 Welcome here in Davos. I think that this is the twelfth time that you have had or given us the honor to welcome you here in Davos. Now we are gathering here at the beginning of a decisive decade, a decade for Europe, in which the structures of our historical union have to be modernized. And they need to be modernized so that we can have a strong Europe in the future too. We're looking forward to hearing your speech, Federal Chancellor, and to see how we can have a strong Europe. Thank you. Well, ladies and gentlemen, a particular word of recognition to you, Professor Schaub, you said I'm here for the twelfth time. Well, you are here for the fiftieth time, I understand, and not just one day to participate in this meeting, but to prepare it, to bring people together. And I would like, from all my heart, to congratulate you, because you have really created something very special and a singular kind of forum. The forum actually set a very ambitious goal for it, namely improving the state of the world. And you invited representatives from the realms of politics, business, and various organizations, not only in Davos, but in many parts of the world. And I think one can safely say that when we look back fifty years, that the world has indeed become a better place. Fifty years ago we were right in the middle of the court war. Germany was divided. For me, well, it was certainly not in the cards that I would at some point in time stand here. Now, this court war did 30 years ago. The bipolar world turned into a multi-polar world. And actually, as a multi-polar world, that too is something that we did not envisage 30 years ago, has a number of problems to contend with. The per capita income has ever since 1970 more than doubled. People who have to live through extreme poverty have become significantly less, even though, obviously, we still have a lot of poverty in the world. But also, as regards very bad diseases such as poli, we've made enormous strides. All of that would not have been possible without cooperation, international responsibility. And this is what countries did. They cooperated at international level. And this is why I consider it to be so important, this kind of cooperation. Although every year, obviously, we have new problems to contend with. If we look at the global risk report of the Global Economic Forum, you can see, because you also have a color code there, we can see how the world changes. And what has come to the fore are basically environmental problems, environmental issues. So sustainability, the world converging more and more, is of prime importance. So stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world is certainly the appropriate motto for the world as we know it today. And we need to debate this. We quite often say that the world as a whole is not really able to do that much. But after all, the sustainable development goals were developed a few years ago. We were able to adopt those, more than 180 countries adopted those goals. So in a way, we stake the ground for this new decade. There is a very clear roadmap that we walk on, because we want to achieve those SDGs. We want to put them into reality. But when in September, I attended the summit that took stock of what we have been able to do so far, it also became very clear that we still have a lot on our plate. And if we go about it with the sort of momentum we've put to it so far, we will not be able to achieve those goals in time. And Mr. Schwab just told me that there was an agreement with the United Nations to set up a forum that deals with the oceans of this world and with maritime cleanliness. And that is indeed how we need to go about trying to make more progress and more rapid progress in order to attain those SDGs. The Secretary General of the United Nations is quite right in saying we now are about to embark on a decade of action, particularly, for example, in the area of biodiversity. A lot of countries are dealing with this. And that, too, is playing an enormous role on the agenda of the World Economic Forum, also in the area of climate change. The question, will we attain the goals that we committed to in the Paris Climate Agreement, may well be one of survival for the whole planet. So we are under pressure. We have to act because we know that for the attaining the goals, particularly of the goal of bringing global warming below 1.5 degrees, is something that, well, if we want to achieve, we need to speed up matters because with the sort of speed we must so far we will not be able to do that. Now, what does this mean? The global community has to act together. This is an international agreement. Unfortunately, not each and everyone is with us on this, but many, many countries are still there. And each and every one of them has to give his and her contribution. If when we look at Germany, the country that I have the honour to represent here today, I must say that 30 years after German unification, we are in a situation where we are comparatively well off. We have never had as low a number of unemployed people. We are spending a lot of money for research and development. We've increased our investments, but all of that does not properly reflect what we need to be able to do, what we need to be able to achieve in the next 30 years, because this task to be below 1.5 degrees compared to pre-industrial times means no more and no less for us in Europe, sorry, than to be climate neutral by 2050. And climate neutrality, well, that's something that you can sort of say very