 Thank you very much for this opportunity. It looks great to be a member state. I have followed the fact that I will speak from here because I saw that representatives from the European Union have done that and for the first time it looks pretty good actually. I would like to mention a couple of aspects of our today's reflection on the future of enlargement. I think we have to face the truth that the enlargement is happening for quite some time. It started in 1973 with the first entering of the three new member countries. It is ongoing and will be happening in the future. We are today dedicating this conference to the 10th anniversary of the Thessaloniki agenda and according to that agenda this promise has been made for the old countries of the Balkans. However, it is a dynamic process. It has changed over time. Probably one distinction that has changed dramatically is that in the past the key driver was linked to no war through economic integration. Today, I think that it is more focused on the performance and we take some of the values that we have started this European project on for granted. First of all, we have to be aware that the European Union that is going to be joined by the countries that are now standing as candidate and potential candidate countries is going to evolve. One very good illustration of that that I was shocked with was given by my 11-year-old nephew who went with his parents to spend holidays in Bali. He is now in fifth grade primary school and he is able to locate Macedonia in the world map. He went there, came back and he said there was a world map in the hotel. I couldn't locate Macedonia. Why? Very naturally, on the world map that he is used to locate Macedonia is practically somewhere in the middle, a little bit above the center. The world map that he has shown in Bali we have Jakarta in the middle and Macedonia is a little dot somewhere in the right corner. Hence, this is also very good illustration of what the world looks like today and that some of the attention has shifted to other places and this is the reality that we need to deal with on practical basis. However, if we are discussing these topics and I saw that in the comments that we are giving in the introduction to this debate, people were talking about financial crisis and I think that this is something that is happening. Europe is going through difficult times but we shouldn't forget the fact that Europe is still the best place to live on earth and that is, I think, a parameter that we also tend to take for granted but it shouldn't be taken that simple. It is, as a matter of fact, no matter the crisis, the challenges that we have faced over the past period, it is a great place to be in and, frankly speaking, I wouldn't change it to any other place on earth, which should be an extra motivation to attain our objective. Now, talking about the future and attaining this objective, we have learned that things have changed in a decision making process. It is still a very pragmatic process. It is driven by the priorities on the political agenda of political decision makers but actually the agendas have changed and the priorities have changed. Three factors remain very critical. It is a political process. I have to emphasize that so you make decisions on political basis. It has also an economic dimension and it has a human dimension. If you take the first half of this enlargement process, probably the political agenda was pretty much the same all around Europe and that was the objective that it was a divided Europe. With the fall of Berlin Wall there is a big enthusiasm to get back to an integrated region and there was a focus on democratic liberal economies to be built wherever they were not existing at that time. But political will was there. Economy-wise, this was a great opportunity to be used. It was a time when Europe was an average growth rate of 3 to 4%. There was a strong willingness for deepening of this European project. There was the Euro on the back, the European monitoring mechanism, etc. So the economic factors were there as well. There was a human dimension which was very positive and that was the enthusiasm for opening up. There was a need for a workforce in practically all pretty much rich economies in what was the European communities and then the European Union now. That is probably the most important aspect. Today some might argue that that has evolved for a number of reasons, but still I think that the principles are the same. You have a first objective that is peace and stability. It is the main idea of the founding fathers and it is why Western Balkans are promised the same perspective as the countries that have already joined the club. We have the internal market and size does matter. I agree fully with Commissioner Foulet, so we are all better off by having a larger, more integrated market. Our ambitions can have grown and during the last 10 years we went really beyond the horizon by fixing this Lisbon strategy that says that Europe should aim to become the most competitive knowledge-based economy. That was a very good driver for better integration and to make sure that 10 and then 2 more and tomorrow another country will join the club and will make sure that this sphere of peace and prosperity gets bigger. We cannot avoid to think about the fact that we are running a risk of becoming a world periphery on a very long run. I do not think that this is imminent and I am not convinced that Europe does not have the capacity to overcome such a risk. Where does the candidates and potential candidate countries stand there? I think they have one very good advantage in this story and that is that people are more focused now on fulfilling criteria than what they used to be in the past. Therefore, enlargement has been the greatest reformed driver for practically all the countries that have already joined the club and that are on the road to join the club. I think that it is the right approach because without that driver probably we would have performed less than what we have performed in this context. Another aspect is that we should not underestimate the leverage that the European Union has when you have a credible process that is based on performance and on delivering results and that leverage can be used in this process especially in the negotiation phase when all possible issues can be put on the table, discussed in the transparent manner and exercise pressure when needed. Key for credibility of this process is whether you respect the principle that the Dutch tend to repeat about strict but fair. Strict means, yes, go ahead with a lot of pressure on every criteria that needs to be fulfilled, but fair means when you deliver then you have to follow and keep this credibility in order to make sure that the next demand that you are going to address will be also a good motivation for those that are performing. In the case of Macedonia, I think that one aspect remains to be relevant and that is the fact that the first time the European Commission has assessed that the country is ready to start accession negotiations that was back in 2009. According to any parameter that was used then, Macedonia is at least better prepared than it was in 2009. It hasn't started accession negotiations yet. The challenge that remains for the future credibility probably of this process is that Macedonia needs to find the strength to deliver on even more reforms without necessarily insisting on this credibility on the other side of the balance which is always a tricky issue especially in today's context when people are very well informed, when you know what are the expectations from the others and you know that you can be challenged on a daily basis by everybody who is going to tell you okay. So you were said that if you tick these boxes on the list, you will be giving a start of accession negotiations. Have you ticked? Yes. Has it been concluded? Yes. Four, five years ago. Has it happened? Well, not really. And then you start to struggle on these performances. What can we do in order to address, let's say, all of these issues? Number one, not to do what we tend to do sometimes in Europe and that is shift responsibility. That is probably the highest risk. We are all responsible of our behavior and on delivering on our results and I think that everybody should take his bit of responsibility. The second one is not to look for excuses neither in the member states. Absorption capacity, I've heard it from several people but I agree that it is really a non-issue. If you take the bulk of the countries that are constituting Southeast Europe and that is south of Danube river down to the Mediterranean sea, it's four member states, well, five now with Croatia and six others that are waiting in the room, the overall GDP of these countries is roughly the GDP of Belgium. Half Ireland, 10 million people. So nothing about the absorption capacity and in addition to that they are very well integrated. On Macedonia's example, roughly 90% of the trade is done with UMM states and candidate and potential candidate countries. If you take off petrol and gas, we are practically part of the internal market. So no excuses. Keeping the credibility and keep the pressure on those that need to deliver is the right recipe and if we follow that recipe I'm pretty confident that I don't know how many years but in a reasonable period of time we can hope that the countries that haven't joined the union but are on the road to do that will be successful on that path for the benefits of those that are in the club and those that are on the road to it. Thank you very much.