 happy to welcome the panel. I'll introduce them to you briefly, though you may know some of them. Gwen Finley is an old pal of mine featured on my News Talk show and is a weekly guest on Sean Monkreef's show still on News Talk. Are you still explaining the world? Whatever is the space? The new slide now I get to show for it is called Tell Me Why, where hopefully people ask why questions, and then I answer them. So it's about everything. So Gwen is from the School of Politics and International Relations in UCD, and originally came from the Department of Philosophy in Trinity. So it brings that nice land to it. And for anyone who doesn't know him, he's Canadian, not American, just for the purposes of clarity. Seth Tillman is an American, and he's lecturing in law in the Maneuth University. I think that's the new branding of Maneuth University. Maneuth University. Yeah, exactly. And you have clerked for several judges in America district court, and I think it up for the court to plead as well. So heavy on the law. Shayna Turner, you might not know. She's a recent addition to Dublin. She just moved here in August originally from Texas. And she's a director of TASC, the think tank that focuses on economic inequality. And I'm sure you're all familiar with their work. And you were in Princeton, isn't that right? She's University of Chicago. So Cambridge. Oh, Cambridge. So a first class academic background. And Thomas Byrne, Fina Faulty D, first elected at the tender age of 29. He's the spokesperson on education and skills. But he's also, some of you may not know, a qualified attorney in the state of New York. So again, bringing a nice angle to us. And particularly when it comes to the topic of our session, I kind of groaned a little bit when I saw it. The future of US foreign relations, Ireland, Europe, and the world. And Dan told me the emphasis on future. I was making a list of what might constitute the world that didn't comprise Ireland and the EU. I've got down Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Yemen, the Middle East, potential Second Arab Spring, and of course, general counter-terrorism. But Dan wants me to finish by 1 o'clock. So we'll try and hit on as much of that as we can. So for the opening statements from each of our panelists this morning, Graeme, might you kick us off? Sure. I've been asked to talk about, yes, the effects on Europe and the world, and I'll try to be brief. The thing about the Trump presidency is it's got no coherent message. And it's the chaos at the center of the administration in terms of foreign policy. But also a lack of capacity. Trump has failed to avoid ambassadors to crucial roles like South Korea, assistant secretaries. The entire Department of State is facing a 30% reduction in its budget. And this is one of the few things which Trump and Rex Tillerson agree about. Rex Tillerson is trying to run the Department of State like a company. And this lack of capacity is leading to a massive lack of influence in the world. And this is leading to some of the kinds of reactions we're seeing today. Now, one thing I was asked to think about is how resilient is the international system? Can it cope with this kind of vacuum? And another one is to see what maybe the future might hold. The international system has some resilience because in some of the cases, whether it's withdrawing from NAFTA or decertifying the Iran deal, the costs are going to largely be borne by the United States itself. Now, it's a suboptimal result for the US to scrap NAFTA. But at least Canada and Mexico have free trade deals with, say, Europe, which will allow them to have some residual benefits. Similarly, if the US reintroduces sanctions on Iran, Europe might profit from being able to trade with Iran under the Iran-Iran deal. So in so far, and of course, another reason it's resilient is that leaders like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron have seized it as an opportunity to, both for domestic political reasons and on the European level, seize a certain kind of leadership. Macron is allowed to get Trump withdrew from UNESCO. Macron was able to get a French woman elected president of UNESCO. Macron has allowed himself to be the savior of the Paris Accord and so forth. But there's also a lot of reasons to think that this will lead to increased securitization in the EU, which we're already seeing. Ben Tanra had told me, pointed out the other day, that VPHR Mogherini, who's quite hawkish in securitizing from the very beginning, has said that more has been achieved in terms of security cooperation in Europe over the last year than in the last 10 years. And there are a lot of decisions in terms of cooperation which are going to be made at the end of this year and we'll see where people go. And crucial to this is the sense that, again, the big players, France and Germany, are already engaging in more extensive bilateral cooperation and European cooperation, and they seem to have an appetite for more. And so for all those reasons, you might see a more robust EU, you might see a more resilient and stable, well, you may see a resilient and stable international system. The one worry is where the costs aren't born by the actors, but where there's an opportunity, you see the kinds of destabilization which is manifested in things like the seizure of Kirk Cook by the Iraqi government. Where players like Saudi Arabia versus Qatar or the Iraqi government versus the Kurds, where they see an opportunity and there's no coherent or effective pressure from the United States, that's when you're gonna see an unstable world. And so we have to look at each, every possible issue or conflict to see who's gonna bear the costs and what are the benefits. Okay, Seth Teneman. Well, thank you. I'd like to pick up with the very last comment from the last panel as sort of an introduction where the last speaker said something along the lines, we have to think about the things we can do like education and improving the economic system to help them. All right, if you want to understand what's going on in America today, focus on that statement because about half of America hear statements like that and they are irked. They're more than irked, they're mad as hell. The idea that there's this we who is gonna help them misses the whole point. About half of America believes the country's already theirs and they should make the decisions. So if you wanna know what's guiding what some people in this room seems to think is anger or populism, it's the feeling that there are some people like in this room who seem to think that the country is theirs and it's their job to figure out how to run it for other people. All right, now if you heard that statement and word 100% irked, then I would say you don't understand what's happening in America today. If you've missed that, if you didn't fall on the floor laughing or crying, then you're not going to understand what's going on in America today. So let me follow up with the second statement. When Irish politicians come to America and they make certain statements in the United States and they make those statements to help them in Irish politics, you're going to expect certain things. But when Irish politicians come to America and in the White House, like the prior Taoiseach, talk about the undocumented. About half of America takes exception. They don't consider them to be the undocumented. About half of America considers them to be illegal aliens. And that half of America is voting for what used to be called law and order. And if you don't see that, you're missing what's going on in America. I don't think it's about racism. I don't think it's about immigration per se. America has always welcomed legal immigrants. We had, I think it was this gentleman here a few moments ago, who spoke about America used to have a party that was called the know nothing party. Well, that's wrong. That's what their opponents call them. They call themselves, believe it or not, the American party. And they were one of the factions that ultimately formed the Republican party. So it's very easy to