easily in most of the countries in the European Union have committed themselves to it. The Commission President, I understand, has been here, has presented the Green Deal to you, and Europe wishes to be the first continent that is CO2 free. But ladies and gentlemen, these are transformative processes of a historic nature. This transformation essentially means that the whole way that we do business, that we live, that we have grown accustomed to in the industrial age, will have to be changed. We will have to leave that behind us in the next 30 years to go. We've made the first steps already, and we have to come to completely new value chains and that obviously also contain industrial production, but that are changed by digitalization that these other enormous transformation that we have to contend with, and we hope that the transformation of an emission-free world will sort of mutually strengthen the progress of digitalization. And let me perhaps take a moment and tell you what we're doing in Germany and what this is actually doing to societies, because you can very easily pay lip service to such a tenant. You like to commit yourself very quickly to this, particularly when you live in cities, instead of in rural areas, and perhaps are a farmer or have long ways to commute to work, or have a wind farm right on your doorstep. For us, this means that over the past year, we have taken decision to first exit from nuclear energy, because we feel that the waste management for nuclear is simply not sustainable in the long run, and that the risks are too great. And we decided that at the very latest 2038, if possible already 2035, we will exit from coal. We will no longer generate energy through coal. And Germany still has a fairly large share of energy generation, 30% of thereabouts, through coal. That is an enormous step, particularly for those people who live in the areas where lignite is extracted, then they have to now all of a sudden switch completely to new energy sources. But electricity generation too, electricity supply too, has to be changed to being CO2 free. If we look at primary energy consumption in Germany, we see that electricity generation is 22%. And 78% of our energy consumption goes into heating, into mobility, or in industrial production. So let's stay with electricity generation. Here, we intend by 2030 to have 65% generated for renewables. For a country where the sun is not shining all the time and wind also is not always blowing, that's quite a considerable amount. It means completely new grids, because obviously the areas where power is generated are different to those where power is needed. And we also intend to lower the overall CO2 emission to 55% because then we wish to be by 2015, as I said, with climate neutrality. So this complete change in our power generation, our electricity generation is already enormous, is also already enormously difficult. We are now currently at 42% of renewables for our own resources in our own country, because energy efficiency, the efficiency with which we can generate electricity from wind and solar is not so high. Obviously there are regions in the world where the efficiency is much higher. But there are still 78% for industrial production and mobility and the question of housing left. And there, green hydrogen, for example, will play an enormous role, although we're very open-minded as regards suitable technologies. And that means we will have to, in a way, integrate also this kind of energy generation with other countries, because green hydrogen can be actually generated in other parts of the world, far better than in Germany or in Europe. So we have to build up these links. And this is why I'm so gratified to know that many industries here have said they are willing to accept climate neutrality for their protection. That means that the conditions under which we build machines and under which we produce steel will have to be changed completely. I just now had a very interesting talk with representatives of the biotech industry that this industry too will play an enormous role in these transformative processes of our economies. So dramatic changes are afoot without actually abandoning the products so which we become accustomed to all these years. But we have to have a considerable rethink and we have to put the necessary regulatory environment in place and the states have to be ready to embark on this path of innovation. So on behalf of Germany, you know that we are a relatively peaceful country. But there are already quite considerable tensions within our society between those who think the prime importance is now to embark on this path. 2050, we only have 30 years. And I very well remember when German unity took place, that was 30 years back. In 30 years a lot can be done. But I also know that 30 years are not that much if you want to achieve a digital transformation plus a transformation of your valued generation. And this is why time is of the essence. And we the older ones have to be very careful. I am 65 years old now. So the impatience of our young people is something that we ought to tap as a potential. We ought to understand this as something where they obviously look at a far different horizon that goes beyond 2050. And obviously, these young people will ask us, well, what about biodiversity and what of the climate that we will live in then. So we are called upon to act now. So what we have to overcome now are completely new conflicts within our society. Because in Germany too, we have a huge group