Thank you very much for hanging while inviting me,
and I am really delighted to have the possibility to present a little bit of work of the Institute
for International Textbook Research and its role in a reconciliation process and bruises,
textbook, revision research and production. I will use one minute, one minute to make and a little bit advertising for the institute.
The institute has grown from a research library.
It is today a reference library and research centre of the Council of Europe for History and Geography textbooks since 65.
And here you have a look on. I love on what we have collected in our library and was this something we are, well, welcoming?
Researchers from Europe and many other countries regularly working in our library.
My presentation was made at. My presentation is structured.
I will quickly raise or free questions once which windows of opportunities for a click for collaborative production of educational
media and for European education in schools we can find since the beginning of the textbook revision process in Europe in the 1950s,
my second point is spending experience in D and multilateral textbooks projects.
You can see here of free examples the European Textbook de Deluce project and to to the very let's see real textbooks,
bilateral textbooks, German, French and German Polish textbooks.
In my field point is this important one is chances and difficulties for policy papers, education and media production.
I will start with my third point, first point. The textbook revision and of course, these collaborative projects.
We started with teacher initiatives and teacher initiatives.
The first bilateral conference, which is and is said to be the beginning of our institute, was a bilateral conference $50.00 initiation.
It's 70 years ago and already in 1949.
German teachers organised the first conference is British history teachers.
This day is called Distanciation, and this is in assembly the beginning of the end work on textbook revision and research and our institute.
In the 1950s and 60s, the the institute became part of WWE's European teacher initiatives within the Council of Europe and raised teacher initiatives.
We developed the textbook revision to be very, very developed it into the process we liberate using our ourselves,
and the end marked a conference lifting of development of the first European history core curriculum.
And perhaps I can come back to it later here.
My point is what seven countries participated in this first round of history textbook revision
done by the Council of Europe and bringing together teachers from different countries of teachers.
If you know the headmasters of British schools before the national, long before the national curriculum,
I'll speak to Inspector General and in France and France and Germany, even as the teachers bring together.
When we've published together the results and the results, then of course,
translated in the languages of the seven participating countries, including Turkey and Greece at the time.
But this was the philosophy at a time of these kinds of useless projects concerning mutual recognition of cultural weight.
The results should be translated not only in British English and in French, but in the languages of all participating communities.
My second point is 60 70s crossing and missing collaborative production of education and media in Europe.
It is a very important point for us in the 60s and 70s came from near educational television for adaptation,
and I called it crossing and missing because the Council of Europe continued textbook revision.
But he gave up history and education at the end of the 60s and he switched over to civics.
And so the experience of the first line of history textbook vision got lost and also needed.
He could go up to the core curriculum fell asleep until the year 1991.
This can bleach conference and history for a new Europe. It reappeared was suicide in the 70s.
In the 1970s, educational television was the great I was on stage, or it was a German journalist in Federalist.
You won't. The West End time, one of the leading figures of Dave was that of the direction of information of the European Commission,
and he initiated it and the foundation of the committee over the holiday.
Things you're so good at the French name to the project was coined using the French name because it
was also ancient initiative of French education and television that were very much a hat at a time,
together with the BBC and the way we developed, and this is very important for me.
We develop, we are collaborative production of educational television and the hope,
and in many European children who were at least collaborative projects would structure a common
European core curriculum for history and for civics because we were really Swiss television.
So I came later on because I didn't have so much time that I can lead on and go in more detail in the topics.
But what is important at a time is what media users from the member countries of the European Union produce together,
reading together and Common Educational Television Series, which should structure and history teaching and civics teaching in Europe.
And of course, it did. This project came to an end at the moment, and I came forward it on trial for the fall for France,
in which the technology of education and television lost its fight against digital media.
It means the old technology was not developed further and approaching stop by the second or the last point here in 1996 or 1991,
starting with the Police Conference on History Education for a New Europe.
And we had really a very sustainable group for a decade working together between the Council of Europe and the US story.
Check our institute, your career and what is an important point for me.
Here is what European education and property says Crump has been included in the project,
so I it's because we have a programme to elevate the European education,
establish a school is awarding a textbook and was a very innovative textbook of the very heart of what some of us of you may know.
It's the best and educational learning material the walk and listen, something which happened actually independently from, for instance,
the textbook of what we are wanting an institute, but means bringing together people from the publishing industry,
from the teachers associations and from research.
