 Ladies and gentlemen, good morning from Dublin, from the European Commission representation. Welcome to the annual State of the European Union address 2023. My name is John O'Brennan, I'm a professor at Maneuth University specializing in European integration, and because me great pleasure to welcome everybody to this morning's event those of us who are here in the room and to those of you who are joining us online. This morning's event is co organized by the Irish Institute for International European Affairs by the Commission representation in Ireland and by the European Parliament liaison office. Before we begin, let me just briefly run through the running order. I'll firstly introduce each of our distinguished speakers, and in approximately five minutes or so we will go live to President von der Leyen's address. President is due to speak for approximately 45 minutes, perhaps a little bit longer. And once she has concluded we will come back to our expert panel to get insights from each of them. It will also be an opportunity for people in the audience to ask questions and make comments and for those of you who are joining us online. You can do similarly by using the zoom function Q&A button which is on, you will find on the bottom of your screen. With that, then let me formally introduce our panel. On my left, Lisa Chambers is a Fina fall senator Lisa is a former TD for mail. And I suspect possibly a future TD for mail and was first elected to Castle bar municipal district council in the local elections in 2014. She is the leader of Shannon Aaron and the Fina fall group in the Shannon. She is party spokesperson on European and foreign affairs, and is chair of the Shannon's Brexit committee. She's a barrister by profession she holds a master's degree from UCD law and professional barrister in law from the King's ends. She's also a former member of the reserve defense force having attained the rank of second attendant, and is a passionate advocate for the Irish defense forces. Good morning and welcome Lisa Catherine day. Our second guest this morning was secretary general of the European Commission for 10 years between 2005 and 2015. She was the first woman and the second Irish person to hold that post. She passed in the cabinets of Dick Burke, Peter Sutherland, and Leon Britain. And at an earlier point in time, worked intensively on the enlargement of the EU to Eastern Europe, a topic I'm sure that's going to be central to President von der Leyen's address this morning. In 2002, she was promoted to director general of DG environment. Before she becomes secretary general of the Commission in 2005. Welcome Catherine and thanks for being here. Our final speaker this morning is Dan O'Brien. Dan is the chief economist that the IIEA is also an adjunct senior research fellow at UCD, and one of Ireland's most prominent commentators on economic and public policy issues. For three years from mid 2010. Dan was the economics editor of the Irish Times, analyzing and commenting on a wide range of Irish, European and global issues. Prior to that he spent a dozen years based in London and Geneva as senior economist and editor at the economist intelligence unit. And previously has worked for the European Commission as a consultant also for the UN and a number of other bodies. Thanks very much indeed Dan for joining us. I'm still waiting for President von der Leyen to begin her speech. If I might sort of open proceedings Dan by asking you to set the scene for us. Could you perhaps say something about the European economy where we are today versus a year ago. Thanks John and it's good to be here. I think we cast our minds back 12 months ago. We were facing extremely in fact one of the most uncertain times in my professional career. There was the prospect of energy shortages over the winter. Inflation was was high and rising interest rates were responding. These were all extreme headwinds to to economic growth and we had just we were coming out of the pandemic period. It was an extraordinary period of uncertainty. Very plausible case to say that we would have suffered a very deep recession last year. Where are we today, the European economy is bigger today than it was this time last year, marginally unemployment is either low or stable in nearly every member state. So in the past. We've had periods of jobless growth. In this case, we have full employment, semi stagnation. Now that's a pretty good place to be given the headwinds we faced and all things considered. So I think it's it's the glass three quarters full, particularly given what we were 12 months ago. Yeah. Catherine very briefly. What do you expect to hear from President von der Leyen today what do you think is going to be at the core of the state of the union speech. Well, I think that this is her last state of the union speech in the current commission. And so I think there'll be a look back at what has been achieved and we forget to easily just how well Europe has done in the last five years in the face of pandemic over energy crisis, inflation, etc. But also, there are a lot of open issues which are difficult for Europe to resolve so I expect her to talk about enlargement climate. I have a little checklist of 10 things here so I'm going to check them off as I'm sure she will raise them. So it will be really taking the temperature of where we are what has led up to this day, but also a look ahead. And Lisa, for you, what are you expecting to see from the Commission President this morning. Yeah, I think because it's her final state of the union address before her term comes to an end and we don't know yet what her plans are for the next term I certainly hope she'll be going forward for a second term. You would expect her to talk about legacy what's been achieved. I think she's had an incredibly difficult term, a global pandemic energy crisis, which was severe. She's obviously now the largest number of displaced persons since World War Two in terms of the war in Ukraine so I think her legacy will be one of stability one of of steering the ship steadily through all of those crisis and I think she might be taking to the Well, thank you very much indeed ladies and gentlemen, we're now going to turn to discussion of what I think you'd agree was an extraordinarily substantive speech, all the big challenges that Europe faces. Electively, and the kind of things that the Commission is doing to try and address those challenges. I'm going to turn initially to each of our speakers in reverse order. What are their impressions of the speech I'll begin with you Lisa, if I could walk for you where the stand out things in Vonderline's speech. Yeah, I think she she hit on the topics we expect her to touch upon enlargement legacy migration climate, and but there were a couple of, there were two areas