 So, good afternoon everybody. Thank you for joining us this lunchtime for what is a very timely and important webinar discussion with our good friend Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator and head of the European Commission's Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom. My name is Michael Collins and I'm the director general of the Institute of International and European Affairs, the IEA here in Dublin and we are absolutely delighted to be co-hosting this event with the European Commission representation here in Ireland. Brexit hasn't gone away of course and time is ticking away as we approach the December deadline. We've had a huge amount of interest in today's event with well over 1,500 people signing up from Ireland, from the UK, from across Europe and indeed from beyond that as well. And this is a testament to how important the ongoing negotiations are as we enter the final crucial phase that lies ahead. Before handing over to Michel Barnier, I will just run through some of the format details of this event. The full event today is on the record, the initial presentation and the questions and answer sessions that will follow. You can join the discussion using Zoom's dedicated Q&A function and I would encourage you to submit your questions as they occur to you throughout the presentation. Given the huge volume of questions that we expect, please keep your questions as brief as possible in the interest of getting through as many as we can. Please identify yourself and submitting your question, your name and your affiliation if that is applicable. Lastly, we also encourage you to join the discussion on social media, namely through Twitter. Please join in using the handle at IIEA. So with that, Michel Barnier, you're very, very welcome indeed. Thank you for being with us on this important day and on this IIEA platform. I'd now like to hand over to you the floor is yours. Many thanks, Michael. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, the IIEA. Thank you also for tuning in. I hope you are all safe and well despite the difficult, very difficult circumstances. Let me start by thanking the Institute for International and European Affairs, Michael, for inviting me and your team and for your kind words. For many years already, your Institute has played a key role in helping the public to better understand the implication of Brexit for Ireland. And also your thoughtful analysis and recommendations have also been useful for us here in Brussels and in national capitals. I would like also to thank the European Commission's representation in Ireland and its head, Jerry Kiley, for helping to organize this event, as well as for all the support you have given to our task force over the last years. I'm very happy for this new opportunity to interact with all of you today, even if only virtually. The coronavirus pandemic continues to take lives around the world and dealing with the sanitary crisis and it very serious economic and social consequences naturally remains the very first priority of governments and businesses. This is also, of course, one of the main priority of the European Commission and its presidents, Ursula von der Leyen. And there are obviously other major projects and ambitions for the future of Europe, which President von der Leyen will present in a very important speech on the state of the Union on the 16th of September. But as you all know, ladies and gentlemen, the pandemic does not stop the Brexit clock from ticking. We are now less than four months away from the first of January 2021. This is a day chosen by the UK itself or its economic and commercial Brexit after the political Brexit in January this year. Because as you know, the UK refused any extension of the transition period. So we have no more time to lose. We must have a final agreement by the end of October. If we are to have a new partnership in place by the first January 2021. And as I've already explained, this is the only way to give enough time to the European Parliament and to the Council to have their say. This is a legal and democratic necessity. Everyone, everyone, everywhere must be realistic about this strict deadline. Ladies and gentlemen, the economic Brexit will in any case have negative consequences, many negative consequences. But if we all act responsibly, we can contain some of those consequences. Back in February, I mentioned three major tasks for this year. Number one, negotiating our future partnership. Number two, implementing the with the agreement ratified last year. Number three, getting ready for changes at the end of the transition, the first of January. These three tasks are closely interlinked. And completing each of them is urgent. I know this sense of urgency is strong in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Without a doubt, Ireland is a member state most affected by Bext. And of course, for the island of Ireland, Brexit negotiations have not just been about trade and the economy, but more existentially about maintaining peace and stability. That is why, since the very beginning of the Brexit negotiations four years ago, I have been very attentive to the concerns voiced by the old different parties and communities in Ireland and Northern Ireland. I've worked closely, very closely with Ireland's successive teaching and Dakinie, Leeuva Radkar, and today, Mirol Martin, and with Minister Simon Covney and other members of government. I've exchanged views with the Dole and Shenad, as well as all the Irish members of the European Parliament. Together, we carried forward a close relationship between Ireland and the rest of the EU based on solidarity, solidarity and respect. Ladies and gentlemen, in this context, I will miss Phil Hogan, on whom I could always count to relay any Irish concerns to me very directly over the last four years. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him warmly for all the work he has done for Europe, as commissioner for agriculture and rural development, and more recently, as commissioner for trade. In particular, in the context of the current negotiations with the UK where he and his team of trade experts, including obviously Sabine Vaillant, has been a great value. I used to meet him once a week as trade commissioner once a week. And I look forward to working with the future commissioner of Irish nationality in the final stretch of the negotiation with the UK. Ladies and gentlemen, before opening up the discussion between us, let me tell you where we stand on the three important tasks that I mentioned. First of all, let's turn to our current negotiations with the UK on the future partnership. We want a close partnership with the UK, provided the conditions are right. This is in everybody's interest, everybody, and in Ireland's interest in particular. So far, the UK, frankly speaking, has not engaged constructively in all those conditions. And as I have said before, I am particularly worried and disappointed by the UK's lack of engagement on three points. First point, since the start of these negotiations, the UK has refused to engage on credible guarantees for open and fair competition, open and fair. Yes, the US has been clear about this from the very, very beginning four years ago. Any trade and economy partnership between economies as close are interactive hours. Look at one of my favorite slide showing on the two axes on one end the distance and on the other and the volume of exchanges with our main partners in the world. This shows clearly why we need this economic and commercial fair play and credible mechanisms to avoid trade distortions and unfair competitive advantages. This is particularly important in the area of state aid where the potential to distort competition using subsidies is clearly significant. A level-paying field that ensures common high standards in areas such as labor rights and the environment and with the effective domestic enforcement and dispute settlement mechanism is the only way, the only way to start a new relationship between the EU and the UK on a firm and sustainable footing. And it is also what Prime Minister Johnson himself agreed on to explicitly in this text which is the political declaration ratified and agreed between us, the Prime Minister and the 27 leaders and the European Parliament at the end of last year. Second point, second point, since the start of these negotiations, the UK has not shown any willingness to seek compromises on fisheries. Contrary to media reports, even this week, the UK government's position has not evolved in past months. No new legal texts have been tabled by UK negotiators. Where the EU has shown openness to possible solutions, the UK has shunned our offers. Yet the UK government's positions would look on islands, fishermen and women from waters they fished in long before Ireland or the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973. And of course, the fishermen and women of many other EU countries, that is just not acceptable. Ladies and gentlemen, we fully understand and respect that the UK will become an independent coastal state outside the common fisheries policy, outside of this European policy. But we will not accept that the work and the livelihoods of this man and woman be used as a bargaining chip in these negotiations. Any solutions ensure a balance between further developing the activities of British fishermen and women, safeguarding the activities and livelihoods of European fishermen and women, and preserving natural resources. Without a long term, fair and sustainable solution on fisheries, there will simply be no new economic partnership with the UK. Finally, third point, since the start of these negotiations, the UK has been extremely reluctant to include any meaningful horizontal dispute settlement mechanisms in our future agreement. Yet, this is the only way to ensure that what we eventually agree on is respected. On all these issues, we are simply asking to translate the political engagement taken in this text in the political declaration in a legal text, just a legal transition of the political commitments taken by the UK government and by the EU leaders. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing more, nothing less. Yet, on all these issues, the UK sides continue to disappoint. We know well the UK's argument. We want a clean break from the EU. We want full sovereignty and the freedom to set its own rules and spend its own money as it wants with no constraints on Europe. And for all these reasons, the UK insists it cannot commit to a level playing field or to basic safeguards for our future relationship. Not even when it comes to fundamental rights. And yet, the truth is that British negotiators are still seeking continuity in many areas, not a clean break at all. For instance, on transport or on energy trading, on its role for conformity assessments for goods, and on many aspects of police and judicial cooperation. The UK government is still looking to keep the benefits of the EU and of the single market without the obligations. The UK often says it would be in the EU's interest to grant it a special statue in these strategic areas of cooperation, but frankly speaking, is it really the EU's long-term economic interest? For instance, British proposals on rules of origin would help the UK to develop its role as an assembly hub for the EU. They would allow the UK to source goods from around the world and export them with very little alteration to the EU as British goods, tariff, and code