 I'm Liz Dibble, I'm the Chief Operating Officer here at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And we are delighted this morning to welcome Michel Barnier, the EU's negotiator for Brexit. When we planned this event, we didn't know it would be quite so timely, but we were lucky in that regard. I think you are all very familiar with Mr. Barnier's illustrious career as a European statesman, first as a politician and a cabinet member in France, and then with the European Union starting with President Barroso when he was president. He was given this very easy task of negotiating the Brexit withdrawal in December of 2016 and has been working very hard at that since then. So we're delighted to welcome Mr. Barnier this morning. He will speak for a few minutes and then we will have a brief conversation between us and then we will take questions from the audience. You all have a copy on your chairs of his PowerPoint presentation. And for those of you watching via the live stream, if you look on the side of the screen, you will see a place to access the PDF file so you can follow along. So without further ado, let's welcome Mr. Michel Barnier. I'm going to go down here. So good morning to all of you in this room and perhaps in the other room and the people watching online. Thank you very much, Elizabeth, and to you and to your team of Carnegie for inviting me this morning. I'm not sure this is an easy task. It's a challenging task. You can tell you to chair this negotiation in the name of the EU 27 member states and with the European Parliament to reach a deal. In fact, I can begin by just a personal remark. I regret this vote of the UK two years ago profoundly. But to respect it, now we have to implement it in the best way as possible. So today I'm finishing my visit in the United States where I wanted to make the European voice heard on Brexit. And just like in Europe, ladies and gentlemen, no one I met in the United States during this week could find any added value to the Brexit. Let me briefly tell you where we are in these negotiations and I'm ready in a few minutes to answer to any question on the slides you find on your chair. On the process of this negotiation and the different elements of we are at stakes. The UK will leave the European Union on the end of March 19, 2019 next year, very few months. This is their decision. Our goal is to ensure an orderly withdrawal. Here is the draft treaty on which we are working with the British delegations. I've published with my team the name of the 27 member states this draft treaty on the legal form. And we have worked a lot with the British negotiators to put in green all the parts of this draft treaty where we agreed both sides. For us today 80% of the content. So we have made good progress. We have agreed on key issues to protect the citizen rights on both sides, 4.4 million people living in the UK or living in the United States to keep their current rights for employment, social rights, residence rights. We agree on the financial settlement between UK and EU. Just sure that what have been decided at 28, the beginning of the budgetary plury annual period will be paid at 28. And we agreed also on the transition period of 21 months until the end of 20, during which we will preserve the economic and social status quo between us. 21 months after the leave. If we agree and if we agree on the financial withdrawal and the orderly withdrawal and on this treaty. That means that to get the legal certainty on everything we need to have a treaty and for this treaty to be ratified. And this transition will give businesses more time to adapt and public authorities also more time to prepare for the new status. However, to be frank, a number of important issues remain open. The most difficult is Ireland where we have to find solutions to avoid the return of our border in the middle of the island of Ireland. I discussed this issue yesterday with the friends of Ireland caucus on Capitol Hill who shared their concern on preserving the Good Friday Agreement. In parallel, we must accelerate now our work and our future relationship with the UK. The European leaders have offered the UK a broad future partnership based on four pillars. You can see in one of my slides. One, an ambitious free trade agreement with no tariff and zero quotas. Two, a specific cooperation in some sector of common interests such aviation. Three, police and judicial cooperation. And four, foreign policy, security and defence. And all these issues. Once again, we want to build a close partnership with the UK in the future and for the long term. We are now analyzing the white paper published yesterday by the UK government. And we will do it in the light of the European leaders guidelines by mandate. And we will assess whether UK positions are workable and realistic. A key element of this future relationship will for sure be about foreign policy, security, external security and defence. And let me focus this short introductory remarks. It's a bit on this key issue if I may. The UK is and will remain an important player in European security. The UK amounts for 20% of European defence spending. It is a nuclear power. It has a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. And it has a large and influential diplomatic outreach. Yet the UK leaving the EU does not put European security at risk. Bilateral relations between the UK and EU countries will continue. The partnership between the EU and NATO will further expand. NATO battalions deployed in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia are not