simplify other people's history. It's very easy to simplify other people's history. But the idea that this is a blip, or you should forget it, my guess is all the people in this room who are engaging in wishful thinking who think it's a blip, were probably surprised by the Brexit vote. And I believe all the people who are saying it's a blip, were probably surprised by the Trump vote. But that's the point. If you are continually surprised, maybe it's time to take a step back and realize you don't know what's going on. And to consider an alternative that something new is going on. Something very different. Of course it has roots in America's past. Of course it does. But that doesn't mean it's rooted in everything you've been taught to hate. It's very easy to understand why people in West Virginia voted the way they did. Because the Democratic Party, its candidate, its prior candidate, the president, went to East Coast Establishments and told them we're getting rid of coal because it threatened our greenhouse goals. Well that didn't go over well in West Virginia. Of course the Democratic Party wasn't willing to assert that in West Virginia. That takes me to the future. What do people with this worldview want America to do and expect in a future when you think along those lines? Well the first thing that they think is that they do not see the world order as a place of fair play, a place where America gets a good shake. They think the international institutions are largely rigged against American values and American interests. I'll give you a good example. Look at the way the EU has treated VW and compare it to the way the EU has treated Google. One's getting away scot-free and one isn't. Well Americans don't think they're getting a good deal from the EU or at least about half of America feels that way. So America's reconsidering its position. It's going to reconsider how it treats other organized trading blocks. It's going to reconsider its institutions of international governance. So what can I tell you about Iowa? America doesn't want to be the slow-moving behemoth anymore that other countries optimize their policy around. The Trump administration wants a better deal. My advice to you is you should try to get a better deal. You being you people who are of and from Ireland. You'll be respected in America for doing that. At least that part of America that is the Trump administration. So here's a proposal for you. Here's the sort of proposal that you might like. But then again, you might not. It's entirely up to you. This isn't my country. It's your country. I sort of get irked when I hear a bunch of foreigners tell us we've chosen the wrong president. And that doesn't mean I voted for Trump. I just don't think it's a bunch of foreigners business. Any more than most of you probably think it's my business to tell you to vote FFFG or labor or anyone else, people who are of Ireland. Right now you're going to have a problem with your border with up north, aren't you? You're going to have a problem with Brexit. You're going to have to very much consider what your policies will be. You probably can't control that so much because EU policy mandates that there has to be an external tariff. But EU policy and EU law doesn't mandate your corporate rate. So here's a policy. Some of you will like it. Some of you will consider it to be a joke. Lower your corporate rate to 1% and go to the Americans and say, we're going to lower our taxes before you. And we're going to lower our taxes more than you do. And we want to keep American enterprise and joint ventures with America here in Ireland. Compete. Show them, I know this is an unpopular way of putting it. But it used to mean something. Show them your men. Thank you. Shayna. The first is that, I don't know if Ireland is going to have that kind of freedom in the future because I think increasingly its future will be locked in with the EU. And they'll be the consolidated corporate tax base argument. But more importantly, I think you've mentioned Brexit and I didn't hear that in the last panel. And I've just come from the UK and I'm also a British citizen. So for me, what's happened with Trump and what happened with Brexit are very similar. I don't think that you can extract the US. There's certain things that are retained in the US and the US only. And I'm saying that because I'm also from Texas and I know that in my brother's neighborhood in Dallas everybody voted for Trump. But they didn't vote for him because of, they might have voted because of the illegal alien argument but most of their cleaning people, the people that do the yards, they're not documented. And so they rely upon a cheap labor force. I wouldn't say that that's a strong argument. They voted for Trump because of their taxes. They voted because they want to keep their guns. Almost everybody in my brother's neighborhood in Dallas is open carry. And if you go to places like Austin where the University of Texas, you'll see signs in the faculty's door, please don't bring your gun into office hours. So they have died. The orange faces. So there's a cultural trend and they think that Trump is gonna protect that. But they're not anywhere, they're as far from the people in West Virginia as you can get. The people in West Virginia made a voted for Trump for economic reasons because they feel like nobody else is listening to him. And if you listen to Trump on the trail and I'm from a progressive think tank, I would have said, wow, yeah, take care of the people who've been left behind. But they're not the people who voted for him in my brother's neighborhood. They voted because they want to keep their income. But what brings me tonight, my sort of wider point, I've come from the UK and I've worked for the past 14 years neighborhoods where they voted for Brexit. And you're thinking, you're losing EU funding. I went to Cornwall, Cornwall voted for Brexit and it's one of the lowest income areas. They need EU funding, just like Wales needs EU funding, but Wales voted for Brexit. And I see the same trends and it's the decline of an economic model, but there's no alternative. And so they voted for what they saw as a protest vote. And I don't see Trump, I mean, I don't seem as a blip, but I see him as part of a larger phenomenon. I see that he came at a good time as a gratuitous, he was lucky and he represented something. But he also didn't get the popular vote in the US and I don't know that he's got lasting power, not just because of popular support, but also I think he's got too many scandals. But if you look at Brexit and you look at Trump, I think the main issue is what's going on politically in terms of the divisions, because we also haven't talked about the response to Trump, which I think is a galvanized opposition that you can see in the Labor Party. I think if you see the transformation of the Labor Party over the past year from Jeremy Corbyn, the loser, to Jeremy Corbyn, the upcoming Prime Minister, and Keir Starmer looks like the grownup in the room with Brexit negotiations, I think you see a trend toward the left getting it together. And I'm not saying that only because I'm the director of a progressive think tank, but also because I think that the left is being forced to think about new ideas and new allies. Now I also, I've recently done some work for the World Bank in Morocco. In the World Bank and the OECD and the IMF, we're actually on the we have to do something about inequality and all this political instability is bad for the global market. They're saying things very similar to what you will see progressives say. And so I think what we are gonna see in the future, which is what I was asked to talk about is the kind of Trump, Xi, Putin type politics. I'm an increasingly authoritarian or I am an authoritarian figure and my party can go to hell. I don't care about my party, which is what Trump is saying to his own party. And immobilized progressive alliance between different actors, institutions, activists and political parties may not happen immediately, but I think by the time we rolled around to the 2020 