 Good afternoon, everybody. You're all very welcome, whether here in the room or taking part through the live stream. Is that okay, Lorcan? My name is Alex White. I'm Director General of the Institute here. As I say, everybody's very welcome. I think we can all agree that the question of EU enlargement has sort of hortled up the political agenda across the Union, most especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And it's become an ever more important topic in that context. And there is much debate and discussion about the various questions associated with enlargement, perhaps the challenges in some cases. In other cases, maybe obstacles, arguably, to accession, but also opportunities, also part of that discussion, part of that debate. And with eight candidate countries and two applicable countries, many have also argued on the need for reforms in how the European Union operates before there could be a 37 member state Union. In her address to us this afternoon, we're delighted to have Jessica Roswell, Minister for EU Affairs of Sweden, and the Minister will give, I think, a timely survey of the Swedish government's view on the topic of EU enlargement and overall generally the future of the European Union at this time. Jessica Roswell is the Minister of EU Affairs at Nordic Cooperation in Sweden, having held that role since 2022. She's been a member of the Swedish parliament since 2010. Prior to her current ministerial role, Minister Roswell was chair of the modern party in Uppsala County. She also served as a member of the advisory councils of the Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise, the Uppsala County Administration Board, and the Swedish Consumer Agency. And I'm pleased to say that prior to entering politics, Ms Roswell was a practicing lawyer for many years. Here, here, exactly. Yeah, so a few of us left. I want to note the critical indispensable support of the Department of Foreign Affairs for this talk and indeed for the series that it's part of. And in fact, it is we're kind of engaged in a mini series this week on the question of enlargement because we have three talks in all the course of the week. Minister Roswell's talk obviously today, starting off the discussion as it were or continuing the discussion but starting it for us here this week. And tomorrow, we're delighted to say that we'll be hosting Peter Burke, Minister Peter Burke, who is responsible for European Affairs, to provide an Irish perspective on the question. And on Thursday, we're going to be joined by Lawrence Meredith, who's director in DG near the Commission to give the Commission's perspective on this important topic. And so as I say, first of all, we're going to have Minister Roswell, and she's going to speak to survive 20 minutes or so, and then we'll have a Q&A. And you can take part in that either in the room is most easily by simply putting up your hand. And if you're watching us online, you can use the Q&A function on your laptop or computer. And you'll see that there and you're very well familiar with it this time reminder that the presentation and the Q&A are both on the record. If you want to use Twitter or X or whatever you like to call it now, please do so. The handle is at IEA. And as I mentioned, we're also live streaming live streaming this afternoon's discussion. So once again, warm welcome to everybody, including those of you tuning in on YouTube. And it's my great pleasure now to hand over and give the floor to Minister Jessica Roswell for her presentation. You're very welcome. So thank you. Thank you, Alex. And thank you for the introduction. Yes. In some rooms, it's good to be a lawyer, not always. But thank you very much for having me to have this speech today on this topic that is very, very often on my mind at the moment, enlargement and the future of EU. Let me start with a quote. The constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring neighbouring states. We are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. It's administrations favours the many instead of the few. This is why it's called a democracy. These sentences are from one of the most famous speeches in history. This speech was held more than 2,400 years ago, but part of it could have been written today. Because the struggle for democracy for a system of government that favours the many instead of the few is not ancient history. It's an ongoing battle. And I do think that the battle is the right choice of word. Because battles are literally what the people of Ukraine are going through to preserve their democracy. The Ukrainians are fighting despite cruel war crimes, despite ecological destruction and despite nuclear threats. Despite all that, Ukraine is still ruled from Kiev and not from Moscow. Ukraine needs to win this war, but they also need to win the peace. And that is where enlargement comes in. Because enlargement is about making sure that Europeans can live in peace and prosperity. It's about spreading European values, democracy, rule of law, freedom, equality, human dignity and human rights across our nation. And it's about making sure that free democratic Europe stretches all the way from Dublin to the province and to Kiev. And with the war raging on EU's doorstep, enlargement is not abstract anymore. Now it's a concrete and urgent issue. Now it's not a question of if it will happen, but how. And today I would like to provide you some of the Swedish perspective on the questions that the future enlargement raised for the EU. And perhaps I will also ask a few questions myself along the way, since I don't have all the answers and I will try to have the survey but also cross out questions. First, let me answer the question, why enlargement? Why do we need to make the EU ready for future with more member states? I think there is an obvious answer to this question. It's about making Europe safe for democracy. Today we live in a world of great power competition. China is repressive at home and assertive abroad. And I don't need to repeat myself about Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. And for a smaller country like Ireland and Sweden, EU membership is extremely valuable in this era of great power of competition. With almost 450 million citizens, the EU has become a force to be reckoned with on the world stage. And with 27 member states combined, it matters if you have trade agreement with us. And if we impose sanctions against you. Having more countries to join a democratic integrated Europe can also make us all safer and richer. Just take a country like Estonia, which is one of