affected by Brexit. And Brexit does not put transatlantic relationship into question. Still, the nature of the EU-UK relationship in diplomacy and defence is bound to change. What does that mean? As a member state, you can shape the European Union's action in diplomacy, development or defence. The UK will no longer be able to do this because it has decided at its own to leave the EU and to leave the Council of Ministers of the European Council. This is simply the consequences of the UK's decision to leave the European Union. But, ladies and gentlemen, we share similar values with the UK. We both promote a rules-based international order. And we will continue to face the same global challenges. Terrorism, cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns and more broadly the stability of our continent. Not a single EU country can solve these challenges alone. This is also true for other kind of challenges such as climate change, poverty, migration or financial crisis. Building on all this, our partnership in defence and security should be ambitious in scope. We should cooperate wherever we share the same political objectives. For example, we will continue defending together the iron nuclear deal or supporting the peace process in the Middle East. It is already clear that we are largely converging on three issues with the UK. Foreign policy, sanctions policy and military operations. And, obviously, modalities of cooperation after Brexit will have to be defined. Exactly what is at stake in the further weeks in my negotiations. In any case, the more the UK will engage alongside the EU, the deeper our partnership is likely to be. Our close cooperation with the UK will not share the network of relationships we have with other partners. Isabel, ladies and gentlemen, did you invest in defence and security as a matter of priority under the impulsion of the 27 leaders and the President of the Commission, Jean-Troit Juncker? It is our responsibility. What we do not do for ourselves, no one will do for us. This is even more true than ever. So we are now running 16 missions. Six of them are military operations to stabilise our neighbourhood, a fight against piracy, disruption or smuggler's trafficking in mediterranean, stabilisation of the Balkans, contribution to the fight against terrorism in the sire. We are reviewing our common structures to be more responsive and more efficient. And we are setting up a European Defence Fund to stop the duplication of weapon systems across Europe, which cannot operate together. It is the first time, the very first time, that the EU budget will invest in military capabilities. Ultimately, my conviction for a long time is that a strong European Defence means a stronger NATO. Just two examples. First, with the European Defence Fund, I just mentioned, the member states have good reason to invest more and better and together in defence. The debate on the European side of the Atlantic is not only on how much we spend, but also how efficiently we spend the money. The European Defence Fund should boost cooperation between member states. Another example of close cooperation with NATO is the military mobility. The EU proposes to invest 6.5 billion euros in infrastructure to facilitate the cross-border movement of military assets. The frictionless transfer of assets and troops across Europe will automatically benefit the EU and NATO. So, the EU and NATO have a strategic partnership as confirmed yesterday in Brussels, in particular in the field of cyber-fight against terrorism or hybrid threats. So, just to conclude, ladies and gentlemen, the UK exacting the EU will not slow down this dynamics. It is certainly, certainly in the interest of the EU, the UK, NATO and the US, that we are strong partners for the long-term insecurity. Thank you very much and now I'm ready to answer and to listen to you. Thank you very much. And saying that this approach would probably kill a US-UK trade agreement. As we speak here, I think President Trump and Prime Minister May are doing their press conference after their meeting today. But does this change the EU's calculus at all or how does this impact how the EU is looking at this next stage of negotiations? Elizabeth, I am in charge of the EU negotiations for the orderly Brexit of UK. And I'm in charge of the negotiations with the UK. EU, UK. UK, EU. I got that. So, I took my role to comment on ongoing declaration just right now. There is a press conference between President Trump and Theresa May. I don't want to comment on this ongoing declaration. As a matter of fact, factually, I can just say that the rules are clear and well known by everybody, including UK, because we have elaborated these rules with the UK for 44 years. We are working on the base of, as I just said in my speech, ambitious free trade agreement with the UK, in particular goods, not only goods, but in particular goods that we did with Japan, Canada or Korea in the last few months or years. And as far as the trade policy is concerned, it's also possible for the UK to ask to be part of a custom union with us on goods. That means, in that case, that the UK will be included in our trade policy for goods, not for the services. So it could be free to have any kind of free trade agreement and services with any third country. So that is a fact. And the rules are well known by everybody. The White Paper was released yesterday, and I know you haven't had a chance to study it in depth, but I'm sure you've read it. I spent a part of my night. I'm sure you did. Were there any surprises in there or anything