 Rwy'n credu bod hi fyddwch yn amlwg i'w ddeddydu yma, dylau'r dŷlwedd yn y rhen a'r ddysgyneth fyddwch, rydyn ni'n cyfenni'r yflwyton er fyddwch yn ei ddim yn ystynnu rhywbeth i'w ddigon. Mynd i'r rwy'n rhoi, ac ei ddim yn gallu bod nhw'n rhaid. Yn i ddweud ychydig i ysgrifennu ddwy'r fyddwch yn y fathog deiligol yn drafodaeth ar gyfer. Rydyn ydyn ni'n rhaid i ddweud ym mhwy fyddwch yn ôl, I greatly appreciate it. Of course, the discussion Britain without Europe is a very, very important one. It's not characterised in my opinion by a very good public debate in Britain on these questions. There is a lot of debate about it, but it's a debate dominated by myths. I want to go through a number of those myths today, ten of them all together, on the issues that affect our debate profoundly. But I should declare my interest at the outset. I am strongly of the view that Britain should be an active member of the European Union, simply not just staying in there, but actively staying there, and trying to work together to strengthen the capacity of the European Union to help address the problems that the world faces at the moment. Myth one is the one that David Cameron is pursuing at the moment. The idea that there can be some kind of renegotiation of UK membership of the European Union before there is a referendum in Britain in, he thinks, 2017, if the Conservatives are re-elected to office. I think the very idea of renegotiation is itself a myth. Harold Wilson was able to pull it off as a myth in 1974-5, but I don't really believe there's any renegotiation on the agenda beyond the sense that the European Union is a constant renegotiation between its members all the time on the various issues of concern. The idea is that there's some renegotiation that can take place, a new defined relationship between the UK and the rest of the European Union, and then a referendum based on that new situation I think is not right. I think the second myth, which is what I really want to go to in detail today, is that the UK could leave the European Union without negative consequences. Just get rid of the bad bits of our EU membership, but keep on to the good bits. I want to go through area by area where I think those myths are in place. The first and most important, of course, is economic. We are part of the single market, and the single market has been an institution initiated by Margaret Thatcher actually, which was a very, very important part of our economic strength. There is an illusion, a myth in my view, that we can leave the European Union but not leave the single market, that we can keep the benefits which the UK has from the single market, while at the same time leaving the European Union. I think that is false. I think the European Union itself will keep the single market, will strengthen the single market in a variety of different ways, and if we, the UK, are outside that single market, we won't be able easily to have access to it. We won't be able to intervene in the decisions of the single market, for example, about the standards of production of products, the way in which things are manufactured, financial services industry works, and so on. The result of that is that countries from outside, investors, will not wish to participate in the UK, unless we are part of that single market. That is the fourth myth, that investment in the UK would not suffer if we left the European Union. The sale reckoning that we saw last week from Nissan, the Japanese car company, suggesting they would consider not investing in the UK if we weren't in the European Union is described as sale reckoning. I don't believe it is. I think investors from throughout the world invest in the UK because of what we are quite rightly, but also invest because of our access to the single market, which I profoundly believe would be threatened by a decision to leave the European Union. That in turn has an impact on employment in the UK and would in my opinion lead to high levels of unemployment, low levels of economic activity, and which would be a very difficult thing indeed to deal with. That is the fifth myth, that we somehow would get controlled more of our own economy if we weren't in the single market, if we weren't in the European Union. I think that is completely untrue. We actually would lose control because our manufacturing businesses, whatever they were, our services companies, would have to sell according to standards which fitted in the single market, but without us having any control over those standards in any very direct way. The most dramatic example of this has been the report published for the Norwegian government just about six or seven months ago, which indicated absolutely clearly and categorically that Norway has all the costs of the single market and none of the benefits in that it can't intervene in the single market in order to secure its own interests and has to meet all the costs outside the European Union. But that situation continues to cause an issue where they, in order to be a successful economy, have to sell within the European Union and therefore accept the dynamics of the single market and the European Union. I think that issue is intensified, actually, by the development of the Eurozone. Many people have predicted the collapse of the Eurozone. Douglas and I were joking earlier about Professor Edward Acton, who's the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia where I'm a Professor and Douglas was a student of Edward's. I didn't tell, say, when we were talking earlier on, I had a small bet with Edward about 18 months ago about whether Greece would still be in the European Union in a month's time. He thought it would be checked out and the Eurozone would completely collapse. I thought it would be in and the Eurozone would stay there and so it indeed has proved. Those who predict the destruction of the Eurozone, in my opinion, really are dicing with fire. I'm not quite clear the next five or six years that the Eurozone will gain strength that countries like Poland will join and the question for the UK will be how does it operate outside the Eurozone, how does it relate to the Eurozone. So on the economic front, I think there are a whole series of very high risks for Britain outside the European Union, but this core myth that I mentioned, the idea that we can be outside the European Union but still in the single market, I think is fundamentally mistaken. The second big area is diplomatic. UK has a tremendous amount of influence in its relationship in the European Union, working with other allies within the European Union, working of course with the United States as well, but as has been widely described, the