Sweden's closest neighbors. And 30 years ago, there were Russian troops based in Estonia. Now there are world leading tech companies based in Estonia instead. That's the difference that European integration makes. And when we speak about enlargement, let's remind ourselves that one of the best examples of successful enlargement is Ireland. This year, Ireland celebrates 50 years as a member states. And I was taking part in the European Parliament this spring during the Swedish presidency when we celebrated there. And 50 years ago in that time, Ireland has gone from one of the poorest members to the second richest in terms of GDP per capita. Many will seek advice from you on how to success in Europe, and they should. Thanks to previous round of enlargement, countries like Ireland and Sweden have benefited greatly. Our economies have been able to grow thanks to the expansion of the single market and we have more democratic friendly countries in our neighborhood. And with the bigger EU, we will have also been able to expand our influence in the world. And if we do this right, I am convinced that future enlargement can have similar effects. But of course, doing it right will be hard. It will require reforms that in the candidate countries, and it will also require reforms on how the EU itself works. And these reforms have to be anchored and accepted by our citizens. So let us be honest to with our citizens about the work that we need to do to turn a bigger EU also to a better EU. And this brings me to my second question. How do we enlarge? And this was a question I wanted to raise during the Swedish presidency this spring. So therefore I invited my colleagues in the Informal General Fair Council in Uppsala to discuss three main issues. How will enlargement affect our policies? How will it affect our budget? And how will it affect our institutions? These discussions are still ongoing, but I would like to share with you a few key observations so far. First, we cannot have enlargement without proper protection of the rule of law. This is not just because we want the EU to become a democratic role model on the world stage, but also because our cooperation rests on mutual trust. Trust is trust that our common rules are respected all across the union. Trust that our citizens and our companies will be treated fairly by courts in other member states. Trust that our common resources, our tax pays money will be spent well spent and not end up in wrong pockets. And if we cannot trust these things, the foundation of our cooperation will fall apart. And this is why the rule of law was one of Sweden's priorities during the presidency this spring. Among other things we held hearings with both Poland and Hungary under Article 7. We also organized a rule of law symposium that provided recommendation for the EU institutions and future presidency. We did this because going forward we need to do two things at the same time. We need to hold candidate countries to a high standard while also getting our own house in order. So this is why Sweden support using conditionality and clear demands on member states that they respect the rule of law to access to EU funds. And I'm sure that the rule of law will continue to play a key role in the enlargement debate. In fact, I think that this is essential to gain public acceptance for a bigger reformed EU. Second, in the discussion on EU reforms to make us ready for enlargement, we have to focus on what is politically possible. And this is why Sweden believes that we should focus on our efforts on policy reforms, not treaty changes. We all know that we have a big chance on how we have to do big changes on how the EU works. For example, Ukraine's farmland cover an area that is greater than Italy. And therefore we will have to reform the common agriculture policy. This will of course have difficulties. This will be difficult enough in a lot of countries. Thus we don't need to add a treaty change process on top of that. We might risk to sow seeds for a political backlash like the one we saw in Ireland before the Lisbon Treaty was ratified when a majority voted no in the first referendum. And the second reason why we don't need a treaty changes is that the Lisbon Treaty is enlargement proof. For example, it is already possible to make more decisions by qualified majority. And Sweden is open to do so in a limited number of areas within the common foreign and security policy when it comes to sanctions, human rights and civilian missions. And moving to QMV or qualified majority voting in these areas would also allow us to EU to speak with one voice. And this is especially important in times of a democratic backsliding worldwide. In other areas, however, such as taxes, Sweden believes that unanimity remains important to protect national interests, especially for smaller member states. And frankly unanimity hasn't stopped the EU from taking quick and decisive actions in the last few years. Despite Brexit, despite the pandemic and despite the war in Ukraine, the EU has still managed to be united. So when we talk about how we should make decisions in the future, I think that we also should keep those experiences in mind. Third, what should the end goal of enlargement and the EU's internal reforms be? On this question, the view from Stockholm is that we should strive forward in united Europe with respect for the rule of law and its heart. Sweden is open to idea of gradual integration for candidate countries to make sure that they receive some benefits from European integration on the road towards full EU membership. But the end goal should still be full membership. Countries that live up to the EU's high democracy and rule of law standard should not remain in some concentric circle or waiting room. If they are ready to join the EU, the EU has to be ready to let them in. In this geopolitical situation, we cannot afford to have to let countries that are able and willing to remain on the outside. If we don't offer them partnership, China and Russia will be happy to do so. If the candidate country sees this momentum, so must we. Finally, if a big EU has to be firm when it comes to our fundamental values, perhaps we need more freedom and flexibility when it comes to some of our own regulations. Harmonizing our rules and standards is often a good thing. For instance, having the same product standards for goods is a good thing if you want to have a single market. However, other things are more difficult to draft detailed laws about in a diverse union. Just to take one example, the local environment looks very different in