 Ms Hannah here, I thought we can get the clearance a lot. Is that okay? Ready to go? Okay. Thank you. So ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your invitation. I'm delighted to be here today in Dublin, and in particular at a time that is so important for our continent. We are clearly at a cross-road at a moment of great divide. Europe is dividing while another part of the world is gathering around new silk roads. In almost every open nation, two parts of society are facing each other. Those who benefit from globalization and those who are left out. And this divide has one main consequence. The rise of nationalism and populism all over Europe. It is true in Italy. It is true in France where it is at the root of the gilet jaune protest. It is true in the United Kingdom where Brexit is the political translation of the social and economic divide. If Europe is unable to reconcile these two parts of our societies, it is clearly the end of the European project. And if the European project fails, then I believe that everyone of our countries will fail. Because none of us will be able to compete alone against giants such as the United States and China. The EU has always known turmoil and upheavals. But the crisis it is now going through is deeper and I would say more existential. But I believe that this is in times of great uncertainty that we make and that we can make the best choices. When it comes to Brexit, let me be clear. France and the EU have stood by Ireland over the last couple of years. And you can continue to count on our full support, our full solidarity, whatever the coming weeks and months bring. We also need to be able to look ahead past Brexit. Brexit is not the key question. The key question is the future of Europe. And now it is the time to build all together a new European project. A sovereign, ambitious and reassuring project for Europe and all Europeans. And I think we need to work on three key aspects to deliver that. The first aspect is the need to reinforce our common currency. When you are looking at the past, I think that the two most important achievements over the last two decades are on the one side the single market and on the other side our common currency. But we need to reinforce it. The euro is one of the biggest success of the EU. It has simplified trade for our business and life for our citizens. And it has strengthened us on the world stage. If we still play a role on the international stage, it is because of our common currency. But we also know and you in Ireland know that better than most than the euro has its weaknesses. Much has been done since the crisis to remedy that but we have not finished the work. For the eurozone to be a success for generations to come, our system needs to be more sustainable. We are not yet fully equipped should we face new financial or economic crisis. And our economies are clearly diverging a cause of concern for all. We cannot in the long run have a common currency and diverging economies. It will mean the end of the common currency. That is why we want to deepen the eurozone with the creation of a eurozone budget aimed at improving both convergence and competitiveness within the European economies. The principle of this budgetary instrument for the eurozone was agreed last December. Now we need to agree on the modalities for the budget to become a reality in 2021. This will be a new decisive phase for our economic and monetary union. We will start the process of discussing and agreeing together priorities for public investments and competitiveness. It makes a lot of sense when you are part of one economic area sharing a common currency. The budget will also help us boost our resilience against crisis and bounce back more quickly and ensure the euro is a stable global reference currency. I know Ireland is keen that our monetary union is better prepared to weather new crisis and challenges. We therefore hope and count on Ireland's support in the coming weeks. The second pillar is the need for a European industrial strategy. We must maintain strong industrial production in Europe. Otherwise, we will lose both essential jobs for our citizens and our technological sovereignty. And if we lose our technological sovereignty, we will also lose our economic independence in the long run. This industrial strategy is for that very simple reason key for the future of Europe. You cannot imagine any continent, any nation playing the first role in the 21st century without having a strong industry and without having an independence in the production of new disruptive technologies. The first key issue is to pull off strength. We have to gather our industrial strength to create industrial champions. Since Airbus, very few European industrial champions have emerged while Chinese, Indian or American champions are appearing every year. One of the reasons is that European competition rules are totally outdated. We need to agree on a new set of rules more in tune with the challenges facing us. It's a question of economic realities. The world economy is more brutal, faster than ever, and less fair than we had got used in recent decades. We have to take that into account. In the forthcoming European elections, we will campaign for a renewal of European competition law to take place in the next commission. If we want Europe and our European companies to have all the tools to compete and succeed, we have to reinvent these rules for the 21st century. And we cannot anymore rely on the rules defined on the 20th century to be successful for the 21st century. The second quick question is to innovate. For innovation, it's