that gave you perhaps some new openings, some new ways to move forward? My team in Brussels is working clearly on each detail of this proposal. First of all, the fact that the UK discussed about the future is welcome. It's a good thing. On my side, I have to work on the base of our proposal to the UK a few months ago in March. A very precise proposal, very ambitious proposal, clearly described in one of these slides. If you look at this slide, you can see what could be the architecture of the future relationship in our view. I can tell you, never in the past we have proposed such a partnership with a third country. Never. Never. It will be the first time. Based on four pillars of cooperation, economic and trade, specific cooperation where we need to have an agreement with the UK, internal security and external security and the key point of my short speech at the beginning. The second pillar just for you to understand, UK leaving the EU a few months, mechanically, automatically they leave at the same time the day after the 750 international agreements. We have signed the name of the EU for them, 750. Including what we call the single sky. Just an example to show you what means this second pillar. The single sky is a common organization for the European countries to organize the use of the sky. Plane to land, plane to take off, the condition for the pilots, the certification and so on. So we manage all the sky together. UK is leaving. It is their decision. So we have practically, we must have an agreement with UK just for the British Airlines planes to be authorized to land and to take off. And on their side they will have to negotiate with each and every third country in the world, including the United States, such an agreement for their own. But we have to have between UK and EU the single sky, we must have such an agreement. So that is our proposal. Four pillar of cooperation and many toolbox that we have including new negotiations. In looking at the white paper, it does seem that the UK has moved forward in its proposals. And as we all know, Prime Minister May has gotten a lot of criticism and heat at home for what is being termed a soft Brexit. And the accepting harmonization of EU rules and trade, you yourself have said that up till now about 80% of what needs to be agreed has been agreed, leaving the 20%, which is probably the hardest 20%, but in any negotiation it takes to move. Do you see any flexibility on the EU's part? Just to avoid any misunderstanding and confusion. In this long and extraordinary negotiations, unique, and we will do everything for this Brexit to be unique, there is several steps. And we have to put a step in the right order. The first step is about the divorce, the separation, the UK asked for. And we are organizing this orderly withdrawal, much better than a disorderly withdrawal, through this treaty. It is a precondition. And what I said about the 80% agreed is about this treaty. The White Paper published by the UK yesterday and the guidelines published by the EU leaders in March are about the future relations. So what did that take is clearly the finalization of this treaty from now until October, a few months, or November. And on the side of this treaty, which has been ratified the next months after, we have to publish a political declaration, a political declaration about the future relations. That is why this White Paper is useful and why we have to check it to assess it in the line of my guidelines. So two different exercises. A withdrawal agreement through a treaty, this paper, and a political declaration on the side. And obviously we will have to negotiate. But I have to negotiate on my side, on the base of the guidelines, very clear guidelines of the European Council. The European Council is a council where the 27 leaders, 27 head of state and government meet every three months. And they gave me a very clear mandate to negotiate with the UK and to protect the interests of the 27. That means that we have to protect the mainstream of the European Union, the single market. And to be clear, the UK knows perfectly what it means because we have built the single markets with the UK for 44 years. And I can tell you because I have been a commissioner in the political market for 25 years, 20 until 24, just after the crisis. Rebuilding with the UK, our architecture of regulation, the same time that the US built your own response to the crisis through the Dodd-Funk Act. So the UK has always had a very huge, real degree of influence on the single market. They knew the rules, the rules are clear, and the foundations are clear. We are, these foundations are linked to the four, what we call the four freedoms. Freedom of movement for people first, good services and capital. So we have to work in the framework of these four freedoms to find the best solution as possible, the federation with the UK. You mentioned March. To be clear, I can just repeat that it could be strange and there is no reason, no justification for us to unravel what we are because the UK is living. So we have to work. The UK is living, to the contrary. So we have to protect what we are, to be open, but not at the detriment of the principles and the foundations of the single market. But is this a time, a point in time? I mean, yes, you're right, the UK is leaving and the rest of you are staying. But does that mean that, I mean, there are other places in Europe where you're hearing concerns, complaints about the rules and regulations of the EU. Is this a point perhaps when the EU could take a look at taking a more flexible