 Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this session as part of the formal program now of this World Economic Forum meeting on the Middle East, North Africa and Eurasia, where we're going to be focused on the very timely topic of the future of European integration. We obviously could not have a more interesting time to be able to hold this discussion. We have, as a theme of the overall WEF meeting, the concept of bridging regions in transformation. And I think that the EU stands inevitably at the face of its own transformation. It has been the world's leading example of regional integration for over 50 years now, but where it will be in the next 20, 30 years probably depends upon how it handles the particular crisis that is befalling it right now in the context of the euro, but potentially one that's going to spill over into many other political dimensions of the process of European integration. You could say that actually European integration took place in a relatively benign global and economic context for its first 50 years. The EU countries were at the top of the global economic ladder. But now the kind of structural challenges that have been eating away at its competitiveness for a long time, whether demographic, whether in terms of ability to integrate immigration, whether divergences in competitiveness, in educational attainment levels, in the build up of government debt, all of those structural challenges have coincided with the rise of other countries' economic competitiveness, with a rise of the rest, as some have described it. These have exposed the EU's vulnerabilities. We have five super panellists, four right now, but shortly I am told to be five very good panellists who are going to tackle this topic, representing in essence two of the EU's most strategic neighbors, one of which, in the case of Turkey, is in the midst of accession negotiations, and then three EU views, if I can call them that, each from a different perspective, one political, one business, and one from one of the more thoughtful commentators on European integration. Ehmen-Baj is the Minister for EU Affairs and the Chief Negotiator for the EU accession processes for Turkey. Vittorio Grilli is the Vice Minister of Economy and Finance of Italy. Daniel Gross is the Director of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, so Michael Rake is Chairman of BT Group, amongst other positions that he holds, both principally non-executive these days, Mike, yes, and then we will be joined by President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine. So, let me start off by giving an opportunity to each of our speakers to tackle perhaps one dimension of this process of European integration and how, to start with Minister Baj, if I may, with you, how the EU looks somewhat from somebody who's in the midst of a negotiation, a little bit still on the outside rather than on the inside. You could argue that the EU's relationship with Turkey has become hostage to developments within the EU, rather than hostage to anything that may or may not be happening in Turkey in terms of its ability to meet the kind of negotiating criteria, the acquis communautaires it's called, and that at the moment whatever you do, it's going to be very hard to take the process forward. Is this the way you see it? When you look at Europe right now, do you see a part of the world that is closing in on itself, or do you see a European Union that is still able to think strategically about its future, in particular its relationship with Turkey? Well, we had a similar discussion back in January in Davos, and I couldn't help myself, and I told the leaders around the table, European Union government representatives, cheer up. We have seen worse, and you have seen worse. You overcame your difficulty, so did we. This is going to be over. Unfortunately, we're in the process of trying to get it over with. But no crisis lasts forever. This crisis would be over too, and we should not forget that. Per capita prosperity is still the highest in Europe compared to the rest of the world. And when I say per capita prosperity, I'm talking about not only income, but income plus human rights, plus food safety, plus hygiene standards, plus hopes for future. European Union has a set of values which unite us, and those are the right values to carry on to the next generation. I always argue in my own country that EU is like our dietitian. Everyone knows they have to watch what they eat, and they need to exercise regularly to lead a healthy life. But sometimes they tend to forget doing the right thing. And sometimes you need the advice of a coach, or motivator, a doctor, a dietitian to do the right thing. 27 countries, those of them especially, who implemented the EU rules and regulations, became more prosperous, more transparent, more dynamic. And EU itself is a peace project. If the Brits and the French can live together under the same umbrella, despite centuries-long wars in their common history, it's because of EU. I used to joke with my French counterparts and say, so you can digest to live with the Brits in the same union and not with us, what's wrong with you? Because none of the wars we had in our history were as bloody as the wars among themselves. So this is going to be over, and by the time the crisis is over, we all have to be prepared. Yes, it is difficult. Turkey's membership aspirations have been hijacked by political ambiguities within Europe. Unfortunately, we see more and more politicians in Europe who try to exploit Turkey's membership aspirations for their domestic campaigns. But some of the things we have done in Turkey in the last couple of years are amazing, and we did it with the EU push. In a country where people would be afraid to admit they were Kurds, we now have 24 hours of Kurdish broadcasting on state television. The Armenian community started having masses at the religious Akdamar Church, which is one of their oldest churches in the world, after a gap of 88 years. The Orthodox community have started enjoying Sumala Monastery after 112 