key to ensure our industry remains competitive. That's why France has decided to create a 10 billion euro fund for disruptive innovation. And we will sell public assets in Aéroport de Paris, in NG, in La France, to fund that 10 billion euro fund for disruptive innovation. And we strongly hope that this national fund will pave the way for a similar European fund. We all can have our own and separate fund at the national level in France, in Ireland, or in Germany, but then we won't be able to complete with the US or with China. If we want to fund the necessary research in artificial innovation in the storage of renewable energies in the storage of data, we need to gather the funding of all European countries. It is also when we are looking at the past why we need a capital markets union. It is critical to finance innovation. Why is there no European Google or no European Apple? It is not a matter of creativity or talent. It is a matter of access to finance above all. And today we are lagging behind our main rivals. Let me remind you some interesting figures on venture capital financing in the world in 2018. 100 billion euros in the United States, 80 billion euros in China, and only 20 billion euros in Europe. Just have a look at those figures and you will better understand why there is an American Google, an American Amazon, and not a European giant. We need to invest more to stay in the innovation race on artificial intelligence, on space, on energy storage, the technologies of the future require massive investment. And we are not doing right now what we should do to fund innovation in Europe. But innovation is not just a matter of financing. It is also a matter of smart industrial partnership. That is what we are doing with Germany and Poland on fourth generation batteries. And that is what we must do on artificial intelligence, perhaps even more important than electric batteries. Let's remind that Europe was powerful in the 20th century because of its success in the 19th century industrial revolution. To be powerful in the 21st century, Europe must become a global leader on artificial intelligence. And we have all the assets for that. Top universities, engineers, data scientists, and great innovation policies is only a matter of willingness and decision. It's time to decide if we want to keep a strong industry. It's time to gather our funding if we want to be at the right level facing the competition with China and the United States. And if we remain divided on that key question of industry and innovation, we will lose the race and the competition among the greatest nations of the world. The third key point is to protect. When you develop a new technology, it does not come from free. It requires billions of public and private investments and years of work. We cannot let these technologies be spied upon or simply stolen. France has reinforced its control over foreign investments in key sectors. And I'm glad that Europe has recently voted for rules to also screen such third-country investments in key sensitive areas. We must, of course, remain attractive for new foreign investments. It's the key reason we have carried out so many big reforms in France in the last year to attract such foreign investments. But we also need to be less naive in Europe and to be capable of protecting ourselves when national security and national sovereignty is at stake. Protecting our industry also means protecting our capacity to trade as we choose. Along with Britain and Germany, we have created a new financial vehicle called Instex. It will enable our SMEs to avoid unfair extraterritorial sanctions and to trade freely when it is legitimate to do so. The third pillar of our European strategy is to better fulfil the expectations of the Europeans. What are these expectations? More fairness, more solidarity among European nations, more protection, and a more inclusive and sustainable economic model. Our population expects Europe to build a new model for capitalism. An essential part of this new model is to have a fairer tax system. I'm well aware that even mentioning tax system is a sensitive issue here in Dublin. But I'm convinced that among France we should discuss all those issues very openly and in a friendly manner. I respect the fact that taxation is above all an issue of national sovereignty but no country today lives in a hermetic bubble. The first issue is digital taxation at the European level. For years you have been a hub for innovation. Digital champions have been attracted to Ireland where they could enjoy full access to Europe's single market and low tax rates. These have brought much to Ireland and to the Irish but also at a price for other Europeans. Citizens cannot accept that their personal data is used by digital giants who make enormous value from those data without that value being properly taxed. Companies cannot accept paying 14 points more than digital giants when it comes to corporate tax. It's a question of fairness and states cannot accept the situation where billions in tax are lost to tax optimization thus limiting their ability to finance public goods including health and education. We need to change the international tax system. And we need to adapt it to the realities of the 21st century when you have new internet giants, when you have value created by data. You have to take that into account to build a new international taxation system that would be fairer and more efficient. Changing our approach to taxation is the only sustainable model. We all know that deep down the prosperity of our nations and our citizens depends on all companies and individuals