 I think given time, we've got about 17 minutes. I'm just going to go to you. I see Elizabeth Guigou, please, and then Jean-Louis, and then Stuart, so let's take three at least. Thank you very much. I really think that the only way to overcome the internal divisions between the European Union is to look at the world around us. China and the United States, I don't think so. It's certainly, as Volcker says, to help you make decisions. The majority vote is obviously the best solution. But my question, which is addressed to Enrico and Volcker, is to say, how do we do to have allies within Europe, the European Union, and allies outside, to do what we want? To have allies inside, to find ways to unite with our vision Europe-Central and Eastern countries. Who have another story? And when the essential is in play, it works, we saw it with Brexit. And allies outside, facing the United States and China, what do we have to do with Africa? We have so many challenges to face. I think it's overwhelming. Immigration, security, climate, youth employment, and complementarity. How do you, if you allow me, how do you check this? The problem is how do we do it? Mr. Krager. On this discussion, I would say that a motion of synthesis, as we would have said in a radical congress, I agree with the two priorities indicated by Enrico, and with the absolutely vital necessity of having a policy of security because of what Volcker has said. To quote another responsible German, it's the famous quote by Sigmar Gabriel. Europe is a continent, a vegetarian union in a carnivore world. So we have to be a little more muscular. My question is, does it seem to me that we haven't talked about and I think it's a lack of our debate. We haven't talked about Russia, and I'm not talking about you, but I'm talking about the other participants, but Russia is extremely important. I mean, the idea that because its PNB is not that of China, but the relationship of power, it's not just the economy, it's the military. There are deep, historical, cultural links that we have with Russia. So let's say, as we say, the impasse on Russia is extremely dangerous. We have an opportunity, as Macron is convinced, he seized it, he proclaimed it, that there is an opportunity with the Ukrainian political evolution, with the general context, to get out of this pin of the foot, to find a solution with Ukraine. And don't you think there is this opportunity? Don't you think that without the sense of illusion of separating Russia from China, which is absurd, at least in human life, it's not reasonable, to find flexibility in the game with a separate relationship and dialectics, if we can say, of Europe with China, as with Russia, obviously with the United States. Isn't there a Russian map to play? Thank you. And then, please, could you give the microphone to Mr. Eisenstadt. And then we'll go back to the presentation. Mr. Eisenstadt, I was U.S. Ambassador of the European Union in the Clinton administration. A brief statement and then a question. I have plenty of scars from negotiating with the EU on sanctions and trade. At the same time, when we need a partner for major issues, whether it's sanctions against Russia over Crimea, whether it is getting a rand of the bargaining table, which led to the JCPOA, if we had done this with China, where we have mutual interest, we wouldn't have the standoff we did now. There is, in my opinion, a bipartisan majority in Congress and certainly in the public for reviving a partnership that the President has said the European Union has created as an enemy of the U.S. So the question is, is there enough patience in Europe to recognize that whether it's in two more years or six more years that there is a body of opinion in the United States that wants to restore this partnership for the great issues or will you feel that you have to go your own way and decouple to use Kevin Rudd's opinion from the United States given the fact we have the greatest trade relationship as well in the world? Okay, thanks. Before we go, let's get Mr. Moratinos, former Spanish Foreign Minister. Thank you because I have to prepare myself for the next session. Very shortly, I fully agree with Hubert and Rico. We need European prisons. There is no other alternative. Number one, the rest is chaos. And we don't like chaos. Number two, how we create these new European prisons with the founding fathers. Today, elites can meet in Brussels. But maybe they will not be able to go to the Salon de l'Orloge or Kedorze to sign the declaration of money in Schumann. So we need maybe the founder's sons. The generation of Erasmus that are the one who has been beneficial of what Europe have done. Number three, I agree with Rico. We need to create a new narrative. And that's my question. What you are going to put in this narrative? Climate change, I will prefer the EDG. It's larger. Not only we all become ecologists, but there is more than ecology in life. We need to have economy. And we have other foreign policy, as workers say, security, what are for you the new narrative. And final point, all of the 27 have to be there? No. We should create a new Copenhagen criteria, a different criteria in order to join this new narrative. And the one who fulfilled them, they are part of the club. If not, well, you belong to another group of friends. Another bit of blasphemy, it's wonderful. Let's go back to the but try to be brief because I'd like to take one more round of questions. Would anyone like to deal with, let's say, the Russia question or Macron's I don't know whether it's whether it's actually a rapprochement or what? Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. European Union and the U.S., thinking that, okay, we have a rendezvous in 2024. I think it will be complicated. And a new China-Europe deal will be the consequence of a new Trump reelection. This is why I think it's so crucial to have a different result next November. Well, I just to a footnote to what Enrique was saying, Stu, in Europe, I think that there is still a critical mass that would just, I would abide by this idea of Madeline Albright of the indispensable nation. We believe that United States is for us, for this international institutional system, for the rule of law system, the United States is the crucial, the architect, the, all this. So this, but honestly, I would add another pessimism to the pessimism that Enrique uttered is that I think that the United States has changed, that we may have a bipartisan, bipartisan agreement in the Hill, but that the United States, and this is why Trump got elected is not any longer there. And that last note of just concern from the European voice is that this change started before Trump was elected. The change in the engagement, this idea that was said of engagement, engaging, shaping, and shaping, and just hedging, I think has changed. The foreign policy of Obama was already a precursor of what we are seeing in foreign policy. It will be better in terms, formal terms, in terms of, if you allow me, just well behaved president, president that doesn't insult the European allies, but, you know, being an ally of yours has never been easy, started to be extremely, extremely difficult under the Obama administration, and frankly, to date it's impossible, and unless this change. But Anna, it's always been fun, it's always been fun, poker. Depending on where you were sitting. Well, I guess for many of us it was more difficult under the George W. Bush presidency than under the Obama presidency because the Iraq war not only was a major transatlantic issue, it also was an issue that threatened to split the EU itself. And I would like to sort of combine the answer to Stuart, to Jean-Louis, and to Elisabeth. We certainly don't want to decouple, but there is an enormous fear that we are being decoupled. And it's not a question of patience, and are we patient enough to wait for another year or for another five years? It is, whether in another five years too much would have changed in the rest of the world to simply bring things back to where they were then 10 years ago or eight years ago, and that will not happen. So always trying to be a positive dialectician here, I think we have to be a little bit thankful to President Trump that he woke us up here in Europe to get our act together. And if we manage, under the impact of the Trump presidency, to get security and defense right in Europe, we will have a better starter position for a more symmetric and better partnership with the new president and the US. And that is what I'm looking forward to. But that is not a question of patience. I mean, we should be a little bit more impatient, I think, with ourselves and probably also with our allies. As to the carnivores and the vegetarians, I think the vegetarians that survive best are those with teas, but it's not about trying to do everything the Americans have been doing in the Alliance before. It's not about a European strategic deterrent, but it is, I mean, that would be my priority, about a credible intervention capability of Europe in its own geographic environment. Because we can go on and saying that we are for peaceful solutions, and we are, and that there is no military solution in Syria, which we have been saying for eight years until there was one, not one that we wanted. We can continue saying that, but it's much more credible if we would have the capability to enforce another solution too, then we can much more credible work for the peaceful solutions. Elisabeth, I think your question needs an answer. How to win back allies also inside Europe? And let me give one example where I think that the current French president, the French president, trying to do the right thing still didn't jump far enough. When there was this summit in spring this year between the Chinese president and the French president, and Macron did a big and good thing by also getting Juncker and Merkel to attend, I think he should at least have tried to get one of the Visegrad four also to be there. That would have made allies inside Europe for something where we know we are not totally on one page, but we could easily be. So I think that's a way to say, if we don't want the 16 out of the 16 plus one to tell us the Germans and the French, if you are having your own bilateral relations with China, why shouldn't we then let's integrate them when we address on the highest level the Chinese president. Thank you, Fokker. I'm afraid we're out of time. My apologies to those who want to ask a question. I tried to give time time time for questions, but never enough. But we're running late and I'm under strict instructions to just ask you to thank the panel and thank you as well.