for free. British proposals on road transport, and as an example, would allow British truckers to drive on EU roads without having to comply with the same working conditions at EU drivers. The UK's proposal on air transport, third example, would allow British airlines to operate inside the EU without having to respect the same labour and environmental standards. In the area of energy, the UK is asking to facilitate electricity trade without committing its producers to equivalent carbon pricing and state aid controls. In this area, as in others, without a common framework on state aid, the UK government would be free to hand out subsidies at will, not just to support the green economy, but also polluting industries, not just to support the industry of the future, but also traditional sectors such as steel and automotive, before exporting these tariff and code for free to our market. Ladies and gentlemen, we have no wish to intervene, no wish to intervene in the UK's domestic affairs. But how can we conclude a long-term economic partnership agreement between sovereign partners, sovereign partners on both sides, without knowing which system of state aid or subsidies the UK will put in place? Without any assurances that the UK will not use its new regulatory autonomy to distort competition with us in the future. I noted with interest a recent speech by the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency for England, Sir James Bevin. He suggested that, after Brexit, water quality standards for English rivers, lakes, and beaches should be less rigorous than under the EU's water framework directive. Of course, this raises major environmental and health concerns, but let us consider the economic too, if English farmers and industrials are no longer bound by high standards on water pollution, would they gain decisive and unfair cost advantages? We have no issue with regulatory divergence. It is normal that the UK wants to set its own standards and rules, normal, and it is the reason of the Brexit. But this serves to distort competition with us, then we have a problem. And there are other areas where the UK insists on being able to divert substantially from its current standards as of the 1st of January next year. I'm thinking, for example, for instance, of the food sector. Here, not only is the UK looking to go back to go back on protections for geographical indications secured the WISDRA agreement. It has also given us no reassurance on the future sanitary and phytosanitary regime that the UK will apply after the 1st of January next year. How can we make progress on sanitary and phytosanitary issues when we have no idea how the UK system will evolve? Ladies and gentlemen, these are not technocratic details. These are essentials. At stake are tens of thousands of European jobs and livelihoods, Irish jobs and livelihoods, our health, safety and well-being, our environment and climate, our fundamental rights. Of course, Ireland's particularly close relationship with the UK makes these questions even more important, especially for businesses exporting to Great Britain or competing with British companies. Ladies and gentlemen, thankfully, the WISDRA agreement means that we have a stable solution for goods trade between Ireland and Northern Ireland, without the hard border on the island. This is essential to protect the whole island economy. This is precisely why our second important task before the end of this year is to ensure the full and effective implementation of the WISDRA agreement, in particular as regards citizens' rights and obviously the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. This remains an absolute priority for the EU. It is the only way to protect the Good Friday, the Good and Belfast Friday agreement, and all its dimensions, and therefore to protect the gains of the peace process, which people like Devin Trimble, John Hume, Seamus Marlon, Martin Magnus and Jan Pesley worked so hard for with the support of successive Irish and British governments and of the EU, obviously. A precise implementation of the WISDRA agreement is also the only way to avoid the hard border on the island of Ireland and preserve the whole island economy. It is the only way to preserve the integrity of the single market and all its guarantees for consumer protection, public and animal health by ensuring all the necessary checks and controls for goods entering Northern Ireland. And of course, it is a precondition for us, the EU and the UK, to be able to forge a meaningful partnership built on trust for the future. In recent months, under the impetus of Michael Gove, the UK has started to make progress on the implementation of the protocol and this is encouraging. But important questions remain open. The EU needs to be sure that the union customs code will be applied in its entirety for goods arriving in Northern Ireland. Similarly, we need to know that goods leaving Northern Ireland respect all applicable EU export procedures and formalities. And finally, we need to be certain that all necessary controls are carried out on live animals and animal derived products arriving in Northern Ireland from Great Britain and the rest of the world. To ensure that this agreement works on the ground, on the ground, as of the 1st of January next year, the UK still needs to complete many, many practical preparations, time consuming and resource intensive preparations. And of course, we will also continue to be extremely vigilant when it comes to ensuring the full respect of citizens' rights under this withdrawal agreement, both in the UK and in the 27 EU member states. Together with by the president, Marosev Kovic, we continue to follow closely the UK's actions. Ladies and gentlemen, the rigorous implementation of