paying their fair share of tax. There is a growing consensus amongst countries on this and even many digital companies have understood it is in their interest to move and to change our mind. That is why Pascal Donyeu and myself have agreed to work together to develop a joint position on these issues at the OECD level. I will also continue to promote the need for legislation at the European level on digital taxation. And in the coming days we will introduce legislation at a national level on this key question of digital taxation. But I really think that this is good news and Pascal and I have decided today to work together to pave the way for a compromise at the OECD level and a common approach at the OECD level on the question of digital taxation. This is a new position and this is I think a good way of solving the issue and moving on. There is also another issue on the tax front, an effective level of minimal taxation for all businesses since tax optimization is not the exclusive property of digital companies. France has made this issue its top priority for its G7 presidency in the economic field and pushed for it within the OECD framework. There will be always tax competition and some tax competition are healthy. But we need to put an end to tax evasion and excessively low tax jurisdictions and we hope we can count on Ireland's support on that very specific and key issue. A stronger currency, a stronger industry, a stronger response to our citizens' expectations including the necessity of having a new international taxation system. These are the essential ingredients for a more positive future for the EU. If we fail, citizens will lose their trust and turn their back on Europe. What we are experiencing with Brexit which is such a tragedy for the UK, for Ireland and for all Europe could be repeated elsewhere and that's exactly what we need to avoid and what we want to avoid. Nothing is written and the best is still possible. This is my deep conviction but we have to act united and we have to act now. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed Bruno, that was very concise, very focused and I think everybody in this room got the message. I'm now going to open the floor for questions. I'd like you to state your name and if you represent an organisation to state what that organisation is first. There are mobile microphones going around so yes, there's a man there beside you. Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you Minister for your clarity in your presentation. I want to focus on the second pillar that you addressed in your presentation, industrial policy for Europe and I particularly welcome your comments in that regard and in particular your characterisation of competition rules in Europe are not being fit for the 21st century and for the environment of global competition that we currently face and that European companies currently face. But I suppose what I want to ask you is you've made these comments a number of times of late. Given that there's a lot of resistance to the perspective that you bring to this topic, how do you in France and the French government propose to advance changes in the competition rules in Europe? Thank you. Another question? Yes. Just wait till the microphone gets to you. Thank you. Antoine Murphy of Trinity College. You've presented the image of Ireland as a type of parody fiscal and this is a common theme that comes from French politicians and indeed the French media when they come over here. It seems to me that if you look at most countries in Europe there are elements of the parody fiscal in all of them. And indeed in France if you look at the top companies in the CAC Carons, the amount of tax optimisation that goes on there is fairly extreme. We could have a look at Total for example, one of the biggest French companies and the effective tax rate that it pays is about 2%. So this notion that we're sort of somewhat unique in tax optimisation I don't think is all that appropriate. If you look at many elements of what's happening in France tax optimisation is going on there in a major way too. Thank you. Final question in this round please. Maybe somebody is back to the hall there. Okay we'll proceed with... No third question? No. Okay we'll answer those first. Trinity College has been happening. No on the first question, the question of competition rules. I strongly believe that this is at the heart of the future of Europe and what we want for Europe. I think that during the last three decades we have focused our energy on the question of the consumers. And the idea was to reduce the prices of the goods produced in Europe for the benefit of the consumers. But we forgot that we also need production, we need a strong industry, we need factories if we want to remain an economic power. And I strongly believe that in a time when you have so many industrial giants emerging either in China or in the US, sticking to the current competition rules would be a huge political and economic mistake. Let's have a look at the decision taken by the Commission on the proposal of merger between Aston and Siemens. The Commission should have said yes to that French-German proposal. Because when you are looking at the industry in that highway sector, there is a new champion called CRRC in China. In less than 15 years they have become more important and stronger than Aston and Siemens together. What do we want to have for trains in Europe tomorrow? Chinese trains or European trains? That's the question. I prefer to have European trains and I think that we should do our best to reinforce our assets, to reinforce our industry by