 Ia. I'm going to, without any further ado, give the floor to the Tannisda. A lot of people are very interested in what you have to say about the short, medium and long-term future for Ireland and Europe. Thank you again for being with us. Thank you. It's great to see so many people interested in the future of Europe. I'd like to begin, of course, by thanking Catherine and thanking the IAEA for inviting me to speak today and to you for turning out in such large numbers. And I look forward to taking questions after outlining some thoughts. I've heard that when the Gresham Hotel opened its doors in 1817, it started out as a lodging house for MPs travelling to London. 200 years on, Irish parliamentarians still have occasion to travel to London. But for the past 100 years, we have been doing so as members of our own party. And today, we are as likely to be travelling to Brussels to search other EU capitals as we are to the UK. 2019 will see a new chapter in our relationship with the United Kingdom as we move towards the 29th of March when the UK is due to leave the European Union. Brexit is a major challenge and huge disappointment for us in truth, following 45 years of close cooperation and partnership as fellow EU member states with all of the positivity that that has been. The complexity and scale of that challenge has become all too clear over the course of the two and a half years since the referendum in 2016. It has reminded us just how much our economies and societies are intertwined through our shared EU membership. From economy to trade to education and research, from travel and citizens' rights, through to Northern Ireland and its peace process, the EU has positively impacted on our relationship in virtually every area. It can come as no surprise therefore that we have viewed the impact of Brexit, especially a hard Brexit, with such concern here in Ireland. This is why the withdrawal agreement is of such importance. This agreement followed two years of detailed and complicated negotiations and represents real compromise on both sides. It represents the best way and the only way to ensure an orderly UK withdrawal. The transition period it establishes can play an essential role in providing assurance and certainty to businesses and the public as we prepare for the new relationship with the UK post-Brexit. Importantly, it would give us the time we need to negotiate a deep and comprehensive agreement which would provide the foundations for the future relationship, which I hope would be as close as it possibly can be. So, as you would expect, we watched the House of Commons votes closely last night. We saw the Commons express two preferences by narrow majorities. Firstly, that a no deal Brexit is a void. And secondly, that the backstop somehow be replaced by alternative arrangements. I'd like to say a few words in each of these proposals. Firstly, we welcome and share the UK Parliament's determination to avoid a no deal Brexit. The best way to achieve this, as the Prime Minister has argued since November, is to agree the 585 page withdrawal agreement of the political declaration on the future relationship that has been agreed at governmental level. The withdrawal agreement won't be reopened, but as the EU has continuously said the political declaration on the future relationship can evolve if the UK government wants it to. And if the UK wishes to request an extension of Article 50, the EU 27, including Ireland, are ready to consider that request and decide unanimously on it. The key factors here would be the reasons for any possible extension and the proposed duration of that extension. But as I've said before, Ireland has an open mind about this if it's something the UK chooses and requests. The second wish expressed by the Commons last night by 317 votes in favour to 301 votes against, was to replace the backstop with some type of alternative arrangements, yet to be understood. I should start by saying that the concept of alternative arrangements is not a new one. It is there in the text of both the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement and it's in the political declaration on the future relationship. The EU is committed to exploring and trying to agree alternative arrangements with the UK to replace the backstop in the future. Nobody disputes that. Everybody wants the backstop should it ever be used to be temporary and to be replaced by something important. However, there are currently no alternative arrangements which anybody has put forward, which achieve what both sides are determined to achieve to avoid a hard order, including any physical infrastructure or related checks or controls, and to protect the all-out economy, north-south cooperation and the good Friday agreement. Which is the commitment we have from the British government in terms of outcome. See me, this has been explored endlessly in the negotiations over the last two years. We have seen no alternative arrangements that meet this essential threshold. And we need a backstop or insurance mechanism based on legal certainty and not just wishful thinking. And that is what perplexes people because of the result of the vote last night. We in Ireland are essentially being asked, as is the EU, to replace legal certainty, having negotiated that over two years around British red lines, and to replace it with a hope of something that has yet to be proven. And in fact it's worse than that because these hopes have already been tested in the negotiations and have come up short. Less than two months to go now until Brexit happens on the 29th of March, we are quite simply running out of road. And so, as Donald Toss was quick to spell out last night within minutes of the vote, and has had me indicated to the British government numerous times prior to the vote, including from Ireland, the withdrawal agreement, including the protocol in Ireland is not open for renegotiation. We're at a ramification process now, not still in negotiation. The solidarity across Europe on this I think speaks for itself. I want to make one final observation on the debate in the House of Commons in recent days, and it's this. There are two very large communities in Ireland, one of which is unionist and one of which, of course, is nationalist. There is a diversity of views within those communities, just as there are many people who do not consider themselves to find at all by one constitutional outlook or another. It is vitally important that politicians and Westminster understand the overwhelming wish across society in Northern Ireland not to return to the borders and divisions of the past, and anybody who allows that to happen will be judged harshly in history and rightly so. And this government in Dublin is not going to allow it. And I want to be crystal clear on that point. There are some things that are more important than economic relationships, and this is one of them. And that is why the resolve in Dublin and the disappointment in Dublin on the back of the vote last night, which essentially signals a turning point of a British Prime Minister to this issue, has had such an impact here. And, dare I say, has had an impact in Northern Ireland amongst many people who do not feel represented by the debates that have taken place in Westminster in recent days. It is highly unfortunate that only one party from Northern Ireland, representing, in my view, a minority view on Brexit and the