Transcripts For CSPAN2 Irish Ambassador To The U.S. Daniel Mulhall Others On Brexit 20240713

Have a postdoctoral program, we have a number of postdoctoral fellows here at sais this year with us doing their work. And one of them has just finished a book before she got here, and we were really delighted to end publicize it and the first public release of the book. So cornelia has this new book. So, peace, security and defense cooperation in postbrexit europe. Pretty timely. Shes been working with her colleagues on those questions. So so we thought the context of the book would be good to talk about a very timely issue now which is whats going on with brexit, what does it mean not only for the u. K. And the e. U. Member states, but also for broader Security Issues which start to affect, of course, u. S. Interests quite intensely. So what well do is i will just briefly introduce the speakers. You have had an invitation and so on, more about their backgrounds, but just to keep it brief, i want to have cornelia tell us briefly about the book, and then were going to go to two colleagues, ellis pina who does work and teaches on these issues. And Eric Bradford who was a fellow with me for many years, is now two doors down at the Carnegie Endowment working on europe will offer further perspective. Were very delighted to have ambassador mulhall with us, ambassador of ireland to the United States. He has a great perspective on this because he also was ambassador of the u. K. , and so he can convey some of the reality also from his time there. Welcome back, mr. Ambassador. Were so delighted that you could join us again here at sais. So without further ado, let me turn to cornelia whos going to tell us a bit about the context, and then well go from there. Hello, everybody, and welcome to this book launch on brexit, European Security and Transatlantic Relations. Thank you very much, professor, for this very nice introduction. So as we mentioned, this is the book we are launching today, and i would like to say a few things. I wanted to check my time. So the book is an academic project, is a collective project with different contributors from various universities in europe. And in relation to the general is sis of this book, so the genesis of this book, so the idea of the book has materializedded at the university of hamburg during the e cpr conference, a European Conference for Political Research last summer. And so this is where we have started, and we decided to put together this contribution to help greater understanding of the subject matter. And before coming to telling you some of the major findings, i would like to say a few words put this in a broader context, the role of the research and researchers and in the 21st century in a broader context so that you can better understand how we reached the conclusions of this book. So uncertainty, insecurity and crisis as we know are some of the major hazards in the 21st century e informational security order. And in this context, the role of Academic Research is to generate a body of knowledge which can help us to understand, to explain or predict crisis and unsecurity. And, but of course it is not easy to predict uncertainty or to know uncertainty because, yeah, the question is how do we know if its uncertain. And a professor of mine doing a talk this year has made, actually, a very interesting point referring to a picture which probably most of you or many of you have seen this year, that of a black hole. So nasa found a way to know something which was previously unknown and which was difficult to know, is and how did they do it . They put together several telescopes. And this is what we tried to do in this book as well. So we tried to put together the pieces of, the pieces of the puzzle in order to estimate more con plex variables complex variables which can help us better predict and you understa. Is so the objective of the book was to fill a crucial scientific gap and to contribute to better understanding and management of the challenges associated with the Brexit Process for European Security and transatlantic cooperation. And the book is based on an understanding of peace and security going on resilience, anticipation and integration of aspects of daily life which are important for predicting uncertainty. So now i think i will come to the findings which we can categorize in four major themes or sections. The first finding is related to the e. U. u. K. Collaborative potential. So here we, the findings suggest that there is a mixed track record of e. U. u. K. Military cooperation. And reaching an agreement in the area of security has prove more difficult than expected because, mainly because of diverging interests of the u. K. On one side and the e. U. So interestingly, security was an area where we would have expected an easier agreement. However, the development of the brexit, as i said, have made reaching an agreement increasingly difficult. Another, another major pred agree of findings relates to the picture of europe. And when we talk about the future of europe, we need to talk about the future of the Common Security and defense policy. And here our findings suggest that the, or highlight the role of policy entrepreneurs such as france and germany in making advancements for csvp, but still challenges are expected to continue in the future because, because of the difference in the strategic preferences of these two major policy entrepreneurs, but also e. U. 27. Nonetheless, we can expect increased cooperation for listing obstacles in the future for csvp. Another aspect also in this category, the future of europe is related to peace. And, because when we talk about europe, we need to think about the essential aspect. Peace is a major attribute of european innovation. It is a for the other e. U. Membership benefits such as the economic political corporation x. The findings have highlighted how the Brexit Process or brexit can undermine or undermines the Northern Ireland Peace Process and the good friday agreement because the good friday agreement was possible due to the e. U. Membership of both countries, the u. K. And ireland. And the openended nature of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. And a im sure ambassador mulhall say more about this later on. Another important thing was related to, which we found was related to bilaterallists. So we could expect that the u. K. Will strengthen or relations with individual Member States will be strengthened on a bilateral basis, and we had a case study in our book on estonia. So the findings suggest that individual Member States in a difficult strategic environment or in exposure such as estonia very an increased utility for the u. K. Particularly because cooperation on a bilateral basis can constitute avenues of interest for the e. U. Policy or on the e. U. Policy. Then we have, we have a third category of findings which relates to new sources of power and legitimate is city. And here legitimacy. And here we assess whether and how new and emerging Security Technologies can be turned or can turn into a competitive advantage for the e. U. Another thing we looked at was the potential of collaborative defense, security and defense regimes and procurement and the European Defense fund. And also we looked at the future of the European Nuclear deterrence. And finally, there was a fourth category. So here we find a greater need for, we find the need for the the findings suggest the need for more greater, for more holistic e. U. Agenda. Holistic in the seven that cooperate i strategies should aim at fulfilling or yeah. Fulfilling both system stability, system reillinois sense. So in the sense that the ability of the system to maintain its power and system efficiency, that is the system the extent to which the member of the system comply with the rules of the is system and those systems capacity to fulfill strategic objectives. And this can be reached to increase interdependence. At all government structures. And, yeah. So i would say in conclusion that the findings of the book suggest a greater need for increased event u e. U [inaudible] and for the u. K. , it emphasizes the importance of bilateral if many lateral or multilateral structures particularly in the scenario of a no deal. To conclude, future of u. K. e. U. Relations will probably or we can expect to depend on the u. K. s about to eli on its normalized relations with partners. And also on its level of commitment or ability to show commit towards csvp. But well also depend on the preferences of the e. U. 27. So i think that is from my kind, is and we are now going to move on with beginning our panel. Our first speaker is alex menuate who are assistant professor here at Johns Hopkins University School of advanced international studies. She will a talk about brexit osar u. K. Bilateral relations with european partners, particularly with france. Thank you. Can you hear me . Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much, cornelia, for the invitation, and congratulations for putting together this event that it is such a short time at sais. So, yeah, im going to talk about the u. K. s bilateral defense relation with european partners, and in particular france, but by talking about france, i hope to draw conclusions that apply to other e. U. Member states and so could be of interest to other partners as well. So, indeed, as cornelia pointed, bilateral defense relations have a stake and a particular importance during the Brexit Process. They will be, potentially, more important after brexit is effective, but they have always been important and thats why we have spent the ten past years working on the u. K. French Defense relation and, hopefully, well have a book coming out on the subject in about a year. So when it comes to the u. K. And france, even though conclusions can be applied to oh cases, there is something quite special about the u. K. french bilateral defense relation. They do enjoy some sort of special relationship even though the term is connoted and tends to refer to the u. K. u. S. Bilateral relationship. It could also to some extent apply to the french. It is unique according to the French Embassy in london because it applies to all domains of defense and security, and it is special according to the u. K. Director for general strategy, you know, posted in march 2019 because it applies to Nuclear Deterrence as well as to u. K. And frances traditional capacities that other european states do not necessarily have. This Bilateral Partnership in the past ten years has been rooted in a bilateral trade deal whereby france and the u. K. Have committed to enhance their cooperation across the spectrum of defense and security, ranging from joint armament projects and including crossborder industrial integration, and thats an important part that im going to go back to because its probably the one thats been the most affected by brexit. They have endeavored to integrate their missile industry in particular around the company nbda, coowned by french and British Industrial groups. France and the u. K. Are have committed to enhance their cooperation on military operations and the interoperability of their armed forces. They have jointly led operations in libya in 2011, have together participated in the u. S. Led coalition in syria, have worked together under french leadership in the sahel, you under u. K. Leadership in Eastern Europe, and they have built for almost ten years now a joint Expeditionary Force which is first entry not Permanent Military force involving all three services that is going to reach full operational capacity next year in 2020. France and the u. K. Have also been collaborating in the Nuclear Deterrence domain which makes their partnership, indeed, quite special, sharing facilities for the maintenance of their Nuclear Stockpiles as well as test simulation on their nuclear warheads. France and the u. K. , obviously, are also both members of the u. N. Security council, and as such they engage on a lot of international Security Issues, and they have a common approach on Current Affairs including on iran, russia or syria. So thats for, if you like, the background of what im going to say now is going to bed. So based on this bilateral, allencompassing partnership that has been reenforced for the last decade, what has happened since 2016. This microphone is cutting out, theyre telling me, am i supposed to stay close or far . This, okay. What i said for the last three minutes wasnt that interesting, so its okay if you didnt hear anything. [laughter] when you have a partnership that has no equal in europe and you have this bilateral treaty, what you come up with after Something Like brexit is, first, disbelief on both sides as well as public declaration ares that support the meat nance of the partnership and try to create the political atmosphere of continued trust and support and mutual support. So in 2016, the president of france dethe claireed that the france will continue to work with this big friend country and the defense field will be represerved. Theresa may similarly in july 2016 suggested the Security Corporation between our countries is something that will always endure and that it will even strengthen the wider Strategic Defense Partnership between the two countries. So a lot of goodwill was shown at first. Then since 2017, 2018, we have some fatigue. We have macron taking hard line on begs sit to preserve the different brexit to preserve the different pillars of the e. U. And maintain unity of the e. U. , and we face the fact that the problem of defense, indeed, is not as important or is only secondary to economic and social issues, right . So you have defense coming, if you like, more to the back of bilateral declaration and french posturing, same on the u. K. Side. Then with the rejection of theresa mays deal, there is an increased fatigue and disbelief on the french side of what the u. K. Is up to. And then you have an increased governmental instability in the u. K. And with the coming into power of boris johnson, the question is, is it even worth working with johnson, how long is he going to a stay in power anyway. And the talks and the constant the throughputting of brexit make any kind of focus on defense and security very, very difficult. So in the meantime, you do have the collaboration that continues at the working level, political, military cooperation, miltomil cooperation continues una effected unaffected by the political events. Indian ocean of combined Aircraft Carrier groups continue, collaboration in the sahel in Eastern Europe and in syria continue. However, on the industrial side things have started to take a different turn. The big project of a future combat air system, a u. K. french system was abandoned not only due to brexit, there were already many disagreements on the industrial side, differing needs between the two countries, but it was acknowledged in all the research and interviews that ive done that brexit presented a sort of window of opportunity to just abandon a project that they no longer had an incentive to maintain because of bad political context and difficult economic context as well. Now we can wonder whats going to happen after brexit and these are the questions that are raised about resilience and imobviously very late. Im going to sit up. My point and thats something i write about in the book that i will hopefully be able to publish soon is that even for partners and neighbors enjoy such special relationships and partnerships, those partnerships need maintenance. The effort and when we think about whats going to happen next week and think about or lines of inquiry. First is how all the two partners going to show common interest decide on things they want to do together this is going to be difficult first because of brexit representing two opposing political visions, on the