for me that stood out. Clearly she was quite forthright and stronger comments on China and Russia, and I think that needs to continue. And I was very glad to see that once you started her speech talking about the next generation and young people and that's really important that we begin we are aspirational in our future talks for what we want the unit to look like. And focus then, not for the first time on critical raw materials, how we protect ourselves from being vulnerable. She did this in last year's beat as well and in the previous year also talking about, you know, making sure that we're not reliant on one country for the supply of critical raw materials. So when she focused on tackling China, for example, on their domestic policy in relation to electric vehicles that's really important. I think things like chips how we ensure that these critical technologies and raw materials are produced in Europe and not only produced in Europe that we have deals with other like minded nations beyond our European borders to ensure that we have that supply. I think that was really important. And secondly, then her conversation her comments around artificial intelligence, I think is really, really welcome. I think there's a lot of concern around that area there's a lot of misinformation, and that is, so it's going to continue because of it, but also I think her suggestion that we have an IPCC like organization to deal with a I, I think was practical and really interesting so AI and critical materials for me with the two areas I think we're we're interesting and future looking. And I think they were really walking. Yeah, so I can say that within the university system we have been completely preoccupied with AI and how it's already accelerating change in all kinds of ways just within our sector. Catherine, if I could turn to you your impressions. I think it was a very confident polished sure footed political speech. The way these things are put together is there's a big troll across the political parties, the member states interest groups, etc, everybody it's like the budget here everybody has their request. I think she ticked a lot of boxes on a lot of people's lists. But I think she did it in a way. I was interested in the way she counterbalanced. So, a lot of messages are there to reassure people, but what I, what I thought was very impressive was the way that she has linked dossiers together across like I thought she showed great mastery of how to put things together. And it was a very strong message that geopolitical Europe can be successful. And I think she put the emphasis on unity confidence that we can change, and the message that we need to change and we need to start now. So, what I found very interesting as a former commissioner official was, she certainly continues to position the commission as the player in this in the process that has the ideas that will reach out. It's great to tackle difficult issues like she did tackle the issue of agriculture and climate, pretty directly and she's proposing to talk and to listen. And I think that's that will resonate here I hope, but it also resonates in her own political party with the EPP line on all of this, again on enlargement which I think is going to be a huge challenge. I think she's right to say we have to seize the moment we have to do the right thing for history that's what we have always done. But she's also positioning the commission with all its processes to take over quite a lot to take to do the negotiating to take over the running of it, because, again, Member States Parliament will blow hot and cold on the political mood and the commission will have to deliver it. And so it needs to be steady it needs to be objective it needs to have its technical expertise available. And she, I mean, she tacked, she ticked between eight and a half and nine of the boxes on my list. She kind of underplayed but one where she has been very confident is on funding. If you think of how often Europe is bedeviled with budget. She has shown in her time that she can get the union to think much more creatively about how to fund itself, which she was ripping off figures of 50 billion 12 billion in ways that rarely you would ever hear a commission president speak. It was a kind of a masterclass in how to bring a lot of people on board. And but at the same time, without dodging the difficult issues. So if you ask me was it a job application I would say yes. Dan, finally, to you, what are your main takeaways from the speech. Well, certainly lots there but maybe talk about the external economic relations of the EU and that's something about the domestic competitiveness agenda. So you see a clear attempt by some to return to block thinking, trying to isolate and influence countries in between. So I think that sort of reflective of the effective end of the multilateral trading system as we've known in recent decades a much more complex system to be system to be navigated for Europe. There was the critical raw materials club. There was the global gateway initiative that's basically an attempt to to work, or at least push back against Chinese the Chinese government on the road. The risk, not the couple of heavy emphasis on China, which I thought was was good and correct that the risk, not the couple line, people may remember the punishment of foreign affairs use exactly that same term it seems to be this sort of the term we Europeans are using in China. There were some teeth there as well the anti subsidy investigation vehicles from China. I think that's a significant signal that Europe isn't going to take sort of unfair competition lying down anymore and a signal to China was very surprised I don't think the United States was mentioned once. Okay. So that was good in one way because I feel over the past year there's been far too much focus on us subsidies. So the Chinese have been doing much more over a much longer period of time using subsidies and we haven't really done much about it. Whereas the US started doing it and everyone almost lost their reason. And there was, you know, in my view excessive criticism of the US for use of subsidies. So it was good to see that it was the focus on China rather than the US the US is obviously our most important strategic partner it's our most important trade partner. So good that there wasn't any criticism of the US. On the other hand, from an Irish perspective from particular that transatlantic relations is so important the the absence of focus on partnership with the United States, something concerning and just do I have time. Yeah, I just want to ask you. Is there some kind of contradiction there between the need for a muscular industrial strategy to compete with China and United States and subsidies and how you maintain the integrity of the single market. How