 So, good morning and welcome to the IIEA's latest public webinar. It is a great pleasure today to welcome Dr Enrico Letta, who was Prime Minister of Italy in 2013-2014, and previously Minister for EU Affairs and also Minister for Industry and Commerce. He was a member of the Italian Parliament from 2001 to 2004 and again from 2006 to 2015. In the middle of that period, from 2004 to 2006, he was a member of the European Parliament. He currently lives in France, where he is the Dean of the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences Po. Italy has been one of the countries hit hardest by the coronavirus, and on behalf of the Institute, I would like to express our condolences and solidarity to Enrico during this difficult period for his country and indeed for all of us. The pandemic has been a great shock. It has led to a significant loss of life across Europe and the rest of the world. It has pushed tens of millions of people into unemployment, and it threatens the survival of millions of businesses. It has also generated political strains, not least among the members of the European Union. Dr Letta will address some of these issues over the next 20 minutes or so. He will then take questions which can be submitted via the Q&A function on Zoom, located at the bottom of your screen. Feel free to send your questions at any time during the presentation, and if possible, if you could keep them shorter rather than longer, it makes it easier to moderate the discussion. So thank you, Enrico, again for joining us, and we look forward to your presentation over to you. I thank you very much, first of all. Thanks, the Institute, and your personally for this invitation. For me, it's a great opportunity, and thank you also for your kind and very warm words. I will propose five different points that I would like to raise in this presentation related to the European response in what different countries like mine are experiencing, which is the way in which we are living in this period, and what are the potential risks for the European Union. I take for granted, maybe the Brent and the slogan, very sad, that one of my mentors, Jacques Delors, decided to tell us some weeks ago, saying that the European Union is in a mortal risk in this very period. And I think Jacques Delors, his voice is very rare, in this very period. And I think he's right, there's a mortal risk for the European Union, and we have to act to avoid this mortal risk. So five points. One first one is the fact that this crisis is creating a big, big, big challenge for the rise of inequalities at the European level and within our societies. Second, there's a second big challenge is for other democracies. Democracy is in danger, human rights, digital human rights are in danger in this very period. We are under pressure on privacy rights and on democratic rights, and it's a second big topic for me. Third topic is the fact that European Union is giving two tracks, responses from the corporations, the cooperation among member states, and there's a big difference. Fourth point is the big divide on the post-coronavirus policies and which kind of response to tackle the economic recession. And there's a big divide within the European Union between two group of countries. One group of countries thinking that growth policies are only at national level. And another group of countries thinking that we need European growth policies, and I think the next European Council will be the ground of the battle on these two different ideas. And my fifth point is about the fact that we have to follow the way in which the political debate at European level is raising in the last weeks and is developing itself because there's a true political debate, maybe for the first time after a long period. At the same time, this political debate is more influenced by stereotypes, nationalistic or national stereotypes, lazy stereotypes, and the big risk is also related to these stereotypes and this kind of communication. So, start by addressing my first point. I think inequalities are there, raising, because of men are the most, for me, important in our society. First one is related to education. We are all experiencing, what does it mean, passing to online courses, online school activities, education activities. We are all thinking, even in my university, on how to start again next fall semester and it is not for granted that we are able to have full classes or physical presence in our universities in September, the same for schools. And my point about education is the fact that when you have someone in difficulty in a learning experience, online is the way to leave him alone at the end of the day, not to take care of him. And the physical presence is the only way to take care of someone who is in difficulty or risks to be marginalized. And the big and the first big inequality today is in the education field. The second one is on social, on jobs, on labor market, we had to face a big revolution in the labor market because the digitalization of labor market is bringing a situation in which after the crisis, I think many jobs will be fired because of the acceleration of digitalization is something that we can't avoid. But at the same time, the social disease and social consequences will be a sort of earthquake. And at the same time, the other point in terms of inequalities, of course, is related to the fact that the virus is the same for everyone, every country. But there are countries with room for reactions because of less debt and countries with less room for reactions