 Rydyn ni'n gallu symud y peth yn eu gweld-i i fynd i'w gwirionedd i'n helpu i allu'r lleidio, ond mae'r llwyffau a'u allu. Dyma'r wylch yn meddwl a'r fiannion, ac yn fan argyncodeb, ac mae'r peth yn defnyddu registeredu felly mae'r hyn yn aml dados. Mae'r rhysnod wedi bod yn dod yn yn agguedd i'n wneud i gael eu hwllfynol ac yn y bwysig i fynd i'u ffryd. Ie, ddod. Mae hoddi'n cymaint, mae'r cymaint yw'r gwaith. Mae'n ffyrdi'r föld hwn o'r ffordd, d Folden. Mae hyn yn g olderi yma ar â i chi oedd, gwrs. Mae'n gweithio am y ddechrau. Mae yw'r gweithio? Mae'n gweithio am y dda wedi'u'r hawddol. Ond rydyn ni'n dduad. Roedd wedi dod â'n dduad i'r ddoch yn ddwyme ar y gwerth. Yn rhan o gynnol yn ydym. Paesgl Dunhu rhaid i'r ffondnys Cymru i'r ffond neu yna'r ffond Fel Fnithaidd yn rhaid i mi nesgafodd. Is it possible that funding could continue after Brexit? Second, the farmers north and south would seem to be facing very serious challenges and we're hearing about cheap beef coming from the states and other places which won't any longer be subject to the hormone ban that's imposed within the EU that it can be imported to Britain without those restrictions. Thirdly, it's refreshing to hear someone who is fundamentally pro-European actually venturing some criticism of the manner in which the EU is conducting itself. Now you criticize perhaps that quite strongly and sentimentally I agree with you but on the other hand hasn't he got a point you know you have builders in Holland, in the Netherlands on a Eurosceptic platform, you have Marine Le Pen with her perspective if Britain gets a soft Brexit. Won't other countries say oh yeah great we can leave the EU, we can continue as part of the single market in effect and we can stop all those East Europeans from coming in into our jurisdiction. Okay, thank you. Three very different questions like do them immediately. The first question in relation to peace and interreg. Again I said that we wouldn't what I'd say is on the record so I'm going to be very frank. I negotiated peace 4 and the most recent interreg issue during our presidency and there was no enthusiasm in Britain for peace 4. I went to the cabinet office and the approach as you know to the multi annual framework negotiations from Britain was to reduce the cost of the union. And the instructions from Downing Street was they were to propose nothing that would cause additionality. The best I got from Britain was that they wouldn't object. I wanted to make a joint application but they wouldn't object. And it was through the good offers offices of the reason affairs commissioner who had a keen interest and he actually had the peace bridge in Derry, a model of it on his desk in Brussels that we actually got that. So you asked me, do I have confidence that there will be another one? I'd be very jaundiced about it post the commitment they've given to fund everything up to 2021. And similarly in relation to the interreg monies as you know there are two north south and north south Scotland funding mechanisms there which are very important and they're extremely important on the border counties. So I would be very wary about another phase beyond what was there because it was very much something the European Union wanted to do. In terms of I think the whole issue of farm exports it will be used as a bargaining chip by Britain, there's no doubt about that. I mean we for decades in the early part of our existence as a state were seen as a cheap food provider for Britain. I think that they will look for markets to provide cheap food, they will probably deregulate if they want, hormone controls and all the things that traceability, the things that we expect for Europe in order to pursue that maybe that will be the case. I think there are real issues that we need to deal with there. Your third question in relation to my comments about Verhofstadt. I think it is jarring that and I was nearly going to ask a question to this audience but that would probably be very unfair. I remember for years I used to be asked as a labour TD in Wexford to attend IFA meetings. I didn't go too frequently but I went to one and there was a packed house like this and I said before I start would everybody who voted for me in the last election put up their hand and there was a guffaw and I said no I'm serious. Did anybody vote for me? I was wondering whether it would be why I would be here but I'm not going to ask that question here but I'm going to ask this question because I'm wondering about the institute itself. How many in this audience are instinctively federalists? Would there be many? That's interesting from my perspective. You're the only declared one because I mean what Verhofstadt was doing on British television in a prime news slot on news talk on Monday was presenting his book, I don't know if you've seen his book, his new book on the next phase of European integration which he argues for including common defence common monetary policy, common taxation and all that in essence a federal Europe. Just in terms of timing is that what is needed now for somebody to go to Britain and say basically to the Eurosceptics that they were right so that's what they were about and you have to be in touch. There's no point in having views, you can be a persuader for your view but you can't ignore the views of people and we need to have a proper discussion of what reinvigorated Europe will look like. Now I happen to be from as I said a social democratic tradition and the biggest failure of my family over the last decade has been its lack of capacity to control and monitor and abate international capitalism in the way that there was a classic deal post second world war to do that allowed Europe to thrive that capital and labour came to a compromise. But globalisation changed that and we haven't the mechanisms to change that back yet but I have no illusion that a little country like Ireland or if we go back to narrow nationalist views have