approach to its relations with countries that are not full members? Be precise. I'm meeting one per week in the capital, the prime minister, the national parliaments, the stakeholders, the business community and trade unions. I'm listening and I'm a politician. I'm not a super technocrat of research. So I think we have to deal with the consequences of the Brexit, but also to draw the lessons of the Brexit. And to listen to the people, not to confuse what it's called populism with a popular sentiment. And we have to listen to the people and to draw the lessons, to change what needs to be changed. But I did not listen any critic on the way the single market is working today. The single market is a foundation. It is our common and strongest asset. While the US business could, coming to one country, be open to the same time immediately with 27 member states, same rules, same certification, same standards, same supervision. That is a single market. So there is no critic in the context about what we are as a single market. It's a base for all the European business and for all the European citizens and consumers to be protected the same way and to be supervised and to be certified in the same way. And the top of this is common jurisdiction. When you are leaving this ecosystem of rules, standards and norms, you become a certain country. But at the point, it is a legal point. But to be more precise, I think that we need flexibility for some of our policies. And we are already the tools, the right tools for flexibility. For instance, some countries of you are not members of the Eurozone. Some countries are not members of the Schengen zone. Some countries are not members of the structured cooperation and defense. So I think that being 27, no longer 28, we need flexibility. I agree with you. But the mainstream, the foundation of the EU, which is a single market for the very beginning, never forget what happened at the very beginning after the Second World War. State men, Jean Monnet, Adenauer, Schumann decided to meet themselves and just to avoid that begin again the war between us, they decided to silent, to consolidate the political will through the economy. It was the first community for steel in the 50s. And after the current market through the Treaty of Rome and after the single market. So this point is the foundation of the EU. And it's difficult to compromise on this foundation. No, and it's... But I need it for many policies because we are 27, 28, we need some flexibility. Just to be more precise, in our treaty, the European Treaty, we have a tool for the flexibility. It's called the ENCE Corporation. So that means that some countries can go on the way further, take initiative, and the other are not obliged to follow immediately. You mentioned... It's sometimes strange when we are in Washington and the US to explain what we are. I'm sorry, but the functioning of the EU is complex because we are not a federal state, we don't want to be a federal state. We are 28 nations, 28 people, 24 national languages, 28 national identities, different culture, different tradition. Each and every of the European countries want to keep its difference. No, it's legitimate. The French people want to keep their difference, the Germans too. So the point is for 60 years we succeed to pull this national policy, part of our sovereignty, without merging everything. United doesn't mean uniform. That is why it's so complex to make the EU working. When I am, just to give you an example, it could be strange in the US because you speak the same language. When I am at the European Council meeting, or the European Parliament meeting to speak about Brexit, all around the room, large room, we have 24 cabins with interpreters. Two interpreters in each cabin, translating immediately what I say in English or in French in 23 other languages. This is complex, this is costly. So it could be less complex, much more, much less complex, much less costly, we can supreme, supreme. All the cabins and speak the same language, English. I don't want to monopolize the time, but I'm going to ask one more question. The European people don't want this kind of uniform Europe. That is why it's complex. Yeah, I'm not sure the British people got that message. Maybe if they had before we wouldn't be, you wouldn't have a job right now. I work lots with the British people for a long time. I've been two times commissioner. I was clearly in a very positive way with them. For instance, for the financial regulation, which is a very sensitive issue for them, I rebuilt the architecture of the financial regulation in Europe after the crisis. 41 regulations for banks, markets, actors, products. And we succeeded for 39 of the 41 regulations to get the UK on board, the city on board with this regulation. It was by chance, it was my strategy to put in place this regulation, not against the city, but with the city. It was by chance. In the UK, one of the countries, France and the other, want to keep its difference, not to be merged. It is legitimate. Alright, last question for me and then we're going to go to the audience. You said that March 2019 is the deadline. What if there isn't an agreement? Chosen by the Brits. Chosen by the Brits. When Mrs. Maison is a letter in March 2017, she chose the date and she knows at that time that two years after the legal base of the treaty, the date of the withdrawal and the Brexit, the date of the Brexit has been chosen by the UK government itself. Two years of negotiation and if everything goes well, I work in that sense, starting for this date of March, begin