presidential election or even the next British election, you're going to see an indication of where the fault lines are, but they won't be national and transnational. Okay, Thomas. Thanks very much. And I suppose I came up with a few ideas that I wanted to sort of share, set us a touch on one of them. And that is I think that we spend too much time in this country talking about internal US politics and items that really have no impact whatsoever on us. Maybe Obama care or watching the news last night and some senator was criticizing Trump and it was very high up in the news actually and on the six, one of the nine o'clock news. I was a bit surprised about that. And I think that we, you know, I personally, huge interest in it. I certainly follow it, but as a politician, I don't think I don't think I've ever made a statement or Twitter or anything about what's going on or even the election when I was over at the convention and I gave an interview about it subsequently. I said, you know, I like the Democrats and all that, but really, really should stay out of it. And I think that as regards the internal side of American politics, I think we as Irish politicians really need to stay the hell away because I think Seth's point is right, actually, that they really do react, I think, and rightly I think in a negative way. I mean, there are issues there. I mean, we all probably think the gun issue was absolutely crazy. I think objectively is, but people don't see, you know, intelligent people in the States don't see it like that. And I think we've got to have some understanding for that and for the different cultural issues that are there. And I think we often don't show that understanding. I think on some issues in the last year, there was a lot of grandstanding of Irish politicians about issues that really they had no role whatsoever in and should have no interest whatsoever in while concentrating on our own issues. That said, there are issues in US affairs that are of consequence to Ireland. I think it's really, really important, and don't agree with Seth on this, that really, really important that we do get involved to the greatest extent possible to protect our own interests here. And I'm thinking of issues like the undocumented, I think it's absolutely legitimate for any Irish government or any Irish politician to advocate on behalf of our citizens in other countries, including those in America who certainly are illegal, but are in difficult spots and that we would advocate on their behalf. And other countries do the same. And I think it would be negligent of us not to get involved in an issue like that. The same, the tax bill is coming up now for hearing anything in the House of Representatives and at the Senate and Trump as his own tax plan. And there are obviously issues there that affect us. And I think that we should be, to the extent that we can, lobbying in relation to that. And on that in relation to lobbying, as former Ambassador Anderson is here and certainly was a great guide for us at the Democratic Convention last year. And there's huge links obviously at official level between officials and officials. And Ambassador Anderson, her team, would have had huge contacts. But what I notice at the political level is that there are certainly huge contacts between Irish politicians and Democratic politicians and Democratic Party. And a lot of people know a lot of people and we were invited to a Democratic event last year. But it seemed to me that there was next to no connection at a political level between Irish politicians and the Republican Party and Republican politicians. And to me, this is a huge deficit. And when I went to the Democratic Convention last year on behalf of Fina Fala and the representatives of other parties there too, I asked her general secretary, I said, Sean, have we anyone gone to the Republicans? This is novice, they never invite us. But there really are no links. It wasn't that we didn't want to go or that we don't like the Republicans or that we prefer the Democrats. It's just simply, this is just built up over the years. And I think I suppose Irish people, I suppose maybe even before JFK, but there's that cultural link probably because of Kennedy with the Democratic Party and Bill Clinton's strong connection with us here as well. And they're after Obama too. There's a strong cultural connection. But I think at the political level, if we want to start getting more influence as things change, we need to establish greater links with the Republican Party at the political level and that's a major deficit that I see at the moment. But we have great officials who have the connections and are working on the various issues and I think it's absolutely within our right to do that and we really need to do that. I don't know how far we go because certainly there are reports of some countries who block book bedrooms in the Trump Hotel in DC and I don't doubt we've done that. Well, maybe we should be. I don't know, is that the way to get it? Can you imagine the reaction of the press if you didn't? Look, I'm in opposition. I'd probably react the same way that you anticipate, but some countries are doing it. So to that extent, there is lobbying going on by countries there in terms of their interest in what's happening in American politics and how it affects them. And I think we need to be right in the center of that. And our embassy team are, there's no question, but I think at a broader level, we need to do that. Where it affects us. I think we're too much time and things that don't affect us. Yes, sir. I don't want to be misunderstood. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Irish government lobbying the United States government. What I said to be clear, when the Irish government goes to the United States and in a public forum, right in the White House calls these people the undocumented, that's done for your domestic audience. That's going to alienate about half of America because to half of America, they're illegal. Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't lobby for that, but if you do it right there in the White House and you use a language that is sticking in the thumb in the American eye or at least half the American eye, then you're not really lobbying for your country. You're doing just the opposite. You're alienating a big chunk of America. So I'm not telling the people of Ireland they shouldn't try to affect American politics where you have a legitimate interest. What I'm saying is when you do it, if you really are pursuing those interests and not a domestic audience, keep in mind Americans view their own politics in a particular way. And if you are so focused on how you view the world without sensitivity to how they might or I might add half my countrymen, you're not going to be very effective at lobbying for Irish interests. As far as going to an event at the Republican Convention, I'm not at all surprised they didn't invite Irish politicians. I'd be surprised if they invited any foreign politicians. They're Republican. Nigel Farage is there. And I don't know why that should be a surprise. The Republican Convention is there to pick the American president. People might ask the question, why are foreigners there? Thomas, I'll stick with you on that point for a minute and then I want to go to Shana on the tax. I was surprised by the extent of which the Irish political establishment has spent certainly the last 20 to 30 years crawling over each other to get to the Democrats and in particular the Clintons. Whereas I knew, say, my mother's relations who'd emigrated from Cavern in the 20s, 30s and 40s were all fundamentalist Republicans, pro-life, racist and hated Obama. There is a big Irish Republican constituency there that we did neglect. And you really saw it when Kenny went over on St. Patrick's Day and was surrounded by Paul Ryan, Bannon, Trump spent the whole day with them. I spoke to a diplomat who said they were amazed at the degree of attention that we got. How do we turn that to our advantage or was it just playing for the crowd on the day? No, I think