 Good afternoon. My name is Michael Collins and I'm the Director General of the IIEA, the Institute of International and European Affairs. We're delighted to welcome you this lunchtime to our latest webinar, which is a public event as part of our future of the EU 27 project. This project is supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Many of the very large numbers joining us today have attended previous webinars we have hosted and are familiar with the work of the IIEA, but a particular welcome also to those of you who might be joining an IIE webinar for the first time. We hope that through these events we can provide greater insight and understanding of the important issues and policies affecting and shaping Ireland and the world around us. Tomorrow the 9th of May is Europe Day 2020, a Europe Day like no other in living memory. So today we're particularly delighted to welcome the tarnished and Minister of Foreign Affairs Simon Kobany, whose address, marking Europe Day 2020, will focus on the many challenges now facing the European Union as it comes to grips with the wide-ranging implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. The tarnished will speak to you for about 20 to 25 minutes, and then we'll open up to take your questions. You'll be able to join the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on your screen. We will not be taking questions through the chat function, so please limit your questions to the Q&A function on your screen. A reminder that this discussion is fully on the record, both the tarnished's initial remarks and the subsequent Q&A. A further reminder that you can join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IIEA. And with that I would like to need for further introduction. I would hand you over to the tarnished and Minister of Foreign Affairs Simon Kobany. Tarnished, the floor is yours. Thanks very much Michael, and first of all a warm welcome to everybody. Thanks for taking the time to be with us today and I look forward to your questions. I'd like to begin though by thanking the IIEA for inviting me to speak today and to all participants for logging in in such large numbers. The current circumstance of the course mean that we can't hold these events in person for now at least, but I commend the IIEA's hard work and innovation in continuing to deliver an ambitious programme of events. They're always informative. We're getting used to working differently and I am somebody who hardly even heard of Zoom a few weeks ago, but now I'm using it virtually every day, not just to speak to the people like the people watching today, but also to my children as well. Tomorrow we mark Europe Day, 70 years since Robert Schumann first set out his vision of a peaceful and united Europe. We've come a long way since Schumann first presented his proposals for a European coal and steel community. Schumann delivered his speech just five years after the end of the Second World War and against a backdrop of the Cold War. Schumann's primary concern at the time was to prevent another war tearing through Western Europe. As the lived memories of the survivors of that era pass with age, we must grasp the responsibility of energising his legacy with renewed commitment to peace solidarity and respect for the rule of law. The solidarity and unity between European states that's often taken for granted today was hard fought over many years. Europe Day provides a timely opportunity each year to acknowledge and recommit to this achievement. On Europe Day we should also reflect on the European Union as we see it today. Red Sea and EMI carry out a poll around this time each year which gives us a useful snapshot of the attitudes of Irish people to the EU and its policies. This year's poll was carried out at the end of March just as the coronavirus took hold across the continent and as the Union, like its member states, struggled to respond quickly enough to the new realities. While the result of the poll should be understood in that context, it is of course disappointing to see support for Ireland's membership of the EU fall to 84% this year from a high of 93% last year. The portion of people answering don't know on whether they agree with EU membership rose to 9% up from 2%. I think it's important to look at the context there of last year being an extraordinary high in terms of numbers, but still we shouldn't ignore trends. While these figures show higher support for EU membership in Ireland than in any other EU member state, they are nonetheless a reminder that support for the Union in this country should never be taken for granted. We must and can do more to enhance the debate that we have in Ireland about our membership of the European Union and our aspirations for the future. Let me talk a bit about the EU's response to COVID-19 first. While the Union has taken unprecedented measures in support of member states, most Europeans have looked to the nation state to protect and guide them through this current crisis. The EU has been perceived as somewhat peripheral to the key decisions relating to the domestic medical response, lockdown and reopening of societies that's going to happen over time. But recovery and economic recovery in particular will depend on EU solidarity and decisive swift action. Thousands of businesses and millions of jobs would be lost were not for the financial support facilitated by the EU and the ECB. It would be fair to say that at the beginning of the crisis, the EU struggled to communicate the comprehensive nature of its response. Some of its initial hesitancy can be explained by the fact that health is a national competence and it's not shared at EU level. But also I think it can be explained by just a sheer pace of the spread of this virus and the impact that it was having on people's lives. Understandably, member states activated their own emergency planning to prepare their health systems for the onslaught of the coronavirus, first in Italy and then as the virus spread across the Union. And some initial responses such as closing borders were taken perhaps in an uncoordinated manner, adding to the negative perceptions of the collective EU response. But the truth is that the EU is carrying out a series of unprecedented measures to address the health and social socioeconomic consequences of this virus. For example, to counteract the problem caused by border closures, the Commission worked immediately with member states to create what were called green lanes, which removed cross border blockages, hindering the free movement of people and goods and keeping supply chains open. That was a difficult enough process actually to deliver, but for a country like Ireland, it was absolutely essential in terms of supply chains. It's also provided guidelines for border management measures to protect citizens health while preserving the integrity of the single market. Ensuring the availability of goods and essential services is of vital importance to all of us, but particularly in exporting country like Ireland. Also vital is research on the coronavirus, which will help to develop much needed vaccines and treatments, neither of which exists today. The European Commission very quickly announced a fund of just under 50 million euros from Horizon 2020 fund projects, including one which is coordinated by an Irish company. Hygiene diagnostics. The EU also set up joint procurement processes for EU member states to help provide quicker access to vital medical equipment and to personal protective equipment. The term PPE is a term that every household is now familiar with in Ireland. An individual European and individual European countries have assisted each other of course. For example, French