 Good afternoon everybody. I'm very pleased to welcome you today for this webinar. My name is Barry Kulfer and I'm the director of research here at the IIEA in Dublin. This event is the first in a series of webinars co-organized by the European Parliament liaison office in Dublin and the IIEA. The series will look at the outcomes of the conference in the future of Europe and will explore several critical issues for the future of the European Union. Specifically, democratic resilience today, the energy transition next month, and digitalization of the future of work in April. So keep an eye out on your emails for when those meetings will be scheduled. The event today explores the theme of building democratic resilience in the European Union. It's well documented how the EU is facing unprecedented challenges to the rule of law and democratic legitimacy, both from inside and outside of the Union. We're absolutely delighted to have a distinguished panel of expert speakers with us today who will consider how to build democratic resilience in the European Union in the face of internal and external threats and how to safeguard it. Each of our three speakers will provide introductory remarks of up to seven minutes, maybe a minute or two more, and then we'll go to Q&A with you, our audience. You'll be able to join the discussion as ever using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on your screens. Please feel free to send your questions in throughout the session as they occur to you and we'll come to them once our speakers have finished their introductory remarks. You can also participate in the discussion on Twitter using the handle at the handle at IIEA and I encourage you to do so. A reminder that today's presentation and Q&A are both on the record. I'll now formally introduce our speakers and hand you over to them and they'll provide opening remarks in alphabetical order. I'll introduce the three of you in one go to allow the conversation to kick off. So first of all, we're going to hear from Daniel Freund MEP. Daniel has been a member of the European Parliament for the German Greens since 2019. His main issues of interest include transparency, democracy, the fight against corruption and the future of the EU. Daniel is a member of the Constitutional and Budgetary Control Committees and he leads the Greens work on the Conference of the Future of Europe. He is a negotiator on the Independent Ethics Authority. Daniel chairs the European Parliament Cross-Party Working Group against corruption. After Daniel, we're going to hear from Billy Kelleher MEP. Billy was elected to the European Parliament in 2019 also representing the people of Ireland South, my home constituency. He is a former Irish minister for trade, commerce and industry. And prior to his election, Billy was a FINA four parties, national spokesperson and business, enterprise and innovation. Billy led his party's work on amending the Constitution with regard to abortion rights. Billy serves as a full member of the ECON and FISC committees as a substitute member of the NV committee responsible for health and environmental issues. And of the special COVID committee which looks at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lessons that should be learned from it. Billy was also a full member of the ANET committee which conducted an inquiry into the protection of animals in transport. Finally, after Billy, we're going to hear from Professor Calypso Nicolides. Calypso is chair in global affairs at the School of Transnational Governance at EUI in Florence, where in Turalia she convenes the EUI Democracy Forum. Calypso is currently on leave from the University of Oxford and was professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Governance and at the ECON National de Ministration in Paris. She's worked at numerous EU institutions, including as a member of the European Council's reflection group on the future of Europe, chaired by Philippe Gonzalez, and as a council member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Calypso has also served as advisor on European affairs to George Papandreou, the former Prime Minister of Greece in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Dutch and UK governments, the European Parliament, the European Commission, OECD and UNCTAD. Calypso is also my treasure colleague a number of times and I was working as an academic so it's really wonderful to have you back here Calypso. Daniel, Billy, Calypso, thank you very much for being with us. I'm going to hand first over to Daniel and thanks again all for being with us. Well, thanks so much for having me. I think if we're speaking about democratic resilience in the EU, there are two things really that I wanted to talk about in my introductory remark where I fear we're not quite there yet in protecting EU democracy. The first thing that I would mention is, if you look at international democracy rankings from the likes of Freedom House, which looks every year at the quality of democracies around the world, and the two countries where that quality is going down the fastest so the two countries in the entire world where democracy is going down the drain, the quickest are two EU member states are Poland and Hungary. And the Union, you know, a peace project but also a club of democracies that we have a situation in the in the past 10 years or so where we're now all of a sudden our democracies are turning into, you know, what the European Parliament implies as an electoral autocracy in Hungary is really quite a bad development. We have situations in EU member states, you know, where elections are no longer fully democratic and not fair we have NGOs being thrown out of countries where universities being thrown out we have, you know, a situation in Hungary where independent journalism almost has gone extinct, where the independence of judiciary is heavily undermined, both in Hungary and Poland. So far, the EU has struggled to cope with that situation. I was one of those MEPs that negotiated the so called rule of law conditionality so the tool that now allows us to freeze EU funding for those countries where we have rule of law shortcomings and where corruption is rampant. And that law entered into force well over two years ago, and it has taken us almost two years to pressure the Commission into actually using the tool. We had to first start an inactivity lawsuit against the Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to convince her to finally use this tool in the case of Hungary. But finally before Christmas last year, there was after this long fight a decision in the Council among the governments of member states to freeze funding to Hungary. Today, if we actually look both well under this under this tool but also under different tools. Today, we have about two thirds to three quarters of the funding for Hungary and Poland that is on ice, and will only be released if there are reforms on anti corruption on rule of law in, well in both countries of Hungary and Poland. It has taken us a long time but I think this is a huge success for the European Parliament and effort that was done