozone and therefore the European Union. It has to be together. Now people say, yes, so that the lazy ones can benefit from the good signature of the virtuous ones. No, that is not the thing. Of course, the collective signature of the European Union is of good quality. But it has to do not just with the fact that Germany is on board. It has also to do with this thing that has played in favour of big financial multinationals in the past, but that should play in favour of the European Union that is being too big to fail. Together, we are too big to fail. And therefore, that gives us strength in the financial markets as well. So collectively, we can do it. But then again, if we go separately, I bet you the European Union is living its last decade. Because not only not only we will basically create this unity and create divergence within the European Union, but I know a number of people outside of the European Union who will just blow on the flames and try to aggravate the situation. Look at how Xi Jinping is acting. Look at how Vladimir Putin is acting. Look at how Donald Trump, I mean, they wish the solution of the European Union and now the British government would very much like that. Because they can go back to the traditional geopolitical action of the United Kingdom that is divide the continent and play one against the other. Frankly speaking, we've been there before and we don't want to get there again. Okay, thank you very much. Maybe, Philippe, another question. You talked about the Council yesterday, which was very disappointing about the Commission. What is the role of the European Parliament at this moment? Let's face it, and now we realize it even more. I mean, democracy is about not just voting stuff, it's about debating, deliberating. And there, let's face it, when human beings cannot meet with one another, well, deliberation is made more complex. And yes, of course, we can use tools such as this one. But frankly, if you've been in a parliament, if you know how collective mind shaping happens is by direct interaction of people with people. And therefore, yes, the parliament is at the moment on a slow burner. We are, well, aching to get back to work, but we are touched by the pandemic, all the same as anyone else. So at the moment, the parliament is indeed trying to have its voice heard, we adopted a resolution last week, but then again, working at a distance does not allow you, well, as I said, to deliberate, but also to express positions with all the nuances that you need to be exactly to the point. And therefore, well, we will be heard, we will work again on legislation and there will be a lot of legislation to adopt in the next few months. But bear with us for the moment, because, well, as long as we cannot reconvene physically, it's going to be quite difficult. And that's the case for every parliament. Now, there's a risk and inherent risk there for democracy. Because indeed, in many member states, and they factor at the European level, the executive branch has special privileges in crisis situations. And the risk indeed is that you weaken every day more the other branches of government that is a judiciary and the end of legislation. And in some member states, it goes further than that. It's weakening the media. It's basically putting the parliament out of business. And this is one of the risks of this crisis is that the natural tendency of executives to grab power will of course play at the maximum in a crisis situation. And we need to get back to a more normal way of functioning with checks and balances, which are at the heart of democracy. Okay. Thank you very much. Also, this physical meeting is of course quite different from this virtual meeting. I mean, it's quite different from a physical, but we are happy that we are receiving questions from people over all over Europe. And, Mar, there's a question for you here. Somebody writes, I was very happy to hear you believe we need welfare states fit for the 21st century. What is your vision for them? Yeah. Okay. Sorry. I think I'm messing with the microphone also with the host. So sorry about that. Yeah. Well, what has been also seen after the consequences of how the 2008 financial crisis was dealt with that I was mentioning before is that the circumstances in which the different member states have faced the current crisis have not been exactly the same. And this is not entirely due to the way the member states were handling their welfare systems. I've always pointed out that the different historical circumstances all over Europe have also had an influence on how the democracies have arisen. I mean, the fact that the central and northern European cities were developing their democracies in the 50s and in the south countries we were on the dictatorship and only 20 years after we were able to solidify our democracies have had an impact, of course, in the development of their different welfare states. But what's on top of, let's say, the development of the democratic and welfare systems, we had to support some of the countries was the consequences of the austerity measures that were applied. And when I think about the 21st century welfare states, I believe of well-funded, as Philippe was mentioning, well-funded governments, well-funded states that are facing and have the priority of fulfilling the needs of the citizens in order to develop their lives at their best. So I believe that a reordering and reshaping of the different public services needs to be done because the last round of the last 10 years have been about privatizing and prioritizing market-oriented decisions rather than the fulfillment of the citizens' necessities. Okay, thank you. Philippe, there's a question