 Good afternoon everybody. I'm very pleased to welcome you to the second event of the 2024 future proofing Europe series, which is sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs with the IEA. And we're delighted to be joined today by Dr Thiago Antunes, Secretary of State for European Affairs of Portugal, who will speak to us on getting ready for enlargement the EU's homework. And he's been very generous to take time out of his schedule to speak to us today. And that's greatly appreciated, Dr Antunes. Secretary Antunes will speak to us for about 20 minutes or so. And then we will go to the question and answer with our audience. As this is an online event, you will be able to join the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom. And a reminder also that today's presentation and the question and answer are both on the record. Please feel free to join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IEA. And we're also live streaming this afternoon's discussion. So very warm welcome to all of you tuning in on YouTube. In his address, Dr Antunes will discuss the impact of the upcoming enlargement or one can say enlargements on the functioning of the EU and how the EU must reform itself in order to prepare for such enlargements. He will focus on the challenges and opportunities of an enlargement enlarged EU with particular emphasis on the timing, the scope, the content on the processes of internal reform, as well as potential mechanisms to accommodate existing and prospective Member States participation in the European project. I want to introduce the Secretary of State Antunes. He has held this position since March 2022, but he has a long distinguished record also as a lawyer. But prior to his current role, he was Secretary of State for the presidency of the Council of Ministers between 2017 to 2019, in charge of the Portuguese government's lawmaking process. He was Secretary of State's assistance to the minister for to the Prime Minister from 2019 to 2022 and was there responsible for the internal coordination of the government and its communication. And the Secretary of State holds a PhD in law from the University of Lisbon is also an assistant professor at the School of Law and a lead researcher at the Research Center for Public Law. And that Secretary of State, may I hand the floor over to you and we look forward very much to your address to us today. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. It's thank you for having me. It's really a pleasure to take part in these IIA lectures or discussions or exchanges of views. And, and particularly at this moment in time when we're almost three months away from the European elections and from the beginning of a new political cycle in the European Union. So this is really the perfect timing to look ahead and try to anticipate the big issues and the big, big tasks that we will have to deal with in the coming European mandate. And, of course, there are always developments which are impossible to predict considering considering this, this European legislature, which is reaching the end, two of the most consequential events. And the ones that the European Union has held to deal with were obviously impossible to predict five years ago so the pandemic and then the war in Ukraine. But in spite of that, there are a number of issues that we can already anticipate that will be relevant. Obviously, we will need to step up our game in terms of defense. We will have to make real this promise of strategic autonomy. We will have to try to strike the right balance between the Green Deal, and also a more the more traditional means of productions, etc. But for sure one of the big tasks ahead and one of the big challenges for the next five years is the enlargement of the European Union. And not only the enlargement itself but also the preparation that the EU needs to make in order to be ready to receive new members to take on board new countries. And this is what I would like to focus on today is enlargement and reform this tandem of what the member, not only what the we know that the candidate countries have a big homework and a huge task in their hands to comply with all the Copenhagen criteria, and we are very demanding and very rigorous in assessing those criteria particularly in what concerns rule of law and fundamentals. And that is very much right that we do so, but then we also need to do our part and the EU's homework so this is what I would like to focus on today. So, of course, as you all know, there's a new momentum for enlargement policy since, well, two years ago since the start of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. And as you know, probably, there was this promise made, particularly to the Western Balkans back in 2003 in Thessaloniki that they have an European perspective, but then for almost 20 years really not much happened until with the invasion of Ukraine. There was really this new impetus into the enlargement policy towards Ukraine, of course, and Moldova and Georgia, so the Eastern trio, but then also towards the Western Balkans were waiting for a long period. But in the beginning, so several decisions have been made, significant decisions regarding these countries, particularly last December, the European Council, the decision to open negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. But for a long time, we started evolving at a much faster pace in terms of enlargement, but there was not much appetite to discuss the other side of the coin, that is, the preparation, the reform of the European Union in order to accommodate new members. And there was a slight mention in the June European Council, when candidate status in June 2022 European Council, when candidates status was granted to Ukraine and Moldova. At that point, the leaders said also taking into consideration the EU's capacity to absorb new members. So this idea of the absorption capacity of the European Union was mentioned. And in fact, it is already part of the Copenhagen criteria. It is one of the