 Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting of the committee in 2019. I'd like to remind members in the public to turn off mobile phones and any members using electronic devices to access committee papers. Should please ensure that they are turned to silent. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Does the committee agree to take in private item 4, which is a consideration of a draft inquiry report into Glasgow School of Art? The next item on the agenda today is an evidence session with the ambassador of Romania to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who is currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union. I'd like to welcome the ambassador, Dan Mihalaki. Welcome, Your Excellency. I'd like to invite the ambassador to make a short opening statement. Well, thank you very much, convener. Distinguished members, it is an honour for me to come before you in the Scottish Parliament to present the priorities of the Romanian presidency of the Council of the European Union. It is also the first time or the second time I was once in the British Parliament when I am in this position because before being the ambassador of Romania to the United Kingdom to the Court of St James, I was sitting on your side as a former member of the Parliament. So rules are switching. You never know what is happening to your life. Holding the first ever rotating presidency of the Council of the EU represents for Romania a key moment. Well, it's for us the experience being for the first time in this position, in this very challenging position, in times that are very, very complicated and very interesting about the challenges that the European Union has. But it's also an opportunity for us to consolidate, to take part in what means the strengthening of the European project. As an opening statement, I want to say to you that Romania will act as a genuine and honest broker, an impartial mediator and a consensus facilitator. It will act in coordination with Finland and Croatia as the trio of the presidencies while also ensuring continuity with the previous trio in achieving the objectives established by the strategic agenda. Our presidency comes at the time of outstanding European developments, the Brexit process and the clarification of the future relation with a strategic partner, the reflection on the future of Europe, the transition towards a new legislative cycle as a result of the European elections in May 2019. And implicitly the end of the European Commission and European Parliament terms of office. And a negotiation on landmark policies and strategies such as the post 2019 strategic action framework, the economic and monetary union and the future multi-annual financial framework. Moreover, these European dynamics are further influenced by a rapidly evolving general context, the complex transatlantic agenda and the advance of Euro septic rhetoric to mention just a few of those challenges. As our motto states, we consider cohesion to be a common European value as well an expression of unity among the countries and regions of the European Union. My country aims during this presidency to have tangible results and at maximising the benefits that a strong and cohesive union could bring to each and every citizens by reducing economic, social and territorial disparities among member states, regions and people to the European Union. Well, we have set up to say like so four pillars. Having this motto about cohesion in the European Union, because what we see now, talking very openly, is in Europe that has a weak cohesion and the differences in approaches between various European countries stronger and stronger. So, rediscovering cohesion is the aim of our presidency and an effort that we want to contribute in. Of course, this will be a long and complicated process. Brexit doesn't help European cohesion at all, but for a strong Europe, it is important that we rediscover a cohesive approach, trying to avoid differences between old Europe and new Europe, trying to avoid differences between more developed states, trying to use the European policies in development to reduce disparities between countries and regions. Our second pillar refers to a safer Europe, as we cannot consolidate the European project without strengthening EU's internal security by combating terrorism and radicalisation, ensuring a comprehensive approach to migration, consolidating the Schengen area and enhancing the cyber security. Currently, European Union is confronted with a wide range of risks and threats that undermine the values and prosperity of our open societies. Increasing the safety of the European citizens is at the centre of their needs and expectations, ensuring the security of the external borders of the most important assurances that the area of freedom, security and justice can operate with. If we have cohesion and security, Europe can be a stronger global actor. This is one of the objectives of strengthening the role of Europe as an important and strong global actor. In a world that is rapidly changing in a very fast evolving geopolitical context, we should have the objective to maintain Europe as a strong global actor, because it's a competition among various centres in a multipolar world. And it's about us to maintain Europe as a strong global actor. Cohesion, security, a strong global actor, cannot exist without shared common values. Romania aims at stimulating the solidarity and cohesion of the youth through promoting policies on combating discrimination, ensuring equal chances and