because of the past and because of debt of the past. And of course, we need to react all together in a very strong way, not pushing for widening the gap because the big risk is to have countries with more money today and able to respond and able to relaunch. It's very important to stop any narrative based on the grasshopper and idea, the idea that there are countries that deserve to be attacked by the virus because they were with debt and finance, not in order and so on and so forth. The virus attacks without any law and this could be a more challenge for Europe in this very field. My second point is about the way in which democracy is under pressure. There are many subjects. Of course, there's the Hungarian issue, the fact that in Hungary we had this experience that is until symbolic, but maybe it would be more than symbolic of how does it mean to close parliament or to have because of this emergency and approach to democratic values and democratic rules that is not the correct one. I think it was very important that the European Parliament decided to keep open and to work in these very hours while we are here connected in this seminar. The European Parliament is discussing, debating, voting remotely and it's a great lesson of democracy because I know very well that the role, the substantial role of European Parliament in this crisis will be very important. Having the European Parliament closed will bring the European Union to have different responses, more technocratic responses. Having the European Parliament open will help the European democracy and the European response. So I think this great topic we have to use this emergency to move towards a more maybe virtual way to apply democratic values, democratic rules. It is very important to show the great lesson. The other great lesson on democratic challenges is related to privacy. Digital human rights, I just mentioned this point. I'm very much worried about the fact that we are not discussing about it. But at the end of the day, we are tracking patients, we are tracking people in disease. We are all happy because we are tracking because of the effectiveness of lockdown, but frankly speaking we need to continue to follow our values, personal freedom, digital human rights and not to transform our society. In a, I would say, Polish state, it's not, I think, the way in which we can convert our European values. I mentioned this point because I think it is a crucial one. My third point is about the decoupling the responses by the European institutions. We had very effective responses coming from European federal institutions. I already mentioned European Parliament, but I paid tribute to the European Central Bank and European Commission. Frankly speaking, in four weeks, European Central Bank and European Commission did more rather than the Commission and the ECB did in four years from 2008 to 2012. During last crisis, they took four years to try to solve the crisis and to invent new tools and to react. In this crisis, four weeks and the Commission and the ECB were able to be very effective in some important responses. We are today able to discuss, apparently, in a quiet situation on solutions because of the effectiveness of the ECB response, for instance. And I paid tribute and I think the European institutions after maybe some mistakes, some communication mistakes at the beginning, but every leader in every country had committed a lot of mistakes during this crisis. So I think it's acceptable to think that some mistakes were there. But at the end of the day, the European institutions, until now, made a very good job. It is not the case of the European Council until now and the cooperation among member states is the crucial negative point. Of course, we have next week a very important rendezvous that is the European Council and the European Council can change the direction it can give and I hope will give a very important and positive responses. But until now, the feeling is that the cooperation among member states is not good. The reactions are not positive and the way in which they found agreement within the Eurogroup was not the best way. And yes, the agreement was there, but we are very much worried about the evolution of this agreement. So there's a big distinction between European institutions responses, very effective and ineffective responses coming from the cooperation among the member states. My fourth point, the other cleavage is the cleavage that will be at the end of the day the mood and that will be the frame of the European Council meeting next week. It's the fact that how to react to the crisis. Of course, we need to tackle the sanitary emergency immediately today and it is clear that this is the main emergency, the main priority, but we know very well that the figures, the recession, the worst recession ever, we need unprecedented tools for an unprecedented crisis. This is why I think this is what I guess the most important part of the discussion for next European Council will be the famous fourth pillar of the conclusions of the Eurogroup for the European Council meeting. So this famous recovery fund that is mentioned also in a large interview today, the FT by Emmanuel Macron, I think this point is the crucial key to understand if the half glass is full or half empty glass at the end of the council. I think the key will be the perception about the evolution and the development of this fourth pillar. The other pillars are more traditional tools, the ESM, the investment bank, they are still there, they are traditional tools like