patients being treated in German hospitals. We also have arrangements with a number of German laboratories in terms of getting tests done quickly to dramatically actually improve both turnaround times and the number of tests that we can turn over each day. At the same time, the EU has tackled the economic crisis provoked by the time by the pandemic. On the 18th of March, ECB President Lagarde announced a 750 billion euro response to the pandemic. The ECB pandemic emergency purchase program is a temporary asset purchase program for private and public sector securities, which aims to ensure that all sectors of the economy can benefit from supportive financing conditions that enable them to absorb this shock. This applies equally to families, firms, banks, and of course governments. Two days later, the Commission proposed the activation of the general escape clause of the stability and growth pact, although I think that was simply a recognition of reality when that happened. This allows member states though to take measures to deal with the crisis while departing from the budgetary requirements that would normally apply under the fiscal framework and the fiscal rules. For Ireland, the EU has approved two separate state aid packages worth about 400 million in total, which allows us to support our effective companies through the pandemic. Through these financial measures, the EU state aid approval and EU state aid approval, we can make sure that support reaches those who have lost their jobs because of the crisis, and this is going to continue quite some time. Following intensive work by the Eurogroup throughout April, EU leaders agreed a crisis response package of 540 billion euros. These are enormous numbers, but they're necessary. The initiatives outlined under this package are due to be operational by the 1st of June. They'll be vital to helping us to, they'll be vital in helping us to support our businesses who've been impacted by the pandemic, as well as workers who've lost their jobs or require temporary income supports. Most importantly, these measures show the solidarity and support for innovation that is needed to devise an unprecedented response to an unprecedented crisis. Work is also ongoing for an EU recovery fund, while the Commission is revising its proposal for the EU's budget to support programs designed to kickstart the economy. Again, these measures will ensure EU solidarity with the most effective member states. One of the core roles of my department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is consular work that is supporting and assisting our citizens all over the world. At no time has this been more important all around the world than during this COVID-19 crisis. Since the outbreak of the virus, my department has advised and assisted many thousands of our citizens overseas, over 5,000 in fact, helping them to get home. What started as a country-specific situation rapidly evolved into a coordination of the biggest repatriation effort in the history of the state. Cooperation with other EU member states and like-minded partners has been a crucial factor to actually make an awful lot of that repatriation happen in practice. The sharing of information, the coordination of action with EU partners has been an enormous strength. Whether through sharing flights, information or resources, we have been far more effective and better able to support our citizens by working together. EU coordination efforts have ensured that EU citizens can avail of places and repatriation flights organised by individual member states. I'm delighted that Ireland has already been able to charter two special flights, one from Peru and one from India. We have a number of others on the way and we have repatriated citizens from a number of other EU countries in the UK on those flights as you would expect. Irish citizens, 627 of them to date, have been repatriated on special flights from 126 different locations organised by other partners, making use of the Union's civil protection mechanism, which effectively gives about 75% of the cost back to the state in terms of the cost of repatriation flights. We have protected our citizens abroad to an extent that would not have been possible if we weren't a member of the European Union. Union has made a concrete difference for our citizens' lives and our health and continues to do so. We continue to work closely with partner EU member states as well as with our British friends, the US, Canada and others, as we support and assist our citizens overseas. So let me also take this opportunity to note the cooperation we've received from airlines and the aviation industry, which has been hugely positive, which have played a crucial role in helping us to get to some very difficult places under very difficult conditions. It's becoming increasingly clear that only a global effort will contain and minimise the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, until a vaccination can be developed and rolled out globally. As Dr Mike Ryan of the WHO has said, no one is safe until everybody is safe. The EU is playing a lead role in the fight against the pandemic. On Monday of this week, President van der Leyen co-hosted a coronavirus global response pledging conference, which raised 7.4 billion euros for global efforts to defeat this virus. Pledging 18 million on the part of Ireland, the Taoiseach said on Monday that the virus did not respect borders and COVID-19 is a shared enemy of all of humanity and all governments. On the 8th of April, EU development ministers endorsed the Team Europe package of support for partner countries. The EU will also help the most vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa and the EU's neighbourhood and further afield where necessary. Total financial support for this EU collective action from the Commission and the EIB will amount to over 15.5 billion euros. Combined with contributions from member states individually, the total amount is expected to reach over 20 billion euros. At a time when there has been a move by some countries away from the principles of multilateralism and towards nationalism, the pandemic has shown how we all suffer if we fail to work together. It is right that the European Union is now trying to show global leadership as well as leadership for its own citizens in the face of such a pandemic. Although the start of the crisis was marked with some uncertainty and perhaps incoherence, I'm very hopeful that during the easing of restrictions across Europe, we will see an awful lot more coordination this time round. The EU has developed a joint European roadmap towards lifting COVID-19. Containment measures to help strategically plan and recover are in place. While it's of course for member states to make their own decisions about the timing and scope of removing restrictions based on their own circumstances and based on their own public health advice, it is helpful for EU institutions to work on a coordinated approach with member states. Many other European countries have published staged action plans similar to our own and we have much to learn from each other's experiences as they ease restrictions in different sectors. The extent of this emergency is new to everybody and we're learning as we go. However, it's important to recognize also that member states are at different points in the pandemic and the vital message to citizens is that we must continue to slow the spread of this virus and not ease up on those efforts. Although the COVID-19 emergency has rightfully dominated our politics for the last few months, as indeed it's dominated people's lives, we must remain focused on other key priorities too. Including the EU's ongoing