equal treatment between men and women, as well as through increasing involvement of the citizens, in particular the youth in the European debates. Well, we plan for the 9 May 2019 summit in Sibiu, which is an important city in Romania. It was the European cultural capital some years ago as a part of the current debate on the future of Europe. We want that this summit in Sibiu to be a milestone in thinking about the future of the European Union, which we have to hold the member states to redesign in a world that is changing very, very fast. I was talking yesterday here in the lobby of the parliament about the reception, in our reception hosted by the Commission of the European Union. Thank you very much again for this and our general consulate. I was just trying to remember how fast history is changing. I was one of the first members of the European Parliament from Romania. I got into the European Parliament in 2005 as an observer because this was the procedure. In 2007, when Romania became a full member, we transformed ourselves in members of the European Parliament and then got to the election. We were some of a generation which experienced something that no generation will experience again, being a member of national parliaments and then getting into the European Parliament. Then, okay, there were organized elections. I remember ten years ago how the debates were. We were talking about more federalism or more national states, more power to the European institutions or more power to the national states. We were talking about enlargement. We were talking seriously about Moldova, about Ukraine, about the Balkans and what are we talking now about? We are talking about divisive Europe, Europe which lacks cohesion. We are talking about countries like yours decided to leave the European construction. I can assure you that from the Romanian presidency's point of view, we will, as I said at the beginning, act like a honest broker. We will try to orient the debate among member states to a positive approach to the relations with the United Kingdom. To have, to get, to say it like so, to an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom. And also, speaking about the summit in Sibiu and about the future, for sure the future of the relations is in your hand, mainly. We will try to orient the debates about the future of the relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom to a very positive approach. Your place is, in my view, in Europe. Okay, people decided in another way, but it's also near to Europe. And for Romania it is important, from Europe's point of view, but also from the bilateral point of view. I'm very glad that during my mandate as an ambassador here I managed to upgrade the political representation, the diplomatic representation of Romania here in Scotland from a simple consular bureau which was until last year to a general consulate which is functioning now. Here is Anton Barbu, our general consular, appointed some months ago. And I'm very convinced that whatever will happen, it's a very complicated political environment. Our relations will stay at the highest and develop to the highest level. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Your Excellency, for your opening comments. You talked about your priorities of achieving a cohesive Europe and a safer Europe. Are you able to reflect on how the Brexit process, whether it's likely to make that cohesion and safety more or less likely? Well, I arrived in London one day after the referendum. Since then I'm trying to follow this debate on Brexit and I must confess being not only an ambassador, but also in my previous career as a political analyst, as a professor of political science that sometimes I'm very confused. I don't know what the future will be. There are so many complicated questions. My feeling is that now time is running very fast. I don't know how it will be. We are in February now. Theoretically, there is a month to the official withdrawal, 29, and there is no solution on the table. I would also be very interested in how the honourable members of the Scottish Parliament see this solution if there is one. Do you think that the withdrawal agreement will be finalised by 29 March? Well, it's in your hands. I don't see now what the solution will be. There will be a postponing of the withdrawal, but this should be well-motivated. It's complicated to give an answer. We stand as a presidency for, like I said, for a very orderly withdrawal. I believe the no deal scenario to say it like so would be probably the worst option that could influence also the relations between the EU and the UK. Well, the mood is not, speaking very frankly, the mood is not essentially positive among many European partners. You should be very aware of this. Do you care to expand on that? The mood is not positive? Are you suggesting that there is an unlikely flexibility? There is also a tendency to inflexibility from some partners. I don't know how to formulate it more diplomatically. Some believe that Brexit is not the first priority of the European Union. Do you mean that they want to move on? Well, there are some other things on the agenda. Well, we always tend to be a little bit centrist, and this is not only your case, but also every nation's situation to think that the world is moving around us. Sometimes the world is moving a little bit different. Thank you for that very well. I was interested in your reflections over the past 10 years from when Romania joined the EU up until the present day in the changes in Europe. How