 You're very welcome to this latest webinar discussion as part of the IIEA's 30th anniversary celebrations. My name is Daniel Bryan and I'm delighted to welcome the heads of three of Europe's leading think tanks to discuss the role of think tanks past, present and particularly future. Before I introduce our lineup this lunchtime, let me briefly run through some housekeeping. We're going to kick off with some opening questions to each speaker who will have five minutes or so to respond. And then we'll go into discussion. We do want to hear from you in the audience and encourage you to submit views and questions in writing through the zoom Q&A function at the bottom of your screen. It's really important that we get to hear from non think tankers who consume think tanks think tank services about what we can do better. We'd also ask you to identify yourself in your organization if applicable and also that you try to keep your questions brief so we can get through as many as possible. A reminder that the discussion today is fully on the record. You can also get involved in the discussion on Twitter and we encourage you to use the hashtag IIEA 30. Let me turn to our speakers in alphabetical order. Rosa Balfour is director of Carnegie Europe her fields of expertise include European politics EU institutions and foreign and security policy. Prior to joining Carnegie she was senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and also served as director of the Europe in the world program at the European Policy Center in Brussels. Our current research focuses on the relationship between domestic politics and Europe's global role. Robin Nibblett is director and chief executive of Chatham House in London a position he has held since January 2007. He is currently co-chair of the World Economic Forum Global Futures Council on geopolitics, and he previously served as chair of the experts group for the 2014 NATO summit and chair of the British Academy steering committees of languages for security project 2013. Before joining Chatham House from 2001 to 2006 Robin was the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Washington based Center for strategic and international studies. Robin is director of the Institute of international affairs in Rome, an honorary professor of the University of Tobingen. She is a special advisor to the high representative and vice president of the European Commission. She previously served as special advisor to the same role is when Federico Mogherini held that role. She wrote the European Global Strategy and worked on its implementation. Previously she held positions at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, the Transatlantic Academy of Washington and the Robert Schumann Center for Advanced Studies in Florence. You're all very welcome and thanks for taking the time to join us. Let me also kick off the questions in alphabetical order and start Rosa if I may with you. You've written on the road think tanks in an age of anti expertise and you said that this backlash against experts has happened at a time when the world's in most in need of those experts. What do you think explains this anti expert view and do you think it last or are there any signs that is changing. Thank you very much Dan for your question. Thank you also for inviting me here. I have to say I wrote that paper back in 2017 and that was in the wake of Brexit and Trump's election where we saw lies and so called alternative facts as the as Trump's spokesperson said, dominates the public debate so it led me to a bit of a crisis as to what was our role as think tankers and had we failed in our key jobs in our key mission with respect to society. I think I mean the many reasons for which the this anti expertise backlash has come to be. I actually think we're at the moment we're going through a phase in which expertise has all of a sudden been reevaluated because of coronavirus all of a sudden we've become very resistant in pandemics viruses and statistics, etc. And so I think there's been a re, you know, a reevaluation of the role of expertise, but I think the general problem and the general statement that I made in that paper still valid and the two points that need to be made is that we live in a world of increasing complexity. And the second is that we're living in a world of, of the poor political leadership now these are they sound like platitudes and let me just expand a little bit. The complexity of the world is because of globalization because of new trends. These trends are cutting across policy areas. They're cutting across boundaries. So just to give an example, you know, addressing devising policies to fight the climate crisis is about agriculture and food as much as it is about energy. Climate problems don't stop at boundaries they cross cross, they cut across them. Addressing them requires multi level interventions from the local to the international. And indeed, global governance has become more complex because of this. And they also require solutions that have a timeframe that is longer than politics. The big challenges today require intergenerational solutions and policies. And while this world is becoming more complex and of course add to that the rise of technology, the politics have also been transforming themselves in a way which I would argue is not conducive to addressing complexity. We all know about the end of ideology with the end of the Cold War. And we've seen in recent years, very volatile politics in most countries in most advanced democracies not all but in most advanced democracies, electoral cycles have become much shorter. Politicians horizons are very, very short term and traditional politics who are increasingly challenged by new actors, including populist actors that adopt anti expertise language. They are increasingly challenging traditional politics. So with this and with the lack of loss of trust with the rise of populism and with these short electoral cycles and a political class which is really focused on getting through the next next electoral cycle. This context is not very conducive to designing policies that address the complexity of planetary challenges. I think this is the context in which alternative facts came to came to play a bigger role. And this is where, at least in my reflection, people like us who have been and the three of us have actually spent most of our professional lives in think tanks, we need to think about what our role is. I do think some of us have perhaps been a little complacent about our role have enjoyed living or getting mingling in this environment of policymakers and perhaps have not taken the step back to look at what our role is what how our expertise can be a value. And, and, and this is, you know, I just like to make a few statements on this, precisely because of these two challenges, short politics, long challenges, long issues on problems, think tanks alongside research institutions and academic institutions, universities, agents, technical agencies, I mean, we're not alone in this really need to decode the complexity and, and present analysis and facts in ways that are capable of identifying policy solutions, ways that are capable to speak to politics and identify paths, paths forwards which are realistic, but also creative. And, and, and they can bridge this gap between the short term ism of politics, which I think will be hard to be bridged through politics itself. But also, between so the gap between this short term ism of politics and the long term ism of the some of the challenges that need to be addressed. And to do so, there are several things that we need to focus on integrity, independent quality of research, and I think a critical relationship with power, and perhaps that's where think