 People here are having trouble to choose. We would do a tight break now and I want you to make us understandable what's the difference between both of you. The financing of what he talks calls a Green New Deal and what I call a Green New Deal is different. And his financing is based on the idea the European Central Bank buys bonds from the European Investment Bank. In Germany, maybe I can introduce my policy and then you criticize it. If you introduce my policy, then what is my job? You can do it as well. You can turn it around afterwards. But what I want to say is, in the German public debate, even if I agree that European Central Banks can be used in order to finance common goods, in the German debate, this is absolutely toxic. If we do this, we would have not a smaller but a much larger RFD. And this is why the German Greens and the European Greens asked for ending the tax competition game and use the money from a common company taxation to finance the Green New Deal. Was it unfair, Janusz? Incomplete. What we're saying is to begin with, it's important first to work out what is the minimum funding that a genuine green transition requires. How much money do we need to spend on a green transition? We have to work it out. Because you know, the Fridays for future people, when the adults are behaving like children, the children grow up to look at us as adults and point the finger at us and say, you are not doing enough and they are right. What is enough, the minimum of enough, is 5% of European GDP. That's 500 eurozone GDP, let's say. That's about 500 billion every year. That's a minimum that we need to spend to have a genuine green transition in energy, transport, industry and of course agriculture. Where does the money come from? Will it come from taxation, from harmonizing taxes, which are of course we are completely in agreement with. We need to do that. But the most you are going to get over a period of 3, 4, 5 years, by the time you do that, is about 50 billion over 3, 4, 5 years. Really not enough. By the time you harmonize it and you start collecting the taxes. Now let me complete my story and then you can rebut it. What we are saying is, as we speak now, there is something between 2.5 and 3 trillion euros in the financial circuits of the European Union that is doing nothing but harm. It is beating up house prices in Berlin and Hamburg. It is beating up equities, share values because companies borrow it in order to buy back their own shares. It's doing nothing productive and nothing green. What we are suggesting is that the European investment bank, which belongs to all of us, issues bonds of 500 billion every year and the European central bank makes an announcement, effectively reminds us of what it is already doing when this is not a new idea. That it will buy them if there is a need to prop up their price, if there is a need. By making that announcement it will not have to buy them. Suddenly we have 500 billion every year to invest in the green energy union to stop Germany relying on lignite and so on and so forth. With one stroke you have a substantial amount of money, money that can be mobilized and pressed into the service of the environment and good quality jobs in Germany, in Greece, in Portugal, tomorrow morning, within the rules and within the treaties. That is our green union. The problem is, after I read your programme, of course I asked progressive lawyers, is this legal in the treaty what you are proposing? The view of progressive lawyers is if politicians demand and states demand from the central bank in the framework of now a legislation or in the framework of an election campaign to commit on a five-year buying programme announcement, this would be illegal and would be seen as breaking European law. We need economic programmes which allow investments in the green transition to happen. We don't need a new financing programme, there is lots of money in the market, but we need to allow a policy which makes finally environmental destruction unprofitable and green investments profitable. The proposal that we put forward is entirely legal and let me tell you how I know it. I didn't ask any lawyer when I was a governor of the European Investment Bank back in 2015 and that proposal I put to the board of governors of the European Investment Bank and I can tell you there wasn't a single voice in the board of directors of governors of the European Investment Bank who said that it is illegal. Indeed, Werner Hoyer, the president, was very much in favour of it, but the European Investment Bank cannot do it on its own. It needs the green light from the European Union Council. Now, you are quite right. If we have a formal directive to the European Central Bank by those bonds, then you violate the independence pretence of the European Central Bank. But what I'm telling you is that the European Central Bank is already buying those bonds and Mario Draghi, Benoit Carré and everybody else would love to have more EIB bonds to buy. Look at what they did a month ago. Because they have nothing to buy, they don't have good quality green bonds to purchase. They ended up giving another load of cash to buy rubbish bonds, even McDonald's bonds. You know, folks back in diesel bonds, not green bonds. They would love to be able to buy green bonds if they were any, but there aren't any. Thank you so much. Now we have a much better idea about the differences. Please choose your favourite now. We have the first winner, Janos Baropakis. Big applause for the first winner and our second winner is...