This with this very successful collaboration, and it started on about 2000 and was not continued.
My second point is experiences and be a multilateral textbook project here.
The institute contributed in a great number of be invited multilateral textbooks,
one of the most important one outside Europe, well outside inside Europe.
We can discuss it. Is this really the Palestine textbook of the Peace Institute Peace Research Institute of the Middle East?
It's the Bryant textbook. It's a narrative, as you have in terms of the basics.
You have one narrative. It's the Palestinian narrative as one narrative Israeli narrative,
and you have any space in the middle for students or teachers to compare the two narratives, unfortunately.
And this textbook wasn't approved neither by the Palestine Authority nor by.
This is what any state authorities had, so we didn't get funding to to test it.
It's let's see if it's essays in what we mean.
We would like to have to discuss it or what to do in an experimental space, lift students from Israel and from Palestine.
But we didn't get the funding because people said if they wanted to do, the textbook hasn't been approved.
Much more successful are our European projects in quantum templates me as as approaching in itself.
And I can give that later on in the discussion. Some examples of it, let's say really, I the edit one.
You mean we can't see race edited while you in these bilateral textbook projects as much.
And while you wait, we can see if I can give some examples later because time is running a little bit.
And what I wanted to say in my last point is this is the last.
Publication is a digital textbook, last communication of the Council of Europe and 2014.
She tapestries histories for Europe without dividing lines. And for me, it's very interesting because I'm coming from economic history.
What the topics of industrial revolution and another topic I find very important, very interesting is human rights as presented in an art history.
And this brings me to my conclusions because the textbook was no, that's less.
It was very much criticised, especially from colleagues from the South Eastern Europe and from Eastern Europe,
because they said all these topics industrial revolution,
which topics which topics, and they did not fit at all of our curriculum because our curriculum is about war,
it's about political history, it's about national history.
And it's not about the success story. Well, none.
Success story of the industrial revolution as a point of common heritage digital media offering for us new
possibilities for participating for participative learning or perhaps participating in the production of textbooks.
And in this sense, perhaps we can even discuss film of Timothy Garton X proposal of a kaleidoscope and perhaps by producing units with special themes,
reconstructing a cooling on the new European curriculum.
But by using these different sentences, we these elements of a kaleidoscope like this.
But one of the decisions is curriculum planners have to speak together and we have a problem or two problems,
whereas no harmonisation offers any dialogue between planners in two different European countries at the moment.
And we need, or I'm convinced we need also a dialogue between curriculum planners in the humanities and social.
Sciences and effective humanities and social sciences, I come to an end.
That's because there is very much competition and hardship competition between the disciplines is cool between history and and in civics,
for instance, between how many hours it should be attributed to geography and in comparison to history.
And my second point is one one of the most important challenges is the differential
in contemporary and it's I quoted it from Sydney put up a British record.
You may know Peace for Conquest. His bestseller is masterpiece, but I liked it.
Difficult to differentiate contemporaneous when means in the College of Teaching and Learning,
and there is a great deal to do how to translate different philosophies of learning and this into different European
countries in order to make perhaps a new common core curriculum and or cut out is caught in digital media.
President, thank you very much. Thank you. This museum opened its doors two years ago in May 2017, and it was not the first idea.
The first idea to explain European Museum, the first history museum, private history museum networks realised.
And I start by introducing some of the differences in the process of making this narrative with writing a book.
First of all, who creates the narrative? Making a museum involves interdisciplinary team work.
All in all, 52 people who worked on the museum throughout the development phase, and it's only the court team on top of those.
When used to count the designers and producers, the architects conceiving the building, the academic committee and Board of Trustees,
100 translators to provide 24 which and many other actors in the European Parliament
administration who is our funder making a museum example and immensely complex process.
A mix of teamwork and individual historians, content research and objective research,
and even more complex in our case with 80 nationalities in the museum is also should be an experience for all senses.
So that's a difference from a book working for the intellect, but also for emotions.
And it is a spatial narrative.
And to begin with, you see the museum building and you can see easily how complex it is to adapt historical content to this reality of a space.
We have 4000 square metres brutal for the permanent exhibition space.
Sixty five upper floors of this building at every show, but this is very small,
and when it comes to showing the complexity of European history, finally,
the question and museum for whom a narrative for whom this is just an overview of the origins of our visitors over the past of the first months.