backstop, takes its seat in Westminster. And you want to say this, I respect the DUP. They have a view that we all need to listen to, and they have people that they represent. And that view must be part of the solution here. But there are many others that their narrative does not represent. And that is a perspective that needs to be part of this solution. If we've learned anything in Northern Ireland that if we produce proposals that have clear winners and losers, it is not the basis for a balanced, respectful peace process that works for everybody. And that is the approach that must be taken here, as well as in many other areas in our efforts to set up developed government again in Northern Ireland working in partnership with the British government. And can I say, that is why the backstop and the peace process and the border issues that have emerged through this Brexit process have been so difficult to deal with and took so long to get a compromise agreed on that included all perspectives which the backstop addresses. And that cannot be replaced by a perspective of one side or the other, which is why I have been critical of calls for border polls on one side and a misrepresentation of the backstop on the other. And it makes it all the more critical that the UK listens to other political parties representing a majority in the Northern Ireland assembly and to cross community groups like the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and the Ulster Farmers Union over the coming weeks. What they are saying is that the backstop is infinitely preferable to a no-deal Brexit. We hope still that those arguments are heard. However loud other voices in London have become. In uncertain times some elements remain certain. Arden's journey as a committed member of the European Union will continue. And we want to do this while maintaining as I said earlier the closest possible relationship with our closest neighbour and our closest friend, the United Kingdom. The wider uncertainty does dictate however that the government must and will continue to intensify our preparations for a disorderly Brexit. And we have moved now from planning to implementation. We are committing hundreds of millions of euros to prepare for something that we hope will not happen. But we need to do it anyway to be proved. Brexit will have negative consequences in any scenario but we are determined to be as ready as we can be. In this we are again working in tandem with our EU partners and fellow member states and also working with the UK in the appropriate areas as well. Understandably everybody's attention is on the 29th of March because the clock keeps ticking. But the EU 27 which has maintained such solidarity and Brexit has also been planning for the future which lies ahead. A future that is fuelled by our shared values and ambitions as a union of 27 member states to grow and expand in the future. Ireland will be at the very heart of that future and we will work to ensure that we stay there. That's why we have upped our game and engaged systematically and strategically at all levels, political, diplomatic and official not just in Brussels but also in capitals across the EU. We are the only small member states with an embassy in every other member state and this has been an invaluable asset in fostering support for our concerns in the Brexit negotiations but also in many other areas too. We are building on this through Global Ireland the government's initiative to double our global impact by 2025. We have already added senior officials to our embassy teams in Brussels, in Berlin, in Paris and London. This year we will strengthen further our diplomatic ranks in Madrid, in Rome, in Warsaw and widen our footprint in Germany through the opening of a consulate in Frankfurt. We will have European Parliament elections in May a new president of the Commission in June and a new commissioner in November. Heads of State and Government will discuss priorities for the next institutional cycle when they meet on the 9th of May in Romania. This discussion will help the Taoiseach and his peers that the EU strategic agenda at the European Council of June. This will be Europe's strategic agenda for the next five years until 2024. It will be based on contributions from all member states and we want to make sure that Ireland's contribution is fully understood and fully reflected in that final plan. At the end of 2017 I launched our citizens dialogue on the future of Europe together with Headship and Helen Mackinty our Minister of State for European Affairs. Today I'd like to thank the IIEA for the role that IN has played in that dialogue producing its own series of hematic reflection papers and broadening its engagement through initiatives such as the Emerging Voices Group. I set out a vision for Europe for the kind of Europe that we want in a speech in UCD in November 2017. In the meantime Helen has led debates right across the country listening to the concerns and expectations of Irish people from all ages and from all parts of the country. Participants said they want to be part of the union that lives up to its values. They see real value in cooperating on challenges like climate change, migration, terrorism, cybersecurity and cross-border crime the challenges of our generation. Our citizens want the European Union to continue doing what it does best. They support investing in policies like the Common Agricultural Policy, regional development and Erasmus Close. They support investment in young people in education, in training and in innovation to make Europe's economy world-leading. They want to tackle social exclusion and to see stronger interventions at a European level to combat discrimination, to integrate migrants and to improve access to services for everybody. Businesses and consumers want to see the completion of the single market, especially in services and the digital single market. It is also felt that the European Union has a moral imperative to do more for countries to our south and to our east to promote education, empowerment and real partnership on the continent of Africa. These are our hopes for the Europe of the future. They are set out in some detail in the narrative report to be published in October and they will inform our contribution to the EU strategic agenda. But our strategic agenda is also about honouring existing commitments. How many times have we promised to complete the single market? We could add an extra trillion euros a year to the GDP of the Union if we completed it. Especially the single market and services and the digital market that I referred to earlier. What is holding us back? There is an urgency about completing Banking Union too. A Banking Union will help protect consumers from another financial crisis, which this country knows and understands to its cost. We have promised to deliver it, but it is still unfinished business. The progress we have achieved on migration since the crisis began in 2015 has often been on the basis of our corporations. I get a call from someone in the commission to ask whether Ireland can accommodate refugees that are being rescued in the Mediterranean. It happens every three weeks or so. Is this how Europe deals with this issue? Is this credible? We recommit constantly to a comprehensive approach of migration, but we still don't have it. This is quite frankly an embarrassment, one which leaves us open to ridicule from the