importance for the United States-UK relationship is that the UK is in the European Union and they can have a dialogue with the UK within the European Union. The relationships in the developing world are very important. The relationships with countries, for example, in North Africa are very important, but we're all much weaker if we are outside the European Union. The idea that we can stand aside from it, in my opinion, has been again illustrated as wrong by Theresa May, the British Home Secretary's decision to extend visas to China, to make it more easy for people to come to Europe because it was much easier for them to get visas into the Schengen zone and not to the UK because that situation needed to be resolved. So, myth 6 is going alone. The UK can somehow go it alone, forget the relationships with Europe, forget the relationships with the United States, and we can go back to some 19th century Victorian past, which in my opinion simply doesn't exist. Myth 7 is on crime. Am I okay for time, Brendan? I'm assuming I've got till 25. Is that right? I'm slightly worried about the timing. The year is on crime. As we all know, all crime now is international in nature. People trafficking, drug dealing, counter-terrorism, illegal migration, these are all international things dealt with by international criminal syndicates, trying to find weaknesses the whole time in the forces of law and order, which they contest in a variety of different ways. It used to be the case, I'm not sure what the figure is now, that 75% of the heroin coming into the UK came up through Kosovo and Serbia, and that was the approach. And you can see manifested time after time after time the need for law enforcement agencies to work together to contest these international criminal organisations. In the UK, the government has decided that it wants to pull out of the Justice in Home Affairs Agreements, 133 of them, and has gone down a path of doing that. It then said it wants somehow to opt in back to another 35 of them. Excuse me, there's a lot of discussion now, which is the right 35 or not. But there's not the slightest evidence at the moment that the government will be able to opt back into those measures at all, and I personally think there'll be a lot of slips to its cup and lip on the whole approach. And in so doing, the UK will unilaterally, deliberately break up the international policing cooperation relationships we have, the international justice corporations we have, and we can directly our ability to contest crime. And I think it's very serious indeed. We had a seminar in London which Doki made the lead presentation at in July about the particular implications of that for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the importance of cross-crime fighting that is developed across that border in recent years, which has been a critical element in the process which finally allows your president to come and make a state visit to the UK at this time. It's about confidence on those matters. And as Doki set out more eloquently than I, the fact that the path that the British government is fixed upon is actually placing at risk the hold of that Northern Ireland peace process in a very serious and damaging way. And myth seven is that the opt-out won't affect crime. It will affect crime and will have a pre-run of the Britain outside Europe on these particular measures which are taking place. My eighth myth is about immigration. The argument is that immigration into the UK from the rest of the European Union damages the economy of the UK and is very damaging to our society by problems on public services, problems on a variety of different areas. The latest evidence indicates absolutely clearly that it's not the case that immigration is in fact an important part of the UK's economic strength and it shouldn't be necessary to illustrate the point. The massive importance of Ireland to the UK's economy over the last hundred years through immigration has been a very, very, very important aspect of the economic success of the UK, carrying with it terrible social issues as people were exploited, often dying, in the most appalling work conditions in the 19th century and so on. But there should be no doubt that that immigration process has certainly strengthened the economy of the UK and I would argue actually strengthened the economy more widely. So that eighth myth is that immigration from within the European Union strengthens the economy. The myth that it damages it is also completely wrong. My penultimate myth is the constitutional issue that somehow the European Union stops parliamentary debate in the UK and stops an ability for elected parliamentarians such as Douglas to be able to hold to account both the British government and the European Union. I think this is all wrong too as well. The fact is that people who are stopping the British parliament properly debating what happens in the European Union are the British parliament. I tried in government unsuccessfully actually to establish a much more systematic system of accountability within the UK parliament to some other national parliament's house of what is going on in the European Union. I welcome the moves being taken by William Hague to establish this in a more structured way. That's absolutely worth doing. If the British parliament or the Irish parliament or the Danish parliament or any other parliament wishes to debate much more fully what's happening in the European Union it absolutely has the capacity to do it and the people who are deciding not to do it are the British parliament because of its own conventional procedures rather than the European Union somehow stopping that kind of debate. My final myth before I close, Brendan, is that somehow there is a relationship between the Britain's membership of the European Union and the issues around the European Convention of Human Rights and the deportation issues and the various problems that are there. There are issues about the European Convention on Human Rights in the modern era. I've argued in a written publication that we ought to be looking at those much more sharply than we are and looking to changes. But Britain's departing from the European Union has literally zero impact on all that side of debate which arouses public opposition in so many different ways. So, Brendan, these are the 10 myths. They need to be busted. There needs to be a proper debate. I'm delighted that we are having this debate here in Dublin. It needs to be wider through the UK. But a proper argument, not based on myths, but on a rational assessment of what the overall situation actually is. Thank you for the chance of being with you this morning.