posals, and on support for industry, is crucial because that makes us strong. Perhaps it does not make us a speedboat in the energy ocean, but it makes for stability. When we make a change, we have a much broader basis for it, so we are much safer. All the projects have been well checked for cost efficiency and future viability. So I believe that is the right support to give.
The next area where we have a weakness, and which we are continuing to discuss, is external energy policy and coherence. It is true that there is a lot of controversy - or at least perceived controversy - and, as a Commissioner, I would definitely be happy to see a more coherent external energy policy.
The motion for a resolution addresses exactly this issue because, although there is no in-built conflict between Member States, there is perceived conflict. All the activities pursued by the Member States also benefit the European Union. So we should follow this up and really try to build a system where we speak with one voice, not only verbally but also in terms of the points of view that we want to emphasise. For this reason the second strategic energy review is still very important. All the points that we put forward in the second energy review are still there.
At the same time, from the Commission's point of view, we clearly see that we cannot afford to move from interdependence to dependence. That is why we particularly support diversification projects like Nabucco and LNG - not that they completely change our relationship of interdependence with other countries, but they give us additional safety margins. So that is what we are doing, but at the same time we definitely take note of what happens in the energy world.
Regarding the point on nuclear energy, we have moved away from this option. We have adopted a Nuclear Safety Directive but it is very much a national and very sensitive point. I really believe that, from the Union point of view, we should build upon the cooperation of nuclear safety regulators and try to establish a safer and 