cross party cross cross country, where I've worked very closely with, you know, conservatives from from Finland social Democrats from Spain, liberals from Hungary from Germany to to to make this happen. And well the big question now is does it work, will we see the necessary reforms in those member states, but at least what we know now is that we no longer fund the destruction of democracy with EU funds. And this is something that we have done for far too long. We have enriched the close family and friends of Victor Orban for far too long. So so on that one I would say, you know, we've come late to the game but at least there are developments now. The second thing that I want to mention is obviously what we have seen in the European Parliament since since December. We look we have known for many years that there are dictators with lots of money out there that seek to influence decision making in the EU and also in the parliament we have seen it with Azerbaijan we've seen it with Russia, probably others as well. But the case around Eva Kylie and others that has been revealed by the Belgian authorities is has been shocking. We're still actually trying to find out, you know what exactly have they tried to influence and has it worked we have just set up, or if you have extended the mandate of of a special committee to look into that in more detail and obviously the investigations by the Belgian authorities continue, but I think what this has underlined something that that the foreign influence committee had said also in the past is that European democracy is vulnerable to to undo influence from from outsiders. There's long been also a discussion about undo influence from lobbyists of course. And, and I think there's more that we can do to protect European democracy from the influence of money from the influence of third countries that don't necessarily want to do as good things, or support European democracy. I think, you know, I mean there, there have been since December a number of resolutions now in the European Parliament where we have outlined some reforms to the parliament's president. Roberto metzler has also suggested reforms that have been endorsed by by the majority of political groups in the house. So I really hope that that we learn our lesson that we change things here, and that we start gaining some some of the trust we we certainly have lost since since December. So, yeah, I think, in that sense, there is a need still to improve the resilience of European democracy, both inside the European Union but also towards those that seek to unduly influence it from the outside. Thank you very much for your marks, Billy Keller for that's on the order. Go ahead. Just say at the outset. Thanks very much. I'm not quite sure how long I've speak so is it 510. You have up to about seven minutes but if you're if you're inspired a bit longer. Right if I can inspire you all just say at the outset I mean when we talk about democratic resilience in the European Union we just talk about democratic resilience in general. I think we have to start at the very basics. I mean primarily democracy is based on a very simple principle that's trust between those that are elected, and those that elect. And the very essence of what most democratic systems function on is that that trust that people will vote for politicians, based on certain manifestos, they will, they will, they will comply with the laws of the land, they will comply with the laws in the office they won't abuse the office for enrichment, and effectively they will, the quit pro quo is that they will try and improve the lot of the people as a collective in terms of advancement to societies. It's a fairly straightforward concept has been made very complicated by politicians in general, because of the human nature factor coming into being. And you know the risks to corruption and the attractions that and you know that can be put in people's in front of people's paths that may corrupt an individual or as can be seen in some cases just referenced by Daniel, where the entire body of the government apparatus becomes corrupted. And that really is, I suppose, the start of the conversation now that the end of the conversation is how do you put systems in place to guarantee, you know, these particular things. And I think obviously, and I speak to know from a cocooned position I mean in Ireland we've actually had a functioning democracy for 100 years. We've had uninterrupted democracy since 1921. We never had any problems and transfer the power from one political party to another, when we've had continuous functioning democracy so, but I mean in the European context that is quite a long time when you look at what has happened. Since the, you know, the First World War right through skirting through was with fascism, nationalism, communism, and other entities as well. But I think that one of the cornerstones that we have to nurture and ensure is protected is the media. We need an independent, well resourced media. And one of the difficulties we have now is that due to the advent of social media due to the advent of the Internet itself, and the broadening out of people's accessibility to the various newsways and news pathways, and just access to information in general or access to this information, the capacity of the traditional media and investigative journalism, for example, has been greatly diminished due to resources or lack of resources. I just think it's nearly that European Union will have to look at collectively is how do we, without interfering with the freedom and integrity of journalists. How do we ensure there is a well resourced independent investigative journalistic entity across the entire European Union that can go about its work that has always been the case in terms of keeping governments accountable and keeping systems honest and with integrity. And that is just an area I think that we are weak at the moment. The difficulty, of course, that people are now accessing most of their media through social media or most of their information through social media. And as we have seen, social media has been and is, you know, is disseminating as much disinformation and misinformation as it is disseminating fact. And that's just something that we have to address as well in a meaningful way. So I mean, my priority would be in terms of trying to ensure we've resilience built into the system is to build resilience into the systems that keep democracies accountable. And I think they are primarily independent media, and of course as Denny referred to as well, the independent judiciary. And like it is obviously given that whenever you see a party in government, and it then mentioning that it's going to address issues in the Constitutional courts or Supreme Courts, it's going to change his makeup or how they're appointed. And then not they are done to advantage a government rather than anything else. You see that right across the globe where governments in recent years have been, you know, changing the construct the Constitutional courts or Supreme Courts. And that runs right through the entire judicial system then