 Let me circle back to one question for each of you, but please restrict yourselves to this question because I do want to open it up. Apart from anything else, everyone up here is actually on the receiving end of migrant flows. There are people in the audience who are on the delivery end of migrant flows, and I think it's important to bring that part into the discussion as well. But let me ask you this question. Jean-François started, I thought, with a very important observation. From the perspective of Europe, Jim has broadened that perhaps to the perspective of democracies, we have to find a collective solution to this problem. There has to be a European solution to the challenge of migration, which challenge is going to rise for the demographic reasons described, and the realities of the world that we live in. We have to find a European solution that takes account of individual circumstance within the European space. In the context of the United States, there has to be a U.S. solution that takes account of the reality of its neighborhood as well. We cannot have polarization division destroying the fabric of society and undermining the validity of democratic institutions profoundly. So what, this is the question, what do you think the key elements of a common solution would be to this particular challenge? Jean-François? Well, I think the first one could be to see what we can imagine as a European governance. The main problem that we do have to face today is that we have a huge difficulty to find a common path. Oh, the interest today between the member states are not aligned on these questions. We know that there is a danger for democracies. We see, of course, the rise of the extremists from the right wing and the left wing. Sometimes, as in Italy, they are able to unify themselves as a coalition of interest, not a coalition of ideas. That's why we are all worrying about what's going on in Italy, but this is because the traditional governing parties are not able today to find what could be a European governance. This is the first thing. The second thing is that we have to take into account the fact that we cannot always point the Europe, the European Union as a scapegoat. Usually, a major part of the decisions could be made by the state members. The reality is here. Many of these problems of immigration has to be faced and addressed inside of our own countries. And my hope is that after the European elections of next June, we will be fed up with the opposition between Mr. Orban and Mr. Macron and try to come back to a rational analysis. Maybe we can try to convince Mr. Macron to get into the popular European party, which would simplify the debate and make sure that we are able to find a common path. And then it will be my third point. No solution about immigration issues if we are not increasing the contribution to the development of countries who need it today. Of course, we have to monitor it to share experience with countries from North Africa, even if Morocco is a remarkable model of this kind of cooperation, but also of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We hear this morning the Prime Minister of Ivory Coast. They are remarkable experience that have been done in Africa. We have to be beside them, because we have the tradition, the culture, the common points to do it with them. And this is a fantastic opportunity. Thank you, Jean-François Lazlo. How much of that resonates with you? Merci. Merci beaucoup. Il me semble qu'il faut faire la différenciation entre les mots, le réfugié et les migrants. Aujourd'hui, il y a combien amalgam, quand nous parlons ces deux, tout le monde sont migrants, mais quand même dans mon pain, en tant que juriste. Je préfère qu'il y a des réfugiés, il y a des traités internationales qui faut respecter, la convention de Genève, il y a la convention de Dublin, en Europe, là-bas, c'est clair. La migration, c'est une autre chose. Et là-bas, je pense que chérie politicienne, souvent, on parle ensemble ces deux mots. Pour moi, personnellement, c'est très important faire la différenciation. Un côté. On s'y concerne les réfugiés, il faut un accord commun. C'est sûr et certaine, parce que les réfugiés, là-bas, il faut traiter, il faut dialoguer, dialoguer, dialoguer, jusqu'à la fin, nous trouvons la solution. Et bien sûr, là-bas, il y a plein d'idées que nous n'avons pas réussi. Le système de quota. Le système de quota qui est mort, dans la réalité, parce que certaine pense accessory en Europe. Parce que nous savons très bien que les gens veulent habiter en Germanie, ou je ne sais pas en Suède, mais pas en Roumanie, en Bulgarie, ou en Roumanie, ou en Hongrie, etc., etc. Alors, c'est la raison pour laquelle il y avait des efforts de la part des chefs d'État et le Premier ministre qui n'apparaient aussi dans la réalité. Et la question se pose, est-ce qu'il existe un seul type de solidarité, ou il y a différents types de solidarité de la part des États membres? Est-ce que nous donnons pour les États membres certaines flexibilités? Alors, comment réagir concernant notamment la migration, qu'il faut aider, j'ai tout fait d'accord avec Monsieur Coopéry, qu'il faut aller sur place, qu'il faut aider. Et là-bas, il faut organiser aussi de différents meetings, et je pense que c'est indispensable. Permettez que je parle, c'est vraiment être personnel, que je suis professeur à l'université, j'ai 60 étudiants qui