years. People of Roma origin have enjoyed greater freedoms. Our food standards have increased. We now have rules about the toys that our kids play with. The baby food manufactured in Turkey, welcome Mr. President, is all organic now thanks to EU rules and regulations. So what we try to express is it's not the rules of EU that created the problem. It's the fact that some members did not comply with their own prescription. The fact that the dietitian himself is overweight, is moody, has a few clock dark trees, doesn't make the prescription bad. The prescription is still the best around, and we have to focus on the process, on the prescription, not the dietitian, not his mood, not what's happening domestically, and this can be resolved. Well it sounds like we have to go outside the EU to get some cheerleading for the EU. So thank you very much for reminding us about some of the strong attributes which the EU still possesses, both intrinsically and from your perspective. But let me turn to one of the countries that is certainly taking on the diet with renewed vigor, Vitor Grilli, Vice-Minister for Economy and Finance in Italy. Clearly Italy is a country that right now is having to think very differently about its relationship with the EU. I think uncharitably one might say it was a country that it would appear from the outside, kind of coasted, went a little easy perhaps on undertaking some of the structural reforms that membership within a single currency might imply, which is now on a crash course. If I'm going to keep going with the metaphor that Mr. Baj started with a crash diet in trying to get itself broadly competitive. There has always been competitive parts to Italy, but to get its economy as a whole into a much stronger shape. How ready do you think the Italian people, Italian political parties are for some of the really tough choices that are going to have to be taken, not just in six months, but over the next two to three years of constant tightening of the belt? Well I think they are ready and they understand the challenge. That is in fact the whole idea and purpose of this government, the Monte government, to do in a rush, as you said, with a crash course in reform, what has been following a slow pace given the challenges that global economy is providing to us in Europe in general. And I think the proof is that in the last seven months we introduced a huge amount of reform, and especially in the budget, which has been identified, rightly so, as one of our soft spot, especially our big debt-to-GDP ratio. We introduced a huge tightening of the belt, as you said, to assure that starting next year we'll have a balanced budget in structural terms. And we did more because we were among the first to change our constitution. According to the fiscal compact, we introduced the constitutional obligation to have a balanced budget always, forever. And I think Italian understand very well that that's part of a necessary component to set the rules straight so that misbehavior is not allowed in the future any longer, and it's part of the precondition to keep building Europe as a part of a dynamic economy based driving the world. And of course, that means giving up part of old habits, or maybe sovereignty, depends how you want to call it, but they see as there is no way other than having common standard, common rules, and a clearly identifiable framework to move forward, which move forward means to build together the next step, which means looking at a common, better managed budget. Maybe common is a big world, but at least to have a much better understanding of, for example, a common area, like research and development, infrastructural project, things that we all know that are part of increasing our potential output, of course, and looking with a different eyes, also not just at the fiscal policy as part of discipline, but also fiscal policy as part of a component of a growing economy. Mr. Grilly, maybe come back to this point in a minute, because I think it'd be fair to say that, yes, Italy carries a large debt. On the other hand, you have a really relatively low deficit. A lot of your debt is held by Italians. There are very strong private savings. I think that the challenge of growth seems to be the one where the market's most doubtful. And let me just bring in, in a minute, we welcome President Yanukovych of Ukraine, and let me just say that very quickly. Delighted to have you with us. I will just go through two of the other panelists and then come to you, maybe at the end, to let you reflect on some of the comments others have made. Let me just segue from this point to Michael Rake. Mike, as somebody who's obviously led companies in the EU and chairman right now of BT Group, the big promise of European integration was that it would help deliver more efficiently growth across a group of disparate countries, which by themselves would be too small to be able to survive. I mean, do you, when you look at the European Union today, do you see it as capable of delivering growth? Are the regulations, the way they're designed, is the structure of decision making actually holding Europe back, or is it actually going to give it the opportunity to move forward? And I think of the services market in particular, but we've not had much progress yet in opening that up. What do you think? Absolutely. I mean, firstly, I think that what was said earlier, we need to remember in all of this discussion, Europe overall has been a huge success, nearly 70 years of peace and until recently, growth and the creation of a very large market. So, I mean, we need to remember that. And despite the fact that I'm British, I should declare right up front that from the beginning, I've been pro European Union. And actually, I may be the last one left, but I'm still pro Euro, so I have to be careful what I say. But no, from a business perspective, obviously, that was the opportunity. The frustrations are really the following, I think, is that we have not created, finished the single market quickly enough. This has been used by some major countries in