as well. And that really saps the confidence of citizens believing that they'll have their rights vindicated or entities believe that they'll have their rights vindicated in the in the event that they're having an argument or a falling out with the government. When I say government to see the difficulties I look at governments benignly because we've had a functioning democracy many citizens look at governments in a very different way because they are not benign governments in the sense that they interfere very much, not only in individuals lies through oppressive legislation and policies, but true and undermining the independence of the media into judiciary. The other area I think that we really have to look at is the impression or the intent and how people view politics. And again Daniel referred to Qatar Gate and Morocco Gate. Of course, if you put 705 people in a room, you know you can be fairly safe in saying that there's going to be one that at the very least may not live to the ethical standards at the other 704 expect and presume. But there is a weakness in our systems in the sense that if you are or want to be corrupted, and you make yourself available, there's entities out there that are more than willing to buy politicians. So there has to be sanction, but I think primarily the sanction must most definitely be in the politicians themselves. We need to ensure that if politicians are found to have abused our position, either in a corrupt way or ethically, that there is a severe sanction. Of course, there is a debate now going on in Europe as well and this is something I just think we have to trade carefully with. I've made this case very often, you know, politicians lobbying that lobbying shouldn't be allowed or lobbying must be very controlled and yes lobbying should be open and transparent. But politicians should be, in my view, the ones as individuals who decide they meet and do not meet. I don't think that we can have somebody that so that you can't meet this group or that group. And I bear I would say this quite publicly in opening deck. You know, I meet groups that other countries would view as as potential terrorists, because I have a political philosophy political view on the oppression of some people, but some countries and some politicians in the parliament, all are very contrary to me. Now, I said this when I was in Dahlern and I say it again, democracy and lobbying, interacting with individuals with organizations is a part and parcel of the democratic process. What must be done is that must be fully transparent. In other words, the people I meet, the public should know I met them. And that's that's a given. And the issue then of course of inducements and payments. It is very hard to legislate for that, because if a person is inherently corrupt, they can take suitcase of money and move on. But in the event that they're being found out, there must be very severe criminal sanctions as well. Not just expulsion from your political grouping or that you can stand in the next election. There has to be a more meaningful sanction than than than that. And I think we certainly have a way to go in that particular area. So they will be my thoughts on this. I just think that finally, we have to get the grips as well with the whole issue of disinformation misinformation. We saw through COVID and people kind of their own individual views on, you know, vaccines and the rest of the efficiency of the effectiveness of them. But I mean, some of the commentary around that, for example, was incredible. You take, for example, even recently around the whole issue of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Again, people kind of varying views as to why it happened how it happened, but there is definite, you know, in it. And when you look at some of the commentary, even within European Parliament and for members, you know, it does not necessarily tally with the reality. Of course, the downside to that is once you start centering what people say, we're then into a whole space then again, where it could become very oppressive by politicians deciding who I can meet as a politician in terms of meeting people that want to inform me about something, or what I can say. And then that is back to where I started the integrity of the individual politician and trying to ensure that that is the starting point for democracy in the first instance. I want you to start following follow that that there's strong sanctions. Ramila Billy, just before I invite Calypso in, I just wanted to put it to Daniel. If you have anything to say Daniel regarding what Billy was saying about who MEPs can or can't meet. Perhaps you don't but given that you're also an officer wonder if you have anything to say about the current rules and norms and the EP about who MEPs can spend time with. I fully agree that lobbying and meeting interest representatives is a is a part of any of any democracy. We need transparency and we need some behavioral rules of what's allowed and what's not allowed lobbying for me or, you know, in a democracy we need the exchange of arguments. What we necessarily need is that those arguments come with a Michelin star restaurant dinner or with a luxury trip that the lobbyist flies you out to New York to to make his argument. I think on those things, you know, we should talk what where exactly the boundaries lie but that, you know, when when we want to create, you know, I fight for a greener European future. But it means that that transition out of fossil fuels, we also need to negotiate that with the fossil fuel companies. So it's normal, you know that we discuss with the coal miners companies and big oil and whatnot that it's not right, but we shouldn't only be talking to them. Also need to talk to the environmental NGOs to the labor unions to whoever else has something to say about the specific law or or decision. Cool. Great. Thank you Daniel, after putting you on the spot there. Clip so our final speaker I'm going to hand over to you for seven or eight minutes. Thanks. Thank you so much for having me and if I can just say clips of other way I'm sorry I didn't talk to you. I meant to say from the outset I just got distracted myself of course. We're all all our thoughts are of course with the people of Greece today after the terrible tragedy in the wrist I just meant to say that. And as one of my, my Greek friends and given the kind of theme of today and that we're all Europeans I just want to acknowledge that and we're all thinking about that that terrible tragedy. So I clip so over to you. Well thank you for your thoughts that Barry and indeed that train from Athens to Thessaloniki is one that I have taken quite a few times not the best of trains but you know really but we we we see all these tragedies we feel powerless. And perhaps that's a bridge between your thoughtful words and our conversation today you know indeed at the end of the day democracy is about power, and who has power and who shares it and who doesn't want to share it. And indeed I think Billy was very right in stressing the importance of trust because if, if some people call them the