populists who want to exploit the status quo for their own political ends. We've made a commitment, and I know it is a difficult commitment to get consensus on in terms of delivery and a sharing of the burden, but it's something that we need to do a lot more to honour. Too often there is a tendency to take a narrow transactional view on EU membership, but we have to remember what the real value of European membership actually is. The economic and political advantages are immense, as everyone here, I'm sure, agrees. But we must also remember that for citizens it's their freedom to live, to work, to study, to travel, to access education, to be protected anywhere in the European Union. If we look only at our position in terms of our net contributions to and from EU budgets, I think we missed the point quite frankly. But the budgets do matter, not just because we are now net contributors, but because the allocations in the budget are a measure of the importance that we attach to each issue in terms of policy development. I think it might have been Catherine Day, who has said many wise things, but who once said that a budget is policy in numbers. The EU's long-term financial plan is the multi-annual financial framework, as you know. The MFF is negotiated once every seven years. The plan for the next seven years is currently being negotiated by Ministers in the Council. The current objective is for the Council to conclude its discussions on the MFF in the autumn and then to agree. Of course, the great mass of associated sexual legislation with the European Parliament. I have vivid memories of my role during the Irish presidency in bringing the CAP and CFP negotiations to a conclusion in 2013, and I still have the scars to prove that. We want the MFF that goes to the Parliament in the autumn to reflect the issues the Irish people have prioritised in the citizens dialogue process that I referred to earlier. That is why we want to protect the common agricultural policy. Yes, it needs to be modernised, it needs to adapt, but we need to protect the funding behind us and cohesion funds. It's also why we favour more funding for research, for innovation, digitalisation, environmental protection and the mobility of young people and for partnerships with third countries, in particular across the Middle Eastern Africa. If we want to shape the European Union that is fit for purpose and ready to meet our needs and concerns, then we do have to follow the money. And whenever we follow the money, we have to understand the process. In that process, the European Parliament does play a central role and we need to recognise and respect them. For that reason, and of course for many others, the make-up of the European Parliament will therefore be critical. I hope its membership will support the priorities that we have identified and are important to us. In May, we will be electing 13 Irish MEPs. There will be plenty of time closer to the date to engage in party politics, but now is the time to frame the debate before the campaign starts in earnest. The signs are already that the Eurosceptic populists could return in large numbers across the EU. Unless we come together and face them down. If we stay at home on polling day, we want to run the risk that people on the fringes with nothing in common except the same narrow self-regarding agenda will take control of the budget and shape an agenda to suit narrow inward-looking priorities. The turnout here in the last European elections was only 52%. So half of our electors didn't turn out. And that's in a country by the way that has over 90% support for EU membership. Given the role of the European Parliament has in setting the budgets in co-deciding a legislation and in approving international agreements, including of course relating to Brexit, staying at home comes at a price. The cost of complacency could be a parliament that redirects funds away from the common agricultural policy and from the investment in innovation research and young people that we need for the challenges of the future. Earlier this month I addressed our ambassadors in Dublin Castle on the international and domestic challenges posed by the march of populism globally and how EU member states can and should respond. And I'm glad that my remarks were echoed by how biomass my colleague in Germany. My colleague Pascal Dunigl has also spoken here at the Institute more recently on a similar theme and I'm sure some of you were here for that. There are many answers to populism. None of them are, sorry all of them I should say are imperfect. One answer in May has to be to vote in large numbers for 13 Irish MPs who are committed to the agenda set by the Irish people in the citizens dialogue and committed to voting through a budget that gives the union the resources it needs to implement that responsible agenda. The elections in May will be an opportunity to expose populist claims that only they represent the real people. How many times do we hear that there are 1000 parliaments around Europe and renew our faith in the Czechs and balances provided by institutions such as the Parliament, the council and the commission as opposed to electing people who want to pull them down by frankly. It is easy to be seduced by simple slogans by taking back control and draining as well. In his book The Populist Temptation The Economic Historian Barry Eichengrew points out that political institutions are a key ingredient of political stability and hence the capacity of society to pursue policies that can deliver growth and an equitable distribution of the fruits of it. As we celebrate the centenary this month of Doller, we should remember the words perhaps of Jean Manet who said that nothing is lasting without institutions. Sometimes it's the boring stuff that actually delivers the biggest impact. There might not be enough space on the side of a 15-meter bus for all the letters in multi-annual financial framework. But if we want a European Union that can navigate to a brighter, more sustainable future over the next five to seven years, we should try to acquaint ourselves with at least some of the complexities that we need to navigate to get us there. As Foreign Minister, I'm especially concerned with how populism can spill over into foreign policy these days. The Irish academic Julie Dempsey has written recently about how domestic political infighting by populist leaders can take precions over diplomatic considerations. She reminds us that the EU stands for something, something different. Facing its foreign policy on the promotion of norms and standards and democratic governance, especially in its own neighbourhood, that may not be an emotive message, but believe me it's a stable one. Of course, the EU and its member states must all continue to live up to these norms and standards ourselves. There are alarming signs that our values are under some internal pressure. Ireland believes in standing up for these values and impressing others to do the same, in a respectful and well-informed, but also in a firm way. I spoke earlier about honouring existing commitments. These include the values listed in Article 2. Democracy, the rule of law, and a society where pluralism and tolerance prevail. Ireland, like every other member state, is bound by these commitments. They are not voluntary. The union is founded on these values, and respect for them is and should be legally binding. Our values