So July to December last year, actually, that's when we started counting.
So you see that there is no easy to grasp community for this museum as there might be an open museum.
The first expert paper in 2008 said that this narrative should be for all Europeans.
And it added For interested names to look for historians,
and one can easily imagine how difficult it is to conceive one historical narrative for people with so different expectations.
Against the background of contested histories,
memory conflicts and the primacy of national history in strategic focus group studies that we conducted prior to the
making of this narrative showed that knowledge about European history was extremely limited in our potential visitors.
You can imagine already knowledge of national history is limited in a general population,
but European history even more so, therefore to facilitate orientation into space.
We have chosen a of genetic approach, and he has shown the layout of the narrative and how it is developed.
We arrived at the of level two and move up to level six.
What about an exhibition? We started off with brainstorming where we had three hundred different topics that could be addressed in this exhibition,
and you can easily see that is not possible.
So we broke it down over a very lengthy process involving exhibition designers and producers and of course, the team of curators.
We came to six things broken out into 24 topics and they are here,
and this is a chronological narrative so chronologically so that they make an origin space added to the narrative.
Nine.
The movement in space was changed after an intervention by our action committee because they thought architecture proceed to rise up and walked out.
But the economic committee thought that would be too pessimistic because it would mean history workstation the basement.
And so the whole life was turned around.
So you see how an exhibition narrative has to work in this space. So you see how they basically the content is about 19th and 20th century history.
Europe's traffic to begin its journey to modernity with it savvy with the Philadelphia.
Addressing principal questions about Europe again from the third level onwards, 19th century, the descent into the totally Terrians war and death.
Sorry wars and the massive in the 20th century and then the rebuilding of Europe after 1945.
And then and there is as much narrative about European integration history at every show.
And this slide shows you that the museum does not just up with national histories.
That's what people often think. They think we have a Lithuanian room and next to a Polish room, etc. But that's not the case.
It's a transnational overview and these were selected according to those criteria and processes which have
which you will reach in Europe and has spread all across the continent and are considered relevant until today.
How is the story being told compared to most other museums that, you know, the museum is a narrative one?
That's the technical term and the story that was developed first and then the objects were selected to convey the story.
And here you see how we tried to bring objects together for many different reasons across Europe, a very tedious task.
And these objects in the Exhibition Council,
together with other elements with exhibition text on a twenty point eight, which is ten minutes already known.
Just to give you a comparison to the book, only only for us who were writing only one hundred forty pages of A4 texts.
So that's not a lot of text to convey complexity, but that's what we thought be visitor can digest.
And then two point five hours of films or in our organisations, interactive stations.
And finally, this in feeling this different emotion, soundscapes and light.
But the main question was if we need to create an easy to understand narrative for the event, how can we address the complexity?
And I would just give you some reading, some of the tools we used first in the first space,
we confront the visitors with questions such as What is Europe? Can it be geographically defined?
We and and talking about this this morning and to showcase this intersection
basically demonstrated the way you will be seen depends on the eye of the beholder.
On a time period that Europe is looked at and on a geographical standpoint from which he knows he or she judges.
So we ask him any questions, especially at the beginning, and we don't need results that have finished certitude about what Europe is.
Then the exhibition is layered for a layman who has 90 minutes average museum visits.
You will see big few with films and you will see the objects.
And then there is different layers which and museum visitors who have more interest can explore.
And one visitor stayed one week. He came back five days, and then you go to the gallery books.
Now I've seen it all, so you can see that the exhibition is very rich and layered.
Then there is differentiation,
and the national history and the historical events from a national point of view are addressed and sometimes via juxtaposition.
As you see here for 1989, this is a series of TV shows from 1989 illustrating like a chain of events year, the events of the fall of the Iron Curtain.
And on the other side, you see as another are the objects from the Baltics or from Romania, which tell the same story.
Then the exhibition allows also for different narratives,
which we have actually now trying to find out with guided tours central to to to make visible here.
You see that there is a different narrative about European integration history milestones,
and it's embedded in a way that in the context of wider Europe and we can track or trace different topics like migration,
history or protest movements or the history of human rights.
Through the exhibition, we can follow and able to develop educational material from it.
And then finally, sometimes conflicting views on, for example, on the Maastricht Treaty or the financial crisis.