also the budget, maybe the less traditional tool is this program sure by the commission is a positive one, it's a big positive step, but it is not something completely unusual. It was there, it was there in the perception and in the elaboration of the European Commission and the Commissioner, Nicolas Schmidt was working on this topic since the beginning of this mandate. But what is for me important is this fourth pillar and on this fourth pillar is the recovery fund that needs creativity because we need an unprecedented tool for an unprecedented crisis. There are two different philosophies. One is the idea that, that is the idea, the typical idea coming from Amsterdam or from the Northern countries. This Unseatic League has framed it that the European Union is there to assure financial stability. Then growth policies are in the hands of member states. I can't agree. It is not the right way to address modernity and the real situation of Europe today because Euro area is very integrated area. It's a very integrated in real economy terms. So we need to have three levels. We need to have the stability, financial stability assured by the ECB. We need to have national initiatives and national policies, but we need also European and Euro area policies for growth because our Euro area is so integrated that we need to have these kind of integrated policies. And the fight between these two different ideas will be, I think, the big frame of the next European Council. And the final solution will enlighten us to understand what will be the future of the European Union in these terms. My final point is about political debate, stereotypes. I think we had in the last months a debate full of stereotypes that changed very much the perception in our countries about the European Union. I was really negatively impressed by seeing some polls in my country, Italy, with the change we had in these four weeks. I mentioned four weeks in which European institutions helped our countries and helped Italy, but the perception was slightly different. You have a poll saying that today the true friends of Italy for the majority of the Italians are China, Russia and the US. And the true enemies for the majority of the Italians are German and France. And frankly speaking, I think that this perception, the idea that our neighboring countries and European friends are not there to help us, but we have countries like China or Russia that are there to help us is the perception that is there after one month of crisis. And because I saw a very stereotype based debate, I repeat this, grasshopper and narrative was very negative. This is why I think we have to switch and we have to change completely the narrative saying that the virus attacked Italy and Spain, not because they are countries with large debts. They attacked Italy and Spain. It was by chance like New York City today is the biggest city under attack by chance, because it's a southern or an ant city or country. So it is the virus is there, is there in an unprecedented situation, asymmetric situation, and we have to consider that the response has to be symmetric. So we have to consider that all the recession we will experience will be problematic for all of us and we need to have a general response. And this political debate that we are experiencing for the first time we had in all our national debates, interviews of European leaders, debates with other European leaders coming from other countries. And for the first time maybe the domestic debates where they're trying to understand the point of view of the other people or the other countries, but these stereotypes and this race of nationalism in the domestic debate was very negative. And I hope that the second part of this narrative yesterday, Ursula von der Leyen gave a very good speech in the European Parliament. She was very good. And I hope this speech will start a second time, a new narrative on the European response that makes solidarity in reality, because union means solidarity and without solidarity there's no view. This is my take, this is my general guess, and those are my five points and I will be more than happy to discuss with all of you. Thank you very much for that very comprehensive and clearly structured speech. As I say, we're open to questions, a lot of questions already coming in and I might go to our director general Michael Collins, who picked up on your very last point in relation to President Collins comments yesterday at the European Parliament where she said Italy deserved an apology from the rest of the EU. Michael asks, should Italy accept this apology and he wonders whether or not irreparable damage has been done to the legitimacy of the European Union in Italy? I'm afraid damages are really very, very wide and very deep. The words are showing these damages. I think now, of course, words are important and what Ursula von der Leyen said yesterday was positive and very important. I think there's a last chance, the last chance is next Thursday, next European Council next week. I think the results of this meeting will be decisive because if these results are presented or communication is very important, if these results will be full of tools, I'm sure. But if they are presented in a positive way, in a good way with the idea that really there's a common path and common mission all our countries, European countries are thinking that it's a problem of a common reaction to the recession, I think we can cope with this complicated issue and complicated situation. Otherwise, if next week we start with the