this protocol will serve to protect peace and stability of Ireland once again. And of course, an ambitious future partnership with the UK would help limit the negative impact of Brexit for Ireland, for the EU and for the UK. But even with these two pillars in place, and we are not yet there, there will be big changes on the 1st of January 2021. On that date, the UK will leave the single market, will leave the customs union and all EU policies and all our international agreements. This is his choice, not our choice. Let me mention just a few examples of what this means concretely. On that date, the 1st of January, custom formalities will apply to all our imports and exports with the UK. On that date, the EU will no longer recognize UK types approvals for cars, for instance. On that date, financial institutions established in the UK will lose the benefit of the EU's financial passport. This is the UK consequence, the Brexit consequences, clearly. No trade agreement, no matter how ambitious, can change this. Businesses, public administrations and citizens must urgently get ready for these changes. Here again, Ireland's unique geographical situation means that it will be particularly affected. Many Irish importers and exporters rely on the UK as a key route to end and from the rest of the EU, their land bridge to and from the EU. We have been working with Ireland and relevant member states to ensure that this key connection to the single market remains effective. The UK participation in the Common Transit Convention will certainly help this regard and on the EU side, our major entry and exit points are ready. But there are still concerns as to the readiness of some key UK ports. Irish businesses, transport operators, ports and shipping companies will have to play their part in adapting to the new situation. Many already have, shipping companies have increased capacity on direct services on the continent. Businesses are reorganizing their distribution chains and diversifying their market. More generally, Ireland has done a very good preparatory work. I particularly commend the government's Getting Ireland Brexit Ready campaign and I know this work is continuing. I trust in your capacity to adapt to new times, very new times. Finally, to help stakeholders across the EU to prepare to commission adopted readiness communication last July, by the time of July, we have also published more than 80 sectorial notices with more detailed guidance which are being translated in all EU languages. And we are working with all 27 national administrations to make sure that these changes, huge changes, are communicated clearly and understood by all. Dear gentlemen, dear Michael, as we near the finish line, I still have hope that despite current tensions, our common history with the UK shared value and joint commitment towards mutualism will prevail. Seamus Inay, who passed away seven years ago this week, liked to quote the words of another great European vassal, and he said, and he wrote, hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that is good, worth working for. Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to think, despite the current difficulties, that Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants an agreement with the EU. He confirmed this recently to our, to your t-shirt, Mirol Martin. This is also the wish of presidents Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel, the wish of the European Parliament, the wish of the 27 heads of state and government. And we will do everything in our power to reach an agreement until the very, very end. But to be clear, we will not sacrifice, never sacrifice the EU's long-term economic and political interests for the sole benefit of the UK. In past months, the EU has repeatedly shown flexibility and creativity to work with the UK's red lines on the role of the European Court of Justice, for instance, on preserving the UK's legislative autonomy on fisheries. It's time for the UK to reciprocate on those issues that are fundamental for the EU. I will be back in London next week for our eight negotiating rounds as planned. And I sincerely hope to be able to tell you a new story after that round, a story of real, tangible progress in all areas. And thank you for your attention. I'm now ready to answer some questions. Of course, Michael, I ask for your understanding. Should I not turn into details, given that the negotiations are now ongoing? Thank you. Thank you, Michel. That's, of course, fully understood. And thank you for your words in Ghegelik as well in Irish. Very much appreciated. And your poetic references as well to the great Seamus Heaney. So, thank you indeed, Michel, for getting us back up to speed, because we've had a summer break. And I think it's really, really important that we should now be reminded of the huge amount of work that still needs to be undertaken by you and your team, and by the UK as well. But as you say, the clock is ticking ever more loudly as December approaches. So, we really do appreciate the update that you've given us and the insight into the current state of play. So, I'm going to turn to a few questions in the time available to us, Michel. And there are several questions in about your mandate. And I'm just going to take one, if I may, from our good friend, the Belgian ambassador here, Pierre-Emmanuel de Brau, here in Dublin. And he wants to know, he says, do you foresee a need for adapting your mandate in order to find a landing zone with the UK? And I suppose the question is, do you have enough flexibility in your mandate to allow you to complete the negotiations successfully? Michael, if the question of the Belgium ambassador in Dublin is twice, ask me if I have enough flexibility. My answer is yes. This