 Thank you very much, Rob, and maybe belatedly, I think it's important to say that, you know, the Nexus Institute is doing a real important job here, because we're demonstrating the best tradition of European enlightenment, having a public debate in front of an audience who will adjudicate at the end, change its mind or be confirmed in its opinion, because that is a pillar of democracy to have an open, plural debate, which unfortunately is not possible in some countries that we know, the dimension Turkey, for example, or some other places. Europe is a complex place. It had huge wars, and the European Union or the European community came together because people put their finger on their head, and they said, do we have to kill each other every 20 years? And how do we go about stopping that? And to put it all too simply, well, the way we're going to stop that is to create institutions that are going to be shock absorbers to conflicts, differences of opinion, cushions, to frictions, and one need not go back to Machiavelli, one of the founding fathers of politics, to say politics is conflict. And Natalia, it is politics. That's good that it's politics. Politics is about political parties. It's good that Ukraine has a plurality of views. Or in my country, Serbia, or in all of your countries, that's what democracy is about, difference. I use the word politics in a different sense. I use the word politics in the best tradition of, again, the enlightenment. Political parties are there to represent our views, and we vote in political elections to have our voices heard. So it's about the will of the people. And the will of the people from what I understand, watching and observing Ukraine, is that they want to belong to this family. I come from a country that no longer exists called Yugoslavia. I'm sure many of you have vacation there. It is today, seven countries. We did this to ourselves. The Yugoslavs did this to ourselves. It was peppered and salted afterward by everyone. But we exposed ourselves instead of doing what the European Union does, work within the institutions to find that language and maybe separate quietly like the Czechs and Slovaks did. We unfortunately didn't. There was a plurality, but it used arms to do it. And we want to join the European Union, all of the seven countries, because we had a communist regime, an authoritarian regime. We didn't have democracy and the possibility to express ourselves as Democrats, leftists, socialists, et cetera. People were able to express themselves as Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Albanians, et cetera. That was ethnic politics, the ethnification of politics. And so the European project after World War II was one that left out those who fell under the Soviet yoke. There was an imposition. This was not free will. So when 89 happened, people said, well, we can now finally decide. And what they decide, lo and behold, surprised they wanted to return to Europe. And I beg your pardon, the enlargement has been touted as the biggest success by no others than many and most people and leaders in the United Kingdom. Because it has enhanced trade. It has enhanced profits for companies. And one need only take one example, and that is of Poland and Ukraine who have the same starting point in 1989 of their GDP. Poland is up here and Ukraine is down here. So it shows the positive effects of it. And finally, although there's much more to say, and I hope we will, the fact that we, for example, the Western Balkan countries, and of course every example is different, we have had the promise of membership. Turkey is unfortunately the example I want to mention. So you can begin a negotiation, but the European Union and any member state, including the Netherlands, can stop it at any moment. And Turkey is the best example. It's a process that's been going on. But I tell you, as someone who lived under communism in an authoritarian regime, I have always been for the proactive. Bring us in, and you can stop us at any time because the benchmarks are there all the time. And again, Serbia is the best example. And the Netherlands, God knows, had the arrest of Radavan Karadzic and Radkom Ladic as a benchmark. And we, the citizens of Serbia, wanted them in the Hague. They are there now. Karadzic was now condemned to 40 years, rightly so. And so, but at the same time, without the arrest of Radic, and I came here when the Stabilization Association agreement, we met with your politicians and with your NGOs, and we said, don't stop us at this point because you are only reinforcing the conservative nationalist forces by keeping us out. And final word, I think the same applies for Ukraine. It is good that they are in the garden moving forward, and you can stop it anyway. But you give these people the hope that with this burden sharing of democratic reform and structural reform, which is extremely hard, they can actually start becoming a more rule of law democratic efficient country. And what you are saying, why should you continue yourself European, and then what you are problem with the EU? Well, European is a difficult concept. I consider myself as a fan of the European project. I think that the idea to make Europe strong and better by sharing our wealth, by having a common market, and by making sure that our faith depends on how we work together, it has worked because it has brought peace, lasting peace to Europe. And I think that was the original idea of the European Union. Now I see people who have hijacked this project and are trying to create the United States of Europe with a central government. We have people like Mr. Boholstein, and in our own country, Mr. Pettel, who wrote a book, The United States of Europe, who really think that we can only make Europe a real democracy if we have a central government in Brussels, if we give up national sovereignty, if we make sure that everything is done by majority rule, and if we have a European Parliament that has taken away the positions from national parliament. I am willing to retire if that happens, because then my job will be with us. I have no function there. But I don't think there is public support for that in this country, and the people who are in favour of this idea have hijacked this project. And I think that is very dangerous, because we should work on maintenance of the original project. We are about to lose the United Kingdom. We have a crisis in the south. We cannot solve the refugee problem. We have a euro crisis at hand. We should solve our problems first, because we go further on the path of enlargement before we make new associations. We should solve our problems. Otherwise, Europe will fall apart, and we have seen in the former Yugoslavia what happens if a country falls apart. It is a very dangerous project. John, your perspective? I wrote a book in 1997 called The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea. But first, why do you consider yourself a European? Well, it is a matter of geographical and cultural fact. I was born in Britain, and I live in... So they are Europeans as well? Yes, of course. The Union is not equivalent to Europe, very obviously. There are numerous European institutions as the Council of Europe, the OSCE