of people who think all of this is not so urgent. They're not completely convinced of this phenomenon. How do we take them with us? Democracies, after all, have the task to bind in people, to take them along, to try to make them passionate about these things. And this is an enormous tension right now between the rural areas and the cities. Because the rural areas contribute more a lot to simply having to bear those and have to tolerate those changes. The infrastructure in the cities, obviously, is much better developed. Individual mobility is something that, well, people will be in a better position to abandon in a city than in rural countries. It's not a matter of belief. It is very clear that there is a very clear evidence through the underlying scientific data that climate change is happening. But wherever facts and emotions clash, one can always try to develop an anti-fact policy, if you like, through emotions that will then have an enormous impact. So that's what we have to reconcile, facts and the emotions. And I would say that presupposes at least that we discuss these matters with each other. And the fact that people seem to no longer wish to talk to one another, that there is no possibility to build a bridge between these different views, that is something that fills me with grave concern. And that's something where I'm totally convinced we have to overcome that. We talk to a lot of people who rarely speak to each other, but not a sufficient number of people speak to each other. When we now have a world where perhaps lack of speech is even more pronounced than during the co-war, where we had an orderly channel of communication between the different sides, then I can only plead for even if you find it's so difficult to talk to the other person, please don't abandon that. Otherwise, you will be in your digital bubble, which in this digital age is even more pronounced. You will be only talking to the people who are of the same view, and that leads us right into catastrophe. We have to overcome this. I am totally convinced that the price of inaction would be far higher than the price of action. And we hope to place our hopes in innovation, in research, and we think that the industrialized countries obviously have to do more. The G20 countries, for example, produce 80% of CO2 emissions. So we have technological obligation because if we look at the sort of, if you like, reservoir of CO2 that we've already consumed to do more. I was quite happy to know that the Bloomberg Innovation Index for Germany actually, in 2020, to my great surprise, placed us at number one. We're not, we obviously, we don't talk every day about what works very well in our country. Quite often we concentrate, unfortunately more and more doesn't work. Cultures are different here, but since it's Bloomberg, I suppose we can quote it. And this is, I don't know why you're laughing, but I think it's a laughter of approval, I take it. Now, interestingly enough, this is essentially due to the fact that automotive industry, that is a very, a core business of Germany, is in a tremendous transformative process right now. They're investing a lot into research and development. Whether in the end we will be fast enough, well, we'll wait and see. The risks are also mentioned in this study. But we think that as far as possible, we ought to allow the market forces to play here. And that the most difficult area of transformation is mobility right now. Because this change from CO2 mobility to CO3 mobility is tremendous. And we all know just due to, only by producing a battery, by producing, by using electric cars, obviously CO2 emissions are not reduced necessarily, because there are quite a lot of emissions that are also generated in the process of producing that. But what we have to do is we have to provide innovations ourselves. For example, we now have a very high electricity price in our country, because we have done a lot to promote renewables per year. The citizens of Europe are spending 30 billion because they are subsidizing this electricity price. But that means that we've actually come to marketability of solar and wind. And now in the developing countries, we are able to sell them technologies. And the developing countries who are able to apply technologies that no longer entail cost of production. So these countries that are poorer, but that also, obviously, have a much smaller footprint as regards CO2 emissions, are actually thrust far more quickly into this new world. Germany is playing double the amount now for investing in international climate protection. Ladies and gentlemen, that already brings me to the question of how does this develop outside of Europe? In Europe, we have more or less created the necessary preconditions for prosperity. But as I said, it's getting more and more difficult to get people on board, not to leave larger groups behind. But if we look at the larger rest of the world, we all know how difficult it is to promote this in those parts of the world, because we know that these are matters of war and peace that we have to contend with. If we look at Africa, but also in Asia, in many cases, we already see the consequences of climate change affecting those countries. And they have, as yet, not even had a chance to use the methods to fend off the effects of climate change. But a lot of things are changing so quickly, as I said, due to digitalization. Over the past few years, that has led to a situation that more and more countries, well, were inward looking, and they were trying to sort of deal with these changes. The tensions with the rest of the world have not, however, been reduced, have not become smaller. And in a multiple world, that is much more difficult, because these poles are constantly shifting. The balance of power in the world is constantly shifting. If we look again at 30 years ago, the GDP of China was significantly smaller than that of Germany. 