can never be optional extras that apply as two member states, and it should also, of course, apply in the context of accession states, too, who want to be part of the union. I am an advocate for EU enlargement, and I was very pleased to see that enlargement was popular among participants in our citizens' dialogue process. The new Romanian presidency of the European Union is the third presidency in a row after the Bulgarian and Austrian presidencies to put the Western Balkans high on the union's agenda. Helen will visit Tirana and Skopje next week, together with her finished counterpart. This is an especially encouraging signal since Finland will take over the presidency in July. But we need to go beyond talking about enlargement at this stage. I hope, for example, that we can open accession negotiations with Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia in June, following the historic ratification of the President's Agreement in recent weeks. This year also marks the 10th anniversary of the Eastern Partnership, through which the EU governs its relationship with the post-Soviet states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. This is a milestone, and the progress made by our partners in this unpredictable environment should be acknowledged. In this unpredictable environment too, Europe and the European Union is increasingly seen as a last major defender of multiculturalism and values driven external policy. This year we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Council of Europe, the organisation which gave us the European Convention on Human Rights and put respect for human rights and support for construction. The Council of Europe has also studied populism. It found that populism damages democracy by limiting debate, squashing dissent and reducing pluralism. It dismantles checks and balances, undermines human rights and the protection of minorities and challenges checks on unrestrained state power. It would be wrong to dismiss, of course, all Brexit-ears as populists, and yet the Brexit debate has become a stunning example of all that can go wrong and more attention is paid to slogans and sound rights rather than policies that are properly thought through and properly costed. Jack Lynch warned about this as early as 1972, which happened to be the year I was born. During the debate in Daulair on our accession to the then EEC. Back then, he said, the extraordinary thing is that the most vocal opponents of membership have shown boundless confidence in our capacities to survive and prosper on the basis of an alternative relationship with the community, the terms of which are not yet known. Surely there's some lessons for that these decades later. Over 45 years on, I think we can say with some certainty that we have made a success of our membership in this little country. That we have a vision for the type of union we want and that we are well placed in our networks and our know-how in terms of bringing that vision to bear on Europe in the future. This is our Europe. So that's shaped. So thank you very much and I look forward to your help. Thanks for a very rich and wide-ranging speech. I think we can certainly say that our future in Europe is in good hands when we're in your hands. I wouldn't like to let a location like this go by without complimenting you and our diplomatic service for the fantastic work that has been done and will be done in the coming weeks and months to make sure that we get the best possible outcome from the difficult few weeks that lie ahead. We're going to now take questions to the Tornigsta and we're going to group them in threes. I'm going to ask people to be very, very short. Please do not make a speech. We've had a speech now, it's your opportunity and it's a privileged opportunity to put questions. So think tweed-sized questions, not long statements. Because I'm having some temporary difficulties at my site, Cain McCarthy is going to come up and just field and group the questions because otherwise I risk not being able to see who's putting their hand up at the back of the room. So Cain, I'm going to ask you to come up and just moderate the questions. Thank you. Tornigsta, thank you for an excellent speech and I would reiterate what the chairperson said about the service of the diplomatic core and the embassies and your own staff and yourself. One question is that the backstop would appear to be the only remain issue in the withdrawal agreement. And yet today's papers in the UK suggest that the ERG has a shopping list of other stuff in the background once this matter is dealt with. I'm interested to see what comment you might have on that. Yes sir, I'm taking three at a time apparently. Can people also identify themselves? Thank you, Tornigsta. That was a brilliant presentation and I'm very, very grateful to you. My name is Frank O'Donnell. I'm a retired UN representative and during my tenure I was at one point a principal adviser on governance in crisis countries. When we look at the situation in Britain today and the chaos politically, the dysfunction that seems to prevail both in Westminster and the political elite in large and given all of the uncertainties that we are facing with Brexit even if the House of Commons yesterday voted against a no deal. Are you concerned that this country might face as it did decades ago a stream of refugees from Northern Ireland at some point? Or were still a stream of refugees from England and Wales? This question may seem absurd, but Yugoslavia broke up and it does look as if the UK might do so too. And if so, what measures might be envisaged in terms of support from the other 27 members of the union to help us deal with a humanitarian crisis of that order? Slaves of honour. Just to the front row. Answer you don't as my name. Tornigsta, you talked about commitment and law that each and every member of EU has and your own you said yourself. My commitment is or my question is how do you expect the British government to honour a legally binding agreement that you negotiated for two years when the Irish government refuses a Supreme Court order on a legal binding agreement? The ruling was made in 2005. You have refused and repudiated, as Mr Glory Quinn did when he was in government. Thank you. Do you want to take those three? First of all, I reiterate the thanks to the diplomatic service in Ireland. I think they've done an extraordinary job under quite a lot of pressure from the political system to build solidarity and understanding across the European Union as to why Ireland feels so exposed and vulnerable in the context of Brexit. That really has been the foundation for the solidarity that we enjoy today. They're extraordinary people and I've got to know them well working in this department and we're very lucky to have them. We have a system of diplomacy which is different to lots of other countries and that system is working for us right now and we're expanding and growing. We'll open a whole new range of embassies this year as we expand and we will continue to put this department under some pressure but I think that's the way they like it because the kind of person who joins the Department of Foreign Affairs is somebody that sounds a bit crass because the kind of person who wants to change the world and that's what foreign affairs should be about. How people see us and what our agenda is not just to settle for the status quo but to constantly