flexibility is clearly linked to the trust we built between the EU 27 leaders, the European Parliament and my team working under the authority of the Australian Commission with all the trust and the confidence of this house, where I am in Brussels, the Commission, all the services, the directions, many, many experts, very important competences. My answer is yes. I think that this mandate is clear. It has been given in the unity and total clarity by the EU member states and supported by the European Parliament. And I think I can use this mandate and this trust towards my team and perhaps myself to find a compromise. But this mandate is also linked to the EU interests. And as I said in my initial remarks, we are ready and we want a deal, but not at any price. And we will never pay the price if it would be at the detriment of the single market, the integrity of the single market and the values of the EU and the interests in the long term of the EU. Never. So, Michel, I just a question here from Termito Lyri, just to follow up on that. I mean, clearly from within the membership of the European Council, there remains a unanimous support for what you are doing and the approach that you're taking. Yes, but once again, my answer is yes. There is a unanimous support of the 27 leaders. And I check this point on a regular basis, meeting, for instance, the ambassador, the co-repair, speaking with the leaders, personally speaking with the Sherpa, as the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, obviously are doing every day. I work to deliver this mandate. So there is no way to any kind of divergence or difference between what I am doing and the wish and the will of the leaders. But let me just mention one point. This unity of the 27 member states and the parliament is not given by chance. It's not falling from the sky. We are working and we are building this unity every day, meeting the leaders, meeting the national parliament, between the stakeholders, the business communities, the trade unions, obviously meeting the European parliament every week. This unity is built every day, thanks or through perhaps an unusual method we have put in place with support of the President of the Commission, which is a total transparency. Perhaps one point that reaches some difficulty to understand from the very beginning, but this is the case. We say everything every day to everybody. And in that process, every member states, every member, each of the 27 member states, are the same influence and the same information at the same time. Okay. Okay. Just two questions. Our questions here from two journalists who I know write regularly on Brexit issues from the Guardian, Jennifer Rankin and Lisa O'Carroll. And referencing your visit to London yesterday, they ask after your meeting with David Frost yesterday, has there been any change in the UK's position on state aid, level playing field or fisheries that could open the way for a deal? And I know you don't want to get into the detail of negotiations and that's understood. The second question that they have is is it true that the EU is refusing to discuss the UK's proposal on fishing? And finally, a simple question out of 10. What are the chances of no deal? Once again, I don't want to enter the details of my discussion with David Frost, with a very strong and competent negotiator for the UK and the team also has my team is very competent. But this week, yesterday and I come back from London this morning, we did not see any change in the position of the UK. This is why I express publicly what I said, I'm worried and I am disappointed. Because frankly speaking, we have moved. I've shown in many issues a real openness in the last few months, trying to reach the British concern, the British priority, what we call the British straight line, expressed by the prime minister on the role of the Court of Justice, the British sovereignty, what I call the legislative autonomy of the UK, we want to respect obviously, and also the fishing issue. And I have shown clearly openness to find a compromise, respecting my mandate and using this flexibility and distress. And none of this issue, the UK moved in a kind of reciprocal movement. So the reason why I'm concerned because if they don't move on this issue, which are the key issue of the EU level playing field, fishery and governance, the UK will take will take itself the risk of no deal. I already mentioned the point of this press comments this recon fishery, this article was and is ridiculous, because it is clearly contrary to the truth. So I don't think that the source, if I may say of this journalist writing for the times, was the correct ones. No other comments on this point. Last point, Michael, I don't think you can use the word chance for a no deal. If I may, I will use the word of risk of a no deal, not a chance, as you mentioned. We are working for a deal. Let me just mention one point. Make no mistake. Make no mistake. There will be a huge difference between a deal and or no deal on trade and economy between the UK and the UK and the EU, a huge difference. Sometimes I listen some in UK speaking of the chance of a no deal, the opportunity of a no deal. Good luck. Good luck. But frankly speaking, there is no reason to underestimate who undermining the consequences for many people, many sectors of a no deal. There will be a huge difference between a deal and a no deal. The reason why we are working for a deal and for the moment I still hope and I still think even it is very difficult because of the British positions that a deal is possible. Okay. Just you very generously and warmly referred to the contribution that commissioner, former commissioner Phil Hogan played and made in relation to his portfolios as commissioner. There