2007, sorry, the overall GDP. In 2007, China overtook us all of a sudden. And now, obviously, they are much stronger. And this sort of shift of powers, certain poles in the world getting stronger, others getting weaker, also fills people with concern. And that, again, triggers of tensions, tensions that we need to contend with. Today, almost to the hour, Israel celebrates in Yad Vashem, or commemorates in Yad Vashem the Holocaust. The German federal president is present there today. He will speak on behalf of Germany, and he will again point to the guilt that the German nation has, and that has, will refer to the suffering that we've brought over the rest of the world. And that we will do everything we can so that this does not repeat itself. But we are looking back on more than 70 years, 75 years of peace in Europe. Not each and everyone has that. We woke up with a start seeing the tensions between Iran and Iraq, seeing what's happening there in this particular part of the world. How can we de-escalate that? Now, we say, if we have incomplete flawed agreements, such as JCPOE, still, we, as Germans would say, let us not discard that, if we don't have anything better to replace it. This is why we stand up for keeping this agreement, but we also, as you know, have resorted to the dispute resolution mechanism, because we shouldn't send the message to Iran that it doesn't come without punishment for them violating the agreement. Now, there are other tensions. For example, in 2015, as you all know, we've received a lot of refugees that fled the tensions in the home regions. When we asked ourselves what was the mistake at the time, the mistake certainly was not accepting these people, refugees that were on our doorstep. The mistake we made was that we weren't sufficiently vigilant prior to that phenomenon about the tensions that actually made people leave their countries. When a country such as Syria was more than 20, with about 20 million people, where half of the people have fled, either have now IDPs or have fled to other countries. If we look at Turkey, that has about 5 million refugees. Lebanon has become unstable because of the many refugees they've absorbed. Jordan has absorbed so many refugees. We, time and again, have to be vigilant as regards these peace processes. We have to care for them. We have to nurture them. And now, if we look at Libya, we have to be very careful that the same doesn't happen there again. We've made a first attempt, and it's only a first attempt to find a solution for Libya before Libya itself also falls into this trap of a proxy war, as we've seen it in Syria, to the great suffering of the Syrian people. And with Syria, we see that the countries that are below Syria, sort of in the Sahel area, Mali, Niger, these are people, after all, who can't even dream, the vast majority of whom can't even dream to, at one point in time, make it to Davos, that they all of a sudden are affected tremendously by the instability in Libya because there are mercenaries now. There are weapons flooding the rest of the country. We all have to be very, very careful in defending those countries in the sense that they do not become unstable. And all of these development projects that we have given to those countries, that we have tried to work together with those countries, cannot be infective because they have to spend so much on their defense. 30 per cent, for example, of the budget of Niger, has to be spent on defense. And still the terrorists are better equipped. Still they're more successful. So let us all get together when those countries ask us to fight terrorism in their part of the world. As we've done this with the overall coalition in Syria, that the two are being given a robust mandate by the United Nations. They're more than ready to stand up for their countries. So far we have not yet been able to rally round and give them the support that they need by the United Nations. Let us look again at Syria, what this meant, the impact meant for us in Europe. It means that we have to do more preemptively, do good for those countries in order to prevent these enormous floods of migrants or at least see to it that there is a, in a way, a regulated kind of migration. And we will also provide obviously 600 million, for example, for Gavi, for the inoculation campaigns, help those countries to contend the problems that they have to grapple with. Without security, again, there cannot be development. And without development, there cannot be security. I think we would all agree. Ladies and gentlemen, Germany is part of the European Union. As Mr Schrupp quite rightly pointed out, we will have the presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year. On the 31st of January, the European Union will change substantially. So far we've only had countries that wanted to exceed the European Union, but now for the first time we have a country that wishes to leave. That, of course, is a very great issue. We will have to accept that. We will do everything we can in order to have good, neighbourly relations in a spirit of partnership with the United Kingdom. If it