H.E. Mrs Kristi Karelsohn:

I thank the members for their comments and questions. I will try to address them in categories. I will start with the final question about support for the EU in Estonia. This question followed on from some previous questions and comments. Since joining the EU, and indeed prior to that, Estonia has ranked among the countries with the highest levels of EU support, if not indeed the highest. Support for NATO, meanwhile, is higher still. Why is support for the EU so high in Estonia? This may also answer some of the other questions raised by members. Estonia is three times smaller than Ireland. It is very clear to us how much we stand to gain both from working together with European allies and particularly from the Single Market and the opportunities it opens to our companies to export to Europe. These factors drive how we think about Europe. They also drive our priorities and what it is that we want to achieve with this EU Presidency. We are working on efficiency, not only in terms of the digital agenda but also with regard to some of the other matters raised here today, the movement of drugs, for example. It is vital for a small country and a small market to co-operate with others so as to maximise gain.

I now come to the issue of Brexit. As was already mentioned, responsibility here lies with the Commission. We want to keep the whole process around the negotiations under the Commission's lead, with discussions taking place in the General Affairs Council and in the dedicated working groups. The Estonian Government is, of course, very well-informed about Ireland's special concerns in this matter, particularly with regard to Northern Ireland. I can confirm that I, for my part, have done everything I can to keep my government informed. I do not, however, think it wise for the Presidency to start any separate negotiations or engagements with Britain. In our Presidency of the EU we do of course have a responsibility for the interests of member states, so we will engage very closely with the Irish Government in the future so as to understand its interests and concerns.

With regard to digital and data protection, a question arose about fines and net neutrality. I am certainly aware that Estonia has some of the lowest fines in the Union. This, however, remains the responsibility of individual member states. I have just seen official confirmation from Estonia that it is intended to keep the fines as they are. If we decide that they need to be changed then we will do so.

On the issue of defence co-operation, I am very aware of Irish neutrality and the special concerns it raises for Ireland. The committee must also understand, however, that we in Estonia are in a very different situation. We see no need for an overlap in EU and NATO defence responsibilities. Both organisations have their own defined responsibilities and files in this regard. The EU could duplicate what NATO is doing, but we are certainly not pushing that EU member states be required to dedicate the same 2% expenditure levels that NATO members currently do. The EU is a totally different organisation. We do, however, see a need for strategic co-operation to complement each other's capabilities and competencies. We see this, as I mentioned earlier, in the area of cyber security, where the two organisations could and should work together. Other hybrid threats such as terrorism are not of a purely military nature and thus not solely relevant to NATO.

The crucial point with regard to migration is that we find a way to distinguish between different categories of migrant. We need to work with those entitled to international protection. I definitely agree that we need solidarity between EU countries on this and the Estonian Presidency will very much focus on getting this solidarity working. We also have to find ways of tackling the often illegal in-flow of economic migrants.

I am not sure if I have left anything out-----