for you. What will happen to the green European deal during and after this corona crisis? Well, actually, I'm an optimist, but I think that, of course, there will be resistance, but guess what, there was already resistance before the pandemic. But actually, I do believe that in the perspective of the green transition that this crisis offers opportunities. Let me explain. Indeed, when the pandemic struck, you had a number of players screaming that, you know, this was not the time that because of this pandemic, we should postpone. Who were these people? Well, the people who before the pandemic were already saying that. It's exactly the same people. So they just found a new alibi, a new excuse to back up their conservatism. What I didn't see really are new players coming to the front saying, well, we were in favor, but now we change our minds. This I didn't see so much. Now, interestingly, the European Commission which decided to put a European Green Deal at the heart of its policies as firmly, well, stands squarely behind the European Green Deal. Now, don't mistake me. I mean, obviously, the European Green Deal proposed by the Commission is insufficient in any ways incoherent. I mean, having your European Green Deal where you say, don't change the trade policy and you don't change the common agricultural policy is a bit of a weak Green Deal. But actually, there's a lot already in the Green Deal, but indeed, the common agricultural policy and the trade policy are not covered and they have major importance. So we need to fight to expand the Green Deal. But at least the European Commission has given absolutely no sign to back up from that. Now, if you look at the parliament, the parliament has reaffirmed and that was, to me, one of the main elements of the resolution we adopted last week. The parliament has affirmed its majority position of making the Green Deal at the heart of our recovery strategy. So I would say on that side, we are covered. So where is the problem that were, well, where it was before the pandemic with the member states? And you can think of a number of member states who are actually actively resisting to the Green Deal. You might think, oh, okay, it's a usual suspects, Poland and the Czech Republic. And hey, hang on one second. Look to Germany. I mean, Germany has been one of the major stumbling blocks, again, any serious climate action in Europe, despite the perceptions. I mean, Germany defends diesel, defends coal industry, hates change. Therefore, we will still face these oppositions, obviously. But there's also a coalition of member states who want to be ambitious on that. Now, that's the institutional aspect. Why do I say that I believe that the Green Deal stands more chances to happen? I mean, the Green Deal. I mean, the ecological and social transition. Why do I believe that this pandemic helps? Because it is shaking our societies very deeply. I mean, many things that have been considered common wisdom in decision making circles have become suddenly much harder to defend. For instance, that the market always knows best. Well, we know it's not the case. That the global scale is always the scale. People now speak about relocalization and not just the Greens. That efficiency is everything. Well, actually, efficiency, maximizing efficiency is always to the detriment of resilience, that is the ability to withstand shocks. So, on many aspects, things that were considered common wisdom have been proven false. And I would just like to take, again, the example of Emmanuel Macron. I mean, Emmanuel Macron was elected on a platform in social and economical terms that was totally neoliberal. So he wanted to bring to France the neoliberal reforms that were made elsewhere. I mean, tax reforms that favored the rich, reducing the public services, trusting the market for everything, adapting France to globalization. One of the first speeches of the same Macron, who is a neoliberal economically, after the beginning of the pandemic, he praises public services. He praises resilience. He praises relocalization. He says globalization is going too far. You might think, hey, hang on. This guy doesn't believe anything of what he says. Probably not. But the fact that he feels compelled to utter these things means that, in issue, public opinion has shifted. And that is original discourse, pro-globalization, pro-rich, pro-inequality, pro-market against public services, that this simply doesn't make it again. And if he wants to win, he needs to change course. Now, how credibly is that? I leave to the French citizens to decide. I wouldn't believe him too much. But the fact that he has totally changed discourse shows that something is playing, or at least within the political class, that those who were the defenders of the status quo of neoliberal globalization feel on the defensive. And you know what? When they feel on the defensive, I go on the offensive. And that's what we are going to do the next few months and years. Okay, thank you. It's a bright explanation. We have other questions. One question for Ma is that you also see with the corona crisis rising extremism. And how should we fight this also negative evolution in society? Well, I didn't exactly say that, or at least I don't recall it. But I do have pointed out two options that I believe that were the only possible. The one that, you know, took the member, the states, the nation-state as the element in order to build the recovery plan. And that understood that a shared common progress was needed in order to build that upon. I mean, the extremisms have been there for the last decade, or even longer. And unfortunately, they took a bigger space than we would have liked it. But I've also