 I'm here with Geoffrey Edwards, who is Emeritus reader in European Studies. Geoffrey, can you start by just describing your area of expertise for us? Well I teach Europe in the world European foreign policy, and I work on European security issues, European diplomacy, that sort of area. And in terms of what the EU you think has done well or not so well in that field? I think one has to remember that Europe began as a peace project in reconciling France and Germany, and I think it's done extraordinarily well in that area. And I think it has reconciled a good number of former enemies, Poland and Germany and so on and so forth, or Britain and Ireland. So I think in offering the forum for reconciling those sorts of differences, the European Union has been extraordinarily important, and I think that role continues in terms of attempting to resolve problems in former Yugoslavia, the Balkans and so on. And it hasn't always been successful, of course. I'm trying to win consensus among nine, fifteen, twenty-seven, twenty-eight member states, not always easy. But I think it does still see itself with this role of crisis management of trying to prevent conflict and so on. At the same time, I think it's important to remember that the European Union is one of the biggest donors for sustainable development. And that has had to an end in itself, of course, but it also has the advantage of attempting to try and prevent conflict insofar as it's pushing for sustainable development and therefore attempting to prevent the collapse of states and so on. Which has been a critical part in terms of attempting to do something, at least, to meet the threat of terrorism. So there have been various strategies and so on in terms of countering terrorism. Not always, as we saw in terms of Paris and Brussels, not always particularly effective. One of the interesting things about that has been the reaction of the French and Belgians insofar as they now reckon, realise that they should have actually been uploading more information to Europola and so on, that other people could have access to in order to prevent free movement of criminals and so on. And I think the value of that has been seen by Mrs May in terms of the British opting into that. On part of Sir John Scarlett, former head of MI6, reckoning that it's been much safer being able to use the intelligence provided by the other member states, as well as, of course, retaining our privileged relationship with the United States. So I think over a whole gamote of foreign policy and security issues, the European Union has been an important actor, even if constrained by the fact that it has to win a consensus among very different sorts of countries. France and the UK might well reckon that they have a global projection of power. Germany is never quite so sure. Germany remains convinced that the European Union is better as a civilian power rather than with any other accoutrements. But on the other hand, since 2003, there have been over 30 missions as part of common security and defence policy. So they've been small, most of them being civilian, but they have been useful. Their usefulness has been recognised by the United Nations, which quite often calls upon the European Union to actually participate in peacekeeping operations and so on. So the European Union does have this important idea of being a security and foreign policy actor, and that I think is important for the United Kingdom. And in your view, are there things that the EU is doing that couldn't be done by a body like NATO, for example? Oh yes, because during the late 20th century, the beginning of this century, there were moves on the part of NATO to try and civilianise in some ways, simply as a match on the part of the Americans who were always being vaguely suspicious of the European Union having any military dimension. But on the other hand, I think the European Union has taken up this idea that in order to be a peacekeeper, they need to have access to the military resources of the member states, that they need access to those civilian dimensions that NATO has nothing to do with. And the European Union, significantly I suppose really without America, can have a role in areas where NATO cannot. But we don't have the EU army yet? No, nor is there a prospect of one, and we've been involved. And one of the interesting things about our group was that with the support of the German academic exchange service, we had a workshop a few weeks ago with people from the European Union's external service on the European Union's global strategy. And at no point was anybody thinking about a European army. This is a figment of Bernard Jenkins or other Eurosceptics' mind. So in terms of the referendum, either a vote to remain or leave, what impacts might that have upon this field? I think if we leave, I think then we have a very weaker voice. And I think this has been made clear by Obama, by the Chinese, by the Indians, by everybody else, that membership of the European Union has a multiplier effect on Britain's voice, Britain's effort in global politics, in global security. So I think we'd lose that, and that would be extremely serious. I think too, given what I've said about the increasing use of Europol and Schengen information systems and so on, we would have to negotiate another opt-in, if you like, among many other opt-ins in order to have access to information useful for convicting criminals and so on. And how easy do you think that process would be because some people would say, well, anybody's going to want to swap in? Yes, but it's going to be one of a series of negotiations. If we come out, we have to renegotiate the whole trade relationship, the whole relationship in terms of services, the whole relationship in terms of security, the whole relationship in terms of countering crime and so on. So the whole series of negotiations then has to be undertaken so that we end up in a sense, presumably rather like Switzerland, negotiating 50-150, whatever it is in terms of number of agreements, and negotiating with 27 member states. One of the contradictions, I think, in the Brexit cases that we've been held back by having to negotiate at 28, forgetting the fact that negotiating at 28 gives us tremendous power insofar as it's a market of 28, 500 million and so on. But if we are out, we still have to negotiate with those 27, each of which will have on major issues a veto. So you might well be able to say that the Germans, of course, would want to continue to trade with us, or the French want to sell us Jesus. But other people don't have so much trade with us, and many of them will be considerably alarmed by the consequences of our leaving for the future of the European Union. And I think, therefore, they will take a fairly tough position. So each of these particular individual negotiations will be seen against the background of us actually weakening the European Union, giving succot to the pen, giving succot to a good number of other populist parties who might well see the end of the European Union as the better option for them. And if we vote to remain on your terms? Then it depends on the majority, of course. At the moment, we have the best of both worlds insofar as on foreign policy issues. If we don't reach consensus, we still have the option of going to learn on security issues. Again, if we cannot get agreement at 28, we can still go with individual partners among the Europeans, or with NATO and so on. So, from that point of view, we do have the best of both worlds from policy security position. But what's happened over the past couple of years since a referendum was on the cards, what we've been doing is losing influence, that we've been negotiating, we've been talking always with the one arm behind our back, as it were, simply because can you be relied upon to actually carry this out? Given the fact that you have all these people behind you continuously carping about leaving, can we actually trust you to do what you actually think you might like to do? So I think we've lost credit over the last year, 18 months. Now, if we stay in and with a reasonable majority, then we could really begin to focus on all those important issues like Syria, like Russia and so on, not necessarily being able to resolve all these issues, but at least engaging in a way that could be more proactive, whereas we've been reacting and really non-participants in half these things. So is there one key message that you'd like to see better communicated on the lead-up to the referendum? Yes, I think that without Europe, our voice would be considerably weaker both in terms of foreign policy and security policy. We would be much less safe out of Europe, out of the European Union. Thank you very much.