one hand you have friends thinking of its future in the european context and almost only in the european context and on the other side you have a uk thinking of a future individually around this idea of globalism so you have different political visions and you also have Political Tension because of the brexit negotiations which creates incentives for negotiating common positions, common interests and finding areas and ways to work together. Then in the longer term, if the uk does not participate in the eu, the European Defense fund, the common Foreign Policy meeting, there is a chance that theyre not going to be able to converge on many issues that concern eu diplomacy. So thats also going to make it more difficult to reach common positions from procurement choices and military procurements as the eu moves forward. Then there is the broader question of how willing and able uk is going to be as a military actor and the root of the partnership between the uk and france is they both share this expeditionary interventionist posture and if the uk indeed is still struggling with brexit, as lower defense spending and just general loss of leadership, is still going to be a very attractive partner for france . There is even the risk maybe thats if the uk has to negotiate trade deals great powers including the us, including china, including russia, maybe thats going to create some entitlements for the uks european partners. Second about coordinating government to Government Military activities. The uk being outside of it eu will make it more difficult to work on a regulatory basis including and especially our Defense Industries because the eu provides for simplification of crossborder arms exports and the extent of necessary for building arms so that making it difficult for Companies Like airbus and bba network on crossborder projects, not to mention a matter of consequence in the armaments sector, but if you have more paperwork, more administrative paperwork as well as border checks, it just also removes some of the instances of working with the uk and you may have some relocation of industry thoroughly and im reaching the end of my tort term, for bilateral relationships to continue, you need to be able to make deals and make bets so if you want to cooperate you may say give me this and ill give you that. You do tradeoffs and its constant bargaining even among close allies if you have uncertainty about the future, how are you going to make adeal . Youre not going to be able to that on whether the uk is going to be able to fulfill their commitments to certain deals youve made so youre going to be in the short term is incentivized to make certain deals and that applies in particular to armaments projects. Are you going to put money on the table if you dont know your partner is going to be ableto do the investigation. Thats an important point as well, how do you arbitrate amongdifferent bilateral relationships . State at any given time remain as relationships with different states of the uk as obviously strong relationships with friends but also the us and multiple countries, germany as well which is not that small. And so on the one hand the uk is going to be incentivized to arrange for links with a number of other european partners, but also with the us and this may be detrimental to france if the us is indeed for example lobbying the uk as it has been doing the buy American Equipment including in the missile sector where the uk has been trying so hard to work with friends and there has been a forceful american lobbying to sell some american missiles at the uk would otherwise be with friends on a bilateral level this us lobbying can also be felt towards other european states as they tried to find an alternative to the uk as an entry point into the eu so maybe also other colleagues will talk about that aspect. Meanwhile france is obviously incentivized to try with other partners including turning back to germany if its a difficult partner in defense and it remains another favored ally. Im actually done because i think i skipped a couple of points. Looking forward toquestions and comments if there are any afterwards. Thank you so much for your input. Our next speaker is joan denny with Research Professor of interagency intergovernmental and Multinational Security studies at the us army work College Strategic studies institute. He will talk about brexit and transatlanticcorporations. I think cornelia use a little bit of my time getting my title out thank you for the introduction. My name is john denny, im a Research Professor at the war collegein carlisle pennsylvania. Pacifically i work at the relatively Small Research is already there, the strategic studies institute. Its a small part of the larger war college. Im a government employee, we have Academic Freedom but im happy to acknowledge up front views im going to express now and during the q a are mine alone and dont reflect those of the army, department of defense or the us government. Cornelia, thank you so much for the invitation and congratulations to you and john doyle for anexcellent book. Im honored and delighted to talk to you about the transatlantic aspects of brexit for my take on it and im going to talk about that in terms of three potential rather negative impacts. The first of those goes into the demise of uk capability and capacity, militarily. The second follows on from that, the receiving of the uk strategic horizons. In other words how far beyond the borders of the United Kingdom does london see uk interest . It goes pretty far. Im going to argue i think going to see a reseeding of that, a pretty significant one most dramatically and heres where im on the finished ice, undoing the most dangerous thing a political scientist can do and that is predict. I think those first two things i mentioned that ultimately lead to the demise of the special relationship and the demise of the uk as americas righthand partner and the number two power in nato and i dont just mean that in terms of military issues. We americans as many know love to operate with partners around the world in all of our international dealings and the uk is arguably the closest partner we have in a variety of realms, especially in the military. I think that is at risk. So let me talk about each of those now in a little more detail. First, in terms of the demise of uk capability and capacity i mean that in terms of whats about to happen to the uk defense budget. Most of the reputable independent Economic Analysis that came out in the run up to the brexit vote over three years ago were consistent about the impact of brexit on the uk economy and that was there would be a negative impact on gdp, on purchasing power, on Household Incomes across the board. That was one or two exceptions, thats what most independent analysis found. That would vary in terms of the depth of bad news but the hard brexit was the worst Case Scenario and their most analysis averaged about seven percent drop in gdp. That doesnt sound like a lot but that translates into about a 47 billion pound loss of revenue. That number sounds like a lot to me and it is. Back in 2012 or 2013 when the uk government was dealing with the aftereffects of austerity and the sovereign debt crisis, those two years so i drop in revenue of 33 billion pounds each of those years so 47 billion pound drop in revenue. Over the course of the next five years, most of these studies looked at its a fairly significant index. How in the uk government responded to the drop in revenue earlier this decade . It was clear among the most severely cut budget categories was defense. And from 2010 until 2018, uk defense spending dropped by 18 percent. There was a 25 percent cut in manpower over that same time. Theres been some recent good news about what the British Government is expected to find in the coming year for defense spending and as many of you know weve seen a rebound of defense spending across