negotiations with the UK on its future relationship with the UN, because time is moving on and the Brexit challenges have not gone away. Ireland is working as part of the EU 27 to ensure that our collective approach to the future relationship negotiations reflects our values and our interests. To date, we've had two full negotiating rounds and a number of more technical exchanges. For Ireland, alongside a free trade agreement in goods with a level playing field for our businesses, we continue to take a close interest in justice and security cooperation in fisheries and transport connectivity and of course data exchange. Both sides now have a fair idea of where there is clear convergence or divergence as the case may be between our respective positions. Progress has been much slower in truth than we had hoped. The restrictions of COVID-19 and taking meetings by video conference are part of the reason for this, but they're not actually the fundamental reason in my view. The UK's level of ambition is much lower than the EU's and fundamental differences remain between the two sides on some of the most important issues. These include level playing field provisions and overarching governance for any new arrangements that may be put in place, as well as of course fisheries, which was always understood to be part of an overall deal linked to trying to put together a new trading deal and trading conditions between the EU and the UK. Two further negotiating rounds will take place in the coming weeks, starting next week and Monday. Michel Barnier has been very clear that we need to see much better engagement from the UK in these rounds if we're going to make progress. June will be a key moment. At a high level conference, the EU and the UK will jointly consider the progress made at that point and what it means for the period ahead. The end of June is also the last point at which the Joint Committee can decide to extend the transition period. This would have to be a decision made by the EU and the UK jointly. The UK government continues to say very clearly, both publicly and privately, that they will not agree to an extension. This is the reality that must be factored in both for the future relationship negotiation and preparing for the end of transition. A second separate but related stream of work is the implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. Implementation is vital as the protocol underpins a more permanent set of arrangements to address the challenges of Brexit on the island of Ireland. And I think we're all familiar with those debates because we spent two years discussing them in the buildup to agreement finally. Ireland has attended and participated in the recent meetings of the Joint and the Specialised Committees. These meetings have considered the preparatory work needed for a number of decisions the Joint Committee must take under the protocol and the range of work that the UK needs to take forward to implement the protocol in full. Together with the EU, we have strongly underlined with the UK how important it is that the UK now makes clear detailed progress on implementation of the protocol. Implementation of the protocol will mean some changes and we know that. We're all aware that this is complex work requiring running time and engagement with stakeholders to ensure the protocol works for Northern Ireland and for the all island economy as a whole. We welcome the UK's continued commitment to fully implement the protocol and they have given that commitment in the Specialised Committee, which is welcome. We hope to see further more detailed engagement from the UK at the upcoming meetings of the Specialised Committee and the Joint Committees in the weeks ahead. I would agree with Michelle Barney's view that faithful and effective implementation of the withdrawal agreement is absolutely central to the progress of the negotiations more generally. I think it's also a really important act of good faith. The third stream of ongoing work is on preparedness for the future, whatever that may hold, to assist citizens and businesses in getting ready for the new realities post transition. The withdrawal agreement in the Northern Ireland protocol ensures that we are no longer faced with a no deal Brexit and the challenges that that brings. However, Brexit represents a substantive change to our relationship with our closest neighbour. It will fundamentally affect how we do business together across so many areas. The UK has left the EU. At the end of the transition period, the UK will leave the customs union in the single market. Even the best possible FDA between the EU and the UK will impact supply chains and trade flows and result in checks and controls in both directions to EU-UK trade. With less than seven months to the end of transition, we remain committed to doing everything in our power to ensure that citizens and businesses are as ready as they can be for the end of that transition and the change that it's going to bring. We continue to develop the infrastructure and systems at our ports and our airports. We're working with our partners and the Commission to ensure the UK land bridge remains an efficient route to market to and from Ireland. Brexit comes at a time when businesses are already under enormous pressure in the face of the challenges brought by COVID-19. Brexit preparation will necessarily be part of a wider business recovery agenda linked to COVID-19 and we will look at how best business supports can be deployed in support of the Brexit challenges on top of everything else. There will be a lot of uncertainty in the months ahead. That's about the only certainty we have. Ireland's best interests will continue to be served by us playing our part as a member of the EU-27 and that we will do. So in conclusion, in the short term, our response to the COVID-19 emergency will dominate the agenda for some time to come for understandable reasons. But our recovery in a post-coronavirus world will be the defining issue for the Union over the lifetime of every government in every member state right now. The path ahead is not clear. This is a profound shock that has a direct impact on the life of every European. Even after the virus is defeated, its aftershocks and the new constraints it imposes will define what member states and the Union do arguably for the next decade. The emergency and recovery will change politics, will change economies and societies across Europe. Citizens' attitudes will also change. Their views on the state and the proper organization of society, their views on how they work, where they work and how they interact with colleagues will all be coloured by this virus. The future role and relevance of the EU will be decided both by how it performs during this crisis and by how it facilitates a recovery and renewal in many ways in terms of aspirations for the future. Ireland will have to be agile and adapt to the changed political and policy environment and we will be. Existing alliances have shifted and will continue to do so. Solidarity with fellow member states will be sought and expected. A greater EU resilience and autonomy in strategic supply chains will be inevitable now. Brexit negotiations will be influenced by the impact of the crisis both in the EU and in the UK. Now and in the coming months, we must take a critical look at the assumptions behind our existing positions on the dominant EU issues and assess how they might be impacted by COVID-19. If they remain fit for purpose and if not, how they should change and how we should shape the future. Our discussion here is part of that critical examination and I'd like to thank the IAEA once again for their work and I look forward to