the transition period where we will maintain the status quo for economy, the single market and the policies for the UK for 21 months. What if everything doesn't go well and what kind of contingency plans are you making? It's an ambitious negotiating schedule. As you rightly point out, it was determined by the Brits when they triggered Article 50, but what if you can't reach agreement? On both sides, we have to be prepared. If you look at the white paper and the communique of Mrs. Maison, at the end of this, she spoke about the contingency planning and the preparedness for the risk of no deal. This risk exists. My option is not the no deal. My option is to reach a deal for the common interest and stability of this continent. I am working with my team to reach a deal respecting the rules and principles of the EU and respecting the red lines of the UK. But we have to be prepared to any options. In any case, we have to be prepared. The companies, the businesses have to be prepared in any case for the Brexit because to be frank and to tell the truth, Brexit means that it cannot be business as usual. It cannot be. If you look at my favorite just slide, no copyright. You can see on one side the different model of cooperation with third countries. We have already, for a long time, the most integrated being member of the EU and in any case, ladies and gentlemen, the best relation with the EU will remain to be member of the EU. The best relation with the EU will remain to be member of the EU. The second best will be to be a member of the EEA, the European space of economy, like Norway. Norway is out of the EU but is part of the single market and respecting the rules. And the last one is what we call that we are ready to work with the UK about a free trade agreement like Canada, Korea or Japan. But all these steps, all these models are available for the UK including Norway plus being part of the single market plus a custom union. It is their choice. And I put on the other side of the paper the red line of the UK, the current red lines. They don't want to respect the court of justice. They don't want to pay. They don't want to respect the freedom movement of people which is a key point for us in the single market. They don't want to be part of our trade policy. They want to be independent. So we respect these red lines but respecting these red lines, they close the door themselves. That's the point. They go down the stairs. It's simple. Let's open it up to the audience. Please wait for the microphone. Identify yourselves and make it a question, not a statement. Let's start right here. Hello Mr. Barnier. I'm Juliet Bremenner from ITV News. Mr. Trump, I know you said you don't want to talk about him but his advice is that we should walk away and we should leave the EU. There's a growing number of people... Who is we? Sorry, the UK. I'm British media. Sorry. Mr. Trump's advice is that the UK should walk away and there are a growing number of people in the country who appear to think that might be the best option. Surely that must worry you as someone who's supposed to be negotiating a deal and one you say you want. But I already say, Madam, I don't want to comment on the declaration, the ongoing declaration of Mr. Trump in Europe. I will not change my position from the last 10 minutes. But the UK is leaving. The UK is leaving. This is the choice of the majority of the UK citizens. We respect this vote and I'm working for last year hard work to deliver this decision to withdraw the UK. The point is to know if we want another withdrawal which is a common interest between us or not. I'm working for another withdrawal. But I'm working for a withdrawal because it's a choice of the UK government. Good morning. My name is Sanjin Choi and I'm a partner. Mr. Banier, thank you so much for lucid and succinct remarks. You mentioned the US, the UK and the EU trade going into the goods market. You said you can envision a custom union. My question is with the service sector. You have been commissioner for financial services for five years. So my question is with regard to the financial services industry. It appeared to me that white paper chose a good industry as soft Brexit. In contrast, services which comprised of 80% of the UK economy chose hard Brexit. My question is very specific with regard to the continued contract in the financial industry. At the moment there is a joint working group between Bank of England and ECB. With the new white paper proposal, I would be very interested in your view to get your exceptionally well-qualified as a financial services commissioner. Thank you very much. I don't want the public to go into details, but you are speaking about a part of the preparedness and the continuity planning we need in case of no deal, but also in the case of orderly withdrawal. In any case, we need to check very carefully what could happen in the financial market. So the reason why we have created between the Bank of England, the ECB, a working group, and we are working clearly to identify the risk, to mitigate, to put the private sector in front of its own responsibility, and I think the private sector has first of all to be prepared and to look carefully at their exposure to the UK market. So that is the point. I don't want to commend the daily work of this group, but we are carefully preparing this issue. Mark Tokola. Yes, thank you. I'm Mark Tokola from the Korea Economic Institute. For the purpose of future cooperation with the UK in the areas of social and judicial affairs, especially, is it important to the EU that the UK