europe at least 2015. I question the durability of that rebound, especially in the case of the uk and especially if a hard brexit comes about. So defense cuts mind you are likely. The government will likely do that in order to fend off or protect social welfare spending as it did inthe weight of the sovereign debt crisis. I dont think theres risk to things like high profile procurements such as strategic suffering but i do think theres risk to other procurement programs. It could be delayed or canceled outright and here im thinking of the challenge of tag replacements, helicopter upgrades and replacements and possibly some generalpurpose frigates. We should also expect to see drops in manpower, as we saw a couple of years ago i would expect the british army and the Royal Marines to take significant cuts to their force structure. Perhaps more significantly, for defense, would be questions about whether the United Kingdom remains united in the event of hard brexit. Many know that scotland is home to the only strategic Submarine Base for the royal navy. Its also home to fairly important raf basis as well as a Training Facility that the mod, uk and ministry of defense felt labeled the only place in europe where you can do sea, air and land exercises operations all at the same time. So if scotland were to hold a referendum and hard brexit, trying to recreate, replicate, release these facilities in the short run would be extra narrowly expensive and difficult to pull off i think. Even without brexit, lets say we dont get a hard brexit. Instead theres an agreement between the eu and london to avoid the worstCase Scenario. We know already austerity over the last decade has dealt a serious blow to uk military capacity and capabilities. If you think back to what the uk was possible of doing militarily back in the persian gulf war, 1991 or at the outset of natos involvement in afghanistan or the coalition of the willings involvement in iraq early 2000, those kind eight, the uk could Field Division side military units, were talking about tens of thousands, 20,000 or so divisions of mechanized forces. That is simply not possible today. That is because of austerity. Of course, the armies not the only service in the uk affected. Weve seen a decline in platforms, royal Navy Platforms and the raf is been affected as well. In 2018 the house of commons felt that included that the uk military was quote, at the minimum threshold of operational projectors. Their words, not mine. That will ultimately in my view, heres the second impact lead to a shrinking of uk strategic horizons. There are a lot of things that go into how a country proceeds and where interests lie. But the ability and willingness to do something about them , thats tied and i look to historicalexamples. To indicate to me why this is most likely. The first is the dot. From the mid2000 until the middle of the current decade, the dutch went through a significant military transformation. Their strategies 15 years ago talk about having really worldwide interest , all in theframework or context of multilateralism. Working with nato or eu contexts. 10 years later, new strategy comes out in 2019. It states very clearly the focus is not on your. Not on operations far afield. In 1990, the dutch army had 104,000, Dutch Military had 104,000 personnel down to 41,000 in 2011. And they went from 101 and 1000 in 2090 to 68 in 2011. Of the 13 tanks to zero. Frigates and destroyers were sick, this reduction in capability is what contributed in part to this reframing of an unlimited view of security. The second example i look to for this is ironically the uk itself and thats what happened about 50 years ago when the uk went through this wrenching decision to withdraw east of suez. All other reasons why the uk made the decision was the increasing cost of power projection platforms to maintain a presence and influence each of suez. Ultimately i think these two first factors were impacted as i mentioned to you could lead to the demise of the special relationship between the us and the uk and have profound impacts for nato as well. The special relationship is rooted in history as we know. Many of us combat as being born in the crucible of world war ii but it extends back a little over a century ago to the late 1800s, early 1900s when there was an increasing common outlook towards the world, between london and washington. And that relationship is based not simply on material factors like what we can operate militarily together, you 3 3 p 3 p 3 3 3 op 3 3 p3 3 o3 3 p3 3 o 33 3 3 3 p p p 3 o 3 p 3 p o o3 3 3 33 o 3 3 3 p 3 3 3 o 3 3 3 p 3 3 3 33 p3 3 3 3 3 p 3 o 3 3 o 3 3 3 3 o 333 3 3 3 3 3 3 o p 3 p 3 3 3 p 3 3 3 o 3p 3 3 3 3 o p3 3 p 3 3 p 3 3 3 p 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 p p 3 p 3 3 3 333 p 3 3 3 p3 3 3 33 o 3 3 o 3 3 3 3 3 o 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 o 3 o 3 p 3 p 33 o o 3 but also central Eastern Europe, these are Natural Partners in europe the uk will have to increase its engagement with and i think ultimately the goal should be for the uk to be a key partner, special partner to the European Unionbut that will require some changes. You will have to find new arrangements both with the Foreign Affairs council and the psc area there will be a need for new structures and institutions to coordinate policy. At the uk level and there will be a need to have new relationships between the uk and individual states. Weve already seen this i think, weve already seen it saumweber has it happened we see it as a result of the referendum an increase in cooperation, germany france and the United Kingdom with iran or the South China Sea or hong kong or whatever. This is likely to continue and even intensify as a result of saumweber and we can also see i think other formats emerging such as a cloud format where you would bring in the United States, you can also see the g7 perhaps which also includes italy becoming more significant as a venue or having security and Foreign Policy discussions that brings in the uk. Of course theres nothing wrong with this flow of a Security Council, there would be a collaborative body to discussForeign Policy issues , sort of like a Security Council thats clear on what it means. These type of ideas once we get a better sense of where and 12 is heading will very much be open for discussion on where its going to go. Estate of course is still uncertain because we dont know where saumweber will end up and if anything it seems not only the europeans are a little bit reticent to pull their issues on the agenda, in many ways the uk itself and its negotiating tactics may use security as leverage right now to get the europeans to get the deal. Ultimately in my view its really essential that the uk and eu define its future arrangements because its pivotal for not only the uk but also pivotal to europe, in a world that increasingly multicolor, where the Transatlantic Relationship is in flux, where authoritarian countries such as china and russia together. Also for europe developing the world, the uk and europes at least second biggest military power, Major Economic force, major diplomatic actor to maintain a close relationship to the europeans. I have other points to about nato and the us maybe we will shelve them for now. We can come back to discuss a little more of the impacts of nato and the specific impact for the United States. Thank you so much. Now id like to invite the ambassador to the United States to talk us through something on the effects of saumweber on resources and the good friday agreement. I wanted to say briefly that before coming to washington, Daniel Mulhall is the ambassador and is the author of a new book in 1900 and editor of the shaping of modern islands assessments. Thank you so much ambassador mulhall for sharing your knowledge with us today. Thank you very much cordelia. And i just want to say first of all that im very glad to be associated