did those two things move? So I don't think the single market was mentioned once. I don't think the single market mentioned. I don't think industrial policy was mentioned which is now back in both. Okay, I missed that. And state aid regime and I think state aids were mentioned. So it just, we're living in an entirely new world now, where the old idea of sort of, you know, free markets, largely doing the heavy lifting of governments in intervening on the side that really has changed, you know, not only in terms of a policy but I think in the economics profession as well. There's a sort of new that era of, you know, liberalization free trade, minimal government intervention is changing. And for Europe, given the basis of our of the way the single market has worked of anti state aid level playing field. And that puts the whole European model, you know, it kind of how does the European model adapt to that. I'm not saying, you know, industrial policy is wrong. I'm not saying it's right there are areas where it clearly works. But for Europe to navigate that to maintain a level playing field in the single market internally to use it in a way that if we do use industrial policy that it doesn't go to the bigger countries that they gain and smaller countries such as ourselves, then lose out because the investments go to the bigger countries with with maybe the greater capacity. So it's really complicated both externally focusing and within the single market and how the single market works itself really complicated things happening many, many little cogs changing and moving big ones to. So a very complicated world out there. Yeah. Lisa, if I could turn to you. The President began by talking about young people but also about the European Parliament elections next year, and somebody whose party will be going into those elections and campaigning. Do you see danger ahead, the sense that the center of gravity within the European Union has moved a bit to the right that there may well be an alliance between the European People's Party and the EC or or even identity Europe, or there's going to be a resurgence of support for far right parties across the Union. And how does the European Parliament look and how, how might the whole way in which Europe processes legislation if we end up with an even more fragmented Parliament and one where the far right is in a significantly stronger position than it's in today. How do I answer that in terms of our European elections here will be primarily focused on domestic issues. But it is important I think what you're getting at john and maybe in one line is that it matters who we send to Europe. And that's a message that we need to get out for our elections next year that we are sending people that represent our country well that actually are positive constructive. And are voting in a manner that is representative of the people that elect them, and that they are voting in Ireland's best interests. And currently that's not happening with all of our MEPs if I can I can say that because I'm political obviously, and I'm part of a political party. And so that that will certainly be be my message and my party's message that it matters who you send to Europe. We're a small team, but we've always been a very effective team working with our, not just the politicians but the entire team that Ireland send out there, and those that are based in Brussels as well. And where our politics is still quite middle ground, we don't really have a far right or the hard left, it's still quite middle ground. But those issues. I think when it comes to the elections, you will see things like migration for the first time really becoming an issue in Ireland. I think that will be a topic for the elections next year. Agriculture will be a key topic because it always is. And I think what Catherine was saying about. It was good to see the Commission President directly deal with that and say that we will have a dialogue and we will discuss, you know, putting together our vision for the future of agriculture about good food production but also protecting what comes. And I do think that, you know, when it comes to the elections next year. I was surprised actually that there was, there wasn't much commentary in her speech about defense. That's quite topical here. Hardly. She did mention the EU Defense Union, which, in whatever way you interpret that means different things to different member states. And that's fine. That's okay. Yes, I think it's always a topic for discussion here when we discuss Europe. I think that will be an issue as well. And as always, you will have those leaning more to the right and those leaning more to the left that will try and exploit people's ears and anxieties around those key issues. Catherine, turning to the European Green Deal, Ursula von der Leyen made this a central plank of her Commission's agenda starting out in 2019. I think it's fair to say that if we look back at the Nature Restoration Act, the debates that took place within the Council and the Parliament, and what many perceived to be a suboptimal piece of legislation or one that was watered down because it was very difficult to sell particularly for the EPP. If we look at the debate about air quality that's going on currently. How do you assess the Commission's performance on the European Green Deal relative to where we were four years ago? I think it's always difficult because politics is the art of compromise. And the Commission fights its corner very hard on these kind of issues where there's real commitment. And where I think we're lucky to have a Commission that can take a 20 and 30 year horizon towards a goal, but it has to zigzag with public opinion changes of government etc. And one of my former bosses used to say in moments of crisis negotiation, well I'd rather have legislation on the statute book than the perfect theoretical solution. And this is about knowing when to compromise and when not. What I think she had the Green Deal with working, I mean obviously the Commission never works alone but I think it has moved the dial. And what it has done is to give a focal point, you know, very, very clear on 2030. So there's time for people to move. We have to race because we were slow starters here in Ireland. And she has also managed to find ways to mobilize more energy in terms of political energy but also funding from the private sector by setting a horizon. It was interesting what she said on wind today I think that we haven't commented on that yet, but she has effectively picked up on the two problems that we have here, planning and auctions. I don't think it's going to be an instant to see what the Commission is going to do about it. But I think probably it is a wise decision if we are if we are going to rely on new renewables in the future, perhaps