northern Sweden than in say Cyprus. Therefore, we should focus more on the results and allow for greater freedom and flexibility on how these results are achieved. Moreover, we need better regulation because the EU is facing a competitiveness crisis. For many years, the EU has been losing grounds to the major economies such as the US and China. And one of the most common complaints from companies in the EU these days are that regulatory burden is too big. So when we enlarge, we have to keep this in mind too. The regulatory burden should not expand just because the EU does. Instead, a bigger EU must build on the strength that we already have to tackle future challenges such as enlargement. We need to boost our competitiveness in a general and in a single market in particular. To conclude, I think that the war in Ukraine has shown us how strongly people actually want to live in a free, democratic Europe. If it wasn't already clear at the Maidan protest in Kiev today 10 years ago, it is definitely clear now. As the discussions on enlargement and the future of the EU moves on, I think we should remember that and not lose the sight of the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is that as much as we will argue about internal reforms such as whether we should have more QMV or not, an EU membership is very attractive. It offers access to the biggest single market in the world to what will be the world's first climate neutral group of countries and to the union that has actually kept the peace between member states for more than 70 years. As long as we stick to our principles, strive to keep the EU's unity and allow member states some freedom and flexibility to achieve our common goals, I believe that we can make future enlargement a success. That way we can extend government that favors the many instead of the few, even to more Europeans. So thank you very much for listening. I'm looking forward to answer your questions. Thank you very much, Minister, for that. And I noticed quite a few things in what you had to say, but one or two of them I think will be met with some certainly relief. I'm sure agreement in Dublin, in political circles anyway in Dublin, what you said about treaty change and also what you said about decisions on taxation that you didn't see the basis for that changing. I wonder though, how you evaluate or how you think about the Franco German position and the paper that was published into the paper on institutional reform published earlier this year, I think in September. I don't think there's much there in relation to necessarily treaty change being required, but some quite radical proposals in there in respect of institutional change. Do you think that those proposals have value or what's your general approach or what's Sweden's general approach to what's set out there. I think that is one good example to put interest in ideas and have the on the table. So, when we have this informal General Affairs Council meeting in Uppsala Stockholm during the Swedish presidency was one first step to have this discussions as I said but I think that the German Franco paper also puts into this discussion. And also from the Swedish Institute of European Studies we have a book from the whole fit for 35 which also is very interesting reading if you want to have this discussion so I think, of course, we have not the Swedish government has not taken pro if you say yes and no to different suggestions in the paper, but I think there are things that are really interesting example, for example, the the suggestions about the rule of law and how we can implement these things. So I think all of these papers and discussions and panels are very important when we are now in this movement of future of enlargement. So, both yes and no in the context of suggested because they also don't, all of them don't have the necessary speaks on the necessity, necessity to have treaty changes. I'm interested if there are any questions or observations in the room or indeed online and be delighted to to entertain them. So, I'm here in a marrow the back. Hold on for the microphone. And if you're asking a question making observation. Tell us who you are, even though we know I just mentioned. I'm a retired lawyer and member of the Institute, and I was very interested in remarks made by the Minister regarding the Lisbon Treaty. I completely agree. It is very flexible treaty, and it has left the even a very strong position to go forward. For example, if you look at the last four years, at the amount of legislation that the commission has proposed, and has been adopted by the parliament, and week by week we're seeing the green transition and all kinds of legislation going through by qualified majority voting. I'm always amused it's about a cynical when I see, I look at a commission proposal to see the legal base for the proposal, and it's surprise surprise invariably by qualified majority voting, it's a single market measure, so on, even though it doesn't appear to be anything much to do with the single market. So I agree with you that the Lisbon Treaty is very flexible. But there's one treaty area that does worry me, which is, if you have 10 more member states, and you have 10 more commissioners, and you end up with 37 commissioners. I just wonder at what point do you devalue the commissionership of each member state by having so many do you informally turn the commission into a two tier inner sanctum and outer sanctum, or what happens, and I just think that might be the core problem going forward with have to find some way to deal with the commission size. Very good. Thank you. Good question, I think it's legitimate legitimate sorry that's a difficult word to say Swedish and English, but obviously it's very good questions about how big should the commission be how big how many people should be in the European Parliament how should the Court of Justice look like. And all of these questions are important to discuss. I avoid the word that I obviously not cannot pronounce. And I think from a Swedish perspective not for so far I think it's important to have one commissioner per state is small country like Sweden this is important. I think it's also important for the EU was the legitimacy to have representatives in all countries, but I understand that this will be difficulty in the future so I'm not ready to see that solution yet but so you raise a very important question. I thought it's also balanced course on the legitimacy from from both sides. So, so far I think it's very important for us to have our own commissioner. But of course how will