our view and business's view as a form of protectionism. So we haven't seen services, telecoms and other areas advance quickly enough that would allow growth to occur. In some cases, I don't think there's been enough movement quickly enough to flexibility of labor, to follow some of the reforms that were necessary that Germany enacted so successfully. I think there's been too much intellectual discussion. You'd expected business to say that, you know, we focus too much on the Lisbon Treaty versus the Lisbon Agenda. The Lisbon Agenda, I can't remember, is 12, 13 years ago now. That was exactly to the point of competitiveness of how, in a high cost environment, with the kind of level of social security that we do want to maintain for our citizens, we remain competitive and use technology to do so. And we spent too much time on, as I say, the Treaty versus the Agenda that I think is very important. And I think, you know, if we look also at something else that frustrates business, although we watched it happening, it's been referred to and this comes back into the future, is the failure to obey the rules of mustrait. You know, and again, there was a lack of leadership, by example, by big countries who were the first to break the rules, which of course encouraged small countries thought this is a very good free lunch. You know, we can eat at this table very easily and we can break all the rules, comes back to the dieticians and suddenly the music stopped and now we face this crisis. And I think also, you know, one sense, and I'm not an economist, is to some extent some of the smaller countries were brought in for political rather than economic purposes. So that's the sort of summary of a lot of good that's happened, but there's a lot of things that have not been focused in the right way fast enough to deal with the fact that Europe was going to be always a high-cost economy in that sense, facing, and we've known that for a very long time, huge competition from the south and from the east, you know, in a globalized economy. And I think coming to your point, I think it is very, very difficult and we all understand that for politicians to deal with this, it requires huge courage to say the truth, to say it very clearly, and then to follow up on it. And we see politicians under huge pressure. But I think unfortunately the misleading, you know, the errors of the past, if you will, by successive governments and successive countries, and I don't exclude the UK from this by the way, we've made lots of mistakes, mean that this requires huge level of leadership now to bring this together and notwithstanding all crises end, but this has to, there really has to be leadership about agreeing what it means to be in the Eurozone. What are the disciplines and how are they enforced? And I think that unless this happens and we get clarity around that, there is no confidence at the moment. Businesses have cash, but they're not investing because they don't know the environment they're going to be investing in and that hits jobs, it hits youth unemployment, which is a huge issue for all of us, and it's unsustainable to have these high levels of youth unemployment. Therefore, there's a real urgency to deal with this, to get the confidence back, to allow businesses and particularly SMEs to invest. And my last point very quickly, because it's very badly misunderstood, deliberately probably by the press and many commentators, is the whole financial regulation sector needs to be, we need to be really clear about a level playing field. We need to be really clear about what levels of capital liquidity are necessary and the implications of certain states, certain countries, including the UK, taking positions which could be hugely damaging from an economic point of view. Now, it's getting the balance right on financial regulation is a hugely important issue that politicians are going to have to get their minds around. So whereas our regulatory environment has been part of what's made us attractive to go back to the opening comments, the danger is that still in particular areas we may end up over-regulating or regulating to a European standard that detaches us from the rest of the community. Let me turn now to Daniel Gross, head of CEPs in Brussels. Daniel, one could make the comment that there are, in a way, two tiers of European countries right now. Maybe they meet somewhere in the middle, but those that have become structurally competitive or remain so over the last five to ten years, and those that are on a crash course to try and do it now, there surely is a risk that these two groups cannot be brought together fast enough at the kind of pace that the market seemed to be demanding, and certainly that membership of a single currency demands. There was a survey done by the voice of Europe on behalf of the World Economic Forum's remodeling Europe initiative where the participants, and I think these were fairly EU-knowledgeable group, but 61% of them expected a multi-speed Europe to have emerged with a kind of more federated core and a less integrated periphery in the coming years. I mean, do you think that's the inevitable outcome of where we are today that it's being impossible to hold Europe together at a 27 or a 30 or 32 over these coming years? Europe has always tried to do the impossible, keep 27 member countries together with very different starting points and aspirations. Of course, within the Euro area we have this North-South divide, which is not new. Ten years ago we had exactly the same thing with the opposite sign. It was a famous cover of the economist ten years ago which said Germany, I don't know, the sleeping, not the sleeping giant, but an economy we can't get itself to move again. And then certain reforms were done, certain adjustment mechanisms worked, and then 10 years later now everybody exaggerates, I think, in the other direction. Germany is not as strong as it appears and the others are not as weak as they appear. But as you said, the adjustment is working. Costs are falling in the periphery, increasing in Germany, and