authorising mergers like Aston and Siemens. But to go this way, we have to change the competition rules and we have to allow some important companies to merge for the sake of being more profitable and having new funding for innovation and research. Of course it will be difficult because it is not only a change in the policy, it is a change in mind. We have to put the emphasis on production and not only on consumers, on jobs, on factories, on innovation, on investment. That's the key if we want to remain in the race. We have the support of Germany and there has been really a very important change in the German thinking. I think that the German government is fully aware of the necessity of changing the rules. We have just adopted a common strategy with my German counterpart Peter Altmayer on the competition rules. I think that's good news that France and Germany fully recognise together that there is a need for an urgent change in the competition rules. Now we will have to convince other partners. I hope that Ireland will be on board. We need the support of all the European states but I am deeply convinced that this question of new competition rules and a stronger industry for Europe will be at the heart of the next European elections. On the question of taxation, I never said that Ireland is a kind of a paradifiscal and I would like for me to avoid that kind of caricature of what I just said. I just want to explain the situation. You have internet giants having their place here in Dublin. That's not a problem for me, of course. Everybody is free to choose their location. But these internet giants, and I won't give any specific name. I just want to be very clear, are using the data of 65 million of French consumers. They are taking benefit from those personal data. They are making profits with the 65 million French consumers. And then the profits are not taxed in France but in Ireland. You have the French data and then you have the Irish benefits. I think that everybody can understand that it might be a problem for us because of the rules. And that's why we are so much advocating for a fair and more efficient digital taxation. We are not putting the finger on Ireland or other countries. We are putting the finger on the way data are currently taxed. And we share exactly the same point of view with Pascal. We think that now it's time to think about a fair taxation of digital activities because we cannot rely anymore on the current system. When you have data being produced in one state and the taxation in another state, nobody could accept such a situation. So we need to find a common ground. And that's why we have decided to work very closely with Pascal on that key question to avoid any misunderstanding, to avoid that kind of difficulties we have to define a common solution. This common solution needs to be a permanent one. And that's why I think that the OECD level is the best way of finding a common solution. So we will work together at a technical level to better understand the way Ireland is seeing that problem and the way France is seeing that problem. And I hope that we will be able to find a common ground and a consensus on that key question of a fair and efficient taxation of internet giants and data. But once again, I'm not putting the finger on one single country. I'm putting the finger on the way data are currently taxed because I really believe that we have to change the rules. Thank you. I was going to say that if we hadn't allowed it to happen, Airbus would never have taken off the ground both literally and metaphorically. And you're simply saying that you're looking for the similar kind of recognition on the railway system given that the Chinese railway system has appeared from nowhere in the last 10, 15 years. Right. Right. Question here. Just coming here now. Hi, David Higgins. I'm from Carrick Hill. Italy agreed a deal with Europe last December on its budget deficit despite the fact that it put in very ambitious numbers on privatisations and on VAT safeguard clauses. Now that Italy is in recession, it looks likely that its budget deficit targets will be missed this year and it may find itself on a course towards excessive deficit procedure this year. I want to ask you whether Italy should be punished, whether it should enter that procedure. And yeah, that's my question. Thank you. Okay, that question. We've got a question down there. Could you stand up and tell us your name, please? I'm Frank Wall, a member of the Institute. To take you back to your desire to change the rules and competition, as you're aware, the basic rules and competition law are contained in the treaties. Do you think your reforms can be achieved without changing the treaties, given that the Commission has extensive executive powers as well in relation to those treaty rules? I see, on the other hand, there would take a third question there, please. Thank you. Peter Gunning, a member of the Institute, and thank you very much, Minister. How would you envisage the budget of the Eurozone being financed? And what would be the relationship of that budget to the financial perspectives to the budget of the EU 27? Thank you. It's a big interesting question. On Italy. Italy should not be punished. Italy should be held. And everybody should understand that sticking to the common rules and abiding by the open rules is in their national interest and in the common interest of all EU member states and all the members of the Eurozone. We have to get rid of that idea that you can act alone, as if we were not members of the same currency zone. Explaining to your population, I don't care about