it function. I don't have all the answers yet so as I said, it's a lot of questions but that is one way question that we need to raise. When we had this discussion in Sweden we had the policy discussions the budgetary questions questions, but also how will our institutions work, and you leave the commission so that's one of the parts. Interesting. Yes. My question is related to you mentioned the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty here in Ireland, and the nervousness about treaty change. And I just want to get your thoughts on how we can bring the public with us on institutional change but also on enlargement is an enlargement new member state. So I'm just wondering how across Europe we can bring governments can bring public along these big changes. That is the question that I think a lot. I don't in that I don't have the answers also but that's one question that I raise along with my colleagues often. I raise it when I meet the Swedish parliament, my colleagues in the government in Sweden, because this is really we have to have the pub, the people on board on this enlargement. So far, and I was in on the panel last week, when there were figures out on how the support within the European Union is from from citizens on enlargement which is high I think there were 52% or 53 something. I think actually in Sweden is higher because we have always been in favor of enlargement. And we I think also after the full scale evasion of Ukraine, I think, when I meet people, most in Sweden known a everybody see the reason that when it comes to enlargement today it's the geopolitical situation the security issue is the main target. And I think that is one thing is that it's been obvious now, but also, because I also speak and spoke about the, the economical reason why this is important. And this is something that we have to speak about a lot what as often as possible so my eyes, I will, I hope that the election to European Parliament next year will be one opportunity to speak about a lot of the future EU with our citizens. And I will absolutely do so and I hope that the lot of other EU ministers and all ministers and all parties around the European Union will have this on the top agenda when we when we meet, we meet the voters. But this is a really important question that I think a lot about. Isn't it one of the, I suppose challenges that kind of coming back to a point that Karen or Mara made about the size of the commission and these become complex institutional questions and how would you know would would would a new would a smaller commission be more effective and so on and what about countries then who wouldn't end up having a voice at the table as aware that that is how inevitably that issue will be discussed in a referendum, for example, or even in parliaments where enlargement. If we look at the sort of the potential negative side of this debate and public opinion is if we if any individual country Ireland Sweden any country would be likely to lose clout or lose effectiveness or you know it's that it's impact would be less. And that's the kind of headline point that does grab attention, I think in the broader public. So I remember certainly that was the case here and in one or other either the more recent referendum or the one just before I think the more recent where we're losing our commissioner. So no matter how it's, it's presented, even if there is a clever way of having, you know, commissioners who are not necessarily in the College of Commissioners all the time, it still will be seen as a loss of a voice or loss or a diminution of the voice. No, exactly. And that is why I think so far I think it's important to have one commissioner per per members date but of course it will constitute maybe other bureaucratic discussions. But I think when it comes to public, the citizens wanting to do enlargement I think one of the things that is important that we have efficiency. And we have the money spent on the right things and we don't see it in wrong pockets, as I said, these questions are also very very important for people. Gentlemen there. Yes, yes, yourself. Yep. Paul King is my name. I am a practicing lawyer, but I'm also for full disclosure I'm the American General of Sweden. And you've mentioned elsewhere and you touched on it here today, and the risks of member states acting in a manner against the fundamental values that underlie the EU. And I think one of the concerns is that we have a further enlargement and that there could be the possibility of some states acting in concert, who might not not comply with the fundamental values. And how do we protect ourselves against that. Perhaps through qualified voting but are there other measures that you have in mind that might be an effective sanction and protection against that risk. Against interva amongst member states. Yeah member states who basically don't behave themselves and who don't respect the rule of law. And I think, yes, as I said, we have seen a backsliding across the world but also within the within the EU on this and that is why I think we have had the EU has a lot of tools. We have the article seven we have the dialogue, but we also now have the conditionality mechanism. And I think these are tools that we need to use. And I think here is also Sweden and Ireland very like minded on how can we exchange our views and because these are really important values that we cannot. And that has to be in the core, especially when it comes to enlargement. And that is why I push so very hard on these questions, especially when it comes to enlargement on these 10 countries that are now a candidate or applicants. That this is something that when we talk about merit based this is really the first step when it comes to merit based. And I think that one of the things in the German friend German French paper is on how to move forward on different parts of the rule of law internally. I have not the answers yet but I think there are interesting suggestions in that paper that you can might see the news but also I think the conditionality mechanism is really one thing that we need to also stick to which is only being in force for a couple of years. Barry and then yeah. Thanks very much, Minister and welcome to Dublin again. I totally struck by some of the things that you said. So you spoke about in Estonia 30 years ago there was Russian troops and now we have some the leading tech firms in the world. I have a question about what you said also about the country seeking partnership from the EU that if I think to to hopefully not miss quote you said that if we don't