if the other countries had 10 years to adapt like Germany had, then I think we could just sit back and say, let's wait it out. But we can't because the financial markets don't give us the time and that is the nature of the crisis right now. We need to have a bridge towards this future which we can see coming but which we need to finance. And I think that is what also the people are expecting. They're feeling this crisis in the air and they have lost faith in the leadership of the people and sometimes of the institutions. But if you look more closely, actually, they have not lost faith in the project of role. As a matter of fact, the support for the EU remains strong almost everywhere, not necessarily support for EU institutions, which let us think what they're doing. Support for the euro, for example, remains strong, very strong in Germany and Northern Europe in general, contrary to what many people expect. And therefore, I think politicians also perceive everywhere that there is a project which people want to preserve. They're willing to make sacrifices, as we heard also in Italy. Even in Germany, people say, we want to keep this thing going, just do it. And they have to find a way to do it. Now, we have seen so far, they always do it in the last minute, when there's absolutely no other way around. And I think in that sense, your motto here of cheer up might be useful. This crisis is, I think, now finally coming to a breaking point where our leaders are taking the steps which will allow us to go over it. And then it's not all nice and gory, but then at least we know where we are going. It might be very tough 10 years for the countries which have a high debt level. But once the people there know the way and the financial markets know which way things are going, then at least the temperature can cool down a little bit and things can proceed. Daniel, thanks for those comments. Let me turn now, Mr. President, to you, President Yanukovych. One of the questions that was highlighted for this panel today was the soft power of the EU. And as I think we know, soft power is meant to be the power of attraction, rather than the power of coercion. And I'm just wondering, how does this look, how does this conversation where we're talking about the EU and the uncertainties about its future, is the EU as attractive? Does it have the ability to make a country like Ukraine want to rethink particular policies that it undertakes in order to be able to gain economic benefits and benefits to its market? Do you think the moral power, the power of attraction of the EU is as strong as it was a few years ago? First of all, I would like to greet all the participants of this seminar. I'm very happy to take part in today's discussion. The constructive nature inherent in this meeting and this useful opportunity for a candid exchange of opinions and open talk on common problems is useful for every one of us, because the problems that we're talking about are common. Ukraine is not situated on an island. There are also problems in Ukraine related to the crisis, and we have passed over the most acute period of the crisis in 2008 and 2009, when the economy of Ukraine and the GDP fell more than 15 percent, the output production fell more than 25 percent. And I should say that that was a heavy blow to our economy and social welfare in the country. Considering this fact, I can say that the economic structure of the country is export-oriented, more than 60 percent of our products we export. As far as 2010 is concerned, it was the year of the initiation of the reforms. We have initiated reforms and at that time when in Europe and the world over, there was the crisis in place, we have started reforms. These reforms are profound, they are meaningful, and they touch upon, first of all, the economic field. We had to find the recipes to cure the illness and how we will manage to curb the deficit. It was not less than in Greece, it was about 15 percent. Our experts have been working with all the world organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and we understood perfectly well that reducing the social standards for our citizens is impossible. And I absolutely agree with my colleagues from the United Kingdom that the dependence of the politicians on the people, on the electorate, on the voters, is huge. And besides, there is an understanding that there should be the social justice. We saw what a gap between the poor and the rich there was, and it was necessary to implement the reforms even at that time and to deal with that gap, the huge gap, the pensions, first of all, between the big pensions and small pensions. So the gap was more than 100 times. And I should say that the pension reform was also at the basis of the program of 2010. We managed to go through this period of time softly, and we raised the pension age, both for women and men, for the retirement, and it was not an easy road for us when we looked at the ratings. They were falling down when we were implemented on popular reforms. And as for the tax reform, it was also difficult enough, the adoption of the tax code, which was not adopted for 20 years in Ukraine, and we had to adopt it, and we did it. The budget code, the customs code, all that work was done. These are huge reforms that we managed to translate into life. Recently, we have adopted the criminal procedure code, which was an embarrassment not only for Ukraine, but also for the international community. One could talk on end on this topic, but without changing the approach, without changing the criminal procedure code that existed in Ukraine since 19th or the 20th century, the way could not be gone forward. This code was not good to live by, and we understood that. And in the end, together with the experts from the Council of Europe, we came up with the criminal procedure code that was adopted after that, and in the nearest time it would take effect. And that is why that we managed to embark on this road, and the road was radical, I can admit. And that was our success when we managed to breach the deficit. And now for