to lift it up to the European level, because we're not the only ones facing the political and the public questioning that's going on the how to where, but if it's lifted up to a broader plane and seem to be part of a wider movement perhaps it can unlock some of the solutions that are stuck at national level. It shows a deaf hand and an intelligent focus on issues that can move the dial. But it's, we haven't really yet as a society accepted that it's going to change the way that we live our lives. And I think that's we have to reach out to people we have to embrace them. It's easier with the young generation and she was quite right to put quite a lot of emphasis on them. I think they get it more than some of us who are stuck in our ways and comfortable. But I think we this is what Europe does well for its member states is to do the for thinking, map things out. And then as I say go in a zigzag but reach the goal. Dan, just turning to the economy again and linking it to one of the other big issues that the president highlighted, which was migration. She cited some extraordinary statistics and I must admit that I wasn't aware of some of them that, for example, three quarters of SMEs in Europe. I have a skill shortage they're looking for workers all over the continent there are shortages of different kinds. And the obvious answer to this is migration policy that you can bring people in from outside and you can fill those gaps, but there are such opposition in many member states to the notion of much inward migration. How does the commission square that dilemma, that kind of problem, because this is not going to get any better, because of the effects of displacement from climate change and other reasons we're going to see many, many more people wanting to come to Europe and at the level of the council migration policy is a complete mess. So I think it's also important we talk about migration to differentiate between work permits that are granted to bring skill people in, and people who are coming looking for asylum. So these are two entirely different forms of migration I think it's very important for many cannot certainly from every perspective but from an economic perspective that they are very different. We've got a good line in there saying instead of millions of people looking for jobs, millions of jobs are looking for people. Now, you know, as she said, and you know if you would come ask me three years ago, when we were sort of still in the emergency phase of the pandemic, that as you say businesses all over Europe would have labor shortages, you know, I thought we've been exactly the opposite position. Now, we're not out of the woods yet. You know, there are tremors, you know, in the European economy that mean, you know, suggest we could have a recession this year. If we do, you know, those labor shortage problems will be will be eased. So I don't think we can assume that forever more in the future, we are going to have full employment in Europe that hasn't been the case over the past 30 or 40 years. Hopefully, that is the new phase we're entering into, but I certainly wouldn't take it for granted. There are real big differences. Spain, for example, unemployment is still over 12%. Well, that's one of the, you know, the new social partners summit that she mentioned. You know, I really, you know, labor market outcomes in member states are determined by what happens in member states. It's not really any EU function. So I, you know, at the value of these, this sort of social partners so much fine, you know, it can be of some use, but in terms of determining labor market outcomes in member states. So we'll have no impact, because precisely as you say, you have, you know, very different employment rates, very different unemployment rates, very different niche rates. This, this not an unemployment education or training that she mentioned across the block and that's because it's not you regulation laws that determine labor outcomes, it's national ones. We're going to turn in a few minutes to questions from the audience to anybody who has a question that you'd like to ask. Perhaps you would just line it up in your mind and get it ready. Those of you who are online questions are coming in on zoom and we'll get to those. One final question for the panel which is about Ukraine. One of the most touching moments I thought in the speech was when she mentioned the Ukrainian writer, Victoria Amalina who was one of the victims of Russian brutality earlier this year. It got, I think the loudest round of applause in the chamber when she talked about her. I think that the European Union is going to be able to maintain its unity on Ukraine as we go forward. There are all kinds of challenges potentially the reconstruction of Ukraine is going to be enormously costly financially, and that links then to enlargement and the cost of the commission president in the last third for speech really devoted at all to enlargement. Some of that was about what the European Union needs to do. Charles Michel at the Bled Security Summit a few weeks ago in Slovenia. He said the EU should be ready by 2030, but do you have any indication that the commission has the tools to be able to do that kind of preparatory work. And will the member states allow them to do it because one of the most disturbing things about the enlargement process over the last 15 years and the stagnation of it was the way in which member states keep objecting to a particular candidate state and preventing any progress being made by that state hungry this week has already threatened to block Ukraine. If it doesn't insert right clause into its constitution on the Hungarian population. So just on the overall issue about enlargement and Ukraine does the EU have the capacity to really do the planning necessary to get us to a point where we'll have another European day of welcomes. So what is your reference actually what took place in Dublin in 2004. Yes, we absolutely do have the capacity. We are rich we have clever people, and we don't have much option, because if we don't answer that call. What's the answer that the Putin continues to nibble away at the eastern side of the European Union that we give to this kind of tyranny and dictatorship. So yes we absolutely have the capacity. Will it be easy absolutely not and that's what I meant about the zigzag because every member state will have issues with different parts of this journey. But having seen it done several times. I know it's possible. I personally don't like the idea of attaching a date. And then we were only able to delay it by one year and they were not ready to join, but we've made it work since. But there are still hangovers I don't know if people how many people picked up when she talked about Bulgaria and Romania and shengen. But I