Germany, Italy, Spain, I'm French, and I'm willing to do whatever I want. I don't care about the European rules. I don't care about the excessive deficit. I want to spend the money I want to spend. This is foolish, because this is a lie. And when you are lying to your population, the backlash can be very violent. We have defined common rules within the Eurozone. Everybody has to stick to those rules. I'm a French finance minister, and usually the French finance ministers are always explaining that, well, we will do our best to stick to the European rules, but if it is not possible to do so, you will understand the French position. I'm explaining exactly the contrary. I believe that when you belong to a common currency zone, we are all on the same boat, and nobody can think that he can improve its own situation without having everybody on board. Nobody can believe that he can put aside the European rules without having negative consequences for its own country. That's exactly the situation in Italy. Some politicians in Italy have explained, well, we will spend a lot of public money. We will rise the level of public expenditures, and it won't have any consequence, but the fact is that Italy is in recession. And that's a problem for all of us, not only for Italy, but for all of us, because when there is a recession in Italy, it has a direct impact on the level of growth in France. If Donald Trump decides to put new tariffs on trade, for instance, on the European car industry, it will have a direct impact not only on Germany, but also on France, on Italy, on Ireland, on all the European countries. We share the same future, and we share exactly the same destiny. That's why I'm so much advocating for gathering our efforts, gathering our fundings, gathering our skills to be able to face the world competition. But I'm also advocating for sticking to the European rules, because when you are weakening the European rules, you are weakening the whole eurozone. On the second question, if there is a need for changing the treaty, I don't have the answer yet to that question. We are looking at the best way of changing the competition rules, but I cannot answer to your question. We are in the process of examining what would be necessary, but if there is a need for a change in the treaty, the key question is not the legal instrument. The key question is the political purpose. And that's clearly the question now. If there is anybody in the room which is in the situation to explain to me what is today the political purpose of Europe, please speak to me and give me the response. Because we should be all concerned by the rise of populism across Europe, but we should all think about the roots of the rise of populism within Europe. And I think that one of the roots that explains the rise of populism across Europe is the lack of political purpose. Europe, what for? What for? Is it for peace? Is it for economic growth? Is it for jobs? Is it to build a political sovereignty and a technological sovereignty? We have to redefine the European project and to explain to our citizens why we are doing so much effort altogether to reinforce Europe. My deep conviction is that we are building Europe for the sake of technological sovereignty, military sovereignty, political sovereignty, financial sovereignty. That is exactly what is at stake now. If you want tomorrow to be sovereign, you need to have your own autonomous cars with your own batteries, with your own guidance, with your own technologies. And if you are not putting all together all the financial resources of European countries, you won't be able to have your own batteries. Your electric batteries will come from South Korea or from China. You won't have your own technological skills to be autonomous. You will be dependent on the American technology. There is today a direct link between the technological sovereignty and the political one. So that's the key question Europe, what for? The third question on the Eurozone budget, I think that we have to rely on both national resources and we have to take some national resources to fund the Eurozone budget. And also from new resources, for instance the taxation on financial transaction might be one of the resources for the Eurozone budget, which makes very clear that we don't want to take the money from the European financial perspective to fund the Eurozone budget. Let's be very clear on that because I know the concern of some member states about the intention of some members of the Eurozone. Our willingness is not to take the money from the financial perspective to fund the Eurozone budget. We have to rely first of all on new resources, for instance the taxation on financial transaction and also we have to rely on national resources. Thank you very much. I see hand down there at the back of the hall and a second hand and then there's a hand here as well. Thank you very much. Questions in relation to Brexit? Sorry, there's something wrong with the microphone. Two questions in relation to Brexit, if I may. One, what has been the French strategy in trying to attract investment in a post-Brexit world for companies looking for a home after the UK leaves? And how successful has that strategy been? And then secondly, what would be the French position if there was a request for an extension to article 50 over the next number of weeks in terms of timeframe? There are two questions there. There's another question back there, if that's right. Yes, I see it. Minister, thank you very much for the presentation. Sorry that the microphone is not clear. There's some difficulty if you could stand up and tell us your