criteria is the capacity of the European Union to absorb new members. But then there was no follow up for for a certain number of months, there was no follow up on this. Because obviously the issues that we will have to deal with in order to prepare to accept new members are difficult to address and to deal with and to agree on what needs to be reformed. So for a long period, my sense was that in European Union we were trying to avoid having this discussion, and we're trying to push it further away in time. Back last year in May 23, I convened here in Portugal in Portugal, meeting of the Atlantic member states, of course, of which Ireland took part of course, and we had, and I put this topic on the agenda, the reform of the European Union in view of the enlargement. So this was one of the first discussions it was followed the following months in June by a first discussion among the 27 during the informal General Affairs Council in Stockholm. This was a very important moment to start facing the issues that we will have to deal in order to be prepared for enlargement. And then of course, a big moment was the Grenada Summit in October 23, and the Grenada declaration that stated that both the EU and future member states need to be ready so there's work that must proceed in the European Union and in the aspiring members, obviously they need to step up their reform efforts, but the EU also needs to lay the necessary internal groundwork and reforms. Just continuing in the timeline in December 23. So at the end of last year, the European Council conclusions are very clear in the sense that they have a heading for the first time heading saying enlargement and reform so can linking the two issues creating this kind of tandem enlargement and reform which was set in stone as of December last year and and the leaders have said that work on both tracks should advance in parallel and that both the future member states and the EU need to be ready at the time of accession. So both need to do our homework and that homework should be completed by the time or until the formal accession of these new member states and more even more recently last week, the European Council also adopted a resolution on deepening EU integration in view of future enlargement also stating that these two strands must advance in parallel and that there are institutional and financial reforms that we need to proceed and at the European Union level. So I would say that by now the first step in this endeavor has been completed which is to rubber stamp this idea that we need both things we need to advance in terms of enlargement which was stalled for many years but now it's clearly gaining speed. But we also need to do our part, and we need to address the difficulties and the challenges and the problems that will arise from going from an European Union at 27 from to an European Union with 30 plus or 30 something member states. This will be a game changer this will be a huge change with major implications and and this will bring both challenges and opportunities. So regarding enlargement itself obviously it brings benefits not only to the countries which want to join European Union but it's also a positive thing for the European Union itself. It's as stated in the Granada Declaration it's a job strategic investment in peace security stability and prosperity. It is also a moral imperative considering what's happening in Ukraine and the sacrifices that they're enduring because of their option to come the European way. And so it's really from a geo strategic point of view. It's something that we must do. And but it also brings challenges with it and I think we must be very realistic and very serious and very blunt in facing those challenges. It's no good for the process to try to ignore them or try to hide them or pretend like they don't exist. Even if they're difficult to deal with, we must face them and try to start having these discussions in order to find solutions for those problems. And of course, the challenges there are security challenges because we would be importing into European Union countries with disputed borders with breakaway regions with ethnic rivalries. So this is one issue in itself, particularly considering article 22 number seven of the Treaty of the European Union, which establishes a mutual cooperation and support clause. It's not like NATO, but it's there and we have to be aware of this implications. Then on agriculture, the implications will be huge just considering Ukraine alone. It accounts for one quarter of the agricultural surface in Europe. So this will have a major impact on common agriculture policy. Also the per capita income of these candidate countries is extremely low. So this will also impact for instance, cohesion policy and how cohesion funds are distributed. Also in what concerns the freedom of movement and once the freedom of movement happens with also these countries, the risk of brain drain which we already see today in European Union will become much bigger. And then there's an array of institutional implications. There will be a multiplication of vetoes of member states with veto power. And you know how today it is already so much difficult to take certain decisions at 27 imagine with 30 something member states. The number of possibilities of veto will multiply. And then even considering decisions which are taken by qualified majority voting, the weight of each country and the real power of influence of each country will be significantly impacted because considering again considering Ukraine alone, once it enters it will be the fifth largest country. So which a huge impact in how decisions are made. Also an impact on the size of the commission, and whether it is feasible or workable to have a commission with 30 something commissioners, and also on the apportionment of seats in European Parliament, because if obviously the number of seats is not in large, then several member states will have to decrease the number of MEPs. So there's quite a number of challenges