mean they've been years knocking on the gate they've been technically ready for years, and she still had to say now is the moment to do it. There will be all those reversals, but they won't stop the general direction of travel. And I think it will cost more it would be more difficult just think just think about revising the CAP to include a country the size of Ukraine with its enormous capacity, but we are doomed anyway if we're not able to embrace this kind of change And I do think this is where the Union can be at its best and I do think that we have learned in the hard years of her mandate through the pandemic through the Russian aggression through the energy crisis that we have to work together and we have to find compromises. And I think there is a certain Union is slightly better at it now than it was 10 years ago. So I absolutely believe it's possible but absolutely believe it will be hell. And, but at the same time, a younger me would love to go back and be involved in this next succession process because it was one of the most exciting things I did in my career. She did point out that over the last 20 years the EU went through something very similar. I mean the issues with Poland, for example, very similar same size. They're not finished. Still having problems. Still there. Economy and so forth, absolutely. Even we can be difficult sometimes. Oh, yes. I note that the commissioner also mentioned the probability of treaty change, something that strikes fear into the heart of every Irish politician. But if I can, if I can say I underlined the language because she said if and when needed. And I think that's the right way to do it. Do what you can absolutely what you can in the existing treaty if you find you can't then it's easy to explain to people why you can't. Don't start with treaty change, please. Yeah. Okay, we're going to open the session to questions. I'll take three at a time and if you could kindly identify yourself and your affiliation if any. Thanks. And I should say that, although I come from the new. I am not a great fan of sermons. So, please deliver a concise and efficient question rather than a servant. Thanks. My name is Johnny. My name is Johnny Ryan from ICCL. This is a question for Catherine in particular. I'm speaking to a room full of MEPs who are probably terrified that they won't be there after the next election. And they're all probably thinking that social media and digital is part of the reason why they're having that fear. What surprised or is it that it's it's back of the agenda. We didn't hear a joined a vision for the problems of social media. There was a little bit about the DSA, which won't solve the problem. There was nothing really about the competition issues, which loomed large. There wasn't really anything, even an AI about the workforce working for algorithms which will grow. There was nothing about carbon and digital and nothing about security and digital really. So, is that off the agenda bit at the moment that joined a vision. Thanks very much indeed Johnny. A second question. Ambassador. I concur with you saying that it was a very inspired speech was quite obvious source of inspiration in certain cases. My question is on the SME she mentioned SME envoy. Because I was ready SME envoy in the present in the was the former chief minister of Bavaria, Mr. Stoyer quite a high figure. So my question is a bit ironical. How confident are we that we can reduce the kind of the burden on the same because we know what it means it means tackling environmental law tackling many rules like this on impact environment so how much is this realistic and have we done this before. And I suppose does it also contradict the ambition of the green agenda. That's a really important question. Yes, John. John to charity college having grown up for work lived through the single European market era, her emphasis on industrial policy, without explaining how that will be reconciled with the interests of the single market. And I wonder how Dan sees it she particularly mentioned solar and EVs and the interests of Southern Europe who have made major progress for example in Spain on decarbonizing has been the price of solar panels have been driven way down. They're being rolled out much more rapidly than anticipated. And if China chooses to subsidize Europe's greening. Why should we worry when parts of Europe will benefit. So, has the issue of industrial policy and how it is reconciled with the single market being worked out. Dan, and I would also add that if we look at subsidies, some member states like Germany for example in a much much better position to provide really large subsidies to particular industries or businesses and that in itself might have a fragmenting or a starting effect on the single market. Dan. So, the short answer to the question is how have we got industrial policy in the single market, needed together, not at all. I think it'll take years for us intellectually to work out a way where the state aids regime, maybe adapted. What sort of subsidies work, you know, will the US subsidies work. You know, the idea that this is going to lead to a renaissance manufacturing race on some United States, it might do, but we don't know, you know, we know that these sort of subsidies regimes in the past have ended up being wasteful. So the idea that, you know, suddenly, industrials subsidization of industries is going to be successful we know that it may not be we know that they're, they're having examples of success in East Asia, Latin America. It's mostly been a disaster so we just don't know and I think it'll take years for us, you know, in terms of intellectually and legislatively to knit those two together, just on the SME thing. You know, I think it was welcome that there was this 25% reduction in, in what was it, reporting obligations and focused on regulatory regulatory impact assessment, bringing drag in to report like clearly a real heavy weight so that will have some impact with this idea of SME and boys at an EU level I just, I think it's, it's, it's a big leaf it's meaningless. Yeah. On the social media question I mean I think the obvious thing to say is this is a speech at a high level of generality so you can't be looking for details here she would have been three weeks at the podium had she given the necessary detail. I did pick up that she says our number one priority is to ensure AI develops in a human centric transparent and responsible way. And this is something you were all tackling but I think what Europe has done and and is leading the way on is to show that it's not something that we should be subject to we should set out to harness it and master it and deal with the consequences. So it's very early stages. I think a lot of work is obviously going on on it. And she has shown that Europe