name and then put the question. I'm going to ask a question about artificial intelligence. We've read a report on the French strategy for artificial intelligence. I just wondered, do you think that actually European competitive advantage is not in a standard setting rather than in a huge natural investment in the eye? Because if you look at the situation before where Europe has been quite successful in starting standards that are now being approximated in other countries outside of the EU, there's not going to be a way forward for Europe. Thank you on this question here. Thank you, Minister. Dan O'Brien from the Institute. You mentioned military independence. Could you talk a little bit about how you view the role of the EU and NATO in European defence in future years? Thank you. Three questions, please. So on the question of post Brexit French attractiveness, it's very clear that we want to be more attractive for foreign investment. That's why we have decided with ML Macron to take some decisive steps to improve the attractiveness of the French model and to improve the French competitiveness. We have, for instance, decided a full overhaul of the French taxation system by getting rid of the so-called ESF, the wealth tax, which is now at the heart of the reactions in the streets in France. We have also decided to reduce the level of corporate tax by 33.3% to 25% by 2022. And finally, we decided to introduce a flat tax on capital revenues. So these are the three decisions that we have taken to make France more attractive for the financial companies coming from London. We also have the agency, the European agency that will be located in France. Unfortunately, we were in competition with Dublin on that location, but I clearly think that France might be one of the important financial centres in a few years. And you know the time where we were explaining in France that finance is the enemy, is over, because we need finance if you want to have a strong economy. And the idea that you have to oppose on the one side finance and on the other side the real economy is a stupid one. You cannot have a strong real economy, strong factories, strong industrial plants, strong innovation, strong technologies without having the necessary funding for that. So that's why we want to be one of the most attractive countries across Europe for financial companies. As far as the extension to article 50 is concerned, I just have to understand what for. Because if there is no clarity on the purpose of that extension, I don't see the necessity of that extension. So it's up to the British government to explain to us if they are asking for an extension to article 50, what kind of extension and what for. But the heart of the French position will remain the agreement negotiated by Michel Barrie. Michel has done a great job. I think that the agreement that we have achieved is a fair one, a very efficient one, a very good one. And when you have a good agreement, I think it's wise to stick to that agreement. And I can tell you that Ireland can rely on the full support of France on that very sensitive issue of Brexit. We are fully aware of the concerns of the Irish population about the possible consequences from both an economic and financial point of view of Brexit. We are fully aware that the British people might ask at one point to have changes in the agreement and that the Irish people are very much concerned about that. So we just want to recall that there is an agreement and everybody has to stick to the agreement that has been already negotiated. I deeply regret the decision that has been taken by the British people. And I would have preferred the UK to stay within the EU. Let's be clear on that. But the decision has been taken. And once the decision has been taken by the British people, you have to obey by the decision taken by the British people. That's it. We have negotiated an agreement. We have taken into account all the consequences and all the risks for the Irish economy. No, let's stick to the agreement that has been negotiated. And we will be very careful about the very concrete consequences that the Brexit might have on the Irish economy and on the Irish people. And you can rely on our full support. On artificial intelligence. I think that the European economy has key competitive advantages. But we need more funding. We need to gather our resources. And we need to invest more in researchers. You know that you have in Shenzhen for the time being more researchers on artificial intelligence than all the researchers all over Europe. So if you want to be successful, first of all you have to make the people aware of the key consequences for our economy and also for our society of the artificial intelligence. And you have to gather our forces. Then you have to define the rules and the way you will use artificial intelligence. And I think where Europe is clearly useful, where we need Europe, is to define common standards and a common view of what a society might be. We don't have the same view of what a society might be as the Chinese or American friends. We think, for instance, that we need to protect personal data. We need to protect the health data, for instance, because these are very sensitive data. But let's define all together the rules in which we will use artificial intelligence and the borders that we will define for that artificial intelligence. I think it is the best way of defining the European model of society. On the military question and the question of sovereignty, Europe has to be aware that history is back. We thought after the fall of the Berlin war that history was at the