hearing your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that the detailed comprehensive overview of our relationship within the European Union and the challenges that we face. We'll take questions as they come to us on the Q&A function but maybe just to get the ball rolling. When you were concluding there you spoke about the future role and relevance of the EU would be decided by how it performs during this crisis and by how it facilitates the recovery. In your earlier remarks or earlier on your remarks you spoke about all the things and the many initiatives that the EU has undertaken. I suppose the question is has it done enough and is it doing enough? And I suppose the underlying concern being has permanent damage however undeserved it might be given all that has been done. Has there been permanent damage done particularly in countries like Italy and Spain which have been particularly affected by the virus? Yeah I mean I think you know the honest answer I suppose in an emergency management environment which is what this is is that the state can never do enough and a union like the European Union can never do enough because people will always want more supports. And I think it's probably too early to judge fully the response of the EU in terms of the immediate response to a crisis that we were all struggling to understand at the time. And now as we know more about it and have had some time to plan for the future how the European Union is supporting countries in their recovery processes. I mean undoubtedly mistakes have been made. The pace of coordination for some countries was too slow. The capacity to source medical equipment, ventilators, PPE for some states they were left vulnerable. And you know undoubtedly I think if we were to learn lessons from that and we will. Should this happen in the future I hope there will be a more centralized procurement process that can hold stock in a way that ensures that EU member states have access to vital equipment in a more timely manner rather than effectively competing with each other on international markets. But you know I would be very slow to blame the European Union and its institutions for that. I mean I think the extent of the challenge here was an extraordinary one. And we are not the United States of Europe that has essential control around all competency. And member states effectively took matters into their own hands in many areas in terms of managing restrictions, closing borders and focusing on the public health of their own citizens in a way that the European Union could only assist and support on and certainly not direct a response within individual countries on. So you know I think since the initial reaction to this where you know I think some member states would have liked to have seen more solidarity earlier on. I think the EU has responded in a very comprehensive way since that time in terms of financial support packages in terms of giving public health advice to member states who are seeking it. And trying to ensure that member states learn from each other in terms of mistakes that have been made. Trying to make sure that our single market remains functional and open through a period when many borders were effectively closed. So you know I think the European Union collectively has done a lot of good things here and I think that needs to be recognised and spoken about because often at a time of crisis you know the positive response is taken for granted. And then when something is missed, that becomes the focal point of all attention and coverage. And I think you know that would be an unfair way to look at at this pandemic and how the European Union as a collective has responded to it because member states have to take responsibility individually themselves in terms of how they've responded. And of course the European institutions and the collective response needs to be fully scrutinised as well as we go so that we learn lessons from the mistakes that have been made and everyone's made mistakes. But I think you know I think we have learned lessons and learned quickly from those lessons. And as a result, many people are alive today who otherwise wouldn't be. And we are now all putting together effectively economic recovery plans and societal recovery plans. As we plan to ease out of the extraordinary restrictions that have been posed on our citizens in a way that hopefully can avoid a second wave of the spread of this virus across the European Union. The other thing I think is important is that the EU, given the wealth that we have, does have to be a global leader here too. And while we talk about sourcing ventilators and so on, thousands of them in some cases. There are many parts of the world with much, much bigger populations than what we have that simply do not have health infrastructure that has the capacity to be able to respond and we do need to to restructure our development partnerships and our financial support in a way that can help those countries to cope. Thank you, Tonystead. Just some questions coming in now from Owen Lewis of our, he was the chair of the IAEA climate group and maybe just to move away from, directly from the pandemic perhaps, but related to it obviously, and indeed Brexit. He wants to know what will be the significance of the European Green Deal in the recovery process. Yeah, I mean, look, that's, that's a big focus for us in the context of putting a new government together as well. You know, as, as some people might know, you know, the formal negotiation process between Fina Gale, Fina Fall and the Greens began yesterday. And certainly there is an ambition as we rebuild an economy. We, we ensure that that new economy, if you like, is shaped by, by our commitments around climate action and the obligations that we have there and the commitments we've made. So we are supportive of the new Green Deal. That means an increased level of ambition in terms of emissions reductions, but it also means an increased level of ambition in terms of the opportunities that are there to build industries and businesses around the technology and the innovation and the capital that is available for a green economy. So it is, I mean, obviously the biggest challenge of the next government, whoever it makes that up, is going to be an economic recovery plan to get people back to work. I mean, we have over a million people in Ireland today who are relying almost entirely on the state for their income. We have over 800,000 people unemployed. We need to get those people back to work. But we also I think need to look at the lessons learned during this emergency in terms of things like flexible work, things like people being able to work from home. And we've, we've got to plan a new economic growth model, perhaps through a different lens. That isn't just sustainable from an economic perspective and from a fiscal perspective, but is also sustainable from a climate and environmental perspective. And I think this crisis in some ways offers us the opportunity to try and do that. And I hopefully will be part of a government that that is, that is focused on doing that. So I know Owen would be very interested in that conversation and happily talk to him about it. You know, as we try to put a program for government together that's credible, but also very ambitious on that agenda. Honestly, just a question here from Donald Donald, a former IMF colleague and a life member. He says, as we know, Northern EU countries opposing the issuance of Corona bonds have argued that a major expansion of EU level taxation powers is required. First, Ireland has supported the call for Corona bonds, but has generally resisted greater EU involved with the taxation matters. Do you