with the launch of this book because its a book that was credited by two academics, cordelia baciu and john doyle at the time of the books production area academics at Dublin University and indeed id like to commend the chapter on Northern Ireland and the brexit issue cause it not only covered the issue very well, but its also a good introduction. A short but concise introduction to the nature of the issues that arise in Northern Ireland, the different traditions that have been in conflict for sometime in Northern Ireland and that conflict has to be, the resurgence of that conflict needs to be avoided at all costs. Just to say that ireland is a country and this book is perhaps focused on defense and security, id be focusing on Northern Ireland and on the political challenges, economic challenges from the point of view ofdefense. We have a traditional policy of the a neutrality, we have also been heavily involved in United Nations peacekeeping. We have an unbroken record 60 years involvement in Un Peacekeeping and a very significant percentage of our forces are deployed on un missions in different parts of the world and also in recent years, our naval vessels have been involved in the operation sophia in the mediterranean, combined with other European Countries rescuing migrants. Our three latest naval vessels, they take turns in being deployed in the mediterranean and the three vessels, the wbh, the packers and the james joyce,where the only country of the world that calls our naval vessels after our great irish writers. Though just to say that why should americans be concerned about brexit . For me there are two strong reasons. The first is European Union as part of the fabric of Transatlantic Relations and im talking now about not just the security and defense relationships but the broader shared value system for shared interests that binds europeans and americans and have done so for the last 70 years, the second world successfully in the and as for anything that damages the European Union, its a negative for the United States and there are those that might take pleasure in the brexit as a hit to the European Union are i think also taking pleasure in what would be a hit to the Transatlantic Relationship and ultimately over to the United States because the European Union has been part of the Transatlantic Relationship which has presided over a period of peace and prosperity in Northern Europe over the last 17 years. The second reason is economic in that the relationship, economic relationship between the eu and the United States is the most important economic relationship in the world in terms of the volume of trade and investment that flows back and forth across the atlantic. There are other relationships in the world developing an emerging but none of them for the foreseeable futurewill match the Transatlantic Relationship. You have different views from different economists on the likely impact of brexit economically but i see the predicted impact ranges from moderately bad too bad to very bad to catastrophic. And i know of almost no serious economist who believes that brexit will produce an economic dividend either for the uk or European Union in the context if the eu economy is damaged because of brexit, that the uk economy is damaged because of brexit, the overall damage will be felt in the United States because the economic relationship between europe and the United States will suffer accordingly and these are two good reasons why americans should be concerned and worried about the impact of brexit in political strategic and economic terms. From an irish point of view, we are deeply committed to eu membership and we will remain part of the European Union come what may. Whatever happens to brexit, in fact cooperation between the eu and ireland has risen and also in other parts of europe but its risen elegantly in ireland sense the brexit issue became such a preoccupation in britain and in ireland because of the impact around it and the support for European Union membership is in excess of 90 percent. The last poll put it at 92 percent and practically nothing in the world in any democratic country enjoys a 92 percent support so basically there is a unanimity in ireland and all Political Parties share the view that irelands interests are best served by members of the European Union. The reason for that is quite straightforward. When we joined the eu in 1973 we were by far the least developed economy in europe. We were well behind the other Member States and over the last 45 years we caught up and now are on a per capita basis ireland is one of the top two or three countries in the European Union though it has transformed our country economically but also socially and that we become much moreopen. Much more attuned, really, to european moors and the best example of that i support his the demographic transformation of ireland over the last 20 years. The island i grew up in was practically homogenous lee irish , we had two or three percent of the population at that time were born outside of ireland. They were mainly retired people would come to ireland in retirement. Today we had about 17 percent of our population were born outside of ireland which means we are among, we have among the largest percentages, highest percentages in europe of people in our country born outside of ireland and if you go to any of the corporations, the big us corporations in dublin. Google, facebook, amazon and so forth youll find they are multinational. Google only recently had 66 languages open by native speakers in their offices in dublin. So the other thing about brexit, its for british tireless relations because when we joined the European Union in 1973, we joined because we saw it as an opportunity to exact economic interests and advance the interest of our country as a whole. We probably didnt anticipate it would have a benign effect on british irish relations but it has because for 45 years british and irish diplomats have been sitting around the tables in brussels discussing eu issues and guess what . The irish and british found themselves often on the same side. They possibly have imagined it would happen but it did happen and i can remember back in the 1980s and 90s attending European Councils when our respective Prime Ministers would get together in the European Union building at the European Council and we have private discussions trying to resolve some of the issues that were hindering progress at that time inNorthern Ireland. No this benign effect allowed us in 1998 to find ourselves, to develop a shared analysis of the conflict in Northern Ireland and that led onto an agreement of 1998 that was agreed with considerable support from the United States, most notably the contributions of president clinton but also many members of congress and on both sides of the aisle and of course the chairman of senator George Mitchell area so ireland therefore was not happy. With brexit coming onto the agenda in britain and i was there at the time and initially it looked as if he might never be a referendum and thereferendum was cause. Or hope was that the referendum would result in a remain majority. I pointed out, i was very active at the time in not campaigning in any way for running but pointing out the challenges that ireland would face and that would be facing Northern Ireland britain were to decide to leave the European Union. Sadly, the british electorate that issue of Northern Ireland really ever capture significant attention. It was an issue that really didnt feature on the first page of peoples concerns during the day. So we hoped that britain would like to remain in the European Union but we accepted the result that the people of britain decided by a 32 percent to 48 to leave the European Union and from then on our aim was to minimize the downside of brexit for ireland and get back to life in the outside. And the upsides would include increased Us Investment