any hope in doing that and that why as a democratic socialist I'm very much in favour of international approaches and the binding together of countries in a federation of some sorts whatever you call it. But by will of the people an explanation and it must have a social objective which is to give hope to people that the future is going to be better than today. Pontius Therasa, the federalist in the room. I say this more than him, just honest. Pontius, thanks very much so I don't have to introduce myself so you will introduce me. I'm a member of the Institute but I'm also a member of the Labour Party but I would have to say just under federalism and I'm not going to go into great detail on that. I don't think you can spend 15 years in the European Parliament and not be a federalist because I think you see there the democratic gap there is and for me federalism properly understood delivers a more democratic form of integration. That's all I'm going to say on it at the moment. Could I say to Brendan that first of all that congratulations on your speech, you're the first party leader I've heard and I've listened to them all either on the computer or here and watched them in the UK and in Northern Ireland. You're the first one to mention social Europe. First one and I think that's extraordinary in a debate where as you point out that the reason people have voted Brexit was because of the absence of a perception that Europe was about them was about social Europe. And I think that that's really important and I think it's something that the Labour Party in the dawn must inject into this debate very strongly. And could I ask if you have any particular sort of proposals to make in that regard? I think myself the social pillar is an interesting idea but it would be next to useless if it's simply a voluntary code sitting beside a legally enforceable fiscal obligations on each and every member state. And sort of they may or may not take into account the social pillar of rights. One of the big threats from the UK after post Brexit or even before Brexit is a race to the bottom. They have declared, and I'm going to finish with this, they have declared they're going to cut regulation of employment, cut regulation of working hours, cut regulation of the environment. You name it, it'll be complete deregulation on every single issue which will have a major impact on how we react. And are we going to follow them or are we going to ensure that Europe defends our position in providing decent work in this society? I'll answer very quickly if I can because I agree with everything you've said. The problem we have is our family is in decline in the corridors of power in Europe. I mean, Renzi is gone now, Oland will be gone but maybe Macron flying a different flag will win, I don't know. But the influence of a socialist view are diminished in Europe and I think that's an enormous piece and I think it's part of the problems we had. When, for me, I have to rely on Angela Merkel as the champion, we're in a very peculiar place politically and I don't see anybody else on the horizon right now. There's two modest things I've done since I became leader to deal with what we can do. One is my experience over the last five years and I think made patently clear its absurdity by the GDP figures last year. It is a funny old world that for five years we had to measure GDP and it was the guiding principle of success above all else. But as soon as they mushroomed, it was leprechaun economics and we weren't to have any regard for it at all. But we do need to have different measurements of success rather than simply economic growth. And that's why I will be publishing a bill very shortly here on social measures of a task, I've done a lot of work on this as well, on social indicators. So that the state of our environment and our health services and poverty in the state becomes as important a measurement of success than growth in GDP. I think that's an important starting point. And the second thing I've done and I just mentioned in my own speech is I raised the labour at these social leaders meetings that I've gone to because I can see it so readily from my experiences over the last five years. How crushingly restrictive the stability and growth pact is. For example, one of the things we did as you know we sold some of the generating capacity of BGE and we generated 400 million euros. I allocated that to social housing but wasn't able to spend it because we already had reached the limit of our allowable spend under the pact. Now that makes no sense at all when you have a housing crisis, no sense at all. So I've asked that we recalibrate the stability and growth pact to allow for essential capital spend to not be taken into account in determining these matters. Actually I'm piggybacking on an initiative of many of the Baltic and East countries who are making the same argument in terms of defence spending right now for fairly obvious reasons. Nora Ollman. Just following on something Daglan said there with another hat on having met groups in the north dealing with women and youth and they're all getting some peace dividend money. But their argument last year before Brexit was even passed was that they were very worried they couldn't get those funds mainstreamed because the grants were going to end. And of course now with Brexit and there's no assembly there's a whole network of social stuff going on there that may well have to disappear. I was really disturbed by what you said because like most people I assumed there was serious work going on in Brussels to get ready for Brexit. Now I would have thought that until what you said today but also last Saturday met a senior journalist from the Guardian who told me that their journalists were having great difficulty finding anybody in Brussels who was really lower down than Barnier getting the things. So I want to know Brendan have you a sense from the other 27 members that they are taking this