have any difficulty in reconciling these two positions? I don't, is a straight answer. You know, I think, you know, we felt that solidarity was and is hugely important when tens of thousands of people are dying in countries in the European Union. We felt that it was really important to try to ensure that there was solidarity in terms of the financial supports that countries will need to rebuild societies and economies and recover from the scars of this pandemic. And that is why we signed the letter with eight countries for effectively a solidarity bond, stroke coronavirus bond. That hasn't been agreed of course. There has been a different support package with a slightly different emphasis in terms of supports, but certainly that new package of supports will allow countries to borrow at very low interest rates. And that's going to be needed. The, you know, as I said earlier in my speech, the fiscal rules, if you like, are going to show very significant flexibility, recognizing the reality of where countries are. Ireland may well run a deficit of over 20 billion euros this year, we were expecting to run a surplus of well over 2 billion. You know, we're, we're seeing unemployment levels well above 20%. You know, these are figures that, you know, are quite extraordinary. You know, we, we think our, our economy could shrink by, you know, by 10% this year. You know, we were, we were looking at a no deal Brexit worst case scenario impact on the economy of reducing growth over the next 10 years by about 7%. So just to put it into context, the, the extent of the change and the stress that that's going to put on our economy and on our people. So I think that we will need solidarity and we're getting it in terms of financial support packages from EU institutions. But I think we'll also need the flexibility as countries to be able to design an economic model that can create, create a competitive, a competitive innovative environment for an economy to grow again and and having the capacity to make decisions on taxation that are transparent and accountable is an important part of that fiscal toolbox, if you like, for countries like Ireland and others. And that's why I think, you know, maintaining the autonomy of decision making around taxation, to the extent that it's there at the moment it's not entirely there. But to extent that it's there at the moment, I think is, is an important, an important part of Ireland's economic thinking in the context of the recovery across the EU. And by the way we're not alone on that. And, and, and I think we'll continue to make that argument. Thank you, Thomas. Just a question here from Patty Smith, formerly Brussels correspondent now, I think double base the Irish times. He says, there has been disappointment at the early EU response, but in part from ignorance that health is not a competence. Does the government support the creation of such a competence in the context of the conference in the future of the EU, particularly perhaps in the area of pandemic management. Maybe you'd have a chance to address that. Yeah, I mean, look, I, like, I think in an emergency situation like this you will get member states taking action to protect their own citizens, particularly when you have a pandemic that is spreading at a different pace in different countries. And you know that was a big part of what happened here, you know this, in many ways started in Italy, and then spread rapidly across the EU but different countries were dealing with a different level of, of infection and spread and so implemented their own national decisions around health. I mean obviously changing competence may involve changing treaties which which isn't a straightforward process from an Irish perspective. And so I mean I think, I think we can have a lot of coordination in relation to, to how the EU would respond in the future to a second wave of COVID-19 or to another similar health crisis. And I think we'll have learned an awful lot of lessons in terms of coordination and more self reliance within the EU, in terms of everything from medical equipment to PPE to ventilators and so on. But the idea that member states would be keen to hand over a competence in the health space to EU institutions I think that's unlikely to happen. But I think the response to the pandemic is likely to mean that that's less likely rather than more likely. But that doesn't mean that countries won't be open to more central coordination. Because I mean if you take Ireland for example, it doesn't make sense for a country of our size to look to be self sufficient in everything. It certainly does make sense for 450 million people in the EU to look to be self sufficient in terms of sourcing capacity. And so there are things we need to do collectively where we treat it, where we treat ourselves as a single market, which is what we are. But there's also a competence issue in terms of being able to make emergency decisions to protect our own citizens. And that's why I don't think there's likely to be a shift in competence here. But I think there is likely to be a focus and more coordination. Maybe just broadening it out a little bit, Pongster, beyond the pandemic itself. Is the EU at its limits in terms of what is possible as a union at this time? I'm going beyond the pandemic now. We have, as Paddy said, at the future of Europe initiative beginning in the autumn. And realistically, can we still harbour the ambition for an even stronger and more integrated union? Well, I think it depends what people mean by that. I mean, I think in some areas, more integration doesn't make sense. I mean, I'm not a Federalist when it comes to the European Union. Some people are. And that's an ongoing debate that I'm in and out of. And I kind of get persuaded by different arguments at different times. But I think the European Union is a union of sovereign states that agree to pool competence in certain areas when it makes sense to do so. And I think that's the way it's going to stay. But I do think we need more integration in certain areas. So the single market, particularly single market for services, is far from complete. And I think we have a lot of very good work to do in that area, particularly as we all go through the process of economic recovery. I think it will be very helpful to focus on what we can do to ensure that the single market is functioning better. I mean, it functions pretty well for goods. It's only about 30% complete for services. I think about financial services, insurance, so many different other areas where I think a better functioning, more streamlined single market would be beneficial for everybody, particularly for Ireland. So in that sense, I think more integration is necessary in terms of ensuring the functioning of a single market. I think more integration, if you like, in terms of decision making on foreign policy would also be helpful in the context of our relationship with Africa, for example, which I think is going to be a hugely important and dynamic one over the next 10 or 20 years as that population, as that continent is transformed by an extra billion people. So in that sense, you know, when you say is the EU at its limits in terms of ambition, I really hope not. Because if you stop asking questions, if you stop asking how can we be more ambitious, what do we need to do next? If there aren't those kind of ambitious drivers behind a union and things tend to stagnate and get stale, and we can never allow that in the European Union, it's always been a union based on ambition, improving the quality of life of everybody in the union, protecting a peace project, facilitating wealth creation and trade. And I think increasingly now, asking ourselves the