will defend itself on these terms but also wants to reach out to the rest of the world and work with them so as to how can we tackle the, to get the benefits out of something new without the disadvantages. That's all I can say because I don't think the work is more developed than that. I mean I've seen I don't know how many SMEN boys I've seen it sounds like a great idea, but it must be frustrating for them, you know they come in full of ideas and realize that it's much more difficult. Having worked with Mr Stoiber myself. It is, it is very difficult to get people to say to take what works at one national level and say let's European eyes that doesn't work, you know you have to make a different European approach. I think it's good to have to be very aware of the burden of regulation. I think we can still do more to sit to go back to old regulation and simplify, but we need a pact which we tried to get in my time and didn't get. There are very old pieces of legislation that everybody admits should be overhauled, but the Commission is afraid to open them, because if it does it, the progress that they achieved will be rolled back. Because you have more countries now different member states who didn't make the original bargain. The other states in parliament were never prepared to give a commitment, not to touch the ambition of the of the old legislation just to update the mechanisms. So that that's a real stumbling block. But I do think having invested heavily on better regulation that we need to keep investing in better regulation, but we have to take out of this the poison of the UK. Because that was their mantra, you know to out for everyone in like mechanistic things which didn't abide by themselves. And I have to say I was very interested when the UK air traffic melted down. The BBC was saying well you will get compensation because this is a leftover from when we were in the EU. Well, thanks that they had the leftover you know so for everybody who objects to a piece of legislation there's somebody who wants it so we have to be cognizant of the impact. We can do more, but it's not a nirvana either. And if you're a small company that wants to export without any letter hindrance to 26 other countries, then you have to accept that there's a certain you have to adapt to some extent. So there's lots that can be done but envoys and numbers don't work in my experience. Yeah, just on a couple of points. Johnny, if you did mention about being a global leader in digital rights, I do think she did hint at wanting to focus on the issue but didn't provide the details. But that's definitely on the agenda. And just John in relation to your point. I think when she spoke about China and the impact of the EVs coming into our market. She really honed in on the impact that that had on on our own indigenous businesses that it killed off some really new and innovative businesses and took them out of the market, so I think if we want people in Europe and our own business people and young people coming through in that area to be innovators and researchers and develop new technologies. If the competition if the market isn't fair, we won't have that so it's about developing our own domestic industries within within Europe to make sure that we're not reliant on China because we need EVs and other technologies. Back to the audience in the room. There's a question on zoom from Michael Healy of the Central Bank of Ireland. Open to anybody on the panel. The EU is a rules based system. How should the European Union deal with what Michael calls rogue administration such as Hungary, which ignore European law on public procurement for example, as well as exhibiting significant levels of corruption, including alleged misappropriation of European Union funds, those kind of problems related to the rule of law. The commissioner, the commission president mentioned them in respect of enlargement but just in the broader sense. How is the EU doing on rule of law issues do you think I think it's been quite weak in terms of tackling clear breaches of rule of law. Poland, Hungary, obviously jumped to mind. It is just cutting off funding in certain streams is the only tool really in the toolbox. And I think that's been happening to a certain extent in dialogue. And, you know, it is a challenge and I think it builds resentment in other member states who are doing the right thing. If those that break the rules are not if there are no consequences. So it is important to tackle it but it's not an easy one to tackle when somebody's already in the club. And Catherine, it is very difficult genuinely for the commission, isn't it, as a body that is supposed to represent the European interest because if it intervenes too heavily in one member states it provides grist to the mill of populist leaders who can trot out the anti European line, but on rule of law reports that the commission now delivers annually. Do you think they are making a difference. Well, first of all, I agree with Lisa, I think we've been too weak and we've been too slow to move as to do also with the European political families and the Poland and Hungary being in certain groups they the group then supports them. And that spreads out to the other institutions as well so I and I think it has cost us in terms of the image of are we a union that defends our values are not and I think it plays particularly badly with younger people so I'm glad that action has been taken in a way that is better late than never. And we have to stick to our guns now. And we can't now start to give in and write special deals for Hungary or Poland, as we come, because they are facing financial difficulties because they were counting on this money so we have to stick to these principles. The rule of law reports are useful. And because they give you a kind of objective basis on which to argue and to discuss. And there's no country that can't improve. And the smart ones use it as an outsider as a sort of friendly outsider look and see what what we can do to improve. And I think they will also the fact that she wants to open them to some of the candidates I think is good to get them into the way that the European Union does look at what happens in member states because that's the bargain. They agree lots of things every time they meet, but then they have to go home and implement them afterwards and if they don't go home and implement. There has to be consequences because otherwise you can't enjoy all the benefits of no borders, no controls, etc. It has to be, it's not a totally level playing field but it has to be perceived as a mainly level playing field. So I think it is important but I think it's also important to say that once you're in the family and most European countries look on it as being in a family, then they will go to quite