people, and some other people call them politicians bureaucrats heads of companies have a power contract. Other people are untrusted with the power that citizens get give them. The question is in that exchange of power, constituent power versus operational power real power. You know what is the trust link and Billy I would say that. Yes, one has to deserve the trust. But of course in democracy there shouldn't be blind trust right it's not like, you know, with your parents or children and even in families there is no blind trust. Maybe there's, there should be something called binding trust, a trust that is made of mutual interaction real transparency and indeed sometimes distrust that makes you watch the other side I'll say something about that. But at the end of the day, you need citizens need ownership. And so when we are talking today about democratic resilience. It's an interesting word right because it assumes that we have democracy and it's about defending it. Indeed there's been a connotation recently that it's resilience against external shocks it's like monetary union is it resilient. You know, and so it's, it's very clear from what you've both said what we all think that there's this kind of interestingly the outside in inside out. How is the, because democratic resilience these days is all about you know Russia intervening secretly or not not so secretly in our elections disinformation as you as you were just saying Billy. So it has to do. So that's the core thing and in fact the Commission just came up, indeed with this democracy package, which is centered around this idea of democratic resilience. Initially it was very much on this kind of reacting to the outside. And indeed, here is the first example of the outside in inside out because if you want to be resilient vis-à-vis disinformation and in all of the strategies we know from the outside well you, you know the best what's the best tool, what is the best defense it's really educated citizens. It is indeed Billy's right, the media because the media helps educate, but it's also the schools also the whole system. Politicians, the Daniels of this Daniel is brilliant at being pedagogical, you know with with citizens but also in conversations. So we need to think of the fabric of our societies when we talk about resisting external dis-difference intervention and disinformation. And then of course we've got the crisis mode, the Qatar gate, you both talked about it. Yes, how can we be democratically resilient when the, you know, rot is in the apple as it were. And this has to do both with, you know, how whether or internally, our citizens can trust their politicians, not just about external interference but indeed lobby is internal interference. I mean I hear both of you saying some yes that things are being done and Daniel a lot of it is, you have done amazing work. The ethics committee in the parliament you we all get your, you know, wonderful, you know, accounts of what's going on, but are you are we sure that enough is going to be done. Alberto Alemano just my dear colleague wrote a wonderful op-ed on all. He already thinks it's a missed opportunity and maybe I don't want to go too far but will the commission continue to be judge and party with its ethics committee. Who exactly is guarding the guardians and there's a big, big questions and don't we need to wonder about whether, you know, it's not necessarily a few bad apples. Yeah, yeah, there are some bad apples but is the system resilient. And indeed you both said well we need to meet lobbies and I know that's the majority thinking. Clice, the other day and just for those in our listening to us who don't know who he is he is the fearless Belgian judge who's who's adjudicating the case of Qatar gate and one of the. And he asked the other day on French television, why do you even need to meet. Why can't they all put their information or maybe a video, you know, on the platform and the internet, because what you're both saying is well, citizens should know that we meet. So yeah, it's one thing to know what that you mean but what is being said why shouldn't the whole of citizenry listen in as it were, but then post stuff, at least that's not me speaking that's just place. So no need to meet no need to offer information on paper towels and restaurants but information on platform and paper is enough. And I know Danielle you just said we don't want to go to the restaurant but you know what I'm saying. So there maybe we can be use this moment in time to be even more radical, given the Qatar day this is the moment, and they're, you know, lobbies are not all that lobbies they do provide information absolutely but how. And who knows and that brings me to the next point. My third point which is that Billy talked about the media and the importance of the media and I couldn't agree with you more because what we need is sunshine laws right we need everything to be hyper visible. And, and, sorry, just having to kind of switch around in my background. And so what we need here is what I have called a democratic panopticon where the citizens are in the center, and you always know whether you're bureaucratic politicians and company that you're being watched. One way or another, or, you know, maybe not but you don't know that's that that is diverting a really negative connotation of panopticon into a positive connotation. And that connotation connotation tells us that yes the media needs access. So we have follow the money is very happy now because of the wonderful evolution we had against thanks Daniel and his friends in the European Parliament that the first 100 recipients of recovery fund. And he's coming into the member states from the EU, they should be on the web and everybody should know where they are. Let's push this all the way, you money, everybody know should know where it goes to whom. And that would be a democratic panopticon, not just for journalists, yes for journalists who are fearless and pursuing this, but also citizens, CSOs, etc. And then to my, you know, last point, link to everything Daniel so brilliantly said about electoral autocracy, Hungary, etc. Where, you know, indeed we still have bad new the point is it's not just two countries right. Yes, they're the worst they're really problematic but all of our countries have problems with the rule of law and that is shown very well by the Commission's country report on the 27 countries. And this is also why whether it's rule of law democracy, you know, our young people in Europe, half of them believe autocracy would be better at dealing with the problems they care about, like climate change. Many of them believe that maybe we should replace politicians with AI, you know, algorithms. And one third, you know, whoa, I'd be worried about that. But at the end of the day, you know, we, I think we all agree that what we need is really all our democratic innovation. Yes, the representative democracy in the EP and national parliament's remains critical, but we also want to and I hope we can get to this, Barry. We can actually talk about those innovations that the EU is innovating and of course Ireland with deliberative democracy randomly chosen citizens, being a fourth branch of government and Ireland has shown the way to make a big hope, Barry, is that this can be provide an example for the EU. So I'll have more to say about this but my time is up. Thanks as ever Calypso I have questions to put to each of you there's also been a flurry of questions online but I just want to invite each of you there's no obligation, but going in the same order that we that we introduced you Daniel Billy Calypso. I don't want to respond to any of the other panelists have said yet. Or should we go straight to the questions. Just, just so I can I can I say, please, yeah sorry internal part of Calypso said around the issue of interactions and whether it should be all done on platform, you know, lobbying should be done on platform, etc. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I come from a representative democratic concept of, you know, that in eight very personal relationship between the public representative and the constituents. I mean I sat in all my political life for 30 years I sit in town halls in the back of public houses and community centers in offices, holding advice centers and I don't discern I don't decide who comes in the door. Anybody can come to see me, and they do come to see me and they come to see me with personal problems they come to see me with political problems they come to see me as whistleblowers, and they may not be authentic they may be. I don't judge, but I mean, I think once you start to diminish the ability of a politician to interact in that very sacrosanct way with a constituent you undermine a very central concept of democracy, and that's representative democracy. Now what I'm saying is like, you know, if you are meeting NGOs or organizations, all those things should be declared I agree with Daniel, you don't have to meet them in New York you know you can, you can meet them online. You, but like the idea that there'd be something that would police or adjudicate who I should and should not meet will be very damaging. I'll give you some of the example, there's people in the parliament who have a very fundamentally different view to me and the people, the Palestinians, the Palestinians struggle, others will take a different view. They come to European Parliament, I meet them. Should I not be allowed to meet them, because they are a political entity that some people may not agree with. So you start you start policing them and deciding who politicians can meet. There's also a slippery slope that I would be just reluctant to go down. One of the real fun things in the P obviously is you all come from different political traditions and there's no political tradition more intimate than the Irish one so that's a kind of a familiar view that Billy would share with a lot of politicians in Ireland. What do you think Daniel regarding the, the idea of stuff taking place in public and in private meeting different entities. I mean, I mean personal meetings are absolutely vital to the work we do. And, you know, if I if I now try to think when, you know, when I try to form myself on, you know, what is the rule of law situation in Poland or Hungary. It's so different, whether I read a report or even an email that a Polish judge or prosecutor might send me with, you know, the story that they have lived through. But it's so much different when I, when I sit with them in Warsaw in Budapest anywhere else in those two countries and and see you know what does it do what does this attack on our fundamental rights on the rule of law what does that mean for people. What does it mean when you go to a soup kitchen outside of Budapest to see you know those people that you know because an unfair decision is taken, no longer gets the EU funds that they're that they're entitled to because the government is stealing or misallocating the funds. It's very different whether you see that firsthand and talk to the people or whether you send them an email, and very much for for transparency, you know, I think those meetings should be published when anyone has outside activities or interests that should be published. And there should be rules of what you're allowed and what you're not allowed, you know, there should be a threshold on what is a gift okay to accept and what is definitely beyond any standard for anyone to to to accept that. But I also agree what Billy said there, there needs to be the possibility for for us politicians to have intimate meetings, I also wouldn't advocate that any any meeting I take should be web streamed or out in public, people need to be able to bring me confidential information you know I'm a, I work particularly on budget control. I work on wherever you money is wasted. So I am heavily reliant on people that against, you know, their bosses or something. They bring me stuff where things are going wrong, where money is being mismanaged where money is being misused. You know, and if, if, if I have a camera in my office that web streams everything those people are no longer going to come. And that makes the fight against corruption harder. You know, I think whistleblowers need to be protected. I certainly think that some of my colleagues that work, for example, on on human rights in Iran in other places in the world where people will face the death penalty if it comes out that they have spoken to this or that member of the European Parliament. You know, I think those are all valuable exception, but obviously this doesn't prevent us from, you know, whenever I meet Google or Facebook or Volkswagen or IKEA, you know, that that goes on a register on the website of the European Parliament for anyone to see. And then my constituents can say, look Daniel, I think, you know, your your meetings aren't balanced. You need to pay better attention. You know, not to only meet this or that group you also need to, to speak more to academics or NGOs or whatever. So I could also please. Yeah, you need to give me the opportunity, because you can see that I'm a poor lonely, lonely academic and you two are beautiful brilliant politicians, because that's like the art of misdirection because of course you know that I didn't say you shouldn't believe I mean so far from me the idea that you shouldn't have these intimate meetings with your constituents, or Daniel that you shouldn't meet up secretly you know opponents that would risk their life. And I think you both know that this is not what I said, of course, and you should, you know, meet with all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances. I think that and moreover I was trying to, to, to explain the view the position I heard judge class said so I'm not even speaking myself, I am actually quoting a very respected Belgian judge. The understanding is that he starts from the fact that the annual lobbying budget annual by lobbying budget is 5 million in Europe in the of the big, big companies from the chemical in chemical industry pharmaceutical industry etc. And that they have a huge firing power next to them the lonely pure little NGO CSO is you know individuals trying to meet you