ahead of us, but I believe we need to face them and start naming them and start figuring out ways to overcome them. And when I mentioned all these problems, I don't mention them as an obstacle or a stumbling block to enlargement. It's not aimed at slowing down enlargement rather on the country. It's these are challenges that we need to overcome in order to be able to enlarge and while ensuring the effectiveness and the capacity to act of European Union. So we need to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. For instance in the big bang enlargement of 20 years ago 2004, when we didn't prepare ourselves fully and then we were stuck for many years in institutional discussions and treaty change and blockages and so we need to avoid this we need to make the homework complete the homework before accession and create these conditions for us to be able to take decisions and be effective and efficient in our decision making process and now we reform our policies and culture policy policy, etc. In order to have a functioning European Union enlarged but functioning European Union. And so we need to face this not to create difficulties on the enlargement, but in order to create the possibility of enlargement the so called absorption capacity. So obviously, when we can see that the reform process, it also brings with it challenges and opportunities. The biggest challenge is that to deal with some of the issues that I mentioned. We might need treaty reform or treaty change. And then we can see the issue of treaty change in itself, it's a difficulty and particularly in relation to Ireland because there's a constitutional requirement to hold a referendum to each constitutional reform. So, and we know in the past how some of these treaty changes have been difficult. And so, and traumatic even so what I would say to this is that. We should not start this discussion by saying we need to change the treaties. Because this would be a road to disaster I say I would say, and it would prove counterproductive. So first let's agree on what we need to change and how we need to change it. And then, once we agree on that it will be, we will check if that requires to change or not. And even if it does by that time it will be much easier because we have agreed on what we need to do. But if we open, if we call for a convention like European Parliament has done, and we start an open process to amend the treaties. It will be really we will we will not, we will get stuck in the middle discussing bits and bolts and and and we will get nowhere. So, first let's discuss count let's focus on content, not on procedure. Let's discuss what we how we see the European Union evolving in the future what governance model we want for the European Union. And then later on we'll check whether what we can do in the framework of the current treaties and what might require treaty change, if that can be done through the accession treaties or through a through a supplementary treaty as has been proposed by some. But we'll check that at the end, if we start by opening a procedure to review the treaties that will, we will get stuck and we will reach nowhere. And, and, and also my second remark here would be that we need to do everything we can in the context or in the framework of the current treaties exploring the leeway and the margin of the room of maneuver in the there are considerable considerable mechanisms in the little Lisbon treaty, which allow for some flexibility. So we should explore those and to start with we should explore those and then we'll see if that is enough to solve the issues, or if we need to go beyond to reform the treaties. Of course, using these mechanisms such as pastoral clauses and hence cooperation, etc. It's, it makes it a little bit easier than the treaty change, because for instance it doesn't evolve referenda, but it doesn't make it all that easy because they still, for instance in what concerns pastoral clauses, it still requires unanimity. So we still need to find a consensus at 27 in order to move from unanimity to qualify majority voting. But this is something that we must discuss also the, the talks on using pastoral clauses have increased recently. So once we started, since we started discussing more seriously the enlightenment, because everyone realizes that having 30 something member states with veto possibilities would make it very difficult. And, and so moving to qualified majority voting makes sense. But we also have to check in what areas or what policies we should do this. And that's advanced in this way, because most of the conversation so far on the use of pastoral clauses has been centered on the common security and defense policy. And that's probably the, the, the, not the area where we should start at, because it's probably the area where there are most where you can see more national interest at stake and and sovereignty perspective that might require might lead to feel that they need the rule of unanimity, whereas in some other areas more connected to the internal markets. It would make more sense to evolve to qualified majority voting areas like tax, like social policy, like energy like environment in those areas which are closely connected to the way the internal market function. It makes more sense to use the pastoral clauses, then in an area foreign policy, where obviously national interests are more relevant. Then I would also mention that these are the challenges of the reform process, but there are the reform process in itself is also an opportunity to deal with issues that we would need to solve anyway even regardless of enlargement. You see the process from farmers everywhere recently in Europe. So probably the common agriculture policy would need reform anyway. Even outside the scope of enlargement, we will need to address how to reform this policy. The veto power has been abused by some member states, which use it not for that particular decision, but in order to get leverage to influence other decisions. So this crossed vetoes, or this I