extraordinary lengths to keep that country or group in the family. And we benefited enormously from the strong European solidarity throughout the whole Brexit saga and still do because we are in the family. Yeah, I think all three of the really big political groups they all have members that are problematic in respect to rule of law in one way or another. Yes, there's a gentleman just here with the glasses. Thank you, Brian daily member of the Institute. I just be interested in the panel's views on the, in the context of the unprecedented circumstances we're in, in the context of the war in Ukraine, and Russian aggression. There was no reference or appreciation for the input from the United States or the UK in providing military support. There was a lot of reference to the humanitarian support that the EU has provided to Ukrainian people. But there was no acknowledgement or reference at all to just be interested in your interpretation of how that will be interpreted outside the European Union by by people in the US and in the UK. Thank you very much indeed Brian. Anybody else. Dan, we might come to you on this question about how much the European Union has really done for Ukraine there does seem to be a lot of confusion about this whether it's military support on the one hand, largely of course by Member States and the financial support provided by laterally and by the European Union. How do we assess this after almost 600 days of war. Do you think well certainly from from various sources I've seen that you know there may be some difficulty in assessing this but that the EU collectively has given as much military support. It's the United States collectively now I'm not a military expert and how those figures are compiled. But you know, the Brian's point like I did make that point earlier that the US I think I was corrected the US was mentioned once in the entire speech I think that's clearly a mistake and certainly from sitting in Dublin where transatlantic relationship is so important. You know that there was not greater mention about the importance of the European US relationship. I think was it was a serious error and won't go down well in the US. Amongst those people who pay attention to these things with the UK I don't think the UK was mentioned once again clearly the tensions between Dublin London at the moment are are are high. You know Catherine I'm sure as a as the best insight into this but you know, the sort of sense that Britain is gone and there doesn't, you know, nobody in Brussels really really wants to sort of give Britain credit for anything or sort of showed in a positive light is is just active life these days. I want to just ask a hypothetical question if I could, we can project ourselves forward more than a year. We have a US presidential election where the vote on the left splits and Donald J Trump returns to the White House. And after he has been convicted on just one of the 19 one criminal charges that he's been indicted on. How does the European Union deal with such a scenario do you think Lisa and are people seriously thinking about this that a Trump administration that whether he's in prison or not promises to be significantly more radical, because he believes he wasn't radical enough and a lot of issues. Does it present a threat to the European Union and why aren't people talking about it more. I think for a couple of reasons does it present a threat. Yes, but lots of things present a threat and we've already had four years of Donald J Trump and we survived. I think that the United States is bigger than any one person anyone president. And as we saw he attempted to be a lot more radical, but was curtailed in his ambitions during that four year term, because American democracy prevails. And so I think, you know, we need to keep a watching brief on what is happening, but that shouldn't deter us from the path that we are on. And the US was mentioned thankfully in once in a positive light in terms of the critical raw materials and having that club as was referred to so the real the walls talk about that our relationship with the US and it being important. I take on board the points that Brian made that why didn't we mentioned the US or the UK in terms of Ukraine, but I do, you know, the US involvement in support in Ukraine is to their benefit to so I don't think we need to be thanking them for for what they're doing, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their own hearts. They're doing it because it's in their interest geopolitically to support Ukraine and to prevent Russia from, from succeeding in taking Ukraine. So, I think our relationship with the US will prevail and will always be strong it's in both countries interest to do so with the Union and the US, and we will just need to keep watching brief and what happens with the presidency. And it's been pretty good value they've spent just three and a half percent of their defense budget on supporting Ukraine. It's not as if it's been this incredible burden or anything like that. No, and it goes down well politically at home. It's part of US policy. But I would also say the context of this speech it was a very inward looking speech this was a speech you heard the reaction of the Parliament when she made the faux pas and said honorable member states even that wasn't what they wanted to hear. Of course she's speaking to wider than the people in the hemicycle but at the same time, it's part of the European choreography of job changes and all the rest of it so I'm not too surprised about that. And to her credit I think she has done a lot to improve the relationship with the UK now she has partners on now that she can do business with so to speak. I would agree with Dan that nobody in Brussels wants to even mention the UK. I think the, both the EU and the current government anyway in the UK acknowledge and want to have a closer relationship in so far as it's in mutual interest. And I think you will see that coming slowly that does not mean that anybody is thinking of the UK rejoining anytime soon but to have a more rational relationship between close neighbors and allies I think is something that both sides will be working towards and I think she if she is the next president of the Commission would be well able to do, and I agree with Lisa. We've seen Donald Trump before we know what we would be dealing with now. If anything I think it would accelerate parts of this agenda, because we would realize that we can't rely on the United States under Donald Trump so we have to do more ourselves. You know, I don't think that Donald Trump is a threat to the EU. It's the NATO is the other pillar in the European architecture institutional architecture. If the security guarantees article five security guarantees go. Everything changes in Europe overnight. The