offer them partnership China and Russian China and Russia might. So my question for you it kind of builds on what you said to Alex and to Dylan. The questions are the, the risks of non enlargement from a geopolitical perspective so thinking of citizens in Uppsala or in Dublin, not talking about the important questions of do you have a commissioner or voting weights in the council. In terms of their security, the economy and society. What are the costs to them of non enlargements if the EU stays the same size. Thanks, Minister. Thank you thank you very relevant question. And that is because I think this is true. What I said, of course, and you quoted me correctly. And I think. And that is the thing that you have to have in mind when you discuss the enlargement what is the cost of the, not doing this. My point in having this first discussion in Uppsala was that you cannot hinder or stand in the way for enlargement we have, we cannot, you know, we cannot end up in in long discussions on, are we ready or not have the do we have enough room for 36 commissioners or not. The question is, we need to do this. Otherwise, someone else will do it. So absolutely. And the cost will be severe, I suppose, and that is also why I want to mention again and again and again, Ukraine is not fighting for themselves only if they are but they also fighting for security. And they need to win the peace. And because it's our, our democracy that they are also fighting for so absolutely the cost is there. So, so my point is absolutely don't let us not focus only on internal question this is important also we need to do our homework. When I speak with my colleagues and also that the, the, the leaders and level, the discussion is ongoing on how to make EU ready for enlargement, which is really good. And my other point is that to the candidate countries, the momentum is now you have to also do the reforms, but the EU cannot hinder or stop due to our own that we have not done the homework. John. Thank you very much minister john O'brennan I'm a professor who specializes in enlargement policy, you were admirably clear in everything you said so I thank you for that especially about treaty reform. The current conversation about enlargement actually is very similar to the 1990s and the early 2000s and Sweden played an incredibly positive role in facilitating enlargement at that time. My question to you is about the blockages in the council in particular because these have become more and more problematic over time we have individual members states objecting to particular candidate states for particular reasons. And it means that the candidate state just cannot make progress North Macedonia, having solved the problem with Greece, then was confronted with this other problem by the Bulgarian objections which are all about identity culture and history and have no place in my view in these negotiations. It's difficult to see Croatia having problems for example with some of the Western Balkan states at some point in the future. So, I would just wonder about the thinking in Sweden about this, about how we overcome those kinds of obstacles in the council and what kind of measures might be taken that might facilitate genuine breakthroughs, whether necessary. Thanks. I do a lot of thinking about that also and I'm afraid I don't have the perfect answer because these are really difficult questions and you've seen also the evaluation in these discussions on in the council on different matters. Now, I think I see some problems on the road, absolutely, but overall, I would say that all member states when we meet ministers, if I recall the meeting in Uppsala in spring, or we had all the ministers that maybe not all ministers all countries were was represented. And I will say that everybody, we will have the same opinion that enlargement is not about if it's about how. So this is good. But then I'm not pretending this will not be easy. We need to, I'm very clear of that. But still, I think that we have the same goal and the reason more that I've been talking about. So, but when it comes to different, also a reflection on when you speak about North budget Macedonia and and other countries in the Western Balkans are also reflected I was in Slovenia when on the blood conference. And, and Shawn Michelle was there speaking, and also is mentioned this 30s 2030 anyway. He also mentioned that we cannot take into the EU conflicts that are in different regions. So this is also an aspect on on on the other call. So I think it's, you asked me also almost two questions on the same time. So, the candidate countries need to do their reforms, we cannot take conflicts into the EU, and the parallel processes within the EU we the Council, we need to also make these important decisions. I'm positive that we will do it and we'll have the possibility and the capacity and the will to do it. But of course I see some very difficult discussions on that will be raised during the process. Absolutely. And people just picking up on that Valerie Hughes, who's an IAA member and asks a kind of almost anticipating this question of regional differences. I mean you mentioned obviously been concentrating on rule of law questions but occasionally the one manifest as the Valerie says, in the context of the rule of law and Western Balkans and EU enlargement. And would you care to comment on the Serbian president of book chiefs openly irredentist policies as Valerie describes them towards Bosnia, Kosovo and Montenegro. The question almost illustrates the point that a regional conflict or a regional difference may not be seen that solely that way by everybody. They also be seen in the context of broader philosophy or your rule of law questions. Exactly. And that is one of the points that you cannot have these, you cannot bring those conflicts into the unit, these needs to be handled before. But I think during the Swedish presidency, I, I visit me and the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Sweden to be at least to restore the countries on Western Balkans. And both to give our support and Sweden has for a long time been supportive in different ways in all countries to do the reforms in different ways. But also to say but you need to do your homework. Because this is a merit based process and that is very important for both Sweden and Ireland and a lot of other countries, of course. So, I really, I know that there is conflicts and different member states, different kind of different states have different difficulties. So speak so absolutely linked to that. I mean, Junker Kenny is a professor