we need to work on it because even Mike Mulvaney, the budget chief, I mean, it's very close Irish connections. And we, I know my colleague, Brennan Smith, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has been over with and met some of these people. I think we need to do more of that. My own aunt in suburban St. Louis would never vote for Clinton. Absolutely never vote for Clinton. It would be the worst thing she could possibly imagine. She'd consider it a sin actually, literally. And you know, a lot of people think like that. She's, you know, my other aunt is a Democrat up in Seattle, but she's for different reasons. But it was extraordinary to me as I realized over the years that they wouldn't vote for the Democrats. So I think we've got to get that understanding there and build up those connections. And those connections were certainly available on St. Patrick's Day. And I think there's absolutely no doubt that they shouldn't be developed at the political level. As I said, I think at official level, it worked, and that's the official, that's organized officially, the Paddy's Day celebration. So that's there, complement our teams and foreign affairs and the embassies in that put. Politically, I think we need to do a lot more work because those personal relationships are really, really important. Look, at our Ordesh last week, I mean, there were representatives of parties from all over Europe at that Ordesh, and no American reps, as far as I know. But I think it's very important that parties kind of develop relations because I think it can be very, very useful then, again, when if the party gets into government that there are personal relationships there, I think they can be helpful to a country. I think that we have certainly spent quite a bit of time between the fall in the elderly group, since we joined it in the last, I don't know, six or seven years, developing really, really good relations with the elderly group. The Alda group, the Liberal Democrat group in Europe. So that's where we are. And I think to our benefit and probably hopefully to the country's benefit, that helps Finnegale or the EPP, Labour and the Socialists. But I think that also in the States too, I think the relationships look was very important to surround yourself with the Clintons. When President Clinton was president and Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, that was very important to make those connections. But those connections have not been made to the same extent of the Republican side. I think that's up to us to do. Okay, so Shayna, the big issue really for Ireland versus America is the tax. This is what's concentrating minds heavily. Now I was at a presentation recently by Fergal Rourke from PWC and from the OEDC or OECD. And they were very upbeat about the BEPS program and the progress that this is making in getting all that stateless money on short. And we saw it with this big blip in our GDP figures, 26%, which was evidence of BEPS working, that this money was coming on shore. And they were making the point that the political system in the States is so paralyzed, they can't reform their tax system to take advantage of the on-shoring and they may actually get left behind because of their own domestic inability to act. Is that your analysis of what's happening? Well yeah, you can see just the plan for tax reform right now, that it's, Trump's come out with it and then automatically the critiques that it's only favoring the top 1% and that so there's a debate about whether or not to tax those who earn more than a million dollars or if you're gonna end up taxing heavily in the middle class, which is his base, right? Sorry, he doesn't want to alienate his base. I think that's completely correct until the political system in the US is less stagnant, is less mired in the two party politics. And what about that suggestion? You know, okay fine, Graham was suggesting look the EU is solidifying in many ways in the core despite, you know, the instability in the periphery in Brexit, that is there practically speaking possibility of having bilateral negotiations with America on tax or are we obliged to stick with the OECD and move on that track along with everyone else? My feeling would be that there's more pressure to stick with the EU and the OECD because the US is so unpredictable and it's so weighed down by domestic politics. It's totally, I mean, there's no stability in it so you wouldn't want to anchor yourself in something. I think it's more profitable for Ireland to look to the state level. I mean, California is the sixth biggest economy in the world, it's way up there in fighting climate change, very innovative and it's a democratic state here and you have the relationship. So it's, I would think it's more profitable for a country like Ireland to look at the different states and where they're going. At Graham. Yeah, I mean that's also a model of, I mean I can't believe I'm saying this about California because once upon a time it was very difficult to raise taxes in California but it's a place where they raised taxes under the incredibly, still extant, Jerry Brown. And so in a way it is showing the United States of how to do things differently and what you're getting is a real divide between states like California and Massachusetts and states like Mississippi and Alabama and to some extent the sort of breakdown of strong federal action. If you're practically a California separatist you could maybe even cheer it on. It's like, well my state's okay and what is with all these federal transfers to places like Alabama and Mississippi, right? So there is a lot of, there's a complex game being played at the state and federal level I think. But even at the federal level if you're thinking about cutting taxes they can do it under budget reconciliation but will they do it? And I think there's a lot of reasons to think they won't. Yes, they might, if the Republicans have had a great success in cutting taxes for the very, very wealthy and saying they're giving middle class tax cut. They've done that in the past, they can do that now. Reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20% is a big ask. And we know that Republican senators have looked at the cuts which would be required to balance the budget and are just aghast, right? And some of them are aghast because it involves cutting things which are basic to American life. But some of it are, they're aghast because it involves cuts to their state, right? And so Republicans have historically wanted to compete on corporate tax. That's what Paul Ryan said and it really interested me at the Irish Times. But, and the Democrats have not according to Paul Ryan but the Republicans have never wanted to make the cuts, the real cuts especially to defense but also to their own home states which balancing the budget and that's why budgets balloon under Republican administrations. So I don't think they're gonna do it. Okay, so going back to that point in terms of say our foreign relations and how we're going to deal with America do you see there's any point in having any kind of bilateral talks with the federal government or do we stick with the OECD and that project? Well, we have to have bilateral talks with the US federal government. I mean, that's the biggest player, right? But at the same time, no, I mean, we stick with the OECD because it comes at best for us, right? Yeah. It's the way we can seem to be on board in global tax reform without giving up our tax rate or involving greater coordination within Europe. And so that's quite strategic, I think on the Irish part. So yeah, we have no, I mean, we have no choice but to go with the OECD. And I think that will probably put some, I mean, I think the US as a big system which is hard to turn around is still engaged with the OECD process and probably still will be after, I mean, like other people's sense of this, but even once Trump's gone and which will eventually be gone, right? For more years. We should also engage with the states a lot more because the individual states have a special role as a nation. We can