would say not the use of veto power but the abuse or the misuse of veto power, when you veto a certain file, not because you're against it but in order to block another decision or in order to get some advantage in another area. This is blocking a lot of the European Union in a lot of areas. So we need to try to address that as well and find solutions to overcome that. I would say that we need to start thinking of a kind of a reverse emergency break so we have the emergency break for when the decision is to be taken by qualified majority voting, but a member state can invoke that as a national intertest sake. We need when for when we have unanimity, but it's being used misused, then we should be able to have an emergency unblocker and and proceed with the decision and avoid that things get sold. So this is things that we need to think about creatively and we need the contribution from from academia from think tanks to start thinking how we deal with these issues, then of course on rule of law, we also see that the rule of law and mechanisms need improvement. And, for instance, article seven has been blocked and has proven impossible to to adopt decisions on based on article seven so this is an area also where, even regardless of enlargement, we would need reform anyway. So, enlargement might be also an opportunity to address these issues, which need reconsideration. For this reform process. When what and how should we do it. So when I would say that I should start as soon as possible. What is foreseen now is that in June, the leaders will agree on a roadmap for reforms and and also so this will more or less give us an idea of what what the work during the next five years will be and how to synchronize the steps taken on the reform track and on the reform tracks because ideally this should advance in lock steps so each step in terms of the accession processes should be matched by a step taken in terms of reforms or decision to reform aspects of the European Union. These two processes should run in parallel. And ideally they should be completed before the accession of new members because otherwise it will become much more difficult to reform, if instead of 27 will already have 28 or 29 or 30 countries within the European country. In terms of scope, what needs to be reformed. I've mentioned some institutional issues policies like agriculture policy, and there I would mention, not only two aspects of the common agriculture policy, the access to markets. And for instance, we're seeing already today, one of the major impacts of what the membership of Ukraine would mean in terms of the access of their agricultural products into the European agricultural market, and, and how farmers are reacting, particularly in neighboring countries, badly to these imports of grain and food stuff. So this is one issue. And the other issue is how to distribute cap funds common agriculture policy funds, because, as I said with 25% of the agricultural surface in Ukraine they would get roughly a quarter of the funds of the current policy so this would be have a huge impact. Then on cohesion, as I've mentioned, as well. Once these new member states was these new countries become member states, statistically, all of us existing current member states will become richer, because the average, the EU average will be much lower. So the access to cohesion funds will be lower, even probably some net receivers will become net contributors to cohesion policy. And, but this, not because these countries have become richer or more developed, but because overnight from one day to the other as soon as the enlargement happens, statistically they are richer but they are exactly the same level of development. And so this is something that goes counter to the objective of upward convergence, we need a convergence but not to an average which is lower, because of the accession of new member states. We need an upward convergence and we need to find solutions to guarantee that cohesion policy continues to ensure an upward convergence, even after we have enlarge. Then also, obviously budget implications, and we will already need to tackle those in the negotiations of the next MFF, the next multi annual financial framework for 28 to 34, because in this time frame, during this time frame, we already need to take into account a possible enlargement happening during this time frame. So when we start to discuss the always difficult discussions of MFF of the multi annual budget of the European Union, we already will need to take into account the cost of the enlargement. And what I always mentioned is that enlargement will not be cost free. This is something we must do it is in our interest, we want it to but it will have a price tag, and we need to be ready all of us, and we need to tell our citizens, and be very honest about it, and raise awareness to the fact that this will have a cost and we will need to be willing to pay. For that, obviously we need to revive the discussion as well I believe on new own resources of the European Union, in order to account for these new responsibilities, and these new costs that we are already even again regardless of enlargement, we are already asking more and more from the European Union. We are giving more responsibilities to the European Union, whatever happens, we expect the European Union to respond. And the budget is already being pressure by many new responsibilities and priorities. So we cannot over demand and underpay, we have to find revenue sources for the European Union to be able to respond to all these new tasks and challenges And then in terms of rule of law. Also this is an issue that needs to be addressed and and how to avoid a leveling down not not only in terms of rule of law but also other standards environmental standards social standards so enlargement cannot be a way to level down. So we need kind of a lock of current standards to make sure that those obviously within the accession procedure we are very demanding to for candidates countries to achieve the European