narrative of Prime Minister Wouter or Finance Minister Erkstra, the two Dutch that were so tough against Italy and Spain with the idea that it's laziness, that is the reason of why the virus is in Italy and Spain and not other reasons, I think it's damages will be very high. I have to say that almost everything is in the hands of one person. And this person is Angela Merkel because at the end of the day, she was very tough and the previous European Council, stopping any idea of Eurobond. Now she has to be very open on the recovery fund because the recovery fund and the effectiveness and the concrete result of the recovery fund are the only potential possible solution. So I hope that Angela Merkel will be at the level of the expectations, at the level of her predecessor Helmut Kohl when Helmut Kohl decided to take some important decision more as European leader rather than just the German leader. It's time for the leaders of European Council to think to themselves that they are European leaders and not on the national leaders. Could I follow up on that point? Do you think in countries such as Germany that the population feels that kind of European response is legitimate? So is it possible for a leader such as Angela Merkel to lead her people to do something that is very different from the past and may involve considerable amounts of money? Do you think the legitimacy is there for such a decision? I think it is very important that the rest of the European debates can help her to be convincing and to help her to be convincing. We have to clarify that there's no mutualization of the debt on the table. That is the key point in political terms. If we are all very honest and clear on that point, I'm sure that the German people will understand. But in their own interest, I know very well that the German Entrepreneur Association is pushing for European solutions. But they know very well that there are many important outcomes of the German industry that are with German flags. But at the end of the day they are European. I mean, for instance, car industry. If you have Mercedes in mind, Mercedes is a typical German brand in the world, but one third of the part of Mercedes is made in Italy. And they know very well that they can't allow Italy to collapse because Mercedes will collapse with Italy. And that is the way, this is why I mentioned my presentation, the fact that the euro era is really integrated. And this is why we need integrated responses. A question from Antonio Oraldi, who asks if this crisis could generate changes in the EU that would address its democratic deficit. I suppose the question presupposes that there is, is it in the EU? You may have thought about whether there is and whether this crisis could change that. May the 9th was the date supposed to be the starting point of the conference of the future of Europe. This conference will be postponed, maybe start in autumn. It was, in my view, a very important step for the future of the European Union, because there are many things that the European Union has to rethink and to reshape. About democracy and about politics. My point is related to the fact that we are all in the hands now of 27 national leaders. These national leaders are national leaders that are under a national legitimacy. They will be in the European Council taking decisions, but they will be all legitimated by their own national constituency. I think time is coming to start with a European legitimacy for European leaders. And this is what is missing today, because it is very difficult to find European legitimacy, a European constituency. A political leader is there to take decisions, but is there also to respond to his constituency. And the 27, their own national constituency is very complicated to ask each of them to be leader of a European constituency, which doesn't exist. This is why my key point is the fact that we have to build up a sort of European legitimacy in the future. That means transnationalists at the European Parliament or a sort of rebuilding of popular election of the European Commission president or something like that. But we need to reinforce the European legitimacy of leaders. Thank you. Peter Gunning, a former diplomat, thanks you for your presentation and agrees with you on the risks to democracy. But he asks the question around digital rights and privacy and wonders if digital tools such as tracking could be used as a means of addressing the health dimension of this emergency. Yes, this is what is happening in Italy. It is what is happening. The digital devices are used to track and to use information. We are all aware that there is no alternative because we have to face a mortal combat with the virus. But at the same time, I think we need to understand that it is an emergency and we need to consider these rules as emergency rules. And we need to consider, we need walls, we need digital human rights, we need data protection, we need to be very strong with the giants, tech giants, because it is clear that this acceleration of digitalization is done without guarantees. Who is in charge or who is owner of all data that we are exchanging in digital way in this very period with an acceleration without any precedent in our history. So my point is that we need to have in our European institutions and our national government, we need to have to have in this very moment people thinking on how to restore normality or restore normality means how to restore rules and values, digital human rights for the normal period after the virus. And not to translate or not