end. Towards the end of history, liberal democracies had won the race and the battle against communism, and liberal democracies would extend all over the world without any difficulty. Thirty years later, we have to take into account that we were wrong. History is back. History means violence, competition. We value between nations. And Europe cannot imagine that our continent will remain in peace without taking into account that history is back. If you want to be able to protect against terrorism, you need to have strong military forces. Because to win the battle against terrorism, you have of course to have the necessary means at the national level. And you need to fight terrorism within your borders, but you also need to intervene out of your borders abroad. In Africa, for instance, like we are currently doing with the French army and with the support of many European countries. I think that one of the most difficult points for the European citizens is to be aware that there is a strategic threat, that there is violence in the world. And that we can't rely anymore only on the protection and the support of the United States. It is not the case anymore, and it won't be the case anymore in the future. So relying only on the protection of the US army or the military means of Washington would be a key strategic mistake. We have to invest in our armies. We need to be independent also on the military field. And when Emmanuel Macron is proposing, for instance, to have a common European army, and when Angela Merkel is explaining well, that's an interesting idea. Let's work on that. I think that we are moving in the right direction. Because we need to be able to face any threat with the support of NATO, but maybe in some case without the support of NATO. Thank you very much. Are there any further questions in the hall? Thank you very much Minister. Europe's responsibility is towards Africa with its booming population and threat of really large... ...suit has to change and the policy has to develop, or can we simply rely on a common defence in the army strategy? I see a question on the side of the fireplace. I think we are to your door. Thank you Minister for the chance to talk. I have one question that's more domestic for you, and I put it here towards France for us all. I'm bringing the pain. I believe it's only going to get stronger. And I know you've talked about it, Julie-John, and the discretaught. How are we in our comfortable new-class, real-file, comfortable world, able to reach out to those and include them in our vision? Because they're developing their knowledge. How can we, or should we, move against the mentality of those that are in the past? Thank you, and there's a question here in the front. Hi Minister, my name is Christopher. I'm from the Norwegian Embassy. I want to touch on a point you alluded to earlier concerning protecting intellectual property. Just asking the question, how can we challenge, for example, countries like China, who allegedly take a lot of our ideas, how can we protect those the best way? And how will you influence the attitude of other European countries who are a bit more friendlier towards China, for example? Thank you. Thank you. On the very last question on intellectual property, I think that there is a broader question behind your question, which is the best way of engaging China into the rules which should be our common rules for fair trade. I mean intellectual property, but also access to public procurement and the question of public aid. So we are working very closely with China on that. We are discussing on that. I think that opposing China is not the right solution. Engaging China is the right one, and you have to choose between those two options. Either you want to face China in a very confrontational manner, and I think that you will lose. Or you try to engage China to explain our difficulties and to try to fix the issues that we might have with China. And I think that this cooperative way is the best way to obtain some very concrete results. I would say also that we should not rely only on the fact that China will change. We also need to change ourselves. Let's take the example of state aid. We have been refusing any kind of state aid to our private companies for many years, explaining that it was against European rules. What has been the conclusion and the outcome of that, the loss of some key private companies. In some strategic fields like the renewable energies. So we have to take into account that in the 21st century, if you want to be able to develop some technologies, some key technologies, some disruptive technologies, which won't be profitable from the very one day, you need the support of the public funding. Having for instance Germany explaining well, that's true. I'm ready to invest in private SMEs. That's a total game changer and that's good news. That's exactly what we have been advocating in France for many years. I'm not explaining that the public state should invest in all the French SMEs. I'm just explaining that when you have a new technology, which is not profitable from the very beginning, if there is a need for public support, we should not refuse that public support. For electric batteries, for cars for instance, to come back to that example. If we want to be successful, we need the support of public funding. Because there won't be any private company which will invest 20 billion euros in five years for electric batteries. No one. So either we want to be successful and we need the support of public funding from France, Germany, Poland, tomorrow Spain. And I hope that one day Allen will join and