viennent de l'Afrique de l'Ouest, qui parlent parfaitement français, mais qui viennent de Senegal, Togo, etc., de différents pays. Il faut organiser différemment hier, alors cet type de solidarité. La solidarité aussi, si nous protégeons un pays qui dispose la frontière extérie de l'Union européenne, qui fait la protection, elle est contribuable qui paye ça. Alors, je pense que c'est très important. Permettez que je parle de mots concernant le populisme. Là, Hongrie était souvent mentionné comme populiste, c'est raison pour laquelle je pense que je prends de parole autour de ça. Comme jusqu'à destin à mentionner à Monsieur Mitterrand, que, Monsieur Mitterrand, vous ne disposez pas le monopole de cœur. Alors, ça signifie aussi qu'on même y fait très plus dents quand nous parlons que le populisme. Quand il y a quelqu'un qui a une autre idée, une autre vision, qui veut participer dans le dialogue, participe de l'Ouest, souvent reçoit un emblète, un label que populiste. C'est la raison pour laquelle je suis très plus dents qu'on délire que populiste, parce que quand même la notion de populiste, ça devient tellement large aujourd'hui, que tout le monde peut devenir populiste dans un moment, s'il ne va t'accord avec quelque chose. Alors, c'est la raison pour laquelle je pense que nous parlons autour de ça le populisme. Dans le même temps, c'est être quand même, je pense que c'est très important, le dialogue. C'est la seule chose que je crois. Alors, le dialogue avec les différents États, avec la Hongrie, avec la Pologne, avec les autres pays. Mais quand même si nous serons mentionnés sur le autre pays, sur les populistes, ce ne facilite pas le dialogue. C'est la raison pour laquelle je vous laisse mentionner que quand même c'est un élément très, très important. Et l'autre côté, je pense qu'on s'y concerne la migration. Est-ce qu'un pays veut quand même accueillir les migrants, pas réfugiés, migrants, là-bas, il faut donner la liberté des États aussi. Merci beaucoup. Bogdan. The answer to your question is very simple, but also very challenging. The answer is that we need more solidarity. Solidarity, and again solidarity, is the only idea that we can try to implement, that implementing which we can defend our values. Those values that are not only written and incorporated into the treaties. But it is important to remember that the European Union in the article two of the Lisbon Treaty has the list of those values, as well as the Washington Treaty that is still the base of the Alliance has the list of those values in the preamble of that short treaty. This is the rule of law, this is the respect for human rights and civil liberties. Democracy, free market, et cetera, et cetera. So we know what we should defend. But we need more international solidarity defending those values in those countries that they are threatened right now and that can be threatened in the future. As for the European Union, because the answer of the European Union is absolutely crucial, absolutely crucial for itself and for the future of Europe, I would recommend using existing tools, like PESCO. We are talking about that in Marrakesh last year. Fortunately, there was a good decision to introduce PESCO as one of the tools of the European Union that existed for years but was not introduced before. But it is necessary also to create a US island policy. It is also necessary to reinforce the control of the borders of the European Union with much deeper, much reinforced involvement of front-ex agency. It is also absolutely crucial to reinforce the neighborhood policy, not only in the southern but also in the eastern dimension of neighborhood policy. How the neighborhood policy could exist for years when it had at its disposal only 10.2 billion euros. It has to be financially reinforced in the new multi-annual perspective of the European Union. And finally, I would say we should fight together against those who dismantle the system of checks and balances as well as the respect for human and civil rights. Thank you indeed. And Jim, you have the last word until the audience. Sean being a Frankel-Fiel not while, my answer is divided into three parts. First part is to begin to treat this migration problem as having important substantial economic factors involved in it. In the first place, recognize that shrinking populations mean that immigration is a way to replenish the workforce rather than pretending that you can make yourself great again without people by shutting off immigration, which is the primary source of population growth in the United States right now. The economic problem also extends to not messing up the world's trade system that has brought so many people out of poverty. Because the more you can get people to earn their livings where they are now, the less likely they are to leave and try to come to other places. So we need an economic approach to this. We also need to treat migration as a humanitarian crisis, not a problem, but a crisis. Because it is at crisis stages now. And much of what we hear tends to not treat it with the urgency that it demands. And the third and final point that I would make is that we need to acknowledge honestly, our politicians need to acknowledge honestly the cultural differences, the cultural and social problems that immigration or migration creates, and to stop exploiting migration for the purpose of dividing people and making people afraid.