 Now, Michael Lothian, every time we meet, it seems like it's the crucial period for Brexit. It was so last year, it seems to be this particular time. I'm very curious to hear from you how U.S.S. are the current states of Brexit relations, even though it's my understanding that you already, in your talk, you will already be a step ahead and talk about U.K. in a post-Brexit world. Thank you very much. I'm delighted at the invitation of Chiréne Montréal to be asked to give a British contribution to this European discussion this morning. I had hoped, after doing so last year, that when I came this year, Brexit would be settled and I would have an easier time than perhaps I had last year. But unfortunately, that's not the case. Brexit seems to grind on and on and on. Like Margaret Thatcher once said, she would go on forever. I wonder whether Brexit will as well. But I want to start again with a simple premise. And that is that the U.K. is leaving the European Union with Brexit, but it is not leaving Europe. And that, to me, is an essential factor. We are inextricably part of Europe. Our security is part of Europe's security. Our democratic traditions and cultural values, let alone our history, are inextricably linked with those of Europe. But we are an island, and I think it's there that the problem arose. We've never felt at ease with the constricts of the European Union. We could have lived quite happily, in my view, with the Europe de Patrie of General de Gaulle. We could have made progress in the economic community, which is what we originally joined. But we were always uncomfortable with the drive towards ever-closer union and eventual integration, and that is where the crisis arose. What I want to do there is not to go back over the Brexit arguments, but to now look forward to the post-Brexit future. For now, many areas remain shrouded in the midst of uncertainty, if not the obfuscation of the negotiators. So in a sense, it's OTOs to discuss where the negotiations have got to. That's not a criticism. I did many negotiations in my time as a minister, and I know that it's the end of the negotiations that are always the most difficult and where you keep your cards closest to your chest. Of course, on the economic front, Brexit will not be without pain, not only for the United Kingdom, but for the rest of the European Union as well. And I think we have to face that. Brexit involves fundamental change, and fundamental change invariably in the short term, at least, causes turbulence. And while some of this turbulence can be mitigated, in the longer term, my own view is that water will find its own level, and that in the end, mutual self-interest will bring about a resumption of profitable trade, even if that takes a little time. But there are certain areas already where we should be looking very closely at our future role in Europe. First of all, security. In the face of current global insecurity, it's already necessary to envisage a coordinated European response. And I use the word European because this is not about the EU. It's about the wider capacity of the nations of Europe inside and outside the European Union to deliver at a number of different levels. And the first of these is intelligence. I have an interest in intelligence. I'm still on our intelligence committee in the United Kingdom. In this turbulent world, with growing sophistication of terrorist methods, the ability to enter and monitor various levels of cyber and communications activity of these terrorists has already become crucial. And it's generally accepted that the United States through the NSA and the United Kingdom through GCHQ are at the cutting edge of the ability to do this. All European nations have the capability to one degree or another, but here there is no room for false pride. Combining and sharing intelligence is a no-brainer. The United States and the UK already do it at a very high degree and more widely as well, and we've done so for a long time. We may not stop every insurgent plot. But between us, we do stop the vast majority of them because of our ability to share this information. Brexit may create a little ammo prop on all sides, but it would be mad to allow it adversely to affect our counter-terrorist programmes. We should be preparing already to ensure, if anything, that the United Kingdom, the nations of the EU, can share the maximum of intelligence most effectively to combat international terrorism. This is an urgent matter of cooperation, and it serves no one, I have to say, to have European Union members threatening to expel the United Kingdom from the Galileo project, which, after all, we have contributed to for a long period of time. The next area where we will need to cooperate is in facing the cyber challenge, and this is becoming an increasing threat as well. The scope of cyber warfare is expanding exponentially, and we've already seen in certain parts of Europe, and not least in the Baltics, the damage that it can do. No one nation is likely to be able to combat that alone. Highly sophisticated cooperation and collaboration will be required, and we need to be working urgently on that vital area now. Another vital area will be on the defence front, with all the various elements that this must encompass. Over the next decade or so, the United States will increasingly turn its attention away from the Atlantic theatre towards the Pacific and the existential military and economic challenge of China. And this is not just Mr Trump talking about this, I was in Washington two weeks ago. Very senior levels of the administration recognise that fact and hope that we recognise it as well. It will not necessarily mean the end of NATO in its present form, or indeed the United States military support for the European theatre. However, Europe in the widest sense is going to have to undertake more of the heavy lifting. And the United Kingdom, in my view, is central to this. It's generally accepted in military circles that the US, in this engagement, the military forces available to the member steps of the EU alone would not be fit for purpose in filling the breach that's going to leave. The world around Europe becomes ever more fraught, and it's a dangerous fantasy to believe that the European military capacity could step up to the plate without a substantial British component involved as well. British military might maybe solely diminish from our glory days, but we still have the equipment and the expertise to make our participation vital. In particular, in a war scenario where boots on the ground will matter less than technical know-how and top-flight machinery, this will be even more the case because these are Britain's current military strengths. Add to that our acknowledged expertise in the field of special forces, which will increasingly become the weapon of choice in any land war, and Britain's role becomes even more relevant. Britain will have a significant role in Europe in the future, and I have to say we will be more than ready to play our part. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Michael, and I'm sure in the Q&A part, I know you have to leave a bit early at some particular point because you have a flight to catch. Let me just ask you one simple question, and if possible, get a quick yes or no answer. I mean, there's momentum building in the UK right now. People asking or demanding a second referendum, saying, you know, we want to do this again. We want to have a cast or a vote again. Do you think such a second referendum is realistic? Do you think such a second referendum will take place? I don't think it will for two reasons. One is we can't have a second referendum without having a parliamentary vote in favour of it and legislation. And if you look at the British Parliament at the moment, there is a majority for nothing. And so I don't think it would ever get a majority to back it. And secondly, the argument for it is that this is somehow going to be a different referendum. It's the same referendum on the same question. And once you get into that, it's not part of our constitution to have referendums. You have a second referendum, you have a third referendum, you have a fourth referendum. Where do you stop? Well, people are saying we weren't really informed about the ramifications of this particular decision. Well, if you have a referendum on a yes-no basis, and you must know this is a broadcast, it's very difficult to get a full debate on every single issue. It's bad enough during a general election. And I think what's being suggested at the moment is a rerun of a yes-no referendum. I don't think the result would necessarily be any different. Thank you, Michael.