seriously. Are they sending good people to Brussels to be on the negotiating team for what's going to come out of Brexit. We heard here last week with Martin Verve of in charge of the EU Turkish agreement that we have sent four senior lawyers down to Greece to help to register the people who are going to be allowed into Europe. But he said most other countries have not fulfilled their obligation in sending lawyers down there so the four Irish lawyers are heading up the whole thing down there. Is that happening through the other countries are they worried about the fact that some big bang will happen on March the 30th or whatever day article 50 is passed. I just do with the Brussels situation. It's very hard to know and the people in this room may know better than I do. But my understanding is Barnier has a team around him including two Irish representatives and it is entirely within that small group of people that any advance work has been done because of the legal situation that no formal negotiations can start until article 50 is triggered. My understanding is the commission are not well briefed on it that whatever Barnier is doing we don't know. I certainly don't know anything about it and know that I've spoken to is briefed upon it. But clearly Barnier and his team are working through a variety of proposals. I tried to tease this out with the Taoiseach and the Dall because it just seemed to me to be ludicrous. I said that word in my own commentary that they're not allowed to have any negotiations until article 50 is triggered and then suddenly were to begin negotiations but it should take months to have a common 27 position if that hasn't been worked out in advance. And my fear and I said again expressed my concerns to the Taoiseach is that if Barnier has a precooked proposal that we haven't seen. Presumably his two Irish representatives through Chinese walls is filtering back something to the second secretary in the Taoiseach's department who is heading up the feedback into the Irish situation. But I don't know and if you ask me honestly I would say the Taoiseach doesn't know. But I don't know that either. No there's a team not every country is represented and the other point you make is when I talk to some the representative of some particularly East European countries they're not really bothered about Britain leaving. If they don't do much trade with them it's not a big issue. And my fear again I don't want to characterise me but I knew Barnier when he was environment minister many many years ago and I obviously knew when he was a commissioner I dealt with him there. Again I probably shouldn't say characterise because I don't know but he always struck me as somebody who is in the old goalist tradition that sure is it any surprise Britain is leaving so there were never really members. And if that is the mindset which I'm only speculating I'm not sure going to get the best outcome for this country because the best outcome from this country is the best deal for Britain. And that's perverse to say but it's the truth. And questions or comments please. And interning for Neil Richmond. I'm going to change topics a bit if you don't mind but you mentioned the Trump presidency and I was there's a bunch of controversy over whether or not the current Taoiseach and then Kenny should go over there for St. Paddy's Day and I was just wondering if I may ask what your stance is on that. As well as how do you think Ireland should approach this new presidency now that Brexit is sort of pressuring Irish American relations and how do you think you know how should Ireland approach that. Thank you. It's a deep and profound question. I've expressed my views on this last week and have debates with people in this room since. I've somebody who served in cabinet for 10 years. I've been on trips to America on St Patrick's Day and all over the world. I had the privilege of greening the Great Wall of China and it's an extraordinary platform for Ireland to reach out and we're very lucky to have it. So for me to say don't go is a very very big step for me. I had to do a lot of thinking about it. But I genuinely believe that this is not business as usual. You're not dealing with Ronald Reagan or a George Bush whose policies you disagree with. You're dealing with in my view a narcissist who counts crowds and who wants to be appreciated. And the only way you can deal with that is to be very clear in your viewpoint. I am profoundly worried by the Trump presidency. Obviously it has implications for this country but also his attitude to Europe where he wants to break up the European Union. He's opposed to NATO. Of course Theresa May says he's 100% in favour of NATO depending on who he's just talking to at last. So my view was after a lot of consideration I think it would be extraordinary jarring for the Irish people if Ender Kelly did a Theresa May and was supine in the Oval Office and he held hands as he did with Theresa May. I think it just would be something that would not be acceptable. I think it would be a useful thing to say. You know what? What you've laid out as a policy platform is so anathema to the Irish people. We've just celebrated a centenary of our struggle to set out the values of our country and our nationhood. And we're not going to endorse you with our presence because what is Sympatrix Day? It's a celebration of Irishness and what is Irish America? I mean it is people struggling to escape famine and poverty and deprivation. And how do you celebrate that in the context of Trump's attitude to those very issues? I'm Oliver O'Connor and I'm a representative of the pharmaceutical industry and a former special adviser to Mary Harlandy Government and Brendan. Thank you very much for a wide-ranging speech and Dave Brendan. Can I ask if you wouldn't mind to just elaborate a little bit more on the EU citizens in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. Would you like to expand a bit more on what