negotiate directly with the states. Well, defer to former ambassadors whether we have the diplomatic capacity to engage in the kind of serious relations to it with individual states. But, you know, I'm sure the politicians would be willing to. Yeah, well, just even at a very, very local level, I mean, I know they come to meet as Twindwood Kerry, which is a fairly new city in North Carolina. And there's been huge links there. Last year, the Pennsylvania business secretary, I can't remember his name, came over with a huge delegation for Pennsylvania. I think they toured Ireland, actually, in general, but they spent a lot of time. Were they looking for ideas? Yeah, and how things could, how we could share ideas and the Irish businessmen were involved in Pennsylvania were there and we were trying to bring things, join things up. But the point is with dialogue going on at a local level, at a, you know, local to local and local to state. And I think that can happen regardless of who's in power at the federal level. That's just normal, good relations. And those links can be developed. Canada is already engaging with the states much, much more because they just don't have a coherent correspondent at federal level. So Seth, you know, I know you were making the point at the start. You know, there's a lot of stuff that's just none of our business. I don't think I quite said that. Yeah. I think that when we have background conversations or off the cuff remarks like, well, Trump won't be there forever. And most of the audience laughs. You could imagine how even an American who's not committed to Trump might, you know what, maybe that's just not part of the crowd I want to be with. Okay, but exactly. Yeah, but on that. I mean, he's got to go sometimes. So, but on that. We'll talk about the primalist for Canada in those terms sometimes too. Okay, but on that, going forward, can't believe I said that. It's gotten into my brain as one of those earworms. If we're looking at the future and we're looking at U.S. foreign relations and we're looking at a president and an administration that is disdaining global institutions that have enabled a lot of progress, how do you think that chaos is going to impact on America itself, apart from us? Because it looks to me like they're doing well. Well, I think most of you probably went to bed the night of the Brexit vote, expecting you knew what the result would be when you woke up the next day. And I expect that most of you went to bed on the election night. President of the United States, you knew who was going to be elected and then you had a surprise unless you stayed up all night. The world isn't always what we expect. And when I get a question like the one you just asked me, really what you're asking me is my best guess about the future. All right, well, my best guess about the future, my have to guess, it's going to be like the immediate past, because that's the best I could do. But that's the wrong way to look at it. The future is frequently unlike the past and you should be thinking about solutions for problems where the future is different from the past. The EU is here today. Will it be around tomorrow and in a configuration much like it's in now? Probably, but maybe not. Are you planning for that? Eurozone is here today, so is the Euro. And it'll probably be around in the future in something like what we have today. But maybe it won't. Are you planning for that? Are you ready to make your own currency again if you have to in a lurch? Are you ready to have bilateral relations with the chaotic United States? It doesn't matter if it's chaotic, it's there. It's big and you have to deal with it. You don't like it? The speculation, which is not based on anything that the EU might be around or the Euro might be around, can it equally be applied to the United States? Absolutely. Without that, a responsible minister should plan for things like... There's no point really talking about that at the moment. The EU is there. As a nation, we're committed to work our main focus is trying to maintain it and maintain our membership of it. That's amazing coming from a member of a parliament who is about to get a hard border imposed upon by the EU institutions. What are the tragedies of the press here in Ireland for the last couple of months since the Brexit vote? It's the press, and I'm not just the press, but ministers of the Irish government are constantly in the news saying, how will the British solve the problem of the hard border? How will the British solve it? It's not the British who are going to be putting up the hard border, it's going to be your government following EU regulations that are imposed upon you by EU law. It's... Okay, do you want to tell us your name and to have you point to make? Would you like to make a point? My name is William Starrer, yes. I'll get that, because it's a very adversarial accusation to say that the EU is imposing a hard border. Come on, the British decided to leave something. I understand, but the British are going to be put... The British will not... But we let him make his point, yeah. That is a sort of a legalistic, adversarial view of a negotiation, which you are choosing to make an other point. Is it not a pragmatic view, though? You know, we can all complain about the British forever, and yet it is a situation we do have to deal with. Of course, you can't have a resolution of the three EU issues of citizen rights, the budget and role of Ireland without discussing trade and customs at all. In the end of the day, all that is going to engage. But I'm sort of taking an issue with it, and I do agree with our friend on one or two other things at that time later, is that that is sort of a legalistic, adversarial view. The EU is wrong. I didn't say that. I said it's a public policy mechanism. We are a member of a political institution, right? The UK are choosing to leave. That is the framework inside which this has been discussed. You're right. It's adversarial, and let me tell you, I think there are at least a few people in this room who never heard that point of view, and I'm glad they heard it today. That's the first point. The second point is, as a factual matter, if tariffs are collected, Ireland will be mandated to collect them by EU law. If they're collected, and Ireland doesn't appear to be getting any delegation. When the German and French banks needed Ireland to pony up money with no right off, Ireland did. When the German and French banks needed to be protected, against a sovereign ballot in Greece, they derogated from EU treaty law. But no one's talking about a delegation from Ireland for the hard border up north. Ireland just has to accept that this is imposed upon them. Actually, do you mind if I pull it back a little bit to the world, okay? Just to move things on, because we still have to finish at one. Graham, one side effect of an isolationist attitude is that when America withdraws from certain regions, other actors enter. So for example, we've discussed this often before in relation to Syria and the Middle East, that when solutions were being talked about, America simply wasn't being mentioned, or they were the last on the table, because people were talking about Russia, they were talking about Kurds, the Saudis. What do you see as the regions where the most severe knock-on effects might be from either an isolationist America or an incoherent American foreign policy? That's a very good question. He said, it's time for time. I'm on two minds about so many of these questions, so I'll just throw a bunch of them. So the whole territorial controversies in the South and East China Sea, which is very much used by Xi Jinping to gin up his base whenever he needs it. The U.S., I mean, could be a potentially, a U.S. withdrawal, well certainly gives China a freer hand, but it might also de-escalate things, even if U.S. is technically supposed to protect the Philippines and Japan in case of an attack. Now, I don't think, I mean, China is a rational act, we had a wonderful speaker at UCT who said, the China's biggest problem is stupid foreigners. They