advocate and build partnerships and alliances and make arguments that can change things for the better. The backstop and other issues I'm not certainly going to get into the conversation and discussion between the government and the ERG. They are internal party matters for the Conservative Party. The only thing I would say is that what we are pushing against is that whatever outcomes are negotiated and whatever outcomes are requested by the British government they need to take account of a broad spectrum of thinking because if this is about keeping a party together that for 30 years has been torn apart by different perspectives on the relationship with the European Union. If that's what this is about I cannot allow that agenda to make Ireland the casualty of it. That's why this is so serious. That's why also by the way people ask me this question all the time is the relationship really strained between Britain and Ireland? Actually the personal relationships that key ministers have with each other is probably closer now. I've been a government minister for a while I've never had a closer relationship with my counterparts in the British government than I have now because of the intensity of the discussions and the perspectives that are expressed back and forth. Even post Brexit we need to keep it that way so much so that we are agreeing with the British government to establish intergovernmental conference a new set of structures modeled somewhat on the French-German relationship the Spanish-Portuguese relationship whereby we would have an annual intergovernmental conference that would involve quite a lot of ministers on both sides as well as obviously the Taoiseach and Prime Minister to make sure that these islands as close neighbours are continuing to talk to each other because unfortunately we won't be as familiar with each other as we are today because of the absence of meeting in Brussels and Luxembourg and Strasbourg and all the other places that we meet and work together through our EU membership. But I think it would be wrong for me to to be giving advice to the British government in terms of internal matters for the Conservative Party or indeed the Conference on Supply Arrangement with the DUP. I'm certainly not one to give out about Conference on Supply Arrangement I'm responsible for one myself along with a few other people so I respect that and the arithmetic in Westminster is demanding and makes life difficult for the Prime Minister but there is a broader obligation here particularly in the context of Northern Ireland that the perspectives of British and Irish people in Northern Ireland are understood and the fears and hang-offs in both communities and the polarisation effect of Brexit and the impact of that has had on politics in Northern Ireland particularly in the last six months both the Irish government and the British government need to be very careful with how that's managed to protect something that's fragile and hugely valuable that's been built up over the last 20 years. In relation to Frank that was about the most provocative question I've got for quite a while am I concerned that we're going to have a stream of refugees coming from the UK? No, I'm not actually I don't think the UK is going to break up. Britain is a great country it's one of the world's great countries I've had the privilege of being at university there I've said this to many people in this room before and one of seven children many of us have built our careers initially in the UK in British cities and so my only agenda here is to protect core Irish interests while also trying to protect a respectful relationship between these two islands and these two countries but it's got to be on the basis of a relationship of equals because anything else that may be based on threats of consequences and so on cannot be the basis for an outcome here that can protect those relationships in the future. Anthony, I'm sorry, I'm just not familiar with the Supreme Court order that you're talking about maybe I can have a chat with you afterwards and I can try and get your answer. I think you will talk to me because I have written to you and I have to say that you're the only minister that has ever written back to me of your party I have written to you more or less every one minister you're the only one so I'll accept that you will address the issue later a little if I can of course sorry minister I said I'd talk to you afterwards but whether I'm capable of addressing the issue I will if I can Other questions? Is there a question over here? Can we just wait for a microphone please? Dig on to Brad Jones journalist but otherwise a nice person Maybe I should be a stand up comedian as well Frank mentioned 2005 I recall that was the year the IRA finally decommissioned and Foreign Affairs played a big part in that I had the privilege of covering it to a large extent if you could bring the IRA and the council around to peaceful methods and to destroying its arms under supervision can you work out something with the British Government and Brussels to deal with the backstop because as I see it the backstop is meant to prevent a hard border but it looks to me as if un excessive adherence to a a hard backstop is going to lead to the danger of a British crash out and a very hard border along the lines that your colleague Tisha Faradkar outlined in Davos recently. Thank you Can you just pass the mic to the front of you? Thank you Who knows why I'm a member of the institute I'll try to be nice too and Tawnishtag I'd like to share all the complimentary views of your speech and of the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs You spoke about the EU budget for the next seven years and really and Ireland's ambitions for that budget it's a pretty small budget as President Juncker outlined last year in his State of the Union speech and it's going to get smaller with the departure of the UK I wonder have you any views on the possibility of increasing that budget from own resources of some kind and in that context I wonder why Ireland has so far carefully resisted any efforts to increase that budget to for example a financial transaction tax Would you think that this should not be now revisited or some other form considered? Thank you Paddy Smith Irish Times unapologetically a journalist I'm interested in this issue of alternative methods of resolving the backstop public problem and as you say it's in the withdrawal agreement but can I just put it to you my understanding of that provision is that these are alternative methods of enforcing the rules of the customs union and of the regulatory issues involved in the single market we're not away from the red lines there's no in revisiting this alternative approaches we don't actually get away from the fundamental questions of the impossibility of having a soft border the UK goes back on those red lines and can I very quick question you didn't mention in the MFF an issue which is preoccupying a lot of Europe which is strengthening the common defence of the European Union and that is certainly going to be an element in the discussions is there any possibility Ireland will reconsider its position about common defence some good questions there I can vouch that Deglawn is a nice guy as well as a journalist I think it's important that we don't allow people to reframe this debate in a way that's not accurate that somehow we behave as if the