the two years and a half in a row, we have the deficit of tooth, and 0.5% were managed to raise the level of economy. And for the two years, consequently, we managed to secure the increase in the output production by 5.6%. As for the European integration, we understand that it's not only the accession to the elite club, this is the homework. And we understand pretty well that much depends on Ukraine, what we do and how we will do that, how we will go this way of the European integration. We have worked out a very ambitious project, and virtually we have completed it. I mean the preparation of the agreement on association between Ukraine and the European Union, which envisages as a component of the agreement the establishment of the free trade zone, and we understand perfectly well that it is a unpopular decision, the expansion of the European Union at this time, and it slowed down a little bit, not only for Ukraine, but also for Turkey. And in our point of view, that was a mistake and decision, but the post that exists now will be favorable either for Ukraine or for Europe. And we believe that if Ukraine can go to the Europe now, then Ukraine will have to bring Europe inside. I mean that we will have to have the necessary standards and the harmonized and approximated legislation with the standards of the European Union and the rules that would be attractive for our partners in the world. And we understand it very good that only in innovation and investment model for the development of Ukraine will bring us the good prospect and will give us the opportunity to raise the level of economy. And it means the living standards of people and to reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. Thank you so much. For those comments, and as you said, I think structurally Ukraine may have needed to do these steps in any case, but it's interesting the EU itself is now, we're both talking about raising pension ages and so on. I'm interesting to see whether, I don't know whether Ukraine's pension age is higher than some of those in existing parts of the EU. I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to get questions from the floor. So let me turn now and invite you to share some questions with us. Please try and make them short and to the point. And do let us know who you are. If you want to address the question to one particular member of the panel, please do so. Otherwise, we'll pass them around. And if we do have questions, we'll take two or three questions in one go. And I've had one person who very, I've seen a couple of hands go up already. So I'm going to take them as I see them. I've seen one question here. Yeah. Then please, so here first. Charles Grant from the Center for European Reform in London. I have a question for President Yanukovych. You mentioned the association agreement with the EU, which would do a lot to open up your economy. The EU is refusing to ratify that because of the situation with Mrs. Timoshenko. At the same time, Mr. Putin is asking you to join the customs union with Kazakhstan and Belarus. Given that the EU is closing the door to you, shouldn't you perhaps think of turning east, given that I gather Mr. Putin is offering financial incentives to Ukraine if it joins the customs union? Is that the way forward? I'll give you a chance to get to that question in a minute, President Yanukovych. First, a question down the front row here. And we're going over there, I think. My name is... Yep, you're on. You're on. My name is Hussam Mahmoud. I'm the CEO of Aldaha Agriculture Company. We work on the security food program of the GCC countries and mainly the EU. I completely share the enthusiasm of the Turkish part in the European Union, and we're looking very actively on acquisitions in the south of Europe to secure the foods for the GCC countries. I would like to know what's the point of view of the panel on this point. Thank you. Great. That's on foreign investment and how attractive parts of the EU are looking now for acquisitions and foreign investment, correct? Yeah, sorry? Yeah, and what are the risks? No risks. Keep investing. It's good. Yeah, here. Thank you. Ilya Kasych and Theros Moscow, Russia. Obviously, Europe is now having some hard time trying to figure out an elegant solution to the problems it has right now. However, it still has the absolute authority to adopt new members. And with that regards, the question I have to all the panel is if you consider adopting new members, wouldn't this be considered as a red flag that you want to share the burden that you have with the new members? Thank you. Explain that bit again. There'll be a red flag. What do you mean by that? Sorry. Will this raise any concerns that you actually want to transfer the burden to the newcomers? Okay. I think generally most EU members have worried that actually enlarging adds burdens to the existing members rather than the other way around. But that might be for the panel to comment on. Let me take those first three questions and then we'll see if we get a second round. President Yanukovych, you had a very specific question targeted at you. I'll come to you last if I may just give a chance to talk around these topics in a minute. Let's look at this question first of all about how attractive Europe remains for foreign investment. It's very interesting. I saw a poll actually by a different group by a consulting firm recently which asked US and Chinese business leaders about their thinking about investing in Europe. 