and others. The European Union, as Harry said, has taken a departure, particularly after the end of the Cold War with the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the Euro, a very strong departure towards federalism. And this federalism has massively damaged the democratic credentials of the European Union. Every single expert on the European Union agrees that there is a democratic deficit. That deficit consists in the fact that European laws are made in secret, in secret, in the Council of Ministers by governments. If you boo, that shows you don't know what you're talking about. Because it is the case that European laws are made in the Council of Ministers by governments voting in secret. If you disagree, you can tell me please which government voted for which law in the last European regulation. You can't because nobody knows. And that is the democratic deficit. The democratic deficit is aggravated further by the attitude which I referred to earlier in my discussion with Ivan, according to which the superior interest of the European Union in some cases would go against democracy. Jean-Claude Juncker said it. There is no democratic vote, he said, against European treaties. These are very dangerous ideas because as soon as you put the overall, so-called overall interest of Europe above basic democratic accountability, and this happens daily in the European Union because there is no democratic accountability, and it happens once every five years when a referendum goes against the European Union. In 2005 in this country, as I've already said, and in France, the European Constitution was rejected, but it was reintroduced by the back door in the Lisbon Treaty. And that is undemocratic. And there's no point booing or saying that I'm not right. I am right about this. To make my point, I'll be simply maybe simplistic. Brussels bashing is being used like at other times, people said, you know, Moscow is this thing that controls everything. It's not that Europe doesn't have problems and we acknowledge that there is a democratic deficit. There are individuals who would like to see it federal, but I think that will never happen. I mean, we were talking on the way here. The European Union at base is an inter-governmental institution because of European history. Yes, there is shared sovereignty, but again, I go back to the reason for that. That was the way to avoid conflict. That's why my country went down the drain because we were not part of the peace project. You had shared sovereignty in Yugoslavia. You had shared sovereignty in Yugoslavia. We were a communist, authoritarian country. We didn't have democracy. John, we didn't have democracy. Fine, that's a different issue, but you were saying it was shared... I'm sorry, he said it was shared sovereignty that was the key to peace. You had shared sovereignty in Yugoslavia, and you had war. Communist shared sovereignty, John. There were three communist federations that fell apart. So it's the democracy that's the key and not the shared sovereignty. Thank you. But Europe overcame its conflict because it put its head to its finger, as I said, and said, how do we avoid it? We do need to share something. Coal and steel were the things by which weapons were made, and so if we agree on how we use coal and steel... The coal and steel community was... Let me finish. So the inter-governmentalism is really what's there during the war. Inter-governmentalism is really what's there during the day. And Europe is, in fact, a multispeed from the very big... the caveats. I talked to a Swedish diplomat at the beginning of their negotiation, or rather their idea to join Rio. From a big European country, he was told, you Swedes will never join Europe. So this is... we've been seeing this, and the European has an open-door policy. You look at the map and where and who belongs to whom. You cannot impede it. Yes, there are difficulties, because Europe needs to deepen. You're absolutely right. We need to strengthen the institutions. But I think that Europe will muddle through this. And the one thing that I want to say that I think we're all aware of, but we're not saying here, the reason we are debating all this is both Europe and the United States, as we see in the electoral process. We are all in a very difficult situation where the ordinary person is uncertain about tomorrow, about their job. If they have one, will I have it? Because of the way the global economic crisis has gone. There is a fact that parents are saying for the first time in the United States, but also here, our children will not live better than I. And I think the framework of this uncertainty is prompting us to ask questions, one which is very good. But then there's this, what we call the re-nationalization. We're turning back on ourselves because it's warm and fuzzy when we're with our own, whoever our own are. But that, I think, as Roger Cohen today in his New York Times op-ed said, we are moving into the 21st century, but we must not forget what happened to us in the 23rd century. I'd just like to say the following. I think that the issues are purposefully being complicated, whereas the question before the Dutch is very simple. I have attended a business forum on Wednesday between Ukraine and the Netherlands. And I spoke with Dutch businessmen, and they have demonstrated a lot more faith and belief in a better Ukraine than the people sitting in front of me who have not invested anything in Ukraine and have not experienced the new Ukraine. And they certainly do not know that Ukraine, the way it is changing today, the way it is adapting its legislation to European standards, will ensure that when Dutch businessmen are traveling to Ukraine, they do not have to figure out, like in a foreign land, the laws that govern their relationship, how to do business in Ukraine. When students travel, when people vacation in Ukraine, they will not be traveling to a foreign land, they will be traveling to a country that is as European as any of the 28 EU member states. And at the end of the day, the simple question that one has to ask himself or herself on April 6th is the following. A country the size of France with a population three times that of the Netherlands wanting to embrace European values and live and be governed by legislation, regulation, administrative and judicial processes akin to the European standards. Why would anybody say no to that? Well, they can. They can. They came without a treaty and they are changing and reforming. They can adapt European standards tomorrow. They don't need a treaty for that. Well, sir, the agreement, you said earlier that I've mentioned at the beginning that there were more changes made in the last 24 months. What you did not tell the crowd was that this agreement had immediate application of many provisions of that agreement. And those provisions are forcing the necessary changes that Ukrainian civil society wants, that Ukrainian civil society stood under Maidan 4. And I think that those changes are the changes that the agreement, the support of the European countries will transform Ukraine into a purely democratic European corrupt free country. And that is in the best interest of everyone, including of the Dutch.