destabilising is the UK's exit? You mentioned the elections that are coming up. Do you think that there is a mood in Europe that reflects what has happened in Britain? Do you talk about one of the four pillars being cohesion and convergence? How challenging is that to achieve in Europe at the moment, within the remaining 27? Well, in Romania still there is a high degree of support for the membership of the European Union. I believe in terms of figures, opinion polls, between 80% and 90% of the population is supporting our membership to the European Union and NATO. You have to understand our psychology as being a country which has an occidental culture in a area which is very complicated and a Latin country. The last 50 years when we were under the communist regime created a high degree of expectations and of frustration from Romania's population. The European Union is seen as the hope for occident, the hope for prosperity, freedom of move, which was a problem in the communist regime. I, myself, when I was a child, I was not allowed to travel with my family abroad. You never experienced this. Well, the younger generation believe that studying in Edinburgh here is coming just like right, the younger generation of Romanians we have here, about 1000 students I believe, 1000 Romanians which are studying here, 9000 students which are studying in the entire UK. This is not for older generation like mine, which experienced also the communist regime. Belonging to the European Union is a great achievement of our political generation. What is the difference between old and new Europe when you were talking about cohesion and convergence? Do you think that your experience is typical of a new entry? No, I don't say it. I don't believe it like so because, and this was the next point talking about Romania, we don't have as in other central or eastern European countries anti-European political movements. But if you look at the general political landscape in Europe you will can notice that I won't name countries because it is not diplomatic. But you can notice that some of the new European countries are beginning to move to a different path. Now when we are talking for instance about illiberal ideologies or illiberal democracies. Okay. There is also a debate in new European countries about the benefits of being a member of the European Union. There is also the game which is played by other big actors. I won't name them in the international arena which are working and trying to influence this. Okay. I believe that with a wise policy this century fughal tendencies can be avoided. Your last question was about, sorry I have concentrated myself on, but we are living in interesting times and Brexit is a process that is symbolically very dangerous for Europe. I don't know if the UK will be what is the slogan Britain goes global. I don't know if this is possible anymore or we should stick to a common identity and policy in a world that where the other actors are quite strong. We will have Jamie Greene followed by Kenneth Gibson. I just wanted to pick up on two separate points. The first one was in your opening statement that you talked about cohesion and the ambitions for greater cohesion in Europe. Using words like there is currently a lack of cohesion or perhaps even some division amongst member states, which I think is natural in a very wide geographic and politically diverse continent. Is it your view that you are trying to rediscover some form of cohesion that you think previously existed or is it the case that you are trying to create something that was never there in the first place. This is a new form of cohesion amongst member states who have very different needs, anxieties. Are the needs of Romania and Bulgaria similar to those of the Netherlands or Ireland for example? Are they on different paths completely and therefore this cohesion will be extremely difficult to piece together? Well, I believe when the debate about enlargement it was quite a cohesive approach but now we have to rediscover this because the world is changing. We have other challenges now. For instance, I don't know, can we make a common approach about migration? This is a question because if you look various European countries have different approaches. Can we rediscover somehow the political will for further enlarging the European Union? Because if you are very careful looking you will see that enlargement is not on the topic. It's not anymore on the top of the priorities of the European Union. Even some countries like Romania are supporting this objective. What we will do and I give you some examples with the Eastern partnership. Are we still interested in rebuilding the Eastern partnership or not? Are we still interested in including the Balkans in the European Union or not? What is happening with our relationship with Turkey? So there are a lot of questions of policies of the European Union which we will have to give an answer. What we will do is the Schengen area. Is the Schengen still existing? Or it's just a past piece of paper through some measures that some countries have taken. What we will do is the eurozone. This is about rediscovering a cohesive approach of the European Union. We will see, I remember now your last question, it was about elections I believe. Probably we will have European elections on the 26th of May. How will the European Parliament look like? Because there are many political forces in various European countries that are now atypical. Can the European Parliament rely on what was the balance between right and