expect people to behave rationally and disciplined in a disciplined manner, and then a state will throw its financial services industry off a cliff. So that's their biggest problem, people aren't as disciplined and rational as the Chinese government. Anyway, so I think that's an area, I mean, so North Korea obviously is already working this with the American influence and power fairly effectively. And that's probably much more of a way than the South and East China Sea. I think if we look at sub-Saharan Africa, we have all these crises, Central African Republic, Burundi and so forth, people aren't really talking about them a lot. And the U.S. has interest in there, but it's taking its gaze off of, we all have taken our gaze off it, and there I think we're not seeing the system work particularly well. Burundi continues to labor on the horrendous violence of massive refugee crisis and so forth. South Sudan, same thing. So there's a place where we'll see things less stable. In Northern Africa, I mean, this is just my own hobby horse. The EU is actually playing a much more significant role in terms of basically engaging in development and security. With the sole goal, and one's almost tempted to say, of keeping migrants as far from Europe as possible. And there, again, probably most of us were unaware of America's actions in Niger until someone got killed and it became a tweet storm, which is not the way we should probably be looking at it. So there, I think the EU's not much more of a player, and it's actually leading to a more coherent situation. I think the final area is- What about Iran? So one of the problems, Iran, I mean Iran can actually do maybe better out of the decertification of the deal. Because again, if the EU and France and Germany and Russia are still in place, then they can pick up their relations with them and yet continue to sell the Great Satan story to their own people, right? But no, I'm thinking one problem is peace in all these regions, but maybe especially in Syria. I mean, depending on how you feel about the, what's called the new interventionism. The new interventionism is a process by which friends of the secretary general, which actually turned out to be very powerful states, protect the interests of all of the conflicting parties. They tried it in Cambodia, and even the Khmer Rouge had a backer in China, even if it didn't really work out, right? This process needs powerful and engaged states, and of course the most potentially powerful engaged state to help broker a solution by backing one of the factions is the United States. And so there's an area where you could see failure to make progress. Shayna, would you address that as well? How U.S. foreign policy, isolationist in rhetoric, you know, for the most part, and yet these occasional inconsistent interventions, how that affects the world, and which of those regions would you see as the biggest risk that we should be watching that might affect us? I think North Korea might be the biggest risk, and since you have two very unstable or unpredictable leaders. But I think that the situation in terms of foreign policy for the U.S. is evolving because you have the State Department, which is understaffed, but has, like Tillerson is saying one thing, and he's trying to develop a foreign policy if you look at his recent speech about India, democratic values, open markets. And so, and then Trump might say something else, but I don't know if the dynamic is gonna increasingly be Trump will say something, he'll tweet something, but the policy is actually resting in the institutions and the leaders of the institutions. And I'm wondering over the next year, particularly in preparation for the 2018 congressional elections, there'll be more focus on the different, like the State Department, or John Kelly will have more control and will try to have more stability in the individual leaders, some of whom have commercial background, some of whom have military background. Do you see Rex Tillerson lasting? I see him under a lot of pressure to last. So that's what I think is going to be the biggest thing, because you have like yesterday, Jeff Flake, I think the reason he was so up in the news is because he gave another powerful speech following on McCain's speech. So McCain's not gonna last because he's sick and he's 81, and he's at the end of his, but so there's gonna be a lot of pressure on stable moderate Republicans. But I was worried about that croaker and Flake development over the last few days, because I thought, fine, maybe these are the remaining elements of sanity in the Republican Party, but they're leaving. Like they're saying what they're saying because they're on their way out the door and Flake was gonna lose that nomination in Arizona. So does that mean that even though there is this resistance from apparently moderate people, it's actually the sting of the dying wasp and that the radicalism of the Republican right is going full steam ahead. This is the new normal. I don't, I can't say it's a new normal. I think that they will be become more organized. If you look at Steve Bannon's political trajectory, he's definitely developing a strategy for the 2018 elections. So I do think he's, that a lot of the nominees in the primaries are gonna be his nominees. Definitely, definitely think that. But that puts still more pressure on the cabinet to stay in place from the Republican establishment. And even though you have the Koch brothers, well, they're ambivalent. So the money's behind, the money's still, a lot of the money's behind the establishment. Okay, I better throw it open. Yes, sir. If you tell us your name, please. I'm a former member of the European Economic and Social Committee. If I, I agree with Thomas about not interfering in American politics. If I were an American, I'd have voted for a Hillary as an Assyrian who in terms of internal policies. But I must say, he decided relief when she didn't win the election. Why? Because I think we were threatened with what Lord George once threatened Ireland with if we didn't have our own civil war, immediate and terrible war. Hillary was pushing for an immediate confrontation with Russia in Syria. Now, with North Korea, we're threatened with intermediate and terrible war to some distance established. But I think Europe needs to learn from the mistakes of being so closely allied with an American perspective for Europe, which believed in Dragna Augustin, expand, expand, expand, bring in Turkey and destabilize the Ukraine. And I witnessed President Grosso stoking that the fires of that war in Ukraine. Let us remember that the idea of America participating in the war and inducing regime change and Hillary Clinton gloating, we came, we saw, he died when Gaddafi was a suddenized to death. The result of that regime changes that Europe had to cope with the Mediterranean being one mass cemetery. And there is now the opportunity with Germany learning the lesson that we're not going to pursue the American fiction that Crimea should be Ukrainian rather than Russian when it was always more Russian. Is there, does the panacea, Europe getting its act together, deepening its own ties and becoming a player in its own right rather than looking across the Atlantic? That's a great question. And maybe Thomas, if you wouldn't mind referring to as well, is states like Latvia where they're feeling very threatened by Putin aggression on that border, which, because he's being emboldened by the instability in NATO. And, you know, he tests and he pushes. You know, we could have an EU state which might see a Russian invasion and I know that's how they feel in those countries. Yeah, I was just wondering when the conversation will come around to Russia being there and I don't necessarily see Russia's evil empire but there's no doubt that Russia seems to be getting very actively involved in a lot of issues which I would be, if they were listening to me in this panel they'd be saying, oh, that's somebody else's internal affairs. They certainly have had a hand in the US election and that seems to be the case. They certainly