there. They're nothing now you're you two are you know absolutely pure and hence clean and not corrupt that's not the question. But we do know that they, they spent a lot of money, including in the European Parliament. It's those that do spend a lot of money in various ways it's not you, it's not usually in bags of cash as we've seen yes but they're all sorts of ways. Why shouldn't that specifically be transparent after all if they have interesting things to say about how big farmer has become totally green. And why can't they say it in public. So, again, I am really targeting specific types of lobbies, not your average constituent or people who need to be protected. I think we need to be very clear about this I'm sure this is not going to be our whole conversation Barry but I did want to make that So, as much as I wish it was and I already I'm brimming with questions for the three of you so let's hopefully do this again at some point, but we have a bit of time left and you're all busy people so if I was the questions and the following themes misinformation corruption the EU and the Member States and the Belt and Road Initiative I want to get through each of those there's more. But I think we'd be lucky if we get through those four topics so starting with a question from Derek Mooney, which I'll read out for the audience. Derek, thank you for being with us. The question goes, how do we address deliberate misinformation by member state governments. Visit Budapest and you'll find countless government funded posters and billboards, falsely claiming that 93% oppose Russian sanctions, blaming Brussels for forcing these sanctions and propagating a blatant untruth so the standard tension between Brussels and the member states. Do any of you want to take that one. Something about that. I mean the media situation in Hungary is really dire, you go outside of Budapest you will not find a newspaper radio or TV channel that is basically not controlled by by Victor Orban. Additionally, he uses his control of the media to spread an enormous amounts of lies and actually on anything concerning Russia and Ukraine it's basically pretty much Russia today in Hungarian that that is being broadcast. What, what can we do about that. So, so one thing is obviously that we can, you know, use you funds to support independent journalism in Hungary doing a little bit of that I think we could be doing much more. I actually think, you know, we have public media in pretty much every member state. I've been wondering for a while, why isn't there European public media, you know, the same way, whatever that the BBC in the UK and ID and set the F in Germany and whatever France television in France. You know, why, why aren't we funding quality journalism with a European perspective because it's something different whether you report, you know, in your German context or your Irish context. You know, going looking at at Europe and European problems with the European lens, I think would be would be a big improvement to European democracy so so I'm quite in favor of that but you know needs the majorities it needs the funding. I'm currently working on something called the media freedom act. So a law that has been proposed by the European Commission to ensure that there is more media pluralism and media freedom and better protection of independent journalism in the member states. You know the negotiations here in the parliament are just starting, I fear that the law doesn't go far enough to break up. So I'm not going to call the almost full control of the media landscape in Hungary, but it is, you know, improving some things in the in the right direction. One problem we and you see it with the media freedom act that we often have in Europe is when you're suggesting sort of European oversight, there is immediately a number of member states that will say no but we have no problem in our country now submit German public television to European oversight or something. And, you know, it is sometimes a challenge when you're making the same rules that that should apply to everyone but the situation in the member states being vastly different. And sometimes then they feel like, you know, if you're trying to address a problem that is, you know, very much so in a small number of member states but not in the others, doing legislation in a way, you know that we eliminate the problem but don't cause too much collateral can can sometimes be a challenge. The next question I want to put directly to clip so so not everybody has to respond to every question but I want to invite Billy with a chance to speak to the question regarding this information if you want. So I think you muted me. I'll move on sound. Yeah, I got the gesture thanks very much Billy. We've all mentioned or sorry you've all mentioned directly and directly the target scandal and from observing it as an interest to party. I wasn't terribly surprised to learn that this sort of that these sorts of things happen and these sorts of habits exist, but I'm going to pass the EP's response and I wanted to give Calypso the chance first of all, can you speak at all to how the European Parliament the European Union large has responded to that scandal you think it's robust enough has identified major weaknesses in the system. I mean as I mentioned earlier, I think that the Parliament has been jolted into action and Daniel spoke to this. It has put in place a number of safeguards and, but I think it's fair to say and I hear I speak really under Daniel's kind of oversight is that they're still working on it. It would be a bit unfair to judge now. I think there are people worried. I mentioned my colleague from the good lobby, you know, who, you know, feels that it's not going far enough. I have spoken with the ombudsman and I know that in her office. I mean I know they're hoping for more power on transparency. They're hoping overall for more transparency Billy was speaking to the importance of transparency. At this stage, there is movement in the right direction but I think there is a lot of CSOs and in particular on tender hooks to see how far we're going to go here. Billy Daniel anything on specifically to target and Daniel you're very interested in this given your Ram, your chairing of the cross party working group against corruption to get the title. Would you like to say anything about guitar gate I'll give Daniel and Billy. I think, I mean, we have a number of commitments so far. But the the actual work the actual changing of rules the renegotiating agreements with Commission and Council, when it comes for example to the lobby register. So it seems that there has been since December shift in in the political will definitely in the parliament. How much that's the case in the other institutions still remains to be seen and the actual changing of rules for the most part is still ahead of us. I'm confident that we'll manage some stuff, but we have also seen in the past unfortunately that you know when the public attention goes away with time distance to the scandal. You know, then, then the concerns are more prominent and then all of a sudden people start