We tried to address controversial issues when they when they arose,
and then we used the concept of memory to address different ways of dealing with the past.
And this is a kind of recurring theme in the exhibition.
It addresses how memory, how memories of the past are different, how it can be misused and what other techniques are used for it.
Now the final question Does the audience get the story and hear, what do we see after two years?
Is, generally speaking, if you look at TripAdvisor reviews, etc.,
you would see that the museum has extremely high satisfaction rates amongst the visitors.
However, despite the much more complex reality and the qualitative reactions to the museum, one of the most very enthusiastic.
They also show an extreme diversity of expectations towards towards a historical narrative about Europe,
and this diversity is not only linked to the historical content. So what people expect to see sometimes national history, their own national history,
certain events or certain themes that are close to that country are hard to.
They act the way they pre-registering, but also a new way of dealing with history,
so this critical approach that we have is labelled by some as too German as being determined that we should be celebratory.
But this is clear that you see the culture of history. Museums is very different across Europe and you see the ways visitors look at it.
And then finally, even death language division where language used at individual,
some people expect a very different visual language than than what we have seen.
So summing up the museum is how the different expectations and can they actually did become
apparent when that when we see that visitors comments and based on this experience,
I would be to introduce more of in detail even more of a reflection about the narrative.
What are the different expectations of the public and how are the stories perceived?
How how should they be told? And he is definitely from our research into visual studies or sociology looking into how museum visitors behave.
Emotions is a very important tool, and this is one of the findings of of recent research that museums do change their views.
Then when the visitors are emotionally touched and not only intellectually.
And then I would suggest juxtaposing different narratives, and this is something that I would like to discuss for our museum as well.
How can we show that on top of this interpretation that can be had with others?
And how could we become aware of the different perceptions of history around Europe?
So I think this could be useful to not only have a narrative space, that's how I started off, but to create spaces for narratives.
And is what we're trying to do, what you see here that we invited different filmmakers,
poets and historians from 10 different European countries, maybe Central Eastern Europe, to guiding our exhibitions.
And each one of them gave their own story, their own narrative based on our objects based on our content.
But in this, the content is open for interpretation.
So I think creating these spaces, these methodologies, these opportunities for debate is what we should do.
Thank you very much. Thank you so much for coming to this conference,
and thank you so much for giving me a kind of self-realisation that I never had before, which is that I'm an old man.
According to the Chatham House survey, as I came out as a federalist,
and so I have to talk to you about the kinds of stories, how a story of Europe is told in theatre.
I'm interested to see someone making a theatre production about Europe.
Our question is what is Europe?
I will have to off, which is a London based company, for their article to sell, and we love our big multilingual projects.
So his last project for this company was a multilingual production of its online stream in nine different Indian languages.
How would the latest production about Europe is like holding workshops across different European cities and in actors to bring material,
which offers three different questions? The first question is what ancient myth is most rather than understanding Europe today?
The second question is what you starchitect is most important and understanding of ourselves
is what was the most important contemporary political narrative to understand today.
So when we started this project, we had our own free access.
We had the way with your research, which was already mentioned, we had sixteen eighty three as our date,
which was mentioned yesterday, I think tops at the gates of Vienna.
And we had the narrative that the EU was created to stop total war and violence and nationalism as our contemporary political narrative.
However, we realised with two theatre makers from London and these are just all our senses,
so we wanted to diversify to find out responses from different places. We wanted more.
And Timothy Garton Ash, his words cut off any barbs. However, in doing so,
what we don't realise is that we've fallen into exactly the same pattern as all
of the other big productions about Europe that happened in the last five years,
which is a pattern that I would call losing the plot. What do you mean by that?
Is none of the big productions about Europe.
Perhaps a narrative for it or any of the typical tools that we have a theatre like dialogue, character arcs or even actors learning their lines.
I'm going to talk about three plays that are particularly representative of this.
The first is by a man who who is a Belgian director and a production goal of recreating Europe in 2016.
The second is called the Europa trilogy by Mitterrand, which came out from 2014 to 2016,
and the third is called Everything that has happened and will happen.
I find it Goebbels which came out last year. So in either of those recreating Europe, the material uses our speeches.
So these are speeches that were influential and important in building Europe's history.
The way that these speeches become theatre is by actors reading them from a podium with scripts.
There is no dialogue, there's no interruption, there's no character arcs.