left between the European people's party and the party of European socialists? The equilibrium in the European Parliament was based on the cooperation between the two big political forces. Will that be possible anymore or not? And how it will look like? How will the future European Commission look like? There are many, many, many subjects that can be discussed. For instance, do we need an European army or not? Or we stick to the cooperation in NATO? What will be the transatlantic relation? It will be based only on bilateral agreements or it will be a European relation with the United States. I believe that there are a lot of subjects that must be cleared and rediscover an approach that is widely accepted by the European states. Thank you for that detailed response. I think that what it does raises perhaps more questions than answers in terms of the future of Europe. I did want to pick up on the issue of enlargement. I'm glad you raised it. I think that it's something that's been talked about for a number of years through various incarnations of the presidency. As you know, the EU has not expanded in any way since 2013. Your presidency is quoted as saying that EU enlargement is high on our agenda. You are the children of enlargement, and that's true to say. It may be on your agenda, but do you think that it's on the agenda of other countries? Do you see a situation where enlargement occurs with the Balkan states or Georgia, Moldova or even Turkey, to an extent, on one hand, and then there is the real risk or potential of losing further member states in the west on the other? Would that be a real danger to further enlargement? Well, it is a delicate and sensitive issue. It's hard to say if there is a unity. It's very clear now that some of the member states, for some of the member states, enlargement is not on the agenda. But at least we can push this debate and put it again on the table as a matter of discussion, especially when it is about states that are very advanced in the process of enlargement. Some of the Balkan states, well, we have to decide also what we do with Moldova. Moldova is a battlefield between its European aspirations, but also the Russian influence, which is very strong. So are we prepared as Europe to abandon Moldova? It's a question. Are we prepared for this? To say, okay, you go now in the arms of the big bear. What we will do in Turkey is a very different, I believe, a very different issue because of its culture size should be different dossier, in my opinion. Take it not as an ambassadorial opinion, take it as an analyst's opinion. But Moldova Balkans, okay, well, how we define our policy about Ukraine, for instance? There are some voices in Europe that say, okay, we should simply accept what happened with Crimea and make it also transforming the de facto situation in a legally situation. European voices, are we prepared to do this? We have to define, and now I'm coming back to your question about cohesion. We have to define also our policy towards the Russian Federation. Are we accepting as Europe, as a whole a type of policy, or we stick to principles and values of freedom, democracy and international law? I must say very particularly that for us, for Romania, the UK leaving the European Union is a great loss because we had excellent cooperation between the UK and Romania in various fields. We stood to the same positions in foreign policy, in security policy, in cooperation in police matters, in cooperation in information exchange. These are strong points of our bilateral relations, and the UK not being on the round table of decisions in the European Union will be for us, we are losing an ally who was on the table. And even though there is a very optimist feeling about in the political environment here in the United Kingdom that the role should be maintained, I'm more skeptical. You won't be at the table anymore, at the table of decisions, and you have to be aware of this. Kenneth Gibson There are a number of issues that have already been touched on, but I want to talk about Scotland's link post Brexit. 62 per cent of people in Scotland voted to remain within the European Union and that position appears to have strengthened. I'm just wondering how we can build our relationships with Romania directly and indeed under Romanian Presidency with the European Union post Brexit. You talked about a thousand Romanian students here in Edinburgh, you talked about which I think is heartening, the strengthening of Romania's own consular presence here. How can we strengthen trade, cultural links, regardless of Brexit, with Romania and indeed the other nations in Europe post Brexit? Well, there are not only one thousand Romanian students here, just here in Edinburgh, not talking about the other cities. There are a lot of Romanian, I believe, 40,000 Romanian being here in Scotland working, being employed in agriculture, a lot of them services. Yesterday we were in the Royal Café here and there were two or three Romanian waiters there. And what we value very much, and I personally what I value very much is that every time, and I'm now the sixth or fifth time here, when I come to Scotland I feel that the Romanians are welcome. I feel a positive sentiment that is here, no hostility, no cases of discrimination, which is very fine. So I believe we have the premises to build our relations in the future, trying to identify those fields that can be of mutual interest for Scotland and for Romania. I had a discussion yesterday with some of the participants to the reception and I said okay