tanks have not always been connected to their, to their mission. We step in the circles of power, we play roles, advising. We rely on the, on these relationships also to have information. But when is it that we can step out of the bubble and look at things separately, when is it that we can, that we can take an outsider view as to what the challenges are. And the reasons for which think tanks don't enjoy much trust or much credibility is precisely because they're seen as part and parcel of the elite. And it's important. I don't think we are part and parcel of the elite, but it's important to be, to be true to one's mission and ensure that even from an outside perspective, we do not appear to be part and parcel of that elite. So it's very important to find that balance which as I said is based on professionalism, integrity, and awareness of what our mission is. I'll leave it there for now and then perhaps we can say more later. One of the videos involved in the media and has written columns for many years, it was a balance to be struck that, you know, in the media, you can be more direct and critical of power. And that's, that's the role of the media, but think tanks, we're not into kind of gotcha moments with politicians, it's more to tease out information. There's really that bigger problem there the media does its thing and scrutinizes politicians and think tanks have a more, let's say a less confrontational role. And sometimes I know that can appear to be a little too cozy with politicians. But is that not really the role of a think tank to, to have that less confrontational role with policymakers and politicians. So you're asking me, yes, yeah, I don't think we need to have a less confrontational role. There needs to be a conversation, but we are looking at things differently compared to the politician. And that's where the professionalism, the research methodologies, the clarity of methodology, the ability to dig in deeper into issues and I think crucially think tanks can think tanks can bring to the conversation different types of general knowledge with specialist knowledge, which politicians are never going to have. So these, you know, we bring to the conversation a different set of skills and a different perspective. And it is, as I said a conversation rather than holding to account politics, which is the role of the media, but let's not forget that the media to has been going through a long period of crisis. Often these roles are conflated often these roles are not clear to to a broader public. Which is why I think it's important to make statements about what our mission is and what our role is, and pursue it through our work. Robin just picking up on that point you've raised the question of whether think tanks should be set themselves up as completely objective sources of information or analysis, or have a set of values that they want to to be focused and are maybe take a slightly partisan or perhaps the wrong word but take a particular position on something. Do you have a view on that have your thoughts evolved on that. Thanks very much Dan and pleasure to be here with Rosa and Natalie and to be celebrating with all of you. This is my EA's 30th anniversary fantastic achievement. Think tanks don't survive just by some sort of dinner right. I think we've all got to earn our presence so great to be celebrating this moment with you. And great that you're having this conversation about our ecosystem in our world and I was very struck by a number of roses comments which I thought were very pertinent to the debate today to to your question to me. Well, as most things is not either or. And like Rosie I wrote a piece about the future think tanks I think it was at the tail end of 2018 heading up to our own centenary anniversary last year. And I really talked about Western think tanks because I think you do have to draw some distinction between institutes around the world and the political ecosystems in which they live and work and we all do reflect in various different ways our political ecosystems. Undoubtedly there is a key role for us to play providing objective long term analysis, understanding explaining complexity looking over the horizon all of the points that Rosa quite correctly raised and she noted I think those skills. And that role that we can play is all more important today in a much more polarized society and we media, the financial pressures as much as anything is getting pulled into that debate. And the gotcha moments that you described Dan are often part of making sure that you'll be noticed. And so, sometimes, I think as think tanks, we need to have in mind the constructive solution, and having constructive if critical relationships with policy communities is an important balance to strike. I do think, however, and this is the point I made in the article I did for international affairs is that it is important as we look to the future that we don't simply hide behind the mantle of analysis that are exclusive to the role is to be sources of objective analysis we are all involved, all of us to the best of my knowledge certainly in the West, in providing policy solutions. We use the platform of the analysis to be able to come up with those ideas that are a bit longer term that are maybe not trapped by political bias that take complexity into account. So that's our role. We need to make sure that policy communities governments and others hear us. And if you're simply out there criticizing every step and that's the extent of your contribution. Eventually people switch off. So, there is an element to which we're already in the mix I suppose on the policy side. I'm not at least at least putting forward ideas, but your question goes one step beyond that and I thought I should as well which is, do we stand for something. Not necessarily promote and I'll explain that it was been promoting and standing in my mind in a minute. But I think it is important that we in think tanks and liberal democracies I'll take out the word Western because it's not just him. The Euro Atlantic Western that liberal democratic institutions and political systems exist. In that bigger context, we do stand for certain things. And I think, interestingly enough, there is as close as I've seen in the post Cold War period, the emergence of an ideological stand off right now between those governments that give the role of the state, and see citizens as an essence, delivering to the sovereignty collectively of that state, and that there are collective outcomes that government is responsible for delivering. And the citizens then benefit from, but it's a subservient relationship in essence for the citizens to the state to the systems that I've been brought up in I think all of us have been brought up in that we exist in liberal democracies, where governments serve the people and serve the citizens. And of course you want them to be good you want to be professional, but ultimately you want to be able to chuck them out and change them when you need to, and hold them to account. And I think that think tanks in liberal democracies are three institutions are for three represent on the battle and you are all part of that community. In the sense that we live in societies where we believe in the importance of the separation of powers. However, that might be designed and designed very differently in different political systems. We believe in the rule of law, and the rule of law is only possible if you've got separation of powers. Otherwise you end up with a rule by law if it's all part of the same structure. I think we believe very much in strong civil societies in openness over secrecy. A competitive media independent is always a complex term depending on how they're funded, but certainly a competitive