wishes to live up to its aspirations and its ambitions that Osla von der Leyen, the new Commission President, has outlined, it needs to be sort of speaking with a clearer and stronger voice. And I think wishing to be the first CO2-free continent in the world, I think, is a very good statement, also doing more on development, also contributing more to peace in the world. And during our presidency, we want to give a contribution to this through two policies that I wish to mention here. First, we want to convene a summit meeting with the African countries, and that will take place in Brussels. And there, we want to in particular listen to the Africans. What is their agenda? I am very glad that we no longer do something for Africa, but with Africa. Africa has set out, has taken out a development agenda for itself, and also has developed a free trade area. And the conference on this took place in EMA, the poorest country of the world, and they decided to develop an internal African market, which is a very courageous decision. It will take a while, but it's a very courageous decision. And we should listen to the Africans and help them develop their ideas and not always impose our ideas for development on them. We should finally understand that cooperation with Africa cannot be handing out alms by way of a charity, but that this is something that will be of benefit to us as well. We have an average age of 45 years. Niger and Mali have an average age of 15. What does this mean when you have such a huge part of your society that are young people and that look to quite a different future horizon than you do? We have always said we have time, but now there is a pressure upon us. And I can only say the Europeans can only win if they listen to the Africans, if they also tap this enormous potential of creativity, of joy of life, basically. And we will then certainly also do something that is not that easy. The European Union so far has not a consistent policy on China. Over the years, we have seen China as an interesting partner of trade that Central and Eastern European countries at some point got together and said France and Germany and the big ones, they're always meeting with China, they're doing their business. Now, we want to also get together and meet on a permanent basis with China. Now, for the first time in September, we want to have an EU-China summit meeting with all of the 27 member states. It will take place in Leipzig. And we want to deal with three different issues ever since 2013. We're working on an investment protection agreement. I hope that we will be able to finalize that by 2023, but we're not at all certain that we will be able to do that. It obviously demands flexibility from both sides. We also will discuss how to condemn with climate change because China introduces an emissions trading system, that is to say a market mechanism. And when we look at the European EMTS, and if we can link this up to the Chinese system, then we could actually be a role model for the rest of the world. And we also at a third point want to deal with third country relations because China is so active in Africa. We also want to be active, more active as EU globally. And perhaps we can lay down well norms, standards, how, joint standards, how we deal with this. Then we have obviously a digital agenda. When I just talked to the biotech community, we heard from them what we always hear, namely Europe is good, particularly as regards protection of data in this digitalized world, but Europe is far too slow. And this is something that we need to overcome. Otherwise we will not be a geopolitical factor to be reckoned with. We're aware of that with 20 by 7 member states. That's not so easy because then you obviously have your own parliaments back home that have their own interests that they wish you to bring to the agenda in Brussels. But as I said, we as Europeans, and I can say this for Germany, we will stand up for multilateralism. We will stand up for multilateral organizations. Each and every one can, of course, conclude trade agreements. We do this as a European Union, whether the parts of the world, we hopefully will be able to do this also with the United States. But as I see it, the most effective way of creating global prosperity is the multilateral way. The World Trade Organization is part and parcel of this. I agree with the American President that the WTO needs to be reformed, but it has to be rendered functionably. And the fact that we don't have this panel in place right now, I think this arbitration panel I think shows that it's not really working well, but it should be working well. Now stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world, I would argue that we all are this. We politicians are this. You are this. We try to take this seriously. I would say basically there's a whole host of opportunities open to us, but we must no longer be inward looking, be going at alone. That would be the totally wrong lesson all these many years after the end of the Second World War. Now I know that repeating the same kind of messages over and over again will not convince each and everyone. But standing up for this, I think, is well worth our while. And I know that there are many here among us who work for the same goal. Thank you very much for your attention. Federal Chancellor, thank you very much for this very comprehensive report that you've given us. Thank you for the initiatives with regard to the Libya conference. I think that we cannot underestimate the importance of that conference. And congratulations on your climate policy. And I'd like to say to you that one of the results of this annual meeting is precisely that you've got a large number of companies that have agreed that CO2 emissions will be cut and we will be CO2 free by 2050. 