remain a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes. That was an easy one in the back. This point is key. In the key principle, we have to take care and take into account in this negotiation, there are the four freedoms which are the foundation of the single market, the autonomy of the decision 27, respecting the sovereignty of the UK. They have to respect our autonomy of decision, the integrity of the single market, and just the point we mentioned, the security and the protection of the fundamental rights of the cities. And to be part of this convention is one part of the response. Hello, hi. Suzanne Lynch from the Irish Times. I just wanted to get some more of your views on the issue of the Irish backstop. You mentioned in your presentation that 80% of the patrol agreement had more or less been agreed. You didn't say the remaining 20% was just Ireland, but you did specifically say that Ireland is a problem. It has not been resolved. Where do things stand now, and is it imperative that something is done on this in order for a deal to be done by October? Following my mandate, given by the 27 member states, which are on the side of, the 26 are on the side of the government of Dublin, and I am the negotiator of the Republic of Ireland, as well as the 26 others, we must have an agreement on a backstop for Ireland in this treaty. That means that if we want a treaty on the order of withdrawal, we must have an operational backstop for Ireland. Just to be, if I can use your question to give some more details. Point is Ireland is very clear and serious. I don't want to come back on the common history between the two countries, but on the same island you have two countries, and no border, thanks to what we call the Good Friday Agreement 20 years ago. To establish the peace, the dialogue between the communities in Northern Ireland, there is no border. More than that, there is no border and between the communities, of course, 142 different types of corporations, and the very human, social, environmental, health, education, economic issues. This is a Good Friday Agreement. So I'm very engaged and involved in this process because I have been the commissioner 15 years ago of regional policy in charge of the peace program in Ireland. So we have to be very careful. To reason why both sides, UK and us, committed to protect this negotiation, the Good Friday Agreement, in all its dimensions. That means no border. But the point is that this part of the island, which is a part of the UK, leave the single market and the customary. So to protect the consumers, to protect the business and the market, everywhere we implement, at the external border of the EU, all these controls. You have in your paper. You can spend part of the weekend to read it. And these are all the controls implemented at each and every external border of the EU, everywhere. Greece, Bulgaria, Finland, UK, France, Portugal, everywhere. We implement all these controls for the Goods coming inside the single market. Respect the norms, the standards, the food security, food safety and so on. To be clear also, you know Madam, that a part of this control in this column are already implemented in Belfast for the Goods coming from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland. Veterinary controls, phytosanitary controls, animal controls are implemented already in Belfast in the port or airport for the Goods coming for the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland. So what is at stake, just for us, protect the integrity of the single market to implement somewhere these controls. I'm not speaking of border. I'm speaking of controls. I will try the next few months to de-dramatize these controls. There are technical controls, safety controls, custom checks. We will see where and when we can implement controls in a technical base to assure the integrity of the single market. It's not a question to be clear. Never, not a question of a border in the middle of the UK. I want to respect, we want to respect the UK unity. We want to respect the institutional order of the UK. But we have to implement somewhere the control if there is no border. So that is the point. And in any case, Mrs. May recognizes its responsibility, the responsibility of the UK to protect the good fly agreement. And so she agrees in an official letter in March that it will be a backstop in the wisdom agreement. Until and unless we found together the best solution after. So in any case, we will have a backstop. We have proposed a backstop. It could be amended. It could be changed. It could be improved. But we need a backstop to assure no border and control. Sorry to have been a little bit long, but I think it's simple. And to be, just to know, because I'm very concerned by this situation. And I went several times in Ireland and also in Ireland a few weeks ago. I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in Ireland is not first about goods, control, checks, it's about people. The peace. Peace. Thank you. Hi, my name is Andrew Hyde. I'm curious a little bit about your time here in Washington. Well, who are you? Andrew Hyde, it's my name. I'm interested about your time in Washington. What you're seeking from the United States, maybe leaving the Sun interview today aside, what are the other elements that you're here in Washington? What do you see the U.S. role being positively or negatively in terms of Brexit? What do you need? What does the EU need from the United States to make Brexit a success from your standpoint? It's clear that Brexit is first a question between the UK