appear to have been connected to Brexit as well in some ways. They certainly are a high up Russian bank. Lent money to Marine Le Pen. Their media get very excited when Catalonia decides to vote one way. They seem to, there seems to be an interest there in Russia. Yeah, but who do you say lies to Ukraine? Well, what I wanna say, it seems to be an interest in Russia in upsetting the order to, and they're entitled to advance their own interest. Oh, upsetting the order. I know what you're getting at, you know? And there's a very strong argument. The NATO and the EU were needling away their Russian power. Ambassador said, only the EU could turn trade negotiations into a crisis. Seth, do you want to add on that? Who bombed Libya? I mean, why did Libya become basically a stateless anarchic zone? This is one of eight on us that speaking for the United States. The United States didn't bomb Libya into non-existence. It was England and France. Of course, Obama didn't stop them, but it was England and France. And I'm not gonna blame it on the whole EU, but it wasn't as if EU institutions tried to close this bombing down. And that led to the Great Migration, but how have you feel about that, that's a separate issue. So yeah, the United States has certainly intervened all around the world in all sorts of places, sometimes to good ends, sometimes to less good ends. But this EU state of deeper integration might not bring more stability. Look what's been done to date and ask yourself, is there a wide enough agreement that if you have the EU super state with an EU army and an EU foreign policy, are you going to get more stability because you'll have this big army to start using? Maybe you will, but that's a prediction. None of us could really know the answer to that. Graham, I'd be interested in your thoughts there on the EU. I mean, you did refer to, you know, we can, as I'm talking about the EU, you know, move into a stronger position vis-a-vis a relation, say, with Iran, in terms of Russia and the EU. Where do you see that going? Well, I think, I mean, I'm actually thinking about this, I'm at the point of Ireland in the EU. I mean, I think that's a very acute point. So both because of the threat to Russia, and I don't think Russia's, I'd be wrong about everything else surrounding, but you know, it's going to invade Latvia. But it's already engaging in the kind of cyber disruption and all kinds of disruptive behavior in the East of Europe generally, and insofar as it can in every state in Europe. I mean, I'm genuinely curious whether Ireland has escaped Russia's bots' attention, frankly, because I mean, it's cheap for them to do, and I know whenever I talk on the radio, for example, about matters surrounding migration, a whole bunch of loony racists accounts on Twitter go nuts. But anyway, so- What would be their interest here? Just push that, go on to the next step. I think they can do it, and cheap, and I think they want to stoke populist parties and make countries less effective and stir anti-migration. And actually, and on that, what is that one of the effects of Trump? Because the anti-migration sentiment, there's an easy way just to start things up generally and destabilize countries rather than the actual issues. And someone said that to me about Trump, you know, in terms of, is he making populism contagious simply by being there, that it's an aggravating factor in the populist trend? I have to say, populism to me is not a problem. I mean, if you're responding to the needs of people, then you're popular, right? I don't see why that's a problem. Or, yeah, but some people think populism is just a euphemism for right-wing racists. Yeah, well, if it's euphemism, I suppose that's different. I mean, look, it appears to be a sense of the anti-migration thing definitely does, has obviously a huge impact on Brexit. We saw the interviews this week, I think, on RTE and Barnsley or wherever it was, like they were wondering why the immigrants hadn't all left by now, like, after the vote, like, so it stirs massively emotional passions, and it is being used by, you call them populists, all over Europe, just to get into power, right? I'm not sure that the interest is there, but the public are very concerned about it. And as Seth says, the American public are very concerned about it. Is the saving grace for Europe that our parliamentary systems maybe just make it populism less workable? So fine, we had that worrying general election result in the Czech Republic, but at the end of the day, the people we worry about most are being forced into coalitions. Yeah, well, I don't worry about democratic election results. So that's the people vote for, that's the vote for. As long as there's another election at some point that people can get rid of them, that's fine. We've been very conscious of that in Fina Fahl here. Like, we were very conscious, like, I mean, apart from promises we gave before the election, what we really did think was in the national interest not to have two centrist parties going into coalition together or merging together, there was an option for people. And that wouldn't lead to the rise of the demagoguery or the easy populism, the right-wing or left-wing populism that you described, so that was crucial for us. Yeah, and funny, it's something a lot of people don't accept. They want to see the Fina Fahl, Fina Gay and merger, but I think that's a very legisimus. But the ones who don't want to succeed want to see the merger, yeah. Any more questions? Yeah, Root, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Last but first, I have two of them again. Just open this, I believe, hand in hand. Yeah, yeah, would you say about Americans being irked and people, you know, talking about your politics, I think some of the fricasa of America's place, I don't know, that's from Americans who live in the US, the citizens who live here, they can be very acceptable. I sometimes, and it is misplaced, hopefully we'll get under the same. But anyway, I've explained it in some ways, we sentimentally consider New York as the next Irish west of the Iron Islands. We have a normal section for the United States, and I believe that's a sentimentality of things, a historical thing. That's part of the reason why we feel entitled, and we're not entitled to talk about New York's politics. My question to you is, if someone were to talk about it, I know I said that more. Right, right, but maybe to, to contemplate, or your point is more concrete, that our politicians are shooting themselves in the flesh by using language that's alienation to a large... Particularly New York. Yeah, no, that's a, I totally take the point. But my question to you is this, if we were to populate the imaginary BuzzFeed list of the top five international actors, theish, intellectuals, or countries, that the US thinks are the bomb, as in they think they found it, so they listen to. First of all, wouldn't that list have fighting on it? And secondly, who are they? Who does the US actually listen to outside of the United States? Great question. Let me ask you to answer a slightly different question. What is the half of the United States that voted for Trump? Who are those people they listen to? Because as far as the other half, I can hear in tune with most of this audience, you don't need to know who they're listening to. You listen to the same people, most of you. So let me make a few suggestions to that other half, the half that I think many of you have never met. They listen to Nigel Farage. They listen to a British guy who now lives in the United States named Mark Stein, who used to have a column here in the Irish Times. They used to listen to the former Prime Minister of Australia, I'm very bad with names. I can't remember. John Howard? Howard, thank you. Thank you very much. They used to listen to him. Two more. Netanyahu. Could be countries of could be. I like that one. Netanyahu. Netanyahu would be a good fourth. And prior to the election of Trump, they used to listen to Vincente Fox from Mexico. He used to listen to Trump. Not so much anymore. Well, a couple of