I was listening to what our comrade was saying on democ racy. Yes, it is true that general statements may be useful but we have to go more in detail. It is true mat when we take detailed questions, may be we cannot go forward in a discussion. On this I agree that we have to be precise about our concept and notion of democracy. As far as we in France are concerned, we tried to be precise very concretely in our own conditions. In detail, in our country we are going quite deep into it I will take a very small example, like the Maastricht treaty. We were against the treaty. Some others were for the treaty. Okay? The first step we took was that "We want a referendum.*’ We want the people to decide on Maastricht. You are for yes, We are for no, first people have to decide. The government was against the referendum. We took the idea, we must have a referendum. Whatever you may want, we must have that. First let us discuss and we obliged the government to retreat on this question. We finally had a referendum which we nearly won. The ‘NO’ lost by a margin of 1%. With a very tiny victory, it is very difficult for them. In our struggle now, it is very interesting to tell our people, look, not only we asked you to tell no, we tell our people, you have to decide whether yes or no - we told our people you have to decide. Today, even if we lost by a narrow margin, the argument we used, more democracy, helped us in going forward. So, as far as we are concerned this is a concrete example of how we go forward with the concept of democracy without, never, masking our target. It is precisely this democratic way of going forward that helps you not to mask your targets but openly to tell your people, I am for this or for that. Butyou have to gather at any stage, at any moment, the majority of the people so that you can isolate your enemies. That is what we are doing and that is the concrete content we will give to democracy.