said it, and that was before the crisis. It's still valid. Now, they failed to achieve the majorities that they wanted in order to become the majoritarian, let's say, field in the European Parliament. That Phillips is not much better than me. So despite the sizes of the different groups have changed, they didn't manage to win, let's say, the battle against the idea of the Europe that we dreams fight for after the European elections. Okay, thanks. And I have another question. I want to ask you. Somebody's writing that we shouldn't only focus on Europe, but of course, other parts of the world like Africa are also very hard affected by the crisis. And so, how could we as Europe play a role to build more global solidarity with these other regions that are really under dire shock? I would mention two things. First, there will be a need of debt restructuring and debt cancellation. Because obviously, the economic shock that will come to Africa will be even more destructive than what we have known. And it comes on top of the plagues that have hit Africa in terms of autocracy, war, resource exhaustion, climate change. So the pandemic comes on top of that. And they are much less well equipped than we are materially to face the things. So we will need financial help. The other thing is that there will be a big battle once medications and vaccines exist against the coronavirus, because as you know, the pharma industry, they are basically rent seekers like any other multinational and they want to milk the cow. And especially when there's an emergency, they want to get a windfall from that. And there we will need to be very strict in terms of lifting intellectual property rights on those medicines. Sorry, life comes before profit. And there, the European Union can do a lot if it wants to. But then again, it's going to be at the expense of previously orthodox economic thinking. Again, I do believe that our faiths are intertwined between Africa and Europe. And we have historical responsibilities towards that continent. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but we cannot just look the other way. We will need to play an active role here, together with the African Union knowing full well that governance issues will stand in the way that we are not dealing with a host of democracies while functioning institutions. But anyway, life comes first. And we will need to do our part. Okay, thanks about what the ideas of the Greens are for these new welfare systems and how this is connected with the relocalization of economic production. And I think in Spain, in Barcelona, we already have some good examples of it. And you can combine this with, let's say, the initiatives, the solidarity of people producing their own mask and so on. So what could be the role of more local production and local communities in this? I'm going to also ask Philip to jump on this, because it doesn't belong to me to explain a little bit. Maybe Philip, you can give a hint of this recovery plan and measures that the Greens are already discussing to face the post-COVID, where these issues are hinted there. I was pointing out, and that doesn't have to be that much about exclusively the recovery, at least that to Philip. But what I was also pointing out, and I would like to underline because Philip has hinted about these holy ideas that are now being questioned is a bit what I was mentioning when I was pointing out the level of generalized solidarity that has been on the ground in our communities. That is probably what I believe that is making the politicians questions the holy truths that were until now on the ground and ideologically assumed and is making people like Macron delivering this change of this message. Nothing to do with the real localization question, but I wanted to just comment before what is probably going to be the last question. Okay, thanks. So then we go to Philip for this question on industrial policy. Yeah, well, it's not just industry policy, but this issue of real localization is very important, because this is also a place where the national populists have a field day in the sense that they will say we can only rely on ourselves if we want to be resilient. And there may be a temptation to say, okay, let's do everything local, and so we will be self-reliant. But actually, if you think in terms of resilience, that is not the best way to achieve resilience. I mean, shifting from everything global to everything local makes you vulnerable as well, because if you are hit and basically you live on the sort of island, well, basically you cannot call upon others to help. So isolation from the rest of the world is not the best recipe yet. Full-scale globalization isn't either. So we really need to again get out of this simplistic world view where efficiency is all an efficiency measured by profit. Bigger, longer, further, faster is always better. For some things, you need the scale. I mean, you may like or dislike airplanes, but if you want to build an intercontinental airplane, no, every country will not design and build such things, right? So you will need to do that at several places in the world, but you don't need one aircraft manufacturer in Belgium and another one in Luxembourg and another one, etc. You get my point. Conversely, so for some activities, global is the right scale. But let me take food. I mean, what sense does it have to import milk powder in Europe from New Zealand? I mean, exactly at the other side of the planet. What sense does it make to import in Europe beef and pork meat from Canada, as was agreed, as part of the CETA trade deal? I mean, this is stupid. It is stupid climate-wise, but it is also stupid in terms of self-reliance. You know, the