at Trinity College Dublin asks, or I suppose it's a comment or a question, whichever way you like to treat it. Ukraine may not become a member state if Hungary and Slovakia oppose it. Due to their ties with Russia and the additional Hungarian interest in the Hungarian speaking minority in Ukraine. What means could the EU use to mitigate this kind of same submersible. Yeah, absolutely. And I know that the Ukrainians, because I met during the Swedish presidency again that we had a lot of Ukrainian ministers on board on the informal meetings and have a lot of discussions. So I had a lot of the discussions with Mike and Pausla Olga's definition of, and I know that there is a lot of discussion bilateral between Ukraine and Hungary on the minority question. And so what can you do? Yeah, but because this is a process that is, is following kind of not a schedule, but it's, it's ordinary or it's everybody knows the process, so to speak. And now the Ukraine had these seven reforms that they need to do and then the commission's report came two weeks ago on start and negotiations, if and when in March, then they have fulfilled this. And I think the commission and the EU is doing the, not maybe the mitigation but the demands that we ask the US that you have to do this. And when it comes to minorities is one example that we have this criteria for all new member states. And this is the decision on all these questions are unanimity. We all know this and we need to move forward but as I said to earlier, I think the goal is we need, we know we need to, we want this enlargement and the process might be take some time absolutely but it's important and I feel that we know we have the same goal. Question at the front. Minister I'm Fergal like tomorrow I co chair the energy and climate group here at the Institute and thank you very much for your talk. I was interested in your mark about harmonization and the need for it or I think you put it that maybe results based outcomes were just as good as harmonization and the job is in the energy markets and electricity markets and we were very particular about harmonization inverse standardization in our particular field. And I suppose the more harmonization that bigger the equate a harder the accession negotiations so I just wondered if you could share some more your thoughts on how that plays out or what could be done different or how it should be organized thank you. For example when I say this is because comes a little bit maybe also come to the public, the citizens, having the citizens aboard on board. And one of the discussions that we have over very often in Sweden is about forestry. And if I make it simple, I can say left I can that maybe we Swedes don't think that the EU always understands how we think about forestry. So this has been a discussion on going and that is one of the examples that I took up when I think we need a regulation that is more focused on goal rather than detailed because we have different possibilities and the situation looks very different. So, so and but on the other hand I have of course understand and I know and I want to have that a lot of regulations and is also have to be the same in the whole union. So it's a double, double things to talk about, of course, then when it comes to the energy. No, but that's the example I would say that this is one of things that then it comes to better regulation I always and I meet a lot of companies that they don't only complain about EU they also complain of the government in Sweden, no matter what color it is maybe because it's too much heavy regulations so that is something that we have to have in mind. And during Swedish presidency we put competitiveness high on the agenda, and one of the points that we pointed out was that we have to have better regulation and a lesser burden and less reputable reporting. So, sometimes EU is very good on regulating, which is sometimes good, because we are frontline when it comes to making the climate goals for child examples, but sometimes we need to also have. That's why I use the word better regulation not more regulation. Sometimes that means less regulation but sometimes they just need better regulation. And when it comes to the keys when it comes to enlargement. I visit, I have an example from Albania, which I visited also when the Swedish support and we have we are engaged in one of the reform work when it comes to making the climate goals. And so this is something that we because I think the Sweden and other countries and also very good in the green transition and our companies are so we export our way of doing the green transition and that was one thing that EU members and other countries can help to support candidate countries to also that we all can reach the climate to go from so to speak. And then at the back, your person. Thank you, Minister Maricross a member of the Institute. We've been talking about enlargement up to about 37. But I just wanted to ask you about your close neighbor Norway, who will be very much an outlier in terms of Europe. European Union. If we do achieve the enlargement. Do you feel that this will put any pressure on Norway, the this major extension to rethink their application under just a second one. There's been a lot of destabilization by Russia on the finish border. Would you expect that the Nordic countries would find themselves under pressure, underneath any of the other countries with Russia, increasing activity to try to destabilize any enlargement activity. So, yes, I'm a minister of your first but also minister of Nordic cooperation. So the question is very, very good. No, but I, I of course, never ever comment other countries decisions, but this is not a secret. Sometimes when I meet with my colleagues in Norway also doesn't matter what color the politician is. I always ask you, when will you come to be a member when you really have your application to member states in the European Union. And, and, well, that's up to them, but I don't see any movement at the moment and now there is, we have also Iceland. So, but on the other hand, I will say this in the north when it comes to Nordic countries we have a very good cooperation and we work very closely also when it comes to EU laws and how to implement them also in all these countries, even they are not members. And so, well, it's up to them of course but of course I would gladly have them in the EU. And also I said, and when it comes to the, what we have seen last week on the reference migrants outside the Finnish border. Of course we follow it closely we are in close contact with our finish