start saying, you know, but do we really need to do this and that. And so, so we'll see the thing that gives me hope is, well, we have a European election coming up. And we know from the past, you know, the chances for getting more transparency through ahead of European elections is it usually goes up. Billy do you have a sense do you feel hopeful as Daniel does in the aftermath of the guitar scandal. Yeah, but I certainly believe now there is an acceptance in European Parliament what we need now is to get across the major European institutions that transparency and just opens the accountability become part of everyday political discourse and interaction. And it goes back to like, so for example that there is a lobbying register that you know you identify groups and organizations that you meet. I can't say what the eclipse was saying is what about individuals, you know that we should be entitled to meet them and cannot be, but like large organizations like this should be a register but at the end of the day. Let's be very honest. At the end of the day, if a person decides to accept a suitcase of bank notes. What we must do is in the event of it being discovered is that there is harsh sanction. We can't just push it under the carpet and say well look and move on and hope that people forget about it. There has to be harsh sanction. And of course, we have a difficulty in politics, a political chambers a political chamber it's not a tribunal or a court so can't convict people. We can politically condemn people, but there has to be legislation in place for politicians as well, so that when they are politically condemned, there is also equally a criminal investigation, and there's criminal sanction. So like that. So like the idea that politicians can be criminal can be politically condemned and then we all move on. That's not good enough that has to be criminal sanction as well. I think one thing I'd like to add since we have a mostly Irish audience. I would assume, you know, if the European Union could already follow the Irish example, you know we have seen in the past, you know, I mean you guys have done a lot of things with the introduction of the Irish lobby register the creation of the ethics commissioner. Also the rules that have been introduced to protect whistleblowers and island. I mean, there has been a consistent work over many years where, you know, I think partly also with the loss of that that you have seen following the financial crisis. There was a political will to change laws and to introduce new rules that if the European Union would just come up to to to the Irish standard so to speak that that would be a huge leap forward. I think for for transparency and integrity in the EU institutions. Julie noted and really interested to hear that analysis. I'm going to loop two questions together just in the interest of time. The first one is from John O'Hagan from Trinity College Dublin Hello John thanks for being here. I'll try and abridge as I go, will it ever be possible to eject from the EU in extreme circumstances and member state for serious and unambiguous changes of democratic principles such as for example, as now the case in a country you've mentioned already over the course of this call, Hungary, if not could the veto rule be relaxed in relation to any decision about reprimanding. I'm going to also just loop a similar question it's similar but different it comes from Andrea. Thanks for being here Andrea. I was wondering if the EP intends to continue the frozen funds plan for additional European Union countries and at what point will the EU get involved in a country's corruption. Big questions, and I see Daniel has unmuted so I'll invite Daniel and then then Calypso if you wish and then Billy. So, I mean, it's legally impossible at the moment to kick a country out countries can like the UK has done decide freely to leave but they cannot be ejected from the Union and I actually think, you know if I look at hungry. It would be a good idea to kick them out and wouldn't actually solve the problem. First of all, you would, you know, punish at least half of of Hungarians that haven't voted for for Orban, and that would suffer the consequences and also, you know, the moment that doesn't fix the corruption. It doesn't fix, you know that hungry is no longer a democracy. So I prefer, you know, putting all the pressure that we can on them to return on the path of democracy and rule of law rather than in a way what might seem like the easy solution out and then we don't have to deal with it. We have seen in the past, you know what dictators in our immediate neighborhood are doing, you know, Putin being the worst example but even if you look at someone like Lukashenko who with a plane and two puts the whole European Union in disarray because he's transporting Iraqi refugees to the Polish-Belorussian border. Orban would be just like that and go on our nerves even if he wouldn't be in the Union. I think the second example or this second proposal that's there is something that we really need to go after. Orban has been using the veto like no one else. In our study just yesterday, there have been in the past six years, there have been 22 uses or threats of veto among the governments. 17 of those 22 is Orban. Every time we do Russia sanctions, you know, financial aid to Ukraine, even the global tax deal, now the NATO membership is being blocked by Orban because he wants his money. And I think, you know, we need to take it away from him. We should abolish the veto power. I think, you know, we should decide with large majorities but with majorities and not allow a single country to block us or blackmail us in the future. Thanks, Daniel. As ever, Kalypso, I'll invite you to remark if you wish, but there's never pressure. Yeah, I'm very much in phase with what Daniel just said. He and I've had this conversation. I think when it comes to the Hungarians and the Polans, you know, this world, at least for the moment, we should at least have veto minus one or veto minus two. So we don't have unanimity. We don't need unanimity. That's for sure. I completely agree. They shouldn't be able to, you know, be judge and party and it's like in the UN Security Council when Russia vetoes. You know, we're in deep problems with that. On the other hand, we need to be careful because the veto for the areas where it remains, which is really not, you know, it's mainly foreign policy. I mean, most areas of EU action are qualified majority voting. Taxes, budget. Sorry. Taxes, budget. Yeah, taxes. Money. No, you're right. Money and foreign policy, more money and life and death now. You know, I mean, I've ever seen, I've always been a kind of a big defender of small and medium sized country. I will always remember the convention in 21. The convention in one three, where we had a, I was chairing a group of small countries with Greece and others Belgium, and all of the smaller countries in the EU and they really, really care about the small levers of power that they still have that, you know, big countries, they have a veto anyway, even if it's QMV, do you ever see big stuff going