Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will not take too much time here. The first thing we have to be pragmatic about is the political landscape internationally. The US and French elections are coming up. Who will be in power in Paris? It may well be that Le Pen will be the next President of France. There will obviously not be a reversal of Brexit, but the inclusion of David Cameron in cabinet suggests a consciousness at the top of the British administration that the relationship with Europe cannot be left to the European research group types - the Suella Braverman type of person. Reality is beginning obtain there.

On the Franco-German paper, I was discussing this on a confidential occasion with an Irish person who is interested in these matters.

The view I was given is that there is no great unanimity of thought between Paris and Berlin at all and this paper was a bit of an anomaly because it was not reflecting some forthcoming initiative.

I take the point Professor Barrett made about the 13 member states that said “No” to treaty change. Some of them are small but, when put together, the others are all of Scandinavia and all of the Baltic. That is a significant bloc in European politics.

Going back to the Franco-German paper, this notion of the inner core members is floated every two years. It bubbles up like Mount Etna and goes back down again. However, nobody is stopping them integrating in any way they like. They can share anything. They could integrate their governments and nobody in the EU could object to the whole process. I think there is an artificiality in this notion that there is a kind of a ferment across Europe that there must be treaty change but I do not see it reflected anywhere except in the community of diplomats and academics for whom this is a valuable area of study. I just do not see the French people saying they want treaty change. I do not see the Germans saying there must be treaty change. I just do not see the signals that there is in any way an appetite for it. The point is that things are ticking over.

Going to the health issue and Covid, what was stopping co-operation between European states? Virtually nothing except a bit of tension with the UK. There was nothing stopping them co-operating. Professor Barrett made the point that if things are happening, they should be democratically reflected in the treaties. I do not necessarily accept that proposition. I think things can happen on a European level that do not have to be either reflected in the treaties or democratised via the treaties. The partnership of member states can deal pragmatically with another Covid epidemic insofar as they have to.

I would also warn, with regard to the far-right, that if you start saying Europe will tell you what your health policy should be, you will have big problems. If you start telling Irish farmers that Europe will have sole competency on environmental, climate change and land use policies, you will stoke up an awful lot of opposition. I know there are people who think that Europe is like a bicycle and if it is not going forward, it falls flat. However, I think it is ticking over reasonably well at this stage. This discussion today is useful and I thank the speakers for coming but I wonder whether doing little or nothing on the constitutional front is not the wisest course.

I throw those questions out to the witnesses.