original Common Agricultural Policy was about basically food sovereignty, giving Europe the ability to provide its own food. That doesn't mean that you don't exchange food with the rest of the world. There's stuff that you can grow in other parts of the world that you can't grow in Europe, okay? But most of it, you are self-reliant. And that's obvious. Well, now we have a Common Agricultural Policy that drives efficiency for the European farmers to be able to sell on the global markets. That is stupid. That is stupid and criminal, I would say. And that is where you need a drastic change, of course, and bring the Common Agricultural Policy back to its original goal, which was ensure food sovereignty for Europe, not at country level, but at a continent level. So again, it's not Belgium should be isolated, but the whole market is basically in union. That's how it should be. Because actually, Europe is not that big. It's 2% of the land on this planet, so it's quite small. But we should be able to basically be self-sufficient in terms of food. And again, that doesn't mean that you cannot import bananas from Central America, no problem. But this is a sideshow. The main show is basically we make the food that we need. And that increases resilience. But then again, it's not like that for every domain. Another good example that, well, the crisis made me aware of is that for basic drugs, such as paracetamol, so a simple painkiller, Europe is 100% dependent from basically India. Does that make sense? Hang on one second. I mean, resilience comes, of course, from reducing the complexity of a system. And indeed, when you reduce it, well, basically, you make it sturdier, but it may be less financially efficient, but that's life. But also, multiplying the sources that indeed, well, maybe we can still import paracetamol from India. But maybe not all of it. Maybe we can do some stuff locally and import some stuff. And then the more sources you have, the more resilient you are too. But again, to me, the critical thing in terms of policymaking is not so much the distance argument. It's the resilience argument. So the idea that, yes, you need to make trade-offs with efficiency in order to be more resilient. Of course, having multiple sources is costlier than having only one. Well, you might dispute that because you may have competition and that may drive prices down. Again, having a local supplier, it may be more expensive, but then again, you can rely on it. Look at this issue of masks now. We are receiving masks from China, which are basically not up to standards. Yeah, of course, because they see a business opportunity and they think some producers think that they can sell junk to Europe. And given the emergency, junk will be sold at good prices. Well, if you have several suppliers, well, maybe you will be in a better position. So we should really... How should I say? I mean, I'm not saying that we should forget about that issue. The point is that in all things, the neoliberal revolution of globalizing to simplistic solutions, maximizing one thing, profit, efficiency, and there we should be smarter because the world is complex and you need to think with the complexity of the world and say, okay, yes, we can strive for efficiency, but there's limits to what we are going to accept in terms of losing resilience. It's always, I mean, all decisions in our lives are trade-offs. We need to find the right balance. And I believe that what Corona has shown is that all societies were totally and still are totally out of balance. Okay. More resilient and basically your immunity system works better. Okay. Thank you very much. I see we're without noticing our time is almost up. I would like to end with a more personal question. All of us in this Corona time are restrained of doing some things we normally do. And so there are certain things we miss. And so my question for you is, what is the first thing you will be doing once the restrictions in place are lifted? So Ma, what would you do? Well, I'm going to be very simple, yeah, because I do have my kid away for medical reasons. Sorry, but the very first thing that I'm going to do is to go and search for him. That's quite clear and obvious. I really wish it can happen very soon. Philippe? Well, very much the same thing. We will bring you all the family at one place, either in Belgium or in France and meet again. We have half the family here and the others are scattered. We're going to bring them together and celebrate. Okay. Thank you. I think this is really something we bring the families back together and celebrate. And yeah, as I said, let's hope it won't take too long. And I will not try to make a summary of this very inspiring hour. The thing that I think two points were really crucial is one, we need a political reordering of the economy based on values such as care and solidarity. The second point is that instead of our economy being based on the efficiency, we really need to start from the point of resilience, how to build a resilient economy, how to build a resilient society. So, Mar and Philippe, I really want to thank you for this special kind of interview. For the people who have been following this, thank you very much. If you really appreciate these kind of talks and you want to allow us to make more, you can make a donation, which would be very much appreciated. And you can find the link in the chat. And I'm happy to already announce you the third session next week, which will be on feminism in post-corona times. So thank you for being with us, and I wish you all the best for the weekends. Bye. Okay, we are not live anymore. So, I see Philippe is already gone. Okay. So, thank you very much. It was great.