in your area that we reckon about 70 or so companies and moved to ireland because of brexit and we expect that trend to continue so there will be a benefit the rest is of course that the economic downside of brexit would be greater than any upside that might arise in terms of increase Us Investment, increased Foreign Investment in ireland because we will now be the only englishspeaking country in the European Union afterthe United Kingdom leads. And so the challenge for ireland with brexit is that its too full. As an economic challenge and a political challenge. Economic challenge is while britain is no longer our number one trading partner, our number one trading partner is the United States. Britain only accounts for about 12 percent of irish exports. Because of the misuse of Us Multinational Companies Operating in ireland. But the problem is that in some sectors of our economy, notably the Food Industry and agriculture, the bigger percentage of exports britain is probably more like 40 percent, sometimes more than for example this is one of the things which last week because of the airbus imposed by the United States on a range of products including butter from ireland and this would be a double hit for farmers and our Dairy Farmers because brexit could disrupt exports of Dairy Products from britain as well imposed by the United States, therefore we are keeping abreast of that conflict. So that the economic problem and our government yesterday announced our budgets for 2020. They provided for 1. 2 million euros, 1. 5 billion to go with the potential effects of brexit which will be severe if it happens to be a hard or no deal. But the main concern i support is that most International Entries is a concern and i mentioned how big a role the United States played in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland, a good friday agreement area that was 20 years ago now. And probably the agreement as they thousand allies because in 20 years before 1998 probably 2 and a half thousand people lost their lives and many more were injured in incidents, violent incidentsin Northern Ireland. Except for a few sad events like the killing of a journalist in april of this year, at a demonstration in derry where shots were fired at the police and this Young Journalist was sadly killed, but by and large, the piece has been maintained. But of course politically, its regularly because the governance of Northern Ireland which has been part of the agreement has to have nationalist involved in it hasnt functioned since 2017, for 2 and a half years there hasnt been a government in Northern Ireland and that means these institutions of the good friday unit and operates in the way theyre meant to operate under the terms of that agreement. A vacuum has been created and when you have a vacuum of course , it does encourage other actors to insert themselves into that vacuum and we have seen greater evidence in recent years and months of renewed activity by small but nonetheless quite dangerous paramilitary organizations. So we are very concerned that on top of that fragility and instability in Northern Ireland, at the brexit issue enters into the mix and turns things up and thats why we have been determined from the beginning that whatever happens with brexit we need to ensure that we protect the good friday agreement and open borders up of Northern Ireland is on the border for a moment. For the last 20 odd years, there hasnt been a border. And once they come to the border, that was in past times when the amount of trade and classic between north and south was a benefit, today its pretty. And there was a security border during the conflict between 1970 and the early 1990s. Since that time, the border has been open. Border is not a straight line. Its goes for 300 miles there are 200 separate border crossings. On the island. So it goes through homes, it goes through vanguard, those villages. A ghost open field. Has no graphical basis. The problem is that if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, with no arrangement for future relations, it would be the impact of a no deal brexit. It would mean that there would be to customs and to regulatory zones on the island of ireland. That would mean thatsomehow , the Irish Government would have to find ways of protecting the integrity of the european Single Market which would be deeply committed. Across the Single Markets. So the aim over the last two years of negotiations has been to find a way in which britain can lead in an orderly manner but guarantees that the can never be a border on the island of ireland. Was cause the backstop which was included in the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated last year between the eu and uk. But rejected by the way by Parliament Area the backstop is essentially an insurance policy that whatever happens, if all else fails, there will be no border, hard border on the island of ireland was the uk as a whole would remain within customs union. This is controversial and british politics and its proven to be difficult to get agreement. Now, the present situation and for us, the best solution would be for the uk to leave the eu with a deal, and agreements that would include the backstop, that was included in the Withdrawal Agreement agreed last year. Or some agreed alternative that would achieve the same outcome as the backstop. In other words, the guarantee and open border, protect it with an agreement and respect the integrity of the European Union. The British Government has recently made some proposals, new proposals have been found wanting by the European Union the negotiations continue and our government has said, european governments have said we want britain to leave in an orderly fashion. Nobody wants to see a crash out brexit. No country in my view, my knowledge has ever left a Free Trade Agreement of the kind that exists within the European Union without any provisions to govern trade between that country and the other members of that area but that is what a hard brexit, no deal brexit would entail. The United States was thought to replace with us mca but under the new mca comes into effect, there would be an agreement to govern trade between the last country. Because it would be, it would create enormous difficulty for us exports that suddenly you went from having back to having nothing but the risk is written will go from having eu members in the Single Market and our Prime Minister will meet the british Prime Minister tomorrow. In england. Hes going across to the north of england and we are committed to trying to find a solution but sadly theres a lot of toxic politics that surrounds the brexit issue at the moment and while a no deal brexit ought to be a zero percent probability, sadly the percentage risk of a no deal brexit is far greater than that is why we are so preoccupied with this issue and why we earnestly hope an agreement can be found to enable the uk to leave the European Union but in an orderly fashion which minimizes damage to the irish economy, the Peace Process and to theEuropean Union. Thank youvery much. [applause] thank you misterambassador. Okay, now we can hear. Thank you mister ambassador. Let me, were going to come into some of the discussion but let me circle back to our topic which we said was about European Security and Transatlantic Relations and as another american voice complemented john which we focused early on the uk, the bilateral relationship which was to provoke everyone and split out a couple ofless points. My brief point would be the shortterm impact is going to be to strengthen nato. Because the uk will want to show not leaving nato, leaving the eu and is still part of the group. And most everyone else will want to reinforce that view. But over the mediumterm, for reasons johnsaid , its likely to weaken. Its also likely to increase the importance or the United States of noneu your. Think about the three points of