standards and to meet these key and key, but afterwards, we need to make sure that there is no leveling down and no backtracking on this. So, there's a lot we need to discuss. And one last issue that I would like to raise is that in an enlarged European Union with more member states more diverse member states and member states that have different aspirations and different expectations regarding Europe, someone in Europe, but someone last year, we probably will need to have a more flexible setup, more flexible arrangements. And so, we'll need to consider the issue of differentiation. We already have a lot of differentiation within the European Union, Eurozone, Schengen and hence corporations in many areas. But probably in the future, we will have to accept that differentiation will play a key role and will be a key feature of future European Union with 30 plus member states and accept that this will be a reality and even go beyond the level of differentiation of accessibility that we already have, because honestly, I don't believe that a single rule or a one size fits all will be available in the future with more and more member states will need to account for the differences and for the different way member states view the European Union. And so we'll probably need to address both external differentiation and internal differentiation do so differentiation in the run up to becoming a member of the European Union. And there we can discuss gradual or sexual integration of candidate countries. And the European Union has recently proposed regarding the Western Balkans this growth plan, which foresees an increased level of funding, but also a sexual integration into some European policies already on the way to enlargement, so that this is not an on or off situation, but gradually these candidate countries start to train and be involved in some of the policies in some of the methods. But then also in, we need also to consider internal differentiation so even once they are in the European Union, we will probably need more flexibility. This is why my purchase Prime Minister has proposed this idea of the European Union in the future as a multi purpose building, which has on the foundations, the rule of law, fundamental rights, democracy, and this is unquestionable for all. And is binding for all of course this is the foundations of the building. And then the building has a common area shared by all, which is a single market and other policies, but any, but then it has different rooms, and I would say it might choose to be part of certain rooms and not other rooms. And, and so this may account for everybody's wishes, and it will be a setup in which everyone will feel comfortable. Those who want to integrate further can go into more rooms and share more powers and more policies. Those who are comfortable with the level of integration that we have remain as they are. Probably some might like to be less integrated in one or two areas, and they might wish to do so. So this is something that is a bit different from these idea of concentric circles of a European Union of concentric circles which has been voiced many times. So this is not about creating a first year and second year, or a core and a periphery. This is not about excluding anyone. So everyone is in this house and gets to choose freely which rooms they want to participate in which policies they want to be part of. So everyone participates in an unequal footing. There is no forced waiting room for new member states know everyone is in and gets to choose if they want to share more or less. And obviously they want to participate more they will have to fund more, and but they will take part in the decisions, but if they don't want to be part of certain policies, then they are also open to do so. And I believe that they obviously respect what is common, and the foundations the rule of law, etc. So this is an idea that we've been working on, and I believe that I believe will be key for future Union, which will be larger, and therefore it will need to be more flexible to account for everyone's wishes. Thank you so I'll stop here and eager to listen to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Secretary of State. That that was an extremely comprehensive and interesting to a door is on of the of the whole enlargement challenges, and also I think you you stress the opportunities. I think your whole address has has an optimistic flavor to it, which I think is the way we need to to approach this with with the candidate countries. I have some questions I have a question from James C. O'Shea from our Department of Foreign Affairs. He asks what lessons if any has the EU learned from the 2004 enlargement, which included Cyprus about accessions of new member states with territorial disputes and our separatist regions. And of course we are thinking here of a number of the Balkan states with territorial disputes and significant territorial disputes. Do you think that we have gained some information as as to how we can deal with with states with difficulties like this as we go forward for the next enlargement. Thank you for the question that's really difficult one because, yes, on the one hand, we should be aware that the fact that we have these territorial disputes the separatist regions etc makes it more difficult to consider the accession of these member states, because once they're in there will be part of the union and then article 227 applies as I was mentioning before. And, and so this brings with it a lot more security risks that we need to be aware of, and ideally, this would be solved before accession. Ideally, we would find a way of reconciliation in certain cases or overcoming this disputes and this conflict before entering this this countries are ready to enter the European Union. Although one can say, on the other hand, that well Cyprus has made function as a precedent in terms of the not being necessary to solve that in order to enter the European Union. This is what these candidate countries are saying. You