entire security framework of your changes. And that that would just have the most profound overnight effect on Europe. You know, arguably in the post Cold War period. There was a question from Professor John O'Hagan from Trinity College. And he asks a question about enlargement and whether it's realistic to think that we can enlarge to 3235 states without changes to the operation of the veto. What are the chances that we might be able to do that and persuade all member states that they should move to some kind of QMV, even in foreign policy issues, perhaps even a super qualified majority. There's an art. Yeah, we're actually having this debate size as I know. Because we had a conversation at my party's thinking yesterday specifically on this with Barry Andrews and Billy Kelly are two MEPs. The same thing when we enlarge 20 years ago the same question was posed can we manage a bigger union with the same voting mechanism, and we did. And we're not going to go beyond 30 anytime soon we're you know it's still a number of years ahead. I think that the war in Ukraine certainly put it back on the table very firmly because do you have one country vetoing, but it's clearly the preference of the vast majority be citizens to take a particular action. So farm, the farm policy area is certainly one where, but you know what will happen if it comes to a domestic referendum here on that particular issue, and the scaremongering that will happen. So it needs to be a very clear ask, and a very clear and defined reason that, you know, pros and cons cost benefit analysis. This is the right thing to do. And acknowledging that there is of course a risk attached to adopting that particular policy, because it has served us in the past and other member states will will have particular histories as well. So it would be a very, very difficult cell for us here domestically and I suspect in other countries as well, but as the president pointed out, if and when it is needed we can discuss that then it's not really on the table right now. Yeah. I would agree. I mean I think the question will be posed. Inevitably, because it will be she talked about the capacity to act and that is what the EU has to protect it has to be able to act. What I would foresee perhaps is a shrunken veto, like a very limited area and very strict circumstances under which it could be applied. I think that could be the compromise that could emerge exactly how you would design it will take an awful lot of discussion. But I think we with the whole sanctions issue, and even with Poland and Hungary, how to deal with them. And then did the treaty has been a progression of unfortunately how do you deal with member states who don't want to play the game. Once upon a time, just for an opening and infringement visiting against a member state with shock horror and they immediately came into line that they have to be fined after not respecting court rulings, etc, etc, etc, when article seven was put in the treaty. No, it was to apply to one member state that would be so far out of line. Nobody ever imagined that you would have two member states backing each other and effectively nullifying article seven. The same reality shows you that perhaps the members of the club don't behave quite as well as you would like, and you have to bring something else in, but we've always found a way to do that. And so I think rather than, you know, outright dumping all the vetoes, it might be possible to have a super narrowly defined veto, which would then help everybody to feel well look in the end of the end of the end if I really need to do it. But we'd have to be much more justified and with all kinds of constraints attached to one final question prompted by what Lisa said about a possibility of a new referendum at some point in the future. Well, this also applies to the European Parliament elections next year. Some democratic theorists are absolutely terrified about the potential changes that artificial intelligence is going to make to political campaigns, whether they are elections at national European level, or referendums that, you know, two to three years from now the capacity of AI to interfere and to matter in the context of malign actors who want to do things to disrupt and damage the European Union or individual jurisdictions. Are we really taking this seriously enough Lisa was there any talk within political parties about how this might be managed. Yeah, we are very concerned about this. It's part now of our conversations with other colleagues across parties were discussing it. My own Facebook account was hacked last week, paid for and sponsored ads disseminated across the country. And thankfully, you know, what the content was minor enough I was quite relieved that it wasn't something of a more serious nature. The, the, the era of deep fakes, you know where videos can be put out that look as though you're saying something that you're not saying, and the impact of that, depending on how close it is to polling day could be catastrophic. So it is, it's already happening, it will impact on our elections. Can we prevent those things from from being out there. I don't think we can actually, but I think informing the public to be more critical of what you see, analyze more closely and see don't trust immediately what you see the article circulated purported to me from me last week, had the or to branding on it, a trusted new force, the most trusted new source in the country, which then prompted or to issue a statement on it. So it is, it's really concerning for us as public representatives political parties. We have no idea how to deal with it. We don't have the toolbox to deal with it. I do think there is an onus now on on the state and all states to really inform the public that this stuff is here. And it's, and it's, it will be part of the next election. There were two occasions over the summer where I met to people separately they were people with advanced master's degrees, and the extraordinary amount of misinformation that they had taken on the lines that they were spouting propaganda channels that are familiar to us, and they didn't even seem to realize this. And the argument is if people with that level of education are falling for all of this, it makes the task of holding elections and referendums that much more difficult in the near future. And determined to send you home on a very positive. You can see I'm gene myself up for the new academic term as well by problems. I'm going to bring this morning's panel to a close. I want to thank sincerely Barbara Nolan from the European Commission representation. Alex white and his colleagues from the IEA, and most of all, in addition to our audience both here and online. I would like to thank our speakers Lisa chambers, Catherine day and Don O'Brien. Thanks.