is a question here and we just take this one from Justin McCarthy, who is the editor of the Irish Farmers Journal. He wants to know, does Mr Barnier believe the resignation of EU trade commissioner Phil Hogan will have a negative detrimental impact on the outcome of Brexit from an Irish perspective? I don't want to come back on what I said very sincerely about Phil Hogan, the friendship and the good very good very good cooperation between us all along the last four years. It is a truth. So I don't want to comment what happens. I'm sure that the new Irish commissioner will be very proactive defending his portfolio or portfolio. But even I am French, I have always been very close from the Irish interest and very attentive to the Irish concerns. I will never forget my meetings in Ireland and Northern Ireland with people on the grounds. And the reason why I pay such an attention to the Irish concern so I will continue and to be frank in that process every member state has the same influence. Every member states. Okay, two questions here Michel in relation to services. One from David Finnemore of Queens University, Belfast. He wants to know, how can the all island economy be protected in the absence of the free movement of services? And then there's a second question here from John McGrane who's the DG of the British Irish Chamber. He wants to know, could Mr Barnier say his view on whether services can be addressed in adequate time within any deal at this stage? So just services if you may. This question is very important because it is one sector of services which is huge important for the UK and for us and obviously for Ireland where you will see a real difference between a deal and a new deal. So we are working with the UK in the global framework of the trade agreement on goods and services. So if we succeed to reach a deal there will be important part of the agreement dedicated to the services. I'm speaking about all the services except the financial services which are in a different process which is what we call the equivalences process for financial services which is not in the negotiation which is a unilateral process from the EU side. So I think that if we reach a deal which is my goal, our goal, a large part of the services will be covered by this agreement. Very good. Just a question here from Shane Cody who's a member of our institute here and he says, he asks, he says in the event of no agreement which I know we're working to make sure we do get agreement but he says in the event of no agreement or a minimal agreement what are the options for further or new negotiations in early 2021 and are there any procedural obstacles to further engagement at that stage? Michael is not exactly the same thing to speak about no agreement or no minimal agreement. I know this wording of the UK speaking about a low-profile agreement. What the UK calls low-profile is nevertheless zero-tariff, zero-cota access for the UK products to the single market. It's not really what we call a low-profile. Remembering that we never propose for any country the world at the very beginning of the negotiation zero-tariff and zero-cota as we did for the UK. So it cannot be a low-profile but in any case even with a low-profile agreement in trade we will need and we will ask for a credible framework on the level playing field. If there is no agreement everybody will see very soon and for four months from now what will happen and once again it will be a huge difference and many change. I spoke in my initial remark about what will happen in the first of January next year. Huge change, deal or no deal. If there is no deal in addition to the controls which will be an obligation for any goods entering the single market we will control these goods to protect the consumer, to protect the budget, to protect the companies and the businesses. But in addition of this control we will implement tariffs, custom tariffs and cota, which will be a huge huge difference. If there is a need unfortunately we will leave for our trade relation under the framework of the WETU which will be once again a very important change and many many distortions and many many problems and and and frictions, frictions between us. Unfortunately it will be the choice of the UK not our choice and the door of the EU will remain open in any case. Okay just a question here maybe just going back on the fisheries issue if I may again without getting into asking you to get into the detail of the negotiations if they are on the way from Kearon O'Driscoll from the European movement here in Ireland he wants to know in terms of fisheries within the Brexit negotiations what obstacles could be removed that would allow for an agreement in this sensitive policy area. Again I know you don't want to enter into detail but what steps can be taken that would would help secure an agreement in this area? This is a very difficult issue. Frankly speaking we are nowhere for the fisheries issue even if we have had useful clarification and discussion but we are still in very two opposite positions. I have already said that we are ready to move from our initial position which is no change if the UK move but the UK does not want to move and this is a problem. The key problem is that becoming an independent coastal code obviously the UK will recover the full sovereignty on their waters. No doubt and no question at this point but it is another thing, another story, speaking about the fish which are inside the waters and looking and respecting the international regulations and also what is must be done on this issue we think that we have to speak about the Cotash air to find a sustainable long term and balance agreement with the UK. We are not there so this is the point I don't want to enter into