There's just actors reading texts. The speeches range from being rounds to Churchill to Obama to Timothy Garton Ash, who were featured.
But what's important here is that this play has no flaws. So that's our first play without thought minerals, he wrote.
The trilogy. What is material? What he uses are real stories, biographies of people he's chosen from across Europe.
He was looking for access and he chose different actors.
We for what I would read in some way or the other two stories, which were stories of migration.
Mostly, he puts them in different parts of his trilogy for different actors in one set location,
very naturalistic, a kitchen and the first part, a podium.
Interestingly, in the second part and living room in the third part.
But despite all being in one space, there's no dialogue. The actors just gave them all, and there's no interaction or event.
No characters, no interaction, no dialogue, no event. Seconds left without a plot in absurdly behind it goes, everything has happened and will happen.
This is similar to a new level. So his sources is Euronews, the no comment section of Euronews like a few notes,
but it's clips made mostly by smartphones with European news but without humiliation.
Then the other source is Patrick over next European, which I'm sure you know as well.
But this is history, which is subjective, objective history, objective analysis, loads and loads of facts.
The heights of soldiers, but subjective chooses a particular narrative of how to shape it,
which is one which is completely fragmentary and completely not chronological. So what these two sources?
How does this become theatre in a big warehouse in Manchester?
There are a bunch of actors who move loads of stuff from one side of the room to the other side of the room for three hours.
And then there are a couple of people who are reading an extract from European from illogically.
And then you also have John Cage's EuroPass, which have five different offers,
which are fragments of the European opera kind of being played into specific no characters, no dialogue, no events and the plot.
In the words of the New York Times review about this show, it wasn't clear what connected these disparate elements or anything like them at all.
So these are three plays that don't have a narrative or plot or in Aristotle's term mythos.
Why is this? Why is it that we talk about Europe, that this happens?
Is it because what a mythos requires unity of time, unity of place, unity of action are exactly the things that Europe lacks in a play about Europe.
Where should we place it? What day should we put it on and what events should we recount?
So what the movie all the drama can show us what perhaps a visual representation of Europe is that we can't tell these stories,
but also shows us perhaps why we're very used to seeing a static image of Europe condensed into a map, a graphic, a bit of data.
But when we put it in time, we see where the problem stopped.
And this is because we don't have any of the three key ingredients for a story where it takes place, when it begins and ends.
And what happens is essentially what the story is at. So I start my work on this project in September.
The other and then we got to leave and Liverpool and Coventry, Paris, Berlin, Milan, Stockholm, Athens.
But my question is, how can I do this without falling into these same traps without falling into cacophony fragmentation,
without replicating the structure of networked information rather than narrative?
So perhaps to answer the question that Timothy asked on the first day of this
conference what kinds of methods we should use to understand what matters,
we might need to go back to the earliest western exploitation of these methods, which is the oldest poetics in the book.
So I'd like to end the question for the floor, which you can discuss in questions are afterwards,
which is if we have to choose to tell a story about Europe one place, one day, what is it?
What would it be then? Thank you, Tim, and all the team organising this wonderful conference and for us being part of it.
I feel so incredibly going after this up to this last question.
And usually we do not experience a burning interest in the work of grant making conditions that they do that.
But I want to start with saying we have the task of distributing money and
by that influence and opportunities and voice to as many people as possible.
For a united Europe for you're capable of acting for a cohesive Europe.
And that's quite a task, and it has become way more difficult, way more complicated and we have become more serious about it in the last two years.
We also led the nation on climate change, on integration and migration in Turkey and China.
All of these topics have become way more politicised.
And we see that in member states and in countries like Turkey colleagues from those who
do exactly the work that we do indicted sitting in jail for the work that they do.
That's my brother and his friends and colleagues. And this we feel more responsibility to use the money that we have in a good and productive way.
We are practitioners, so we are not so much to the business of creating or see the role of ourselves in creating narratives.
We see our role mostly in and in providing spaces platforms for Europeans to tell each other their stories.
And I want to give you a couple of examples how we how we do that. So we as a foundation, we have 400 running projects.
We have approximately 100 projects in your portfolio with with a running budget of around 100 million euro.
To give you the scope of what we do, we do research funding, we do think-tank funding,
we do civil society funding, we have fellowship programmes, leadership programmes and civic education programmes.
Plus, it gets particularly interesting if we bridge the sector.
