 was appointed as Minister of State for European Affairs in June 2017 and has served as a phenagail TDA for the Mead East constituency since March 2013. She was previously appointed Minister of State for Mental Health and Older People in May 2016. So please give a welcome to Minister Mac. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen distinguished guests. Firstly just to say a massive thank you to Barry and of course to all of the team here at the Institute for organising what is a very timely intervention and invitation pan yng Nghymru i ddechrau'r cyfrifethau ar gyfer ymdyn nhw i'r newid yma? Fy oherwydd i'r wneud am gweithio am ddiddordeb yn ateb, ac ymdyn nhw'n fawr yn gweithio â'r ddechrau. Ymgyrchu Gweithio Aelodol i Eurpoedd ym Mhwy, mae'r newid ymdyn nhw ar gyfer y cyfrifeth newid, ac mae'r gweithio'r ymdyn nhw ymdyn nhw ymdyn nhw ymdyn nhw'n cyrchio ar gyfer ymdyn nhw'n cyfrifeth newid, ac mae'n gweithio newid yn ymddangos i yw'r ffordd. Fy enw i ganddid o'r ffordd, rydyn ni'n cael ei gael y bynnag, mae'n gweithio i'r ffordd yn cael eu ffordd eich bod yn dod i'r bynnag a'i ddefnyddio yr hyn. Mae'r bynnag yma yn y dywedig sy'n meddwl i'r ddechrau yn y dyfodol. Mae'n ddim yn ymdyn nhw i'n bynnag ac mae'r ddechrau yn ddiddordeb. A byddai'n cwestiynau ymdyn nhw'n helpu i'r ffordd ar y ddweud, i'ch nhw'n gweithio yn ychydig yn ymgyrch. Felly, mae'n ynnig oedd ychydig。 Yn y DU27, ym Mhwysgawr 60, mae'r Traethe i Rhyw Roedd a'r Traethe i 1957, a'i gyrsiau eu hunain economaer. Mae'n ddawr ddau'r documentol yw'r Uniau Europeu. Mae'n ddau'r ddau'r ddau, i gyrdwyr i'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau, ond yn cael ei gael ei ysgrifennu yn ymdyn nhw'n amgylchedd, ond ei fod yn unig i ddweud i gweithio'r cerddyn nhw, ac yw gweithio eu gwirioneddau'r cerddyn nhw'n dweud i'r cerddyn nhw'n dweud i'r Ew 27. Mae'r dweud yn cael ei bod yn cael ei ddweud angenwydd y dreidiau ac i'r proiect oes i'r golygu sut yn cael ei ddweud y fawr yma, ac mae gyda'r nobl, ond mae'n fawr yn y ddweud i'r cyfrofiol ac'r ysgrifennu i'r argyrchu. Ond, ond, this is true, but it is also a response to the economic exhaustion prevailing after the war. It was also a response to international trade which had gone into hibernation, and although fascism was well and truly discredited, politics was very much up for grabs with more than a few crunches ready to experiment with other isms, including communism. Just one year earlier, two European powers, France and the UK, discovered the very hard way during the Suez canal crisis ddod o'r llwythau yn oed o'i ddisgrifetau sydd yma'n ddigonwch y brifysgolio. Mae'n dweud o'r griffau a'r ddweud o'r pargyfrifau a'r Gweithreth sydd o'r union sydd hynny. Mae'n rhaid o'r gyfer ei gwael i'w ddweud o'r rhag ar hyn o'r ddweud o'r llwythau oherwydd dyma'r rhag o'r rhag o'r Ddermany o'r rhag o'r Ddermany. In the meantime, the UK was trying to make up its own mind about Europe, should we join it, should we not. During the treaty negotiations, the former Foreign Secretary Herbert Morrison famously said joining the common market would be the end of a thousand years of history, so it didn't join. We know then obviously it later did. In short, the 1957 Europe was struggling to meet the needs of its citizens. It had no real voice on the international stage and to put it mildly it was confused as to what direction it should take. What is striking, therefore, is just how prosaic the language of the actual treaty was given the challenges. What we might have expected was a text that was much more rhetorical. Instead, what jumps off the page is pragmatism. It talks about the improvement of living and working conditions, about eliminating barriers, about balanced trade and fair competition. It talks about progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade, reducing differences with less favoured regions, pooling resources to strengthen peace and, of course, an ever closer union among the people. The treaty also included a call to other peoples of Europe to join their efforts. Since then, Ireland and Sweden and many others have answered that call and more again are currently engaged in the accession process. Sixty years on, we are once again looking for the clarity that led Europe so successfully out of the confusion back then that reigned within its borders around its neighbourhood and, of course, throughout the globe. Most discussions in the future begin by emphasising how complicated and how turbulent the world has become. We talk about multiple challenges. The financial crisis, the migration crisis, climate change, Brexit, the emergence of new powers, the decline of others, and a general sense that the voters have less and less confidence in the people that they have actually elected. It would, of course, be wrong to ignore these challenges, but I think it would also be wrong to let them overwhelm us. When the leaders of EU 27 met in Rome in March, they came close to capturing the approach we need to take in the future of Europe debate when they said, we want a union that is safe, that is secure, prosperous, competitive, sustainable and socially responsible, and the will and the capacity of playing a key role in the world and shaping globalisation, and amongst all of the challenges we face and the things we have across border elements to them. Ann has set out, I suppose, a number of Sweden's wants and where they are going, and Sweden, I think similar to what's wants the EU to focus on job creation, particularly among our young people. We in Ireland have the second youngest population in Europe, so it is a key priority. Sweden wants a digital single market that helps its SMEs do business digitally and helps consumers avail of services online. So do we, and indeed we spent much time over luncheon and in our own meeting discussing this, and I think we agree that any barrier to doing business online or digitally or cross board is a barrier to trade, it's