question, how can we be the most powerful voice for multilateralism internationally, an impact on providing a stabilizing influence, as well as trade opportunities, as well as development opportunities in other parts of the world. So I think the European Union needs to be very ambitious, but that doesn't mean we don't have real problems. We do. And, you know, whether it's issues around the rule of law and how it's implemented, whether it's debates on migration, for example, which is a hugely divisive debate still within the European Union, whether it's how we respond to conflicts in other parts of the world, where often the EU offers a lot of money, but doesn't have the capacity to impact on political decision making sometimes. I think these are questions that we have to ask ourselves, but so it really depends what you mean by more integration within the European Union, but I think I've given a sense of the areas where certainly I believe we need more ambition, whether that's integration or not depends on how you perceive it. We'll come to questions in relation to Brexit, and I'm going to group them because there's quite a few of them, but just one or two more questions on relation to Brexit, perhaps. One we have here from William LaValle of the Irish Whiskey Association. He wants to know what does the Prime Minister see as the next steps in seeking to de-escalate EU-US trade tensions and to potentially secure the removal of tariffs imposed over the past two years and avoid further tariffs, indeed. Yeah, a man who's looking to sell more whiskey there for the sounds of things. He's got a few here, yeah. Yeah, and rightly so. Yeah, look, I mean, we're, I think we're lucky here to have Phil Hogan in the trade brief in the European Commission. I think he's someone who understands the US as well as the EU. And I know that he wants to try to find a way of removing some of the political barriers there to improving the trade relationship between the EU and the US. I mean, in my view, and I think this is a very Irish government view. I mean, if you remember the last time we had the EU presidency, we worked hard to advance a transatlantic trade and investment partnership at that time for understandable political reasons and presidential cycles and so on, that essentially fell apart. There has been, in my view, unwelcome tension between the US and the EU from a trade perspective. And I think we need to work to change that because I think it makes an awful lot of sense for the EU and the US, quite frankly, to aspire to having a much more streamlined relationship with far less barriers to trade in terms of quotas and tariffs on both sides of the Atlantic. And certainly from an Irish perspective, I think we should be working towards that. And, you know, with an Irish commissioner for trade, we can play, I think, quite a significant role in succeeding in that regard. Just a question here from Trevor Boland. Do you think the EU is moving too slowly both in terms of COVID and agreeing the future MFF 2021, 2027, particularly in terms of CAP budget post 2020? He says CAP beneficiaries do not know for certain a large proportion of their income post 2020, and it makes budgeting, financial planning and succession planning more difficult without the certainty? It does, but I mean, you know, trying to get a new MFF agreed has become even more difficult because of COVID-19 because, you know, there's a, there is a view and I think it's a correct view that we need to now look at all of the tools that we have, financial tools and economic tools through the lens of how do we, how do we facilitate a sustainable recovery in a post COVID environment? Because, you know, if you look at the numbers in terms of unemployment, in terms of growth rates, in terms of deficits, in terms of the borrowing capacity of countries. You know, this is an extraordinary shock to the system that at the moment the EU is trying to grapple with. And so we're going to have to look at how we use the MFF as a counterbalance to the disruption of COVID-19, how we shape and use a recovery fund also, and how of course the EU institutions that European Central Bank and investment funds and so on can be used also in this regard. So I can understand why there is or has been a delay in the process because we're effectively having to rethink the MFF somewhat through a different lens. That being said, from an Irish perspective, of course, the cap is, is a hugely important part of the MFF for us. The vast majority of the funds that we draw down into Ireland from the EU are through the common agricultural policy. And of course agriculture and the food industry more generally is such an important part of our economy and will be as we try to recover from this COVID disruption as well. So I think it is going to take a bit more time. Our focus will be to try to protect the cap fund as well as recognizing that the MFF has to be reshaped for the economic challenges of COVID. And I think that is going to take a bit of time, even though people want certainty as soon as possible. Okay, Tonya, maybe we move on to some Brexit-related questions now. There's one here from Lisa Thayer from Queen's University Belfast. She says, as countries across the EU move into the next stage of coronavirus policy responses, how important will Northside Cooperation be on the island of Ireland to enable contact tracing and community testing, and what impact will the outcome of the UK-EU negotiations have on any cooperative effort? Gosh, that's the question that has a lot of strings attached to it. And I'm just anxious that I answer other questions as well. But let me just say... Do you want me to group a few more questions? Well, there's a lot of questions in that that I think other people might have as well. First of all, Northside Cooperation is really important in the context of the COVID challenge. And just to reassure people, we have... Every two weeks, we have a long video conference call that on our side has myself and Simon Harris, and on the Northern Ireland and the British side, the Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, the First and Deputy First Minister, and Robin Swann, the Health Minister as well. So, you know, there is a lot of discussion back and forth on the need for Northside Cooperation, understanding what others are doing. I know there's been some concern that, you know, the Irish government have announced things without giving the heads up first to the executive. We would certainly have tried to have given the heads up, but sometimes we can't give all of the detail because often these things are announced immediately after the cabinet, i.e. the Irish government has been given the detail. So we can't inform the executive before we get approval from our own cabinet. So there are systems and there have been some issues there undoubtedly. There are also issues in terms of different medical advice, if you like, in terms of the effectiveness of expanding testing into the community, contact tracing on the back of that, trying to essentially follow outbreaks of the virus and clusters where and when they happen to be able to put those fires out through putting people into self-isolation. And so if we have different approaches in terms of how this virus and its spread is managed on both sides of the border, then that does create challenges in terms of, you know, the timelines around easing of restrictions if the virus is behaving differently into jurisdictions. And we're trying to overcome those challenges as best we can, but it certainly has put tensions in place within the executive. People will recall the tension around school closures in Northern Ireland and the timing of that versus the decisions