why we are not doing Romanian, Scottish Chamber of Commerce as a point of contact between the business environment in both countries. And we can have also deeper cooperation in fields of education between universities here and universities in Romania. So there exist possibilities and for sure you are here a vibrant cultural environment so we can also be part of. I'm sure we'll build an increasingly positive and closer relationship despite the Brexit situation. I'm just wanting to look at your presidency more widely. How will the Romanian presidency deal with the Visigrid group because obviously you kind of hinted at that without mentioning any of the countries. There is an issue and you did say that you wanted to strengthen European projects. How would you deal with that because that is becoming more of an issue within the European Union? Well it will be a challenge to define post-Brexit and when we will know how the environment will look like to define the future of Europe. What one way to do with this structure are we prepared to, let me put it more delicately, are we prepared as Europe to lose the international game or not? Because if you look at how the discussion is evolving you will see that some forces are more tempted to find other partners of discussion or other competitors than Europe. So do we want to have a strong Europe? Do we want to have a competitive Europe? Do we want to have a Europe that is in advanced in technology, in innovation or we are prepared to lose this game? This will be defining the future. I believe the most challenging role of our presidency and it's not just about drafting a paper, a very theoretical paper about our future. It's about finding those values and objectives that can unite and mobilise. Will Romania itself press for the expansion of the European Union to go higher up the agenda, giving your links with Moldova, which was part of Romania before 1940, and countries in the western Balkans, some of which are fairly small and one would have thought would have been relatively easily absorbed into the European Union. Given their population, I realise they have major economic problems, some of them, but does Romania feel that that should be progressed much more assertively and will it do so during its presidency? Well, we are supporting enlargement of the European Union and if you ask me personally I think that it could be one of those objectives that could mobilise. Well, if you look at the 90s, you will see that enlargement with Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria was sometimes one of the driving forces of the European Union. It could be also one of the objectives in the future. Okay, you have to find consensus, but if you don't believe in it, it's very complicated. It's very complicated. Well, an organisation like the European Union, it's not very easy to manage. We as a presidency are just a broker for six months, so I'm not talking about our management. I'm talking just theoretically because it's very diverse and it has to have a driving force. In the past century, the driving force was prosperity. You have to have a driving force, a driving idea for keeping this organisation united. Thank you very much. Stuart McMillan. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Ambassador. Certainly over the next few months, as you stated yourself, there will be quite a lot of change that will be taking place. In terms of some of the normal activities that will be taking place will be the future discussions regarding the CAP, the structural funds and also Horizon Europe. Can you tell the committee, or provide the committee with any information regarding how Romania is actually progressing these particular issues? Well, in terms of, we have to prepare for this financial, new financial exercise. This will be on the agenda and in terms of structural funds, we keep also sticking, we are sticking to the idea that we have to maintain a comparative level for development and for what I told you to reduce disparities between countries and between different regions in countries. There will be probably a temptation also regarding the impact of the withdrawal of the UK to make some changes in regional policy, development policy. Well, I'm not very aware of this. It's a more complicated discussion, which exceeds my understanding sometimes from time to time. But as a political attitude, we will push or try to influence for maintaining the level of spending for development and reducing disparities between countries and regions in every country. Horizon 2020, I believe it's on the right path now. I know that there is a discussion. I had some meetings here in London about how the funds will go. I don't recall the details. I had it written somewhere. I can send you the power by mails at our point of view about this programme. My final question is regarding the Horizon Europe and Erasmus Plus. What scope will there be for non-EU members? I remember a discussion that we had in the Ministry of Education some months ago with the Minister of State about what the relationship will be. I will give you all the details because also in the European Parliament the rapporteur for this issue is a Romanian member of the European Parliament together with somebody else, but he's the main rapporteur. Returning to Brexit, as I fear that we must, somebody has to do it. Going back to the withdrawal agreement itself, there has been much speculation in the media in the UK about the fact that this can easily be opened up. The withdrawal agreement, not the political