do you think is actually or potentially called into question about the Good Friday Agreement and what it has provided or indeed even under threat and what should we do about that? I think the underpinning of the Good Friday Agreement itself is impacted upon by Brexit. It's an international treaty, it references the European Union in it and Britain being a member of the European Union. Its institutions obviously have to be restated in a way that is acceptable. Whether even doing that will require another referendum here, which is a very profound question, for us whether the terms of the final settlement with Britain, because somebody no doubt will trot down to the Four Courts and test that little issue, is something we haven't even begun to think about. At least I haven't yet, but I think that's potentially the case. The citizens of Northern Ireland who hold Irish passports will be the largest group of EU citizens in any state outside the Union. How are their rights as European citizens to be vindicated? There's a myriad of issues, not only within Northern Ireland but within British people living in here and Irish people living in the United Kingdom. We're already getting the queries, either an email that I responded to this morning from a constituent of mine in Wexford, whose father has retired to Spain who worked most of his life in Britain, although he worked part of his life in Ireland. Under the current arrangements, his welfare comes from Britain, his health care is provided by Spain, but reimbursed by Britain. He wants to know how he stands, and I can't answer these questions. That's why Leova Radker is in Britain today, to see the status of pensioners here. British people living in Ireland mostly have medical access through EU law, not domestic Irish law. As I said, there will be a myriad of complications, but within the Good Friday Agreement, the institutions themselves have to be embedded in probably a new legal framework. Andy O'Rourke. I was once a permanent representative in Brussels, so I remember a little about what went on there. But I have no special sources or insight into what's going on at the moment any more than what I read in the newspapers or through a careful reading of Article 50. But I do say to remember recently reading that there would be a 90 day period between the lodgement of Theresa May's letter at the end of March, the 9th of March people are talking about now, and an important point which is the decision on the guidelines which will be given by the European Council to the negotiator which is the commissioner. So I think, I just want to say that that will be the critical period probably, that three months when we will need to be very active in getting our points of view across in the establishment of these guidelines. That's the main point I wanted to make. Another small point perhaps is that it's traditional, it's always been the case in negotiations between the European community and third countries, that the council gives a mandate to the commissioner. The commission does the negotiating, but it reports back on a regular basis to a committee of civil servants of the member states. And that's the sort of procedure that has been put in place now. They will be senior officials, not minor bureaucrats. Sorry. I'll tell the minister. They will certainly be experienced senior bureaucrats whose task will be to ensure that the commission is following the mandate of the heads of state and government. And if I understand correctly, a very senior Belgian official, I think perhaps from the council secretary it has been appointed permanent chairman of that. So the procedure is, I think, a reasonable one. Obviously we will have to be very careful to see that our interests are taken account of in the mandate and putting the mandate into effect. It worries me because you described a process as if we were discussing the CETA agreement or a trade agreement with Australia. This is fundamentally different, and you might have great confidence in a senior Belgian bureaucrat to maintain the interests of Ireland, but we are one of 27. I have profound concerns. You're right in terms of there's a 90-day process, but the notion that Barnier has been idle since he was appointed, I will only start generating papers when Theresa May's letter is lodged. Obviously that's not happening, but we don't know what's happening. It's not transparent, and maybe negotiations can't be transparent because you can't show your hands. That's Theresa May's perspective on this. But my fear is that Barnier will present a framework that might not suit us. We are one of 27. Barnier himself has an acute understanding of Ireland. He understands the particular impact this will have above all else on this country. But I would have preferred, as I said in my own remarks, that that would be recognised by having somebody with a unique understanding of Ireland sharing the group that reports from the negotiating team back to the council. It strikes me that we could find ourselves very quickly because if the process starts, say the first week in March, and then we have three months of settlement, I don't see how an awful lot of work is not done, and I have no evidence that Irish officials are involved in it, that we can have an agreed position of the 27 in three months in 90 days. Can you see that happening? I don't know. It's certainly not on all the complex issues we have to deal with. And then we open form on negotiations where we are certainly only one of 27 and very disadvantaged in that unless we have clearly in the guidelines nailed down a position that is acceptable to us. I am worried about this is a normal treaty negotiation to be negotiated as normal because I think the obligation to us are as fundamental as anything we've ever entered into. Having said that was the last question, I have to yield to Mary Cross if you don't mind. She was a member of the board and has a post-singlish record in the