cannot put this as a requirement to enter, because you have accepted Cyprus with an open and resolved territorial dispute, but we see how that makes it difficult in many areas in our countries with Turkey, etc, and the problems it has caused. So ideally, we should be. We should try, we should strive to have a solution to these problems and a settlement of these issues before we share our union with new member states. And then again, and nobody knows how long the conflict with Russia will take place. And nobody knows how it will be settled in the end, and still Russia will still be there close to Ukraine. And there will always be a sense that we as we enlarge, we are getting closer to this other foreign policy which is increasingly hostile. And this is something that also will change the nature of the European Union. We all now realize how we have to step up in terms of defense. And this is because of the concern that a future president of the United States will not be so much engaged with NATO. But the fact that we are getting closer to dangerous foreign power will force us to obviously consider that in a much more serious way. Approach the future of the European Union. Security issues, foreign common and security policy will become more and more relevant. But then again, we should not only, we should be also able not to focus only on the East and on the Eastern threat or menace. We should be able to have a full scale, 360 foreign policy and consider also engagement with Africa with Latin America with Asia with other areas of the world. So we shouldn't be just stuck on areas in which we have a potential conflict or real conflict going on. So it's all of this is very difficult at this moment in time. We don't know how things will evolve. Obviously, we should, this is also a reason to be careful in relation to enlargement, not putting in question that enlargement should take place. And should take place with decent real, of course, but it will raise a certain number of issues for which we need to be prepared. Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply to that. I have another question, Secretary of State from Ethna McDermott, an IEA member. And she asks, what concrete steps can the EU take to ensure that potential new members do not play a negative role after accession and replicate the behavior of current member states like Hungary? Yes, this has to do with the issue that I was mentioning earlier about not lowering the standards, both rule of law standards, but also other standards, because obviously in the way up to accession. And in the enlargement process, this is one of the key areas in which we are very demanding and rigorous, which is the fundamentals cluster, rule of law, democratic values, minority rights and minorities, etc. And we, so a lot has to be the standard to enter the European Union is very high in what concerns all these areas related to the rule of law. And we also need to have instruments to tackle this after these countries are in the European Union and become members. And, and there, what we've seen is that the current mechanisms aren't as effective as they should be. So we need to ensure that the rule of law is not something not only something that we need to comply with in order to enter the European Union, but it's a permanent requirement of being a member of the European Union. And therefore, we obviously need to improve our rule of law mechanisms and create kind of a class of no regression. That the standards need to increase as these countries progress towards the membership of the European Union, but then they shouldn't be able to go below that also when they're already within the European Union. And so we need to find solutions kind of a lock of standards or no regression to make sure that this is not something that we take the box to enter, and then we free. No, this has to be a permanent requirement. And we already have instruments for that, as you all know, in the European Union, but those have to be reinforced and improved for sure. Thank you very much indeed. I just have a question on the forthcoming European parliamentary elections, and what we see as a swing to to the right in many European countries. If the European parliamentary elections produce right wing parties are parties in that direction. What do you think Secretary of State that might have on enlargement because of the significant influence of the European Parliament now in in very many decisions. Do you think that that would threaten enlargement or are you do you see any danger from from a somewhat different European Parliament after June. Yes, we are very much concerned with the search of the extremes, and particularly with the extreme far right populist right parties, and the fact that might have in the next European Parliament. I'm just trying to be not so pessimistic. The current polls, they tell us that there will be the main traditional center parties I'd say will lose some, but they will keep the majority. Although there will be a rise and increase in the extremes. It will not undermine to not affect the current pro EU majority that has had the main of the European Parliament in the past, and it will foreseeably continue to be so in the future. So this is a guarantee that on key issues such as enlargement and others. There will be a pro EU majority. But this is what the polls are telling us and let's see what happens on the nice of June. In any case, it is a source of concern that these populist views and and not only populist but most of them nationalistic views so anti EU views are on the rise. And this is obviously a key threat and a key danger for the European Union that we need to be very much aware of. Thank you indeed for that. And the director of research at the IIA Barry call for us. Well, thanks you for an excellent talk. He asks, can you please share any practical examples that you have of how countries that are on the way to joining can be most effectively involved in EU processes on policy communities in advance of joining is