6% of US business leaders were planning to invest in the EU. 63% of Chinese business leaders were planning to invest in the EU. That's quite an interesting contrast there. We totally agree. How do you see foreign investment as a potential agent or driver of change and what are the risks that they face if they take the step? Maybe you could do the positives. I'll let Mike or somebody talk about the risks. The real business can talk about the negatives. Of course, the difference between the US and Chinese attitude can be already in the fact that US is already in Europe massively and China not yet. So at the margin, the kind of argument are different. Of course, Europe I think is very attractive still, but it has to prove itself, has to prove the case. Right now in the midst of this volatile financial environment, I think there is a lot of fog that doesn't really allow to make a clear, cool-headed judgment in some cases. But I think that going back to some of the points that were made before, really, Europe has a lot more to offer in the case, for example, of guaranteeing a true single market, especially in the service sector. And I have to say that right now the boundary between manufacturing services is becoming more and more blurred. And I think that when a company think of the US market versus the European market, I think one question that I myself heard from some investor around the world is, if I go and set up a business in Iowa, I'm pretty sure I have a 400 million market to access with no problem. If I set it up, say in Milan, is there really a 400 million market or 450 or not? And it's true that in Europe there are still barriers. Some are visible, some are less visible, and which segments the market, segments it geographically, segments it from a sectoral point of view, segmented from a gender point of view, segmented from a generational point of view. So the view from outside is that it's still complicated compared to other areas of the world. And right now it's not very difficult to find very attractive economic area in the world that can make a clear, better case. So I think it is up to us to remove this barrier. And I think it's not such a difficult thing to do. Mike, do you want to say something on foreign investment and risks perhaps? Yeah, I mean, I think it's obvious that the combination of the failure to do was some of the issues we talked about in the Lisbon agenda and competitiveness have moved and the crisis we face, the financial crisis move from low growth to no growth. It's a simple fact that the vast majority of global investment has shifted, stayed the same in America, United States, moved to Asia Pacific and emerging markets at the expense of Europe. That's clear that's happened. However, I do agree that the Europe has got attractiveness to it. I think it comes back to the question of creating confidence by getting past this immediate crisis. Those who take a longer term view tend to, like the Chinese, tend to see that more clearly. The only other thing I'd add, the only other thing I'd add, Robin, which is quite interesting is hedge funds. You should always watch. I don't know everyone likes hedge funds, but it's quite interesting that there's a lot of hedge funds really beginning to go for distressed assets in Europe and buying them up and also buying good assets from distressed banks, of which they're going to be a lot potentially if we're not careful, so as they reduce their balance sheet. So that's an indication that potentially prices are a point where business will start to invest, providing they don't think we're about to go for another cliff, which is confidence. I kind of think that's where it is. Thank you. Edmund Barsh, what about this question on enlargement, potentially being a burden, a way of saying, come in, join the EU, and then you'll have to carry the load with us, whether on budget, whether on structural funds or whatever. I mean, do you see things that way or do you worry that if you get beyond the dietitian and have to actually join the practice? I think we have to make the distinguishment between joining European Union and joining the eurozone. Turkey is in the game of trying to become a member of European Union, not necessarily the eurozone. Although if you joined the EU, you would have to commit to join the eurozone at some point, I believe. Well, we're following the earlier candidates, United Kingdom, Sweden, they're still working on it. I mean, we have a long way to go. We're ready to join European Union tomorrow. On the eurozone, we will have to look at the options. However, I never see the EU as a pure political or an economic union. As I mentioned in my introduction, it's a peace project. And there was a saying by Churchill about the Americans, which is now accurate for the Europeans. Churchill said these Americans always do the right thing after exploiting all the other options. Now we see that in Europe. But here in Turkey, and in response to the investment opportunities, we follow the advice of Peter Drucker, who said the best way to predict the future is to create it. We have incentive packages for investments. And believe it or not, 85% of all global investments that poured into Turkey last year came from EU member states. 65% of the tourists that we entertain in this country, and we gain around 30 billion euros, come from EU. 50% of our exports to EU. So the butterfly effect is more evident than ever. Nobody has the luxury to say this is a European problem. I don't care. No, this is an international problem. And we all have to look at it and try to find solutions together. Daniel, do you want to comment at all on either of these points or on the enlargement question? I mean, do you think there is any appetite at the moment within the EU for enlargement, even the Brits who have traditionally been very pro-enlargement at a popular level, actually has become, if you look at most polling, one of the most anti-EU enlargement of all EU members. How do you see this? Is this a separate debate at the moment? Well, this is actually the strength of the EU. There's very little appetite for further enlargement, but it's actually happening with greater these days. Because the EU has a certain inertia. The machine works. It set itself a goal with greater. It worked on it for 15 years with endless grind. And people think it will never get there. In the end, it usually does get there. So I'm pretty certain that it will be further enlarged once. And the new countries, of course, will benefit financially, but that's not the main concern. The main concern is that they can actually get up to the standards that the EU is setting for itself. And the