to move the emergency rules in a sort of inertia way through this period to the normal period. Because I frankly speaking I'm afraid of what is happening because we are all aware of what is necessary today, but we are allowing a limitation of freedom and liberties that is unprecedented in our lives and we have to be aware of that. Column lauder of a financial services company good body here raises that very question and he gives examples of the use of decrees in Italy, the limiting of purchases of goods in France from Amazon. And he asks, is there a double standard in the EU treating hungry in one way when there are possible, the political rights violations happening in other countries. So he asked double standard. I don't think there's a double standard because of a very simple reason. The Council of Europe, that is not as you know, a European institution the Council of Europe that is the international organization based in Strasbourg, and for the respect of human rights and principles, rule of law is and was. Accusing Hungary for one precise reason and precise reason was the lack of a deadline for the emergency powers that the parliament gave to the government, and that is the key point. That is not the case for the rest of Europe, we have emergency situations, but within rule of law and within deadlines clear deadlines. That was not the case in Hungary. So I think the key point for Hungary is this deadline, the lack of deadline and is very, I think is correct to point out the fact that you can't create an emergency situation emergency powers without in our rule of law having a clear deadline and having the parliament in charge for this deadline. This is the key point. Question from Bill Ennis, who's an author and journalist, including rights regularly in the Italian papers. His question is, what do you expect to be the future of the current Italian government over the next few months and year, given that the largest parliamentary component five star is opposing the fundamental content policy, namely access to the ESM credit line. That's a very good question and the limit is someone who knows very well the Italian political debate. And I think it is another reason to consider next European Council as a crucial moment for European history because the way in which they will organize the response, the way in which they will organize the recovery fund, the way in which they will clarify the no conditions for the use of the ESM money resources for sanitary reasons will influence very much the political debate in Italy, exactly because of the reasons that Bill Ennis raised. And I think the response to his question, the answer will be also, it depends on the way in which these European responses will come, the way in which Conte will manage, will manage it in the relationship with the rest of the leaders. Until now, I think Italy is standing because of the right choice to create this alliance and the alliance among France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, Luxembourg, Slovenia. It was a very good choice. It was a very good choice and I think the final result will depend on the solidity of this alliance and the solidity of this alliance means that France needs to stay there, has to stay there and not to leave this alliance to join Germany. France needs to negotiate with Germany to find a solution, but representing the entire group of countries signing with her this document. And on the other hand, Italy has to stay there, not to isolate itself, because it would be a disaster. My point is that the isolation of the country in this very period is the mortal risk for Italy. If we stay there in this alliance, trying to have the solutions that we can have and because the four pillars are all very important. And then if the fourth one is not an empty box, I think the solution is there and it is an European solution. And so that can help us so five stars for the future to develop their more pro-European approach and to strengthen the relationship with the party of democratic. Of course, Italian politics is unpredictable by definition, I may say, and this crisis is unpredictable. So it is very difficult for me to say what will happen in one month or two months time. But frankly speaking, I don't see a crisis of government or a change in the Italian government in the next months. Okay, Lane Davis has a question about your skepticism in Italy, and whether it has deeper historical roots, where you see it evolving. She raises parallels between anti EU feeling or your skepticism in the United Kingdom. Would you care to draw any parallels between how Italians have become more Euro skeptic and the trend in the United Kingdom? I think there's a parallel. I do share the fact that there's a parallel. There's a parallel related to grassroots and reasons. There's also in Italy this division between a sort of big cities pro-European approach and rural areas anti-European approach. This approach is typical of Italy and it was of course typical of the UK debate and the Brexit debate. There's another reason, and the other reason is the fact that Brexit influenced very much the Italian debate and the Italian relationship. Because Brexit happened and the fact that it happened was an help and a push, a boost for the anti-European populist leaders in Italy, because it was considered as before the referendum and it was considered as something impossible to happen. And it happened. So even this fact that it happened helped the Italian anti-European leaders. Of course, the other key point is related to the fact