what has been done in the past twinning programs enough or are there any other creative ways that new members could begin their integration journey. Yes, I think that we need to be seriously consider this incremental accession, this idea which is also mentioned in the European Parliament resolution of last week. I believe that one very practical example can be the proposal that the Commission has already put forward of this growth plan for the Western Balkans, because it is on the one side, increasing gradually the access the intensity of funds. And there is, because if we limit the funds pre accession funds, and then we grant 100% of access to funds once these countries are in it, this will be a major jump that will be also difficult to execute all this funding and to absorb all this so it should be gradual that there should be a gradual phase in the funding. There should be also a gradual phasing of belonging and taking part of certain policies, and of the internal market for instance, gradual access to the internal access to the European Union payment zone, a single payment zone. There are many in terms of energy in terms of, for instance, roaming charges lowering the roaming charges. These are all things that are already happening to some extent with the Western Balkans progressively. And this is, I believe, the good method to have this gradual progress towards accession. Of course then we have to be mindful that of the balances and the offsets here, because if we grant all the benefits before membership then there will be no incentive to go the full way and comply with all the criteria that we demand in order to become a member state. So we need to take into account incentive structure so that there is always an increased benefit of progressing into the European Union, but it should be gradual. One other thing that should be gradual, but that is more difficult, is the institutional participation in the bodies and institutions of the European Union. This is more difficult pre accession, because formally not being a member these countries are not allowed to take part in the decisions. And even some have mentioned possibly the possibility of inviting these countries as observers that might be possible in the parliament for instance the social economic council is going ahead with this, the committee on social social economic committee is going ahead with this inviting observers from the candidate countries, but in the council it's much more difficult. But so legally speaking it's more difficult for this to happen, but it would be interesting also to have some forms of gradual participation in the institutions. In any case, I think I've given a few examples of how this can be done this idea of external differentiation and fake gradual phasing in to the European Union, and I guess this is the way to go, because it shouldn't be an honor off it should be really a staged process. Thank you. Thank you. I think that has some very positive suggestions for the for going forward with the applicants. Our deputy director general Jill Donahue has a question firstly she thanks you for a very refined and carefully crafted presentation on the challenges and opportunities of enlargement. Secretary State your point on strategic communication with citizens on the costs of enlargement, which as you have said are very significant. I think in fact, the costs of enlargement have been estimated by the general secretary at study as 257 billion in seven years which is is is a very, very high. So she asked how might this be presented to EU citizens so that it does not negatively impact on the European Parliament elections. Yes, so it will be difficult because most citizens are more focused on bread and butter issues and and and being presented with a huge price tag will be will have an impact of course, and we need to avoid that. And, but we need to also be serious with the population with the voters with the citizens and not try to hide the impacts of enlargement so this is my main point here today is that we should be very open and transparent about the implications of enlargement not in order to create problems, but because we need to overcome this to make the enlargement a reality. And this is relevant between member states in the institutions, but it all it is also relevant when in our outreach towards the citizens. Of course, we need to be very careful in how we do this, in order not to scare the citizens and create a backlash and anti enlargement sentiment. And, and this is particularly sensitive when we are so close to European elections. We are also this is quite relevant as well we are also still awaiting the input of the European Commission, because so far it has been the Council in the Granada declaration and then the December European Council, and now recently the European Commission has been able to get involved into this discussion, but the Commission so far has not really taken part and it's the Commission that has the most data, and, and will be able to bring more input into the impacts of enlargement into several policy areas. So we need this but of course, I believe the Commission is a bit wary of bringing a lot of information to the public now in the wake of European elections. So we are waiting a communication from the Commission but I believe that at this point, the Commission is trying to avoid anything that might create problems and I understand why. It will be really only after the elections that we will start discussing seriously these implications, but so I don't have a direct answer to this question, but we need to tell to start having these conversations with the citizens, but we need to avoid scaring them. So it has to be very carefully crafted so that we don't just pretend like the problems don't exist that wouldn't be serious. And further down the road, the citizens will would take into account the reality. But, but we need to be honest and transparent, but avoiding an anti enlargement sentiment which would not be positive. Yes, thank you. Thank you for