details but let me just recall once again it is my mandate and I just want to mention that this mandate is very clear. There will be no trade agreement between the UK and the EU without a credible framework on level playing field what I called the fair play the economic and trade fair play and without a sustainable agreement and balanced agreement on fishery. There will be no trade agreement between UK and EU without these two points sold before. Okay so just maybe just one final question if I may Michel you're heading back to London next week are you going back to London and I know you've you haven't been too optimistic in your remarks but are you are you expecting a breakthrough then or when do we need to see a breakthrough and what would that breakthrough how would we know that we've got a breakthrough when the time comes I mean so time is running out and you're going back to London I think there's one more negotiating session after that so are you hoping maybe against hope that there would be some movement on the UK side that you will see next week. We need a breakthrough we need to move and once again if the UK wants a deal with us and a fair agreement for this zero zero zero zero access to the British products to our market of 450 million consumers they will have to move and it is their choice it is their responsibility we are ready to make fair and constructive compromise but not at the detriment of the EU and the single market and integrity and the values and the rights of the consumers the workers the environmental rights so we'll come back as frequently as necessary to London the UK negation is ready to come back to Brussels we will work with respect towards the UK as usual as always we will be patient calm I will keep calm until the day the last day of this negotiation and respectful but we will not change the main lines and we are just asking for the UK to understand the key positions the EU and also if I may repeat what I said we just ask for a legal translation of the political commitments taken by Boris Johnson a few months ago in October in this document can take the time to read this document which is not so long 16 pages which is the political declaration rotified supported approved by the House of Commons the same time that the treaty the with the agreement these documents it is not a speech it is a political document and it is a commitment for the two sides given the the framework of the future negotiation so once again I am worried and disappointed but I still think that the really possible you just use the word optimism you just you just use the word optimism remember Michael what what was the answer of Jean Monnet one of the grandfathers of the EU when he was asked Mr Monnet are you optimism or pessimistic are you optimistic or pessimistic and his answer was never optimistic I'm never pessimistic I'm just determined it is exactly my my feeling today thank you just there is actually one just final question here and then we're going to wrap it up Michel from Bruno Waterfield from the the London Times and I think it's a question that I just want to address to you and we'll finish on this particular one I think he says I need to ask Mr Barnier about fishing is a contrary to truth comment also on state aid he says does Mr Barnier deny that the UK table room documents in round seven I never see new legal documents on fishing issue and level playing film with the UK in the last round okay that's clear okay well look at on that basis I think we're going to finish thank you indeed and thank you to everyone who joined us this afternoon for such a timely indeed lively discussion thank you in particular to our friends in the European Commission representation office here in Dublin who are our co-hosts for this event but thank you most of all to you Michel and we hope at some future dates that you will find it possible when circumstances permit to come back to Ireland to see us in person and clearly the coming weeks are going to be critically important critically important for Ireland and critically challenging for the European Union and the UK and we wish you the very best in all your endeavors if I could just say that in two weeks from today as you mentioned yourself I think Michel President Dr Ursula von der Leyen will deliver her first State of the Union address and following that speech the IEA will co-host with our friends in the European Commission representation office and the European Parliament Office in Dublin an expert discussion exploring the key issues arising in that context and you can get more details about that on our website so with that I want to adjourn say thank you sincerely thank you for your insight thank you for your candor thank you for just for for representing the European Union in the way that you do in these challenging times we wish you the very very best and we just would like to say go ahead and meet them all good thank you very much Michel perhaps just if I may just one one sentence to thank you Michael and your team I will be always available I hope after the good conclusion of this negotiation on the deal which is once again in the common interest and you mentioned once again the very important speech that Ursula von der Leyen will deliver in two weeks from now this speech will be about the current crisis but also on many ambitions and projects at the Green Deal for instance of the EU and the proposal of the commissions and about the future of Europe which is much more important than the Brexit if I may say so remain available and obviously I will come back to Ireland and also as frequently as possible in the future thank you very much you'll be very welcome indeed so thank you very much with that we will end and sign off thank you very much indeed