we made south of the border. We're trying to make sure that there's not a repeat of those kind of tensions. And obviously we don't want to have some kind of perverse incentive to encourage people from Northern Ireland to travel south across the border to access services or retail outlets or vice versa for that matter, in a way that actually could contribute to the spread of the virus on a cross-border basis. So like we'll continue to try to coordinate a north-south response as best we can, recognizing the facts that our government and the executive in Northern Ireland are getting their public health advice from two different chief medical officers. And we have to recognize and respect that, but at the same time try to coordinate as best we can in all island response, recognizing that there are two jurisdictions. But, you know, the one thing we know we can't do is we can't impose border checks or border restrictions between north and south. And therefore, we have to try to coordinate this at a political level, which is why we spend so much time talking to each other via video conferencing and we'll continue to do that. And how that's linked then to Brexit. Well, I mean, I suppose there is a connection between the two, even though they're two separate issues. But I think what's needed in terms of coordination on Brexit is the implementation of the protocol on Northern Ireland because regardless of what happens on trade negotiations, that protocol needs to be implemented. So if, and I really hope this doesn't happen, but if there is not a deal on a pre-trade agreement between the EU and the UK before the end of the year, we still need the Irish protocol or the Northern Irish protocol fully implemented so that we can trade under WTO rules effectively, which is the default position in a way that protects the integrity of the EU single market in a way that protects an all island economy and in a way that follows through in the commitments of everybody to ensure that there would be no border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. And therefore that requires some level of checks on goods coming from GB into Northern Ireland, which is what's agreed in that protocol, which involves infrastructure in ports like Larnan Belfast. And we need to see that progressing in the weeks ahead. So, you know, the British government have made it clear in the specialized committee meetings that we've had that they are fully committed to implementing the protocol and the obligations that they've taken on in that protocol. But we do need to see the sort of the practical rollout of those commitments because we know how long it takes to put infrastructure in place to prepare for a new trading environment between these islands. Because we've done it in Dublin port and in Russell airport. It's expensive and it takes time and it involves human resources as well as as well as as well as other, you know, physical infrastructure. And, you know, I think it will be very reassuring if we could see that infrastructure taking shape so that the protocol can be in place for full implementation by the end of the year. Of course we want to have an outcome here that allows for a free trade agreement, along with the level playing field issues agreed and fisheries issues agreed and a governance structure agreed and so on, to ensure that any checks between GB and Northern Ireland would be limited to to the greatest extent possible and having a positive free trade agreement without tariffs without quotas would make that as streamlined as we'd all like to make it to be. Thank you. Just maybe I'll group a few questions here again all related to Brexit from Mario Haran from the Irish Times. How does the challenge to think the UK can be persuaded to extend the negotiating period for Brexit trade talks. A second one here from Shona Murray from Euro news. She says the UK says it's high. Its priority is to leave the UK as a quote fully autonomous coastal state on quote and will not agree to common or EU determined level playing field standards are on the environment tax labor markets etc etc. Is there any way around this so that the UK doesn't feel like they're a rule taker and just see one final one here from Aidan Corfrey in the business post. He says regarding the protocol of Northern Ireland agreed between the UK and the EU does the Polish interpret this as giving the EU the right to have a permanent presence in Northern Ireland in order to monitor checks being carried out by British customs and veteran staff. Yeah, I mean, let me deal with the last question first and then I'll deal with Shona's and and Marie's as well. I mean, you know, there has been this political discussion now in recent weeks on whether or not there would be an EU office facilitated in Belfast or in Northern Ireland in the context of the protocol. I mean, certainly, you know, my understanding was that this was a non issue. When we were negotiating that that protocol and in the protocol, it's it's quite clear that it'll be the UK implementing the arrangements within the UK, of course, and providing the checks and the in the ports and so on, but that the EU would have a presence there. And the whole point of that was to provide reassurance, but not just to Ireland, but to the EU more generally that that the EU's single market and its integrity wasn't being undermined or compromised. In other words, there, you know, some across the EU have a concern that Northern Ireland becomes a sort of an unguarded backdoor for goods to come into the single market through the Republic of Ireland. And the protocol has to deal with that issue comprehensively and it does. But it'll be the UK authorities that will be managing that. But the EU would have a presence there, which I think is in the interest of both sides to provide the reassurance needed that the protocol is working. It's working for the UK, it's working for Ireland and it's working for the EU and its single market, because if you make an absolute commitment as we have, there will not be any checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, then you have to provide checks somewhere to ensure that you know what's coming in potentially to the single market through Northern Ireland. And that is, that is, that was the whole dilemma that the Irish protocol deals with. And so, you know, the assumption was always there I think on the EU side that that would mean having a relatively small office with technocrats from the EU who would understand how, you know, custom systems and SPS checks work, and they would just be there as a presence to be able to reassure the EU side that this was functioning well. Unfortunately, I think some in the UK have seen the, some in the UK have seen the request for an EU office in Belfast as a sort of a compromising of sovereignty for the UK and that this is oversight as opposed to simply having a presence and I don't think that's the intention. But look, you know, I think we need to make sure we don't have a falling out over this issue because we've got to resolve a lot of things. And, you know, I think we can find ways through sensible negotiation of taking the heat out of this political debate and trying and agreeing practical ways of ensuring that the EU can provide reassurance and have some presence to be able to to observe the functioning of the protocol in the way that it needs to operate. And really, that's all it is. The Shona's comments in relation to, yeah, the UK's ambitions, talking about the UK being fully autonomous, protecting sovereignty. You know, I can, you know, I get that language. That is what has driven Brexit in many ways for the last number of years, breaking free from the European Union