that obviously the financial question is a huge issue, and the own resources of course comes into it which brings it very much back to the member states. I have another question here. How effective is the med nine framework for deepening cooperation between Portugal and other like minded countries, so enlargement of the Balkans I mean, does Portugal see the region as very much a geo strategic priority. I believe that regional groups of coordination with the European Union are very useful in general, they make sense. So we are from the beginning part of this mad nine group. It wasn't a group of nine countries in the beginning. So it has enlarged towards the Mediterranean, the Eastern Mediterranean. And, and, and necessarily the issue of the Balkans the Western Balkans has become more relevant in this setting as well, because obviously it's a major issue for Slovenia for Croatia which are the new members of the mad nine. But also I would like to mention this group, which had its inaugural meeting last year that I mentioned the Atlantic group the group of the Atlantic member states or the Western facade of the European Union, which is also important because when we have clearly the balance towards the East. This is very much so after the big enlargement of 2004, and it will be even more so after once these enlargements that we are discussing now will become a reality. So we also need to take into account also the more Western perspective of the European Union, in order to have a balance. So all these regional views of the south of the West. We need to be taken into account in order to balance obviously the focus that is very much on the East which is understandable particularly since the war in Ukraine obviously the focus is there and needs to be there, but we also need to take into account other views. So all these groups the mad nine for sure these Atlantic group are they bring new added value to the European discussions. Thank you, look to East as well as to West some somewhat of political question. Of course the war in Ukraine is dominating. Everybody's views are everybody's preoccupation of the moment. But I wonder, are you conscious in looking to the member states or the applicant member states that in fact there's some race here against Chinese and Russian influence in those states particularly in the economic and industrial area. Yes, enlargement is also important, because if we do not satisfy the expectations that we ourselves have given to these countries, then others will occupy that space, and Russia China said other powers, which are gaining influence. And if we do not engage if we do not fulfill on the promises that we've made. If, if enlargement and not does not progress and go through, then obviously we are leaving open space for these other powers to gain influence on our close neighborhood. That is something that obviously we need to avoid happening and this is obviously part of the geo strategic importance and priority of enlargement for sure. And a last question because unfortunately we're running close of time. Michelle Michelle fields has said that the EU institutional reform the internal form could be completed by well in time for 2030. Do you feel we can reform ourselves in time to receive new members by 2030. Well, I feel we should avoid setting artificial dates on a process that is in itself merit space. And so it depends a lot on how these countries will progress in terms of achieving the milestones the benchmarks the etc. So it would be I believe risky and counterproductive to say that enlargement needs to be completed by 2030 or some other date. So we should not set to ourselves artificial dates that that then could lead if they are not that they could lead to even furthering and growing the frustration, which is already there in certain particularly the Western Balkans who have been waiting for a much longer. There's a sense of frustration building up. And if we now say, Okay, wait until 2030 and then it doesn't happen in 2030, it will this frustration will only grow. So we need to avoid this, but we need to not let go of this issue, we need to really take this on board and and start this process of reforming and and and be serious about it and and and make progress and ideally during the next mandate during the next term. It will be decisive it will be key to to for us to agree on what kind of reform we want, even if we're not able to complete it by then, we should have an idea of the direction of travel and then the objective of what the future in large European Union should look like. And this is why this roadmap that will be adopted in June by the leaders, the roadmap for reform is very important, very important to on one hand, to make clear this linkage between enlargement and reform, and that it should go in lockstep and hand in hand and and progress to be made on both tracks. And on the other hand, to make real and invisible that we are serious about this process and we will try to complete it during the next ledges later. But then again we can have tentative calendars, we should never have a fixed date, because if we fail to achieve reform and enlargement by then it would only be worse, but we need to be serious about the process and try to try to go over it in the next European term. Thank you very much indeed and Secretary of State we have reached our time limit. I know definitely we could continue this conversation for a very long time, but I want to thank you most sincerely on behalf of all of us and all the participants today. I think we've learned a great deal from your very clear outline of the advantages and the processes involved. And I think what you have left with us is a very positive outlook for the future for the, with the benefit of the enlargement and what they will bring, and the confidence that the existing member states can draw on to make that happen. So our sincere thanks to you and our good wishes to you for the future. Many thanks. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure being with you.