dietician is becoming more and more, say, hard with himself. So he's expecting the people who join to be also better performing. And that process is ongoing. It's not much noticed by the people in Europe, but it's noticed by the people who want to join. Except, of course, for those bigger ones, where the people in Europe do notice. And that's a problem with Turkey. The smaller guys can just slip in under the radar screen. Turkey is just too big and too important to be getting the treatment. The danger of being a strategic country. President Yanukovych, interesting question that was posed to you about either or. Is there a choice at the moment for Ukraine, especially given the position that the EU has taken vis-a-vis the Timoshenko imprisonment? Thank you. Well, if you look at the geographical position of Ukraine, it is between two big conglomerates between the European Union and Russia. If we look at the trade, the European Union has 26 percent of the trade turnover with Ukraine and to Russia goes 29 percent. Other CIS countries have 9 percent. And by the way, Turkey takes nine percent of the trade turnover. Only Turkey. This is one of the biggest trade partners. And that is why Ukraine having its national interest should take into consideration all these factors. But nevertheless, our strategic decision was made either by my political force that I have been cheering. And where I worked for more than 15 years, the first program was the program of my party. And at the basis of the program, there was written the accession of Ukraine to the European Union. And that is the European integration. Time has passed and for more than 20 years now Ukraine is an independent state. And around this factor, the talk is all about where Ukraine is now. Ukraine, first of all, must be a reliable bridge between Europe and Russia. We don't have to make problems. On the contrary, we need to establish conditions and terms for the movement of goods and finances. Ukraine is economically developed country and it is beneficial either to Europe or to Russia as well as it is profitable for us that our partners are fine. And that is why when we are talking about the place of Ukraine on the political world map, I should say that the country is in Europe. And it is a natural movement, the European movement, which is intrinsic with Ukraine. But today we are closely following the situation with the economic unification and the customs union. It has existed only for one year and it is difficult today to say what the situation would be there. And by the way, Ukraine is an observer in the Eurasian community. We are observers as well as other CIS countries. We are closely following and it is up to us to think how on the new conditions to move forward when the customs union is in place and then we will have to think how to build relations with them. The traitor Noah, which exceeds 30 percent, well, it make us to be very, very pragmatic on the matter. And that is why we do not change our priorities. We keep a close watch and today I admit we have the program we are working with and I mean the program on European integration. We have the agenda of approximation of the Ukrainian legislation to the European one, as I have mentioned before, on every standard. There is the Council of Europe that we have obligations and commitments before and we are implementing this program to fully fulfill all our commitments and obligations and this is our duty. I heard you say that you will have to be very pragmatic, but that your country is in Europe and I don't know, I'm going to balance between those two. We literally only have four minutes left and I have three, oh no, no, no, everyone's putting their hands up. So I'm not going to be able to take everyone's hands. I'm going to go with the three hands I saw go first and you have to ask a very quick question. I'll give my panel a last chance, but we must finish in very little time. Sorry, there was a lady here in front row. Yes, maybe not anymore. Yes, please, yep. My name is Magliana Kunova and I'm President of European Policy Centre, General Think Tank in Brussels and former Commissioner in Borosso, one on consumer policy. So if I'm to choose the only one topic, it would be about internal market and growth. Most of you gentlemen quite rightly said that we are short in delivering from the internal market. There is hardly a presidency without putting in the core internal market. Just remember the Czech presidency, the slogan was Europe without barriers. And where we are now? Where is the service directive? Where is even European consumer policy? We are into 27 mini markets. So in short, my question is could some of the countries follow up? The idea of more federal Europe because of the internal market knows not as the opposite of it. And just a small remark to our Turkish Speaker, Mr. Minister, I was chief negotiator for Bulgaria for good nine years. Twelve countries entered with the obligation to become members of your area. So be vigilant. Question here at the front very quickly. Microphone here please. Thank you. Thank you very much to all the panelists. And my question is to the Minister from Turkey, Mr. Vagis. My name is Florence Eid. I'm the CEO of Arabia Monitor, a research firm that focuses on the Arab countries. As part of the work we do, we've been watching carefully the initiative by the Gulf States to form a union. This is a project that's been underway for a while. It's recently been accelerated. And it has recently included an invitation to Jordan and Morocco to join the Gulf Cooperation Council. Independently of the invitation to the new members, potential members, I wonder if you have any thoughts on the GCC common market project and perhaps the creation of a common currency. I'm sure you've given some thought over the past few years on the pros and cons of forming and joining a union. And if down the line one were to envisage the materialization of the invitation to countries like Jordan, Morocco to join the union and perhaps become an even larger union, this union would be at your doorstep. And