 Pascal and me, many thanks for being with WPC-TV, your former director general of the WTO, and now head of the Not-Europe Think Tank in Paris. Obvious question. What are the prospects and what is the importance of the TTIP and of the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well? The two great endeavors. Well, I mean, they're not the only ones. No. There are lots of multilateral initiatives on services, on IT products, which are ongoing, and the prospects of which, in my view, are better than either TPP or TTIP, which are two very different animals. TPP is a sort of classical market access negotiation, very vast, because it's about many countries in the Pacific Rim. As we know, it's been going on for now more than four years, and in my view, we're not near to completion if the ambition is to have something substantial, if the ambition is just to consolidate existing bilateral free trade agreements. It could happen quite soon. The Trans-Atlantic negotiation is a very different one. It's the first of a new brand of negotiations, which is not mostly about tariffs or subsidies or intellectual property, but about regulatory convergence, which is what opening trade Trans-Atlantic is about, which is levelling the playing field, but not the old way, the new way. It's in bad shape. It has a bad start on both sides, by the way, both on the European side and the American side, mainly because I think the sponsors of this negotiation were very bad at telling what it is about. How is it misunderstood? It's misunderstood because they haven't explained that this is about precaution, this is about the level of precaution, this is about the administration of this level of precaution, and they haven't given the good arguments in favour, which is A, that the only way in which is to adopt the highest level of precaution on either side, and second, the big geopolitical price for that is that if there's a Euro-US convergence on a standard for car equipment or pesticide residues in flowers, this de facto becomes the world standard, which is a very important thing for industries and services on both sides. Final question. I suppose one could argue that globalisation has actually really done rather well at keeping protectionism at bay, but we have severe employment problems in Europe, in parts of Asia, America is doing pretty well. Has globalisation, is it still succeeding, is it still the game in town, or is it being threatened? I think globalisation is going on because the shaping forces of globalisation, which is basically technological change, is there and will remain, and globalisation understood in trade opening is nothing but the transmission best of this technological change. Now, there are backlashes against globalisation, not mostly for economic reasons, but for cultural, psychological reasons, which have to do with this notion in many places that globalisation is about losing your identity. And that's a syndrome which is extremely well manipulated by populist forces, which is easier to do, and we've known that forever in times of economic and social crisis. Now, the question is whether globalisation is the problem or the solution, I think under some conditions, which have not always been met everywhere, globalisation is more on the side of the solution than on the problem. Pascal and me, thank you very much. My pleasure.