declaration. Are they right? Can the withdrawal agreement itself lead to one side of the political declaration, which is an entirely different document, but the actual withdrawal agreement future treaty? The UK press suggests that it can easily be opened up again, as it seems to many Tory MPs in the House of Commons. Is that the case or not? Well, I believe now the European Union waits your step. It's your turn. We will see how to express it. The ball is in your field. The prevailing view from Brussels, as stated by Messrs Barnier, Tusk and Junker, is that the withdrawal agreement cannot be opened up. The withdrawal agreement has been agreed. It was agreed by the UK Prime Minister. It is an agreement. There is no way to open that up. Is that the view of each of the 27 member states? It's complicated to give an opinion about this, but as I said before, don't think that the mood is very positive in some political circles. For various reasons, there could be a serious opposition. My last question concerns the possibility, at least, of the UK seeking an extension to article 50. Is that something that has been discussed informally at Coropair? Is that likely to be agreed if the UK Government were to come within the next 36 days or whatever it is to ask for that? Well, to my knowledge, the UK Government didn't come. Not yet. For sure there will be a discussion, but at this point of time I'm not aware that there was a discussion about this, which means I couldn't be wrong. I don't know. I'm not always in the heaven of God's discussions involved, but to my knowledge not yet. Mr Ambassador, in your introductory remarks on a safer Europe, I see from the notes that one of the priorities is cyber security for the European Union. Where is the biggest threat to that cyber security? Where does it come from? Well, I could tell you, but I believe you have also the necessary data to have an opinion about this from your specialized agencies and institutions. I know something about this because before I have been appointed an ambassador, I also had the president's office, so I had some competencies in national security matters. But it's quite delicate before such an important committee to reveal where cyber security threats are coming from. If something is the priority of a presidency of a country that has a presidency, there must be a basis for that. We are very preoccupied by cyber security. Romania is also specialized in this. For instance, we have the role in NATO for cyber security towards Ukraine. But this is a very important threat in those times. If you see the media you are knowing where it's coming from. Where are the highest number of cyber security attacks on government structures, on banking systems, on the personal data of people? So would it be fair to say it's as big an issue for your country Romania as it is for the rest of the other member states of the European Union? We have a good defence system in cyber, but I'm not very sure if the European Union as a whole has this defence system. Cyber security attacks are a powerful weapon to deal in these times. I believe one of the most powerful weapons because you are not any more dealing with traditional warfare. But cyber can be an important weapon nowadays. Well, if you study the type of proceeding, you will see that nobody will, because of our being part of NATO or countries, nobody will endanger the triggering of Article 5. But every time it's moving very near to Article 5. Like it was happening in Crimea, for instance. Cyber is a useful tool, which is not in danger in Article 5, because every time you can say, it was not me. The opportunity for the committee to speak to the presidency of the European Union comes every six months. It's facilitated by the European Commission's office here in Edinburgh. As a result of the Brexit process, the European Commission's office is closing. As I said last night, I'd like to put on record the committee's thanks to the European Commission's office in Edinburgh for the assistance that they've given this committee over the years. I'd like to thank Graeme Blythe, in particular, and his staff for all the support that they've given us. I think that I can speak for everyone to say that they will be very much missed, so thank you very much. I now suspend the meeting. The next item of business on the agenda today is consideration of a statutory instrument consent notification. The Creative Europe programme and Europe for Citizens programme revocation EU exit regulations 2019 would consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers under the European withdrawal act 2018. When we discussed the consent notification at our meeting on 31 January, the committee agreed to seek more information from the Scottish Government. That information has been forthcoming and the Scottish Government has advised that it is no longer content to consent to the notification as it would require direct payments to be made in the name of the UK DCMS Secretary of State to the Scottish cultural sector organisations. The Scottish Government does not consider that an SSI is required in this situation as legislation exists which allows Scottish ministers to make payments to deliver the EU funding guarantee to the relevant Scottish organisations should it be necessary. The Scottish Government therefore does not consider that an SSI is required to remedy any deficiency in this area. We are therefore being asked to note the Scottish Government's new position. There is no more role for the committee in this. Our members are content to do that.