2050 is a long way away. But I think that many people want to do this earlier. Well, it's funny, you know, because all of the big companies in Germany want to be climate neutral. They want all of this green electricity. And I'm always asking who is going to absorb the rest of this green energy, probably the state or the citizens. So there's a run to this green electricity in Germany. Chancellor, you spoke about the meeting that you want to organize in Leipzig next year with China. Let me just say that there was a lot of discussion about the development of two poles, China on the one hand and the United States on the other. What must Europe do so that we can be on an equal footing economically speaking with the United States and China? How can we preserve our identity and how can we bring our influence to bear? That is probably the most difficult question. As I said, I don't want a new bipolarity in the world, but we must say that we have very different social models, obviously, between the European Union and China. So in a way, the whole social order in the United States of America obviously is closer to us. As we have a transatlantic partnership for a reason after our partnership in NATO, we also have for a reason. At the same time, we see, and that's a completely new phenomenon, that a country that if you like feels committed to communist ideas where there is a one-party rule, a communist party rule, that this country is economically so successful in the Cold War, it was completely different. And this is why I think that we ought to always try and seek those economic contacts. It's not made all that easy for us Europeans at this point because the larger power, well, the United States can, and that's a fact, assess certain standards. They have much more of an economic cloud than we have. So we Europeans have to be wisely reflecting how we can, let me put it in an abstract way, deal in this digital age with Chinese products, Chinese offers, and weigh very carefully whether we wish to decouple ourselves from the Chinese value chain. Because if we think of the Internet of Change at some point in time, all of the end devices, obviously, will be integrated in the Internet of Things. So we should be, through exchanges in this world, always be aware of what the other competitor is able of doing. I would be very concerned if I didn't know what my competitor was doing. So I think we ought to shape this intelligently, this partnership, obviously, from a social point of view, from a political point of view, we have this very close partnership with the United States, but sometimes for economic reasons, we will pursue our policies in a different way. Now, within this new framework, we're talking about the new fourth industrialized revolution. We're talking about the new industrial policy. I think that this is a very sensitive issue. How do you see the neutrality of these systems being secured? And we discuss this over lunch. Isn't it a bit of a pity that Europe, in one area that is in the 5G sector, can actually play its role and have a voice, and that it's not using its competitive advantage? Oh, I think we can bring this to bear. After all, we're proud of having European companies that may very well play a dominant role in building up 5G. 5G, on the one hand, is something evolutionary, something revolutionary as well, because for the first time, in real time, I'm able to link up all kinds of different things, which means, obviously, that the security demands are much higher. How do I secure this? Well, I do this through diversification, through redundancies where necessary. Those are the technological way of going about it, to secure a system. I don't think I can necessarily ensure security of a system when I completely exclude certain bidders and never know, as I say, from a natural scientist's point of view, I don't know what these people are able to do. I have developed. So we have, obviously, state communication systems. We have defense communication systems. Those I would obviously deal with differently than the Internet of Things. But in earlier times, too, after all, we were able to grapple with and master the challenges of espionage. So I would not completely change the instruments, but we have to be very vigilant, obviously. But China is doing this, too. They are trying to use their economic dominance and always on a basis of reciprocity. We, too, then have to have access to the Chinese market. I don't expect them allowing me to get into state communication. But as regards the economics here, I want to have access. Chancellor, does this mean that Europe should develop its own strong industrial policy? No. I think we ought to close this gap to the others who have their own strong players. But as you said, in 5G, we're really good. As regards chip production, we're not that good. Platform economy, we're not that good. The Europeans, in a way, are also so nervous because we have the problem with people who've lost a bit of optimism in their societies, because we feel it's no longer the case as 100 years ago that every new innovation in the world comes from Europe. We are very much dependent on other players and regaining a certain sovereignty, independence, self-sufficiency, and have