and you. But obviously, because our transatlantic relation, transatlantic solidarity, it seems to me that it is useful to give the European vision, the European feeling about this negotiation and for the European voice to be heard. It's clearly the purpose and the goal of my this week in the U.S. and I spent two days in New York meeting the European ambassadors in the United Nations, stakeholders and three days in Washington meeting the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Finance, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and many other people and yesterday in the capital congressman and member of the Friends of Ireland. So just to explain what is at stake, what is the agenda of this negotiation, why we want to reach an agreement with the UK, also to explain what are the chance, the limits of this negotiations. One point I mentioned in my speech a few minutes ago is that none of my meetings during these five days I listened somebody telling me that there is an added value to the Brexit. None of them. The same in Europe. Even Mr. Farage, I met personally in my office at its request it was a very stimulating meeting. He was not able to give me the proof that there is an added value to the Brexit. Mr. Farage, when I met him in my last question after the end of this meeting was Mr. Farage, thank you very much for your explanation because he tried to explain to me why the Brexit was useful for me to understand well. And I asked him, can you tell me Mr. Farage, how do you see after Brexit, because you won the Brexit, you were the leader of the Brexit campaign, how do you see the future relations between EU and UK? And Mark, 10 seconds silence and his answer was Mr. Barni. The EU will no longer exist. We will no longer exist. I'm not ready to give this point to Mr. Farage. I think we have time for one more question. Two or two? You have a little time? It depends on my answer. This is true. All right, you in the middle, yes. Mr. Barnier, good morning. You mentioned earlier deeper cooperation with NATO and I was wondering, there are a couple of countries in the EU that are of course not members of NATO. Correct. Countries where right wing populist parties use the maintenance of their neutrality to great effect, thinking particularly here of the Freedom Party in Austria. How do you square the two between deeper NATO cooperation and also presenting parties or movements from using this to become kind of an anti-EU legend? It's correct to say that several EU countries are not today members of NATO, not only in Austria, but also Ireland, Finland, Sweden. So we have to respect this position, neutrality, if I may say. But what it seems interesting to me, the reason why I think that what we are doing for the stronger European defence policy is useful also in the global context of the transatlantic relations, the islands, that these countries are part of our European policy of defence and security. This is the point. They don't want to be, it is their sovereign decision to be part of NATO, but they are part and sometimes often very active part, partner of our new initiative in defence and security matters for defence. For instance, the European Funds for Defence, the Structure Corporation I mentioned, 24 countries. So this is why I think that what I said, I thought for a long time that what we are doing for to strengthen the European defence policy, the European defence capability, pulling our initiative, pulling our research, pulling our capability investments is globally useful for defence of the global framework of NATO. I think so. Okay, last question, all right. On the shows on the Atlantic Council, thank you very much. I particularly appreciated your comments on Mr Farage, which leads me to ask about David Davis. It has been reported in the media that you only had three meetings of a total of four hours during the first half of this year. Very intensive meetings. It would be interesting to hear your closer comments on him, what you would like to say, and on these meetings. I don't want to comment on this meeting. This meeting was a meeting of negotiations. But to be clear, I had for a long time a cordial relationship with David Davis. I know him for quite a long time because we were together in 1950, 1959, until seven, and he was minister in UK and France. So I know him quite well. I don't want to comment. I've always had a cordial relationship with David Davis. But I don't want to comment on how the British delegation is organised. It is the responsibility of Mrs May to appoint the British negotiator. But I tell you that the British negotiator are competent and very very competent and very respected person. I can tell you. Last question, Madame. Salud, Mr. Bagnier. Welcome to Washington. I'm Sonya Swink from The Globe Post. Do you think the EU would consider partnering with the US on a European defence fund? Do you think that... Third countries, including the US, could have a decision. It is an ongoing discussion. Do you level? I think yes, my answer is yes. But respecting the autonomy of the decision 27, we have prepared to have relations with third countries for the new initiative of the EU, including the structural cooperation where I think there is a place for bilateral relations with the UK. In any case, it will respect the autonomy of the decision 27. Please join me in thanking Mr. Bagnier for a wonderful session. It's been very interesting and I think you have a lot of work ahead of you. I hope you're going to have a little time on Sunday to savor an EU victory. Thank you very much. Thank you.