that Italy had two crises, two financial crisis plus migration crisis that helped very much the anti-European. Because in both crises Italy was in the first front, first line, and in both crises Italy was left alone in the previous one because of the timing of the response. In the second one, yes, in the refugee crisis, it's clear that this asymmetric crisis in Italy was left alone. So it was very easy for the anti-European leaders now to start a narrative, an anti-European-union narrative saying that is the third time that we have a crisis and we are left alone. So we have to put together all these different aspects and these aspects are showing that the risk, the Euroscepticism raise risk for Italy is very high. This is why we need responses and this is why we need very, very effective responses from the European Union in this very period. And we are really on the edge. And I'm very worried, I say frankly, but I have to say that is what is worrying me is not only for Italy. I was seeing some debates or following some debates in Spain too. What happened in the last months for the first time created in Spain, one of the most pro-European countries ever within the European Union, for the first time a sentiment that was a sentiment of mistrust. And is the demonstration that this division between North and South core European marginal countries and the way in which the European Union needs strong communication, narratives, reframe and reshape is there. So I think it will be one of the main issues for the future and next week will be decisive. A linked question from Francis Jacobs, a member of the Institute about attitudes to globalization, something that was quite prominent in President Macron's interview with the Financial Times today. He asks, do you think this will have an impact on how people perceive globalization? Will it make people less favorable to globalization? And what will the impact be for politicians like Salvini in your country or Le Pen in France? Will it lead to an increase in support for what might be called populist politicians and parties? Very good question. My answer is that the immediate response, I would say the God's response is that globalization will be stopped by this crisis and this is the end of globalization and so on and so forth. In reality, I think it is exactly the opposite. This crisis is the first crisis of the global world. It is the first crisis of a totally connected world. We understood suddenly that we all depend on each other and these global interdependence, it is not just thought for dreamers or for people, cosmopolitan people, it's the reality. And the last two big challenges in the last 12 months in our lives, pollution and virus, they didn't need any passport to pass borders and borders are totally unaffected for virus and for pollution. So I think the key point is that we will have a sort of mad split because the populist narrative will have a lot of boost because of this crisis because they will start with a very national narrative. This national narrative is raising because national pride, the fact that we are all locked down in our countries, is a way also to raise national pride. And at the same time, this national pride has to become a European pride, not a nationalistic anti-European pride. I say that because I think it's very difficult to have leaders with a sort of track record, negative track record in terms of position or statements like the one that Salvini for instance had in the last months or Marine Le Pen too. They did all the possible mistakes, all the possible mistakes, but at the same time they are there because they work on people fear and they have the European Union as the target. So they are taking advantage of the situation in which they made a lot of mistakes. They failed completely. Salvini is a complete failure. Salvini is the leader of Lombardy in political terms and Lombardy was the main, I would say, responsible for the crisis and the way in which the crisis was mismanaged in Italy. So I think Salvini is unable to say that is because of someone else, because of scapegoat. Scapegoat doesn't work in reality, but at the same time these kind of fear narrative and the topic of European Union and scapegoat works. So I think that we need to have responses, quick responses, effective responses and to avoid the recession or the worst recession to avoid populism. So populism is always the outcome of recessions. So if we have the deepest recession, we will have the deepest and the worst populism. I'm not out on that. Many, many questions. Can I take two, because they're both related to next week's European Council meeting. Bobby McDonough, who was Ireland's ambassador to Italy while you were a prime minister, asks about the role of political leadership in Italy in terms of influencing public opinion in relation to the European Union. The second question comes from the Irish Times Europe correspondent Neiline O'Leary. She asks about the risks of having a discussion at the Council about this, that if we talk about this, a European response is being absolutely essential. Is there a risk that the demands actually cause a crisis in the EU? Because some people are bound to be disappointed by the outcome. So are expectations being built up too much, which will make everyone believe there's a failure at next week's European Council? Thank you for these questions. To my friend the ambassador, I have to say that I think the political debate in Italy and the political space was occupied by wise positions. As I mentioned, for instance, the