given Turkey's role in the Middle East, I wonder if you have thoughts on that. That's a provocative question. And last question here at the front. I'm sorry for all those other people who put their hands up. Last question here. Salman Rasul, Afghanistan Foreign Minister. My question goes to my European colleague. Turkey is a regional power economically, politically and strategically. Turkey has very strong relations with the Middle East, but also with central Asian countries and South Asia countries. My question is Turkey being part of European Union in the longer term will be great access for European Union. The way that Turkey has this relation will be very beneficial for the future of European Union, especially after 2025, which the world power will be in question. And the question will say the same for Ukraine, which will be in the longer term a asset for European Union. That's my question. Thank you. Well, look, we've got three broad issues here. I don't expect them all to be covered, but let me just give each of our speakers a chance just to say one sentence, just to close this off. And let me run in reverse order. Daniel, I'm going to start with you, because you're going to be very succinct. And any of the issues you'd like to pick up, there's obviously the question about the internal market. But any last comment you'd like to share with us? The internal market always moves more slowly than business people want. But it moves. It has moved always, and I think it will continue to move. So over the next 20 years, you'd see a much more integrated internal market. At the same time, we also see, I think, a eurozone, which will be much slimmer in terms of its public finances, therefore more agile, and in the end, therefore stronger. You think the eurozone will still have 15 to 17 members then in 12 months from now? The number of members, I think, is secondary. But I think by the year 2020, it will have more than 20 members. That's an answer. You heard it here, exactly. No, it was a good point. 2020, you said, more than 20 members. Okay. Let me come this way, stick with the EU for a second within it. Vittorio Grilli, any last comments you'd like to make? Either, I think this question really to you, this value of Turkey as a member of the EU, this is not really a question to Minister Baalj. More a question, perhaps to you, sitting inside one of the governments that needs to make this call. Well, you know, on Turkey, Italy has always been a great supporter, and so we certainly think that would be a great value added to the European Union. More in general, maybe, which is also to do with the internal market and so on. I think, but on Euro area, some country maybe felt that Euro monetary union was a happy ending of a 50 years journey, and they didn't realize instead that there was the beginning of a new stage. And actually, they didn't realize that the monetary union meant that we put a lot of things together. And actually, we switched gear. And switching gear means that I agree with Daniel that internal market progresses slowly, but progresses. And I think unfortunately, monetary union, I think fortunately, meant we switched gear. So the velocity, the speed with which further integration happens as to basically increase. That I think is one of the main problem and main challenges. Thank you. Last comment, Mike, for you. Very, very quickly. My conclusion is the European Union needs Turkey. More than Turkey needs the European Union. Don't tell them that. Oh, too late. Iman Baj, a question to you on that. GCC, does that hold Siren Voices for you? Well, first of all, as far as the internal markets are concerned, I think it's time to internalize the international markets. Enlargement is like riding a bicycle. If you stop, you might fall. I think the solution is to go beyond the borders and have a longer vision of expansion. As far as the GCC getting stronger, we would welcome it. We would like to see all of our neighbors in the neighborhood live even more prosperous than they do with standards to make sure that the people live in higher standards. That's why we're trying to join the EU, despite all the difficulties. And as far as joining the Eurozone, not the EU, I'm Turkey's chief negotiator, Madam Commissioner. If you're willing to negotiate the terms, let's sit and negotiate. As many people have said, though, Mr. Baj, it's never a negotiation during the EU. It's just how long it takes to accept all the nasty things that are being thrown in your direction or good things. It's time to change some of the rules as well. Unanimity is the reason for the crisis we have at hand. And I think we should start by changing that all. The unanimity has forced Europe to a crisis. It's time to really look at the bigger picture. That might be a different speed here. President Yanukovych. I am convinced that the enlargement process is a good prospect. And we are in favor of the prospect to have the prospect built for Ukraine and Europe. And this stage is not a simple one. But possibly this will benefit both Europe and Ukraine. The pause, I mean, in relations. And we will make the full use of this pause. And we will be building Europe in Ukraine. So succinct at the end. If I'm to take one takeaway from this, as we're always meant to have these at the World Economic Forum, I think it was the comment you just made, Victorio Grigli, about the Eurozone joining the Euro has been a switch of gears, literally a switch of gears in velocity. And I think most or many Eurozone members have not appreciated that shift and that change. The question then comes to Daniel's point. Even if one or two people drop off at this higher speed or can't quite achieve the balance, the likelihood they'll try and get on again and actually continue this process of growth of the EU and deepening of it, I think that's a more likely outcome in the future than one of disintegration. I put my money on a little more integration and a little more enlargement in the long term than the opposite. But please give a strong hand to all of our speakers here. Thank you very much.