media that is not controlled by the state. I think that we live in those systems, I believe, and I think history has shown certainly to date that societies that live under those principles and operate on those principles are able to deliver better outcomes for their citizens over the long term, and in a sustainable way and I have those two terms very importantly, because a lot of people will say well China's doing very well what's the problem there. We have in essence citizens having given control should we say to the state, and China seems to be doing well I would simply say, I will judge any country once they're through the middle income track. And we will see how that particular system of government copes. But I think for those in liberal democracies which have tended to achieve levels of economic opportunity for the bulk of their citizens that is better than others. Clearly, we are grappling now with the inequities built up over the last 20 years, and our democratic systems are fighting out the solution is a messy contested period, but I was still rather sit in the space where that is contested. And we are part of the contest and I think this is that my last point on this is that as think tanks we are civil society. Our voices and the credibility of our voices depend on the existence of separation of powers, the rule of law, openness over secrecy otherwise in a way we're not think tanks were simply vehicles for either government positions or the positions of other groups and we're not autonomous or independent whatever you want to give. So I suppose I wanted to make a call struck me as one that we went through mentally at Chatham House as we talked about it, that it's not simply about being providing objective analysis. If you're in the space also of using that platform for providing ideas for solutions, somewhere in that solution set is the governance structure under which those solutions are provided. And we do by very dent of being autonomous independent institutions stand for societies that allow space for institutions like ours to exist and offer those ideas and offer them critically and be critical about governments if we think they're not going the right way. As Rosa said that's part of our role. We need to keep the space to do that when you can only do it within societies where that role is not only appreciated but protected and nurtured. Okay, I don't think in this while finish our job is necessary to advocate. I believe it's best it suits our system, clearly other countries and other parts of the world have different political systems that think tanks after operating different ways. Again, we could use China's as the classic example in that space. At the very least what we should be doing is contributing to the role that is very much. I think on the agenda of a number of liberal democratic governments today I include the Biden administration and, and European governments and others in protecting what we've got. So we may not need to promote these values to others because they may be going through their own journeys and they may or may not get to where we are or want to get to where we are. At the very least, I believe we need to play a very strong role in not allowing the rights that we benefit from as institutions to be taken away by corrupt or overly centralized forms of more authoritarian government, which is definitely one of the challenges of the day so I believe this is a really important set of principles to stand for today and I think it's our role to do so. Well, Robin, how do you engage with those. Am I on muted yet. No, I can hear you. How do you engage with those regimes that don't share those liberal democratic values specifically as a think tank. You know we've had multiple Chinese speakers. We recently had the Hungarian Justice Minister for which we came in for some criticism. But in terms as a think tank, where is the line about platforming deep platforming who do you say is a legitimate speaker and not a legitimate speaker. Very, very important question we've been going through maybe like you similar conversations, at least over the last year or two on these precise questions and we have a policy principles of independent research and convening which we constantly keep an eye on to try to make sure that we're living by the values but playing our role and this is how I distinguish it you talked about speakers. I think as policy institutions we have a really important role in promoting open debate, hearing all views. One of our founders talked about the importance of mutual understanding being at the core of the role of Chatham House and other institutions, like the ones represented on this call. And therefore, I would have a very high bar on the platforming. You know, I got a Holocaust denial I mean you can take your pick there are there are spaces within which we are not going to provide a platform at Chatham House, even for debate, because it will be manipulated and used, but it is a very high bar. I think in general our role is to promote debate, even with governments that we may disagree with disagree with their policies and disagree with their systems of governance and a government. But part of our job is to bring different perspectives together to debate for them to understand our standpoint for us to hear theirs. So, ideally, be part of progress if I can use that term, certainly avoiding conflict through misunderstanding, but also allowing constructive debate challenge we never. I'm sure like all of you we never allow people to come and just give speeches you have to take questions, and those questions are not chosen, you see what I'm saying beforehand so if you're going to provide that space for debate and those speakers. There has to be challenge if it's public and it should be frank if it's private, but we're not into saying particular countries can't have people come over and I remember hosting the Hungarian foreign minister myself to three years ago and and we had a very intense debate and it was good. And I heard some things I hadn't heard before. And hopefully we shared some views that maybe he had. However, there is a line between debate discussion and analysis. And that is just because you host debates that are inclusive and that are giving the opportunity for people to know what's going on. Does not mean you then pull your punches in your analysis or in your recommendations. And if what you advocate or what you promote in your analysis, or even the analysis you undertake leads to then speakers and not choosing to come, it will lead perhaps to your scholars not being able to visit particular countries, or means you lose funding or whatever, then my view would be so be it that's where you have to draw the line. Again I talked about standing, if our point is independence of thought, where part of civil society, open service secrecy, all of those elements, as long as you stand true to those principles, you can have an engaged inclusive conversation, but not compromise the principles at the same time. Thanks, Robin. Natalie very much continuing that line. I'm talking about specifically one country that the rising superpower China earlier this year. Many people in or number of people in the research field in Europe were sanctioned by the regime in Beijing. Maybe share some thoughts on how significant that a moment that was what it means for research in Europe on China, what it means for how we analyze the relationship between Europe and China. To start off by saying that I think that particular incident highlighted some of the broader points that we've been discussing up until now. I mean, that particular incident. It was a sudden positioned us as think tanks as being not simply sort of outside observers of the way in which the