and Britain essentially reforging its place internationally in the world, not being a real taker any longer. You know, and that's all, you know, that's fine from a political narrative perspective. But if there's going to be a trade deal between the UK and the EU, that doesn't involve any tariffs or any quotas. And that involves essentially barrier free access for the UK and its industries into the EU single market in the future. Then, you know, there is a there is a negotiation where both sides have interests here. You can't have a quota free tariff free trade unless there's a level playing field. You know, there is just no way that the EU can have a situation where the UK essentially does its own thing on regulation and on state supports and on competition law and so on to derive competitive advantage for their companies and then expects that they will get barrier free access into the EU single market having derived that competitive advantage. You know, I mean, the EU can just never facilitate that and why would they and so really all the EU is looking for here is to ensure that if we have, which is what we all want, tariff free and quota free trade between the UK and the EU, which I think would benefit everybody, particularly Ireland. Then we have to make sure that everybody is essentially operating to the same standards and the same business environment around cost base around everything from workers rights to environmental standards to consumer protection to state aid and so on. And so, you know, the question is, like, how do we describe this? How do we make this politically acceptable for the British government, while at the same time ensuring that it works in practice in a way that is acceptable to the EU and its member states where where nobody is deriving a competitive advantage versus each other, if we're going to have a free trade relationship with each other. And, you know, this is essentially the crux of the issue. And if we can't resolve it, there's not going to be a deal. I mean, that's my assessment. And so at the moment, the UK's approach is that they want to do sexual deals in certain areas and limiting those areas to to what's important in terms of trying to get a deal for the UK before the end of the year. The EU is saying, well, no, we can't work on that basis. We need an overarching agreement here that involves a number of things at the same time because they're interconnected. And if we can't do that, well, then we can't sign up to a deal and protect the integrity of our own single market and our member states interests. And that is why the two rounds of negotiations to date have really got nowhere because the approach and the outcome that both sides are looking for at the moment are quite different. And, you know, at a bare minimum, I think what the EU needs is an understanding and an agreement around the level playing field issues, whatever we decide to call them politically. We need agreement around a governance structure that can ensure that that agreement is essentially monitored and enforceable and we can deal with disputes and so on in the future. We need to get a deal on fishing because that is linked to trade in the future. And that was that that has always been the understanding in the political declaration in the past and in the negotiations in the build up to agreement on that political declaration, it's always been the understanding. And then we have have areas like security and policing and cooperation and data and so on, which I think are also areas that need to be part of an overall agreement. And so until the two negotiating sides can agree a shared outcome that they're trying to achieve, I think it's going to be very difficult to see progress in this negotiation in terms of a future relationship. And that's why, of course, we're so adamant that that in the absence of that progress, we do need to make progress on the implementation of what has already been agreed in the withdrawal agreement and the Irish protocol to protect what we know we need to protect around an absence of border infrastructure. Ireland's place in the EU single market and its integrity. And of course our relationship north and south and our relationship with the UK, which is so important to Ireland, whether they're in or out of the European Union for the future. So how do we persuade Mario's question, which I think is a very fair question, given the complexity of what we're trying to deal with here, given the added complications and there are many as a result of COVID-19. It surely makes sense for us to seek a bit more time to navigate our way through these very, very difficult waters in the months ahead so that we can get a good outcome for everybody, the UK and the EU. And, you know, I think anybody looking at this from the outside could only conclude that it makes sense to look for more time to get a sensible outcome and to find a way forward. But the British government has decided that that's not what they want and they've made that very clear both publicly and privately. So I wouldn't be raising expectation around the British government agreeing to seeking more time. And if we're going to have any chance of persuading them to seek more time, I think we need to be careful how we do that because demanding it from them almost as a concession to the EU is certainly not the way to do it. And I think if there's to be a request for more time, it either needs to come jointly from both negotiating teams to in the interests of both the EU and the UK or it needs to come from the UK, framed in a narrative that is about trying to put a comprehensive trade deal in place that's good for Britain and therefore recognizing that COVID-19 has made what was already a very, very difficult timeline to get agreement on virtually impossible. And look, I hope people will come to that conclusion, but I don't, I'm not optimistic that that's what will happen. I think instead we're likely to see people holding their positions on on transition, us moving through through and past the deadline of the end of June, and then having potentially a very, very difficult crisis point in Brexit yet again in the autumn, as we try to find a way forward that can avoid the kind of cliff edge trade impact of a no trade deal Brexit, if you want to call it that, before the end of transition. Sorry, that was a very long answer, but they're important issues. Thank you very much. We're at the limits of the time available. Just wanted to draw to a conclusion and just to apologize to those people for whom we have the opportunity to reaching their questions. Although I think most of the issues of concern were covered in your general remarks are in other answers to questions, but just to say thank you indeed for the remarks and taking the time out to be with us today. I appreciate of course that there's a lot more going on out there than the IAEA, but taking the time out from your indeed busy schedule is warmly appreciated and I need at any normal time. The European and international agenda is full of challenge, but I suppose COVID and it brings it together involve immediate challenges of a unique and critical nature and we wish you accomplished and all involved here in Ireland and throughout the country with every success in addressing these pressing challenges. We hope that by Europe Day 2021, we will see renewed strength, hope and optimism at brighter times around for everybody. In the meantime, thank you again, Taunista, and to all of you who have joined us today on 400w plus. It's been a privilege hosting you at Taunista and all our guests. We look forward to seeing you on a future occasion with the IAEA. Thank you very much everybody. Thank you. Stay safe.