negotiation is starting all over again and that there's no way Britain could ever sign up to the backstop mechanism I would remind people that in December 2017 it was Ireland who essentially put their hand up and said look we can see a problem developing here Britain has outlined clear red lines they're leaving the customs union they're leaving the single market as well as leaving the European Union and its institutions if that happens and Northern Ireland of course is part of the other kingdom does the same how do we resolve the border issue and we said we cannot allow this issue to be kicked down the road to be dealt with with wishful thinking at some stage in the future because we know how the rules of the EU apply so does Britain we've lived by them for years and they're good because they guarantee a level playing field so there's not easy flexibility and so what we said was we are not comfortable with this process moving from phase one to phase two which was from talking about the withdrawal agreement to the future relationship until we get some guarantees that this border issue can be boxed off so that we don't create anxiety and polarization in Northern Ireland around whether or not future border infrastructure and a lot of the memories of the past were going to start re-emerging and you might recall that there was a very tense week in December 2017 when in order for the process to move on to phase two the EU insisted on getting a political declaration agreed between the EU and the UK to try to address this concern and the British government made it very clear in that I can quote all sorts of paragraphs from it but that they provided a guarantee at the time that whatever happened in the future it couldn't relate to physical border infrastructure or related checks or controls that would undermine an all island economy in Ireland or would result in border infrastructure or undermine the peace process so that commitment was clear and it was going to be done in one of three ways and that's also clear in that political declaration it's going to be done and we all hope it'll be done through a very comprehensive future relationship agreement that's what everybody wants but if that doesn't do the trick because of red lines that the UK have outlined well then the UK would offer bespoke solutions to Ireland to deal with the specific challenges of the border and if there's no agreement on that in other words if technology or whatever is being proposed doesn't work well then the default position was that the UK to prevent anxiety around this issue would maintain regulatory alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market and the areas necessary to prevent physical border infrastructure or related checks or controls and to protect an all island economy that is that is a very significant reinforcer of a peace process and protects relationships through trade and commerce and quite frankly normalisation on this side so that's where this began and that commitment was clear to Ireland and to the EU and in return we moved on to phase two and then when we got on to that and we were looking at a draft withdrawal agreement the UK agreed in March of 2018 that actually the better way of doing this was we would reverse the order so instead of starting to try to do withdrawal agreement or a future relationship agreement first and if that didn't work for the border issue bespoke solutions and if that didn't work to look at what effectively became known as the backstop then we put the backstop up front so that we'd say look let's put the backstop as the insurance mechanism up front in the withdrawal agreement and then let's try to replace it with one of the other two and if it doesn't work we at least know that the default position is regulatory alignment to prevent border infrastructure and as that process was developing the UK made it very clear that that version of the backstop could not be Northern Ireland specific because the Prime Minister made it very clear that no British Prime Minister could sign up to two customs unions applying to the United Kingdom one for Northern Ireland, shared with the EU and the other for Great Britain and so we said ok we need to redesign the backstop and that's exactly what happened and the backstop that was proposed last February in comparison to the backstop that was supported by the British Government as part of the withdrawal agreement towards the end of the last year was fundamentally different and redesigned because of British insistence on changing that proposal because of their own red lines to prevent what some people feared of customs checks down the Irish Sea and so on and so I think when you talk about the backstop now being this issue that we can't agree on and therefore could result in the whole thing breaking down you have to understand that the backstop is a British creation working with Ireland and the EU this isn't something that we slapped on the table it's designed around the negotiating position of the UK and it's in that context that when we're now confronted with the realities of last night when a British Prime Minister says to her party we should now vote against what we agreed and what developed over a long period of time because we can't get agreement in our political party on that and we should ask Ireland and the EU to simply change the backstop or replace it with alternative arrangements alternative arrangements by the way which we teased through for hours and hours as part of this negotiation process so when you ask a British government representative today what are the alternative arrangements they will probably say well it could be technology it could be a time limit backstop or it could be a universal exit clause for the UK one of those things we need in terms of reassurance all of those things were tested endlessly to see if we could actually give that reassurance earlier in this process and they don't really stand up to scrutiny that's not to say that in the current text of the withdrawal agreement and in the Irish protocol on it it doesn't say that the union and the UK kingdom's intention to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing recalling that so that is the intention but the issue for us is we remain sceptical that there are alternative arrangements that can work and in the absence of that we have to have the default fallback position until something credible emerges that can replace it and surely that's not unreasonable given what we're talking about here in terms of the relationships on this island and our experience of border infrastructure in the past surely it's not and the very fact that these arguments aren't being made in the context of the peace process in Westminster but instead the backstop has been like a political football being kicked around the place has been hugely frustrating for us and the irony actually has been that two people have been most persuasive on the backstop and the need for it the Prime Minister herself much to her credit I have to say has made very strong arguments in the face of lots of political criticism around the need for the backstop and the other person is Sylvia Harman who is someone who I have enormous respect for who is EUist and we respect that of course but recognises why this makes sense to reassure people in Northern Ireland so I've gone off track there but I just you do have to understand where we're coming from here