international system is evolving, but as actors within it. And, and being actors within it comes with all sorts of rights as well as responsibilities. I think in that particular instance, you know what what we did in terms of responsibility is actually rally around. You know that there was a group of think tanks that got together to express its positions and it's kind of opposition to what China was was doing. And, you know, it was one of the very rare occasions in which we did so, not simply because you know, often it happens to think tanks, get together on particular calls on particular subjects. But this was not about something else happening outside it was something happening to us and if it happens to one of us it happens to all of us. I think it was an important sort of assumption of responsibility of who we are in the system, and, and therefore sort of cognizant of the fact that, given that we are actors in the system, I mean this kind of goes back to some of the points that, Robin and Rosa were mentioning. I think it's important to us to reflect more about, you know, who we are and what is it that we can do what is it that we can't. And I think the distinction that Robin was making between sort of standing and promoting was was a crucially important distinction. And I think that what we can do in this matter is that as think tanks, we cannot exist. I mean, given what we meet what we mean by think tanks. We cannot exist in a system that does not provide for certain rights for rule of law for separation of powers. And our very identity I mean beyond what we may think about, you know the Middle East as opposed to China as opposed to, you know, anything you know climate. The point is, what are the preconditions that political preconditions and the sort of value based preconditions that simply enable us to exist. Let me see that those principles are being attacked, as was in particular the case over, over this incident but you know I mean that this was coming from outside in countries like, you know, given that we've been citing hungry hungry. The facts are coming from inside, and actually one could argue the extent to which this external repression is actually also connected and a quote unquote source of inspiration for internal forms of repression within liberal democratic countries between these things, not in terms of a direct connection and I'm not arguing here that whatever China tells kind of hungry what to do vis-à-vis its think tanks but in terms of representing a model of government basically is quote unquote inspiration to autocrats in our own liberal democratic systems. So I think it's important for us as think tanks to sort of sit back and reflect about what is it that this moment is actually teaching us. And I think, basically it seems to me that we've been moving through to possibly now three different stages. So, you know, once upon a time, we lived in the world of me to go back to some of the words that Robin was was mentioning a promotion. We lived in our nice, wonderful international liberal order, in which, indeed, you know, as think tanks, we didn't necessarily I mean in fact it's not our role to promote, you know, promote in the advocacy sense of the term. We didn't say policy solutions but indeed we more broadly promoted. I mean we were part of that soft power, in a sense apparatus that liberal democratic countries basically had and used. to be about in a sense spreading those those norms those values externally. We then went through a phase where I think you know sort of Rosa and Robin's contributions, I mean their written contributions were really embedded in in a phase in which you know there was this crude awakening to the fact that, hey, you know we used to think that these values were not questioned yes there was a questioning of different policy solutions, and that was the space within which we debated and provided expertise and I mean that was kind of a sense kind of working within the confines the value based confines that no one really question no one question that democracy is a good thing no question for human rights and international or kind of good things. And you know we have different ideas as I said you know what to do about different policy questions, but within that same that same mental space if you like. There was this kind of rude awakening to the fact that hey you know what we thought was unquestioned actually started being questioned. And that was the stage in which we entered into this phase of protection as Robin was was was mentioning, which initially in our come to China, which initially was really articulated as as and I think it still is to a large extent as a threat from within. It was the kind of you know the rude awakening with Brexit, and then and Trump and, you know, salvi me and it was the sort of rise of nationalist populism within the West if you like, that all of a sudden for us if you like as think tanks in a completely different condition than the one that we were in basically pretty much, you know, for the duration of our existence. Because even if obviously you know we've gone through, you know, various stages of change in the international system and in particular, if you like, Cold War and post Cold War. But we always lived within that space in which those values were not question all of a sudden the question was coming, it was coming from within. So we started as big tanks also engaging far more actively in different kind of activities all of a sudden it was not only about writing policy payments and providing policy advice. It was this huge investment in communication in education. It all becomes sort of, you know, far more media savvy than we were. All our institutes invest a lot in, you know, social media. And why do we do this we do it because in our own this way and of course, you know, then the question is to what extent through these efforts do we really reach out to those that do have different views. So earlier actually in the, in the questions that there was a question about algorithms and how to kind of, you know, navigate that because it's not just our problem it's everyone's problem so obviously the problems that exist but the point that I'm trying to make here is that all of a sudden it really kind of dates back only whatever not not more than a decade. We started entering into this mental condition saying our longest thing tax is not just the, the promotion. It is as much the protection. And we have to protect because this is what we stand for again using some of Robin's words earlier. I think now and here I come to the, to the China point, we're kind of entering a third phase in which the protection of the promotion actually sort of come come together. So yes, there is this this question about the threat from within, but yes indeed we're increasingly cognizant of the fact that there is a threat coming from outside. I mean there are, I mean, in the way in which the international system is crystallizing and without wanting to sort of, you know, be too simplistic here in a sense a bit alabite of democracies versus autocracies, but it is true that there is something about the threat and obviously there is a big fat gray zone in between, but then part of the competition, quote unquote is that of seeing what can be done to ensure that that great zone, made of the Indians and the turkeys and, and the last of the stories and Poland's of this world, if you like tilt more come back more towards one side or the other. And so I think in, in, in this kind of world, what we will have to learn increasingly how to do as think tanks in a structural way is do the action and the promotion at the same time. And these two things cannot basically exist without without one another. And also do so and here