policy and certainty right now for theUnited States and europe the uk , turkey, and ukraine. None of them are in the eu and all of them are right now and broiling our ownpolitics. Thats going to continue. The second is that this could put further pressure on the debate about defense expenditures was once and uk police the eu, 80 percent of nato defense expenditures, the defense of your is going to be provided by non eu countries. Noncontinental European Countries. Thats only going to further inflame the current debates that were having right now. Ifyou think about what weve done in nato recently , its to provide a forward presence in the baltics andin poland. Three of the four battalions that leave those, three of the four countries leading those battalions are nonContinental European or noncontinental states, canada, us and the uk. Theres going to be greater debate about where is Continental Europe in its own defense as we go forward as the uk sets from this. And im saying from an american perspective. I also going to further challenge the ability to forge cohesive european foreign defense policies on common challenges which will mean for the americans, for the United States, will further challenge europes ability to be the kind of partner americans look to aces a whole range of common challenges the on europe, not just in europe. And it means that europeans are going to be further focus inward on more process, more internal governmental arrangements of how to deal with all this. Which means less time in space in the policy realm issues that are important to the United States. It a message also that what one thought was one of the most stable democracies in the world suddenly reveals itself to be terribly polarized andfractured. And fragile. And im not sure whether thats a message that will be contained to the uk. So my conclusion is facing a more fluid and less settled your. Were facing one that is less cohesive, more open ended in terms of where its going. Less capable, more open to what the George Bush Administration called disaggregation. Playing europeans off against each other because its so easy to do. And europe that is less marital but more german and this disruption will not end with whatever the solution is to the uk eu issue, it will continue beyond that because theres so many other followup issues that will flow from whatever where theres no deal or some deal brexit. We havent even begun to formulate the questions to that, much less have answers to them so ihope ive provoke somebody now on this and were going to open up the discussion. Ithink we have made another microphone that works. Either some ambassadors and easier for other panelists or comments youd like us to make. If you can identify yourself briefly so people have a sense ofwhere youre coming from, that would be helpful. Just stacy and when i was at the state department i did nato issues and work with eric a few years ago now but id like to ask the panelists a couple of things that didnt quite fully, but i wanted to particularly thank the ambassador for emphasizing the tragedy of this. Which for an american who used to work for former Prime Minister edward heath and helped him write his memoirs, did the three chapters on negotiating the uks interest in your way back in the late 60s and early 70s. The question number one is why when intelligence officials seem to believe that the russian role of the brexit vote was more decisive that was here how the brits had such a hard time, harder than we dealing with this issue . And were they to do so, how would it be impacting the brexit today and why are we assuming that brexit is necessarily a gun deal when theres enormous difficulty happening in london as we speak, multiple things coming to a head. Boris johnson hasnt won a single vote, across party majority, theresa may 3 failing historic boats on the brexit bill and finally does happen, you say a little more perhaps about is their potential for the uk and nato to develop a particular command or leadership of command and would almost be forced to maintain to the best of its ability some specific kind of capability that others dont have that it could be a leader on . As we have limited time but id like to do is the appearance of our panelists is lets collectquestions so we can get everyone more involved. Im brittany gibson, im a journalist and also a british citizen. My question because close as you can my. My question is to the whole panel but i think the ambassador might be best suited to answer. Think in terms of the irish backstop and the border could create or the border it would not create on the island of ireland. There are arguments against the backstop suggests there would be a mortar created within the United Kingdom as a bit of a twopart question, what are the concerns if any of that other border that could be created not on the island of course but within the uk and also the difference between these two borders it seems is the pressure of violence that could come from them. Specifically from the ira is what im thinking of which is only associated with the border in ireland if im correct, on the island of ireland so what is the Irish Government doing to prepare to combat the kindof domestic terrorism . Over here. Andrew i, formerly of the state department. I wanted to ask you, youve given us all the presentations and have given us a lot of institutional things to think about but i wonder if you might talk a little bit about a couple of acidic foreignpolicy challenges for the eu and how that will be affected by brexit. Im thinking about afghanistan, libya, and putting the russians or the middle east or take your pick. I think in all those areas brexit will have a real impact and id be interested if you could share thoughts on one or two of those issues. Here please. Speak right into the microphone please. Im a student and im going to ask about the constitutional crisis in the uk that emerged from brexit could spread to otherEuropean Countries . Or other domestic conflicts throughout the european continent. Will the crisis spread . Any others, otherwise mister ambassador id like to go to you first. I dont think anyone can feel compelled to answer any question and it will end up answering by the time were done. I suppose mainly the question about the irish backstop but also, a question about is brexit a done deal. Thats a matter really for the uk. We want to see the best possible outcome to brexit and if the uk were to decide remain in the eu that they matter for them. Thats not really in our hands. As to the issue of possible russian involvement, i dont believe thats ever really been properly explored and im not sure if at this stage that would make as much scope in that because we are now getting to the end game and i think we dont know where the endgame will end up and i dont think thats going back and rerunning the referendum is likely to lend itself to too manypeople at this point. In a referendum we are not pressing for referendum at this stage. We take it would read come it will complicate an already very complicated situation but in the future we have to see when that issue will become a prospect or a reality. It doesnt matter for decision beyond the horizon. I mean as far as, nobody will be justified in resorting to violence regardless of what happens with brexit so the government is completely clear on that and your annotations that might threaten some kind of violence are very small splinter groups from the irish Republic Movement and they have little or no support anywhere but that doesnt stop them from engaging. The risk is if you have any kind of border structure bad elements like that will take you opportunity of attacking or targeting those facilities and academic create an escalation that could be problematic in a place like Northern Ireland where passions are quite high on these issues. But there is no sense for which we want to see a border on the irish