a barrier to progress, and again we agree I think a barrier to jobs. Both countries want ambitious trade agreements that respect the high standards that our citizens expect, agreements that provide better opportunities for jobs and growth, and likewise Sweden and Ireland are very strong advocates for strong environmental policies and greater solidarity among member states when it comes to migration. In short, I think both of us recognise the fundamental importance of the European Union in dealing with issues that affect us. In Ireland we have undertaken extensive analysis of the consequences of Brexit, and our unequivocal conclusion is that our future interests are best served by remaining a fully committed member of the European Union, notwithstanding the UK's departure of course. Like Sweden we see it as the best instrument we have for addressing the new challenges we are facing, serving the needs of our citizens who want to live, study, work, move and prosper freely across the continent. In the early 1900s, Europe accounted for 25% of the world's population. By 2060 it will represent less than 5%. Long-term trends would suggest that Europe's share of the world's GDP will fall from around 22% to much less than 20% by 2030, and thanks to longer life expectancies, and this is something I learned from my previous role as Minister for Older People, the average age in Europe will be 45, making us the oldest continent in the world. So by contrast, the average age in Africa will be just over 21 years in 2030, so that shows you where we're heading. So I would ask the question, would we be better dealing with this brave new world on our own, or together with our partners in a major economic power with unparalleled levels of social protection and welfare? When we try to find new markets for exports, will it be easier to gain access on our own or with the weight of one of the world's biggest trading blocks behind us? In a world of asymmetric threats of international terrorism, do we go as alone, or do we stand in solidarity with our partners sharing intelligence and putting in place protective mechanisms? If you ask me, and I assume if I ask most people here, I would argue that we would be much better together. Together with Sweden, we will work with our friends and our allies in Europe, crafting a common agenda that meets the needs of our citizens, and I think it's timely, therefore, to have a full debate on the type of Europe that we want to have, that we want to see, but most importantly, that we want to be part of. Of course we also want the future of Europe debate to be fair and to be honest, and I think an honest debate should be one that confronts the myths about Europe, and a debate that is citizen-focused will be more about outcomes than institutions. An honest debate will also be one that recognises that the European Union is not perfect. The leaders of the EU 27 acknowledged that last year when they were in Bratislava when they launched the debate, and it might be a statement of the obvious, but if the EU was perfect, it would not be a need for renewal, and the reality is that it does indeed need renewal. What we don't need in any debate is rhetoric. We should take the same level-headed and dispassionate approach that the architects of the Treaty of Rome took, and to look at pragmatic solutions in this area. In my opinion, we need to ask how the EU 27 can deliver on these three promises, prosperity and stability, freedom and values, and finally peace and security. I'm already engaged with organisations such as the Institute here with European Affairs and European Movement Ireland, and together with Minister Simon Coveney, I will be leading a process of public engagement and debate across the country in the very near future. I know that the Institute is working on responses to the Commission's white papers and the five reflection papers, and we obviously report or we await a chance with interest, I think, the five reflection papers, they're not inclusive, they're not exhaustive, but they obviously give us a platform to start and to further the discussion that we're having. Others such as the President of the European Commission, John Claude Juncker, and of course the President of France, Emmanuel Macron are busy making proposals, and we know we've heard some of those proposals in recent days, and while not all of them we would agree with, it is important that we in Ireland get ahead of the debate, and that our contribution very much reflects the concerns and the expectations of the Irish people. All too often, I think, and we've seen this previously in referendums and debates that we've had when we engage on Europe, we get torn between Eurofanatics and Eurosceptics. The Eurofanatics sometimes leave us feeling that it is a union and a club that knows best, but it's often too complicated for me or you or others to understand, and the Eurosceptics, they demonise this and they frog the debate, and the Brexit referendum in the UK where we had lies, we had straight bananas, and we had a lot of fake news as well, so I think this is a process that has a lot of dimensions. It will depend on the wise counselling of organisations such as the Institute here and many others, and it will depend enormously on the quality of our engagement with the wider public. The European Union still enjoys immense popular support in Ireland. I think the recent questionnaire showed us that 86% in favour of the European Union, but I don't think we should be naive and take this support for granted, notwithstanding the support the union commands, we should expect a very robust debate in Ireland. This is why we need a calm and considered and inclusive debate, and to quote and to finish on this, Jean-Flaude Juncker, the future of Europe cannot be decided by decree, it has to be the result of democratic debate and ultimately broad consensus, so I would ask you all to join in that debate. Thank you.