So if we bring together policymakers with civil society, if you bring together the think tanks with young people,
it could bring together active issues with policymakers and we see a role in that and we see a lack of that happening.
One example of what we do is go to three of four for four examples.
And after the euro crisis, we we went under the impression that particularly in Germany,
the very conservatives talked a lot about Greece without having met the Greece politicians or having been to Greece.
So we decided to start a project in the culture European dialogue,
where we bring together parliamentarians from the national parliaments of member states.
Um, this plenary session with 40 to 50, the parliamentarians from last time 21 countries.
And we have small field trips or shorter workshops with smaller numbers.
And I remember one field trip to Lesbos where we invited a small group of parliamentarians to,
you know, get a get a view on what's happening on the Greek islands.
And it was interesting that, you know, Irish MP said, you know, you should invite,
you know, someone who has more interest in that and it's closer to the topic. And we said, No, you should, you know, you should.
It's also a topic that should concern you afterwards. That was the impression of the whole group that was worthwhile going there.
Interestingly, we do this project, together with 9:45 a.m., have Seat of Rome and the German Marshall Fund for the think tanks.
It has become one of the most effective tools in communicating that way, meeting and working with those commentaries.
And we started off not by asking What do you think about Germany's fiscal policy, but by asking, Why are you a politician?
What is your view on Europe? And that it's highly interesting and there's a lack of these kind of spaces in.
The second example I want to give is is based on the assumption we should be problem solvers.
We should be, you know, credible and knowledgeable about the in the fields that we are working and.
We experience in our social programmes with young fellows that, of course,
the topic of youth unemployment is a big issue in Europe, but we are a labour market expert.
We do have an expertise in education programmes in the area where we are based, which is a, you know, disadvantaged area of Germany.
We have started a multi-state stakeholder collective impact project called Wolf, a tool where we bring together, and that's a highly complicated area.
Universities, cities, the government of the land, the that affirms failure, the the education administration of the region, schools,
kindergartens and for the first time, this group sets themselves joint goals for the region and for the educational space of the whole area.
We thought that might be a good idea also to do, for example, in Italy or in Greece.
And so we did a feasibility study and we we we have chosen a career to be in the region
to do this kind of a project collective impact project with Italian foundations,
with the Italian government and creating structures of the local stakeholders to improve the education system.
And again, here we try also to bring in a clinicians think tankers, the practitioners from other regions in Europe.
And we think, you know, we created a space in which Europeans can exchange knowledge.
I can go on, give you a short introduction of 400 projects if you want to.
I know that our experience is, you know, we can get Robin Niblett from Chatham House invited into our foundation.
And he he, you know, he wrote this paper on the future think tanks and he said, You know, we think tanks.
We we we are part of the problem, as we have for a long time stressed the positive, aggregated impacts of globalisation too much.
And the thing that we want to avoid, and I think, you know, those which foundations, private foundations may have the same problem.
We do not want it to be perceived as the megaphones of the cosmopolitan elite, but as critical problem solvers.
We had long conversations with our friends from open society that have moved from
professional to in on exactly that topic how how we should act differently.
And you know,
I think there's a fine line when we give these different groups of Europeans the space to exchange their ideas and their stories in Europe.
There is a legitimate room for criticism of the European Union and of the political systems we live in.
Um, I live in Berlin. People have the right to be trusted about the political outfits of of, uh, of of the government.
And we should we should find a constructive way in solving the problems, uh, bringing to the table as many people as possible.
And that's that's what we what we do.
One example of how we try to do things differently is there's a recent example before the European elections and we decided,
you know, this time we should we should do is get your vote out, compete in our home city of Essen.
Um, usually we do work, you know, nationally or even in Europe, Europe wide.
But but we do very few things in SC. And so we thought, you know, we should raise the competition rate in the elections, you know, in our city.
And we have worked together now with small and medium sized companies with Utah, the largest union that we have worked with.
How about a voice vote, which is a welfare organisation?
We have worked with the City Council and that was our team and was extremely interesting to talk to trade union members,
to talk to small companies that may have the production site in Hungary or Poland.
And I think it's exactly that kind of work that we as a foundation should do should do
more because those conversations are very different from the conversations we have here.
But those people are convinced Europeans as well.
And this is why I think again, creating spaces where different sectors meet with different stories can be told this is is extremely important.
Thank you. And.