the Finnish government and, and see we have seen similar movements in Poland for one and two years ago. So it's worrying, and we will support Finland with whatever we can do of course but so we follow it closely. Absolutely, it's question at the back. I'm a member of the Institute. I want to raise a question about popular understanding of what the European project is all about. And that's in the context of another part of perfectly speech, where I think he was quoted as saying that, although we're a few are only able to originate a policy, we can all understand it. The current way we consider Europe we only talk about Europe once every five years when they're European elections. However, the European Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee which is basically an institution looks at institutions that hearings in 2012. This presentation by a then Swiss MP, Dr Andy Gross who at the time was chairman of the social democratic group in the Council of Europe. And he said that in Switzerland, we get to talk about what it means to be Swiss four times a year. That's because of the way they have constitutional, they have referendums four times a year referendums on either local issues, cantonal issues or national issues. Surely that is something that the EU must now consider if we, the ordinary citizens who are not insiders or incumbents, not bureaucrats or politicians are to try to develop a common understanding of what it means to be Europe. And that understanding as, as we change. And bear in mind that Switzerland is a country with two major religious divides, four languages, and a big divide on, on how they cook potatoes. So, if I start with, if I, if I understood correctly, like that we discussed EU issues only every five years when it comes to European elections in practice. Yeah, yeah. So, no, no, no. No, I tried to tell everybody, of course, and I think that I speak from for a lot of ministers who you have as that we think that I agree that we speak too little about EU issues. My prime minister last week when he did the EU declaration in speech in parliament, had said several times that EU politics is national politics. And I, of course, totally agree. And I have repeated this since this and I and I spend also around in the Swedish media because I think this is the issue. We all, all politicians should speak about EU politics as it is national politics because it is. We all have the figures on on on the agenda in a new municipalities council that I don't know how this figure is not is like 5060 80% that is actually have started in the in some EU policy. I'm, I try actually to do my part of the job. Of course, and I spend a lot of time and on schools on different discussions because I think this is a problem that we don't discuss it more. And I'm afraid also that you, you could, you could argue on the next if you have a say again that even when it's come to European election European Parliament elections, they tend to be national elections. Even so, so this is also so sorry so I really hope that this election can focus on EU issues like enlargement, and maybe be a little bit naive but I would do my best to my part of this and also the parliamentarians. I'm not in favor of referendum, not even on the national level and I don't think that that is the way that we do policy in Sweden we have representative democracy and I think something that I defend every day. But that doesn't mean that we need to have the big discussions on EU affair questions. And that is also a question that I can I try to speak with the journalist in Sweden. And because sometimes I feel that people that I made think that EU matters is difficult. Which it of course is if we only talk about files that are far away but if we actually break them down to what it is. It is not difficult so I think and it's important for us. So, I understand what you say, but I hope that we can move to that we all discussed EU questions more, what it really because it's really important for us. It remains a challenge though doesn't it always that certainly 10 years ago here or 10 or 10 years ago during the crisis I remember one time Herman Herman von Rumpuy, kind of making the opposite point. Instead of the EU politics being national, he said something along the lines of that national parliaments for essentially now EU institutions. That was the reverse point and much more problematic, particularly in the context in which it was said, historic, you know, in terms of the crisis that was happening and that the parliaments the I was present when he said it that the parliaments were institutions of the European Union. That's it. I'm slightly misquoting them but not, I think violently misquoting and it was something like that. And I suppose that then just gives does, you know, it recalls that whole debate about democracy and so called democratic deficits and so on. That's just a constant challenge, I suppose, but you've you've addressed that. Yeah, a question here. Thanks very much Minister my name is Brian Kavanaugh, Maggie Tat. We are positioning Europe as a moral and democratic opposition to Russia. And I get that my concern is the ambiguity on many member states around particularly issue of immigration, and the sense that some from some perspective Europe's is looking like a fortress Europe, rather than power in Europe. We've enjoyed the speech of rural law, but with so many xenophobes and influential state governments, how does to use your term how does Europe clean up his own act in terms of ensuring that rural law and behavior all of us are talking about hungry and so back in others. That's the first question is a situation says shaping ideas and policy. How do we reach out to civil society, not the people in this room that you're calling said about insiders, because I suspect that commitment to Europe is very thin and wide. We need to be deepened equal as our commitment to national parliaments. So how is Europe helping civil society in the new emerging candidate countries as well as holding the line on our existing countries thank you. So, the first question was about fortress and not migration. No, yeah. I think that one or one. The migration question is of course a very it's a top it's on the agenda. I met with Peter Burke was coming from here tomorrow and and we can discuss that migration is on the European Council agenda every time. At least since my government come into office, because it is a question that is important. And from Sweden, we have for us it's really important we have had a very high number of migrants and we have not, we have not