I'll end with the point that that also was making cognizant of the role that we play, I mean this idea of kind of, you know, this, this, the speaking truth to power if you like, argument. And, and, and I don't think there's a silver bullet solution to this because I do think that in many respects, we are part of a certain establishment. And so, you know, the point is, where do you draw that line between what you are, and in a sense you are almost proud of because it is it goes back to this question of values. So there's nothing to be shy about. And in fact, I would say almost you have to be very open about it, because indeed, in the past there was almost less of a need to do so because everyone kind of adhere to those values. Now that those values are challenged, I think that we have to be very open in terms of being explicit about what we stand for. But of course, cognizant of the fact that there is a potential trap there. I mean, which is why I think that the way to navigate this, I mean the trap meaning in a sense ending up in kind of just speaking to you know to ourselves and, you know, sort of group think and you know all of the, you know, and then the algorithms because obviously they also concern us as much as they concern others. And so I think that the only way to navigate it impossible as it is, is sticking to the last point that Robin was making. So the idea of being open to debate from everyone I mean so long as obviously everyone excludes those that obviously advocate, I think violence in every shape or form. But as Robin was saying, you know that that bar is provided that bar and that bar security high bar is is met everything below there. But it is something that we have to be open to because it is the only way that we ourselves avoid to the extent possible as I said one room being aware and cognizant of what we stand for, but also aware that our convictions are not shared by others and we have to listen to those that don't share those convictions, not necessarily because we have to change our mind, but because even that is an integral element of what it is that we are because we are also for pluralism. I mean that is another sort of basic an underlying principles that we stand for so, you know, as open as possible to debate, but at the same time, very much and increasingly aware of who we are in there for what we stand for. I'm beginning to think that maybe a panel of people who are involved think tanks before 1989 might be an interesting idea and I'm guessing that nobody here was none of the panelists today was working for a think tank during the last cold war. I mean, just to follow up with you specifically on China, you know, it's not really possible to have, you know, a debate with anyone close to the Chinese state or anyone who lives in China for fear of, you know, the person is constantly concerned about I would say and the repercussions for that. And from the scholarly position in Italy or in Europe. Can you really call yourself a China expert if you're not sure you'll ever be allowed back into the country or that if you say something that will prevent you getting visas to go to go back. I mean, how much of a difficulty does the China is it is an exceptional case really. How much of a difficulty does that specifically be raised do you have any prospectors from from your own Institute on dealing with. I mean, I would say it's, in a sense, unfortunately it's not that exceptional. I mean, this is a debate that we had internally in the Institute. And with with a completely different case I mean it began with when Julia Jenin was assassinated immediate. And we had, you know, sort of very complicated debate in the Institute, you know, where on the one hand obviously now has a director obviously responsible for the health and safety of researchers. But what do I do do I prevent traveling and the truth is that there is, unfortunately, an increasingly high number of countries I mean this goes to broader discussion about you know backsliding of democracy, etc. But there's an increasingly large number of countries where actually you kind of think twice. I don't quite know you don't quite know it's not just, as I said it's not just China it's, you know, you're not 100% sure that if you go to Turkey, you know, what happens. And of course China is, in a sense is, you know, the sort of the extreme example, not at the moment because, you know, you risk being assassinated but but because indeed I mean at the moment you basically just being section and not being about it. And I think this really puts us as researchers in an extremely difficult condition because as you say on one hand you need to have access to be able to, you know, sort of speak and write in in a slightly deeper way than what for instance it was. So we don't want to end up simply writing and talking about things that we kind of read about sitting comfortably at our, you know, in our deaths. On the other hand obviously want to make sure that we are free and it goes back to this point about about values. And therefore are free to speak and say what we think. And, and thirdly, I would say that the third difficulty lies in the fact that we have relatively little protection, you know, we don't belong to kind of big organizations, you know, we don't, we're not diplomats and we don't, you know, we don't work in international countries, mind you, some some of those people also have problems but you know we don't work for big companies, but you know we are relatively unprotected. And so you know, in a sense, in many respects, if some of these countries do want to pick on someone. If you go back on, you know, to the example of Virginia and Egypt, you know, they pick on a student, they know they pick on a researcher, before they actually end up sort of torturing and assassinating a diplomat for example. So, you know, I don't have, I don't, to be honest, I don't have a solution to the problem because I think that all these three things are aspects that we need to bear in mind, and all of them are equally important some will tilt more towards the exactly what we think someone will tilt more towards the, yes, saying it, but being, you know, sort of trying to avoid sort of unnecessary, you know, while sticking to the, to what one believes being the truth. You know, if you're trying to avoid sort of using if you like, perhaps too many adjectives or I mean do you see what I mean you know you can say things and try and save them in a way which is as as neutral as possible. But that will not necessarily kind of protect you from everything, but then again if one doesn't do that, then there's a little point to doing what, what we do as a profession. So Robin, I, you may have this is a you know a big issue it's not going away you may have some thoughts on it more on that well I just good shift tack a little to some of the questions that are coming in. And three questions have come in around how to communicate naturally as you picked up one was about algorithms in the media and how people have can pick up only the sort of news that validates they're already existing positions. And then my colleague asks, is there a way for think tanks try and get around that to to get different viewpoints and more analytical ideas out there, the papers research publications etc. Robin one of your colleagues in the world today Roxana rellen rellen new, if I'm pronouncing her name correctly, asks communications with the younger generation, what can think tanks do there. Brendan Walsh mentions podcasts again. He asks about how, how, how ideas can be communicated to people. Those expert views to to an audience that sometimes may not be that interested in them thoughts, folks on how you have changed your communications, what you think you can do