points that I'd like to put to you. One of them is, somebody was saying, and Trump won, a lot of these elections are won on the margin. And afterwards, the people that won look like geniuses and they swept the board. But actually it was tiny. Can the center take back American politics with a few tweaks or changes? Or do you see the gulf between the current establishment and a more stable establishment being too wide? That this will be another four more years. If Trump or just his administration? Even the culture. So even if it's not him, it might be another right-wing figure from the Republican Party. I think that is the case in part because I think the Republican Party is afraid of Trump's base. So I think that they're afraid of what would happen. And they have too much power. But as I said earlier, I think as interesting as what's going to happen to the opposition, whether it's the Democratic Party or the Labor Party in the UK, or even though they're very tiny right now, the Lib Dems in the UK, because they are coming up with ideas and they're mobilizing. But the opposition in the US is like nothing I've seen in my lifetime. I've never seen the left so on the streets mobilized. I've never seen some sort of virulent opposition to a political agenda. And is the Democratic Party willing to accept that left as being the basis of a fight back? Or are they afraid of the left and do they want to stick to the center? I don't think like what the UK has gone through. I don't think that the Democratic Party has much of a choice. Bernie Sanders, I mean there's an argument that he could have beaten Trump because it was the 70,000 votes in states like Michigan and Wisconsin that lost Clinton in the election. And they might have voted for somebody like Sanders not because he's a guy because I think he has the right. I'm still carrying a torch for Joe Biden. I thought he could have beaten Trump. No, he might have. He might have because my dad. And I blame Obama for that. Yeah, so do I. So yeah, I should invite. Yes, yeah. It's kind of connected to what you were just saying there. Shayna and a little bit for Seth as well. There was talk earlier of Steve Bannon being mentioned and one of his things is really kind of if you turn it into a culture war, the Trump people will win. I think Seth has been talking a lot about the kind of culture war aspect of it. Some of the kind of, so illegal versus undocumented. Like I mean that's not something that puts money in your pocket, but that's the kind of thing that kind of gets people going. So the question is kind of Bannon's interview after he left the White House, when he got to Charlie Rose, essentially he said if they put up, if the Democrats were to put up someone like a Sanders or someone like a West Virginia Democrat or I think Tulsi Gabbard and Hawaii and people like that. People who are more in tune with American values but are more left-wing economically. Do the Democrats have to do something like that to actually be able to beat the populism and or will they go back to kind of what are termed corporate Democrat? Sort of crap. Seth, do you want to take a first? Yeah, I'll respond to you and I'll also respond in part to Shayna, because I think the questions are related. You said that using the different language sort of gets people up or something close to that. There's a reason it gets people up, all right, because there is a large element in the United States that doesn't just see migration as the separate issue or illegal migration. They see it as, this is core law and order. A country has borders. These people are breaking the law. You don't reward them for it, all right? It's a question of whether you want a lawful society for many people. And to some extent that takes me to what Shayna just said. Shayna said the Republican party, they're afraid of Trump space. Well, she believes that. I would say Trump space is the Republican party. That's the former Republican party. You're talking about Shayna, all right? Those are the people who might own a few telephones or have a few storefronts for the Republican party, but people actually win elections. That's the party. So the answer to your question is in part, these aren't just words, all right? This is the way people are projecting forward their life and what sort of country they actually want. As Steve Bannon and Trump have tapped into that element, you might think that element is not really there or it's not really important, but they say it is important. That's the America they want. Thomas, I'll let you in, Thomas wants to make a quick one for us. Just a little observation, at the Democratic convention last year, we attended these conferences during the day and with all these retired politicians and current politicians, and we met someone at the convention too. To me, they just exuded unbelievable wealth. They all just looked really, really rich. And they just, I just said, how are these people relating to ordinary voters across America? And I really struck with God, that's a, will that work? Is that the way policy is going? I mean, you give out about retired politicians here in the penitence. Retired politicians over there are, in some cases, billionaires through the political connection. So they're so far removed from ordinary life, I think, and it's something that Democrats have to work on. I think that's an excellent point. In fact, these days, you have to be a billionaire to be a politician, right? I mean, the wealth of politicians is quite amazing, so. Have you read Angela Nagel's book yet, on K-L-Normys and about the cultural wars? Okay, everybody needs to read this book and I won't bore you with the details, but it's really about how the culture was ahead of the politics and it was the winning of the culture wars that fed into the political situation that we have now. And until, you know, the liberals and the left, and liberals often use the pejorative term these days, can get back in there and fight the culture wars and win again, this is what we've got. Look, I'll have one, would you want one more point? Just speaking of one, really quickly, I've got a sort of optimistic and pessimistic skin on, so one is the, the pessimistic one is that center has been dragged so far to the right by the Republican party's expunging moderates from its party, so when we see Corker and Jeff Flake and John McCain, you know, being the moderates, we're standing up to the president, right? I mean, they were the right, you know, before the Tea Party deselected people like Dick Luger, you know, and this is, so this is the culmination of a long process by which the Republican party has become the Tea Party, and you saw that in the primaries, it was just basically the internal debates of the Tea Party. On the other hand, the optimistic version is, I think, and this applies to the Republican party or maybe as much as the Democratic party maybe, is that eventually, you know, identity politics are not gonna be able to get you, and cultural wars, are not gonna eventually get you crucial things you want, and that's why Obamacare has shown itself to be so resilient, and why universal single-payer or healthcare is now being thought by Democrats who previously would never have gone anywhere near it, and I think it's just that people's livelihoods are so complicated by crucial issues like healthcare that people are now starting to think in terms of more creative and frankly more ideological and less identity-based politics on the left and I think probably on the right, and maybe we will see a change from politics as normal, which might have some creative solutions. So what are really big problems for Americans? I mean, most people in this room will have not paid for American health insurance. I have, it's like a second mortgage, and some people are on policies with an $8,000 deductible, right? So you have to consume $8,000 for the healthcare before you get to, and that costs them $22,000 a year. This is hitting people, whether they're in the Republican Party or not, and hopefully the United States can come together to do something about it.