department as well of course. I am probably following on almost directly from Andrew Rook and wearing the same clothes in the sense that I also served in the permanent representation in Brussels. And just to give a bit of comfort I think coming from deep in the works, there are about 90 civil servants from all departments in the permanent representation in Brussels. And what they're paid to do and what I'm quite confident they're doing is just crawling through the system and making contacts and talking to people at every level. The people looking after agriculture, the people looking after the environment transport, their whole business day in, day out as well as attending the meetings is talking to people and making contacts in the commission, in the Barnier group, but also with the other member states. That's what they're doing day in, day out. So I think we can be confident that they have a good handle on things. I think what is being done in Brussels now is the groundwork is being laid in the various areas as to what the issues are that are likely to arise. And then, as Andy said, that will be fed up into the European Council through the committee of permanent representatives, through all the different expert committees, to the European Council who will then set out the guidelines. Then it will come back to the Barnier committee where there will be representatives, as you said, of that committee that's been set up with two Irish people. But also the presidency will be represented at the European Council and the European Parliament. So I think we can be sure that there's a lot of groundwork being done. Thank you very much. I think I have no doubt that I spent a lot of time in the commission building, certainly during our presidency and every department, including my own former department, has people there negotiating all the time. But so does every other Member State, and we are 127 on this side, 128 currently. You've described what is the normal process. Is there no role for the Dove? Is there no role for elected? What stage do we get sight? When does what is acceptable to the democratic elected Parliament of the people come into any of this? Is that the end of it? I think this is very fraught if it is just because the notion that at the end of the day that every parliament will approve it. We have a very peculiar doll currently here. There's nothing of substance being proposed at the moment because there's no guarantee number one it'll get through the cabinet even and certainly no guarantee it'll get through the doll. So we do need to have to bring opinion with us on this journey. It can't be like other treaties where all these lovely Sherpas and do all their work and it's all going to be wonderful. And there's the final thing and then you have this awful thing of having to explain it to the people. And the impact of this is so profound on so many different people. I think it's going to take years to do in any event, but it has to be underpinned by some democratic process as well. Thank you very much indeed. There's a hand still going on, but it's a clawed hands too. To go to the Pope now. Your speech was so wide-ranging that it would be invidious to pick out any, no, all of the important things. But may I make two points of reaction. One about the democratic socials, our social democratic family. And I think you are very absolutely right in commenting on two aspects of that. I think your emphasis on social Europe would be very much welcomed. And your reference to stagnant growth and the need to recast a terms of reference of the stability and growth pact very helpful because I think the question of social and secular stagnation, which we've addressed here many times, nobody's going to put an answer. I think it's up to the social democratic movement to do so to the greatest possible extent. So thank you for doing that. I think your point about the uniqueness of this is very important. And the interventions of Andy and Mary are very helpful. Well, it's clear if you read article 208 that it's designed for a different purpose. It's designed for a trade agreement. It is not designed for what article 50 calls the future relationship. We never envisaged anybody would leave none. So I think therefore the emphasis on that came out of the discussion on the mandate to be given by the council to the commission is critical. And here the Irish government has a major role to play on its own behalf. Now I think the point that has got to be done across surely is the extent of the asymmetric shock which Ireland will suffer. And that's got to be in the mandate. Now your point about the role of the doll and so on I think is very important. Can I just go back to Andy and his colleagues, Mary, in 1970-72 when we were joining the EEC as it then was, the number of white papers that were published, in which you might have had a hand, literally Andy, and in which spelt out what the situation was for us. Nobody could have but known what it was in 1 January 1973. So maybe you might encourage white paper, white papers, and you're right to say a role of the doll. I asked the question of the T-shirt yesterday and he said, but he had said in his press conference after Theresa May that papers were prepared. So I asked for them to be published and he said, well they're not real papers. Well, as we know the British white paper has just been published an hour ago and there should be at least a response to that. At the extent that you encourage it. The last thing to say is that your reference to Shuman at the very end, that the response should be proportionate to the challenge. I think we've got the thing completely outside the box, because the challenge here is completely unique. Originals are the point of being a little bit difficult. For example, moving the border from the land border to a sea border and resurrecting John Hume's whole idea of condominium. I think it's time has come. Thank you for stimulating us so much.