better. Rosa start with you. And one immediate outcome of the communication pressure is that we write a lot of short pieces. So alongside the long ones we also write some short ones. And I see, I see, you know, an added value and risks as well and for me the solution really is to do both. And you're writing short pieces is that really forces wanted to go to the hard core. What is it that I'm saying, and who am I saying it to. And then you can tweak your argument depending on the audience but obviously if you write writing shorter pieces. If you're contributing also to the, to the media stream through opinion pieces you're actually going out there, putting yourself out in the debate, otherwise, you know, given the number of papers that think tanks produce, you know, very much a small number of people are actually going to read it, read those. The second thing I think it's very important and social media allows this I mean the question really is having a balance a balance between research to footnoted original pieces based on field work based on interviews based on closed door conversations and etc so that you need to have those. But then you also want to reach out to a broader audience so the important thing is to find the balance and I think reaching out to the broader, broader audience. I have certainly at a personal level, try to do. And to do that means, or can mean engaging with different groups of people and NGO community for instance is one which and they have a very different perspective on government policy. I deal with Europe, European foreign policy talk to the non Europeans and how they see European foreign policy that's also very critical and again do talk to different groups and not just to those socialized into the European driven community. I definitely engage with the young younger the younger generations, whenever possible. You know, I try to accept invitations to speak to students not because I want to speak to them but I want to hear their questions, because they have a different perspective, and they, they really push us to challenge some of the assumptions that we take for granted and challenge our bias, you know, we are a certain age of a certain education, we, you know, our friends, and our working community is of a certain kind and we can't deny that. So it's really important to step out of that. So these are the ways I've identified to try and keep me on my toes. And, you know, obviously encourage my colleagues to do similar exercises. And I think that way one learns to speak different languages. If you're going to go on to the BBC or CNN or I did Voice of America the other day, you know, and explaining Europe to Americans is not easy. You need to find a language which will be accessible and you need to understand what it is they're looking for, what it is the interview is looking for, and what it is you need to explain and, and you learn the language with a profession. But then of course when you're communicating to your peer audience and to the policymakers which I think continues to be our prime audience by the way, even, you know, notwithstanding our attempts to reach out and branch out and bring in. But our prime audience remains policy makers. There you need to be sharp, original and bring knowledge that they don't have and perspectives that they don't have. But the two are very interconnected. It's a kind of feedback loop. Absolutely. Just picking up on something you said there Rose on the shorter analysis pieces and think tanks. Robin has been kind of a blurring between high brown media and think tank out push as think tanks have been able to publish directly have needed conventional media less raw beds. Is there are think tanks really becoming a high brow publishers and in some ways niche broadcasters as we've become over the pandemic period, since we've been able to broadcast and, you know, do these events and access multiples of the audience we would traditionally have have got at the, at the I think it's a good point is I think through to covert has been an increasing blurring between, as you noted, media organizations, what they undertake and think tanks I might say on the convening side in London. What is equitable is the extent to which now law firms and consulting firms and all sorts of groups convene and convene the same sort of people as we as institutes convene and often for roundtales that are private or under the Chatham house rule or whatever. And, you know, a lot of the media organizations now run conferences conferences then provide the content the content is then put into the newspaper. There's a lot of blurring that's going on that sense I think some of the think tank short pieces and let's call them news long reads are definitely overlapping. I do find reading our own stuff and that of my sister institutions, calling institutions I find that actually generally we go a little deeper. We just need to source constantly from others, and then pack together, you can have a view from a person. I think one of the strengths of our institutions is we don't write when I speak with chat about I think it's the same Carnegie and I, we don't write, you know, it's not a Carnegie piece or a piece or a piece, it is under the name of the author and that person has to carry the load. And that gives it a certain precision and focus and an angle that you won't always get in what in essence is a piece of reporting. And that distinction between reporting and bringing a whole variety of views together to create a hologram of the situation and one person's insight. I think as an important distinction we got to hold on to it, in addition to what Rosa said about still providing that really sourced detailed analysis and by the way of course, second point that source to detailed analysis a project was done over a year or six months or research over time means that when you come out with your expert comment or your two pager, it is off the back of that deep knowledge it isn't the thing you were sent over to write the article quickly on this issue of that one. There are a lot of journalists who go deep and do investigative and probably know countries better than we know them. But still there's a different audience and a different process and a kind of moving around rather than a specialism, you can get from institutions like ours, just on the wider audiences question and youth if I can just touch that quickly Dan. I think you've got a lot of questions to get through but I did want to say something about this just first of all because I think we ask ourselves a lot I'm sure we all do. Who are our main audiences. What's the point. And if you're trying to change the world and make it a better place I think at some level we're all trying to do that that's why we do the work we do. The original route of being to do it through the policy communities targeted really precise what one of my predecessors which I must call the rifle shot approach. And you go for that moment, where you can get that idea into a source and then it flows through policy beyond that today, of course what you find is a lot of your policy communities that you want to target the rifle shot. They want to hear the brilliant idea they want to know whether your idea has got resonance already in a bigger community they're going to pick it up they want to know it's got legs that it's got this already had a bit of social media interaction or whatever. So ironically it's not just having to do social media and podcast and more media work in order to get to other audiences, we also need to do that to be relevant to our specialist policy audiences. So there's a there's a there's a big push for all these reasons for us and we're all doing it to do a lot more social media and I'm very disappointed to