then we will be successful or we won't be able to develop those new technologies. I'm coming back to your question. We have to engage China, but we also have to take into account the consequences of what China has already decided. And we have also in Europe to change our own rules to face the challenges of the 21st century, not the challenges of the former century. On the question of Africa, then I will take the last question, mine Le Pen, which is of course a critical one. I was in Egypt, I think it was in January, so I have been three days in Egypt. I met President Sisi and he told me, well, you know we are 100 millions of Egyptians now. In less than 20 years, we will be 140 millions. Now you have the choice. Either you help us developing our country from an economic and social point of view, or you will have the 40 million Egyptians in Europe. That's so simple like that. So I strongly believe that the question of public development and support to the African economies is one of the key ones for the 21st century. If we want to avoid huge migrations coming from Africa because of the poverty, because of the climate change, because of the military conflicts in some African countries, we have to help Africa and we need to help Africa. I know from the point of view of the finance minister, that's always very difficult to explain to the French population that I will spend one single euro for the public aid in Africa. That's always very difficult to explain and to support that kind of idea, but that's necessary. Because the whole of a politician is not to think about tomorrow. It's to think about the next century and to see exactly what is at stake. Migration, climate change, technological revolutions and the rise of a strong Europe. These are the key challenges for us. And when I'm taking the decision, I'm always thinking about the consequences for the next 25 years, for the next generation. I'm just asking whether my decision will help to build a stronger Europe, will help to fight against climate change, will help us to have our sovereignty in disruptive technologies. If the answer is yes, I move on. If the answer is no, I move back. That's our responsibility. To think about the challenges for the next generation and not to think only about tomorrow and the next polls. I don't want to make any comment here in Ireland about Maine Le Pen herself. I just want to be very specific on what is happening now in Europe and in all developed countries. The key question is that we run the risk of having a permanent division among two parts of the nations. On the one side, those who are benefiting from the globalization, the well paid, which have a very good job, good earnings, good incomes, and those who have the impression of being left behind or being left out of the globalization. And what strikes me, I've been in politics for more than 15 years, is that for the first time in the developed countries you have a very clear opposition between two parts of the countries. You no longer have many parties, many political forces. You have on the one side those who are for and on the other side those who are against. You have the remainers and you have the Brexiters. You have those for Emmanuel Macron and those for Maine Le Pen. That's a danger for all democracies. And what is at stake now is not only the future of Europe, it's the future of democracies. That's one of the key questions that we have to think about. And my conviction is that we have to avoid that opposition between the in and the out, the remainers and the Brexiters, those voting for the extremist parties and those voting for the reasonable parties. We have to take into account the difficulties and the requirements and the claims and the sufferings of those who have the impression to be left to be left out. That's our key responsibility. And I think that in the movements of the Gilets jaunes, the yellow jackets, there is one positive point. We have to listen to those who are in the streets explaining we have a job and we are not leaving from our job. We need better incomes, we need less taxation. We have to listen to that very carefully and we have to give a very clear, concrete and quick response to those people. Because what we are living now in France will happen or might happen in every European countries. In a different matter, of course, it will be the Brexit in the UK. It will be the rise of the alternative for Germany in Germany. It will be the current coalition in Italy. It will be the rise of regional tensions in Spain. But that's exactly the same political difficulty and the same political challenge. We have a common destiny and the nation is strong when everybody has the clear understanding and the clear impression that he's part of that common destiny. Thank you. Minister, I think the applause that you've just heard speaks volumes for the respect and the admiration and the appreciation that you've given to this audience here this evening. It's a long time since we've had a French Minister for Finance in this room, but you certainly are in the first division of such ministers and you deserve the recognition that you have received. Can I, on behalf of the Institute and on behalf of all your colleagues here as well, say how much we appreciate at the time that you've given? I know you have a very early start in the morning and we are all the more grateful for your time, for your passion, but also for your insights and your honesty in relation to the differences that unite us, which is the best way to go forward. So, on behalf of the Institute and all our Irish colleagues and members here, bon voyage. Thank you.