to understand that this isn't simply just a disagreement on something where the UK has one perspective and the EU has another you know the two can't meet in the middle like this was a UK negotiated position that they signed up to which they are now recommending against in terms of looking for alternatives to it the EU budget it is too small the Asia has confirmed in a speech to the European Parliament that Ireland is willing to increase our contribution to the EU's budget as long as some of our core priorities are reflected in the future decisions and we have encouraged other countries to do the same but our perspective in terms of the EU budget is that countries should make contributions but the decisions on how they raise revenue in terms of taxation is a sovereign competence for individual countries and there has been a debate for decades now in the EU in terms of trying to take a more collective approach towards raising tax revenue that for many countries would fundamentally undermine their economic competitiveness because of where they are geographically or whatever it's like the argument that some make at the moment that we should be taxing on the basis of turnover rather than profit not again that fundamentally undermines business models which are perfectly legitimate and transparent and are consistent with the EU rules so that would be an ongoing debate as to where the money comes from what we're saying is we're happy to increase our contribution to EU budgets but we're not happy to but we will and we are a significant net contributor now in the past we've been a significant net recipient but we're willing to do more but we also have a strong view in terms of tax policy and where decisions should be made the alternative arrangements that Paddy talks about I think I've probably outlined what's likely to come at us there and by the way in the context of what's being agreed by all means let's test whether or not we can replace the backstop but the backstop has got to be there in the agreement as the default position in case those solutions don't work and so what we're being asked to accept now is to take the insurance mechanism out and then to agree that somehow alternative arrangements that have been tested and have fallen short of the mark would replace it and that we would knowingly do that we can't do it so we need to think about and talk to the UK about and talk to the EU about how we try to fix this by perhaps reshaping the future relationship declaration that may involve or may not involve changing British Red lines that's a matter for the UK some further reassurance if it's possible that the backstop hopefully will never be used and if it is ever used will only be there on a temporary basis but once you put definitive time limits on a backstop and you can't answer the question what happens at the end of that time period then it ceases to be a backstop it's a bridge that when you get to the other side you have the same problem that you had when you started I don't believe we can do that to people in Northern Ireland to create for the next however many years this anxiety as to what happens at the end of this fixed term where we have no credible solutions at the end of it and that's why while we never want the backstop to be used and if it is ever used we want it to be temporary why we can't agree to fixed timetables which is in my view an ask that has come many many times and the UK government in the end accepted that it didn't work sorry I don't want to avoid the common defence issue you know Ireland's position is very clear on this we work with other EU member states but we don't want to be bound by collective defensive decisions or so Ireland as indeed many other non-aligned countries from a military perspective should be and will be involved in collective actions as we are today in terms of peace keeping and peace intervention and humanitarian work and common approaches towards defence whether it's cyber security or maritime security or whatever but we do have clarity in our constitution in terms of the conditions under which we send Irish troops abroad and it's important that we respect that I don't believe there's any appetite to change that that element of the Irish constitution in terms of public opinion Take a final round of questions please because I'm conscious we're keeping the tarnishedith fixing the problem here in the green sorry about that Thank you for giving once again a very lucid explanation of the history of the backstop I don't have to be as nice to Prime Minister May as you do but I think that even if she were to try to repeat the explanation the exposition you've given to us she wouldn't be believed in Westminster and that's really part of the problem It seems to me that it's more likely than not that we're going to have a no deal Brexit In the events that we do it's important to remember that we'll be starting off in practical terms from a position of regulatory alignment UK legislation includes and they've deliberately done it all of the EU regulations that have been passed up to now and that will present UK authorities with the need to justify any departure they want to make from regulatory alignment and I think if it comes to that at any point they will find a lot of difficulties if you take the motor industry for example if you take aviation even transport any departure by a departed UK from the regulatory alignment that we have now it will create a new problem for them and it will create a requirement for some discussion with their other trade partners most notably the European Union as to what happens in the event that there is that kind of departure Is it not time now to apply that kind of logic to the discussion around the backstop My personal belief is that if the British ever decided in any major area to depart from regulatory alignment they would very quickly find out that it's absolutely not in their interest to do so because all of these rules have been made specifically in order to facilitate trade and commercial exchanges Is there not an approach there that might help over the next few weeks to avoid the absolute nonsense of a backstop I'm finally just saying journalists good ones and bad ones I think need to recall when they comment about comments made about hard borders that there is a logic that even nasty journalists can't avoid There's one right here Hello my name is Ahol Gabbari I'm a member of the PIA Good afternoon The storm ant I'm wondering would you not think that the Northern Irish people would want storm ant to be up and running so they could have ideas about how to solve the problem of the backstop or the alternative arrangement or whatever and is there any chance do you think of storm ant coming out of hiding Can we take one more One last one At the very very back there's a Good afternoon Tonysta My name is Vanessa Liston from Civic I would just like to move on to another major challenge I guess apart from Brexit and that is the existential threat of climate change to Ireland and the European Union and if you could reflect and comment on that on what measures and accelerated actions are going to be to protect the integrity of the union over the next 5 to 10 years as people in the environment Thank you Yeah I'll just start with Alan Alan you're right on one level on the 29th of March if Britain leaves the European Union it will be leaving as a country that has shared standards