big role and the very important role that Mario Draghi played, his position, his paper on the FT was very important in data and political debate. I think we are all very happy because we have the president of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, playing always a very important role, unifying the country, and he's always linking national efforts to European efforts. At the same time, I'm afraid that the big division, the big separation between majority and opposition is today a problem. It's a problem because there's a mortal combat between majority and opposition and bridges are very few. We were all positively surprised. I was positively surprised by the position that Silvio Berlusconi took, for instance, three days ago. He took a position that was a very pro-European position in a completely decoupled way and in a different way with Salvini and Meloni. So I think Berlusconi's position was, I think it depends on the way in which the media will try also to present what will happen and I move to the second part of the question related to expectation. I think what is missing until now is the correct management of expectations that is fundamental in any complex decision and in any decision-making process, how to manage expectations and how to, at the end of this process, get results that can join the expectations. It is incredible what European Union and European institutions did until now. I repeat, it is more than what they did in four years from 8 to 12 during the other crisis. So in four weeks, more than they did in four years. But the perception is not enough positive. This is why the work in terms of communication but also in terms of relationship among leaders is essential. And this is why I think it's important that Merkel can play a positive role and can say to their own public opinion that the European response is also positive for the countries. Leadership is important to make public opinion aware of that. It is important in Italy to make aware Italians that we can expect a European help, but we had also and we have also some problems, domestic problems. The difficulties in managing the debt in last years was also part of the lack of credibility today. And at the same time, we need to manage the expectations also because of our own mistakes. But the same we have to ask to Merkel and to Rute to say to their own public opinion to lead their pan-European explaining that it is impossible for Germany to save Germany without saving the rest of Europe and the same for the Netherlands. So the interconnections are so important that we need a European response and I hope they will be able to manage expectations. I am optimistic on the next European Council. I can't see such a disaster because a lack of agreement will be a disaster and they can't allow to have a disaster and the disaster will be terrible in terms of consequences for normal people the day after. So it's very important I think to now to be able to manage these expectations and to find the right way to fulfill this fourth box. I focus my attention to this fourth box, the recovery fund. If they are able to fulfill this fourth box, then I think the result will be the famous half full glass that is needed. Let me conclude with two big questions, but they're short and hopefully they'll allow you to give short answers as we're almost at 10 o'clock. Gabriele Colatina asks, do you think the crisis will accelerate environmental policy response? And Pierre-Emmanuel Debord who's the Belgian ambassador to Ireland asks, do you think this crisis will lead to an expansion of social policies at European level? More green policies, more social policies? My answer is yes for both. More social policy because of what is happening. One of the four chapter is for the first time a big social chapter and this short chapter is a way to relaunch the idea of a social Europe that was not part of the response last time and we paid the price of this lack of social response. And that's a very important point. I pay tribute to the European commissioner, Nicolas Schmidt, because of his commitment on these topics. And on Green Deal, I think there are some thoughts that maybe Green Deal can be the victim of what is happening. I don't think so. I don't think so because for the recovery fund, for instance, the European leaders and European commissioners are thinking to this recovery fund, applying as model the Green Deal. That means that the Green Deal is a success, is there a success in terms of narrative, in terms of tools. And I think the Green Deal can be the way in which the European Union can move towards the future. And at the end of the day is exactly the meaning that I was trying to develop minutes ago, saying that pollution and virus are together. And they are part of these words of interdependence and they don't need passports to pass borders and there's no more borders for them. So I think we have to keep this fight. And what yesterday Ursula von der Leyen said in the European Parliament was, I think, a very good signal. Before thanking you for your excellent presentation and fantastic answers, let me just remind those in attendance that we'll be continuing this discussion on Tuesday. Among the participants will be the former Prime Minister of Finland, Alex Stubb, which will be interesting to get a Northern European perspective on many of the issues we've discussed. So with that, Dr Lett, we'd like to thank you very much for your time, for an excellent presentation and for covering so many issues with such expertise. Thank you very much.