been successful when it comes to integration. So, coming to a conclusion on the migration pack during Swedish presidency on the in the Council was a great achievement from us, or our point of view and we, we surely work hard and during Spanish and the Belgium presidency to reach an agreement with the European Parliament on that. And because it is important for the European Union, when it comes to how can we live up to the rule of law, as you said within the union and I think I tried to answer a little bit earlier because I think the union has these different tools. And of course you can criticize some of them, like article seven does have it really have effect. I think in one way it has, because we have I've been attending the, the General Affairs Council for one year now and I think the discussions is is good and that the thing that it's moving forward in in these countries. Forward when I mean, doing reforms to also the article seven, but of course, at some and some point you have to discuss what will, what would be the next step. And that is why one thing that I think that this German French paper has some ideas. And also we have put forward a new tools like the conditionality mechanism, which is important. So of course, as I said, you need to also take these questions really serious but because EU is built on values, and we need to have the trust amongst us to remember between member states so this is really really important, not only because of the us people but also for our companies and our single market to function so these are this is essential of course. So I don't have all the answers but I think you are on something really important. Then you had another question that I forgot now because I didn't write it out. Sorry. Yeah, it'll probably be the final the handles but question because I have one from down or Brian here also very much minister. My name is Francis Jacobs member of the Institute. You mentioned several times the Franco German paper and obviously it's a really important contribution. And yet about a year and a half ago, there was a conference on the future of Europe, which made a number of recommendations involved lots of citizens national parliaments, and yet its recommendations seem to have disappeared completely. I just like your view on that. My second question you did mention in the context of enlargement, the importance of looking at the budget. Back for so long with a very small EU budget obviously miniscule compared to national budgets. Don't you think that enlargement poses for question, should there be a substantially larger budget than there is present for the EU. Yeah, and before you answer that that's exactly down or Brian is the chief economist of the IAA. He heard what you said as well about national vetoes on tax issues. I wondered, does that also mean that Sweden favors maintaining the EU budget at its current level of around 1% Yeah, the national veto question. Does that mean that you favor maintaining 1% the MFF. Yeah, so now I wrote down both questions. So let me start with a yes I mentioned the Franco German paper because you asked me about it but I also mentioned it's a lot of other papers coming out. I think one will come out this today tomorrow and the Swedish Institute have had this fit for 35 paper for a month ago something so it's a lot of good thinking around which is really, I think very helpful and good. The Conference of Future of Europe was had a lot of discussions a lot of suggestions but and some, a lot of them was has been taken care of within the Council and and some of them are also still discussing ongoing discussions in the European Parliament. So, from a Swedish perspective and this is also the previous government and also including my government is that we were quite. I just said another question we. It was a lot of citizens included but not that many actually was included. So are Swedish citizens they don't know about the Conference of Future of Europe, I will say so. That doesn't mean it was not important question raised. But still, I think we really need to work on having the people the citizens on board and that is not the answer is not the Conference of Future of Europe. I think that's another homework that we all need to do together to be honest. Yes, I recall and maybe I'm not exactly right with the figures but I think like 80% of the suggestions were taken care of within the council in different councils of course. And so is still when it comes to budget question this will be one of the difficult questions. I don't give a straight answer on how much money will the next budget be. But I think we have argued for a modernized budget for a long time in Sweden. And what is modernized, of course they can discuss that but I think this is an important question that will absolutely be necessary to discuss because due to enlargement. The Ukraine with this is a large country which that would probably need to have the difficulties for a lot of countries when it comes to the cop. And will it have substantial will it increase will the budget increase, I don't know but I think if you ask Sweden, Swedes, we don't want to raise the budget. So we need to have a more much, we need to use, well how do we spend money but of course enlargement will have effect on all of us, I realize that so this is, and I will, I think that it's important to not. We need to speak about this this is difficult and how can we do it don't don't shy away this is important questions, and I'm not afraid to have the discussions, but I don't have the answer so it's easy at the moment maybe. Well that's what we do here we foster discussion we don't necessarily always get to the answers so thank you very much. Thank you, Jessica Roswell for being with us this afternoon, and for your first of all for your presentation for responding to so many questions and for your insights and observations. I think that enlargement is going to be a big preoccupation between now and the elections and next summer and beyond, obviously, and probably for the first time really the focus is coming back that kind of debate for the first time in 20 years as the last big sort of series of accession so it's a big question and you've addressed this afternoon in a very insightful way so our warm thanks for being here, and thank you all for your attendance, either in person or otherwise and for your questions, and thank you again in particular to our colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs for their close and continuing support for this series so thank you all very much. Thank you very much, thank you.