and regulations and laws and directives and so on for decades so it's not like a third country that's coming from a very different set of regulatory standards that's true Having said that though the existence of those standards is one thing but there's also an enforceability of so most member states at different points in time for example are taken to court by the European Commission for not living up to certain directives whether it's water quality whether it's air quality whether it's saddle husbandry whether it's whatever so I don't think it's credible to have a position whereby effectively the UK is saying well look with the same standards that you have because we've shared the same union for 45 years so why don't we just keep on trading away except switch the enforcement to British courts rather than EU courts essentially not give any powers to the European Commission in terms of checks for enforcements or standards I just don't see that that can be the basis for a modern trading agreement or relationship that's a relationship purely based on trust and by the way I think there is a lot of trust which has been heard in the UK some of it was tested last night but there is a lot of trust I mean we are so integrated as countries and economies and I keep saying like there's more Irish-born people in Britain than there are Irish people in Kent it's like another province of this country in terms of population and experiences and family interactions and so on 40,000 Irish companies trading west most weeks 75 billion euro trading relationship it's a lot of money for 5 million people but the idea that this was put to us at the start of these negotiations Rory and others will remember us being in the room around why can't we just trust each other to maintain the same standards Britain will never lead race to the bottom and so on I think that totally misunderstands what I'm not saying I don't misunderstands because he probably knows the European Union better than most people in this room but like the European Union is a rules based organisation it's a precedence based decision making body and the institutions protect the treaties and their implementation that's how they behave they don't have the flexibility of an individual government like for example the UK has to change policy or change direction because every time the negotiators do it they have to effectively seek permission to do that through a through upgrading their negotiating mandate and so on so that's why we've said for the reasons that Alan has outlined we've said if the UK is leaving the European Union which we're very unhappy about the UK to be in the customs union and single market because that keeps everybody close and it solves so many problems if they're saying that they don't want to be in the single market customs union well then we want them to be as close as possible to the customs union and single market and so on but that is also why the solution to the border issues of the island of Ireland is based on regulatory alignment as opposed to some kind of technology that we haven't seen yet that's physically on the border because regardless of what's on the border and hopefully there'll be nothing if farmers in northern Ireland are producing milk to different standards to a different cost base to a different set of regulations and rules then that milk can't go into the same milk pool that it does today with farmers south of the border if we have a different application of state aid rules well then fishermen on one side of the border and processing facilities paid for by the state on the other side of the border on the Irish side EU competition rules won't allow it so when you start to allow and create an unfair playing field well then preventing border infrastructure becomes virtually impossible regardless of what technology you have and that's why in my view the only way this issue gets solved is through regulatory alignment only in the areas necessary to prevent border infrastructure I was reminded in Northern Ireland when I was there the week before last in terms of the Northern Ireland economy only 30% of that economy is represented by goods trade which is where the checks would be required and so on so there are ways of doing this the backstop is not so frightening as some people have made out and certainly the backstop does nothing to bring about constitutional change or undermine the constitution integrity of Northern Ireland that was never intended and when you read the text it's hard to interpret is that but that is what it has become in the Westminster debate we have had so many discussions at this stage with parties in Northern Ireland to try to get the ball of government up and running again actually I think there's a real appetite to do that amongst all parties including the DUP Anshun Fein and we had the basis of an agreement a year ago and unfortunately fell apart at the last minute and that's to everyone's regret I think but I do think there's a recognition across all parties that there's deep frustration amongst the public that Northern Ireland doesn't have its own voice right now doesn't have devolved government can you imagine Northern Ireland preparing potentially for the contingency planning that's needed linked to a no deal Brexit without the ability to make political decisions in Northern Ireland that's where we are right now and the alternative to that is a shift to direct rule can you imagine how nationalism would respond to direct rule when actually the government has a constant supply arrangement in place with one political party in Northern Ireland that holds a very different perspective on many things and at the same time the British government has an obligation, a legal obligation under the Good Friday Agreement to rigorous impartiality in Northern Ireland in terms of the different perspectives that are represented there when you start thinking about all of those things you begin to realise how complex this is and how the only solution for Northern Ireland in terms of political decision-making is functioning devolved government again and in fact I'm meeting Karen Bradley later on this evening to talk about that with her Finally in relation to climate change and I'm delighted that question was asked this government needs to do more on climate change this country needs to do more collectively on climate change and we're going to I believe you'll see a series of new initiatives coming from government I think it's already started actually Richard Brewton is hugely proactive in this area we're going to move towards actually setting sectoral targets which is uncomfortable territory for lots of sectors and lots of government departments but that's where this is going in terms of ensuring that we can predict and manage and deliver on a staged process of reducing emissions over time so that we can get to where we are committing that we will be by 2030 which is a very significant reduction in the overall emissions at the same time as we see a significant increase in our population and economic activity and that's challenging but we're certainly up for it as a government and I think you will see followed through on some of the things I'm saying in the months ahead so can I just thank everybody for your time because I know I tend to go on a bit sometimes but thanks for your interest today and it was a privilege to be able to speak to your answer questions