sea. I think what is required is some way of ensuring that the open border on the island of ireland doesnt undermine the Single Market. We have to respect the integrity and preserve the integrity of the island. We are closing our time so what i would suggest to our panel is one issue, one minute. I will respond to the question about whether nato in the uk might develop some sort of special arrangement and i gather your question was to maintain its role and importance within the alliance. I dont think thats going to happen. I dont think the alliance would pursue Something Like that. Uk of course will hang onto as desperately as they can all of the force structure infrastructure etc. That it has within its borders for nato. I wouldnt expect that to change but as we discussed and they say think ann mentioned the outlook for uks role in nato is sort of a second fiddle is weak and i dont think theres much frankly the alliance can do about that. Thank you. I may disagree actually with you dan on nato, on the american view on how nato is reinforced by the uk and i think i subscribe to what john says about the uk abilities. Whats happening in syria today is catastrophic and we have an american president that is also causing problems for the light so i dont think the alliance is in good shape and i dont think its going to make it stronger in any way. The one point that i wanted to maybe tackle is from muser about the eus foreignpolicy priorities and how that may change with brexit. Dont see much of a chance there to be honest. One reason being that the eus main tool are tools for which the uk didnt contribute much or rejected contribute in the future whether its the Civil Military operation that will include some third parties Development Aid and if not coordinated in a way hopefully that both parties can agree similarly with economic sanctions. Theres going to be continued coordination i guess on russias sanctions. There is a risk of a lot of drift in the next five years. I dont see the eu policy changing radically as a result of wrecks that are the eus ability has been so diminished as a result of reckless brexit and i will stop there. Theres also increased nato corporation for which everyone should rejoice instead of constantly saying that one against the other. I agree with alice on the impact of foreignpolicy elites in least in the short term. Think its more of a dilemma for the uk itself that it is for the eu and i think the uk is a very difficult position visavis the United States as previously discussed especially on an issue like china where you have brexit trade agreements with countries around the world such as china and now the Trump Administration very much leaning and pushing britain and nonEuropean Countries to take a tougher approach towards china. That will pose a dilemma i think for london and posing a dilemma or for europe as well but europe is better able to handle it. That is the irony with brexit as it makes the uk less sovereign in a world of big dogs. I think very quickly on the question about will there be more brexit i think very clearly for any foreseeable future the answer is no. If anything brexit negotiations and the prospect being the uk has simply led to the notion of brexit becoming a thinkable mats why you are seeing countries the opinion polls and countries becoming more favorable and some of the far right movements in france and others no longer openly advocating leaving the eu or the year is him but rather trying to change and that is something that is far easier to handle than would there be more brexit. I will try to be very short and i think it was a question related to russian influence. From my perspective with my background in Political Science i think this is very interesting because it emphasizes the importance, the increasing importance or the increasing unpredictability of development and as we know brexit and the other event in the u. S. Have been two examples of events which fail to be predicted by opinion polls. I think this raises a credible question and it also makes it interesting for research in the future to find new ways to try to estimate citizens attitudes and peoples opinions which are important for a political outcome and the second i would like to make is in relation to future relations. According to the Alliance Theory the Alliance Theory predicts when there are two similar matrix of a Security Threat and exposed to a similar constellation of threats a week commitment of an ally the alliance predicts this Strategic Alignment between these two act years. Now if we were to apply this to our case, in this case we have the uk and europe are exposed to a similar relation of threats. We have seen the u. S. Basically withdrawing from several so we could expect both the uk and europe aiming to a Strategic Alignment after brexit but we need to emphasize at the time of talking our discussions are counter effective because we do not yet know whether the uk withdrawal from the eu is going to be a postponement of brexit whether there will be announced so everything should be counterfactual analysis. Thank you. Thank you. Just one point. From the u. S. Point of view if you think of eu Member States there are only two countries really that have this broader strategic horizon historically and in the uk and france. I think to answer andrews question i think without the uk voice in the eu france is going to find a very lonely. The strategic horizon that the eu will mero. France will have to fight data then i think they will find it hard. And i think for u. S. Point of view thats not going to be good on that happy note thank you so much for bringing us all together. We wish you Great Success with your book. Everyone go buy it please and we hope its good reading for you. Mr. Ambassador thank you again for joining us. Our panelists please join in thanking them. [applause] we have a reception next door if anyone would like get into the conversation with our panelists or with each other. Come and join us. Thank you again for coming. Appreciate it. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] no president in American History has ever dared to engage in such unimaginably hate your. With his words and his actions President Trump has indicted himself by obstruct injustice refusing to comply with the congressional angry. These are the convicted himself in full view of the world and the american people. Donald trumps violating his oath of office betraying this nation and committed impeachable acts. [applause] to preserve our constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity he should be impeached that is not only because of what he has done. To answer whether his committed acts are sufficient to warrant impeachment is obvious. We see it in trumps own words. We see it in the text from state Department Officials that have been made public. We see it in his pulling much of the United States government into his crops great schemes. What we have to remember impeachment isnt only about what the president has done. Its about the threat the president imposed on the nation that has allowed him to remain in office. One thing about this president is actually clear and then i dont think anyone can contradict this. We have seen no limits to his power regardless of what the constitution says. He believes the entire United States government can be corrupted into furthering his personal political needs. He is even willing to hold congress and congressionally appropriated aid to a foreign nation hostage to his personal political demands. He believes if he does something , its legal period. And perhaps most important he believes there is nothing we can do about it. He believes he can and will get away with anything he does. We all laughed when he said he could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone and get away with it. Its no joke. He shooting holes in the constitution and we cannot let him get away with it