against France or Germany. No, not important things. And so the smaller countries, all they have is this veto. So I think if we have veto minus one or minus two, it's okay for them if you suddenly put everything in QMV, and you could go against the interest of a Belgium or Malta or Lithuania, you know, then maybe that's a problem. We need to think really, really hard about this, because you know philosophically European democracy is also about the fact that we built an amazing construct where small and medium sized country have disproportionate power compared to their size. So that's, you know, against the hegemony of big states. This is what plagued Europe in the 18th, 19th century big states controlling everyone invading everyone in Europe. So I think there is a beauty to the power of the margins and the most vulnerable states here that we shouldn't forget. And this doesn't mean I am close to any discussions on the veto. Just think we need to see the full picture. Billy, as an MEP from a small member state, I wonder if you'd nuance anything of what's been said. Yeah, well, certainly I think in existential crisis, you know, there has to be some way of addressing, you know, an entire continent being held hostage by one country. So the veto minus one or minus two in terms of the issues that we're discussing, whereby you're actually debating an issue around the country, but you can because the country is a veto on that particular issue of such importance, should we say, an issue of foreign policy, the very survival of the European Union itself. But I think in general, I have defended the principle of small countries having at the end of the day, a veto as Calypso said, like, you will never see a situation in the European Parliament or probably in the consulate where Germany or France will be completely isolated and so on, because it just doesn't happen, they have the numbers, and they have the influence. So I just think I think very long and hard and I've always resisted going to article 116 and areas of taxation, for example, you know, subterfuge ways whereby the commissioner trying to work around the treaties to start discussing taxation through the state aid measures, for example. And that is just fraying away at the spirit and the integrity of what the European Union is about, which is equality among the entirety of member states based on small, medium, size and large. So I will be reluctant, I think it would really, really threaten the concept that is there now. It's like, look, the European Union is working now let's be very clear, I mean, we all have our views on what I could do more or less, or whether we should federalize it or stay as it is, or reverse back to more powers to national governments, but in general European Union has gone through a financial crisis since 2008. It has gone through the Brexit crisis. It went through the COVID crisis. It is now facing a security issue, a humanitarian issue, and it has dealt with it fairly well. You know, overall it has dealt with it fairly well. So I don't think we want to be overly harsh on the construct of Europe, but on the issue of expulsion of members, I will be very reluctant, genuinely reluctant, because for every country you know you could point the finger at a democratic election in that country can very quickly change direction of that country. So in other words, like we had made the concerns about Italy, for example, for a period of time, it was easily going to go very right wing. Maloney got elected. But you know today, you can argue that she's moved to the center ground and has expressed views that are compatible with most member states in the European Union. So I would be very, very, very, you know, it could be an election away from reversing its policies and being anti-European, being pro-Russian, and undermining the social cohesion of Europe. So I would be very reluctant to have that sort of, you know, two strikes and you're out, you know, you elect a bad government twice in a row that are anti-European and goodbye Hungary, goodbye Poland. You're saying goodbye to citizens. You know, governments call and go, we must hang on to our citizens at the very least. I like even you take Brexit, which was a benign way of leaving, they voted democratically, but there was 50% of them didn't want to go or 39% didn't want to go. So I would be very reluctant, I would use every measure. I just come back, I honestly believe that however we work it, we have to get back to independent media and independent judiciary as being a cornerstone. I think it has to be done. Daniel made a very, like you leave Budapest, you go through, I don't know Hungary's intimately as Daniel does, but like if you don't have independent media and independent sources of information that are available to all the public, well then you're always in trouble and always remember one thing, he who pays the printer calls the tune. And we need the printing presses in the hands of the money, not in governments like Oregon, etc. So we need broad based media, independent and free. Thanks many Billy colleagues. I know you're extremely busy. There are further questions I would love to get to something from Professor Gavin Bart from our colleagues at the ESRI and also Derry Fitz, a former Brigadier General at the Irish Defense Forces, but I'm afraid I think we're out of time and I'm going to have to just pass these questions on to you all by email, but I've really, really enjoyed this discussion I hope it's going to be the first of many and do remember as I said at the outset. There's two more in this series that we're organizing with colleagues at the EP office in Dublin, everything you're talking about democratic resilience and money and funding applies to think tanks and universities as much as it does to yourselves and politics so we've been listening very carefully to your marks as well. And do any of you want just a moment to say anything burning it's always a bit more challenging trying to manage a panel of people so Daniel or Calypso do you want to say anything before we wrap up. I want to say Barry's that you have to promise to have a separate webinar on deliberative democracy and how Europe can be inspired by the Irish example of debate and decision around abortion gay marriage and all of that. Can we think about that transfer together. It can be a keynote speaker at that event clip so and actually a good point on which to end I'll just draw attention to everyone I'm sure you're all on on this anyway but Calypso and colleagues that work at the UI transnational democracy observatory is an incredible resource people interested in these topics so I'm going to go to Google and have a read. Thank you for all of those who've been attendants and for the sorry Billy do you want to say something before wrap up. Thanks just everyone who's been in attendance, especially our speakers Billy Daniel and Calypso and as I said any questions you didn't get to. I'll share with you by email because I think it's always fun to know what questions you may people think about so it's pleasure to be here and looking forward to having you back again.