a certain basic capabilities that I need for this 21st century, I think, is a legitimate aspiration for a continent that wants to be leading. Chancellor, we see a slowing down in an economic process. I think there are relatively optimistic reports from the IMF and the OECD. Can I ask you, do you think that Europe is prepared for a new recession? And what instruments will we need in Europe should such a recession come to pass if we should get a slowdown in economic activity? Well, actually, I'd like to deal rather more with the question how we can avert a new recession. I think the good thing is that the first phase of a trade agreement with China has been concluded successfully. Right now, we, in a way, are an object of trade agreements between the European Union and the United States. I have always come strongly in favour of TTIP, and I will continue to be very strongly in favour of trade agreements with the United States. And every step of the way where we have an orderly exit of Britain from the European trade talks and not a trade war, less protectionism, we will reduce the dangers of recession. It is very obvious when the world was very close, when we all worked together very closely, when the G20 for the first time at the head of state level of heads of state and government, we were able to rather quickly overcome the global financial and economic crisis. Now, we have a world where we have a lot of trade conflicts, and we see that global growth is receding, is going down. So insecurity, isolationism will not be conducive to growth, and obviously then that brings us to the question of investments, which you probably had at the back of your mind when will Germany finally invest? Let me tell you, we are investing more than we've ever had in our past, particularly in climate technology, and we have a problem right now. We have now more money actually that we've earmarked and that we have there than people absorb, than people call for. We have to improve our regulatory mechanism so that this can work, but Germany will not be sort of holding back in participating in those measures, and competitiveness, research, development, innovation are drivers of such investments. I believe that we have learned our lesson from the big euro crisis in the last decade. I know that people were very angry with me, such a bad person for actually imposing these stringent conditions on Greece, on Portugal, and so on, but now you see that reforms are taking place. Portugal is a much better place. Greece too has a prime minister. This is because of the stringency and perhaps also toughness of reform demands that we made, but Europe can also lend its contribution to changing the banking union, adopting also a capital market union, and that too will be obviously a contribution to growth in the world. Chancellor, you mentioned Brexit in passing. Perhaps I'd like to ask you a personal question. What is your personal lesson that you've learned from this whole Brexit saga? It's a twofold lesson. I think on the one hand you have to say, and you have to be very honest about this, Britain has never all been a truly happy member of the European family. They didn't participate in euro nor in the Schengen area nor on the common domestic internal and judicial policy. Whenever were there great changes towards a more cohesive single market, they were skeptical, but the two theories were out there. Is the European Union an ever larger single market or is it an ever closer union? That's something that I need to mention here. Freedom of movement, when that was introduced, the British said from the first day, we, the Germans who are always a little bit slower, said we need a transition period of seven years, and obviously that was a big blow to the Slovaks, to the Poles, that we said we need a longer transition period, but we were able to better contend with the consequences of freedom of movement than the British were, because they saw that they had a lot of, obviously, jobs that were filled by these people, but they had difficulties also internally due to that. Now I think that the exit of Britain will also in a way need make an incumbent on us to boost our competitiveness, because they will be a competitor on our doorstep, so it needs to spur us on. In an article in the Financial Times, you said that this was a wake-up call. That's what I said, a wake-up call, yeah. Right. A last question to you, Chancellor. You have been 12 times to the Economic Forum, and the Forum has celebrated or celebrating 50 years we've been connected for the last 25 years with you. The next time you come, what would you like to be able to say to this audience? I don't know yet. I mean, after I told you today what I wanted to tell you. Now we have to wait and see whether you are ready to invite me again, and then I will say what's the policy of the day. What I'm happy about, let me perhaps put it that way, is that this Forum is in a contribution to opening up channels of communication that are a bit sort of beyond what we are used to, and because I see so many people not talking to one another these days. I would hope and pray that you continue to also invite the antagonists, if I may put it that way, and get them to one at the same time. On the 21st century, it is not actually timely, it is not sensible to say I don't talk to this or that person. Actually, we ought to impose sanctions on these people, because you always have to be ready to talk to one another. We will follow your advice. Thank you very much, Chancellor.