We should really take seriously the idea which is behind the European construction, which aims at peace and the avoidance of armed conflict and the creation of a sort of civilization and the political structure that might avoid such conflicts. This is, and still is, one of the main attractions for people of various political outlooks, to invest some of the political energies in some kind of European construction. And I should emphasize this because I would launch myself very shortly into an apology of the idea of national self-determination. And the two things, I think, the question of war in peace, the question of imperial and national and ethnic conflicts combined the clash struggles on the one hand, which European Union serves of who is this double task to avoid. War and to avoid revolution. These are the two main functions of this institution. Understandably, since the institution of bourgeois democracy, therefore it is supposed to defend that. On the other hand, if we take the democratic ideals seriously for a moment, which people on the whole don't, then we should consider the very elementary fact that the basic idea of any kind of modernist idea, modern idea of freedom is, of course, the idea of autonomy, which to simplify would mean that the fear we are, the more the subject and the object of power coincide. And, as opposed to heteronomy, right? So the idea of the 90th century in which not only the rule of aristocratic and priestly cast was opposed, but also ruled by foreigners, by foreign courts, foreign dynasties, supernatural entities such as the whole construction of the Holy Alliance. We should not forget, especially here in central Europe, that 1848 was a revolution against international reaction, because the Holy Alliance. That time, the idea of national self-determination was the idea of progress, you know, the Garibaldis and the Malcinus and the Koschuts and so on. I won't include Eilachis in that, but. And I think that even today, to be ruled by institutions and authorities, you cannot control, is indeed, you know, very simply, in contradiction with the most elementary idea of democracy. You know, and at the moment, of course, there are many instances, many authorities, many forces, alien to the citizens that are being ruled, who are being ruled, who rule them. You know, some of them are formal, some of them are informal, there are prethraff in international organizations about which citizens of all countries exercise their control, you WTO and such like. And also, of course, that informed the influence of international capital. And also the aspect of nation-state politics, especially military and financial regulations and so on, where even national governments decide issues in cooperation with foreign elites, that are supposed to be accepted without any further ado by national parliaments. We haven't seen in the last 40 years national parliaments really questioning NATO's strategy. We're a little bit murmuring here and there, but on the whole, there were. So I think that a genuinely democratic and a genuinely socialist strategy about Europe has to take this into account when judging, when to prefer super-national solutions and when to prefer nation-state solutions, the guiding principle I should think should be the idea of autonomy. And also, of course, they welfare and the safety of the concerned. It would be perfectly impractical and hypocritical not to be aware in this continent of the fact that national passions, even if morally justified, even if politically very well motivated, can, of course, become very dangerous. But this sentence, I just pronounced, of course, is always, you know, the sentence also pronounced by super-national bureaucrats who would, of course, legitimize their unelected policy-making and their interference in popular well with this. We shouldn't give in to such rhetoric, but at the same time being aware of the extent danger of conflicts. And I really, I don't have to tell you in Zagreb how those things can look like. So what I think is that it would be the quite obvious phrase. Quite obvious phrase, you know, the European left should aim at a transformation of the European Union and so on and so forth. Most people tend to, as an upkeep of the European Union, by making it more social, more responsive, more responsible, more democratic, more social. Let me add to this in order to aim at sincerity. What kind of European construction is that which excludes some European countries? I don't believe in any European construction in which Russia plays no role. If Russia is not a European country, which country is, and this major European power always been and still is, and also countries in the Russian orbit are also European countries, and this union could become egalitarian in the national sense, i.e. equality between peoples. This is also something forgotten. Progressive forces in the past were supposed to aim at equality between nations, equality between countries, where the richer and the stronger countries were not supposed to load it over the weaker and poorer ones. You know, it's time to come back to the old wisdom of having equal rights, equal rights, and which at the moment don't seem to be quite the case in the European Union or anywhere. You You You