hear that Brendan has not been missing for the chat and mouse podcast, but I'm sure he'll get I think we're all for better and worse, in terms of skill sets and our resources. You know, making a big effort in that area my last point, apart from the fact that we're all, you know, now that our readers and all sorts of online capacity and using, you know, Google support and all sorts of things. I think the last point about young people is they don't just want to receive. We've traditionally been on send. We are experts. So even if we're dressing our expert ease up in prettier clothes or more accessible clothes, we tend to send, you know, and project. A lot of younger audiences these days want to own. They would have agency for what they're hearing, and what they're picking up. And so the question is how do you make that transition. I'm sure we're all doing different things we we've established a thing called the China mouse SNF collab. But the whole point is to create immersive content where others can then follow their own journey inside it run us telling them to go this way or that way. We have a thing of common futures conversation. We set up this dialogue between young people in Africa and Europe. The idea being that you don't tell them what's important. We help host them. We provide them with resources luckily to grant to to be able to do their own surveys and design themselves what they think is important. And then we can curate the conversation and help them then get greater reach and reach out to to more communities. So I suppose that the key point I wanted to make. And this ties a little bit into Roxanne's question to me as well because Roxana's question is about the world today is in a way our vehicle for reaching out to those broader audiences. And we need to now make sure that has the immersive quality as well because people don't just want to read. They want to own. And if we can help them own it and it's let's call it right. Which we think we are then all the better naturally just in in terms of your main audiences. Is it mostly policymakers and just an observation I lived in Italy in the 1990s and views on Europe were very positive both amongst the political elites and at a popular level. Really everyone thought Europe was good over the past 25 years there's been a really astonishing increase in your skepticism at a popular at a popular level in Italy, many of my own friends are now adamantly skeptical about your not in the sense they won't have a very critical of many aspects of the EU in terms of your communication is as an international affairs think tank any any thoughts on why that's happened and the role of elite institutions if I may say such as your own in communicating how Europe works to citizens. Well, I mean, it connects to some of the broader reflections that we were making earlier. I mean, you know, for us as an Institute, founded by Altiero Spinelli, realizing what you just said that was really the wake up call I mean you know all of a sudden obviously we couldn't just be concerned with policy advice, advice to policymakers across different geographies and issue areas, because the politician the policymaker in question, the, if you like, was beginning to stand for I mean going back to the point that I was making, earlier was being to stand for different bands. So it wasn't just the sort of your skepticism that was coming bottom up, it was as much coming top top down I mean you know for us obviously the sort of big trauma was at the time of the government between the media and the five star movement. And that was really, I feel like the major wake up call that made us really kind of realize that indeed our audiences had to change, I mean that's changed they had to enlarge. So, this is why in the sense I think in this kind of brings me to the communication point that I wanted to make. I think one needs to do everything at the same time, you know you need to engage in different for instance social media platforms why or because we know that different social media platforms are used by different age groups. So you can't do Twitter and not do Instagram, you know, you kind of have to do both, because you're talking to just to give an example of you're talking to different audiences which means that you have to talk in a different way. You can't do social media and not do, if you like, traditional if you like, not as a national or international media. And then this is why we become far more active on television, national international radio than we were in the past and we sort of track the way we do it. And of course, do we know how much impact this is having I mean this is always the million dollar question. No we don't know. It's extremely difficult to get a sense of the influence that you actually have. But at the same time, I think that this will surpasses through an element if you like a trial and error so I think that we are all sort of navigating through this phase in which we kind of know what we want to do so we know for instance that we want to reach out to the younger generation. And so sort of Robin was citing and Rosetta was citing some of the initiatives that they're doing. We've launched our AI ties. There is really aimed again at sort of listening to go back to what Rosa was mentioning listening to them more than talking and speaking to them and listening to their ideas and trying to bring them into the conversation we've opened up our membership category of younger members, but obviously, you know, sort of we not not that it costs much to be honest to be a member even if you're a battle, but it costs less if you're under 30. So I mean, in a sense, I don't know so you know which we've obviously you know we've launched our podcast series and we don't know how many of these things are going to work in the long term. What really has traction, what does not, because I think you know where we have all been doing this for relatively little I mean our institutions you're 30 years old. We know we're a little bit older, Chatham House is a bit older than us. But, you know, so given that we're all kind of relatively old we've been doing this communication stuff for, well, 10 years, that's not much. So, inevitably, there's an element of trial and error in all of this. But I think that to the extent that we realize now that it's a fundamental element of what we do that does not and should not detract from the research side which is obviously what our beating heart will always be. To the extent that we manage as we're doing today, kind of exchange thoughts and notes as much as possible because we're all in this kind of, you know, as I said, tried to their face. Then I think, you know, sooner or later, we're going to actually getting get it increasingly right because we're not getting it wrong now but I'm sure we can do increasingly better moving forward. And we're mentioning there Natalie of the reduced fee for younger people. A colleague reminded me to say that we have free membership for younger people. Fantastic, even better. We're going to get that across. Look, we're up, we're past two o'clock. So just to finish on a couple of things. One question came in on Brexit, the role of think tanks, Robin, you have to take that one I think. Rosa, you mentioned the independence at the beginning. There's a question here about the optimal revenue model for think tanks so that they can maximize their independence and have that ensure they have the speak truth to power function. Maybe maybe throw that one to you to conclude, Robin Brexit, Chatham House thoughts on how you've you handled that over the past half decade. Yes, well, painful kept us busy but actually it was the classic example about do you serve as a forum for debate and how do you distinguish that from what you write one of the letters I had to deal with was from a group of quite senior individuals who asked me to task with Chatham House having lost its independence during Brexit and I wrote back making the point that, you know, we hosted Nigel Farage as well as Tony Blair as you know well as Chris Kraling and and Amber Rudd and all sorts of people. You know we'd taken all the views we challenged them. We'd mixed them etc. But I said, you know, when it came to writing and what people wrote people wrote what they believed and they analyze what they analyzed. And the suggestion that was made to me that we should be publishing some positions on the other side. Because otherwise we were not being independent struck me as a complete misunderstanding of what independence about the BBC got accused as I'm sure some of you know this wonderful phrase balance bias. You know when you do a bias bias towards balance some people say that other people say. And our job, you know where it's on climate change or something else isn't to say some people say this and other people say that. Ultimately you, and I think one of the most important roles for Rosa and actually me and others in our position is who we recruit. And you, and then the culture you set within the recruitment and to give people the space to pursue their intellectual knowledge and curiosity, and not be telling them obviously what to write but making sure you're picking people who aren't coming at things from a dynamic standpoint so I would say it was tough, I think there is the big question about. Do we reach out to all communities I think this came up in one of the earlier questions Dan and I thought it was a very interesting point because we keep people. How do you engage I get asked this question how do you engage more people who think differently you know in Chatham House's work and again my thinking is, if it's differently with intellectual curiosity. I'm more for it. But there's no point simply having quotas of people around the table to make up the quota in order to sort of create some type of balanced set of viewpoints. And it reminds me of this discussion I had with a senior British businessman quite a while ago thank goodness that she was a lawyer. And maybe I should be careful how I specify about climate change, and I'd given a talk and this person said at the end in front of others. You know, has Chatham House always been so you know, had such a liberal bias or something like that, and I didn't know what he meant. I wish what he meant by liberal, but we talked about it afterwards and he made the point I'd gone on about climate changes if it was some thing, you know that was already a received wisdom. And as I realized that obviously this person took me to task and they didn't believe that climate change was either happening or man, woman humanity made. What it was it's dawned on me that the analysis couldn't be right, because he did not accept the solution. You know, this is, this is what you have to deal with quite often in our world is that people don't want the answer. So let's look back off not liking the answer into what is a fact or not a fact. If the fact means that the answer is not one you want. And for many people, people wanted sovereignty. And if you want sovereignty, then the facts have to fit that. And that was the problem with Brexit as much and I actually did a chart to show whether you still had sovereignty. And where it decided to pull it or share it where it hadn't and you know this actually was a sovereign act to decide, you know where you didn't didn't do it. That was a choice of sovereignty in itself. But people didn't want the solution. They wanted to take back control, and ultimately, including over immigration and if that was your answer the facts had to fit it so that if I've answered the question but it's been a very, it's a tough thing to go through. I think that the big wake up for me was this, this issue between people not wanting solutions and then refusing the facts. And then you've got to work out, should you really adapt yourself to that. I don't think so I go back to knowing what you stand for and knowing what you, you know, we are experts. Let's be proud of it on our stuff. Let's challenge ourselves question ourselves every minute of the day but but always follow them what we believe is right. I think I'm funding diversity. That's what I'll say on funding. If you want to be independent, you better have diverse sources otherwise it's always risky. Rosa, I'm, I doubt you disagree with that but do you want to elaborate on the funding. I agree 100%. That is the key. There've been quite a few investigations, rumors, issues about funding from governments about funding from the private sector. It's very important that the funding model is diversified. So I think yeah and Chatham House are both membership based for instance it's important that alongside that you also have different sources so that you're not hostage to your members which is a very remote possibility but similarly based in Brussels you know funding from research funding from EU institutions. Yes, it's critical absolutely you know we our lives depend on it because we have three year long research projects with which few other donors provide, but it can't be the only one. It has to be accompanied by a mix of sources and this is I mean this is the part of our jobs which I think probably most of us hate right. But we have to do it means that we have to speak to the private sector, we have to speak to the public sector, we have to speak to foundations, investigate all the possibilities and make sure that the actual model is diversified so that we can't be subject to accusations of being biased of being, you know, paying lip service to certain companies or be confused with lobbying. And again, in Brussels they're quite strict rules on lobbying, and they, they, they write down if you can visit an official your name is logged and then, you know it's open to the public. So, one can easily be accused of lobbying so it's absolutely critical that the diversity that the diversity is in the model and not just on the projects or the area. Thank you look, I think we've, we've were 10 minutes over the hour so I think we might wrap it up there. Before thanking the panelists here today let me just remind people of the final few events we have for this 30th anniversary week. Tomorrow we have the 200 with the finance minister and president of the euro group, along with the chief economist of the European Central Bank then in the afternoon we have both the French foreign minister and your ministry together and finally on Friday we have the chair of the US Congress's and means committee, and that will bring our week to the end to to a conclusion. Let me thank our three panels today for a very open Frank in insightful discussion about the role of think tanks and their own organizations. Certainly those of us on at the Institute have found it useful to share those thoughts and to hope you have to those of you who consume what we think tanks do. My final word to Tony Brown Tony was one of the people who brought about the Institute 30 years ago, along with Brendan Halligan the founder. He mentions that brendan's vision of a think tank was informed by his knowledge of to think tanks. That's yours not only through, as you mentioned out here is been a Lee. Brendan, and out here is been a Lee were members of the European Parliament and Brendan knew him from there. And he's all his other vision of a think tank came through yours, Robin through his contact with William and Helen Wallace who were giants of your organization. So look, thanks to all three of you again, and for everyone who's tuned in. I wish you all a good afternoon. Thank you.